Support NeoGAF

[Eric-GCA]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...afp/worldbankwolfowitz_050331192454&printer=1

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The World Bank appointed Paul Wolfowitz its 10th president with the controversial US deputy defence secretary pledging to uphold the body's "noble mission" of eradicating poverty.

The World Bank's 24 executive directors, representing its 184 member nations, said they unanimously selected Wolfowitz as the successor to James Wolfensohn, who steps down on May 31 after a decade in the job.

"I want to thank the board for their vote of confidence. It is humbling to be entrusted with the leadership of this critically important international institution," Wolfowitz said.

 

[kablooey]

May god have mercy on us all.

 

[Fusebox]

Jews run the world.

 

[Ulairi]

Jews run the world.

Care to qualify this statement?

 

[enjoy bell woods]

lol reed the protocols of zion dude the jews control us all rofl look at israel...

Seriously, Fusebox, shut up.

 

[Triumph]

Meh. It's not like Wolfowitz can really make the World Bank any MORE evil than it already is. It gets him away from the DoD, which is kind of cool. I'm going with "cautiously optimistic" on this one.

 

[bionic77]

Meh. It's not like Wolfowitz can really make the World Bank any MORE evil than it already is. It gets him away from the DoD, which is kind of cool. I'm going with "cautiously optimistic" on this one.

:lol

That is exactly what I thought. :lol

It amazes me how Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz can get any sort of job after the way they fucked up the whole Iraq and WMD thing.

 

[firex]

A lesser-known story about this after it happened: World Bank opens new account, "Death to all those dirty turban wearing motherfuckers" and puts $500 billion in.

 

[Ulairi]

Meh. It's not like Wolfowitz can really make the World Bank any MORE evil than it already is. It gets him away from the DoD, which is kind of cool. I'm going with "cautiously optimistic" on this one.

\

That's right, man! Capitalism is bad, dude. We need to fight corporations by having a rock show! che guevara is my icon!

 

[Triumph]

\

That's right, man! Capitalism is bad, dude. We need to fight corporations by having a rock show! che guevara is my icon!

Seriously. The whole "make fun of raoul duke because he appears to be socialist" schtick is getting old.

Do you KNOW what the World Bank DOES? REALLY DOES?

 

[Sirpopopop]

Not surprising... the World Bank has always been controlled by the U.S. Therefore, what better way to promote U.S interests to the Third World than to put one of the chief architects of the present foreign policy plan that the administration follows.

 

[Gibbles]

That evil fucking bastard.

They're everywhere now. (Referring to the neo-cons, not the jews.)

 

[temp]

"NOOO"

 

[Ulairi]

Seriously. The whole "make fun of raoul duke because he appears to be socialist" schtick is getting old.

Do you KNOW what the World Bank DOES? REALLY DOES?

Yes. I have a Masters of Economics, I think I have a better understanding than you do.

 

[King Jippo]

So, um, where's this rock show gonna be and how can I get some tickets. I also want the $45 t-shirt and $20 poster to prove that I was there to stick it to the man.

 

[Stele]

Do you KNOW what the World Bank DOES? REALLY DOES?

Lend a shitload of money to small economies, watch them crash and burn, and then buy them up for cheap.

 

[Uter]

Seriously. The whole "make fun of raoul duke because he appears to be socialist" schtick is getting old.

:lol :lol

You have a friggin Karl Marx avatar and you rant about the evils of capitalism and free markets and yet you actually seem to be offended because people seem to find some amazingly wild and off the wall reason to assume that you "appear" to be a socialist??... :lol

How schtick could it possibly be when it is the apparent truth, and one that you seem to be unwilling to explain or defend when questioned in-depth???

haha, great stuff man, just great.

 

[Ill Saint]

:lol :lol

You have a friggin Karl Marx avatar and you rant about the evils of capitalism and free markets and yet you actually seem to be offended because people seem to find some amazingly wild and off the wall reason to assume that you "appear" to be a socialist??... :lol

How schtick could it possibly be when it is the apparent truth, and one that you seem to be unwilling to explain or defend when questioned in-depth???

haha, great stuff man, just great.

You seem to really get off on being belligerent and argumentative -- why?

 

[Mandark]

You have a friggin Karl Marx avatar and you rant about the evils of capitalism and free markets and yet you actually seem to be offended because people seem to find some amazingly wild and off the wall reason to assume that you "appear" to be a socialist??...

How schtick could it possibly be when it is the apparent truth, and one that you seem to be unwilling to explain or defend when questioned in-depth???

haha, great stuff man, just great.

This, from the guy who denies evolution, then cries when you say he denies evolution.

 

[sc0la]

:lol

That is exactly what I thought. :lol

It amazes me how Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz can get any sort of job after the way they fucked up the whole Iraq and WMD thing.

