You understood the message just fine. Instead of adressing your hopelessly brainless imbecillic statements focus on a typo. Thats fine by me anyhow you couldnt be expected to form a logical rescue to an idiotic statement such as blaming dems for republican failures.
sigh...here we go I guess.ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:
Tripe.. Bush's brilliant grandiose stragy for winning peace and tranquility in the middle east foiled by blue blooded bleeding heart commies like the Kennedy's ..dont forget to blame faggots. I guess right wingers percieve any news that isnt reported with FOX news' conservative biased slant is automatically liberal. Ignoring of course the fact that his continually plummting opinion polls and any reporting critically of the Republican party and this administration might actually be becuase of the piss poor total shit performace.ATG wrote:
Bush has explained all this a zillion times but the message got lost and over shouted by the unfathomable voices of the likes of Ted Kennedy and the liberal media.
1. I never mentioned fagots. I think thats a ugly term, like calling a black a nigger.
2. A lot of the mainstream media refuses to even call him President! How disrespectful to address him as Mr. Bush, you are uniformed about bias.
Well, lets just say that I read alot of news and listen to a lot of talk radio. Newt Gingrich said it best when he said it the other day on Sean Hannity. He said that all members should be asked "what did they know and when did they know it." under oath. He said Nancy Pelosi herself had a hand in this, the timing I mean. And that there are others engaged in weird behavior on both sides of the isle.Really? I mean it's possible but why not wait till Nov? you really think that every media outlet said we got a story but lets hold onto it till election time?.. Wait even if that sceanrio is true then certainly the Republicans were aware of it as well? Sure the group of gay bashers woulndt try to hide or condone gay child molestation. Do you even know hoe the story was leaked ? Look it up a republican GOP staffer leaked it ..oh but the liberal media held it back in some conspiracy consencus..
How is one mans perversion a failure of the Republican party?ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:
You understood the message just fine. Instead of adressing your hopelessly brainless imbecillic statements focus on a typo. Thats fine by me anyhow you couldnt be expected to form a logical rescue to an idiotic statement such as blaming dems for republican failures.
Did you not see my post about Barney Frank?
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pid=832359#p832359
Does that mean I can claim failure of democrats because that guy is still in office???
I honestly don't care to engage you because you are vile in your tone. You might work on that. Its not that you challenge me, its more like you dont entertain me so I dont pay much attention to you.
Last edited by ATG (2006-10-08 01:28:35)
1. was simply an example of misplaced blame and exaggeration .. like blaming ted kennedy for everythingATG wrote:
1. I never mentioned fagots. I think thats a ugly term, like calling a black a nigger.
2. A lot of the mainstream media refuses to even call him President! How disrespectful to address him as Mr. Bush, you are uniformed about bias.
2. they called clinton mr clinton. News is supposed to be unbiased and factual. FOX news is anything but and while msnbc may have liberal newscasters for the most part they are unbiased imo. Right wingers percieve it as biased because they think FOX is the truth and unbiased. The American public and honest moral reporters reflect and speak about things that right wingers wont agree with and therefore percieve as liberal.
NPR and Rush Limbaugh the pillars of unbiased truth reporting..........
Dennis Hastert has allready denied all republican efforts to portray it as voting ploy. Honestly the story is so big becuase Foley is the chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children,. Thats the height of hypocrisy and if anything its another example of misplaced blame. Instead of jabbing dems about the timing shouldnt you be more concerned of republican awareness of this issue and instead of immdiate correction acted with full complacency?
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/2006/06/endofworld.html
If the world follows these events then I'm totally cool....I'll be chilling with Hawaii with Alaska under president governator ( cant spell his name....come on neither can you!).
All fun and games aside though. Cougar: the post was genius, I agreed with it about 80% of the time and do see what you are say/typing. The ID card thing will most likely end up in court with a case titled : "US citizens VS. Government" as it IS a breach of our amendments. The Bush will be out my 2009 at the latest (January for oathie thingy) I'll give you +1 because it was a well thought out post that had proof and wasn't another crazy liberal, neo conservative post.
