someone please say something borderline offensive that we can debate\argue over, this place is nothing without the heated ideological debates...!! Posted by glassman on :
the sky is green
"there are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psycopath that cannot be easily duplicated by a normal, kindly family man who just comes into work every day , and has a job to do..."
Tery Pratchett in Small Gods
also from the same:
"Many feel that they have been called to the priesthood, but what they really hear is an inner voice saying, "It's indoor work with no heavy lifting, do you want to be a ploughman like your father?" "
Posted by kevin954 on :
haha, nice, I agree with the last two statements. And if your living where I am, the sky really does have a greenish tint on summer smog days. :>
Posted by Art on :
quote:Originally posted by kevin954: someone please say something borderline offensive that we can debate\argue over, this place is nothing without the heated ideological debates...!!
I can't think of anything less than offensive. Posted by Ktrain420 on :
come on Art I know ya got one in ya.........lol
Posted by Art on :
This is close to borderline offensive:
Sexual incest, between a parent and child, can sometimes be mutually beneficial to both parties. Posted by glassman on :
yeah, if you are trying to breed spotted cats... Posted by Art on :
Or lame ones.
Not breeding - just sex - promotes closeness between parent and child.
Some father daughter sexual relationships appear beneficial to both, but most induce trauma in the child to varying degrees.
Just saying we shouldn't shoot all incestuous parents - just those that cause trauma in the child.
Posted by kevin954 on :
sorry Art, can you explain how some father-daughter sexual relationships appear beneficial to both?
Posted by Art on :
quote:Originally posted by kevin954: sorry Art, can you explain how some father-daughter sexual relationships appear beneficial to both?
According to research interviews, some father-daughter incestuous pairs report a long close relationship with sexual involvement that both parties said was a positve in their lives, and neither showe dany harmful efects from it.
All sexual behavior is instinctively based, where the expression of sex is modified somewhat by learning but not in its instinctive basis. A culture may dictate sex once a year only, but few will be able to learn such control - goes too much against instinct. There are positive instincts urging sex, and negative or anxiety instincts, prohibiting sex.
Women have more anxiety instincts related to sex and more frequently have frigidity than men.
Men have more aggressivity related to more positive sexual instincts, and thus are more assertive in courtship, more promiscuous than women, and also are more likely to be rapists than are women.
Some people have strong anxiety instincts related to homsexuality - and could not engage in such acts. Others lacking these instincts can be bisexual. Still others have anxiety instincts in relation to hetrosexuality and can only be homosexual.
Some parents and children have strong anxiety instincts in relation to incest, and can not do it. When a parent does not have this anxiety instinct, and thus could easily have sex with their child, two cases can result:
The child does have the anxiety instinct and is traumatized by the sex
The child does not have the anxiety instinct and is either indifferent to, or even enjoys, the sex.
Most parents and children have anxiety instincts in relation to incest, and can't do it.
Different strokes for different folks. Posted by kevin954 on :
dear god
Posted by kevin954 on :
nice, very nice
Posted by jordanreed on :
blah,blah,blah,,,,... try saying sumthin that aint plagerized.. Posted by Art on :
quote:Originally posted by jordanreed: blah,blah,blah,,,,... try saying sumthin that aint plagerized..
Try saying something that is true. My material is original, which anyone who knew the field would immediately recognize. Posted by kevin954 on :
haha, except those other times when you would just blatantly copy something off the internet an then "forget" to source it...
Posted by glassman on :
this is all fine for the barnyard, let's talk about flat tax reform instead.... Posted by Art on :
quote:Originally posted by kevin954: haha, except those other times when you would just blatantly copy something off the internet an then "forget" to source it...
I'll try once again to explain it to you - Canadians need repeated explanation - information in the public domain, as well known and accepted, does not need to be reference-cited. This includes accepted historical data, "such as Columbus landed on the US soil in 1492". The mathematical historical material I presented, that you refer to, that I gave without references, was of this nature. There were no original ideas in this material, mine or anyone else's, just a chronology of events in mathematical development.
Also, If I say something about Einstein's theroy of relativity, I need not cite a paper by Einstein as a reference. In the public domain.
Look at my posts on gun control. I do not cite references for much of the data I posted - no need to.