Wolfowitz didn't really fuck up in so much as our invasion of Iraq was a fullfilment of a decade long wet dream he had been having about regime change in Iraq. He executed his personal crusade with artfull percision... nevermind the "facts" surrounding the invasion.

the guy is bad news.

 

[Uter]

This, from the guy who denies evolution, then cries when you say he denies evolution.

As the other posts have been deleted I will simply respond with a quote that I saved from my last post which was unfortunately deleted from the boards.

he has wilfully distorted my statements and stated that I have rejected evolution, this is a lie, look at my history. No actual rebuttal or response is made directly to my comments in the thread, he simply posts unfavorable information (my supposed "rejection" of evolution and his distortions of events surrounding it) in an attempt to bias others in the thread. It is called "poisoning the well", and it is in itself a logical fallacy.

Please take your trolling fallacious reasoning elsewhere Mandark.

 

[Hitokage]

He asked a direct question and you did nothing but dodge, what else is he supposed to do?

 

[Uter]

He asked a direct question and you did nothing but dodge, what else is he supposed to do?

He did not just ask me a direct question. He attacked me for no reason with a distorted position he attributed to me in that thread, this after making no attempt whatsoever to respond in the original thread. What he did is called "poisoning the well", it is a logical fallacy making his argument completely useless. Since this is going around in circles again I will post my deleted post in its entirety.

Well, do you believe in evolution, or not?

Why is that important to begin with? Either way I choose I would have to resort to an argumentum ad ignorantiam. Amazing how my simple attempt to draw a distinction between a scientific 'theory' and fact is so hard for people to deal with. I cannot simply state that the scientific theory of evolution is based on non-provable assumptions incapable of experimental verification. This is acknowledged by evolutionists themselves. They may have evidence to support their claims, but AFAIK they don't claim that the specific things I mentioned are capable of experimental verification.

But do you want me to respond with an unknowledgeable opinion either way about a theory based merely on my subjective feelings or instincts? If so I will, but what is the point other than a convenient reason to reject out of hand other non-related comments by myself?


In any case, the only reason my opinion on evolution has any bearing for Mandark is because if I do not believe in it he can immediately reject anything I say because as he himself stated:

To my mind, a rejection of evolution, a universally accepted theory of biology whose vocal critics are either religious or pseudoscientific, is a rejection of logic and reason per se.

I say that evolution rejection implies a lack of reasoning.

I pointedly never responded either way, but he has wilfully distorted my statements and stated that I have rejected evolution, this is a lie, look at my history. No actual rebuttal or response is made directly to my comments in the thread, he simply posts unfavorable information (my supposed "rejection" of evolution and his distortions of events surrounding it) in an attempt to bias others in the thread. It is called "poisoning the well", and it is in itself a logical fallacy.

First he comes into a totally unrelated thread and posts a falsified statement he attributes to me. He does this as some kind of attempted rebuttal and it clearly was poisoning the well. He then continues to attack this distorted statement of mine, which is of course a straw man argument. And then he begs the question by stating his personal belief, "that evolution rejection implies a lack of reasoning", and insisting that I work within the confines of that assumption. Honestly, what was my response supposed to be? It also didn't help that I was actually banned for a day for some unknown reason after posting the last time in that thread.

As I said in one of my deleted posts "That certainly was a great way for someone to stifle any more responses or interest in responding in me."

 

[Mandark]

I could make a drinking game out of your posts: One shot for a huge pointless quote, and two shots for the word "fallacious."

I was just trying to delineate between a "fact" and a "theory." Mommy, make him stop being so mean!

Except that TalkOrigins, a site to which you linked, has a page explaining that evolution is both a fact and a theory, plus the scientific distinction.

I cannot simply state that the scientific theory of evolution is based on non-provable assumptions incapable of experimental verification. This is acknowledged by evolutionists themselves.

Utter and absolute bullshit. Either you are a liar who knows this is untrue, or you are a chump who actually believes this shit.

Which evolutionists "admit" this? John A. Moore? Carl Zimmer? Douglas Futuyama? Ernst Mayr? Peter and Rosemary Grant? PZ Myers? In fact, could you name even half a dozen evolutionary scientists who would agree with this?

For someone who complains about fallacies, your posts would pretty much be blank without them. You're either staggeringly ignorant, or a really bad liar.

 

[Azih]

It's funny that Uter has such a beef with fallacious arguments when the only reason he's in this thread is to defend a post that erected a straw man in order to carry out an ad hominiem attack, to wit...

\

That's right, man! Capitalism is bad, dude. We need to fight corporations by having a rock show! che guevara is my icon!

Edit: Plus um.. isn't "poisoning the well" when someone unfairly denigrates someone else's sources to attack their argument?

 

[Hitokage]

FYI, my last post was using the past tense.