The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
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*
$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*
Page:
that should of course read "the evil US has pledged several times more"
Can I just re-iterate my perspective, as it has been vastly misinterpreted by certain parties:
Goatboy: $87billion, we could heal the world with that
No you can't. Not even close. As I said, the evil has pledged several times more to cracking AIDS in Africa that reportedly isn't enough to do so. The money will go partly on medication, partly on prevention and education and partly into reseach. But at the end of the day, those hundreds of billions will not end that one single problem.
The UK consumes over £80 billion a year in food, $126 billion. So how we can save the billions of people living in poverty with a sum small enough as to be insufficient to feed our own country is a mystery to me.
Sure, of course, if that $87billion was going to something else, it would make a difference to whatever it went to. But the traditional methods of aid are a ludicrous waste of money, and only serve to make those it aids more reliant on aid. There are hundreds of billions being regularly pumpde into trying to feed the starving, shelter the homeless, protect the weak, relieve the oppressed and, yes, to fight for "freedom" in its many forms.
It should be noted that a sum of that magnitude will make a difference. In Iraq. And what makes them so less needy? The country needs stability and stability costs money.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong to be putting that money there, I'm just saying that putting it elsewhere won't save the world, feed the poor indefinitely and turn disease ridden countries into super nations with powerhouse economies and world class health care infrastructures.
Don't be so easily shaken by big numbers.
Goatboy: $87billion, we could heal the world with that
No you can't. Not even close. As I said, the evil has pledged several times more to cracking AIDS in Africa that reportedly isn't enough to do so. The money will go partly on medication, partly on prevention and education and partly into reseach. But at the end of the day, those hundreds of billions will not end that one single problem.
The UK consumes over £80 billion a year in food, $126 billion. So how we can save the billions of people living in poverty with a sum small enough as to be insufficient to feed our own country is a mystery to me.
Sure, of course, if that $87billion was going to something else, it would make a difference to whatever it went to. But the traditional methods of aid are a ludicrous waste of money, and only serve to make those it aids more reliant on aid. There are hundreds of billions being regularly pumpde into trying to feed the starving, shelter the homeless, protect the weak, relieve the oppressed and, yes, to fight for "freedom" in its many forms.
It should be noted that a sum of that magnitude will make a difference. In Iraq. And what makes them so less needy? The country needs stability and stability costs money.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong to be putting that money there, I'm just saying that putting it elsewhere won't save the world, feed the poor indefinitely and turn disease ridden countries into super nations with powerhouse economies and world class health care infrastructures.
Don't be so easily shaken by big numbers.
Practical Magic wrote:
>
> Goatboy knows every bl**dy answer to every bl**dy problem in the
> world and by God he'll ram it down your throat every chance he gets,
> then s*d off because he really thinks he does know best, and everyone
> else can just go to hell, because he is RIGHT and knows every little
> damn thing.
My my...is this the same prudish Belldandy who complained at the foul and abusive language I used when I lost my temper with him?
Heh...I think you'll find Bell that both Goaty and I know what OUR opinion is. We've both shown that we're willing to back down and admit our mistakes when we're shown to be incorrect. But shouting "I'm right and you're wrong!" over and over isn't the way to do that.
>
> Which is why he's posting on an internet forum with barely anyone his
> own age and berating people half his age. Which is why he spends his
> workday posting here. Yes, Goatboy truly knows it all, but for the
> betterment of mankind he's decided a job in (I believe) marketing is
> his destiny alongside an indie band, because it's not like there
> aren't tons of those around right now.
So why are you posting here then? And more to the point, what has Goatboy's life and job got anything to do with his opinion? Sounds like you're getting desperate to make him stop asking you questions that you can't answer.
>
> Plus Goatboy knows everything about all of you, or at least he thinks
> he does, because what you post about yourself is the sum of you,
> according to him. How dare you post about a terrorist attack if you
> haven't, repeatedly, reminded everyone you're uncle or someone died
> in it. How dare you express any opinion at all, because Goatboy was
> born with everything pre installed in his head, yes he has never read
> a thing, it's all original stuff he spouts.
So...you're now annoyed at him for having a more direct connection to 9/11 than you? Hmm...tell me Bell; do you hurl abuse at anti-war protesters who lost loved ones in 9/11 on a regular basis?
You know, when you compared anti-war demonstraters to the BNP you should maybe have looked a little closer to home. Your absolute intolerance of dissent would fit right in with the fascists.
