Pages: 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 … 18

 

Poll

Is Bush an Idiot?

Yes69%69% - 377
No30%30% - 166
Total: 543
2006-08-24 21:58:42
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6950|Seattle, WA

cpt.fass1 wrote:

1) China has a better military and econimy then us now, what makes us number 1?

3) and we have a resonable high rate of homeless people on our streets. How long untill we have 5% rich people and 95% poor? What is your point if you don't wake up and relize how much our econimy is based on trade with other country's and call for change we're screwed..

4) I'm trying to figure out what our exports are. Iraq has oil and that's where money comes in what do we export to other country's?
1) You've got to be kidding me, they have more numbers but they do not have the same amount or capability in planes, ships, and armor.  Not even close.

3) HAHAHAHA reasonably high? Compared to what?  Look at the homeless rates of other countries, look at the poverty lines there relative to ours.  We're damned lucky to live in such a good country such as ours.

4) Among other things....we export oil. (We're ranked third in exports (guess who's fourth, China, and not just by a little bit, we export, on avg, 250 billion dollars worth of goods more than China.) hmmmm.

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-08-24 22:04:59)

2006-08-24 22:29:42
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6887|SE London

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

1) China has a better military and econimy then us now, what makes us number 1?

3) and we have a resonable high rate of homeless people on our streets. How long untill we have 5% rich people and 95% poor? What is your point if you don't wake up and relize how much our econimy is based on trade with other country's and call for change we're screwed..

4) I'm trying to figure out what our exports are. Iraq has oil and that's where money comes in what do we export to other country's?
1) You've got to be kidding me, they have more numbers but they do not have the same amount or capability in planes, ships, and armor.  Not even close.

3) HAHAHAHA reasonably high? Compared to what?  Look at the homeless rates of other countries, look at the poverty lines there relative to ours.  We're damned lucky to live in such a good country such as ours.

4) Among other things....we export oil. (We're ranked third in exports (guess who's fourth, China, and not just by a little bit, we export, on avg, 250 billion dollars worth of goods more than China.) hmmmm.
1) China has no proper navy. They are refitting a carrier at a dry dock in Dalian and have commissioned a new fleet of carriers to project Chinese military power around the world, but they're not done yet and won't be for some years. Their airforce is also in the process of being massively modernised with many 100s of J-10s, J11s and the new J-XXs to add to their large but outdated airforce - they also have (in Taiwan) a number of F-16s and Mirages.
There is no way the US could invade China though. Never fight a land war in Asia - wars in these giant countries don't work - as anyone who's ever tried to invade Russia will tell you.

3) Poverty in the US compared to places like China, erm....        Compared to many places in Europe the US doesn't look too great but oon a world scale, the US is definately up there.

4) What do you export. Mostly not stuff. I don't really understand the whole US exporting oil thing - I know it happens and that the US has huge oilfields, but why do the US import so much oil as well then - it doesn't make sense to me - maybe it's different grades of oil for different things, but I don't know.
The main exports from the US are films, tv, software, technology designs, medicines and other intellectual property.

*edit* US oil consumption is nearly triple it's production levels, I don't believe the US export ANY oil, let alone are the 3rd largest exporter of it - maybe 3rd largest producer.

How do YOU know for SURE that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11, that is my ONE and ONLY question to you.  Lets see if you can answer it.
Well, Bush has said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. But his opinion doesn't mean much. I could direct you to clips of him saying it if you don't believe me.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-08-25 07:10:45)

2006-08-25 01:34:08
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6861

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

1) Thats your assumption, and I guess I haven't done much to clear that up.  What do you mean by turning ever more moderates into extremists, wtf are you talking about.  I think Islam is a fairly decent religion and most Muslims are not extreme.  I would wager that only .5% of Muslims are extremists.  I don't see how that is making moderates into extremists, maybe next time you should ask rather than assume.

