NationStates Jolt Archive

Its bad enough Bush permitted 911 played the guitar for 5 days instead of saving drowning people in New Orlerans and is busy trying to advance his Armaggedon scenario in the mideast but NOW Bush is gonna let the entire easternn seaboard and no doubt ALL of Europe to sink from Global Warming--can America and the world suffer this fool much longer?

Climate Change Is Real and Must Be Addressed Now

David Ignatius -- "The warnings are coming from frogs and beetles, from melting ice and changing ocean currents, and from scientists and responsible politicians around the world. And yet what is the U.S. government doing about global warming? Nothing. That should shock the conscience of Americans."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030701199.html

http://www.blamonet.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Retard_Win.jpg

One more reason why i hate the US...

http://www.blamonet.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Retard_Win.jpg
I dont click on links from strangers

One more reason why i hate the US...
Bush isnt the US--hes a Demon whose possessing our Democracy

NOW Bush is gonna let the entire easternn seaboard and no doubt ALL of Europe to sink from Global Warming
No doubt.

I dont click on links from strangers

What about this one?
http://www.catharsiscomic.com/
And technically, you'd probably never click a link on the internet if that were true.

http://www.blamonet.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Retard_Win.jpg

game, set, match!

I dont click on links from strangers
It's no link, it's a picture that reads
"Arguing on the internet is like running in the special Olympics - Even if you win you're still retarded"

What about this one?
http://www.catharsiscomic.com/
And technically, you'd probably never click a link on the internet if that were true.
links from neocons exposes ones computer to FatherLand Security Surveliance

game, set, match!
not quite--I didnt click on it:p

links from neocons exposes ones computer to FatherLand Security Surveliance
You should start using the Patriot Search (http://blog.outer-court.com/patriot/) search engine much more American it is than Google.

It's no link, it's a picture that reads
"Arguing on the internet is like running in the special Olympics - Even if you win you're still retarded"
I saw that and tho its funny I thought it was a bit insulting to oppressed retards the world over

links from neocons exposes ones computer to FatherLand Security Surveliance

The simple act of you knowing of such an agency leads me to believe you will get a knock at your door any minute. Better pick up and move, also destroy your computer. They can search through and find everything you have ever typed you know. Hurry better do it quickly!:eek:

You should start using the Patriot Search (http://blog.outer-court.com/patriot/) search engine much more American it is than Google.
another neocon link:eek:

The simple act of you knowing of such an agency leads me to believe you will get a knock at your door any minute. Better pick up and move, also destroy your computer. They can search through and find everything you have ever typed you know. Hurry better do it quickly!:eek:
my computer is password protected yo;)

Hey Romulous, maybe you'll like this:

go to Google
type in 'miserable failure'
click im feeling lucky
loololololololololooloo :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

links from neocons exposes ones computer to FatherLand Security Surveliance

...I think I get the idea...

Hey Romulous, maybe you'll like this:

go to Google
type in 'miserable failure'
click im feeling lucky
loololololololololooloo :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
all the internet rumors told me that link leads to Bush:mad:

my computer is password protected yo;)
Ooh, just a simple password? The Feds can easily hack that

Ooh, just a simple password? The Feds can easily hack that
the Feds have no idea how dirty my mind is;)

http://www.blamonet.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Retard_Win.jpg

That picture reflects much worse on the person that posts it than on those towards whom it is directed, for belittling the accomplishments of the mentally challenged. You should be ashamed of yourself.

That picture reflects much worse on the person that posts it than on those towards whom it is directed, for belittling the accomplishments of the mentally challenged. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Last time I heard the poster of this pic is a teenager. Correct me if I'm wrong but don't teenagers have immunity to feeling ashamed? I know I didn't really give a crap as a teenager.

That picture reflects much worse on the person that posts it than on those towards whom it is directed, for belittling the accomplishments of the mentally challenged. You should be ashamed of yourself.
on a mindless level the pic is incredibly funny but its also incredibly meanspirited too--especially since Id take a full fledged retard as President over Bush any day of the week

on a mindless level the pic is incredibly funny but its also incredibly meanspirited too--especially since Id take a full fledged retard as President over Bush any day of the week

I think this is mean spirited too! I am sending a note home to your parents....

I think this is mean spirited too! I am sending a note home to your parents....
But Im just Fighting the Dark Forces that have taken over America

Btw I dont like being referred to as a "Member" under my avator--can I change it?

But Im just Fighting the Dark Forces that have taken over America


Ok Superman time for bedtime. I told you not to drink soda this late in the evening. It makes you to wired to sleep.

Btw I dont like being referred to as a "Member" under my avator--can I change it?

Nah the forums give you that "name" as a relation to your postings. So I guess you must be a member?! Who knows, I don't make the rules here....

Ok Superman time for bedtime. I told you not to drink soda this late in the evening. It makes you to wired to sleep.
so does cocaine:headbang:

Nah the forums give you that "name" as a relation to your postings. So I guess you must be a member?! Who knows, I don't make the rules here....
how long do I have to be a "Member"

how long do I have to be a "Member"

I think for you possibly 3". I am waiting for independent verification of this fact. Any volunteers?

I think for you possibly 3". I am waiting for independent verification of this fact. Any volunteers?

:rolleyes:

I laugh heartily at this thread and threadee.

What about this one?
http://www.catharsiscomic.com/
And technically, you'd probably never click a link on the internet if that were true.
Worst. Online comic. Ever.

Worst. Online comic. Ever.

Eh, you'd be suprised...

Btw I dont like being referred to as a "Member" under my avator--can I change it?
Are you talking about a text-change operation?
:D

Nyuk. Oh well, ho-hum.

Are you talking about a text-change operation?
:D

Nyuk. Oh well, ho-hum.

Worst...Pun...EVAR!

I laugh heartily at this thread and threadee.
first they laughed

then they attacked

and then
they were assimialated

Are you talking about a text-change operation?
:D

Nyuk. Oh well, ho-hum.
:D

Worst...Pun...EVAR!
And for that joke, i should just drop dead. *nods solemnly*

But since i won't, i'll instead point out that, sorta like Rumsfeld put it,
"As you know, you go to *post* with the *joke* you have, not the *joke* you might want or wish to have at a later time."

I didnt get Dumbsfelds pun

I didnt get Dumbsfelds pun
The beauty/tragedy of his quote is that his assessment at the time (obviously the one i lifted) wasn't a conscious effort at sick humour then.
This one, however ....

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know." (unO3dited)

in conjunction with these

"Learn to say 'I don't know.' If used when appropriate, it will be often."

"I don't know what the facts are but somebody's certainly going to sit down with him and find out what he knows that they may not know, and make sure he knows what they know that he may not know."

and this one

"If I know the answer I'll tell you the answer, and if I don't, I'll just respond, cleverly."

and even this one, for clarity

"If I said yes, that would then suggest that that might be the only place where it might be done which would not be accurate, necessarily accurate. It might also not be inaccurate, but I'm disinclined to mislead anyone."

I suspect a distinct pattern here. *nods*

You are a member until 400 posts when you become the awe-inspiring title of "some-what deadly"

The beauty/tragedy of his quote is that his assessment at the time (obviously the one i lifted) wasn't a conscious effort at sick humour then.
This one, however ....

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know." (unO3dited)

in conjunction with these

"Learn to say 'I don't know.' If used when appropriate, it will be often."

"I don't know what the facts are but somebody's certainly going to sit down with him and find out what he knows that they may not know, and make sure he knows what they know that he may not know."

and this one

"If I know the answer I'll tell you the answer, and if I don't, I'll just respond, cleverly."

and even this one, for clarity

"If I said yes, that would then suggest that that might be the only place where it might be done which would not be accurate, necessarily accurate. It might also not be inaccurate, but I'm disinclined to mislead anyone."

I suspect a distinct pattern here. *nods*
yeah its called Lying

You are a member until 400 posts when you become the awe-inspiring title of "some-what deadly"
I cant think of 400 things to say

yeah its called Lying
Probably why i bolded it ... ;)

So should i stop jacking this thread? I have a few links that corroborate somewhat with your OP, if yer int'rested.

I thank you for the links and I dont believe in the concept of thread jacking cause in my conception a post is like an individual life and no one has a right to interfear with its natural growth pattern

I thank you for the links and I dont believe in the concept of thread jacking cause in my conception a post is like an individual life and no one has a right to interfear with its natural growth pattern
That's an interesting post.

...
M'kay, here ...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0309_060309_bering_sea.html
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/xpeditions/atlas/index.html?Parent=usofam&Rootmap=usak&Mode=d&SubMode=w
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article350361.ece
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-beringsea10mar10,1,5899731.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
http://www.bbsr.edu/pubs/cdi04/cdi04acid/cdi04acid.html
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?2682
http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/1102198.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74#more-74
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=76

All of them are on my current thread about North Slope turning slush - conspiracy?
And there's more in the archives (i think) if you feel like using those, under my name and a few others. Knock yourself out.

I thank you for the links and I dont believe in the concept of thread jacking cause in my conception a post is like an individual life and no one has a right to interfear with its natural growth pattern

...Ummm....

You know what...can I just call you weird? It'd calm my brain down. I don't know why, I'm used to weird people (myself included), you're just off-kilter though...

