Home | Community | Message Board

KykeonAnalytics.com
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineScavengerType
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #13829263 - 01/21/11 11:36 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

I did I used photographs to illustrate how the clip on AK-47s is turned out the opposite way from the alleged one in the photograph (which is actually possibly entirely straight). I really thought you would catch that and no further elaboration would be required. I pretty much all but said explicitly that and left it for you to connect the dots. Perhaps it would have helped if I posted the picture you posted along side the Kalashnikovs it would have been much clearer. Obviously I overestimated your powers of deduction. I'll simplify:

=/=
Because the part which is supposed to be the clip is tilted or banana-ed in the opposite direction as those of an actual Kalashnikov.

Even if he was holding the gun in some sort of odd backwards fashion (which is the furthest stretch I'm even willing to humor you for), the only models that have a flat and long enough mag also have long buts which don't fit the picture.

This is what you get when you get your info from FNC.

So you had no other comments about the things I posted in reply to you?


--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: ScavengerType]
    #13830704 - 01/22/11 09:42 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

those arent photos of a tripod from the video

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: RationalEgo]
    #13830739 - 01/22/11 09:54 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

RationalEgo said:
I can't see how anyone can say that these wars are 'just', in any way shape or form. They sacrifice American lives for NOTHING. If you want to kill the enemy, you have to take off the head and that target is Iran! You don't get into altruistic wars, nation building, long, drawn out expensive occupations......NO. You take out foreign enemies as quickly as possible with a minimum loss of American lives.



How is it not "just" to eliminate a regime that fostered, nurtured and protected the 9/11 attackers or another regime that had failed to adhere to  the terms of its surrender after it invaded another country?  Either you enforce law or you have no law.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRationalEgo
Principium Individuationis


Registered: 06/15/09
Posts: 2,122
Loc: Boston
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: zappaisgod]
    #13830857 - 01/22/11 10:28 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

RationalEgo said:
I can't see how anyone can say that these wars are 'just', in any way shape or form. They sacrifice American lives for NOTHING. If you want to kill the enemy, you have to take off the head and that target is Iran! You don't get into altruistic wars, nation building, long, drawn out expensive occupations......NO. You take out foreign enemies as quickly as possible with a minimum loss of American lives.



How is it not "just" to eliminate a regime that fostered, nurtured and protected the 9/11 attackers or another regime that had failed to adhere to  the terms of its surrender after it invaded another country?  Either you enforce law or you have no law.





Evidence?

There is NO evidence to my knowledge that he 'fostered, nurtured and protected the 9/11 attackers'. That by all accounts was a neo-con lie.

Also, war should have nothing directly to do with law enforcement. It should have has to do with eradicating sworn enemies in order to protect citizens at home. Marines are not police, they are trained killers.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: RationalEgo]
    #13830959 - 01/22/11 10:52 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

RationalEgo said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

RationalEgo said:
I can't see how anyone can say that these wars are 'just', in any way shape or form. They sacrifice American lives for NOTHING. If you want to kill the enemy, you have to take off the head and that target is Iran! You don't get into altruistic wars, nation building, long, drawn out expensive occupations......NO. You take out foreign enemies as quickly as possible with a minimum loss of American lives.



How is it not "just" to eliminate a regime that fostered, nurtured and protected the 9/11 attackers or another regime that had failed to adhere to  the terms of its surrender after it invaded another country?  Either you enforce law or you have no law.





Evidence?

There is NO evidence to my knowledge that he 'fostered, nurtured and protected the 9/11 attackers'. That by all accounts was a neo-con lie.




That would be Afghanistan, and no, the neo-cons never said Saddam did that.  That is a leftist lie.
Quote:



Also, war should have nothing directly to do with law enforcement. It should have has to do with eradicating sworn enemies in order to protect citizens at home. Marines are not police, they are trained killers.




