I'm glad you think it invalidates the concept that the President should be 100% sure of his evidence when going to war.
I'm glad you make up arguments for me out of ether. Please quote exactly where I said this so I can familiarize myself with my own argument.
I too like to ignore any post with typos, or posts that mix up dates that aren't even critical to the primary point of the post.
It wasn't a typo, don't try that cheap crap. A date that is essentially reflexive, yet you got it wrong. What does that say about the quality of any information you share?
It was a mistake of transcription, thought to page.
That speaks to the character of your thought/writing process, which should be considered when evaluating your opinions as a whole.
Which was my original point.
I grew up with an ignorant asshole for a brother.
Ah, how touching, the day little brother finally outdoes his big brother. He would be proud.
Sorry if you misunderstood. I wasn't correcting you, I was drawing attention to the fact that you were sharing an opinion about an event that is KNOWN by it's date, yet you got it wrong.
Why do you think anyone would listen to what you have to say if you can't even get the date right, when the event itself is known by nothing more than the date? What level of ignorance does an oversight like that require?
A level that I suggested disqualifies you from sharing your opinion. I agree with my previous assessment.
So your steaming pile of comments is all it takes to get a +5 insightful? What exactly was insightful about it? Or does "HOLY SHIT I TOTALLY AGREE BECAUSE I'M A BRAINWASHED TOOL" suddenly equal insight around here?
Funny how you think that your opinion on this matter is a counter point (when your opinion is neither definitive nor uncontested) and ignore the real meat of the statment.
What he means is that in virtually every case, any action by the current government is twisted into a criticism of the current administration.
That kind of bias is no accident. Worse is the rabid insistence by people such as yourself that it doesn't exist. Sometimes it's comical how hard you people try.
No actually, I'm not an alum. I'm just someone who happened to notice your blatantly elitist, moronic attack on a university and decided to call you on it. You can claim it is valid, but you're wrong, and you sound more like an ass because of it.
"Calling people names is never constructive and I really don't see a reason to curse at people on/."
Who cursed at you? I called you an ASS, as in a donkey.
Perhaps you should stop pretending that you're anything other than a vitriolic hatemonger who can only get social interaction by posting imflammatory comments on a web board.
Do yourself a favor, save the response. You'll just prove me right (again).
1. Nicholls State University is in Thibodaux, Louisana...
Ok WTF? You think this is a legitimate argument? So much so that you list it first?
Jesus what a snotty, pointless criticism that has no merit whatsoever. In all seriousness, you have no f-ing right to make such a statement, and it makes you sound like an ass.
Rather than admit that there are genuine questions about the validity of the science, we see far too many people like you who make it a point to confuse the issue.
When confronted by real problems with the science, you rush to blame lobbyists and politicians. You accuse scientists who disagree with your position of being bought and paid for.
In short, you have no reasonable reply to the very real questions on the subject, so you head straight to the easiest out you have, blame the other guy and question his motives.
Thanks. I expected someone to do what you did. If you think about it for a second, those were all security failures. I was aware of all of them, and I knew someone would jump at the opportunity to post links because they didn't take time to actually understand my question.
Now, please, answer me this.
Why are you posting links to security failures when I asked about scientific failures?
Slashdot Mirror
Are you a gay pedophile just to piss me off, too?
You know, I wasn't but honestly, that sounds like a FABULOUS idea.
I'm just your excuse for being evil.
Yes, you are, but what's your excuse?
Anonymous Republican pedophile Coward
And I wasn't kidding about the voting thing.
Don't choke on that as you swallow it.
I'm glad you think it invalidates the concept that the President should be 100% sure of his evidence when going to war.
I'm glad you make up arguments for me out of ether. Please quote exactly where I said this so I can familiarize myself with my own argument.
I too like to ignore any post with typos, or posts that mix up dates that aren't even critical to the primary point of the post.
It wasn't a typo, don't try that cheap crap. A date that is essentially reflexive, yet you got it wrong. What does that say about the quality of any information you share?
It was a mistake of transcription, thought to page.
That speaks to the character of your thought/writing process, which should be considered when evaluating your opinions as a whole.
Which was my original point.
I grew up with an ignorant asshole for a brother.
Ah, how touching, the day little brother finally outdoes his big brother. He would be proud.
Sorry if you misunderstood. I wasn't correcting you, I was drawing attention to the fact that you were sharing an opinion about an event that is KNOWN by it's date, yet you got it wrong.
Why do you think anyone would listen to what you have to say if you can't even get the date right, when the event itself is known by nothing more than the date? What level of ignorance does an oversight like that require?
A level that I suggested disqualifies you from sharing your opinion. I agree with my previous assessment.
11-Nov-2001
You don't get to comment about this subject again. Ever.
So your steaming pile of comments is all it takes to get a +5 insightful? What exactly was insightful about it? Or does "HOLY SHIT I TOTALLY AGREE BECAUSE I'M A BRAINWASHED TOOL" suddenly equal insight around here?
The liars pretend that our Military is looking for people smoking bong hits in their basement.
Or that the FBI is part of the military.
Or that anyone other than the guy who wrote the headline claims that the FBI is part of the military.
Funny how you think that your opinion on this matter is a counter point (when your opinion is neither definitive nor uncontested) and ignore the real meat of the statment.
What he means is that in virtually every case, any action by the current government is twisted into a criticism of the current administration.
That kind of bias is no accident. Worse is the rabid insistence by people such as yourself that it doesn't exist. Sometimes it's comical how hard you people try.
No actually, I'm not an alum. I'm just someone who happened to notice your blatantly elitist, moronic attack on a university and decided to call you on it. You can claim it is valid, but you're wrong, and you sound more like an ass because of it.
/."
"Calling people names is never constructive and I really don't see a reason to curse at people on
Who cursed at you? I called you an ASS, as in a donkey.
Perhaps you should stop pretending that you're anything other than a vitriolic hatemonger who can only get social interaction by posting imflammatory comments on a web board.
Do yourself a favor, save the response. You'll just prove me right (again).
1. Nicholls State University is in Thibodaux, Louisana...
Ok WTF? You think this is a legitimate argument? So much so that you list it first?
Jesus what a snotty, pointless criticism that has no merit whatsoever. In all seriousness, you have no f-ing right to make such a statement, and it makes you sound like an ass.
I think the real problem is people like yourself.
Rather than admit that there are genuine questions about the validity of the science, we see far too many people like you who make it a point to confuse the issue.
When confronted by real problems with the science, you rush to blame lobbyists and politicians. You accuse scientists who disagree with your position of being bought and paid for.
In short, you have no reasonable reply to the very real questions on the subject, so you head straight to the easiest out you have, blame the other guy and question his motives.
And the questions go unanswered.
Thanks. I expected someone to do what you did. If you think about it for a second, those were all security failures. I was aware of all of them, and I knew someone would jump at the opportunity to post links because they didn't take time to actually understand my question.
Now, please, answer me this.
Why are you posting links to security failures when I asked about scientific failures?
Isn't the purpose of science to test hypotheses? I have to assume that's what they're doing, so how are they failing?
I thought part of freedom of speech is the ability to disagree with speech you don't like.
Why are you suggesting that exercising one's freedom of speech is in some way tyrannical?