I do have one question to ask you on a personal level that I would like answered in a pm: Do you think that we (the US) set up 9-11? Simply asked so I can figure out why you made this post in the first place.
If the world follows these events then I'm totally cool....I'll be chilling with Hawaii with Alaska under president governator ( cant spell his name....come on neither can you!).
All fun and games aside though. Cougar: the post was genius, I agreed with it about 80% of the time and do see what you are say/typing. The ID card thing will most likely end up in court with a case titled : "US citizens VS. Government" as it IS a breach of our amendments. The Bush will be out my 2009 at the latest (January for oathie thingy) I'll give you +1 because it was a well thought out post that had proof and wasn't another crazy liberal, neo conservative post.
I do have one question to ask you on a personal level that I would like answered in a pm: Do you think that we (the US) set up 9-11? Simply asked so I can figure out why you made this post in the first place.
Last edited by Pernicious544 (2006-10-08 01:35:48)
No, the proper way to address the President in Mr. President. It's been that way for a long time. There was another tradition; the Marine guard for the President always face him.
They avoided doing it for Clinton. They do it for Bush.
Msnbc unbiased! ha ha, now thats entertaining!
They avoided doing it for Clinton. They do it for Bush.
Msnbc unbiased! ha ha, now thats entertaining!
Heres how that scenario is plausible. Barney Frank be convicted of having knowledge of the prostitution .. which he wasnt. Then for years while he had the prostitution ring many if not all Dems had knowledge and did nothing and even aided in the coverup. Then yes of course the politicians that had knowledge should be held accountable and the ones that aided in covering it up have to go. The problem is these 2 situations have nothing in common. Barney shouldt be in office becuase he used his congressional power to get Gobie out of tickets but according to him he didnt know about the prostituion.ATG wrote:
How is one mans perversion a failure of the Republican party?
Did you not see my post about Barney Frank?
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pid=832359#p832359
Does that mean I can claim failure of democrats because that guy is still in office???
I think we can all come to the conclusion that both sides are equally corrupt. When people figure that out, perhaps some sort of overhaul can come about.
I believe its a prequisite to becoming a politician. Theres apoints checklist like clubbed a baby seal, 10 passes from EPA regulations for chemical companies, a few drug posessions and hookers erased, 20 times lying under oath, at least 10 kickbacks and misapropriations of campaign funds, and then you can meet the minimum requirements for house of representatives. For a huge extra credit scumbag points give huge no bid contracts to companies you have ties with with a multiplier based on how many people die.Cougar wrote:
I think we can all come to the conclusion that both sides are equally corrupt. When people figure that out, perhaps some sort of overhaul can come about.
It's interesting that you quote George Orwell who was staunchly pro-West/anti-Communist.
I don't think George Orwell would be particularily happy with the way that the world is going right now...
ATG wrote:
You ideas are bad enough, you should consider at least trying to present them well.
Man, what a hypocrit. You bitch about spelling, but you miss your own typos. Either that or your grammar is deplorable.ATG wrote:
No, the proper way to address the President in Mr. President.
Ironic, eh?
Haven't you heard of ATG's blood alcahol level?jonsimon wrote:
ATG wrote:
You ideas are bad enough, you should consider at least trying to present them well.Man, what a hypocrit. You bitch about spelling, but you miss your own typos. Either that or your grammar is deplorable.ATG wrote:
No, the proper way to address the President in Mr. President.
Ironic, eh?
Yes anyone who misspells or misuses the word is should be shot.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Haven't you heard of ATG's blood alcahol level?jonsimon wrote:
ATG wrote:
You ideas are bad enough, you should consider at least trying to present them well.Man, what a hypocrit. You bitch about spelling, but you miss your own typos. Either that or your grammar is deplorable.ATG wrote:
No, the proper way to address the President in Mr. President.