How sweetly quaint.  What do you think a cease fire agreement is?  Terms of surrender?  You don't want to call them "Laws"?  Fine.  You can call them whatever you want.  But without enforcement they are bullshit.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineScavengerType
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #13831532 - 01/22/11 01:12 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Well maybe they aren't because you asked for proof it wasn't an AK-47 in your post instead of asking for proof it was a tripod.
:urstupid:
Frankly the odds of finding the tripod on the internet if it is one are quite slim since most tripod photos you can find on an image search are quite new. If you can't be bothered to write more than one single line with enough clarity to express your questions to another human being, why the fuck should I be expected to look for a needle in a haystack?

It's not like you couldn't be looking for a gun that actually fits the profile to fit your lame ass claim.


--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club

Edited by ScavengerType (01/22/11 01:26 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,660
Loc: To the limit! Flag
Last seen: 7 hours, 46 minutes
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #13832674 - 01/22/11 05:22 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:



the people that were shot looked mostly dead, maybe that one survivor
looked a little cocky for a couple of minutes but large caliber rounds
changed that in a hurry... now maybe you cant tell what you're seeing
because you're unobservant, maybe I can because I was trained to look at
details. when this video was released people were claiming that the AKs
were tripods but I've never seen a combat photographer that used a
tripod, seems counter productive... I did on the other hand see an AK
sight profile and a banana magazine and what looked like the business
end of a Saab AT4, anti tank weapon





Sounds like a wedding.


--------------------
This space for rent

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleFlop Johnson
Praise Skatballah
Male

Registered: 09/22/05
Posts: 13,789
Loc: TX
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: zappaisgod]
    #13832684 - 01/22/11 05:25 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
That is one of my favorite videos.  A bunch of terrorist scum taken out. 

Bradley is gonna get 50 years.




they still can't establish a plausible connection b/w him and Assange :haha:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: Flop Johnson]
    #13832961 - 01/22/11 06:19 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

That's why they subpoenaed his twitter and internet accounts.  Assange's that is.  They got Manning.  He's fucked.  And if they can establish a connection with Assange before Assange will be fucked too.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEntheogenicPeace
Scholar
Male


Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: zappaisgod]
    #13833141 - 01/22/11 06:51 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

---

Edited by EntheogenicPeace (01/05/22 05:43 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: EntheogenicPeace]
    #13833178 - 01/22/11 06:59 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

EntheogenicPeace said:
Quote:

the neo-cons never said Saddam did that. That is a leftist lie.




Lol, you clearly can't accept reality. 52% of those who re-elected Bush thought he helped plan 9-11. Where did they get that from?





Probably from all the rhetoric trying to link emotional convictions and animus against terrorists, arabs, and so forth, against Saddam.  Bush would discuss Saddam and the regime and mention "terror" and so forth, in the same speeches and statements where he was talking about 9/11 and Afghanistan.  He seemed to do everything possible to get people to emotionally understand Iraq and Afghanistan as a common fight against the 9/11 hijackers and their sponsoring regimes, except come outright and say it.

The reason all those people had that confusion though is because they're ignorant and were either manipulated or made assumptions.  Bush's linking of the two constantly for political ends wasn't cool, but the people who are voting for a candidate have a responsibility to do so on an informed basis, and it is there own fault if they don't.  The level of ignorance and stupidity in the 2004 election was just ridiculous on these points. 

I really wonder if the 24 hour news cycle that people seem to likek to blame for everything isn't somewhat responsible for that as well?  They need something to talk about, so they wax on about the same old crap with a tiny snippet of factual data and then get pundits and various 'experts' to make wild speculations and so forth.  I can see how someone without the ability to critically appraise information and who is perhaps a bit slow and lacks observation and thinking skills helpful in objectively analyzing the information they recieve could easily conflate the two wars due to the nature of the talk shows and news shows- the same vehicles disseminating bush's constant maneuvering to link the two wars with 9/11 (as everything seemed to be during that time).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: EntheogenicPeace]
    #13833211 - 01/22/11 07:06 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

EntheogenicPeace said:
Quote:

the neo-cons never said Saddam did that. That is a leftist lie.




