Bush lovers read this...

We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms

Originally posted by reckedracing@Dec 8 2004, 01:55 PM
this is not a debate forum, nor a historical society

you always tell people to prove it, so i am challenging you to the same thing...

prove your republican retoric...

prove to me that bush does not have ties to the saudi's and the bin laden family...

prove to me that we didn't build an afgan pipeline that wasn;t allowed by the taliban, and prove to me that the oil wasn;t protected more than things like museums and schools and hospitals...
[post=428537]Quoted post[/post]​



How do you prove that someone doesn't have ties? Do you think its documentated that "President Bush does NOT know so and so. They did not meet today. blah blah blah" Speculation, all speculation. Even if Bush is affliated with the Saudi's then how does one substaniate the claim that he's only doing it because he knows them. Do you think an argument like that isn't just mere speculation and can actually be backed up. You tell me what Bush is thinking, or anyone else for that matter, is thinking in their head right now. You can't.


Yes, the oil was protected more than other assets because well, monetarily it was worth more. Also places like hospitals, schools, and museums were thought to contain members of opposing forces.

So the whole "Ooops, I slipped and dropped a bomb on that hospital" may not have been an accident, it may have been as a result of thinking that there were the 'bad guys' in there and that we just whiped them out. 'Can't make an omelette without cracking some eggs' Thats just my personal speculation right there, so you can disagree if you like but I think many would agree.
 
Originally posted by reckedracing@Dec 8 2004, 01:56 PM
everything these days is taken "out of context"... thats what PRODUCTION is all about...
[post=428539]Quoted post[/post]​



So that justifies it?


What in the fuck.

You just stood behind it having the 100% truth and now you're saying oh well if it was taken out of context it was taken out of context.

How can you do that and even attempt to debate? Thats disgusting.
 
He's a published historian, who speaks nationally and internationally...he knows his stuff.




Paul Alexander - the author of the article i linked


A former reporter for Time magazine, Paul Alexander has written for Rolling Stone, The New York Times Magazine, The Nation, New York, Village Voice, and The Guardian. He has written biographies of Senator John McCain, Sylvia Plath, JD Salinger, and James Dean. Until recently, he was the co-host of "Batchelor & Alexander," a nationally syndicated talk radio show on the ABC radio network. Alexander has also directed a documentary on Kerry's Vietnam years, entitled "Brothers in Arms."

i would have to say that i think he also "knows his stuff"
 
Originally posted by reckedracing@Dec 8 2004, 01:57 PM
For the record, I've voted both democrat and republican.


prove it :)
[post=428541]Quoted post[/post]​



Check the voting ballad, but there may have been an error when it comes back...but thats okay because it happens a lot. - your reasoning. :ph34r: :ph34r:
 
republican/democrat....it doesn't matter alot of these issues that are so controversial are thrown out to the public in a way we throw a cat a shiny object to keep it busy.... while we fight with each other about intricacies we lose sight of the real issue that our government is not WE THE PEOPLE its US THE CORRUPT BUREAUCRACY.. shit i mean look at the last election its not whos voted for is who wins its who counts the vote is who wins...the little people have no power over whats going on with this country unless they unite and do something (which isn't gonan happen so long as everyone is so distracted with "issues" and the trivial things that make up life) so i'd just rather sit back and laugh and watch it all fall ..yes i am talking out of my ass, just wanted to throw my 5 cents in ;), btw did anyone watch that link i posted in here about team america http://www.craptv.com/coop/america.htm :D
 
So that justifies it?


What in the fuck.

You just stood behind it having the 100% truth and now you're saying oh well if it was taken out of context it was taken out of context.

How can you do that and even attempt to debate? Thats disgusting.


never once did i say anything about 911 being 100% truth... i was just challenging you to prove otherwise...
 
Originally posted by reckedracing@Dec 8 2004, 02:02 PM
He's a published historian, who speaks nationally and internationally...he knows his stuff.




Paul Alexander - the author of the article i linked


A former reporter for Time magazine, Paul Alexander has written for Rolling Stone, The New York Times Magazine, The Nation, New York, Village Voice, and The Guardian. He has written biographies of Senator John McCain, Sylvia Plath, JD Salinger, and James Dean. Until recently, he was the co-host of "Batchelor & Alexander," a nationally syndicated talk radio show on the ABC radio network. Alexander has also directed a documentary on Kerry's Vietnam years, entitled "Brothers in Arms."

i would have to say that i think he also "knows his stuff"
[post=428549]Quoted post[/post]​



Well then I'd like to say that you don't know your stuff. :) All small time publications that have no scholarlly significance. If you're doing political research, you don't dare go to Time magazine before first going to primary sources and scholarly journals.

My point about my professor was that he's published in a well known scholarly source, thats taught throughout colleges across America as well as in Russia. He's done first hand research. He had to write 4, 400page disertations based on his research just to receive his Ph. D - he can substaniate his claims and always does.

Paul Alexander on the other hand isn't at that kind of level.
 
