It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
Asbeau: This forum has become a place I'm embarrassed to say I visit.

Thanks for making a major contribution to that with this ignorant and paranoid thread.
avatar
richlind33: Manly type men don't play games, so save your embarrassment for your own fool self. lol

avatar
dick1982: What is balance of power? It's not like EU doesn't want to cockblock russia too. Syria is a proxy war, much like the Afghan war during the Reagan years. It won't be WWIII,but we might see another Cold War. You wanna give Vladimir a free pass or something?
avatar
richlind33: Which started during the Carter years.
And why are you even bringing that up? Well nevermind. Carter was a damn good example of why you need a hawkish prez when push comes to shove.

I like Jimmy as a person, but he was "weak" as a prez. That era required a hawkish prez to respond quickly to threats to USA and its allies aboard. Jimmy kinda failed at that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter#Public_opinion

Carter should have been much much more hawkish.He was truly too "soft" on his enemies.
http://spectator.org/59687_jimmy-carters-legacy-war/
Post edited November 06, 2016 by dick1982
low rated
avatar
Pangaea666: Would just like to state that OneFiercePuppy has done a marvellous job in this thread.

So much madness and he has mostly stayed calmed and argued against the hollow claims. Many years back I used too much time arguing against people claiming the US government was behind WTC attacks and such. Usually it doesn't lead anywhere with the person offering lunatic claims (as in this thread), but the hope is always that somebody else reading will learn something.
If it's madness to think that elements within the US gov't may have or did have a hand in the 9/11 attacks, why is it that NIST has failed to produce a model of the collapse of WTC 7 that supports it's predetermined conclusion that no explosives were used?
low rated
avatar
richlind33: Manly type men don't play games, so save your embarrassment for your own fool self. lol

Which started during the Carter years.
avatar
dick1982: And why are you even bringing that up? Well nevermind. Carter was a damn good example of why you need a hawkish prez when push comes to shove.

I like Jimmy as a person, but he was "weak" as a prez. That era required a hawkish prez to respond quickly to threats to USA and its allies aboard. Jimmy kinda failed at that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter#Public_opinion

Carter should have been much much more hawkish.He was truly too "soft" on his enemies.
http://spectator.org/59687_jimmy-carters-legacy-war/
You're obviously unaware that Brzezinski has publicly admitted that the US began supporting the mujahideen *before* the Soviets invaded, knowing that it could cause such an invasion -- which it did -- and hoping it would lead to a Soviet "Vietnam" -- which it also did.

I don't like Communism at all, but it's a stone cold fact that the soviet-backed regime in Kabul was vastly preferable to what they ended up with thanks to the US getting it's "Soviet Vietnam". It's been war for them ever since, mostly civil, because when the US had gotten what it wanted it packed up and left the poor Afghans to the tender mercies of the warlords it had trained and armed, via Pakistan. And unlike the Soviet-backed regime, the warlords didn't look kindly on women being educated. Nor did Pakistan, which did everything it could to fuck them over while we conveniently looked the other way. So I'd say that Carter wasn't the wimpish dove that many have made him out to be. Not at all. And I'd also say that you'd be a much better human being if you had the good fortune to experience that sort of hell firsthand, preferably as a woman. If nothing else, you'd not be a fanboi with a hard-on for hawkish cunts.
avatar
richlind33: NIST has failed to produce a model
The 2008 NIST model is just about a million times more credible than anything the "it looooooooks like a controlled demolition" lunatics have put out to date. Usually of course, the conspiracy lunatics aren't doing anything with models or even theories, because they know they'd look like they've misplaced their brains. Instead, they're pitifully trying to poke holes into a science they do not understand.
Post edited November 06, 2016 by Vainamoinen
low rated
avatar
richlind33: I always check my facts. Some of those Diebold machines in Florida had negative vote tallies for Gore that more than covered the margin of victory.
avatar
tinyE: There is no such thing as a negative vote tally. XD

You can't vote AGAINST someone. :P

In over 200 years and countless elections, not one candidate or proposition has ever been "de-voted". :P

You went to school on the small brown bus didn't you?
There is when you have electronic machines that are designed to easily be reprogrammed, and some cloddish fool bungles the reprogramming, resulting in a tally that blatantly indicates election fraud.

With 800+ games in your library, it's a tiny bit surprising that you know next to nothing about programming. o.O
low rated
avatar
richlind33: NIST has failed to produce a model
avatar
Vainamoinen: The current NIST model is just about a million times more credible than anything the "it looooooooks like a controlled demolition" lunatics have put out to date. Usually of course, the conspiracy lunatics aren't doing anything with models or even theories, because they know they'd look like they've misplaced their brains. Instead, they're pitifully trying to poke holes into a science they do not understand.
It either supports NIST's conclusion re explosives, or it doesn't. Since you seem absolutely certain it's the former, how about posting something credible that shows you're right?