That's an interesting post.

...
M'kay, here ...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0309_060309_bering_sea.html
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/xpeditions/atlas/index.html?Parent=usofam&Rootmap=usak&Mode=d&SubMode=w
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article350361.ece
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-beringsea10mar10,1,5899731.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
http://www.bbsr.edu/pubs/cdi04/cdi04acid/cdi04acid.html
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?2682
http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/1102198.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74#more-74
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=76

All of them are on my current thread about North Slope turning slush - conspiracy?
And there's more in the archives (i think) if you feel like using those, under my name and a few others. Knock yourself out.
you are informed and liberated

...Ummm....

You know what...can I just call you weird? It'd calm my brain down. I don't know why, I'm used to weird people (myself included), you're just off-kilter though...
:cool:

you are informed and liberated
Thanks.
As you know, (pun intended) that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Thanks.
As you know, (pun intended) that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Stay the Course;)

Stay the Course;)
You know i live in "Saint Joe" Hazelwood country, right? ;)

You know i live in "Saint Joe" Hazelwood country, right? ;)
:confused:

Its bad enough Bush permitted 911 played the guitar for 5 days instead of saving drowning people in New Orlerans and is busy trying to advance his Armaggedon scenario in the mideast but NOW Bush is gonna let the entire easternn seaboard and no doubt ALL of Europe to sink from Global Warming--can America and the world suffer this fool much longer?

Climate Change Is Real and Must Be Addressed Now

David Ignatius -- "The warnings are coming from frogs and beetles, from melting ice and changing ocean currents, and from scientists and responsible politicians around the world. And yet what is the U.S. government doing about global warming? Nothing. That should shock the conscience of Americans."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030701199.html
:rolleyes:

Silly liberals. Is there a climate change in the works? Somewhat, yes. But there is no proof that humanity is responsible. It is far, far, FAAAR more likely to be a NATURAL climate change. A cycle, if you will. We've recorded weather and the like for only the past century or so. I highly doubt we have enough information to make such a claim.

WITH THAT SAID

I am not encouraging excessive pollution. Pollution has proven detrimental effects on the health of humans, and as such must be curtailed. But is it responsible for the climate change? Unlikely at best.

:confused:
Waterworld
*nods sagely*

:rolleyes:

Silly liberals. Is there a climate change in the works? Somewhat, yes. But there is no proof that humanity is responsible. It is far, far, FAAAR more likely to be a NATURAL climate change. A cycle, if you will. We've recorded weather and the like for only the past century or so. I highly doubt we have enough information to make such a claim.See, you manage to disqualify your credentials WHILE simultaneously qualifying your ignorance about the topic. This can easily be remedied by most people, but i'm not thinking it'll be that easy for you, given your reputation. I'll give you a hint - links.
But is it responsible for the climate change? Unlikely at best.You're obviously not paying attention. Silly rightwing blowhard talkingpoint parrot.

Waterworld
*nods sagely*
;)

Its bad enough Bush permitted 911

I'd be very very impressed if you could actually prove that. As would about 250 other people in North America. As far as I understand it, the American intellegence services had the intellegence, but not enough people to translate Arabic for them.


played the guitar for 5 days instead of saving drowning people in New Orlerans

Guess what? New Orleans was not Bush's resposability. Do you even know the name of the country he is president of. The United STATES of America. It was the responsability of the state governor of Louisiania, not the national government. If your going to blame anyone, blame him for not requesting national assistance fast enough

Its bad enough Bush permitted 911 played the guitar for 5 days instead of saving drowning people in New Orlerans and is busy trying to advance his Armaggedon scenario in the mideast but NOW Bush is gonna let the entire easternn seaboard and no doubt ALL of Europe to sink from Global Warming--can America and the world suffer this fool much longer?

Climate Change Is Real and Must Be Addressed Now

David Ignatius -- "The warnings are coming from frogs and beetles, from melting ice and changing ocean currents, and from scientists and responsible politicians around the world. And yet what is the U.S. government doing about global warming? Nothing. That should shock the conscience of Americans."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030701199.html

I disagree with you about 9/11, that was Clinton's fault. I'll give you a little bit of credit on New Orleans.

I do agree with you on global warming, it needs to be addressed RIGHT NOW. It's not just Bush, the entire government is refusing to listen

I'd be very very impressed if you could actually prove that. As would about 250 other people in North America. As far as I understand it, the American intellegence services had the intellegence, but not enough people to translate Arabic for them.
and it especially hurt when FBI translators like Sibel Edmonds was ordered NOT to translate certain arabic transmissions as well


Guess what? New Orleans was not Bush's resposability. Do you even know the name of the country he is president of. The United STATES of America. It was the responsability of the state governor of Louisiania, not the national government. If your going to blame anyone, blame him for not requesting national assistance fast enough
Actually it WAS Bushs responsibility to respond to a natural catastrophe on this scale and emergencies of this magnitude is why FEMA exists in the first place--Localities can only do so much--and people were BEGGING Bush forever to respond

I disagree with you about 9/11, that was Clinton's fault. I'll give you a little bit of credit on New Orleans.

I do agree with you on global warming, it needs to be addressed RIGHT NOW. It's not just Bush, the entire government is refusing to listen
911 was totally Bushs baby--hes the one that needed to invade Iraq not Clinton

One wonders what you guys will use as a scapegoat for all your ills, real and imagined, once Bush finally leaves office.

See, you manage to disqualify your credentials WHILE simultaneously qualifying your ignorance about the topic. This can easily be remedied by most people, but i'm not thinking it'll be that easy for you, given your reputation. I'll give you a hint - links.
You're obviously not paying attention. Silly rightwing blowhard talkingpoint parrot.
I apologize for the personal attack on liberals, as that was unnecessary.

However, methinks you need to prove your claim. You are making the claim, and therefore must prove it. I'm certainly open to the possibility if you can. It just doesn't seem like humanity knows enough to determine one way or the other.

One wonders what you guys will use as a scapegoat for all your ills, real and imagined, once Bush finally leaves office.
The next Republican president, no doubt. Or maybe they'll pick on the Democrat, if one gets elected, though I'm somewhat hesitant about the chances of that.

I disagree with you about 9/11, that was Clinton's fault. No it wasn't. Do some more research.

No it wasn't. Do some more research.

Totally disagree with you there, mate. Clinton had every bit as much to do with 9/11 as did Bush. He ignored the warning signs as well. Like when the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993, for instance. That should have been our wake-up call.

911 was totally Bushs baby--hes the one that needed to invade Iraq not Clinton

No, 9/11 was planned during the Clinton administration; however, neither Bush nor Clinton could have done anything to stop it. The anti-terrorism infrastructure was in its infancy during the Clinton administration and was unable to detect the plans. It's important to note that Clinton did, in fact help establish the first anti-terrorism security plans, although they had only been carried out somewhat by the time he left office

Clinton also called for regime change in Iraq; the notion that Bush was the sole mastermind of a nefarious plot against Iraq is unsubstantiated and inaccurate in the face of historical record.

I apologize for the personal attack on liberals, as that was unnecessary.Okay, agreed/capitulated.


However, methinks you need to prove your claim. You are making the claim, and therefore must prove it. I'm certainly open to the possibility if you can. It just doesn't seem like humanity knows enough to determine one way or the other.Actually i have MANY, MANY posts on this topic, for which i invite you to do a Forum Search of the archives. As well, Desperate Measures, Gymoor II:the Return and a few others have posted VOLUMINOUSLY on the subject, and probably wouldn't mind arguing it as well. I'm not convinced they would be interested in going through the picking and posting again and again, however, so i would also invite you to use their names in a Forum archive Search. Of course, include the topic.
That's the thing about seniority on a forum ... there's only six pages of active threads, but i have obviously quite a few posts, and it's more work than i actually feel like doing about it at the moment - especially since the server still hosts the same info. *nods*
Well, most of them. They didn't include my thread on oil company #-fudging or my thread on Jessica Simpson :(
I will say there are links on the pages that have already been provided on this thread, as well as my other thread that is still current.

Totally disagree with you there, mate. Clinton had every bit as much to do with 9/11 as did Bush. He ignored the warning signs as well.
No he didn't. He had three opportunities and almost took one, but there was more political fallout than it was worth at the time. Then the republicans wanted to keep him from doing anything later and decided that Starr needed support in chasing a bj.
It's already been posted here. Perhaps you'd care to post links about it that prove otherwise, that aren't blogspew?

Totally disagree with you there, mate. Clinton had every bit as much to do with 9/11 as did Bush. He ignored the warning signs as well. Like when the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993, for instance. That should have been our wake-up call.
There was a wake-up call there ... so when did the Ruby Ridge and Waco things happen again, and what right did the govt have to do them again?

Okay, agreed/capitulated.


