Kartoffel

Jaguar, you're being a hypocrite now. You've called me names on occasion. My statements could be taken that way too, but at least dont try to punish me, while continuing to insult me. Perhaps a neutral mod would be better for this forum. I'll need some time to look up all the things I need to refute you, so give me a few hours. But rest assured, it will come.

Jaguar, you're being a hypocrite now. You've called me names on occasion. My statements could be taken that way too, but at least dont try to punish me, while continuing to insult me. Perhaps a neutral mod would be better for this forum. I'll need some time to look up all the things I need to refute you, so give me a few hours. But rest assured, it will come.

You really can't be this dense, can you? They've been crying about terrorist attacks going to happen in a very vague sense (like Ashcroft on May 26th- "a terrorist attack in the next few months", how much more vague can you get?), yet have given no new intelligence for quite a while. Yet you just keep lapping it up, branding anyone who doesnt immediately take it to heart, as a Bush hater. I am not a Bush hater, though I do truly dislike him, and want him out of office, for what he has done to the US, such as making most of our allies into near-enemies, his blatant anti-envoirnment policies, his tax cuts for the rich... Need I go on? Though if Bush would turn around most of his anti-envoirnment, anti-choice policies, get us out of Iraq, stop acting like he's above the law, etc, that would certainly be better (though I know better, he's in bed with industry, the neo-cons, and the fanatical right). I still wouldent like him, he had broken so much already, but it would be a start to redeeming himself. Let me clarify what the desired effect from the warning was, since you seem unable to do anything but try to slam me. I meant the "Oh no, we're being/going-to-be attacked, we've got to let the president have free reign" feeling that was going on after 9/11. That would be perfect for BushCo.

You really can't be this dense, can you? They've been crying about terrorist attacks going to happen in a very vague sense (like Ashcroft on May 26th- "a terrorist attack in the next few months", how much more vague can you get?), yet have given no new intelligence for quite a while. Yet you just keep lapping it up, branding anyone who doesnt immediately take it to heart, as a Bush hater. I am not a Bush hater, though I do truly dislike him, and want him out of office, for what he has done to the US, such as making most of our allies into near-enemies, his blatant anti-envoirnment policies, his tax cuts for the rich... Need I go on? Though if Bush would turn around most of his anti-envoirnment, anti-choice policies, get us out of Iraq, stop acting like he's above the law, etc, that would certainly be better (though I know better, he's in bed with industry, the neo-cons, and the fanatical right). I still wouldent like him, he had broken so much already, but it would be a start to redeeming himself. Let me clarify what the desired effect from the warning was, since you seem unable to do anything but try to slam me. I meant the "Oh no, we're being/going-to-be attacked, we've got to let the president have free reign" feeling that was going on after 9/11. That would be perfect for BushCo.

Oh, yes, tell them of a possible threat - because there is no more threat then there has been. If there were truly a threat of an attack, the threat level would be going up, not staying where it is. What they're likely trying to do with this is to get the public in a near-panic, like it was after 9/11, with everyone willing to let BushCo do whatever. Jaguar, its YOU who need to get the grip on reality. If I were a chicken like you are so quick to brand me as, I would be wanting the threat level raised. Which I dont. So stop trying to lay on false accusations, m'kay?

Oh, yes, tell them of a possible threat - because there is no more threat then there has been. If there were truly a threat of an attack, the threat level would be going up, not staying where it is. What they're likely trying to do with this is to get the public in a near-panic, like it was after 9/11, with everyone willing to let BushCo do whatever. Jaguar, its YOU who need to get the grip on reality. If I were a chicken like you are so quick to brand me as, I would be wanting the threat level raised. Which I dont. So stop trying to lay on false accusations, m'kay?

Link. Note the 'no specific information'. Meaning this is just BushCo's fearmongering to get the general populace to follow like sheeple, and not question the government, like they should.

Link. Note the 'no specific information'. Meaning this is just BushCo's fearmongering to get the general populace to follow like sheeple, and not question the government, like they should.

Oh, yeah. The Taliban are in the mountains. The warlords control the rest, except Kabul. Thanks for catching my mistake. I dont think Bush has lied, I KNOW he has. It's been proven so much, that your blatant denial is just really sad. There could have been WMDs in Iraq back a decade or so ago. I don't know. BUT - there was NO credible intelligence (The 'intelligence' indicating WMDs was from Ahmed Chalabi, who has since been discovered to be an Iranian double-agent, and the rest of his lies have been disproven) that there were WMDs in Iraq when Bush claiming there were, that was just one of his lies to goad the country to supporting his war of choice. But why didnt he invade countries that actually HAD WMDs, like Pakistan? Or countries that supported Al Qaeda, like Saudi Arabia? A little list of his lies about the fradulent Iraq-Al Qaeda connection. In October 2002, Bush said, "Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." That was false. Bush said, in his January 2003 State of the Union address, "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda." That was false. Bush said, on February 8, 2003, "Iraq has also provided Al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training." That was false. On May 3, 2003, in his infamous end-of-major-combat-operations speech, Bush said, "We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda." False again. And Bush on Thursday, June 17, said, "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda." You continue to insist there was a connection. More like they knew each other existed, and that is it. You claim your clearance from your military days lets you see what is apparently highly classified. Not likely a common grunt (what were you, tank crewman?) would have access to that, and it is even less likely you would retain that clearance after you left the military. Its your blatant acceptance of things that have been PROVEN wrong, that KILLS your credibility. You claim that I could 'learn' your truth. But you just say that and leave it at that. Let me guess what you would say. Neo-con sites like freerepublic.com, right?

