pattison wrote: i wonder why this isn't being covered by mainstream news sources.

Because the mainstream news sources are busy rolling their eyes.

It's there, though - it's with the "funny news" in the back, not on the front page.  A news search will show some articles.

Cedric wrote: Wouldn't that put Cheney into power? If so, no thank you.

And thus is uncovered the REAL reason why Cheney is VP.

Impeachment insurance.

If he's innocent of breaking any laws, can you impeach him for:

Incompetence at Cdr. in chief, per the Baker commission,

Disregarding all of the warnings that could have kept him out of this mess per the 9/11 commission,

Firing everyone who knew not go into Iraq and replacing them with yes men,

and, being in collusion with Halliburton, oil companies, etc., the only winners in the Iraq war??

Oh, that's right, he didn't get a quickie from an intern, the ultimate sin to the right-wing, self righteous, ignorant denizens of Jesusland. What a shame he's only responsible for 100,000+ deaths and destabilizing the entire middle east, putting our country in more danger than ever, and alienating our allies, and not something that really deserves impeachment.

Darur wrote: By all means impeach him, but he'll just be acquitted. BTW, GS, Chevaz is looking pretty healthy right now.

Give it time... One fiery death coming up!

Darur wrote: Perkin's sure had some interesting ideas.

I had forgotten about Perkins.

What a pile of steaming dung that was.

Clark Kent wrote: I had forgotten about Perkins. What a pile of steaming dung that was.

His firsthand recollections vs your confused ramblings. I bow to the authority with which you possess.

At least I'm just a troll.

oldsoldier wrote: And for military commanders, lets see "We need armor in Somalia..." was the cry from the military commanders on site, and 18 died in Mogadishu because of a certian Presidents decision based on his personal legacy building needs. Dream on folks, you get your chance in 08, lets see how far it goes then...............

2900 Iraq >> 18 Mogadishu.

Are you really that lame?

goodsmitty wrote: Clark Kent wrote: I had forgotten about Perkins. What a pile of steaming dung that was. His firsthand recollections vs your confused ramblings. I bow to the authority with which you possess.

My authority being the ability to reason, the ability to check his reference list, and rather significant relevant personal experience directly on point. 

(Not to mention the ability to write well, unlike Mr. Perkins)

I laughed all the way through that book (interspersed with the occasional slapping of the forehead), starting with the part in the introduction where the author claims that the reason he had a hard time publishing the book was because "they" didn't want his book published.

I guess the fact that it is poorly researched and even more poorly written had nothing to do with it.

Clark Kent wrote: goodsmitty wrote: Clark Kent wrote: I had forgotten about Perkins. What a pile of steaming dung that was. His firsthand recollections vs your confused ramblings. I bow to the authority with which you possess. My authority being the ability to reason, the ability to check his reference list, and rather significant relevant personal experience directly on point.  (Not to mention the ability to write well, unlike Mr. Perkins) I laughed all the way through that book (interspersed with the occasional slapping of the forehead), starting with the part in the introduction where the author claims that the reason he had a hard time publishing the book was because "they" didn't want his book published. I guess the fact that it is poorly researched and even more poorly written had nothing to do with it.

His research is his own experience. It was one of the worst books I've ever written, but the information is valid. When you compile it with real world events that are going on today, he makes a lot of sense. You went into the book skeptically and came out moreso.

goodsmitty wrote: His research is his own experience. It was one of the worst books I've ever written, but the information is valid.

Oh please.

I'll get my hand on my copy tomorrow, and point to some wonderful specific examples of flat out bad research.

He mixes his "experiences" with bad research randomly and at will.

And, as it turns out, I know for a personal fact that some of his "experiences" are actually his imagination.  And I am not the only one.  He's not exactly writing about secrets.

goodsmitty wrote: Clark Kent wrote: goodsmitty wrote: Clark Kent wrote: I had forgotten about Perkins. What a pile of steaming dung that was. His firsthand recollections vs your confused ramblings. I bow to the authority with which you possess. My authority being the ability to reason, the ability to check his reference list, and rather significant relevant personal experience directly on point.  (Not to mention the ability to write well, unlike Mr. Perkins) I laughed all the way through that book (interspersed with the occasional slapping of the forehead), starting with the part in the introduction where the author claims that the reason he had a hard time publishing the book was because "they" didn't want his book published. I guess the fact that it is poorly researched and even more poorly written had nothing to do with it. His research is his own experience. It was one of the worst books I've ever written, but the information is valid. When you compile it with real world events that are going on today, he makes a lot of sense. You went into the book skeptically and came out moreso.