Ironic, eh?
Of course, that depends on what the definition of is is.
I was trying to say I stopped reading his post at fag.
Yes 2 A.M. on a Sat. night I'm usually pretty well oiled, or asleep.
"Three major causes led to the eventual collapse of the Roman Empire. First, the empire became too large to be governed from a single center, but splitting it into western and eastern halves automatically destroyed the monopolistic character of its power. Second, at the same time, the prolonged period of imperial hubris generated a cultural hedonism that gradually sapped the political elite's will to greatness. Third, sustained inflation also undermined the capacity of the system to sustain itself without social sacrifice, which the citizens were no longer prepared to make. Cultural decay, political division, and financial inflation conspired to make Rome vulnerable even to the barbarians in its near abroad."
-Zbigniew Brzezinski (The Grand Chessboard)
Do I really need to say that history repeats itself?
On a side note: The Kingdom of Heaven will never fall to corruption or complacency.
-Zbigniew Brzezinski (The Grand Chessboard)
Do I really need to say that history repeats itself?
On a side note: The Kingdom of Heaven will never fall to corruption or complacency.
Last edited by SpanktorTheGreat (2006-10-08 09:01:49)
That first post was awfully cynical, I'd say.
I certainly hope you are right.SpanktorTheGreat wrote:
On a side note: The Kingdom of Heaven will never fall to corruption or complacency.
I said that you were inferring it and then went on to you did not say it outright, but it is obvious what you believe.Cougar wrote:
Please quote, where I said in this thread, that 9/11 was staged. Until then, your arguement has fallen apart.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
You also believe that the government staged the attack on 9/11 to go to war with Iraq. Your entire arguemt rests on the base that this is true; without it, your entire debate falls apart. There were already several dozens of reasons that we could have gone to war with them. There are easier ways of convincing the country to go to war. I guarantee that anybody who reads this with an IQ>130 will be able to think of at least 3 different ways that the government could have either staged some other type of attak, or falsified intelligence in order to take us to war.
You also believe that the government staged the attack on 9/11 to go to war with Iraq. Your entire arguemt rests on the base that this is true; without it, your entire debate falls apart. There were already several dozens of reasons that we could have gone to war with them. There are easier ways of convincing the country to go to war. I guarantee that anybody who reads this with an IQ>130 will be able to think of at least 3 different ways that the government could have either staged some other type of attak, or falsified intelligence in order to take us to war. Seriously...use common sense people!
When I went on to criticize this, you never denied it. I assumed that that was what you were trying to say when you keep saying that we went to war with Iraq for oil and that it is a conspiracy.
Don't take my word for it. I'm just repeating what Jesus said.ATG wrote:
I certainly hope you are right.SpanktorTheGreat wrote:
On a side note: The Kingdom of Heaven will never fall to corruption or complacency.
Ohh, so you assumed that's what I think. So you judged my entire post and idea that I was trying to get across on what you assumed my personal beliefs on a un-mentioned subject were. As Maddox would say, that makes you a presumptuous cock.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
I said that you were inferring it and then went on to you did not say it outright, but it is obvious what you believe.Cougar wrote:
Please quote, where I said in this thread, that 9/11 was staged. Until then, your argument has fallen apart.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
You also believe that the government staged the attack on 9/11 to go to war with Iraq. Your entire arguemt rests on the base that this is true; without it, your entire debate falls apart. There were already several dozens of reasons that we could have gone to war with them. There are easier ways of convincing the country to go to war. I guarantee that anybody who reads this with an IQ>130 will be able to think of at least 3 different ways that the government could have either staged some other type of attak, or falsified intelligence in order to take us to war.