I have not plagerized in my posts, and have posted ideas that are original, which are so brilliant that others assume are from other sources that I stole from, as was my post on sexual instincts. Posted by Peaser01 on :
We'll call this group NAFDLA
Posted by kevin954 on :
Yeah, you might be able to get away with not refrencing FACTs in the public domain. But, like it or not, you did plagerize an entire article. That article might have been stating historical facts or a timeline of events, but if you think it is acceptable to copy ENTIRE articles (NOT FACTS or information in the public domain), you have no idea what the **** your talking about.
Well, more than likely, its not a matter of not knowing what the **** your talking about, its more like yankee pride.
Find those WMDs yet??? Ahhh, thought so...
Posted by Art on :
Not true. I am beginning to believe you are unable to tell the truth - you insist on slanting, distorting and spinning. You must rigidly fit everything into your fixed preconceptions or you just can't seem to deal with it.
I excerpted some historical facts, that are in the public domain, from an article - I did not plagerize the whole article. Could have gotten these historical facts from anyone of many different sources - this is not original material, and, I repeat, its availablility from many different sources is what puts it in the public domain and thus makes referencing it unneccessary.
Many different history books say Columbus came to america in 1492. If I say Columbus came to America in 1492 you would say I plagerized this information since I did not reference my source.
Nonsense. Posted by glassman on :
such as Columbus landed on the US soil in 1492"
well Art, the US didn't exist until oh 350+ years later,
AND,
in 1492?
he landed on San Salvidor, Cuba, and Hispanola... he wrecked the Santa Maria and was forced to return without landing on the mainland that trip...
seems he never did land on what would eventually be US soil....Central and South America....
Posted by kevin954 on :
"You must rigidly fit everything into your fixed preconceptions or you just can't seem to deal with it."
Look in the mirror. Please.
"I excerpted some historical facts, that are in the public domain, from an article - I did not plagerize the whole article."
No, you quite litterally copied and pasted paragraphs of the article (if not the whole article, I dont think you palgerized the title ), not 'the facts'.
Posted by glassman on :
says Cabot discovered the North American mainland, in 1494 and that was 4 years BEFORE Columbus even got to the central american mainland, but the Pope gave Spain the whole deal any way... ya just gotta love the "spin" (it's what makes the world go 'round...
Posted by DiQuiRiesco on :
First off, any red blooded american knows full well this was always U.S. soil. Second, who cares what anglo saxon claims discovery of soil that would soon be inhabited by free men. Third, everyone with a functioning brain knows asiatic nomads were the first humans to walk upon U.S. soil.
Posted by glassman on :
yeah, asiatic nomads that came over from indonesia across the south pacific were first, then the ones that came over thru siberia were second..
how they hangin DQR? been awhile...
Posted by DiQuiRiesco on :
Been well glass, having computer problems due to my refusal to buy another one every two years. But other than that, happier than I have ever been. How've you been? As you said, some time has elapsed since we last conversed.
Posted by glassman on :
i was just gettin' ready to shut down... hmmm.. i see the pentagon is thinking about reducing troops in Iraq, would be nice if we can pull it off...hope they don't rush it...
Posted by DiQuiRiesco on :
It has been the plan all along. We pull out when they can handle the situation. I am sure you have noticed the recently unpublished news of common Iraqi business owners shooting "insurgents" during an attack. At this point all we are there to do is to be a security blanket. They really can do it on their own they just needed someone to show them they could. Ever known an abused woman, child, or even pet for that matter? Same psychology really. They (Iraqi populous) were convinced of their own inability for so long the believed it. They are now starting to believe in their ability... therefore we can start to leave.
Posted by glassman on :
i hope that is the case DQR,
i also hope they apreciate what we did enough to help with the tab...
Tom Delay? not good... the dogs may be just about caguht up to the fox on him...
i'm looking at another serious t'storm day today..
Posted by Art on :
Glassman.....such as Columbus landed on the US soil in 1492"
well Art, the US didn't exist until oh 350+ years later,
AND,
in 1492?
he landed on San Salvidor, Cuba, and Hispanola...
Art: Yes, I corrected myself before you corrected me - see the thread. Columbus landed in America - the history books say Columbus discovered America in 1492, which we know is not true - Vikings were here before.
BTW America includes Central and South America, so my statement, before your correction of it, is correct. NIt...nit...nit....nit,....pick.
I can't deal with such crap - my previous post deleted, Kevin's and your nonsense - out of here.