Actually i have MANY, MANY posts on this topic, for which i invite you to do a Forum Search of the archives. As well, Desperate Measures, Gymoor II:the Return and a few others have posted VOLUMINOUSLY on the subject, and probably wouldn't mind arguing it as well. I'm not convinced they would be interested in going through the picking and posting again and again, however, so i would also invite you to use their names in a Forum archive Search. Of course, include the topic.
That's the thing about seniority on a forum ... there's only six pages of active threads, but i have obviously quite a few posts, and it's more work than i actually feel like doing about it at the moment - especially since the server still hosts the same info. *nods*
Well, most of them. They didn't include my thread on oil company #-fudging or my thread on Jessica Simpson :(
I will say there are links on the pages that have already been provided on this thread, as well as my other thread that is still current.
Righto then. I'll look into it and maybe/maybe not get back to this thread. Depends on how much enthusiasm I manage. I'm rather exhausted at the moment. ~_~

No, 9/11 was planned during the Clinton administration; however, neither Bush nor Clinton could have done anything to stop it. The anti-terrorism infrastructure was in its infancy during the Clinton administration and was unable to detect the plans. It's important to note that Clinton did, in fact help establish the first anti-terrorism security plans, although they had only been carried out somewhat by the time he left office

Clinton also called for regime change in Iraq; the notion that Bush was the sole mastermind of a nefarious plot against Iraq is unsubstantiated and inaccurate in the face of historical record.
Agreed. *bows*
Vetalia, have you heard of John Allison? I'm starting a thread about him and was curious about your input.

No he didn't. He had three opportunities and almost took one, but there was more political fallout than it was worth at the time. Then the republicans wanted to keep him from doing anything later and decided that Starr needed support in chasing a bj.
It's already been posted here. Perhaps you'd care to post links about it that prove otherwise, that aren't blogspew?

Otay, Spanky. Chew on this one then.

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm

Righto then. I'll look into it and maybe/maybe not get back to this thread. Depends on how much enthusiasm I manage. I'm rather exhausted at the moment. ~_~
That's fair. Honestly, repetition kinda kills the spirit for some people here, understandably. There was a thread up a few days back harkening the "death of NS" due the cycle of repetitious arguments and vitriol, and i tend to think there's something to that.

I think that many people underestimate the Earth's ability to bounce back once we destroy ourselves.

Americans will take longer to live down george bush than the Germans will for Hitler.

At least the germans only voted him in ONCE!


Impeach, Castrate and Lynch Bush!

Republican Meeting next tuesday, 1000 feet underwater, grab a cannonball and jump.

Careful, your ignorance is showing.

One wonders what you guys will use as a scapegoat for all your ills, real and imagined, once Bush finally leaves office.
the neocon GOP majority that hijacked congress of course

the neocon GOP majority that hijacked congress of course

Maybe you should quit crying about losing those Congressional seats and making excuses and get to work at regaining those seats for the next election.

Otay, Spanky. Chew on this one then.

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm
Well your article doesn't appear to address anything i said at all. It also points out

"The CIA is, after all, prohibited from operating in America."
So there's a discernment about what this particular fella thought should have been done ...

As well, it points out

"Such data reveal nothing directly about state sponsorship,", and the person goes on to infer that their own extrapolation was superior to the people involved's.

"On June 21, an Iraqi living in Baghdad, Abdul Rahman Yasin (subsequently an indicted fugitive in the Trade Center bombing) appeared at the U.S. embassy in Amman asking for a U.S. passport. Born in America, Abdul Rahman received his passport, which he soon used to travel to this country.

Just at this crucial point, unfortunately, the FBI lost track of the Nosair-Salameh conspiracy. It did not fully trust its informant, Emad Salem, and Salem's ties to Egyptian intelligence; the Bureau severed relations with him in early July when he refused to follow its procedures relating to criminal investigations. "
So far, we've got comparison/contrast to Curveball.

Actually, after having read this, there's a lot of inference to "circumstantial evidence", which the article itself states, and so far you've got ZIP ZILCH NADA on a connection to the motivations of a different group of people, being how Iraq and Al-Qaida have just about nothing to do with each other.
So what point are you trying to make? That bureaucracy is the great evil in the protection of the U.S.? You're probably right to some degree.
You haven't disproven anything i asked about or posted, "Spanky". Chew on what?

Totally disagree with you there, mate. Clinton had every bit as much to do with 9/11 as did Bush. He ignored the warning signs as well. Like when the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993, for instance. That should have been our wake-up call.
by the end of his term Clinton was ON it and he even prevented the Millenial Bombings--he also warned Bush about Osama but as even fellow republicans at the time (like Paul O'Neill) admitted that Bush was so obsessed with Saddam that Osama wasnt on Bushs radar AT ALL. Plus Cheney didnt hold NOT ONE anti-terrorism meeting prior to 911 at all--its like they were all sitting around just waiting to get Hit--If Clinton was President in 2001 I think 911 woulda been prevented

No, 9/11 was planned during the Clinton administration; however, neither Bush nor Clinton could have done anything to stop it. The anti-terrorism infrastructure was in its infancy during the Clinton administration and was unable to detect the plans. It's important to note that Clinton did, in fact help establish the first anti-terrorism security plans, although they had only been carried out somewhat by the time he left office

Clinton also called for regime change in Iraq; the notion that Bush was the sole mastermind of a nefarious plot against Iraq is unsubstantiated and inaccurate in the face of historical record.
Bush ignored many specific warnings regarding 911 and Bush had a motive to allow it to happen whereas Clinton didnt. Also CLinton may have believed in regime change in Iraq but in 8 years Clinton wasnt reckless enuf to have actually invaded Iraq and made the situation far far worse then it was--Clinton was too intelligent for that

There was a wake-up call there ... so when did the Ruby Ridge and Waco things happen again, and what right did the govt have to do them again?
the wakeup call was Clinton tried to pass an anti-terrorism Bill in the mid-90s but the republican congress blocked it cause they were obsessed with Clintons sex life

I think that many people underestimate the Earth's ability to bounce back once we destroy ourselves.
yes the earth will survive and continue spinning with all our dead bodies on it

Bush ignored many specific warnings regarding 911 and Bush had a motive to allow it to happen whereas Clinton didnt. Also CLinton may have believed in regime change in Iraq but in 8 years Clinton wasnt reckless enuf to have actually invaded Iraq and made the situation far far worse then it was--Clinton was too intelligent for that

Clinton didn't invade because he really couldn't; there wasn't the support in Congress, and his Administration was dogged by various scandals during the second term which made any major policy activity impossible. Had he the political clout in 1998 and no impeachment, it would have been likely that Saddam Hussein would be removed in that year or the next.

the wakeup call was Clinton tried to pass an anti-terrorism Bill in the mid-90s but the republican congress blocked it cause they were obsessed with Clintons sex life
You certainly understand it - and apparently, Myotisinia doesn't, and instead tries to subtly change the nature of the topic and the integrity of the issue.

Well your article doesn't appear to address anything i said at all. Actually, after having read this, there's a lot of inference to "circumstantial evidence", which the article itself states, and so far you've got ZIP ZILCH NADA on a connection to the motivations of a different group of people, being how Iraq and Al-Qaida have just about nothing to do with each other.
So what point are you trying to make? That bureaucracy is the great evil in the protection of the U.S.? You're probably right to some degree.
You haven't disproven anything i asked about or posted, "Spanky". Chew on what?

It definitely shows that there was a preexisting awareness by the Clinton administration that Islamic terrorists were actively making plans and targeting the U.S. for future atacks in that period of time, does it not? And the fact that they were able, even at that date, to follow through, albeit inefficiently, with one of them would or should definitely lead one to believe that it could happen again, and maybe, just maybe, they could succeed in the future.

It definitely shows that there was a preexisting awareness by the Clinton administration that Islamic terrorists were actively making plans and targeting the U.S. for future atacks in that period of time, does it not? And the fact that they were able, even at that date, to follow through, albeit inefficiently, with one of them would or should definitely lead one to believe that it could happen again, and maybe, just maybe, they could succeed in the future.

Well, the Clinton administration did stop the Millenium attacks which occured in late 1999, I believe. However, given the number of other major events at that time it is easy to see how Islamic terrorism (which was still underestimated at that time) would not have been given full attention. Plus, by 2000 many of the major aspects of 9/11 were already in place.

Clinton didn't invade because he really couldn't; there wasn't the support in Congress, and his Administration was dogged by various scandals during the second term which made any major policy activity impossible. Had he the political clout in 1998 and no impeachment, it would have been likely that Saddam Hussein would be removed in that year or the next.
If true Clinton wouldve done it the Intelligent way and with world support--sadly for us a total fool succeeded Clinton who alienated the world and made so many stupid incompetent mistakes in Iraq that its now facing a civil war that could result in total regional destablization

the wakeup call was Clinton tried to pass an anti-terrorism Bill in the mid-90s but the republican congress blocked it cause they were obsessed with Clintons sex life

Note to self. That bill was passed by Congress, 293-133, in April, 1996. Read on.

Congress passes anti-terrorism bill
April 18, 1996
Web posted at: 6:30 p.m. EDT


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Congress on Thursday passed a compromise bill boosting the ability of law enforcement authorities to fight domestic terrorism, just one day before the first anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing.

The House voted, 293-133, to send the anti-terrorism bill to President Clinton, who has indicated that he will sign it after he returns from his overseas trip next week.

The measure, which the Senate passed overwhelmingly Wednesday evening, is a watered-down version of the White House's proposal. The Clinton administration has been critical of the bill, calling it too weak.

