Dumbest shit you have posted to date.Spearhead wrote:
hey Shipbuilder- your sig is huge
The administration never fails to remind us how much danger we are in during election time, and how great of a job they are doing when it's not election time. If they were doing a great job, we wouldn't be in danger. Sry Bush, u fail @ presidency
safe enough that you'll probably die in a car crash or from cancer. not from terrorists.
I kinda have to agree here, and I don't usually side with extreme personal attacks.......but you think its about politics, you need to see a proctologist to get your head removed.....There hasn't been more emphasis during election cycles, it is a continuous message because it is a continuous threat. Good job overgeneralizing though, WOW. There is no such thing as NOT being in danger, we need to constantly be aware of threats and respond accordingly. u fail @ commentating.lowing wrote:
Dumbest shit you have posted to date.Spearhead wrote:
hey Shipbuilder- your sig is huge
The administration never fails to remind us how much danger we are in during election time, and how great of a job they are doing when it's not election time. If they were doing a great job, we wouldn't be in danger. Sry Bush, u fail @ presidency
You need a dunce cap if you believe that!TeamZephyr wrote:
No one is illegal.ATG wrote:
The best evidence that we are not safe comes from the fact that whenever and wherever I look here in Southern California I see illegal aliens.
Last edited by ATG (2006-09-14 08:35:12)
We are safe enough. Do you have any idea what the chances are of you dying in an attack on a western country, terrorist or otherwise? They are miniscule.
Plenty is done to protect us, though not enough is done to boost public confidence. It is a fact that successful terrorist attacks are very rare (attacks by foreign nations even rarer). The whole point of terrorism is to scare people. That's what terror is.
Plenty is done to protect us, though not enough is done to boost public confidence. It is a fact that successful terrorist attacks are very rare (attacks by foreign nations even rarer). The whole point of terrorism is to scare people. That's what terror is.
LOL, lowing, you should look into sarcasm sometime.lowing wrote:
Your analogy is too ridiculous for me to continue with it. If you really need to compare terrorists to hurricanes, that is your short coming not mine.The_Shipbuilder wrote:
Bush doesn't even need to THWART hurricane attacks because they're too scared to even think about attacking DUH.lowing wrote:
and just how many "hurricane attacks" were thwarted ??
how mant terrorist attacks were thwarted??
I don't know why Bush doesn't declare war on hurricanes and send troops out to fight them. I'm sure he'd be just as if not MORE successful than his job stamping out terror.
I know you and all like you pray the US gets attacked again so you don't have the fact that there has not been another attack, AFTER SEVERAL ATTEMPTS, in the US, thrown in your face any more.
Bush will never protect us from hurricanes because none of his buddys can make any money at it.
HA HA!! Take that.
HA HA!! Take that.
lowing - thanks for your comment. Almost all of your shit gets dumber everytime you post, but we usually try not to remind you, it would hurt your feelingsAlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
I kinda have to agree here, and I don't usually side with extreme personal attacks.......but you think its about politics, you need to see a proctologist to get your head removed.....There hasn't been more emphasis during election cycles, it is a continuous message because it is a continuous threat. Good job overgeneralizing though, WOW. There is no such thing as NOT being in danger, we need to constantly be aware of threats and respond accordingly. u fail @ commentating.lowing wrote:
Dumbest shit you have posted to date.Spearhead wrote:
hey Shipbuilder- your sig is huge
The administration never fails to remind us how much danger we are in during election time, and how great of a job they are doing when it's not election time. If they were doing a great job, we wouldn't be in danger. Sry Bush, u fail @ presidency
Albert - Of course we will always be in danger, every country is. What I mean is that Bush is a hypocrite, on one hand he is saying what a great job he is doing, and on the other he is saying how much danger we are in. This is a "Global War on Terror". If we are still in significant danger after 5 years since 9/11, we are failing miserably in this War on Terror. But that is not what they're saying, they're saying we're winning it. I'm not saying anyone else could be doing better, but it was Bush who proposed we go to war against terrorism worldwide and we seem to be losing so far. And yes, every election since 9/11 the Republicans have used the "Vote Republican or al-Qaeda will bomb us" gimmick.
Last edited by Spearhead (2006-09-14 12:53:05)
Safety by securing ports, scanning airline baggage, locking down borders, patrolling coasts, and teaching vigilence to the masses will only create LIMITED security. Bush would never even get ONE of those things under control so we are still at ONE on a 1-10 scale (10 being secure, 1 being totally insecure).