Posted by Lucy Lastic on :
DQR
quote:First off, any red blooded american knows full well this was always U.S. soil.
that's preposterous.
my favorite detail about columbus is how the natives came out in canoes to greet his ship, bearing gifts. he wrote back to his investors saying the natives were very docile and generous and would be EASY TO CONQUER and enslave.
these were the first ideas of our glorious white man, at the inception of the "free world".. it's been an orwellian nightmare from the get-go.
Posted by Lucy Lastic on :
definitely unusual (&vaguely entertaining) to see art kick up a hissy fit.. (thought he even sounded a little choked up..) and storm off. think i actually heard a door slam.
Posted by Lucy Lastic on :
quote:my favorite detail about columbus is how the natives came out in canoes to greet his ship, bearing gifts. he wrote back to his investors saying the natives were very docile and generous and would be EASY TO CONQUER and enslave.
these were the first ideas of our glorious white man, at the inception of the "free world".. it's been an orwellian nightmare from the get-go.
the united takes of america
Posted by kevin954 on :
"I can't deal with such crap - my previous post deleted, Kevin's and your nonsense - out of here."
hissy fit indeed, he IS smart so he's probably not used to be being beaten like that...
Posted by turbokid on :
i read an article that over 300,000 protesters marched in baghdad this weekend telling the US to get out now. couple of things to consider, we are not welcome, for the first time they have been able to protest without getting killed, the iraqi police kept order not america, sounds like some progress towards peace. hopefully
"the light at the end of the tunnel may just be a train heading your way"
-turbo
Posted by Lucy Lastic on :
300,000 protesters.. wonder if fox will report it...
i like your post-script.
Posted by DiQuiRiesco on :
quote:Originally posted by Lucy Lastic: 300,000 protesters.. wonder if fox will report it...
i like your post-script.
Obviously you do not watch Fox news. Fox aired the story. They also aired the side of the story that you are unwilling to accept. Nearly half of those protesters were carrying signs denouncing Saddamm.
Glass, in response to your concern that Iraq should bare some of the financial burdern of the war: I doubt you will see a check made out anytime soon. What I think we will see could be likened to the planting of a tree. An investment if you will. Contemplate the benefits to our economy when a free iraq starts importing not only our goods but our services. We are not in this to get a quick payoff, we are infact in this to free people and secure our nation... there are many sides to security. I assure you our financial rewards for this good deed will not be minute.
Posted by glassman on :
i tend to expect the worst, then i don't get disappointed...
Posted by Lucy Lastic on :
quote:Obviously you do not watch Fox news.
LL: um.. yeah. that's why i said "i wonder.."
See the films "the corporation" and "outfoxed" and then talk to me about fox news.
DQR: Fox aired the story. They also aired the side of the story that you are unwilling to accept.
LL: oh, now you and i are old acquaintances, and you know all about what i'm willing and unwilling to accept?
DQR: Nearly half of those protesters were carrying signs denouncing Saddamm.
LL: OH! excellent. that makes it ok for us to have killed over ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND of their neighbors, children, parents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents and lovers.
your logic is as moronic as bush's "either you're for us or you're against us." (by "your logic" i'm refering to the implication that anyone against the US occupation must be saying that saddam hussein was a good guy.) (or that any iraqi who hates sadam, loves the US occupation.)
we have the worst president in the history of the US. he doesn't read. or travel. he didn't even own a passport until he was president. he is an extremely stupid man. his only gift is for appealing to the least intelligent members of our population. harvard and yale are hard to get into (unless your dad is the president) but easy to get grades in. it's easier to get a C at yale than it is to get a C at UC Berkeley. Bush would have failed out of UC Berkeley.
GW's failed business were bailed out by saudis.
he relies on others for information. the administration is full of crooks. halliburton was doing business w/ iraq even when the sanctions were imposed. cheney was ceo then. when cheney became vice president he left halliburton, they paid him something like.. i don't know 4 million? (want me to check?) seems like maybe he's been"paying them back" ever since. they got those contracts just HANDED to them.. no other companies able to bid.. this is the most blatent corruption.. how can ppl not see it? it's horrifying what's happening in this country.
the administration is comprised of oil men & war profiteers. 911 was great news for them. they were looking for a way to pin 911 on iraq b4 anyone had even planned a single funeral for a victim of 911. there was no evidence to support any of our reasons for attacking iraq. there was no connection btw bin laden and hussein (actually enemies). there was no imminent threat from iraq. it was all a pack of lies. this has been proven again and again. bush's dad is a member of the carlyle group, huge profiteers off of the iraq war. the level of lies/propaganda is appalling.. they lied about africa selling nuke goods to iraq. the patriot act combined with all the lies - is similar to soviet russia.
the media is part of the propaganda machine now. all those colored alerts.. MUSTARD ALERT! just to keep you home trembling on your couch. just like george orwell brilliantly predicted, the ruling force will create it's enemies. we created bin laden, we created hussein.