2) Propaganda monkey? Ok mature name calling......I can understand that there are SERIOUS doubts between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, I will be the FIRST to admit that but no one has answered my god damned question yet so why the fuck am I even try to talk to you guys......try one more fucking time (and sorry that I might be a little pissed)

How do YOU know for SURE that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11, that is my ONE and ONLY question to you.  Lets see if you can answer it.
The answer should be self apparent, no one knows for sure, that is MY ONLY point.

3) Didn't know it was such a bad publication, just found it by chance.  Next time, maybe someone shouldn't fucking quote Loose Change, it REALLY damages ones credibility.
1) You misinterpreted what I said. I am saying that waging war against middle eastern nations, collectively punishing their civilian populations and supporting state terror (Israel) turns moderate muslims INTO extremists. Hence it doesn't seem to be an effective way of fighting the so-called 'war on terror'.
2) How do YOU know for SURE that the US government had NOTHING to do with 9/11? An arguably equally preposterous question to the one posed by you, thinking the thing through in a logical manner.
3) I don't quote 'Loose Change', I haven't even seen it.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-08-25 01:34:29)

2006-08-25 08:59:38
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6950|Seattle, WA

CameronPoe wrote:

1) You misinterpreted what I said.

3) I don't quote 'Loose Change', I haven't even seen it.
1) I know, thats why I ASKED you.  Thank you for the clarification, I agree with you.  I think that supporting Israel really is all we can do.  What else should we or shouldn't we have done?

3) I know you didn't, it was another "propaganda monkey".
2006-08-25 09:04:34
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6950|Seattle, WA

Bertster7 wrote:

1) China has no proper navy.

2) Their airforce is also in the process of being massively modernised

3) There is no way the US could invade China though. Never fight a land war in Asia - wars in these giant countries don't work - as anyone who's ever tried to invade Russia will tell you.

3) Poverty in the US compared to places like China, erm....        Compared to many places in Europe the US doesn't look too great but oon a world scale, the US is definately up there.

4) US oil consumption is nearly triple it's production levels, I don't believe the US export ANY oil, let alone are the 3rd largest exporter of it - maybe 3rd largest producer.
1) Yep, they're navy = pwned

2) Their airforce is still really lacking compared to the U.S. and the UK and even some other countries.  Doesn't really make much sense.

3) I agree, we would get uber pwned eventually, but we would bomb the living crap out of them before we ever set foot on land.

4) Yeah, we export oil, have been for a long time, not very much of it though .  I think I mentioned it before but the US is also the 3rd highest exporter (in value) of all goods and services.  China is behind is in that aspect.
2006-08-25 09:18:26
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7022
yes. but kerry still lost to him.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2006-08-25 09:24:41
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|7002|NJ

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

1) You misinterpreted what I said.

3) I don't quote 'Loose Change', I haven't even seen it.
1) I know, thats why I ASKED you.  Thank you for the clarification, I agree with you.  I think that supporting Israel really is all we can do.  What else should we or shouldn't we have done?

3) I know you didn't, it was another "propaganda monkey".
I really hope you weren't taking what I said out of contect here? If you where it's a relatively stupid comment.
2006-08-25 10:28:11
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6950|Seattle, WA

cpt.fass1 wrote:

I really hope you weren't taking what I said out of contect here? If you where it's a relatively stupid comment.
You'll have to refresh my memory, I remember someone (you?) quoting Loose Change, which is a croc, its credibility went down the drain with me within the first 10-15 minutes when it talked of only 3 jets defending the entirety of our nation on 9/11, they obviously have no idea how many planes we have or are getting some very bad facts from some very bad sources.  Other than that I have no idea what you were talking about.  I'm not going to hide that.
2006-08-25 10:45:41
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|7002|NJ

cpt.fass1 wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

May I see a link? The president in his press conferance said two days ago that 9.11 had nothing to do with Iraq... Shipbuilder give him the link.
WHOA there chief, I didn't say 9/11, I said Iraq and Al Qaeda, but yes there are speculations that they were behind, partly financially, 9/11 as well.