The solution is to make peace/friends with those who hate us. Doing that is more likely than securing our country as described above. But it takes a level of humility, it takes someone not tainted by politics, and it takes someone likeable. For example, if some person like that were elected president of this country, that could begin the peace process. It would take extreme changes in foreign policy and abandonment of alot of national interestes abroad that would take alot of difficulty getting over. But again, doing that is 100x more likely than securing our countries.
Action vs. Reaction is what needs to be practiced. Curing the source of the problem ALWAYS works better than addressing the symptoms.
The solution is to make peace/friends with those who hate us. Doing that is more likely than securing our country as described above. But it takes a level of humility, it takes someone not tainted by politics, and it takes someone likeable. For example, if some person like that were elected president of this country, that could begin the peace process. It would take extreme changes in foreign policy and abandonment of alot of national interestes abroad that would take alot of difficulty getting over. But again, doing that is 100x more likely than securing our countries.
Action vs. Reaction is what needs to be practiced. Curing the source of the problem ALWAYS works better than addressing the symptoms.
That wasn't sarcasm, you are trying to dismiss the presidents record on the war on terror in the US as beyond his control or just blind luck.R3v0LuT!oN wrote:
LOL, lowing, you should look into sarcasm sometime.lowing wrote:
Your analogy is too ridiculous for me to continue with it. If you really need to compare terrorists to hurricanes, that is your short coming not mine.The_Shipbuilder wrote:
Bush doesn't even need to THWART hurricane attacks because they're too scared to even think about attacking DUH.
I don't know why Bush doesn't declare war on hurricanes and send troops out to fight them. I'm sure he'd be just as if not MORE successful than his job stamping out terror.
I know you and all like you pray the US gets attacked again so you don't have the fact that there has not been another attack, AFTER SEVERAL ATTEMPTS, in the US, thrown in your face any more.
Oh, well my apologies for reminding you on how stupid your post was.Spearhead wrote:
lowing - thanks for your comment. Almost all of your shit gets dumber everytime you post, but we usually try not to remind you, it would hurt your feelingsAlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
I kinda have to agree here, and I don't usually side with extreme personal attacks.......but you think its about politics, you need to see a proctologist to get your head removed.....There hasn't been more emphasis during election cycles, it is a continuous message because it is a continuous threat. Good job overgeneralizing though, WOW. There is no such thing as NOT being in danger, we need to constantly be aware of threats and respond accordingly. u fail @ commentating.lowing wrote:
Dumbest shit you have posted to date.
Albert - Of course we will always be in danger, every country is. What I mean is that Bush is a hypocrite, on one hand he is saying what a great job he is doing, and on the other he is saying how much danger we are in. This is a "Global War on Terror". If we are still in significant danger after 5 years since 9/11, we are failing miserably in this War on Terror. But that is not what they're saying, they're saying we're winning it. I'm not saying anyone else could be doing better, but it was Bush who proposed we go to war against terrorism worldwide and we seem to be losing so far. And yes, every election since 9/11 the Republicans have used the "Vote Republican or al-Qaeda will bomb us" gimmick.
LMAO!!!!........You admit that "no one can do better", yet have no shortage of critisism for the ONLY president in the past 15 years who actually is trying to do something about it. Priceless!!
Last edited by lowing (2006-09-14 15:45:36)
i think this question is put to the wrong people here. no offense but i'd say 75% of these people are nerdy conspiracy theorists. they thrive on the idea of anarchy because a breakdown of society means they go up on the social ladder.
Best way to get an EMP-like effect for an extended period of time (more than a few seconds) is to explode a thermonuke a fwe kilometres above the surface.
Of course they'll never do that - it's easier and more effective to blow it up ON the surface than a few miles above.
Of course they'll never do that - it's easier and more effective to blow it up ON the surface than a few miles above.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
EVERY election, EVERY republican, I think not. Ok so what should we have done after 9/11 to not be hypocritical......just sit and wait for them to attack us? Or take the fight to them? Whats the option Spearhead, cmon work with me, what are we supposed to do, I've heard you criticize but have yet to hear any solutions.Spearhead wrote:
Albert - Of course we will always be in danger, every country is. What I mean is that Bush is a hypocrite, on one hand he is saying what a great job he is doing, and on the other he is saying how much danger we are in. This is a "Global War on Terror". If we are still in significant danger after 5 years since 9/11, we are failing miserably in this War on Terror. But that is not what they're saying, they're saying we're winning it. I'm not saying anyone else could be doing better, but it was Bush who proposed we go to war against terrorism worldwide and we seem to be losing so far. And yes, every election since 9/11 the Republicans have used the "Vote Republican or al-Qaeda will bomb us" gimmick.