Posted by glassman on :
noticed today that Rumsfeld told troops in Iaq we aren't pulling out at all, and have no plans to...
that fits more with my theories...
Posted by turbokid on :
quote:Originally posted by Lucy Lastic:
quote:Obviously you do not watch Fox news.
LL: um.. yeah. that's why i said "i wonder.."
See the films "the corporation" and "outfoxed" and then talk to me about fox news.
DQR: Fox aired the story. They also aired the side of the story that you are unwilling to accept.
LL: oh, now you and i are old acquaintances, and you know all about what i'm willing and unwilling to accept?
DQR: Nearly half of those protesters were carrying signs denouncing Saddamm.
LL: OH! excellent. that makes it ok for us to have killed over ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND of their neighbors, children, parents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents and lovers.
your logic is as moronic as bush's "either you're for us or you're against us." (by "your logic" i'm refering to the implication that anyone against the US occupation must be saying that saddam hussein was a good guy.) (or that any iraqi who hates sadam, loves the US occupation.)
we have the worst president in the history of the US. he doesn't read. or travel. he didn't even own a passport until he was president. he is an extremely stupid man. his only gift is for appealing to the least intelligent members of our population. harvard and yale are hard to get into (unless your dad is the president) but easy to get grades in. it's easier to get a C at yale than it is to get a C at UC Berkeley. Bush would have failed out of UC Berkeley.
GW's failed business were bailed out by saudis.
he relies on others for information. the administration is full of crooks. halliburton was doing business w/ iraq even when the sanctions were imposed. cheney was ceo then. when cheney became vice president he left halliburton, they paid him something like.. i don't know 4 million? (want me to check?) seems like maybe he's been"paying them back" ever since. they got those contracts just HANDED to them.. no other companies able to bid.. this is the most blatent corruption.. how can ppl not see it? it's horrifying what's happening in this country.
the administration is comprised of oil men & war profiteers. 911 was great news for them. they were looking for a way to pin 911 on iraq b4 anyone had even planned a single funeral for a victim of 911. there was no evidence to support any of our reasons for attacking iraq. there was no connection btw bin laden and hussein (actually enemies). there was no imminent threat from iraq. it was all a pack of lies. this has been proven again and again. bush's dad is a member of the carlyle group, huge profiteers off of the iraq war. the level of lies/propaganda is appalling.. they lied about africa selling nuke goods to iraq. the patriot act combined with all the lies - is similar to soviet russia.
the media is part of the propaganda machine now. all those colored alerts.. MUSTARD ALERT! just to keep you home trembling on your couch. just like george orwell brilliantly predicted, the ruling force will create it's enemies. we created bin laden, we created hussein.
lucy, i couldnt agree with you more! what i dont understand is how could so many people be blind to the nonsense and lies. any rational thinking person can see that this war is about money, the US could care less about people suffering under a "tyrant" but if they are suffering under a tyrant who happens to sit on billions of dollars of oil and pose a threat to our beloved israel, they must be stopped. Whats intersting to note is who is getting the oil out of iraq..http://www.nogw.com/warforisrael.html
Posted by Nanny on :
Lucy, you could not have written truer words about President Bush!!!How in the world could so many people have been so stupid back in November. He is so laughing at these stupid tax payers padding his, Chenney's, Haliburton, and all the other crooked cronies pockets. It doesn't even sink into their thick heads he went AWOL !!! Nanny
Posted by glassman on :
they voted for him on the gay marriage issue...
every church in the country told the members to "save marriage"
the funny part was how everybody felt "sorry" for Cheney when it was pointed out that his daughter is openly gay.... even Bush himself says things like he won't tolerate discrimination of any kind...
this should tell you something about the average voter...
Posted by Nanny on :
Now, didn't the supporters for Bush scream to the world about his good morals?? Ha!Ha! Take a look at his morals... He cares nothing about the elderly, poor, or middle class working voters. This 3 class of citizens can hardly pay for utilities, gro., gas and insurance.