You say you talk to people on the ground. You give no proof. Your continues crying that there were WMDs in Iraq has killed your credibility. Give me some proof, and I'll take it with a grain of salt. Otherwise, stop trying to preach something without giving actual proof.

There may be isolated spots where the Taliban is weaker. But that doesnt change the overall picture. It's warlords and the Taliban remanants in control of the bulk of Afghanistan, not the Allied forces. It's a shame, really. Back when you and Menchise debated, you were much more of the voice of reason... Now, though, you just sound like a naïve neo-con lapping up everything you hear BushCo say. Sad.

Yeah, Afghanistan is doing great, completely forgotten, woefully underfunded, with the Taliban rebuilding in the hills, and the allied troops basically unable to leave the bases. Yeah. Bush's policies are working GREAT in Afghanistan. A piece of advice - Take a look at some of the middle-to-left news sites, instead of just fanatically following the neo-con sites.

You say you have sources, but can't give them out. For all we know, it could be a little voice in the back of your head. Not exactly very credible. There's no point in continuing this, with you completely unwilling to accept the truth.

Jaguar, you are raving. You are routinely ignoring anything and everything that dispels your position, without actually taking in any of it, ignoring the source (in this case, its Associated Press). There NEVER was a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, the only Al Qaeda camp was in the far north, near the border, in an inacessable area, in the no fly zone. Otherwise he would have taken it out. Saddam was VERY secular, and Al Qaeda is VERY fundamentalist. Its like north and south on a magnet. Political left and right. They don't mix. Besides, all you've done is just spout this rubbish about a nonexistant connection. You claim the increase in bank robberies is due to Saddam not funding them? How about that they always had robbed banks, but it had never been though much of. Or that the Saudis (who are CONFIRMED terrorist supporters) have cut funding?

Link No shit, says left.

My poor, poor Ti4200...

When the first kill you make is your own CC.

I'm still around, though I've been doing other stuff instead of goofing off with UC.

I'm here.

You might try digging through the strategy section at HOTU to see if anything catches your eye there.

Here, with UC.

Your test is completely irrelevent to the discussion at hand. Though I could do it, in a joking manner, although those at the meeting would certainly look at me like I'm crazy, and possibly throw me out, I would almost certainly not be charged with anything. Fact 1: (with ommitted parts included) He was at a meeting where the subject of assasination was brought up, but not taken seriously. Nobody said "We're going to do it" in a serious tone. Perhaps Kerry did not want to associate with people who came up with ideas like that. Perhaps something else. The point remains - He had no reason to believe that it would actually be done. And you still cry treason... quote:The offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the stateSo how was a private meeting overt? It wasnt. If they had attacked, it would be. But they did not attack. For reference, the definition of overt. YOU need to stop trying to distort facts to paint Kerry as whatever you want. So he lied... While certainly not something to be proud of, it's a fact of life that politicians will lie. Clinton lied. Bush has lied. People on both sides have lied. If there had been any grain of truth to Kerry committing treason, then the GOP would have been all over it years ago, when he was getting started in the Senate. Also note: Those who were responsible, were tried and acquitted. So claiming Kerry is somehow still responsible, is ridiculous. [ 03-25-2004, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: Kartoffel ]

Clinton warned Bush of Al Qaeda, but Bush was too busy pushing another war in Iraq, regardless of the evidence pointing to Afghanistan - and not Iraq. Nobody was taking the talk of assasinating people very seriously. It would, perhaps, be like a friend of yours joking about assasinating someone he REALLY hates. You know he hates the aforementioned person, but he is not being very serious about it, and is not a paticularly violent person. And take a look at this for a fairly comprehensive list of just what Bush has done wrong. [ 03-24-2004, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: Kartoffel ]

Treason? Yeah right. Noone took it seriously at the convention. He was disgusted enough with it at that point, to resign, so how WAS he supposed to know the people who brought it up would do it a year later anyways? Simple. He couldent have known. Kerry was NOT involved with the actual conspiracy! Also: This would be AT MOST conspiracy, as they were arrested for plotting an assault, not actually attacking. Get your facts straight, $ilk. This is a perfect example of how low the right-wingers will go in an attempt to discredit Kerry. Also: about lying? Don't even go there. If you had a friend who had joked about doing something, gives no indication of doing it, then does it anyways, you'd want to distance yourself from them too.

Engine (and reactor) upgrades provide increased efficency (You burn less radine), not increased speed.