I suggest you actually do some hard reading.  Go read (or at least the summary, jesus) The Third Terrorist by Jayna Davis
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/078526 … p;n=283155

It shows an OBVIOUS connection between the Oklahoma bombings and terrorist(s) in Iraq with connections later on to 9/11.

Time to step out of fantasy land.
Yeah and if you watch loose change there's an obvious connection between our countries leaders and 9/11.. So what's your point? I should run out and tell everyone I killed "joan Bennett Ramsey" so I can get out of a bang kock jail.
Quoting myself for the sake(it's a drink) of albert.
2006-08-25 10:52:00
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6950|Seattle, WA

cpt.fass1 wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:


WHOA there chief, I didn't say 9/11, I said Iraq and Al Qaeda, but yes there are speculations that they were behind, partly financially, 9/11 as well.

I suggest you actually do some hard reading.  Go read (or at least the summary, jesus) The Third Terrorist by Jayna Davis
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/078526 … p;n=283155
Yeah and if you watch loose change there's an obvious connection between our countries leaders and 9/11..
Quoting myself for the sake(it's a drink) of albert.
Well excuse me if I'm participating in like 3 different threads with almost the same subject and I get a little lost, sheesh.  So first of all, my contention is that Loose Change is a croc because it has SOOO many holes, and most of their facts are not in line.  I AGREE that it raises some valid questions and points but it is not very credible.  And sake is good.

If you think that our leaders had it in for us on 9/11, than provide some HARD facts, not this fantasy ( ) crap from Loose Change.

Your question was, what is my point, I think I already explained this in a previous post and even in this post, just making sure I get this out there, Loose Change is NOT credible AND there MIGHT be a connection with Al Qaeda and Iraq, I'm not saying for sure there is, but you cannot disprove it with the evidence at hand right now.  THAT is my point.
2006-08-25 11:00:05
jonsimon
Member
+224|6801

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:


Yeah and if you watch loose change there's an obvious connection between our countries leaders and 9/11..
Quoting myself for the sake(it's a drink) of albert.
Well excuse me if I'm participating in like 3 different threads with almost the same subject and I get a little lost, sheesh.  So first of all, my contention is that Loose Change is a croc because it has SOOO many holes, and most of their facts are not in line.  I AGREE that it raises some valid questions and points but it is not very credible.  And sake is good.

If you think that our leaders had it in for us on 9/11, than provide some HARD facts, not this fantasy ( ) crap from Loose Change.

Your question was, what is my point, I think I already explained this in a previous post and even in this post, just making sure I get this out there, Loose Change is NOT credible AND there MIGHT be a connection with Al Qaeda and Iraq, I'm not saying for sure there is, but you cannot disprove it with the evidence at hand right now.  THAT is my point.
Loose change brings up facts.

Bush says Iraq was unrelated to 9/11.

It is a hard fact that those 2 planes could not destroy those 3 buildings.
It is a hard fact that they did collapse.
So the question is what took them down?
2006-08-25 11:06:12
Fancy_Pollux
Connoisseur of Fine Wine
+1,306|6952

jonsimon wrote:

It is a hard fact that those 2 planes could not destroy those 3 buildings.
It is a hard fact that they did collapse.
So the question is what took them down?
Don't talk use the word "fact" when you know nothing of them.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science … 27842.html

Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-08-25 11:14:52)

2006-08-25 11:08:37
jonsimon
Member
+224|6801

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

It is a hard fact that those 2 planes could not destroy those 3 buildings.
It is a hard fact that they did collapse.
So the question is what took them down?
Don't talk use the word "fact" when you know nothing of them.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science … 27842.html
Except my every application of the word was accurate.
2006-08-25 11:09:41
Fancy_Pollux
Connoisseur of Fine Wine
+1,306|6952

jonsimon wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

It is a hard fact that those 2 planes could not destroy those 3 buildings.
It is a hard fact that they did collapse.
So the question is what took them down?
Don't talk use the word "fact" when you know nothing of them.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science … 27842.html
Except my every application of the word was accurate.
WRONG.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search? … =0&y=0
2006-08-25 11:13:32
karl
Member
+11|6813|Oslo-Norway
kerry is a n00bish president, and bush pwns him.
2006-08-25 11:14:34
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6950|Seattle, WA

jonsimon wrote:

1) Loose change brings up facts.