Posted by DiQuiRiesco on :
Lucy Lunatic, I don't know you, however I know your "kind" as I have been dealing with them and now you for a great many years. Please provide proof that the U.S has killed 100,000 innocent people during this battle. The number you give is absolute nonsense. Nonesence often being the crux of a liberal's arguement I expected this from you. Saddam killed over 100,000 innocent civilians in Iraq and this doesn't seem to bother you. Mass grave sites are still being found in Iraq from the years that Saddam was in power and you say nothing about this. Obviously your agenda has nothing to do with proteccting innocent people and has everything to do with furthering an anti-american cause.
Posted by glassman on :
Time Magazine.. Iraq Civilian Casualties? Who Knew? Does America prefer its media to ignore deaths caused by U.S. actions?
Wednesday, Dec. 08, 2004
But even as the killing of a single Iraqi, purported to be an insurgent, in a Fallujah mosque dominated almost a week of U.S. media coverage, the claim in the report in the respected British medical journal Lancet that the number of Iraqi civilians killed since the U.S. invasion may number as many as 98,000 rated hardly a mention even in news outlets that had been relatively critical of the war. The Lancet study, of course, was a scientific guesstimate based on incomplete data — the U.S. and its coalition partners have never kept a record of Iraqi civilian deaths. The Economist recently provided its own, more conservative estimate: 40,000 civilians dead.
the truth is probably somewhere in between....
A significantly lower total is reported by the organization Iraq Bodycount, which has tabulated news reports that show a total of around 15,000 civilian casualties since the war began. Even if that lower total was accurate, it suggests that Iraq has suffered at least five times the impact of 9/11 — and the fact that its population is one tenth that of the U.S. would magnify the impact to more like 50 times that of 9/11. Posted by keithsan on :
LOL this thread took a silly tangent.
Posted by glassman on :
it never had a direction...
Posted by glassman on :
Saddam killed over 100,000 innocent civilians in Iraq and this doesn't seem to bother you. Mass grave sites are still being found in Iraq from the years that Saddam was in power and you say nothing about this.
how does one tell the difference between Iranian and Iraqi graves? we sure did cheer him on when he was gassing Iranians.....
Posted by DiQuiRiesco on :
OK now we are down to 15,000 civilian casualties... far cry from a hundred grand.... like I said the number was absolute nonsense. True it is kinda tough to tell the difference between an Iranian grave site and an Iraqi one. If we count Iranians as a part of Saddam's deathcount the number grows quite a bit.
Posted by kevin954 on :
also... again to show I'm not anti-american... I'm betting thats civilians killed as a result of the war...
but not all those casualities are the fault of the US, I'm pretty sure insurgent suicide bombers take up a lot of that responsibility (remeber that bomb last spring that killed like 150+ people?)
Posted by Lucy Lastic on :
quote:OK now we are down to 15,000 civilian casualties... far cry from a hundred grand.... like I said the number was absolute nonsense.
hilarious. you're given 3 numbers and grab the lowest, with no scientific basis, only a personal emotional need to have the number come out lower. you don't seem to seek truth, only confirmation of your beliefs. (that's what they say most of us are doing, by the way.) ===================================== below, excerpts from the article. for the whole text go to: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6596
Civilian death toll in Iraq exceeds 100,000
The invasion of Iraq in March 2003 by coalition forces has lead to the death of at least 100,000 civilians, reveals the first scientific study to examine the issue. The majority of these deaths, which are in addition those normally expected from natural causes, illness and accidents, have been among women and children, finds the study, released early by The Lancet on Thursday.
The most common cause of death is as a direct result of violence, mostly caused by coalition air strikes, reveals the study of almost 1000 households scattered across Iraq. ...
The figure of 100,000 – estimated by extrapolating the surveyed households’ death toll to the whole population - is based on "conservative assumptions", notes Les Roberts at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, US, who led the study. That estimate excludes Falluja, a hotspot for violence. If the data from this town is included, the study points to about 200,000 excess deaths since the outbreak of war.
....
Jack Straw, the UK government’s foreign minister says the government will "examine with very great care" the results of the study. "It is, however, an estimate that is based on very different methodology from standard methodology for assessing causalities, namely on the number of people reported to have been killed at the time," he told the BBC.