>
> Your thoughts are equally meaningless Goatboy, end of the day you'll
> post in reply and think you've achieved something, and you won't
> have. You're equally as bad as anyone here, because none of this
> matters one jot in the real world and no matter how much you screech
> the real world will not change, you'll still be some sad middle aged
> man insisting he knows it all along with the other supposed holders
> of the truth about everything.
Well...doesn't that make what you say meaningless? Plus, even if it is...well then, who cares? This is just a webboard; a place to sound off. Your attempts to make him stop sounding off reek of the intellectual, moral, and emotional cowardice that I had hoped was on its way out. Still, there's a rumour going round that I'm not perfect in my assumptions...(note. that was a joke; just in case you didn't realise)
>
> IB's got more sense than most of you put together, heck he's go the
> sense to s0dding well not bother posting in Life because hardly
> anyone wants to discuss, we just whack each other with facts and hope
> everyone else s0ds off in boredom making it look like we achieved
> something, and we then repeat it. You and Light will still be here,
> sneering, when Iraq has democracy restored, when they catch Bin
> Laden, you belittle everything and acknowledge nothing but that which
> further your own ideas. Who gives a feck that Saddam's gone, 'cause
> we can't find any WMD !!! Who cares we took out a major terrorist
> supporting regime, we can't find Bin Laden !!! Every little victory
> there is you two have something negative, god you're bitter.
No; if things work out in Iraq, if Al-Quaida is neutralised, if the WMD (the reason we actually invaded. supposedly) are found, if Saddam is tried and all of the funding he received from the west is exposed...if all that happens, I'll admit I was wrong.
Incidentally, the irony of you saying we're bitter when you've just smashed the Olympic Rattle Throwing record is pretty base, but very funny.
IB is rather a good poster, isn't he? As is Snuggly. Yet you praise someone who has agreed with you in the past, and try to demean those who haven't. What an immature little boy you are.
>
> So go on, have another fag - incidentally it's bl**dy hilarious a
> smoker whining about corporations and campaign funding, and insisting
> he's right when he's chugging cancer sticks daily - posta witty
> insult, and tell yourself you're right and always were, because in
> your world you are right and nearly everyone else is wrong.
Ahhh...Best laugh I've had in ages...
What we have here is an excellent example of the fundamentalist mindset in microcosm, as seen in action in the form of bin Laden and Dubya. Basically, Bell has been made to actually think about his black and white views. And he's found that he has no response to the shades of grey. So his response? Well, it's the typical response of the unintelligent fundamentalist when forced to think for themselves; name calling, trying to demonise 'the enemy', hoping that no-one will notice the numerous inconsistencies in his logic by getting so wound up that he'll be left alone and not questioned too closely...
Oh, and I realise I've lost my temper MANY times in the past. I certainly don't exclude myself from criticism for doing so. But I don't think I've ever filled my nappy in quite such remarkable fashion. Truly amazing Bell; you've posted the most petulant and childish rant I've ever read.
Bravo!
>
> Goatboy knows every bl**dy answer to every bl**dy problem in the
> world and by God he'll ram it down your throat every chance he gets,
> then s*d off because he really thinks he does know best, and everyone
> else can just go to hell, because he is RIGHT and knows every little
> damn thing.
My my...is this the same prudish Belldandy who complained at the foul and abusive language I used when I lost my temper with him?
Heh...I think you'll find Bell that both Goaty and I know what OUR opinion is. We've both shown that we're willing to back down and admit our mistakes when we're shown to be incorrect. But shouting "I'm right and you're wrong!" over and over isn't the way to do that.
>
> Which is why he's posting on an internet forum with barely anyone his
> own age and berating people half his age. Which is why he spends his
> workday posting here. Yes, Goatboy truly knows it all, but for the
> betterment of mankind he's decided a job in (I believe) marketing is
> his destiny alongside an indie band, because it's not like there
> aren't tons of those around right now.
So why are you posting here then? And more to the point, what has Goatboy's life and job got anything to do with his opinion? Sounds like you're getting desperate to make him stop asking you questions that you can't answer.
>
> Plus Goatboy knows everything about all of you, or at least he thinks
> he does, because what you post about yourself is the sum of you,
> according to him. How dare you post about a terrorist attack if you
> haven't, repeatedly, reminded everyone you're uncle or someone died
> in it. How dare you express any opinion at all, because Goatboy was
> born with everything pre installed in his head, yes he has never read
> a thing, it's all original stuff he spouts.