What?

Clark Kent wrote: goodsmitty wrote: His research is his own experience. It was one of the worst books I've ever written, but the information is valid. Oh please. I'll get my hand on my copy tomorrow, and point to some wonderful specific examples of flat out bad research. He mixes his "experiences" with bad research randomly and at will. And, as it turns out, I know for a personal fact that some of his "experiences" are actually his imagination.  And I am not the only one.  He's not exactly writing about secrets.

In your arguments in the past, it is clear that you are very supportive of the "free market". Perkins is not, and it is the general idea of his book how the free market economy along with our modern imperialism is putting us all in danger, and turning the 3rd world against us.

As I said, the book goes against your basic beliefs, so it is therefore a "steaming pile of dung."

.Ryan wrote: GSmitty, don't get into it with Clark, you will be pwned. Oh and stop being a troll, especially a proud one. You make the rest of us libs here look bad. BS isn't as bad but crap dude, sometimes I hate to be in the same camp as you. And lay off the personal insults. It's childish and diminishes any real point you may have.

Let me point out a couple things I have learned about the Tippmann forum.

1. Everyone runs from Clark, who is an intelligent adult, who spends like 16 hrs/day impressing teenagers.

2. The neo-con element on this forum base most of their experience on Fox news and playing too much Rainbow 6. I can think of only one active duty soldier here that posts. The rest are most likely reservists who have never actually been in combat.

3. Debates get nowhere here. I provide links and data, and get some silly sound bite reply in return.

4. Every time I post a jab at patriotism, war, or republicans, I get a charged, overzealous response. It's just fun.

Snake6 wrote: 1. You have no idea who Clark actually is do you? 2. I am an active duty Marine, no I have not been to combat yet. I plan on being in the sandbox sometime in the early spring. I do not understand how your combat experience makes you a superior poster to the rest of us.  It seems to me you like to gloat about having seen combat, which makes me wonder if you have ever been to combat. All the combat veterans that I know don't like to talk about their combat experience, and they defiantly don't gloat about it. 3. Its a internet forum, populated by little kids. What do you expect? 4. It could be because you are trolling...

See, you got it all wrong. I am warning the next generation about being too hasty to see war. Gloating is entirely incorrect. If I could wipe away some of the stuff ingrained in my head, I would do it in a heartbeat.

When you go to "the sandbox" and powerwash one of your soldier's brains out of a truck, come home to have nightmares for 18 months, then end up on Celexa for the rest of your life, your perspective may change.

I am one of only a few here that can say that war sucks based on my own experience. It is my observation that the pro-war pro-military crowd here glorifies war because it looks cool on Playstation.

"dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori"

battlefreak wrote: Now as for Hilary she’s horrible, even a lot of dems thinks she to left wing.

I still don't understand the Hillary-hatin.

How is she too left wing?  She is rather moderate, not to mention rather hawkish.

Please describe some of these ultra-left things she has done.

goodsmitty wrote: In your arguments in the past, it is clear that you are very supportive of the "free market". Perkins is not, and it is the general idea of his book how the free market economy along with our modern imperialism is putting us all in danger, and turning the 3rd world against us. As I said, the book goes against your basic beliefs, so it is therefore a "steaming pile of dung."

You are putting your conclusions before the facts. 

Yes, I am a staunch free-marketeer.  Yes, Perkins is not.  That is not why his book is crap.  The Communist Manifesto, for instance, is quite anti-capitalism, yet is most decidedly not crap.  There are plenty of things in the world that I disagree with that are not crap, and there are plenty of things that I DO agree with that are quite crappy.

I am insulted by your a priori conclusion that the only reason for my view of the quality of Perkin's book is my disagreement with his conclusions.

You have no foundation for arriving at this conclusion, and there is significant data to the contrary right here on the forum, if you yourself were not so blind to disagreeable data.  In fact, while I try to stay away from personal attacks, I must say that you (the smittys collectively) are more inclined towards conclusion-based argument than just about anybody else around here.

Before you complain about adults impressing teenagers, I would encourage you to think of the example you yourselves are setting for teenagers.  You are invariably irrational, prejudiced, insulting, closed-minded, and flat out mean.  Your behavior on the forum is far more childish than most of the children here.

