No. He never lied about bin Laden. Saddam, maybe, but not bin Laden. You give me a lie (he admitted to doing 9/11), and I'll apologize, but he never lied about bin Laden.Originally Posted by Grandmaster LH
No. He never lied about bin Laden. Saddam, maybe, but not bin Laden. You give me a lie (he admitted to doing 9/11), and I'll apologize, but he never lied about bin Laden.
"Personal attacks have no room in politics."
Tell that to the Politicians.
Take care all.
I don't care what his ideology is, his actions violate basic universal, a priori, ethical laws. Thus, I cannot accept him.Most of us may not feel his actions are correct, but just because his beliefs and ours may conflict doesn't mean that he's an idiot.
The president can influence in education, sanitation, there is an archive with your name, the name of your mother, of your father and of every citizen (No, no big conspiracy, I don't know about USA, but at least in Spain there is an identification card with a number given to every citizen). The decisions of the presidents also involve the press, and you may believe media is completly free, but I have friends that work on journalism, and believe me, there is a censhorip, or at least in this country (And by looking at USA, I would not be surprised if there was this thing too). The president of a modern democratic nation has control over more things Louis XIV would have never dreamed of. That is absolut power. The way it is taken into practice, however, may differ, because they must prevent the anger of the people.And I'd have to disagree with Shadow Nexus. If the President had absolute control, or even, uh, half-absolute control, there wouldn't be people running around protestin' and whatnot, and no President would face danger from re-elections. And companies like Microsoft wouldn't be facing whatever charges they are. They may not, though; I don't really pay attention to business thingamajigs. The point is, there's too much turmoil and upheaval for anyone to have absolute control or even near it, unless there's some MASSIVE Metal Gear Solid type conspiracy that secretly controls everything. The world isn't nearly as great or as horrible as anyone thinks it is. For all the extremists out there, there are hundreds of moderates.
The President's power here in America has indeed increased ever since FDR, and it's only become more so with each subsequent President.
Take care all.
One sarin gas shell doesn't make a WMD stockpile.
Here's a few facts about sarin:
-a lethal dose of sarin is 1700mg for an average 70kg person
-a liter of sarin weighs 1088.7g
-they found 4 liters of sarin
So, with a little math, 4 liters of sarin is enough for... hmm... a little over two-and-a-half million lethal doses.
Just some food for thought. Feel free to check my math.
ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY
(1) Eric Clapton is God.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
I don't know how this topic turned into a Bush thread, but whatever.
[q=Rei]LH, you can't count the people who didn't vote. If you did that, virtually NO president has won a majority of American votes. You're bein' unfair.[/q]
I was just trying to point out to that other guy that a majority of us Americans did not vote for Bush, which is contradictory to his claim that Bush received a positive vote from a majority of America.
[q=Rei]He was still elected president.[/q]
Appointed president.
[q=Rei]He's made a bunch of mistakes, he's lied, or at least told half-truths, and has most of the world, if not against us, then doubting our credibility and whatnot. It's crossing the line, though, to call him an idiot. He's doin' what he feels is right.[/q]
Inversely, doing what one thinks is right does not disqualify one from being a total, utter moron. His track record speaks for itself.
And when I say moron, I'm not going by everyday standards. Compared to the average high-school dropout, no he probably isn't a moron, but next to any well-educated doctor, lawyer, or politician, he really can't hold his own.
It's a broken promise, one that really nags at me. Do you guys remember Bush's dramatic proclaimations shortly after 9/11 to either "bring bin Laden to justice or bring justice to bin Laden" and all that other rhetoric? All the times he promised? Where is he now? Why has Bush on a few different occasions declared bin Laden to be irrelevant? Remember how hard he was going to hit bin Laden and all that crap? Why does no one call him on this? So, when Bush promised to bring bin Laden to justice and focus strictly on that task, he lied.
And you want to talk about outright lying? Read my signature for crying out loud! One of those two statements has to be a lie! So which is it? Is bin Laden tied in with Saddam or is he not? It seems like Bush picks whichever statement would help him for the moment and runs with it until it goes against his will and then he adopts another (sometimes contradictory) stance.
And just so you know, bin Laden has on several occasions denied responsibility for 9/11. The only piece of evidence that has him admitting responsibility is a tape whose authenticity is questionable. The news has ground the bin Laden-9/11 connection so thoroughly into everyone's heads that it's practically unquestionable taboo.
What? He acted against Bin Laden, he even did a war against a country to get him! :rolleyes2 Maybe he was just looking for someone to blame, someone that had a nice place for an oilduct.
Um. Your math is off (unless I'm being really stupid). 1700mg = 1.7g. Divide that into 4354.8 and you get roughly two and a half thousand, not million. To achieve a mortality rate with that much sarin would mean administering exactly 1.7g per person. Of course, 1700mg is not actually the size of a guaranteed lethal dose - it's the LD50, meaning that half of all doses of that size are lethal!
Bear in mind that this sarin was in a shell, which exploded. There wasn't enough to do any damage to anyone, including the people who were disarming it. You wouldn't have to be very far away from the shell for the sarin to be too diffuse to do any harm to you. If you're any closer, well, I think the fact that a shell is exploding right there in front of you is the bigger of your problems...The percutaneous 50% lethal dose (LD50) for liquid sarin is estimated at 1700 mg/70 kg man (Mioduszewski et al., 1998).
So basically, a shell with sarin is a chemical weapon, but hardly a weapon of mass destruction.
Thanks for checking. I actually made several mistakes. The first one you pointed out. Second, the lethal dosage is 1700 micrograms, and I accidentally typed it as mg (forgive me, there's no mu on my keyboard!), meaning that my original figure of 2 1/2 million was correct. Third, you're correct about the LD50 - I overlooked that. Thanks again!
ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY
(1) Eric Clapton is God.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
No, I think your original figure was right, provided that you are using data from the site you gave. I did a full text search through all the pages and the appendix and the only instance of the number 1700 was indeed referring to the 1700mg figure (as in the quote in my previous post), not 1700µg.
Dose
(µg/kg)
ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY
(1) Eric Clapton is God.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
Ack, whatever. The data I find on the web is all over the place. I get everything from 1700mg as a lethal dose to a fraction of that.
Anyway, any chemist worth half his salt could make sarin. Here, a BBC journalist and a London University student did exactly that.
Last edited by Skogs; 05-20-2004 at 05:56 PM.
My point was that he promised that obtaining bin Laden was priority #1. Obviously, judging from his words and actions during the last two years, he's completely forgot his promise. It seems like his war against gay marriage is even a higher priority.
I must say he did do some efforts to get Bin Laden, even though I believe the war against Afghanistan was more like an espectacle than an attempt to get Bin Laden.
Posting Permissions