2) Bush says Iraq was unrelated to 9/11.

3) It is a hard fact that those 2 planes could not destroy those 3 buildings.

4) It is a hard fact that they did collapse.
1) Can I buy pot from you? Seriously.

2) I am so sick of you lefties saying this and using it as ABSOLUTE proof that it is true.  SURE it makes it seem LESS than likely but you CAN NOT say for sure with the FACTS at hand.  OMFG

3) HOW THE FUCK DO YOU KNOW THAT!?!?!?!?!? A hard fact? From Loose Change? Ok, I think Cpt. Fass would allow me to use the phrase " Your in FANTASY LAND". Even for this situation.

4) Yeah they did.  Thats kinda of obvious.

You're being quite arrogant, you only used the word fact correctly in 1 out of 4 statements.  (Number 4) so why don't you just calm down and actually try to articulate some facts without quoting Loose Change.  That would be great.
2006-08-25 11:16:58
Fancy_Pollux
Connoisseur of Fine Wine
+1,306|6952

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

1) Loose change brings up facts.

2) Bush says Iraq was unrelated to 9/11.

3) It is a hard fact that those 2 planes could not destroy those 3 buildings.

4) It is a hard fact that they did collapse.
1) Can I buy pot from you? Seriously.

2) I am so sick of you lefties saying this and using it as ABSOLUTE proof that it is true.  SURE it makes it seem LESS than likely but you CAN NOT say for sure with the FACTS at hand.  OMFG

3) HOW THE FUCK DO YOU KNOW THAT!?!?!?!?!? A hard fact? From Loose Change? Ok, I think Cpt. Fass would allow me to use the phrase " Your in FANTASY LAND". Even for this situation.

4) Yeah they did.  Thats kinda of obvious.

You're being quite arrogant, you only used the word fact correctly in 1 out of 4 statements.  (Number 4) so why don't you just calm down and actually try to articulate some facts without quoting Loose Change.  That would be great.
jonsimon is a troll. I've said this in countless threads now.
2006-08-25 11:25:44
jonsimon
Member
+224|6801

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

1) Loose change brings up facts.

2) Bush says Iraq was unrelated to 9/11.

3) It is a hard fact that those 2 planes could not destroy those 3 buildings.

4) It is a hard fact that they did collapse.
1) Can I buy pot from you? Seriously.

2) I am so sick of you lefties saying this and using it as ABSOLUTE proof that it is true.  SURE it makes it seem LESS than likely but you CAN NOT say for sure with the FACTS at hand.  OMFG

3) HOW THE FUCK DO YOU KNOW THAT!?!?!?!?!? A hard fact? From Loose Change? Ok, I think Cpt. Fass would allow me to use the phrase " Your in FANTASY LAND". Even for this situation.

4) Yeah they did.  Thats kinda of obvious.

You're being quite arrogant, you only used the word fact correctly in 1 out of 4 statements.  (Number 4) so why don't you just calm down and actually try to articulate some facts without quoting Loose Change.  That would be great.
1. Sorry, I don't do drugs.
2. I never said it proved it.
3. Because skyscrapers burn for days. And for the crash to jeopordize the structural integrity of the lower portion of the building the impact would have to be near the foundation.
4. Yup.