From what I've seen, they have failed to provide a scientific explanation for the free-fall collapse of WTC 7, and yes, they did finally get around to admitting that it was free-fall, thanks to the fact that unlike the twin towers, the WTC 7 collapse wasn't shrouded in a giant plume of dust, allowing it to be precisely timed. And let's not forget that no building is known to have collapsed at free-fall without the use of explosives.
avatar
richlind33: It either supports NIST's conclusion re explosives, or it doesn't. Since you seem absolutely certain it's the former, how about posting something credible that shows you're right?
Don't look now, but you're JAQing off. You're asking leading questions, then demand answers or explanations from others even though the extraordinary claim was raised by you (in a cowardly way) and hence burden of proof still lies with you. It's what conspiracy mongers do, and it's boring.
Post edited November 06, 2016 by Vainamoinen
avatar
dick1982: And why are you even bringing that up? Well nevermind. Carter was a damn good example of why you need a hawkish prez when push comes to shove.

I like Jimmy as a person, but he was "weak" as a prez. That era required a hawkish prez to respond quickly to threats to USA and its allies aboard. Jimmy kinda failed at that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter#Public_opinion

Carter should have been much much more hawkish.He was truly too "soft" on his enemies.
http://spectator.org/59687_jimmy-carters-legacy-war/
avatar
richlind33: You're obviously unaware that Brzezinski has publicly admitted that the US began supporting the mujahideen *before* the Soviets invaded, knowing that it could cause such an invasion -- which it did -- and hoping it would lead to a Soviet "Vietnam" -- which it also did.

I don't like Communism at all, but it's a stone cold fact that the soviet-backed regime in Kabul was vastly preferable to what they ended up with thanks to the US getting it's "Soviet Vietnam". It's been war for them ever since, mostly civil, because when the US had gotten what it wanted it packed up and left the poor Afghans to the tender mercies of the warlords ht had trained and armed, via Pakistan. And unlike the Soviet-backed regime, the warlords didn't look kindly on women being educated. Nor did Pakistan, which did everything it could to fuck them over while we conveniently looked the other way. So I'd say that Carter wasn't the wimpish dove that many have made him out to be. Not at all. And I'd also say that you'd be a much better human being if you had the good fortune to experience that sort of hell firsthand, preferably as a woman. If nothing else, you'd not be a fanboi with a hard-on for hawkish cunts.
Ok you have both a hard-on for Soviet Russia in charge of feminist rights and you don't like commies. Sure. And somehow most of the population of Afghans and Pakistanis backing militants and religious nutjobs is all USA's fault. You're spindoctoring and apologising too much for the rather dumb and brainwashed populance of Afghanistan/Pakistan.

USA cut off support for the proto-Taleban. That was the right thing to do. You want more weapons in the hands of fundamentalists?

As for Pakistan, well they're like Turkey now, two-faced as fuck. USA keeps giving them aid because they would rather have a stable dictatorship in place, but the people within have different ideas. They were brainwashing kids with anti-western propaganda even while receiving aid to keep themselves afloat. The only good thing to come out of support for Pakistan is that their nuclear weapons will probably never fall into the hands of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan. Oh well, and their economy not totally collapsing causing thousands if not millions of civilians to die of famine or whatever. Yeah, blame the west for even trying.

Russia in charge of feminism.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/12/femen-activist-protest-putin-merkel

2 wrongs don't make a right. Ever.
Post edited November 06, 2016 by dick1982
low rated
avatar
richlind33: It either supports NIST's conclusion re explosives, or it doesn't. Since you seem absolutely certain it's the former, how about posting something credible that shows you're right?
avatar
Vainamoinen: Don't look now, but you're JAQing off. You're asking leading questions, then demand answers or explanations from others even though the extraordinary claim was raised by you (in a cowardly way) and hence burden of proof still lies with you. It's what conspiracy mongers do, and it's boring.
Cowardly? lol

You're fucking pathetic, m8. But sure, I'll be happy to put up. I just assumed that since you're so absolutely certain about this you had decent sources close at hand. I have links on one of my externals but they're old and unlikely to still be good. But I shall cheerfully locate some new ones, ya miserable POS. lol
avatar
tinyE: There is no such thing as a negative vote tally. XD

You can't vote AGAINST someone. :P

In over 200 years and countless elections, not one candidate or proposition has ever been "de-voted". :P

You went to school on the small brown bus didn't you?
avatar
richlind33: There is when you have electronic machines that are designed to easily be reprogrammed, and some cloddish fool bungles the reprogramming, resulting in a tally that blatantly indicates election fraud.

With 800+ games in your library, it's a tiny bit surprising that you know next to nothing about programming. o.O
voting for trump won't magically cause a programming glitch. that much is clear. anything else?
low rated
avatar
richlind33: You're obviously unaware that Brzezinski has publicly admitted that the US began supporting the mujahideen *before* the Soviets invaded, knowing that it could cause such an invasion -- which it did -- and hoping it would lead to a Soviet "Vietnam" -- which it also did.