That said, I shall return with a more specific dissection of the Economic Hitman when I have a moment.

oldsoldier wrote: Hillary is not too far left left leaning, but she does give a new definition of "finger in the wind" politics, and will side with whatever cause celebre' needed to get what she wants, or needs. Some of her agendas are a little too left, and if elected will try and push. Most upstate NY'rs can not stand her, she only won the major metros. But her "promise" of serving the people of NY if elected to the office, will give light to her ethics if she abandons the people of NY and her promise, for a personal goal.

That I can accept - she certainly does strike me as a very political person, and there are certainly plenty of things to dislike about her.  I just get annoyed at the occasional irrational Hillary-bashing.

Ironically (or not), as I understand it Hillary was not particularly politically inclined until she got involved with Bill.  In law school she was the smart and studious one - Bill was always running off to be involved in some campaign or other.  But for meeting Bill, Hillary probably would be retiring as a partner in some Wall Street firm by now.  Little things will change you.

Good luck with the knee.  Been there.

Heres To You wrote: What did Bill due for the own United States Military?  That's right, he cut it so honest working guys who had been working for years lost jobs.

I didn't realize that the purpose of the military was to provide jobs.

National security issues aside, the military should be as small as possible, so that we can CUT TAXES - responsibly.  And balance the budget in the process.

If you want to argue against military cuts, do so on national security grounds.  The idea that the state/military somehow "should" provide jobs to people is ludicrous, unless we just give up and admist that we are nearly a socialist nation.

Seriously...

I just realized something:

We're talking about the president. You can't impeach him!

Time constraints prohibit a thorough analysis of "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" at the moment, but I will toss out this little gem of outstanding scholarship:

At one point, Perkins talks about the invasion of Panama (to get Noriega).  He indicates that "Defense Secretary Richard Cheney claimed a death toll between five hundred and sixe hundred, but independent human rights groups estimated it at three thousand to five thousand, with another twenty-five thousand left homeless." (page 177)

Very interesting, I thought - I am always interested by different estimates of death tolls, and I try to follow what the major NGOs are doing.  So I go to the endnote to see which human rights groups are making these estimates.

What do I find as a source for this claim?  A reference to a website, which is not itself an issue these days, assuming the website is a legitimate information source.  Here is the website cited by Perkins for information about the views of human rights groups on the events in Panama: http://www.famoustexans.com/georgebush.htm - www.famoustexans.com/georgebush.htm .

Yep, that's right.  Not a history book, not the New York Times, not even Wikipedia.  Famoustexans.com.  Check out the site for yourself to determine whether you would trust what your read there.

But fine, whatever.  I read the linked article, still trying to identify these mysterious NGOs that estimated the death tolls at ten times the official estimate.  And what do I find in the web article?  The following sentences:

"Bush’s Defense Secretary, Richard Cheney claimed a death toll of between 500 and 600. But independent human rights groups put the death toll between 3,000 and 5,000 with about 25,000 left homeless."

Sound familiar?  Yep, it's extremely poor citation at best, borderline plagiarism at worst.  But more importantly, the bottom line is that Perkins ultimately has absolutely no backing whatsover (beyond "I read it on the internets") for his statement that any NGO anywhere has estimated the deaths at 3-5k.

And granted - this alone is not essential to the success or failure of this book, since the death toll in Panama is not a central issue.  But Perkin's dismal resource management issue IS a central issue.  Pick up the book, check the endnotes.  Overwhelmingly the sources cited are not helpful, not the correct source, not relevant, or simply copied without attribution.  At point he states an historical fact, and cites as support an EDITORIAL piece in a newspaper, and an old one at that.

And his failure to correctly manage his resources brings into doubt every statement in the book.  He strews about himself with superscipted endnote numbers, as to impress you with the depth of his research, when in fact he hasn't done any research. 

Heck, check the dates on his sources.  He overwhelmingly cites periodicals, and those periodicals were overwhelmingly all published within a single six-month period.  His reference list is basically a listing of magazines that he subscribed to during the six months it took him to freehand this book.

A review of his reference list alone is sufficient to severely discount everything he says.  And I haven't even gotten to the actual text of the book yet.

Same old lines

...What I want to know from the democrats is why they seek to alienate their own?

Hillary caught all kinds of flak from her people when she refused to agree to setting a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq, the war is the biggest point that they've got to fight on, and if one of their own people refuses to back them, they get all cranky.

Lets not mention Joe Lieberman, abandoned by his party as well.

You talk about Bush and his creation of "yes men"

Are not you doing the same thing?

Political games make me tired, bored and irritated.

58000 American Deaths in Vietnam. The fight to stop the spread of communism (allegedly) Johnson impeached?

~3000 American deaths in Iraq, the fight to stop the spread of radical terrorist ideas (allegedly) Bush must be impeached.

FBI under Carter phone taps Dr. Martin Luther King Jr...Carter hangs? No.

Bush administration wants to wiretap suspected enemies.....Bush should hang.

My point is, that President Bush hasn't done anything during the course of his administration that Democratic Presidents haven't been guilty of themselves.

but, I suppose if a democratic president were in power, we'd be complaining about him. Its all the same, the pins just have different animals on them.

Reb Cpl wrote: FBI under Carter phone taps Dr. Martin Luther King Jr...

Did they use Miss Cleo for those taps?

Clark Kent wrote: Time constraints prohibit a thorough analysis of "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" at the moment, but I will toss out this little gem of outstanding scholarship: At one point, Perkins talks about the invasion of Panama (to get Noriega).  He indicates that "Defense Secretary Richard Cheney claimed a death toll between five hundred and sixe hundred, but independent human rights groups estimated it at three thousand to five thousand, with another twenty-five thousand left homeless." (page 177) Very interesting, I thought - I am always interested by different estimates of death tolls, and I try to follow what the major NGOs are doing.  So I go to the endnote to see which human rights groups are making these estimates. What do I find as a source for this claim?  A reference to a website, which is not itself an issue these days, assuming the website is a legitimate information source.  Here is the website cited by Perkins for information about the views of human rights groups on the events in Panama: http://www.famoustexans.com/georgebush.htm - www.famoustexans.com/georgebush.htm . Yep, that's right.  Not a history book, not the New York Times, not even Wikipedia.  Famoustexans.com.  Check out the site for yourself to determine whether you would trust what your read there. But fine, whatever.  I read the linked article, still trying to identify these mysterious NGOs that estimated the death tolls at ten times the official estimate.  And what do I find in the web article?  The following sentences: "Bush’s Defense Secretary, Richard Cheney claimed a death toll of between 500 and 600. But independent human rights groups put the death toll between 3,000 and 5,000 with about 25,000 left homeless." Sound familiar?  Yep, it's extremely poor citation at best, borderline plagiarism at worst.  But more importantly, the bottom line is that Perkins ultimately has absolutely no backing whatsover (beyond "I read it on the internets") for his statement that any NGO anywhere has estimated the deaths at 3-5k. And granted - this alone is not essential to the success or failure of this book, since the death toll in Panama is not a central issue.  But Perkin's dismal resource management issue IS a central issue.  Pick up the book, check the endnotes.  Overwhelmingly the sources cited are not helpful, not the correct source, not relevant, or simply copied without attribution.  At point he states an historical fact, and cites as support an EDITORIAL piece in a newspaper, and an old one at that. And his failure to correctly manage his resources brings into doubt every statement in the book.  He strews about himself with superscipted endnote numbers, as to impress you with the depth of his research, when in fact he hasn't done any research.  Heck, check the dates on his sources.  He overwhelmingly cites periodicals, and those periodicals were overwhelmingly all published within a single six-month period.  His reference list is basically a listing of magazines that he subscribed to during the six months it took him to freehand this book. A review of his reference list alone is sufficient to severely discount everything he says.  And I haven't even gotten to the actual text of the book yet.

I agree that those are pretty poor references. But does that negate the entire point of the book. One point that he made that is very true is that free trade agreements exploit underdeveloped countries by setting up factories that wouldn't pass muster in the U.S.. Companies are able to set up on foreign soil and have no obligation to workers' rights, OSHA, medical care, retirement, or environmental protections. Our policies turn those people against us because they see U.S. customs impoverishing them. SE Asia is a perfect (best) example of this at work. Wal-mart is packed with delights from Asia. Asia is now the hotbed of the Al-Qaeda. One report I read stated that al-Qaeda has more training camps in Asia than the middle east, and recruits are abundant.

Perkins is not the only one to say this. Did you see some of Kofi Annan's remarks at the Truman center? Very similar. I think he is pretty reliable a source.

Clark Kent wrote: In fact, while I try to stay away from personal attacks, I must say that you (the smittys collectively) are more inclined towards conclusion-based argument than just about anybody else around here.

I apologize for going after you, but I get tired of the OS and CK clones that post crap like "game, set match" after anything that you post.