Sorry, but I don't see the arrogance, and I only used the word 3 times, all accurately. I am articulating facts, and I haven't quoted anyone as of yet.
2006-08-25 11:27:01
jonsimon
Member
+224|6801

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

jonsimon is a troll. I've said this in countless threads now.
I must have missed them all.
2006-08-25 11:27:16
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6950|Seattle, WA

jonsimon wrote:

1. Sorry, I don't do drugs.
2. I never said it proved it.
3. Because skyscrapers burn for days. And for the crash to jeopordize the structural integrity of the lower portion of the building the impact would have to be near the foundation.
4. Yup.

Sorry, but I don't see the arrogance, and I only used the word 3 times, all accurately. I am articulating facts, and I haven't quoted anyone as of yet.
1) No offense, but you certainly act like it at times.

2) You certainly implied it.

3) Because skyscrapers burn for days.  And your source for that?
2006-08-25 11:28:36
Fancy_Pollux
Connoisseur of Fine Wine
+1,306|6952

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

1. Sorry, I don't do drugs.
2. I never said it proved it.
3. Because skyscrapers burn for days. And for the crash to jeopordize the structural integrity of the lower portion of the building the impact would have to be near the foundation.
4. Yup.

Sorry, but I don't see the arrogance, and I only used the word 3 times, all accurately. I am articulating facts, and I haven't quoted anyone as of yet.
1) No offense, but you certainly act like it at times.

2) You certainly implied it.

3) Because skyscrapers burn for days.  And your source for that?
QFT

He never has a source nor uses even the slightest hint of logic. He just pulls random "facts" out of his ass. He is a troll.
2006-08-25 11:28:52
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6907|132 and Bush

You know what's funny is the same people who are calling him an idiot are the same people who claim he has the capacity to rig an entire election twice, convince millions of people to go to war on false claims of WMD's, and stage 9/11.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-08-25 11:35:22
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6950|Seattle, WA
Ok this is it, I'm sorry I have to share this, sorry jonsi but this is ridicolous.

From a very recent +1 Karma to me

Wow, you sure have some sort of fact-fetish. And you like the word articulate. Think of this as a kind of -1 karma just between me and you. -jonsimon
A fact fetish, meaning, I like to look at the facts and than decide for myself.......aha. A clue.

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-08-25 11:35:41)

2006-08-25 11:39:45
jonsimon
Member
+224|6801

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

1. Sorry, I don't do drugs.
2. I never said it proved it.
3. Because skyscrapers burn for days. And for the crash to jeopordize the structural integrity of the lower portion of the building the impact would have to be near the foundation.
4. Yup.

Sorry, but I don't see the arrogance, and I only used the word 3 times, all accurately. I am articulating facts, and I haven't quoted anyone as of yet.
1) No offense, but you certainly act like it at times.

2) You certainly implied it.

3) Because skyscrapers burn for days.  And your source for that?
1. No offense taken, I can see you're an asshole.

2. I did.

3. I was mistaken, it wasn't days, plural, just day, singular. The madrid fire raged for 24 hours straight, and the building only partially collapsed. The 9/11 fires raged for 10 minutes, and both buildings collapsed in their entirety. The One Meridian Plaza fire raged for 18 hours, with no collapse. The Parque Central Complex fire raged for more than 17 hours, without collapse. Along with these many buildings have burned for periods of time anywhere from 3-6 hours without collapse.

Edit: Oops, put 4. instead of 3.

Last edited by jonsimon (2006-08-25 11:40:11)

2006-08-25 11:40:26
Fancy_Pollux
Connoisseur of Fine Wine
+1,306|6952

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Ok this is it, I'm sorry I have to share this, sorry jonsi but this is ridicolous.

From a very recent +1 Karma to me

Wow, you sure have some sort of fact-fetish. And you like the word articulate. Think of this as a kind of -1 karma just between me and you. -jonsimon
A fact fetish, meaning, I like to look at the facts and than decide for myself.......aha. A clue.
How dare you use facts to prove a point!

 

Pages: 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 … 18

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard