Pages: 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 … 18

 

Poll

Is Bush an Idiot?

Yes69%69% - 377
No30%30% - 166
Total: 543
2006-08-25 11:41:52
jonsimon
Member
+224|6801

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.
Just observing your common use of the word fact in all capital letters, and your constant demands for these all elusive facts that apparantly no one else can provide.

But really, now we're just cluttering the forum. You should really constrain yourself when it comes to private matters.

Last edited by jonsimon (2006-08-25 11:42:41)

2006-08-25 11:43:27
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6950|Seattle, WA

jonsimon wrote:

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.
1) Ok sorry for the personal attacks, I usually don't do that, but its not like you didn't have it coming.

2) OMFG You just proved your own point false, this is hilarious. LMFAO

jonsimon wrote:

I never said I proved it

AlbertWesker wrote:

You certainly implied it

jonsimon wrote:

2. I did.
So you just either flip flopped or can't read.  You are now saying that you implied that it was true by using that statement.  Unbelievable.
2006-08-25 11:43:44
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6887|SE London

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?
They did fall down. The planes could have brought them down. I think that is by far and away the most likely scenario. All the science I've seen concerning them not being brought down by the planes is sketchy at best and seems just to be made up to push through an agenda.

The planes took them down. There are all sorts of outcomes that the conspiracy theorists have totally overlooked.

It is a hard fact that 99.99% of conspiracy theories are complete bullshit.
2006-08-25 11:44:50
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6950|Seattle, WA

jonsimon wrote:

But really, now we're just cluttering the forum. You should really constrain yourself when it comes to private matters.
I knew you would say something of the sort, but your comment was just so asinine, I have a fact fetish? I have yet to see you DISPLAY anything other than your own meandering opinion on any of the subjects we have discussed as of late.  I never said no one else can provide facts, YOU are just not stating any, or giving ANY sources.
2006-08-25 11:45:10
Paco_the_Insane
Phorum Phantom
+244|6950|Ohio

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

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.
1) Ok sorry for the personal attacks, I usually don't do that, but its not like you didn't have it coming.

2) OMFG You just proved your own point false, this is hilarious. LMFAO

jonsimon wrote:

I never said I proved it

AlbertWesker wrote:

You certainly implied it

jonsimon wrote:

2. I did.
So you just either flip flopped or can't read.  You are now saying that you implied that it was true by using that statement.  Unbelievable.
I dont know what were talking about, but if i quote some one and add words at the bottom, it makes me look smart.
2006-08-25 11:45:31
Fancy_Pollux
Connoisseur of Fine Wine
+1,306|6952

jonsimon wrote:

Just observing your common use of the word fact in all capital letters, and your constant demands for these all elusive facts that apparantly no one else can provide.

But really, now we're just cluttering the forum. You should really constrain yourself when it comes to private matters.
Let me guess...this is your attempt at being witty and clever? You've yet to make a valid argument and I don't think anyone will disagree with me in saying that it's just you "cluttering the forum".
2006-08-25 11:46:09
jonsimon
Member
+224|6801

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

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.
1) Ok sorry for the personal attacks, I usually don't do that, but its not like you didn't have it coming.

2) OMFG You just proved your own point false, this is hilarious. LMFAO

jonsimon wrote:

I never said I proved it

AlbertWesker wrote:

You certainly implied it

jonsimon wrote:

2. I did.
So you just either flip flopped or can't read.  You are now saying that you implied that it was true by using that statement.  Unbelievable.
Both statements are not mutually exclusive. It is very easy to imply something without stating it.

So, are you going to adress the third point, the one relating to our debate, or are my facts to scary for you?
2006-08-25 11:46:31
GATOR591957
Member
+84|6933
I'd like to see facts from both of you on this.  Opinions are like...well you know the rest.  I am interested in exactly what happened.  All I've seen or heard is conjecture and opinion.
2006-08-25 11:47:30
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6950|Seattle, WA

jonsimon wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

1. No offense taken, I can see you're an asshole.


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.
So, are you going to adress the third point, the one relating to our debate, or are my facts to scary for you?
3) So because of the time that these events occured, you are saying, without a doubt, 100% that planes COULD NOT HAVE EVER DONE this, EVER?
2006-08-25 11:47:58
Fancy_Pollux
Connoisseur of Fine Wine
+1,306|6952

jonsimon wrote:

Both statements are not mutually exclusive. It is very easy to imply something without stating it.

So, are you going to adress the third point, the one relating to our debate, or are my facts to scary for you?
Read this and stop posting:

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

Everyone else quote me for truth.
2006-08-25 11:49:05
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6950|Seattle, WA

GATOR591957 wrote:

I'd like to see facts from both of you on this.  Opinions are like...well you know the rest.  I am interested in exactly what happened.  All I've seen or heard is conjecture and opinion.
First of all, the burden of proof is on jonsimon, he is the one making contentions, I am just responding to him.
2006-08-25 11:49:25
jonsimon
Member
+224|6801

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Both statements are not mutually exclusive. It is very easy to imply something without stating it.

So, are you going to adress the third point, the one relating to our debate, or are my facts to scary for you?
Read this and stop posting:

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

Everyone else quote me for truth.
Sorry, that doesn't address my point.
2006-08-25 11:51:23
Paco_the_Insane
Phorum Phantom
+244|6950|Ohio

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Both statements are not mutually exclusive. It is very easy to imply something without stating it.

So, are you going to adress the third point, the one relating to our debate, or are my facts to scary for you?
Read this and stop posting:

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

Everyone else quote me for truth.
QFT

I got ya covered there buddy.

Last edited by Paco_the_Insane (2006-08-25 11:51:48)

2006-08-25 11:51:23
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6950|Seattle, WA

jonsimon wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Both statements are not mutually exclusive. It is very easy to imply something without stating it.

So, are you going to adress the third point, the one relating to our debate, or are my facts to scary for you?
Read this and stop posting:

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

Everyone else quote me for truth.
Sorry, that doesn't address my point.
From the article:
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER
The collapse of both World Trade Center towers--and the smaller WTC 7 a few hours later--initially surprised even some experts. But subsequent studies have shown that the WTC's structural integrity was destroyed by intense fire as well as the severe damage inflicted by the planes. That explanation hasn't swayed conspiracy theorists, who contend that all three buildings were wired with explosives in advance and razed in a series of controlled demolitions.
That directly addresses your point, that the buildings could not have been taken down by planes.  We're waiting.

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-08-25 11:52:08)

2006-08-25 11:51:28
Fancy_Pollux
Connoisseur of Fine Wine
+1,306|6952

jonsimon wrote:

Sorry, that doesn't address my point.
Yes it does. That's ALL it does. And, it completely refutes your pathetic attempt at making a "point".

Once again,

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Read this and stop posting:

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

Everyone else quote me for truth.
2006-08-25 11:52:26
jonsimon
Member
+224|6801
Edit: Rescinded.

Last edited by jonsimon (2006-08-25 12:20:03)

2006-08-25 11:53:50
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6950|Seattle, WA

jonsimon wrote:

Fine, you're not going to argue against me so I will stop trying to argue against you.

You have not addressed my argument, and your response has demonstrated no comprehension nor even that you have read my words.

G'day
Thats because YOU keep changing your god damned arguement, wtf is it now??? Seriously clear this up ONCE AND FOR ALL, WHAT IS YOUR POINT, what is your contention.

I READ your words and asked you a question DIRECTLY about the comment you made about the time it took the towers to fall, I was asking your opinion, I wanted to know what you thought, but if you have to be such an ass as to ignore that and to say I didn't read your statement, and to pussy out and run away....you've got to be kidding me.  I asked you a question directly about your comment, how about you answer it.

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-08-25 11:55:18)

2006-08-25 12:09:52
Krysiss
Member
+15|6780|NL

Cougar wrote:

PspRpg-7 wrote:

GATOR591957 wrote:

Yes it does matter that he's an idiot.  When you have an idiot with his finger on the button of a nuke, you're damn right it matters!!!!!
HES NOT GOING TO FUCKING NUKE ANYONE MY FUCKING GOD
No, he won't nuke anyone.  However, he is still Commander In Chief.  That is the last place on Earth we should have elected a retard to reside over.  It is an undeniable fact that his foriegn policy is horrible, because of this we have forfeited and lost alliances and treaties that have held for over 20, 40, 60, even a hundred years.  People of the world hate America more than any other point in time in history and we are even more at threat due to invading sovereign nations under the pre-text of "fighting terrorism", never mind the fact that it was phrase coined by him, implemented by him and an agenda pushed on the United Nations even though it lost the popular vote.  People have always hated America, now even more do, and now they have the reasons and motivation to attack.

His domestic policies are even worse.  Our national deficit is astronomical, Medicare and social security are all but dead, corruption and government growth is out of control, illegal immigration is an even bigger problem than before, taxes have been lowered for the rich and raised for the poor, fuel shortages, the hurricane Katrina deboggle, corporate and government outsourcing to foreign nations is ruining the economy and the unemployment rate is increasing rapidly. 

The man is so hell bent on finishing Daddy's war and trying to be the big bad cowboy that he has totally wrecked our government, economy and national mentality.  George W. Bush is without a doubt the worst thing to happen to our country since the Great Depression.  He's like a one man fuck up army.  he can't even talk without stuttering or sounding like a complete dumbass.  His speaking skills alone have wrecked other countries views on how educated Americans are, they think were all as dumb as him. 