And yeah we will always be in danger, maybe not significant danger, but threats are always out there, but by taking the fight to them, that in itself is winning the war on terrorism, instead of sittin around, we are being proactive. We are not failing miserably, this kinda thing takes dedication and patience.
Unbelievable, the cycle continues, how mature.Spearhead wrote:
lowing - Almost all of your shit gets dumber everytime you post, but we usually try not to remind you, it would hurt your feelingsAlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
I kinda have to agree here, and I don't usually side with extreme personal attacks
My bandmate's father used to work on exactly such weapon back in USSR days. I think it's even more effective than nukes. Just one rocket disables all electronics in a country and it cannot strike back.
They obviously can't fathom that wanting to keep illegal immigrants out of your country does not make you racist.ATG wrote:
Why is it that when I point out that our streets are crowded with illegal aliens/ migrants workers/ scum sucking fence jumpers I always get this;
How safe are we? fucking racist piece of shit
in a karma message.
If pointing out our lack of a border make me a racists then I embrace racism.
Fuck you, eat my turds and die, whoever left that, my wife is 1/2 Mexican, and that makes my two kids 1/4 mexican and that has nothing whatsoever to do with the border issue moron.
I'm saying Bush shouldn't be lying to us. Either tell us we're in signifcant danger and we're not winning the war on terror, or tell us we're safe and we're winning it. He can't have it both ways. He uses both the bad and good aspects to win votes. "Ya, I'm doing a great job and we're totally winning the war on terror, but if you don't vote for me the Democrats won't protect you and we'll get bombed again". That's what I mean.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
EVERY election, EVERY republican, I think not. Ok so what should we have done after 9/11 to not be hypocritical......just sit and wait for them to attack us? Or take the fight to them? Whats the option Spearhead, cmon work with me, what are we supposed to do, I've heard you criticize but have yet to hear any solutions.Spearhead wrote:
Albert - Of course we will always be in danger, every country is. What I mean is that Bush is a hypocrite, on one hand he is saying what a great job he is doing, and on the other he is saying how much danger we are in. This is a "Global War on Terror". If we are still in significant danger after 5 years since 9/11, we are failing miserably in this War on Terror. But that is not what they're saying, they're saying we're winning it. I'm not saying anyone else could be doing better, but it was Bush who proposed we go to war against terrorism worldwide and we seem to be losing so far. And yes, every election since 9/11 the Republicans have used the "Vote Republican or al-Qaeda will bomb us" gimmick.
And yeah we will always be in danger, maybe not significant danger, but threats are always out there, but by taking the fight to them, that in itself is winning the war on terrorism, instead of sittin around, we are being proactive. We are not failing miserably, this kinda thing takes dedication and patience.
Well, make a dumb comment and you get another dumb commentAlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
Unbelievable, the cycle continues, how mature.Spearhead wrote:
lowing - Almost all of your shit gets dumber everytime you post, but we usually try not to remind you, it would hurt your feelingsAlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
I kinda have to agree here, and I don't usually side with extreme personal attacks
What am I supposed to do? Apease dumb comments by not fighting back?
Last edited by Spearhead (2006-09-15 03:36:02)
Ummm yeah, it is both ways sorry, it is the nature of fighting terrorism, not Bush's comments that are at fault here. That whole don't vote for me the Dems won't protect comment is WAY overblown and is not used on a major scale by Republicans, maybe some of the things the say might imply that they are a better candidate, but for the most part, Republicans haven't been pushing such personal things as coming out and stating that Dems are worse, your listening to too much talk radio and equating it with our party line, sorry bad line of thought there.Spearhead wrote:
I'm saying Bush shouldn't be lying to us. Either tell us we're in signifcant danger and we're not winning the war on terror, or tell us we're safe and we're winning it. He can't have it both ways. He uses both the bad and good aspects to win votes. "Ya, I'm doing a great job and we're totally winning the war on terror, but if you don't vote for me the Democrats won't protect you and we'll get bombed again". That's what I mean.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
Whats the option Spearhead, cmon work with me, what are we supposed to do, I've heard you criticize but have yet to hear any solutions.
So again, refer to my highlight above, whats the option Spearhead, whats the solution.
You could just ignore ppl you don't agree with or be more mature (In your opinion) and be the bigger man and not continue the cycle......Spearhead wrote:
Well, make a dumb comment and you get another dumb comment
What am I supposed to do? Apease dumb comments by not fighting back?