You also believe that the government staged the attack on 9/11 to go to war with Iraq. Your entire arguemt rests on the base that this is true; without it, your entire debate falls apart. There were already several dozens of reasons that we could have gone to war with them. There are easier ways of convincing the country to go to war. I guarantee that anybody who reads this with an IQ>130 will be able to think of at least 3 different ways that the government could have either staged some other type of attak, or falsified intelligence in order to take us to war. Seriously...use common sense people!
When I went on to criticize this, you never denied it. I assumed that that was what you were trying to say when you keep saying that we went to war with Iraq for oil and that it is a conspiracy.
Be careful then. Cougar has voiced difficulties with the 9/11 conspiracies.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
I said that you were inferring it and then went on to you did not say it outright, but it is obvious what you believe.Cougar wrote:
Please quote, where I said in this thread, that 9/11 was staged. Until then, your arguement has fallen apart.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
You also believe that the government staged the attack on 9/11 to go to war with Iraq. Your entire arguemt rests on the base that this is true; without it, your entire debate falls apart. There were already several dozens of reasons that we could have gone to war with them. There are easier ways of convincing the country to go to war. I guarantee that anybody who reads this with an IQ>130 will be able to think of at least 3 different ways that the government could have either staged some other type of attak, or falsified intelligence in order to take us to war.
You also believe that the government staged the attack on 9/11 to go to war with Iraq. Your entire arguemt rests on the base that this is true; without it, your entire debate falls apart. There were already several dozens of reasons that we could have gone to war with them. There are easier ways of convincing the country to go to war. I guarantee that anybody who reads this with an IQ>130 will be able to think of at least 3 different ways that the government could have either staged some other type of attak, or falsified intelligence in order to take us to war. Seriously...use common sense people!
When I went on to criticize this, you never denied it. I assumed that that was what you were trying to say when you keep saying that we went to war with Iraq for oil and that it is a conspiracy.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Cough...
"Bumps Cougars thread"...cough
"Bumps Cougars thread"...cough
QFTCougar wrote:
It said as I said, that I will protect the United States constitution from all enemies, foriegn and domestic.... I still hold that sentence in the highest of regards. It does not say "I will protect George W. Bush and his administration and policies from all foriegn terrorists.", it says the constitution. When a President, agency, administation, ect, unlawfully infringes on that document and what it says, especially when they make steps towards voiding or ignoring it, it is our solem duty as American's to stand up and protect it and by God I fucking will.
I don't see a low-life terrorists abolishing our constitution and bill of rights any time soon, nor do I think they have the means, but this administration sure as fuck does, and has.
I'd love to add to this but it looks like everything I'd say has been said, I fully agree, and it's a relief to see more people are concerned. I think it's about time. It's everyone's job to be on top of this shit regardless of their nation.
Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-10-09 02:25:51)
When somebody says that you believe somthing that you do not, why don't you try denying it BEFORE things get out of hand.Cougar wrote:
Ohh, so you assumed that's what I think. So you judged my entire post and idea that I was trying to get across on what you assumed my personal beliefs on a un-mentioned subject were. As Maddox would say, that makes you a presumptuous cock.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
I said that you were inferring it and then went on to you did not say it outright, but it is obvious what you believe.Cougar wrote:
Please quote, where I said in this thread, that 9/11 was staged. Until then, your argument has fallen apart.
When I went on to criticize this, you never denied it. I assumed that that was what you were trying to say when you keep saying that we went to war with Iraq for oil and that it is a conspiracy.
Last edited by Deadmonkiefart (2006-10-10 23:42:13)
Why invade for oil?.. seriously. Are you suggesting we take out OPEC all together? Do you think they are just going to stop giving us the OIL we need? I have got news for you, their only major export is oil. When they stop selling it to us they stop existing not from invasion but from poverty. Can someone please explain this big gaping hole in logic? Oil producing nations want to sell us oil just as much as we want to buy it. They only turn the faucet off to keep the market stable. When has the US ever been denied Oil? OPEC controls the market. Refining cost will always be the only control we have. We buy our oil from Iraq still.
Xbone Stormsurgezz