One major project, www.iraqbodycount.net, estimates up to 16,300 deaths in Iraq due to coalition forces. But this collects data on deaths reported in the press only. “We've always maintained that the actual count must be much higher," says Scott Lipscomb, at Northwestern University, Illinois, US, who works on the project. "I am emotionally shocked but I have no trouble in believing that this many people have been killed," he told The New York Times.
GPS sampling The team of US and Iraqi scientists recorded mortality during the 15 months before the invasion and the 18 months afterwards. They carried out the survey of 988 Iraqi households in 33 different areas across Iraq in September 2004. Using a GPS (global positioning system) unit, the interviewers randomly selected towns within governates. They then visited the nearest 30 houses to the GPS point randomly selected.
Families living under one roof were asked about deaths in their household before and after the war. “Confirmation was sought to ensure that a large fraction of the reported deaths were not fabrications,” write the team. The interviewers did ask for death certificates, but only in two cases for each cluster of houses. This was because of concerns that implying the families were lying could trigger violence.
Posted by Lucy Lastic on :
orig. posted by Glassman:
quote:we sure did cheer him on when he was gassing Iranians.....
we did more than just cheer them on. we helped. we provided direct intel. "the idea was to keep the war going until they destroyed each other." said some admin. insider. the CIA provided satellite photos, signals intercepts. we helped iraq beat iran, and we chose to do this despite hussein's well-known atrocities.
WE WERE WILLING TO OVERLOOK GENOCIDE.
to say 10 years later (when it becomes politically useful to do so) that sadam is a tyrant and needs to be stopped is completely disingenuous.
pack of liars and crooks.
General Clarke said that while couples were still jumping hand-in-hand from the WTC to their deaths, the white house called him and said "pin it on Iraq."
It's alreadyknown that they were looking for a way to hit Iraq b4 911. So while americans were dying all these crooks could think of was "here's our chance."
meanwhile, DQR wants to debate the Iraqi death toll.
the following is from: http://www.mykeru.com/bodycount.html ....Figures for persons killed under the regime of Saddam Hussein.... The sort of person who raises this as an argument frequently includes some or all of the 500,000 persons who died as a direct result of U.N. sanctions against Iraq as victims of the regime itself. This exclusion is not intended as a defense of the Hussein regime. However, it is the rejection of a red herring argument that atrocities committed by a brutal regime excuses--even justifies--our own atrocities against the same victims. And yes, killing [even a mere] several thousand innocent people for reasons so obscure or erroneous that the rationale shifts over time from WMDs to liberation to "weapons related program activities" to the "terrorist flypaper" strategy to basically whatever, pretty much makes every death an atrocity.
the average age of the American soldier in Iraq is 27....demographically, Iraq's population, as of January 1, 2004 breaks down as:
In other words, four of ten civilians killed are children.
Posted by Lucy Lastic on :
oh by the way, i was wrong about haliburton having paid cheney 4 mill as a severance pay when he left, (a week b4 cheney took office as VP). correction: 45 MILL. FORTY FIVE MILLION..
oh, and it was in stock options. geee, wonder why haliburton got those contracts on a no-bid basis? any ethics organization will tell you one is meant to recuse oneself from governmental dealings where one has a clear conflict of interest.
the bush administration has the worst ethics record in the history of the US. this situation of having 2 oil executives running the gov't is historically unprecedented. a small number of companies are getting phenomenally, obscenely rich . and in return 2/3 - 3/4 of these companies give generously to the campaign. it's essentially a maffia operation at this point.
Posted by Lucy Lastic on :
kevin 954:
quote: ... I'm betting thats civilians killed as a result of the war...but not all those casualities are the fault of the US, I'm pretty sure insurgent suicide bombers take up a lot of that responsibility (remeber that bomb last spring that killed like 150+ people?)
no insurgent behavior would be happening if we were not occupying. we started the war. any resulting deaths are a result of the war that we started, with lies, and ulterior motives.
kevin954:
quote:... again to show I'm not anti-american
and again with this absurd "anti-american" idea. as if being against this war, or this administration of crooks, or the robbing of our precious civil liberties, or any of it at all -- is the equivalent of being ANTI-AMERICAN. the OPPOSITE is true. anyone who takes to the streets to fight injustice is fighting FOR america. the america worth loving. the one which deserves words like "freedom".
Posted by Lucy Lastic on :
damn, now i'm late.
Posted by kevin954 on :
hmmm, a post of mine seems to have dissapeared...
Posted by glassman on :
i saw it...not surprised, such language..you should be ashamed...