I will be completely honest with you. I do not deny being mean. But I am only mean to the people who talk out of the rectum about crap they do not know. Like youngsters who talk about the glory and need for war, but have never been there. Or rich whiteys who talk about poverty. I know about both. I cannot help but to show my contempt to those who run off at the mouth about very sensitive issues, of which they are completely clueless.

Clark Kent wrote: Before you complain about adults impressing teenagers, I would encourage you to think of the example you yourselves are setting for teenagers.  You are invariably irrational, prejudiced, insulting, closed-minded, and flat out mean.  Your behavior on the forum is far more childish than most of the children here.

Gee, Clark, I don't think I'll sleep for a week worrying about being so mean.  If at any time I've hurt someone's feelings by being irrational, prejudiced (towards who/what?) insulting, closed-minded or flat-out mean, then let me know and I'll try to mail them a big soft pillow that they can cry into. 

goodsmitty wrote: Clark Kent wrote: In fact, while I try to stay away from personal attacks, I must say that you (the smittys collectively) are more inclined towards conclusion-based argument than just about anybody else around here. I apologize for going after you, but I get tired of the OS and CK clones that post crap like "game, set match" after anything that you post. I will be completely honest with you. I do not deny being mean. But I am only mean to the people who talk out of the rectum about crap they do not know. Like youngsters who talk about the glory and need for war, but have never been there. Or rich whiteys who talk about poverty. I know about both. I cannot help but to show my contempt to those who run off at the mouth about very sensitive issues, of which they are completely clueless.

Do you even know brihard? He has many different veiwpoints from clark on a lot of things. His support of her doesn't make him a clark clone or something like that, and my support of brihard doesn't make me a brihard clone. We don't attach ourselves to other people on the forum and take their veiwpoints and make them our own at least not all of us. Clark made a good defense, brihard agreed with her and you have a problem with that? That's rather confusing. At the very least we have names that differ further than an opposing adverbs. 

Darur wrote: goodsmitty wrote: Asia is now the hotbed of the Al-Qaeda. One report I read stated that al-Qaeda has more training camps in Asia than the middle east, and recruits are abundant. Um, the middle east is PART of Asia . . .

More brilliant sound bite logic. And everyone wonders why I am a big meanie.

NotDaveEllis wrote: goodsmitty wrote: Darur wrote: goodsmitty wrote: Asia is now the hotbed of the Al-Qaeda. One report I read stated that al-Qaeda has more training camps in Asia than the middle east, and recruits are abundant. Um, the middle east is PART of Asia . . . More brilliant sound bite logic. And everyone wonders why I am a big meanie. The Middle East is as much Asia as South America is the USA. Probably the only time I'll see it like smitty

Too late.  You're in the family.  See you at the reunion.

goodsmitty wrote: I agree that those are pretty poor references. But does that negate the entire point of the book.

True - it does not.  But it does significantly reduce his credibility.

One point that he made that is very true is that free trade agreements exploit underdeveloped countries by setting up factories that wouldn't pass muster in the U.S.. Companies are able to set up on foreign soil and have no obligation to workers' rights, OSHA, medical care, retirement, or environmental protections.

And, in my opinion, when Perkins is directly addressing this point is when he makes the most sense.  Unfortunately, this is only a small portion of the book.  Most of the book is filled with unfounded historical claims, delusional and self-aggrandizing conspiracy theories, and general babble.

And even when he does address the issue of the interaction between the World Bank, US labor policies, and the global marketplace, he does so poorly.  He simply makes statements without argument.  The points that he is trying to make along these lines (much like in your post) have been made many times by many people - usually by people with better knowledge, better understanding, better logic, and better arguments.

Perkins adds NOTHING new to the discussion of the global economy.  Zero.  He takes familiar arguments and positions, restates them poorly, and packages the whole thing in a bizarre conspiracy theory.

THAT is why his book is a pile of steaming dung.  His positions on the World Bank may have some merit - but that merit exists independent of Perkins, or even despite him.  If anything, he takes a perfectly legitimate position and makes it seem silly by putting it in his looniebin book.

Perkins does not have some secret inside knowledge, like he wants you to believe.  Perkins was a middle-level flunky in the infrastructure business, just like thousands of others.  He does not reveal any "secrets" in his book.  Everything in there is old news.

DsXz wrote: Reb Cpl wrote: ~3000 American deaths in Iraq, the fight to stop the spread of radical terrorist ideas (allegedly) Bush must be impeached. iraq has nothing to do with terrorism, youve fallen for the same crap everyone else has...

fail.