Lol, you clearly can't accept reality. 52% of those who re-elected Bush thought he helped plan 9-11. Where did they get that from?




You?  Please find a quote from a neo-con that alleging that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11.  I've been trying to get one of you guys to do that for several years now.  Bupkiss every time.
Quote:



As for religion having nothing to do with the wars, keep pretending that >90% who supported them aren't from the flat-earth religious right, & that right-wing preachers weren't talking about a religious imperative to go to war in Iraq.



Lots of people said lots of things.  In fact, you could probably find somebody who said just about anything.  Including people who said Bush and/or the Jews did it.  Or we can look at Fred Phelps, who said it was because we are too tolerant of fags.  So what?  I'm not responsible for their bullshit.  But you are responsible for yours.  Perhaps you could enlighten us on just what you think the reasons were.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: johnm214]
    #13833226 - 01/22/11 07:09 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
Quote:

EntheogenicPeace said:
Quote:

the neo-cons never said Saddam did that. That is a leftist lie.




Lol, you clearly can't accept reality. 52% of those who re-elected Bush thought he helped plan 9-11. Where did they get that from?





Probably from all the rhetoric trying to link emotional convictions and animus against terrorists, arabs, and so forth, against Saddam.  Bush would discuss Saddam and the regime and mention "terror" and so forth, in the same speeches and statements where he was talking about 9/11 and Afghanistan.  He seemed to do everything possible to get people to emotionally understand Iraq and Afghanistan as a common fight against the 9/11 hijackers and their sponsoring regimes, except come outright and say it.

The reason all those people had that confusion though is because they're ignorant and were either manipulated or made assumptions.  Bush's linking of the two constantly for political ends wasn't cool, but the people who are voting for a candidate have a responsibility to do so on an informed basis, and it is there own fault if they don't.  The level of ignorance and stupidity in the 2004 election was just ridiculous on these points. 

I really wonder if the 24 hour news cycle that people seem to likek to blame for everything isn't somewhat responsible for that as well?  They need something to talk about, so they wax on about the same old crap with a tiny snippet of factual data and then get pundits and various 'experts' to make wild speculations and so forth.  I can see how someone without the ability to critically appraise information and who is perhaps a bit slow and lacks observation and thinking skills helpful in objectively analyzing the information they recieve could easily conflate the two wars due to the nature of the talk shows and news shows- the same vehicles disseminating bush's constant maneuvering to link the two wars with 9/11 (as everything seemed to be during that time).



Bush linked Saddam Hussein to terrorism because he was linked to terrorism.  9/11 wasn't the only terrorist attack in history.  Not that year, not that month, possibly not even that day.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineScavengerType
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: johnm214]
    #13833263 - 01/22/11 07:16 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Actually Cheney explicitly made claims about the links between Iraq and Al Queda. I think we already brought this up at the beginning of the bush lie denial thread. There were members of the admin that had explicitly claimed the two were working together because at some point historically they had discussed having peaceful relations for about a month which was ended when hostilities between the two sides opened up again.

It doesn't really matter if you say that they did this or did that if you are deliberately cultivating that impression at every turn. It's just a mater of semantics. There is no denying that bush's addresses intended to link the two even if he may not have explicitly said so. This becomes especially disingenuous with information we now have that the evidence they had for a link made a stronger case against than for.


--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: ScavengerType]
    #13833309 - 01/22/11 07:23 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

ScavengerType said:
Actually Cheney explicitly made claims about the links between Iraq and Al Queda. I think we already brought this up at the beginning of the bush lie denial thread. There were members of the admin that had explicitly claimed the two were working together because at some point historically they had discussed having peaceful relations for about a month which was ended when hostilities between the two sides opened up again.




So.  They did have contact and Cheney was correct.  Thanks for clearing that up.
Quote:



It doesn't really matter if you say that they did this or did that if you are deliberately cultivating that impression at every turn. It's just a mater of semantics. There is no denying that bush's addresses intended to link the two even if he may not have explicitly said so. This becomes especially disingenuous with information we now have that the evidence they had for a link made a stronger case against than for.




This is pretty funny since the people who thought that certainly never actually heard it from Bush or any other official.  They heard it from the press.  The blatantly liberal press eager to spread lies about Bush.  See Frank Rich's entire career.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: zappaisgod]
    #13833346 - 01/22/11 07:27 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

johnm214 said:
Quote:

EntheogenicPeace said:
Quote:

the neo-cons never said Saddam did that. That is a leftist lie.




Lol, you clearly can't accept reality. 52% of those who re-elected Bush thought he helped plan 9-11. Where did they get that from?





Probably from all the rhetoric trying to link emotional convictions and animus against terrorists, arabs, and so forth, against Saddam.  Bush would discuss Saddam and the regime and mention "terror" and so forth, in the same speeches and statements where he was talking about 9/11 and Afghanistan.  He seemed to do everything possible to get people to emotionally understand Iraq and Afghanistan as a common fight against the 9/11 hijackers and their sponsoring regimes, except come outright and say it.

The reason all those people had that confusion though is because they're ignorant and were either manipulated or made assumptions.  Bush's linking of the two constantly for political ends wasn't cool, but the people who are voting for a candidate have a responsibility to do so on an informed basis, and it is there own fault if they don't.  The level of ignorance and stupidity in the 2004 election was just ridiculous on these points. 

I really wonder if the 24 hour news cycle that people seem to likek to blame for everything isn't somewhat responsible for that as well?  They need something to talk about, so they wax on about the same old crap with a tiny snippet of factual data and then get pundits and various 'experts' to make wild speculations and so forth.  I can see how someone without the ability to critically appraise information and who is perhaps a bit slow and lacks observation and thinking skills helpful in objectively analyzing the information they recieve could easily conflate the two wars due to the nature of the talk shows and news shows- the same vehicles disseminating bush's constant maneuvering to link the two wars with 9/11 (as everything seemed to be during that time).



Bush linked Saddam Hussein to terrorism because he was linked to terrorism.  9/11 wasn't the only terrorist attack in history.  Not that year, not that month, possibly not even that day.




Yeah, no kidding, though Saddam's actions domestically which were often cited as terroist-style actions seem outside the typical bounds of terrorism- generally defined as perpetrated by non-state entities.

Either way, all that nonsense was to create justification for the war and bypassing the UN and not trying to resolve the inspection issues.

Even the most innocent of views still leaves you with Bush using emotional appeals to 9/11 and terrorism to argue for war- similar to how Giuliani used 9/11 to justify everything he ever did or proposed.

I happen to not view it so innocently, and think it was a calculated campaign to foster the emotional link between 9/11, al qaeida, Iraq, and link the Afghani war with the proposed action in Iraq.  Not that presidential speaches are ever worth a damn, but Bush's were especially targeted towards emotionalism rather than facts, and seemed to take every chance they could to create a link between 9/11 and 'terror' (which seemed synonymous with 9/11 as people seem to have had no knowledge of the embassy bombings, USS Cole, et cet and regarded 9/11 as the first serious terror attack against the US for some reason) and Iraq/Saddam.

I could respect Bush on that issue if he made an honest case, but he did everything but in the public discourse, and seemed to reduce the national debate to a game of poisoning the well and guilt by association.  Maybe its only because the issues were so critical, but I had a hard time swallowing the crap he was pushing out daily.  That people held those false beliefs and reelected him in 2004 on easily-discredited assumptions didn't speak to well for the country and the electorate, in my opinion.

bleh, I wonder if we'll ever get a president who will forgo emotionalism, fallacy, and crap like that, and just speak in plain rational and persuasive manners to people when advocating something or other?  Will we every be spoken to as adults with a brain?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: johnm214]
    #13833391 - 01/22/11 07:33 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

The UN was not bypassed, dozens of other nations were involved and the American people never had a say.  Their duly elected representatives did which included most of the Democrats and I believe every single member of the Intelligence Committees of both branches of Congress.