Posted by Lucy Lastic on :
wow, mine too. thank goodness. don't know what comes over me.
xo lucy sybillastic
ps... who does that anyway?
Posted by kevin954 on :
haha, I didn't think it was *that* offensive, at least not compared to some other things I've said and other people have said. Oh well, it was crude and this ain't my message board.
Posted by glassman on :
i thought it was pretty funny too...
Lucy i don't know what to say..... Posted by Lucy Lastic on :
wow, i said "thank goodness." .. ??.. me & my stocks are having an identity crisis today.. =======================================
G: Lucy i don't know what to say.....
L: shhhhh... don't say anything G... just relax...
Posted by glassman on :
leaving me speechless is quite an accomplishment....
Posted by blueranger on :
this war was a very smart move....it has saved america over and over... its never been said publicly but the war diverted the attention of the terrorits.
Now all those folks that say "lets kill americans" are all hoping in there car and driving to iraq.
normally these fellows would be trying to get on a plane and come to america but instead they are leaving sudia arabia, syria, lebanon, Iran, afganastan and traveling to fight the great satan in Iraq...
Its better to fight them there then here.
Posted by glassman on :
LOL yeah to be trained... we just have ten times a s many to deal with now and, they have new causes to get "worked up" over...
motivation.......
Posted by turbokid on :
i thought this quote from osama was pretty interesting. when he says government within a government... well ill leave that up to you OSAMA BIN LADEN CLAIMS HE'S BEING FRAMED "I have already said that I am not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act. There exists a government within the government of the United States. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks.... The United States should trace the perpetrators of these attacks to those persons who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own nation could survive. - Osama Bin Laden (Source: BBC)
Posted by glassman on :
i don't believe that turbokid...
osama hated US for a lot of reasons...starting when we didn't set him up in Afghanistan after the war. he was fighting the Russians on our dime then...
and then when his own king/prince whatever hired US for the first gulf war, instead of arming him to protect the kuwait border...that was to keep him from gaining power inside Saudi Arabia...
Posted by Lucy Lastic on :
yeah sure he hated us,
but that attack .. something wasn't right about it. the way the buildings came straight down just like a controlled demolition? those live reports of ppl saying "that wasn't a commercial airliner! definitely not a commercial airliner.. grey.. no windows..." one of those was on CNN the morning of the attacks then never heard on mainstream press again.. ? and the firemen hearing internal explosions? and the engineers who said the jet fuel would have been burnt out in the first 15 min, and after that it just would have been desks and walls burning, not hot enough to melt steel...
and how few ppl there were inside compared to how many could have been... and how there was no airliner fuselage at the pentagon.. and those stock market shorts... or whatever that was.. and how all you have to do is follow the money...and see who benefited from all of it...
add all of that to my deep seated impulse to believe in a conspiracy (over a pack of guys with box cutters) and it's pretty much an open and shut case.
cheney's silent coup. ================
meeeeeeanwhile, didn't we have some vid. footage of osama claiming responsibility after the attacks??... i recall it seemed sketchy somehow.. but... didn't that happen? i'm confused. (not to mention depressed. purl was right, the market is going to hell and taking us with it!)
Posted by glassman on :
yes it's very tuff trading right now.... the MM's are to blame LOL...JK
yes osam has claimed responsibilty...
i was surprised that so few people were actually killed too..that has never been 'splained very well...initial reports/estimates were saying 20K peoples....
i don't take that as proof of anything, except people were getting the heck outa dodge, and the cops & fireman were right there helping...
Posted by turbokid on :
i have been compiling articles of inconsistancies about sept 11th that include what lucy was saying and alot more, there was a little more going on as well. i will post when i complete it... Posted by m1ke on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: the sky is green
"there are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psycopath that cannot be easily duplicated by a normal, kindly family man who just comes into work every day , and has a job to do..."
Tery Pratchett in Small Gods
also from the same:
"Many feel that they have been called to the priesthood, but what they really hear is an inner voice saying, "It's indoor work with no heavy lifting, do you want to be a ploughman like your father?" "
ahh, i think pratchett is great, i met him once!
have you read "guards! guards!"
Posted by glassman on :
this one was my first....i like it
i stuck it in between reading book 5 & 6 of Jordan's Wheel of Time....(re-reading this series cuz he's supposedly coming out with #11 this fall)and i don't re-read many books especially when they amount to 7 or 8 thousnd pages
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
), not 'the facts'.