The original House bill, passed last month, had deleted many of the Senate's anti-terrorism provisions because of lawmakers' concerns about increasing federal law enforcement powers. Some of those provisions were restored in the compromise bill.

The bill imposes limits on federal appeals by death row inmates and other prisoners and makes the death penalty available in some international terrorism cases and in cases where a federal employee is killed on duty.

The bill "has some very effective tools that we can use in our efforts to combat terrorism," Attorney General Janet Reno said Thursday.

But she was less enthusiastic about the bill's limits on federal appeals by death row inmates and other prisoners. She was also concerned that the bill would make it more difficult for federal judges to overturn state court rulings.

Republicans were divided on whether the legislation would be effective.

"We have a measure that will give us a strong upper hand in the battle to prevent and punish domestic and international terrorism," Senate Majority Leader and presumptive GOP presidential nominee Bob Dole said Wednesday.

But Sen. Don Nickles, R-Oklahoma, while praising the bill, said the country remains "very open" to terrorism. "Will it stop any acts of terrorism, domestic and international? No," he said, adding, "We don't want a police state."

Some lawmakers took a more prudent view of the bill. "The balance between public safety and order and individual rights is always a difficult dilemma in a free society," said Rep. Gerald Solomon, R-New York.

Congressional leaders had initially promised to complete the bill six weeks after the Oklahoma City federal building bombing that killed 168 people last April 19.


So blame a predominantly Democratic Congress in watering down a bill that might have prevented 9/11. Not Bush.

It definitely shows that there was a preexisting awareness by the Clinton administration that Islamic terrorists were actively making plans and targeting the U.S. for future atacks in that period of time, does it not? And the fact that they were able, even at that date, to follow through, albeit inefficiently, with one of them would or should definitely lead one to believe that it could happen again, and maybe, just maybe, they could succeed in the future.
yes and Clinton erected an entire infrastructure to address the terrorists threats which Bush entirely dismantled and ignored upon assuming office

yes and Clinton erected an entire infrastructure to address the terrorists threats which Bush entirely dismantled and ignored upon assuming office

What infrastructure are you referring to?

It definitely shows that there was a preexisting awareness by the Clinton administration that Islamic terrorists were actively making plans and targeting the U.S. for future atacks in that period of time, does it not? And the fact that they were able, even at that date, to follow through, albeit inefficiently, with one of them would or should definitely lead one to believe that it could happen again, and maybe, just maybe, they could succeed in the future.
That's been the job of intelligence and counterintelligence for f*cking AGES PAST. There's ALWAYS the possibility that someone will be able to do something.
Your link, as i said, only gave nature to the unconfirmed speculation of state-sponsored terrorism on Iraq's part, and it does almost nothing to qualify that 9/11 and the Al-Qaida directive would have been stopped or altered by investigating an unconfirmed speculation that there was a money/paper trail to Iraq.
Well, it's a good thing there's people who are experts who did their best to figure out what was actually going on ...

http://www.9-11commission.gov/

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html

http://www.9-11pdp.org/

And, strangely enough, that bureaucracy that so chagrins some of us ... where is it now?
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/03/civil-liberties-panel-recommended-by.php
[JURIST] The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board created by the US Congress in December 2004 implementing a recommendation [CRS backgrounder] from the 9/11 Commission [official website] will finally begin to function later this month when the Board's five members are sworn in at the White House and convene their first session, according to Newsweek magazine Sunday. In association with its counter-terrorism recommendations, the 9/11 Commission final report [PDF] called for the creation of "a board within the executive branch to oversee adherence to guidelines on, and the commitment to defend, civil liberties by the federal government." The first nominations for the board were not made until June 2005, however, and the President's FY 2006 budget [text] contained no requests for funds for the panel. 9/11 Commission chairman Thomas Kean [official profile] has called the delay "outrageous", emphasizing its need at a time of ever- increasing executive powers, and claims that the White House and congressional leaders have denied the board basic tools and limited its scope. In December, Kean and 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton gave the Bush administration a "D" for its lack of support of the board in the context of a more general and largely negative report card [PDF] on the government's response to 9/11 Commission recommendations. The composition of and structure of the board has also been criticized by legal experts and rights groups. A bipartisan group of 23 members of Congress - led by Reps. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Christopher Shays (R-CT) - last week urged the administration [letter, PDF] to give the board adequate resources and support legislation to broaden its powers.

President Bush has nominated [press release] Carol Dinkins [firm profile], a Texas lawyer and former senior Justice Department official, as board chairman. The panel is expected to address issues such as the domestic surveillance program [JURIST news archive], the Patriot Act [JURIST news archive], and Pentagon data mining. Newsweek has more.
--

Note to self. That bill was passed by Congress, 293-133, in April, 1996. Read on.

Congress passes anti-terrorism bill
April 18, 1996
Web posted at: 6:30 p.m. EDT


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Congress on Thursday passed a compromise bill boosting the ability of law enforcement authorities to fight domestic terrorism, just one day before the first anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing.

The House voted, 293-133, to send the anti-terrorism bill to President Clinton, who has indicated that he will sign it after he returns from his overseas trip next week.

The measure, which the Senate passed overwhelmingly Wednesday evening, is a watered-down version of the White House's proposal. The Clinton administration has been critical of the bill, calling it too weak.

The original House bill, passed last month, had deleted many of the Senate's anti-terrorism provisions because of lawmakers' concerns about increasing federal law enforcement powers. Some of those provisions were restored in the compromise bill.

The bill imposes limits on federal appeals by death row inmates and other prisoners and makes the death penalty available in some international terrorism cases and in cases where a federal employee is killed on duty.

The bill "has some very effective tools that we can use in our efforts to combat terrorism," Attorney General Janet Reno said Thursday.

But she was less enthusiastic about the bill's limits on federal appeals by death row inmates and other prisoners. She was also concerned that the bill would make it more difficult for federal judges to overturn state court rulings.

Republicans were divided on whether the legislation would be effective.

"We have a measure that will give us a strong upper hand in the battle to prevent and punish domestic and international terrorism," Senate Majority Leader and presumptive GOP presidential nominee Bob Dole said Wednesday.

But Sen. Don Nickles, R-Oklahoma, while praising the bill, said the country remains "very open" to terrorism. "Will it stop any acts of terrorism, domestic and international? No," he said, adding, "We don't want a police state."

Some lawmakers took a more prudent view of the bill. "The balance between public safety and order and individual rights is always a difficult dilemma in a free society," said Rep. Gerald Solomon, R-New York.

Congressional leaders had initially promised to complete the bill six weeks after the Oklahoma City federal building bombing that killed 168 people last April 19.


So blame a predominantly Democratic Congress in watering down a bill that might have prevented 9/11. Not Bush.
Ok ill Just blame Bush for eliminating a Clinton era program to prevent nukes from falling into terrorists hands

That's been the job of intelligence and counterintelligence for f*cking AGES PAST. There's ALWAYS the possibility that someone will be able to do something.
Your link, as i said, only gave nature to the unconfirmed speculation of state-sponsored terrorism on Iraq's part, and it does almost nothing to qualify that 9/11 and the Al-Qaida directive would have been stopped or altered by investigating an unconfirmed speculation that there was a money/paper trail to Iraq.
Well, it's a good thing there's people who are experts who did their best to figure out what was actually going on ...

http://www.9-11commission.gov/

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html

http://www.9-11pdp.org/

And, strangely enough, that bureaucracy that so chagrins some of us ... where is it now?
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/03/civil-liberties-panel-recommended-by.php
[JURIST] The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board created by the US Congress in December 2004 implementing a recommendation [CRS backgrounder] from the 9/11 Commission [official website] will finally begin to function later this month when the Board's five members are sworn in at the White House and convene their first session, according to Newsweek magazine Sunday. In association with its counter-terrorism recommendations, the 9/11 Commission final report [PDF] called for the creation of "a board within the executive branch to oversee adherence to guidelines on, and the commitment to defend, civil liberties by the federal government." The first nominations for the board were not made until June 2005, however, and the President's FY 2006 budget [text] contained no requests for funds for the panel. 9/11 Commission chairman Thomas Kean [official profile] has called the delay "outrageous", emphasizing its need at a time of ever- increasing executive powers, and claims that the White House and congressional leaders have denied the board basic tools and limited its scope. In December, Kean and 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton gave the Bush administration a "D" for its lack of support of the board in the context of a more general and largely negative report card [PDF] on the government's response to 9/11 Commission recommendations. The composition of and structure of the board has also been criticized by legal experts and rights groups. A bipartisan group of 23 members of Congress - led by Reps. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Christopher Shays (R-CT) - last week urged the administration [letter, PDF] to give the board adequate resources and support legislation to broaden its powers.

President Bush has nominated [press release] Carol Dinkins [firm profile], a Texas lawyer and former senior Justice Department official, as board chairman. The panel is expected to address issues such as the domestic surveillance program [JURIST news archive], the Patriot Act [JURIST news archive], and Pentagon data mining. Newsweek has more.
--
to date Bush hasnt enacted not even ONE 911 commission recommendation either

What infrastructure are you referring to?
ask Richard Clarke--he has alot to say about how his efforts at anti-terrorism planning was stymied at every turn by the Bush admin.