Personally, I think he is a war mongering, corporate puppet, war profiteer.  Do some research into Haliburton and the government and military contracts they have received since war broke out.  Then go look at their profit margins.  Who owns Haliburton?  Dick "I'll shoot you in the face" Cheney.   High gas prices?  Who is one of the biggest oil companies in America?  Exxon.  Condi Rice has a seat on the board of directors at Exxon and even has a super oil tanker named after her.  G.W. even owns a few oil company's.  They are fucking war profiteers, simple and plain.  I'm just waiting for the lone Lee Harvey Oswald of today to line these assholes up in cross-hairs.  That will be a good day for America.
that I wanted to say....
----

about the relection obout the idot bush.

there where reports of fraud with the new voting systeem.
that systeem was introduced of one of his sponsers.

that is just smell bad you know if your hear something like that.
but the queote above is just so true, the president is not for the people anymore but the rich company's

Last edited by Krysiss (2006-08-25 12:18:04)

2006-08-25 12:17:16
jonsimon
Member
+224|6801

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:


Read this and stop posting:

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

Everyone else quote me for truth.
Sorry, that doesn't address my point.
From the article:
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER
The collapse of both World Trade Center towers--and the smaller WTC 7 a few hours later--initially surprised even some experts. But subsequent studies have shown that the WTC's structural integrity was destroyed by intense fire as well as the severe damage inflicted by the planes. That explanation hasn't swayed conspiracy theorists, who contend that all three buildings were wired with explosives in advance and razed in a series of controlled demolitions.
That directly addresses your point, that the buildings could not have been taken down by planes.  We're waiting.
Ah, missed this post earlier. Apologies wesker.

I concede that the planes would damage the structure, but it is not possible they could have damaged the foundations of the building from their impact in the upper floors. The structural integrity of a tall building is dependent on the ground. The foundation, which acts as an anchor between the ground and the building, is what keeps the building standing. An impact and subsequent fire in the uppermost floors of the building could not bring down the whole building.
2006-08-25 12:24:10
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|7002|NJ

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.
That's excatly why I was using it, because those sorces don't seem creditable to me. A book called the "the third terrorist" writen by a reporter seems about as creditable as "loose Change" it's the same propaganda just on the other side....
2006-08-25 12:27:50
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6906|132 and Bush

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

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!
debating while sitting behind a computer actually pretty funny. Google debating allows anyone with any opinion to find something that back's them up right or wrong. (Virtually)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-08-25 12:28:33
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|7002|NJ
And sorry for changing this from a is Bush an idiot thread to "loose Change" all over again. Lets get back to bush
2006-08-25 12:36:46
Krysiss
Member
+15|6780|NL
Arghh many people who don't live in the USA. just can't stand the police of bush and there moneyworldwar 3 behavior. (just look at avarge poll from other community countrys)

it's fact bush lied about the WDM in iraq(and now there freaking civil war and bush still denied that)
it''s fact that america is trying to solve iran problem before he resign.
it's fact america dollar will fall(only when is the big question because china can't buy dollars for ever and the world can't give 5000 million)
it's fact there is big socail between rich and poor, guess what 90 of the money is ownd by 10 procent of the people)

I think america itself has big problem to solve out first.
2006-08-25 12:39:01
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6906|132 and Bush

And it's a fact god damnit because I said so..lol ^^^
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-08-25 12:50:30
Fancy_Pollux
Connoisseur of Fine Wine
+1,306|6952

Krysiss wrote:

Arghh many people who don't live in the USA. just can't stand the police of bush and there moneyworldwar 3 behavior. (just look at avarge poll from other community countrys)

it's fact bush lied about the WDM in iraq(and now there freaking civil war and bush still denied that)
it''s fact that america is trying to solve iran problem before he resign.
it's fact america dollar will fall(only when is the big question because china can't buy dollars for ever and the world can't give 5000 million)
it's fact there is big socail between rich and poor, guess what 90 of the money is ownd by 10 procent of the people)

I think america itself has big problem to solve out first.
As unnecessarily difficult your post was to comprehend, I'm going to make one thing evident:

The US operates under a free-enterprise economy. Citizens are allowed to earn a living in a competitive market without excessive intervention or regulation by the government. The rich earn their money by succeeding in this system. This success is dependant on many factors, including education. However, in the dictatorships of today, people are not given that opportunity. They are FORCED into poverty, while the few in control of the country also control the majority of the wealth. There's a difference between having no option and simply being too lazy or stupid to earn a decent living.

Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-08-25 12:55:20)

 

Pages: 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 … 18

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard