Viewing Thread:
"More $$ for War"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3088772.stm

$87bn needed.
Can't help thinking that you could solve pretty much the entire world's food shortages, homelessness and disease with that.
Yet we can muster it to kill.

*shakes head*

IB i s Guilty

RM18 wrote:
> Why are all Belldandy's posts of an anal-orientated nature?
---

Because he has no more ammunition left with which to try and argue, now (as pointed out in the "3 ways in which Belldandy argues" post of earlier), he is attempting the "I know you but what am I?" defence.

It would be ironic/amusing had it not been signposted first thing this morning before he started.

Why are all Belldandy's posts of an anal-orientated nature?

I do believe he has lost his tiny little mind.

Belldandy wrote:
> And how sweet my ass tastes as well.

...finally, a sense of humour.

You still haven't answered any of the points raised though.

Belldandy wrote:
> See, he says clearly that it would solve the world's problems.
Nope, I said "Pretty much".
Bell in not reading thread shocker!!


Goatboy was naive beyond
> words to believe 87 billion could do so much.
Yes I was. However, IB explained in better detail why, without resorting to googlisms and flag waving.
I listen to him telling me I'm a fool for writing a post in 30 seconds, I can't listen to you because you your voice is muffled by your ass.

As hard as it is to say "I didn't understand the Rush Limbaugh thread", or as hard as it is to say "Hey, sometimes I forget what position I take, sorry", or as hard as it is to say "Actually, I did say every anti-war marcher was a communist, despite then saying they weren't"

Belldandy *never* admits he is wrong.
Which is why he is chased through the village with burning torches.

Belldandy wrote:

>
> But the original point was not that the money would have no effect at
> all, the point was that it would not totally solve the problems and
> certainly the paltry amount spent on the Iraq war would not totally
> solve the problems.

...except that kernel posted a breakdown of what that money could do across the world (all gleaned from Oxfam, WHO, etc), and it could do a hell of a lot. Your response? Well...either silence, or "Those figures are wrong!"


>
> See, he says clearly that it would solve the world's problems.
> Admittedly I thought it was South Africa, but the total spent is
> still correct, an Africa still has problems despite way more than 87
> billion being spent on it. If 105 billion doesn't totally solve the
> problems in one continent then 87 billion certainly won't sort out
> the world, hence my point stands I believe. Goatboy was naive beyond
> words to believe 87 billion could do so much.

And once again, I refer you to the post in this thread detailing just how much of the worlds problems it would solve. No, it wouldn't solve all of them; you can have your little victory on that point. But it would solve a hell of a lot of them.

Hmmmm, deafening silence. Is it so hard to say 'I got my figures wrong'?

And yet still no acknowledgement that you were wrong.

That's all I was looking for.

ps
Don't tell my boss that I was arguing political points at this time of night.