Ok ill Just blame Bush for eliminating a Clinton era program to prevent nukes from falling into terrorists hands

Care to provide any proof of that?

And what would your stand on Iran getting it's own nukes independently of anything the U.S. has ever done?

So blame a predominantly Democratic Congress in watering down a bill that might have prevented 9/11. Not Bush.
*ahem*

In 1995, the United States Republican Party was riding high on the gains made in the 1994 congressional elections. In those elections, the Republicans, led by Newt Gingrich, captured the majority of seats in both the United States House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate for the first time in forty years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1996
So, Spanky, are you a LIAR or should i just disregard your allusions to veracity?

ask Richard Clarke--he has alot to say about how his efforts at anti-terrorism planning was stymied at every turn by the Bush admin.

I liked this snippet about the man that you are holding up as proof of incompetance.

Mr Clarke was one of the few top officials from the Clinton era to be retained by George W Bush's administration, which brought him into the National Security Council.

After the 2001 attacks on Washington and New York, Mr Clarke was criticised for discussing intelligence failings in the press.

"Clarke also screwed up. He was after [all] the counter-terrorism tsar when 9/11 took place," Vince Cannistraro, former chief of operations at the CIA's Counter-terrorism Centre, told Computer World magazine in January 2003.


And this from the BBC, no less.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3559087.stm

*ahem*

In 1995, the United States Republican Party was riding high on the gains made in the 1994 congressional elections. In those elections, the Republicans, led by Newt Gingrich, captured the majority of seats in both the United States House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate for the first time in forty years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1996
So, Spanky, are you a LIAR or should i just disregard your allusions to veracity?

Granted. The Congress might have been under Republican control then, albeit by a slim margin. I stand corrected on that point. The salient point remains that it was watered down by a Congress during the Clinton administration that had nothing whatsoever to do with the workings of the Bush administration.
You have a talent of seizing upon what is after all, an inconsequential piece of information within a larger body of proof and using that as justification for dodging the issue, as usual.


By the way. I've missed you. :fluffle:

to date Bush hasnt enacted not even ONE 911 commission recommendation either
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/northamerica/article_1135847.php/Bush_threatens_veto_of_law_to_quash_port_deal

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002854502_webports09.html

Granted. The Congress might have been under Republican control then, albeit by a slim margin. I stand corrected on that point.That's a keeper. Hope you don't mind this coming up a few more times if the opportunities present themselves. :D

You have a talent of seizing upon what is after all, an inconsequential piece of information within a larger body of proof and using that as justification for dodging the issue, as usual.Is that why you only marginally (and i do mean that) approached any issue i brought up with a ? - as in, a paper/money trail to Iraq? ;)




By the way. I've missed you. :fluffle:Well, me too. Some people argue better than others. :fluffle:

Is that why you only marginally (and i do mean that) approached any issue i brought up with a ? - as in, a paper/money trail to Iraq? ;)

So much for a marginal addressing of a proof of Iraqi sponsorship of terrorism. I think this addresses it straight on.

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror_92/sponsored.html

My favorite bit.....

Saddam Hussein also supports extremist Palestinian groups including the Abu Nidal organization (ANO), the Arab Liberation Front, Abu Abbas's Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), and Abu Ibrahim, leader and master bomb maker of the now defunct May 15 Organization. The 1992 conviction of Mohammed Rashid in a Greek court for bombing a Pan Am aircraft in 1982 provided clear proof of longstanding Iraqi state sponsorship of international terrorism. Baghdad is alleged to provide safehaven and support to the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK).

Or, how 'bout this? This is more of an up-to-date accounting of Islamic sponsorship of terrorism.

http://www.iags.org/fuelingterror.html

Care to capitulate?

...

What the?!

I was under the impression you two DESPISED each other, from the way you were wording your posts. Thank you for THAT shock. o__O

...

What the?!

I was under the impression you two DESPISED each other, from the way you were wording your posts. Thank you for THAT shock. o__O
I respect someone who can turn a phrase well. Besides, antagonism and competetion are usually better when it isn't TOO personal or TOO vitriolic.
Consider Corneliu or Man in Black ... ;)

I'm aware that some posters don't necessarily believe ANYTHING they post, i've even got a few friends like that. *nods*

So much for a marginal addressing of a proof of Iraqi sponsorship of terrorism. I think this addresses it straight on.

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror_92/sponsored.html

My favorite bit.....

Saddam Hussein also supports extremist Palestinian groups including the Abu Nidal organization (ANO), the Arab Liberation Front, Abu Abbas's Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), and Abu Ibrahim, leader and master bomb maker of the now defunct May 15 Organization. The 1992 conviction of Mohammed Rashid in a Greek court for bombing a Pan Am aircraft in 1982 provided clear proof of longstanding Iraqi state sponsorship of international terrorism. Baghdad is alleged to provide safehaven and support to the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK).
How many of these have to do with 9/11 and keeping that from happening?
It isn't addressing that "straight on" at all. I've already said what needed to be said about bureacracy, and i even posted threads worth perusing that are ACTUALLY PERTINENT to the Bush Administration AND ITS POLICIES AND INACTION, which is the nature of this thread. *shrug*

Or, how 'bout this? This is more of an up-to-date accounting of Islamic sponsorship of terrorism.

http://www.iags.org/fuelingterror.html

Care to capitulate?Give the Cliff's Notes up for everyone else here or you're basically attempting to 'jack the thread to a one-on-one conversation. I don't mind reading stuff but this is basically you still not answering what i asked about.

I should point out that think tanks and policy centres are spittlefly distance from blogs as far as partiality goes, you know.

As per
http://www.iags.org/fuelingterror.html
:
A list of financial companies named by the Bush administration as financiers of Al-Qaeda, reveals involvement of prominent Arab individuals from several countries in the Middle East. One example of such company is the Al Taqwa bank. Among the bank's shareholders are members of the prominent Khalifeh family of the UAE, the UAE's grand mufti and his family members, members of the Kuwaiti royal family, members of the Bin Laden family
Oh, whoa, what did i post here ...?>

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10569045&postcount=103
-
Well, it was interesting, but short.

How many of these have to do with 9/11 and keeping that from happening?
It isn't addressing that "straight on" at all. I've already said what needed to be said about bureacracy, and i even posted threads worth perusing that are ACTUALLY PERTINENT to the Bush Administration AND ITS POLICIES AND INACTION, which is the nature of this thread. *shrug*

Give the Cliff's Notes up for everyone else here or you're basically attempting to 'jack the thread to a one-on-one conversation. I don't mind reading stuff but this is basically you still not answering what i asked about.

Haven't been here for the whole thread, nor have the time to read every post. I was under the impression that what I was addressing was Iraq and it's links to terrorism during the Clinton administration, and how they were also partially to blame for 9/11.

It isn't ALL about you, y'know.

Care to provide any proof of that?

And what would your stand on Iran getting it's own nukes independently of anything the U.S. has ever done?
the CIA said the only reason why Iran is persuing nukes is because of Bush

As per
http://www.iags.org/fuelingterror.html
:
A list of financial companies named by the Bush administration as financiers of Al-Qaeda, reveals involvement of prominent Arab individuals from several countries in the Middle East. One example of such company is the Al Taqwa bank. Among the bank's shareholders are members of the prominent Khalifeh family of the UAE, the UAE's grand mufti and his family members, members of the Kuwaiti royal family, members of the Bin Laden family
Oh, whoa, what did i post here ...?>

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10569045&postcount=103
-
Well, it was interesting, but short.

Wow. I looked up that post, and looked at your links therein. An interesting leap of logic, there. What, pray tell, has Dubai wanting to manage U.S. ports have to do with anything in this thread?

Haven't been here for the whole thread, nor have the time to read every post. I was under the impression that what I was addressing was Iraq and it's links to terrorism during the Clinton administration, and how they were also partially to blame for 9/11.
I think what happened was a link of separation between the two, as determining who was responsible for what, and that's where the discernment needed to be made that Clinton wasn't personally/solely responsible for the things that happened. And that pretty much got us here. *nods*
Not that you didn't do a good job pursuing YOUR point, mind you ... other than that whole "democratic congressional majority" thing. ;)

It isn't ALL about you, y'know.Well, admittedly, i am pretty much the center of my quantifiable universe, to some degree, and you can quote me on that. ;)

I liked this snippet about the man that you are holding up as proof of incompetance.

Mr Clarke was one of the few top officials from the Clinton era to be retained by George W Bush's administration, which brought him into the National Security Council.

After the 2001 attacks on Washington and New York, Mr Clarke was criticised for discussing intelligence failings in the press.

"Clarke also screwed up. He was after [all] the counter-terrorism tsar when 9/11 took place," Vince Cannistraro, former chief of operations at the CIA's Counter-terrorism Centre, told Computer World magazine in January 2003.


And this from the BBC, no less.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3559087.stm
well Clarke couldnt be very effective as a terrorist-fighter in an Admin. that needed terrorism to occur to enact its agenda

well Clarke couldnt be very effective as a terrorist-fighter in an Admin. that needed terrorism to occur to enact its agenda
He also admitted to fault, something Bush has never done and probably never will do.

Wow. I looked up that post, and looked at your links therein. An interesting leap of logic, there. What, pray tell, has Dubai wanting to manage U.S. ports have to do with anything in this thread?
You don't know where Dubai is perhaps?
Well, no 'jack intended, i just found it curious that the link you provided about funding led to a specific instance where Bush's corporate philosophy DIRECTLY contradicted the potential safety of the country he's supposed to be the president of.
Ya know that whole duty to upholding the constitution and responsibility of safety of the union thing, upon swearing in?
Not just that, but something about public declarations of who WE WON'T SPONSOR as a country?


If you like i'd post more about it, but i truly don't feel it's that necessary.
It's just cute that you can make as big a leaps as you like, but when given a curious circuitious circumstantial issue, it's someone else's problem of tact. ;)

He also admitted to fault, something Bush has never done and probably never will do.
jah

and all I know is America never felt vulnerable when Clinton was in office and when terrorism was a fringe thing before Bush turned terrorists into "freedom fighters" in the eyes of the Arab world...

You don't know where Dubai is perhaps?
Well, no 'jack intended, i just found it curious that the link you provided about funding led to a specific instance where Bush's corporate philosophy DIRECTLY contradicted the potential safety of the country he's supposed to be the president of.
Ya know that whole duty to upholding the constitution and responsibility of safety of the union thing, upon swearing in?

If you like i'd post more about it, but i truly don't feel it's that necessary.
It's just cute that you can make as big a leaps as you like, but when given a curious circuitious circumstantial issue, it's someone else's problem of tact. ;)
Oh come on, it's already been proven Dubai had no connection with terrorists, port security itself wasn't an issue because the Coast Guard still had control over that. It is slightly possible on a limb, and is a disturbing as to how he was so determined to veto any measure blocking the deal, but you can't well hold it above his head without presenting yourself as being xenophobic.

Oh come on, it's already been proven Dubai had no connection with terrorists, port security itself wasn't an issue because the Coast Guard still had control over that. It is slightly possible on a limb, and is a disturbing as to how he was so determined to veto any measure blocking the deal, but you can't well hold it above his head without presenting yourself as being xenophobic.
I think 2 or 3 of the 911 hijackers were born in Dubai and Dubai was one of the few arab countries to fully and unconditionally support the Taliban-Terrorist Govt of Afghanistan

I think 2 or 3 of the 911 hijackers were born in Dubai and Dubai was one of the few arab countries to fully and unconditionally support the Taliban-Terrorist Govt of Afghanistan
yes, 2 or 3 were from the UAE, but does that mean the company, which also has dealings in Britain, blatantly supports terrorism? I have no idea why Bush was so vehemently supporting the deal, probably because Turd Blossom told him to, but this gem is priceless: "This deal wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security for the United States of America." -- Washington, D.C., Feb. 23, 2006 Verbal fuckup or are you completely right? :eek:

yes, 2 or 3 were from the UAE, but does that mean the company, which also has dealings in Britain, blatantly supports terrorism? I have no idea why Bush was so vehemently supporting the deal, probably because Turd Blossom told him to, but this gem is priceless: "This deal wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security for the United States of America." -- Washington, D.C., Feb. 23, 2006 Verbal fuckup or are you completely right? :eek:
The sequence of posts between y'all was beautiful. Truly. *bows*

yes, 2 or 3 were from the UAE, but does that mean the company, which also has dealings in Britain, blatantly supports terrorism? I have no idea why Bush was so vehemently supporting the deal, probably because Turd Blossom told him to, but this gem is priceless: "This deal wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security for the United States of America." -- Washington, D.C., Feb. 23, 2006 Verbal fuckup or are you completely right? :eek:
I think the Carlylse Group was connected with it somewhere

You don't know where Dubai is perhaps?
Well, no 'jack intended, i just found it curious that the link you provided about funding led to a specific instance where Bush's corporate philosophy DIRECTLY contradicted the potential safety of the country he's supposed to be the president of.
Ya know that whole duty to upholding the constitution and responsibility of safety of the union thing, upon swearing in?

If you like i'd post more about it, but i truly don't feel it's that necessary.
It's just cute that you can make as big a leaps as you like, but when given a curious circuitious circumstantial issue, it's someone else's problem of tact. ;)

Yup. I know where it is. Capital of the United Arab Emirates. It just doesn't necessarily automatically follow that a Dubai management company is a terrorist organization, or that they would allow that privilege of running those ports to be exploited in order to facilitate a terrorist attack on U.S. soil. No more so than a potential G.E. investment in Saudi Arabia would lead to it being responsible for Sunni terrorist acts in Iraq, if G.E. products were used in the production of said incendiary devices.

That being said, the port deal was a bad idea. Even though all they would have been doing is managing the ports, (the checking of incoming cargo would have been still in our hands) it is also a fact that not every ship could have been inspected as thoroughly as would have needed to be to prevent a potential smuggling in of, oh, say, by an incoming vessel the ingredients to make a dirty bomb for use on U.S. soil. And all it would take is one mistake, one lapse of attention, and many could potentially die for that mistake.

So. I will not defend Bush for the port deal attempt. I don't think there is any inherent malice involved by the Dubai folks, but it is far too closely connected to those who might be malicious to be comfortable, in my book.

Besides, the Dutch already run several of our ports. Ever hear of Maersk? We gave up control of our ports to foreign entities a long, long time ago.

I think the Carlylse Group was connected with it somewhere
You mean Carlyle? And hmmm, I never did think about that, but it makes sense.

You mean Carlyle? And hmmm, I never did think about that, but it makes sense.
it was rumored that Bushs poodle (AKA Blair) was gonna get a job with the carlyle Group when he resigns

Oh come on, it's already been proven Dubai had no connection with terrorists, port security itself wasn't an issue because the Coast Guard still had control over that. It is slightly possible on a limb, and is a disturbing as to how he was so determined to veto any measure blocking the deal, but you can't well hold it above his head without presenting yourself as being xenophobic.
Oh i don't care if people think that, really. As much as anyone thinks of what i am, there's enough posts behind me to get some kind of idea about how i feel about things. *shrug*
The interesting angle that should probably be debated is whether or not there is a Carlyle Group / Neil "Silverado" Bush connection with the port deal. Hmmm. As well, the Carlyle Group connection to certain Bin Laden family construction companies hired to do cleanup of certain bombing catastrophes. Well, business is business, i guess, maybe that does sound a smidge too conspiratorial.

Oooh, nuggets ...

"We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbour them. "

"Any government that supports, protects or harbours terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent and equally guilty of terrorist crimes. "

"The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States - and war is what they got. "

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." —Washington, D.C., Sept. 13, 2001

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." —Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002

"I will never relent in defending America - whatever it takes. "
[George W. Bush, gloryhound

Yup. I know where it is. Capital of the United Arab Emirates. It just doesn't necessarily automatically follow that a Dubai management company is a terrorist organization, or that they would allow that privilege of running those ports to be exploited in order to facilitate a terrorist attack on U.S. soil. No more so than a potential G.E. investment in Saudi Arabia would lead to it being responsible for Sunni terrorist acts in Iraq, if G.E. products were used in the production of said incendiary devices.

That being said, the port deal was a bad idea. Even though all they would have been doing is managing the ports, (the checking of incoming cargo would have been still in our hands) it is also a fact that not every ship could have been inspected as thoroughly as would have needed to be to prevent a potential smuggling in of, oh, say, by an incoming vessel the ingredients to make a dirty bomb for use on U.S. soil. And all it would take is one mistake, one lapse of attention, and many would die for that mistake.

So. I will not defend Bush for the port deal attempt. I don't think there is any inherent malice involved by the Dubai folks, but it is far too closely connected to those who might be malicious to be comfortable, in my book.

Besides, the Dutch already run several of our ports. Ever hear of Maersk? We gave up control of our ports to foreign entities a long, long time ago.
I agree with this--and also when it comes to Bandar Bush and arabs in general Im prone to automatically smell a rat

Yup. I know where it is. Capital of the United Arab Emirates. It just doesn't necessarily automatically follow that a Dubai management company is a terrorist organization, or that they would allow that privilege of running those ports to be exploited in order to facilitate a terrorist attack on U.S. soil. No more so than a potential G.E. investment in Saudi Arabia would lead to it being responsible for Sunni terrorist acts in Iraq, if G.E. products were used in the production of said incendiary devices.Yep. See Bush's quotes, above.

That being said, the port deal was a bad idea. Even though all they would have been doing is managing the ports, (the checking of incoming cargo would have been still in our hands) it is also a fact that not every ship could have been inspected as thoroughly as would have needed to be to prevent a potential smuggling in of, oh, say, by an incoming vessel the ingredients to make a dirty bomb for use on U.S. soil. And all it would take is one mistake, one lapse of attention, and many would die for that mistake.Agreed completely. Two things more:
One, less than 7% of the trafficked goods and such through ports are actually inspected, and
two, seems to me a certain Commission that i referred to earlier made some recommendations that the current administration is woefully neglectful of, even to the extent that has allowed the controversy over the current port deal to realign (thank f*cking MOD) the thinking of otherwise barely-skeptical republicans and their thinking about the intent of their boss.