Originally posted by New2TheCarScene+Dec 8 2004, 11:55 AM-->
Battle Pope
@Dec 8 2004, 01:50 PM
Is it just me, or after reading your "inductive reasoning" I still have no clue as to your stance beyond "republican zealot"
[post=428531]Quoted post[/post]​



You know what, fuck this.


Nothing I said had a god damn word to do with being a republican or democrat.

I left all political biases aside and stated how to substaniate a claim with evidence.



Bash me some more.

fucking retard. i'm tired of this. even if i get banned/warned/whatever. Read what I said. Way to draw a conclusion far too fast.

Show me where it has to do with being a "republican zealot" other than thats what you would like to think I am.

For the record, I've voted both democrat and republican. asshole
[post=428538]Quoted post[/post]​


Maybe I jumped the gun a bit. I apologize. I simply don't like your method of debating. You're a bit too scathing IMO. Berating and belittling others is no way to convince people you're right.
 
Yes, the oil was protected more than other assets because well, monetarily it was worth more.

it may have been as a result of thinking that there were the 'bad guys' in there and that we just whiped them out.


so the oil is more important than all the iraqi civilian lives that were lost???
hmmm, i disagree

and would this be the result of the same people "thinking" that THOUGHT saddam had WMD's?
bahahahahhaha
 

never once did i say anything about 911 being 100% truth... i was just challenging you to prove otherwise...
[post=428554]Quoted post[/post]​



"and to our dear friend that loves to talk smack about 911, and how "untrue" it is... note the comments by Lt Gen Kennedy regarding the oil fields..."

From the sounds of that claim, it sounds as if you supported the bunk Fahrenheit 9/11. Is this incorrect? Would you like to change your mind?
 

so the oil is more important than all the iraqi civilian lives that were lost???
hmmm, i disagree

and would this be the result of the same people "thinking" that THOUGHT saddam had WMD's?
bahahahahhaha
[post=428559]Quoted post[/post]​



And you're entitled to think that, it was speculation...you can have a different opinion.


And you'd be amazed at the mistakes that the United States has made in the past but it was the best we've had to go on. We as people aren't perfect and if the 'experts' can substaniate their claims and it appears as if its true, then thats what the government has to go on. Could you have predicted any differently or done any better?

bahahahaha fucking moron.

I'm done. Honestly its sicking now.
 
From the sounds of that claim, it sounds as if you supported the bunk Fahrenheit 9/11. Is this incorrect? Would you like to change your mind?


like i said, i have never seen the movie, i don;t even know for sure that it deals with oil issues...

my only purpose for this thread is to show that the bush administration is CORRUPT, and giving you a chance to show me otherwise...

all the evidence i have seen points to them being rich corrupt little fuckers...
 
Originally posted by reckedracing@Dec 8 2004, 02:09 PM
primary sources


seems to me that mr alexander talking directly to military upper ranks should classify as primary sources, would you agree?
[post=428563]Quoted post[/post]​



And one must take into account their political affilation and what they have to gain or lose by making the statements they made.


Tacitus wrote a primary source about the German Barbarians during the height of the Roman Empire. His work was slanted in favor of the Romans and the purpose of his writing was supposed to be to praise the romans (In actuality, he put his own spin on things and wrote it as a warning, but thats beside the point)

Even if its a primary source one must take in account the situation and the evidence. Speaking to people who are obviously going to be bias in one way or another, isn't exactly the best way to substaniate the claim. As I said it was mere speculation by them and not backed by evidence.

You can go talk to anyone you like and they can tell you that elephants penises are small, it doesn't mean its true. Shitty argument. Shitty primary source.
 
Originally posted by Kcihcaton@Dec 8 2004, 02:13 PM
He said he was done twice now I think, yet he's gonna post again.
[post=428570]Quoted post[/post]​



This is true, I try to get through to thick people but honestly some people are so fucking ignorant.


I could provide this dick jerker with whatever evidence I wanted and he would still think what he wanted.



Oh yeah and in debate, in a political debate in a seminar, in something that was judged...I've been known to tear people apart and win. [heart]
 
Originally posted by reckedracing@Dec 8 2004, 02:11 PM
From the sounds of that claim, it sounds as if you supported the bunk Fahrenheit 9/11. Is this incorrect? Would you like to change your mind?


like i said, i have never seen the movie, i don;t even know for sure that it deals with oil issues...

my only purpose for this thread is to show that the bush administration is CORRUPT, and giving you a chance to show me otherwise...

all the evidence i have seen points to them being rich corrupt little fuckers...
[post=428567]Quoted post[/post]​



You have no fucking evidence is the point.

As I said, you're using deductive reasoning. "Prove to me its not." is what you say. You should be saying "Prove to me it is."

Use evidence to draw a conclusion, not vice versa. Basic, basic, basic stuff.

gym time.
 
What would be considered a credible resource? Pictures? Since you say anything anyone says can be bs.
 
Back
Top