What morons think was of no concern to anyone.  How you can simultaneously say he never said those things attributed to him by morons and liars and then blame him for speaking truthfully is ludicrous and, rather, nuts.  You have a narrative of Bush sucks in your head and that's all you see.  Sad. I expected more of you.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: ScavengerType]
    #13835114 - 01/23/11 12:48 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

ScavengerType said:
Well maybe they aren't because you asked for proof it wasn't an AK-47 in your post instead of asking for proof it was a tripod.






http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/13822142#13822142

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineScavengerType
Male User Gallery


Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #13835340 - 01/23/11 02:03 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

I already told you why I'm not even looking for a picture for you. Now if your going to try spewing your FNC recycled nonsense back it up. I already proved to you that it was not an AK. You have no fucking idea what it is any more than I do. If it's an armed escort with a gun or a tripod, is not clear from the video. You've proved this by claiming it was the most common gun in Iraq even though it clearly isn't, can you even find a gun that matches that profile, never-mind one that does and is actually likely to be found in Iraq? I'm not your dog, I don't owe you shit to disprove your ridiculous right-wing nonsense conspiracy theories. So grow a pair and you actually prove they are weapons rather than making false claims on what they are (which I did prove were false).

Also I might add that the image that you claimed looks like the RPG looks a lot like a camera man holding his camera around the corner as is a common filming technique used to film action in active fire zones. If you watch it on the film, you can see it as he turns the corner. It's quite clearly barely half long enough to be the RPG that you are claiming it is and it actually appears to be thicker at the base where he is holding it than at the end, with a narrow point where perhaps a lens might begin. Very suspiciously like a camera.

You wana fucking spout this retarded nonsense? Go ahead, but don't fucking post blatantly inconsistent bullshit like that as proof and expect me to look through pages of Google images looking for a specific image of an old tripod, something which is a one in a million or more shot of actually turning up on search functions that would normally turn up pictures of tripods. That's bullshit, I don't have to, I already proved you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

So if these inconsistencies in your story aren't proof enough that this FNC story you are parroting is a bunch of crap, what about the fact that Reuters actually prompted a military investigation into this incident because it's journalists were killed?

I mean fucking hell
:urreallydumb:
What a bunch of fucking nonsense.

If your reply is shorter than 2 paragraphs and doesn't have any photos of guns that do match those pictures don't bother posting it, because your just wasting my fucking time.


--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club

Edited by ScavengerType (01/23/11 02:07 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: ScavengerType] * 1
    #13835481 - 01/23/11 04:05 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

> I already proved to you that it was not an AK.

You didn't prove a damn thing.  As you say, "What a bunch of fucking nonsense."


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Bush, Israel and "Insurgents" Swami 493 6 04/15/04 02:24 AM
by Baby_Hitler
* Is George W. Bush insane? ekomstop 1,799 12 09/24/04 10:17 AM
by Learyfan
* Bush's World Edame 358 0 10/27/03 01:08 PM
by Edame
* Bush to ask UN to help support postwar Iraq...
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
RonoS 8,264 136 09/26/03 01:38 PM
by silversoul7
* Another 4 years, destruction and economic loss fft2 1,062 7 08/25/04 03:10 AM
by fft2
* "May God keep Bush and Allawi" st0nedphucker 647 2 07/01/04 09:55 AM
by GernBlanston
* Bush loses on presentation, wins on issues Phred 1,777 18 10/04/04 05:30 AM
by JonnyOnTheSpot
* Weapons of Minimum Destruction Ravus 886 6 08/23/04 01:55 PM
by retread

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
4,467 topic views. 2 members, 4 guests and 9 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.03 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 15 queries.