So. I will not defend Bush for the port deal attempt. I don't think there is any inherent malice involved by the Dubai folks, but it is far too closely connected to those who might be malicious to be comfortable, in my book.Agreed. It is good to see you post that.*bows*

Besides, the Dutch already run several of our ports. Ever hear of Maersk? We gave up control of our ports to foreign entities a long, long time ago.Yep, i've known of that for SOME TIME, but thankfully, they don't have much of a negative track record in most of the places it counts.

Oh i don't care if people think that, really. As much as anyone thinks of what i am, there's enough posts behind me to get some kind of idea about how i feel about things. *shrug*
The interesting angle that should probably be debated is whether or not there is a Carlyle Group / Neil "Silverado" Bush connection with the port deal. Hmmm. As well, the Carlyle Group connection to certain Bin Laden family construction companies hired to do cleanup of certain bombing catastrophes. Well, business is business, i guess, maybe that does sound a smidge too conspiratorial.
huh, how exactly would the Carlyle group have profited if this deal had indeed went through?

huh, how exactly would the Carlyle group have profited if this deal had indeed went through?
they coulda been the hidden hand behind the deal

huh, how exactly would the Carlyle group have profited if this deal had indeed went through?
How did they benefit from getting cleanup contracts for the Bin Ladens after bombings?

How did they benefit from getting cleanup contracts for the Bin Ladens after bombings?
the carlyle Group also bought out the Loews Movie theatre chain after Michael Moores fahrenheit 911 movie presumably to prevent anymore movies like this from being distributed

How did they benefit from getting cleanup contracts for the Bin Ladens after bombings?
It's not like the Dubai PA company would have blown up the ports so they could get no-bid contracts.

the carlyle Group also bought out the Loews Movie theatre chain after Michael Moores fahrenheit 911 movie presumably to prevent anymore movies like this from being distributed
Oooh ... i gotta see a link if there is one!

Bush is only going to be president for 2 more years, could we all just calm down and wait it out? Jesus christ, you'd think he personally came to every pre-teen's house and kicked them in the shins.

they coulda been the hidden hand behind the deal
Assuming by Bush's relentless support for the deal to go through and the inability for him to think on his own, it makes sense for them to be the hidden hand, but that doesn't necissarily explain how they would've profited from the deal.

Dear Straughn,
Why is it that I suddenly feel the compulsion to say something completely pointless and utterly indefensible just so you'll hate me again?

Yours in enmity,
Myotisinia :D

P.S. I'd still rather go hunting with Dick Cheney that go driving with Ted Kennedy.

It's not like the Dubai PA company would have blown up the ports so they could get no-bid contracts.
Nah, i don't see it that way either ... that's not really the point, though.

Bush is only going to be president for 2 more years, could we all just calm down and wait it out? Jesus christ, you'd think he personally came to every pre-teen's house and kicked them in the shins.
Not really. 1,045 days, pretty long fuckin' time, if you ask me. I remember when that counter got down to like 75, it was like watching the ball drop on New Year's eve. Then it reset to friggin' god knows what. :(

Assuming by Bush's relentless support for the deal to go through and the inability for him to think on his own, it makes sense for them to be the hidden hand, but that doesn't necissarily explain how they would've profited from the deal.
thru front companies

Nah, i don't see it that way either ... that's not really the point, though.
Then how exactly would the members of the Carlyle group have profited? I'm sorry I can't answer your rhetorical questions.

Not really. 1,045 days, pretty long fuckin' time, if you ask me. I remember when that counter got down to like 75, it was like watching the ball drop on New Year's eve. Then it reset to friggin' god knows what. :(
Consider the fact that it took him like 5 years to carry out an EXTREMELY small-scale war. Given that, there is very very little he could possibly do in just 1000 days.

Dear Straughn,
Why is it that I suddenly feel the compulsion to say something completely pointless and utterly indefensible just so you'll hate me again?

Yours in enmity,
Myotisinia :D

P.S. I'd still rather go hunting with Dick Cheney that go driving with Ted Kennedy.
Id rather go driving with Kennedy cause I can swim but I dont have any defenses from being shot in the face

Its bad enough Bush permitted 911 played the guitar for 5 days instead of saving drowning people in New Orlerans and is busy trying to advance his Armaggedon scenario in the mideast but NOW Bush is gonna let the entire easternn seaboard and no doubt ALL of Europe to sink from Global Warming--can America and the world suffer this fool much longer?

Climate Change Is Real and Must Be Addressed Now

David Ignatius -- "The warnings are coming from frogs and beetles, from melting ice and changing ocean currents, and from scientists and responsible politicians around the world. And yet what is the U.S. government doing about global warming? Nothing. That should shock the conscience of Americans."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030701199.html
It's not him letting this happen ...it's us. It's you and it's me.

Dear Straughn,
Why is it that I suddenly feel the compulsion to say something completely pointless and utterly indefensible just so you'll hate me again?

Yours in enmity,
Myotisinia :D Good quote. Sigworthy, even! *bows*
Also, i may record this one for posterity's sake, if you don't mind :D

P.S. I'd still rather go hunting with Dick Cheney that go driving with Ted Kennedy.Why, are you not a looker, good at keeping secrets, and you can't type? ;)

thru front companies
Such as? How would the deal have made other companies profit?

Then how exactly would the members of the Carlyle group have profited? I'm sorry I can't answer your rhetorical questions.

Ahem. Probably the thing I like least about Dub is his propensity for cronyism. Case in point.

http://www.hereinreality.com/carlyle.html

And, everything you wated to know about the Carlyle group, but were afraid to ask. Ignore the first 1:47 of the video, unless you understand Dutch.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3995.htm

It's not him letting this happen ...it's us. It's you and it's me.
:confused:

Such as? How would the deal have made other companies profit?
payoffs contracts etc,

Then how exactly would the members of the Carlyle group have profited? I'm sorry I can't answer your rhetorical questions.
Well, this might help:

http://www.thecarlylegroup.com/eng/index.html

"Our mission is to be the premier global private equity firm, leveraging the insight of Carlyle's team of investment professionals to generate extraordinary returns across a range of investment choices, while maintaining our good name and the good name of our investors."

I didn't note "non-profit" anywhere on the page, but i didn't look hard enough.

http://www.thecarlylegroup.com/eng/news/l5-news3324.html

http://www.thecarlylegroup.com/eng/news/l5-news3323.html

Consider the fact that it took him like 5 years to carry out an EXTREMELY small-scale war. Given that, there is very very little he could possibly do in just 1000 days.
:confused: Yeah, they started to carry out the war in '97 when the PNAC was formed, then they invaded two countries in '01 and '03. And wow. just wow. This may be a small scale war compared to something like WWII or vietnam, but this is going to last well beyond our leaders' lifetimes. And remember that his views will be reflected as long as Alito and Roberts live, so his influence will go well beyond his term. Also remember that we'll be having to pay off his $8.2 trillion debt (and drastically climbing). He started at somewhere around $5.8, I believe. There is a lot he can do in 1000 years

Can anybody please explain to me why college students are so god damn uptight about human rights and all that bullshit? What have humans ever done for you?

EDIT: Saw your reply. Tell me how many american deaths there have been and tell me it's large-scale.

payoffs contracts etc,
So are you saying that they're blatantly invested in the Dubai PA company? I'll have to look at some of the companies they have money invested in.

Uh oh, looks like I just ruined our fun.

http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2006/03/06/daily30.html?from_rss=1

DP World will transfer the operations to a "U.S. entity," Sen. John Warner, R-Va., said Thursday.

The Carlyle Group, however, doesn't want to be that entity, says spokesman Chris Ullman. "We have zero interest in that deal, and we will continue to have no interest."

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., and others in Congress are considering legislation that would block any foreign company from operating ports and other key U.S. infrastructure. If that legislation is approved, it could give The Carlyle Group and other private equity firms opportunities to buy foreign-owned operations at a discount.

Thanks for showing me that link, was right off of that page :(

Ahem. Probably the thing I like least about Dub is his propensity for cronyism. Case in point.

http://www.hereinreality.com/carlyle.html
Shouldn't you have punctuated this post with
"Yours in enmity," ;)

*hopefully in context*

Can anybody please explain to me why college students are so god damn uptight about human rights and all that bullshit? What have humans ever done for you?

EDIT: Saw your reply. Tell me how many american deaths there have been and tell me it's large-scale.
~35,000 deaths total. ~150,000 troops deployed. I never said it was large scale. In fact, I explicitly said the converse.
This may be a small scale war compared to something like WWII or vietnam, but this is going to last well beyond our leaders' lifetimes.

But wow, your posts lead me to believe you're pulling my leg here, but until I hear otherwise, I'll treat it accordingly.

Uh oh, looks like I just ruined our fun.

http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2006/03/06/daily30.html?from_rss=1


Thanks for showing me that link, was right off of that page :(
Well, knowing is half the battle .... ;)

I'm just here to piss off bush-haters. It's so easy to do when you're a neutral party who doesn't care what people say about him.

I'm just here to piss off bush-haters. It's so easy to do when you're a neutral party who doesn't care what people say about him.
In other words a troll?