I don't like Communism at all, but it's a stone cold fact that the soviet-backed regime in Kabul was vastly preferable to what they ended up with thanks to the US getting it's "Soviet Vietnam". It's been war for them ever since, mostly civil, because when the US had gotten what it wanted it packed up and left the poor Afghans to the tender mercies of the warlords ht had trained and armed, via Pakistan. And unlike the Soviet-backed regime, the warlords didn't look kindly on women being educated. Nor did Pakistan, which did everything it could to fuck them over while we conveniently looked the other way. So I'd say that Carter wasn't the wimpish dove that many have made him out to be. Not at all. And I'd also say that you'd be a much better human being if you had the good fortune to experience that sort of hell firsthand, preferably as a woman. If nothing else, you'd not be a fanboi with a hard-on for hawkish cunts.
avatar
dick1982: Ok you have both a hard-on for Soviet Russia in charge of feminist rights and you don't like commies. Sure. And somehow most of the population of Afghans and Pakistanis backing militants and religious nutjobs is all USA's fault. You're spindoctoring and apologising too much for the rather dumb and brainwashed populance of Afghanistan/Pakistan.

USA cut off support for the proto-Taleban. That was the right thing to do. You want more weapons in the hands of fundamentalists?
I don't see Russia for anything other than what it is, and at this point in time it's a lot less aggressive than the US. And if you post bullshit about the Ukraine I'll gladly rub your nose in the disgusting shit that the US has been involved in there, which is documented in the public record. So do yourself a favor and don't.

And how in hell do you know that most Afghans want to live in a constant state of war? The only thing I know for certain is that many of them are afraid to speak against the extremists that have made their lives a living hell. Because, ya know, it tends to get you killed. ya know. o.O

avatar
dick1982: As for Pakistan, well they're like Turkey now, two-faced as fuck. USA keeps giving them aid because they would rather have a stable dictatorship in place, but the people within have different ideas. They were brainwashing kids with anti-western propaganda even while receiving aid to keep themselves afloat. The only good thing to come out of support for Pakistan is that their nuclear weapons will probably never fall into the hands of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan. Oh well, and their economy not totally collapsing causing thousands if not millions of civilians to die of famine or whatever. Yeah, blame the west for even trying.
Pakistan is nothing like Turkey. Pakistan has provided nuclear tech and expertise to nations like North Korea, while Turkey, ya know, has not. But even that was insufficient for the US gov't to list it as a terrorist nation. And it's incredibly stupid to assume that it's nukes are safe and secure. There are very few places more dangerous than Pakistan, and *anyone* who becomes a target is likely to end up dead.



avatar
dick1982: Russia in charge of feminism.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/12/femen-activist-protest-putin-merkel

2 wrongs don't make a right. Ever.
I made no mention of Soviet or Russian feminism. I simply stated that the Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan was preferable to everything that has followed in it's collapse, and that's as true as truth gets. Women in Kabul were being educated. Probably poorly, but educated nonetheless, and that's a whole lot better than what came after.
low rated
avatar
richlind33: There is when you have electronic machines that are designed to easily be reprogrammed, and some cloddish fool bungles the reprogramming, resulting in a tally that blatantly indicates election fraud.

With 800+ games in your library, it's a tiny bit surprising that you know next to nothing about programming. o.O
avatar
dick1982: voting for trump won't magically cause a programming glitch. that much is clear. anything else?
True, but easily manipulated electronic voting machines in the hands of crooked politicians could very well lead to another result that is at odds with the exit polls -- assuming Trump is still close on election day.
avatar
richlind33: Cowardly?
And abusive.
low rated
avatar
richlind33: Cowardly?
avatar
Vainamoinen: And abusive.
That's pretty damn funny, coming from a shithead that routinely resorts to slander.

Reposted for truth. ;p

avatar
Vainamoinen: Don't look now, but you're JAQing off. You're asking leading questions, then demand answers or explanations from others even though the extraordinary claim was raised by you (in a cowardly way) and hence burden of proof still lies with you. It's what conspiracy mongers do, and it's boring.
Cowardly? lol

You're fucking pathetic, m8. But sure, I'll be happy to put up. I just assumed that since you're so absolutely certain about this you had decent sources close at hand. I have links on one of my externals but they're old and unlikely to still be good. But I shall cheerfully locate some new ones, ya miserable POS. lol

I'll also add that I think your response is a good indication that you know a lot less about this than you think you do. If I was in your shoes and knew that I was right, I wouldn't hesitate to beat myself over the head with the truth, regardless of where the burden of proof lay. ;p
Post edited November 06, 2016 by richlind33
avatar
richlind33: That's pretty damn funny, coming from a shithead that routinely resorts to slander.
And here I thought they told you how to pull off a proper tu quoque in conspiracy nutter school.