So are you saying that they're blatantly invested in the Dubai PA company? I'll have to look at some of the companies they have money invested in.
theyre corporate fascists--they make money wherever blood is being spilt--alot of these companies are controlled by the cia too

:confused:
We sit at our dinner tables and watch the polar ice caps slowly melt on TV, and say, "Isn't that horrible!" ...and then go back to our dinner.

In other words a troll?

Only in this thread. I hate bush-haters about as much as I hate...well, bush-haters are probably my #1 enemy right now. They're like ants. $&*@ing EVERYWHERE, and they all think and act the exact same.

I'm just here to piss off bush-haters. It's so easy to do when you're a neutral party who doesn't care what people say about him.
Bush is in league with Osama

We sit at our dinner tables and watch the polar ice caps slowly melt on TV, and say, "Isn't that horrible!" ...and then go back to our dinner.

Quoth the doomsayer, "Nevermore." :rolleyes:

We sit at our dinner tables and watch the polar ice caps slowly melt on TV, and say, "Isn't that horrible!" ...and then go back to our dinner.
well we dont want it to get cold

Bush is in league with Osama

I hope he is. The sooner we unearth that the sooner he gets impeached, and the sooner he gets impeached the sooner everybody shuts the hell up.

Quoth the doomsayer, "Nevermore." :rolleyes:
Doomsayer? I think you missed the point.

I'm just here to piss off bush-haters. It's so easy to do when you're a neutral party who doesn't care what people say about him.
You might consider asking the OP'r if that's all kosher and peachy and all.
Otherwise, knock yourself out. You're *nominal* at making yourself a worthy spectacle.

Bush is in league with Osama

You are hilarious. Do you, like, have a driver's license, and everything?

Only in this thread. I hate bush-haters about as much as I hate...well, bush-haters are probably my #1 enemy right now. They're like ants. $&*@ing EVERYWHERE, and they all think and act the exact same.
Doesn't matter if you only troll in one thread or all. The only difference would be DOS or just forumbanned, it's still trolling. Nice blanket statements though, it feels as if Eut is in the room with us :p

Only in this thread. I hate bush-haters about as much as I hate...well, bush-haters are probably my #1 enemy right now. They're like ants. $&*@ing EVERYWHERE, and they all think and act the exact same.
the revolutionary ants are industriousely saving our Democracy

Doomsayer? I think you missed the point.

Not really. I can find you plenty of links that say global warming is a bunch of speculative hokum. Carbon dating has proven that the earth has gone through a series of warmups, followed by cool downs, over and over again. I'll believe the hysteria when we actually see the oceans rise.

You are hilarious. Do you, like, have a driver's license, and everything?
like, that's sooooo totally a burn, like really! "So that's -- what -- there's some ideas. And the -- it's -- my job is to like think beyond the immediate." -- GWB; sorry, just remimded me of that quote. :D

I hope he is. The sooner we unearth that the sooner he gets impeached, and the sooner he gets impeached the sooner everybody shuts the hell up.
then theres Cheney:(

Not really. I can find you plenty of links that say global warming is a bunch of speculative hokum.
You did miss the point, then. It doesn't matter if it is polar ice caps melting, airplanes flying into buildings, or genocide in Rwanda ... We will still do nothing.

At least Romulus Os got it.

Not really. I can find you plenty of links that say global warming is a bunch of speculative hokum.
And I can find sites that say the Earth is flat. Or that gravity is a liberal hollywood myth. Alright so I made that one up, but who's counting?
:D

It's funny how even though I said like 2 baseless comments the thread's attention has shifted largely to me. I'll stop posting if you stop replying.

Not really. I can find you plenty of links that say global warming is a bunch of speculative hokum. Carbon dating has proven that the earth has gone through a series of warmups, followed by cool downs, over and over again. I'll believe the hysteria when we actually see the oceans rise.
yeah theyre called industry scientists and theyre compensated very well to say those things

It's funny how even though I said like 2 baseless comments the thread's attention has shifted largely to me.Gee i wonder what other kind of attention you might garner when you declare yourself a troll. :rolleyes:
I'll stop posting if you stop replying.Ah, a lock of inconvenience. You know, you'd have the advantage if you actually started your own thread about "hating Bush-bashers" or something of the like.

And I can find sites that say the Earth is flat. Or that gravity is a liberal hollywood myth.

Close, but not quite. There is no such thing as gravity. Democrats suck.

You did miss the point, then. It doesn't matter if it is polar ice caps melting, airplanes flying into buildings, or genocide in Rwanda ... We will still do nothing.

At least Romulus Os got it.
I think shes saying its prolly your last meal so you better eat it before you croak

Gee i wonder what other kind of attention you might garner when you declare yourself a troll. :rolleyes:
Ah, a lock of inconvenience. You know, you'd have the advantage if you actually started your own thread about "hating Bush-bashers" or something of the like.

Who says I don't have the advantage? People have gone to talking about hating bush to talking about hating me.

It's funny how even though I said like 2 baseless comments the thread's attention has shifted largely to me. I'll stop posting if you stop replying.
Ill stop replying if you stop posting first

I think shes saying its prolly your last meal so you better eat it before you croak
LOL

Okay, perhaps I gave your earlier sarcastic remark too much credence. :)

LOL

Okay, perhaps I gave your earlier sarcastic remark too much credence. :)
:confused:

Who says I don't have the advantage? People have gone to talking about hating bush to talking about hating me.
Ah, obgnosis.

Well, i hate Bush. *grunt grunt grunt*

Advantage ... perhaps you should think about what that means.

Who says I don't have the advantage? People have gone to talking about hating bush to talking about hating me.

Look at it this way. You have brought all those people together and united them under a common cause. A positive social act, in my book.

Look at it this way. You have brought all those people together and united them under a common cause. A positive social act, in my book.

Exactly. I'm only thinking about the people's voice. I just act as the megaphone.

And no, that isn't actually my true stance, but it sounds nice.

Ah, obgnosis.

What the hell does that mean? Dictionary.com hasn't got a clue either. Didja spell that one correctly? Hmmmm? ;)

What the hell does that mean? Dictionary.com hasn't got a clue either. Didja spell that one correctly? Hmmmm? ;)

Maybe it's the prognosis of obnoxiousness?

you wanna take a trip to Hell--exstasy will do the job well

What the hell does that mean? Dictionary.com hasn't got a clue either. Didja spell that one correctly? Hmmmm? ;)
I mightn't have spelled it correctly, oh well. I will point out that i've established a coinage rep here too - just ask Sarkhaan or Peechland.
In fact, there was a whole thread devoted to me doing that. Yes, it REALLY IS about me! :D

ob - (of) obvious
gnosis - g/kno - knowledge, knowing, process of.

you wanna take a trip to Hell--exstasy will do the job well

Well, that certainly explains a lot of your posts. Here and I thought it was just the crack pipe. My bad.

Maybe it's the prognosis of obnoxiousness?
That's a good one too, but not the one i was shootin' for. :D

I mightn't have spelled it correctly, oh well. I will point out that i've established a coinage rep here too - just ask Sarkhaan or Peechland.
In fact, there was a whole thread devoted to me doing that. Yes, it REALLY IS about me! :D

ob - (of) obvious
gnosis - g/kno - knowledge, knowing, process of.

Always looking to expand my vocabulary. Shoot me a link.

You see what I did? The topic has nothing to do with bush any more. It's just that easy.

But I'm not a cruel man. I will help you rekindle the flames of hatred. Did you know that bush is dumb? Lol!

Well, that certainly explains a lot of your posts. Here and I thought it was just the crack pipe. My bad.
no_ I was forced to put the crack pipe down

Always looking to expand my vocabulary. Shoot me a link.
Ah, give me a few, if you would, i'm distracted by How William Shatner Changed The World, and Verdigroth brought a pizza over, AND i actually heard the term used on me first, by a student working w/me at a cannery. He was playing trivia, as is oft the case with a student with a major - and he was asking about a bunch of different things. I didn't answer 42, but another innocuous-sounding number that made it sound like i was sincere in my participation with his intellectual brow-beating upon everyone else flinging fish innards.
After the third same response to different questions, he focused BOTH eyes on me, and muttered, "Ah, obnosis."
Cute lil' anecdote, and true. He was a lousy lay, surprise.

EDIT:BTW, for an etymological ref, consider hyp - nosis. Pro - gnosis (as mentioned earlier), dia - gnosis. *nods sagely*

You see what I did? The topic has nothing to do with bush any more. It's just that easy.

But I'm not a cruel man. I will help you rekindle the flames of hatred. Did you know that bush is dumb? Lol!
So not only are you taking pride in the fact that you're a troll but you also bounce with glee at the notion you hijacked this thread out of you own pure stupidity.

So not only are you taking pride in the fact that you're a troll but you also bounce with glee at the notion you hijacked this thread out of you own pure stupidity.

Correct.

my best teachers have all been trolls

my best teachers have all been trolls

You have to be a jackass to teach people a lesson.

You have to be a jackass to teach people a lesson.
aye

aye--otherwise their egos kill it

I like to think of myself as a servant of the people.

the people keep breaking all their toys