So...you're now annoyed at him for having a more direct connection to 9/11 than you? Hmm...tell me Bell; do you hurl abuse at anti-war protesters who lost loved ones in 9/11 on a regular basis?
You know, when you compared anti-war demonstraters to the BNP you should maybe have looked a little closer to home. Your absolute intolerance of dissent would fit right in with the fascists.
>
> Your thoughts are equally meaningless Goatboy, end of the day you'll
> post in reply and think you've achieved something, and you won't
> have. You're equally as bad as anyone here, because none of this
> matters one jot in the real world and no matter how much you screech
> the real world will not change, you'll still be some sad middle aged
> man insisting he knows it all along with the other supposed holders
> of the truth about everything.
Well...doesn't that make what you say meaningless? Plus, even if it is...well then, who cares? This is just a webboard; a place to sound off. Your attempts to make him stop sounding off reek of the intellectual, moral, and emotional cowardice that I had hoped was on its way out. Still, there's a rumour going round that I'm not perfect in my assumptions...(note. that was a joke; just in case you didn't realise)
>
> IB's got more sense than most of you put together, heck he's go the
> sense to s0dding well not bother posting in Life because hardly
> anyone wants to discuss, we just whack each other with facts and hope
> everyone else s0ds off in boredom making it look like we achieved
> something, and we then repeat it. You and Light will still be here,
> sneering, when Iraq has democracy restored, when they catch Bin
> Laden, you belittle everything and acknowledge nothing but that which
> further your own ideas. Who gives a feck that Saddam's gone, 'cause
> we can't find any WMD !!! Who cares we took out a major terrorist
> supporting regime, we can't find Bin Laden !!! Every little victory
> there is you two have something negative, god you're bitter.
No; if things work out in Iraq, if Al-Quaida is neutralised, if the WMD (the reason we actually invaded. supposedly) are found, if Saddam is tried and all of the funding he received from the west is exposed...if all that happens, I'll admit I was wrong.
Incidentally, the irony of you saying we're bitter when you've just smashed the Olympic Rattle Throwing record is pretty base, but very funny.
IB is rather a good poster, isn't he? As is Snuggly. Yet you praise someone who has agreed with you in the past, and try to demean those who haven't. What an immature little boy you are.
>
> So go on, have another fag - incidentally it's bl**dy hilarious a
> smoker whining about corporations and campaign funding, and insisting
> he's right when he's chugging cancer sticks daily - posta witty
> insult, and tell yourself you're right and always were, because in
> your world you are right and nearly everyone else is wrong.
Ahhh...Best laugh I've had in ages...
What we have here is an excellent example of the fundamentalist mindset in microcosm, as seen in action in the form of bin Laden and Dubya. Basically, Bell has been made to actually think about his black and white views. And he's found that he has no response to the shades of grey. So his response? Well, it's the typical response of the unintelligent fundamentalist when forced to think for themselves; name calling, trying to demonise 'the enemy', hoping that no-one will notice the numerous inconsistencies in his logic by getting so wound up that he'll be left alone and not questioned too closely...
Oh, and I realise I've lost my temper MANY times in the past. I certainly don't exclude myself from criticism for doing so. But I don't think I've ever filled my nappy in quite such remarkable fashion. Truly amazing Bell; you've posted the most petulant and childish rant I've ever read.
Bravo!
Skarra wrote:
> Trying to stay middle-orientated in this one, but i can't help myself.
Fair enough, but my points,frustration and anger are towards Bell and solely Belldandy. Not at anybody else, nor are the points I have raised to reflect on anybody else or their posts.
But I'll try and answer your points, purely so you may have an idea of where I am coming from in relation to my feelings:
-----
> I understand he has a perspective we don't have, but, not being
> sarcy, does he ever tell you of any people pleased to see him?
Of course he does. But I don't discuss his feelings and emotions 9/10 because they are a release for him, to discuss them with somebody that isn't in his unit/company/batallion etc and won't judge him. I'm just an ear across the world for a fed up, confused and lonely guy that wants to go home to his new baby and wife.
> Well, what will be left then? I doubt it could be much worse than
> Saddam. I'm betting it'll be a dam site better infact, given time.
In my view? The same as Iran, Afghanistan, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Colombia, Guatamala, Mexico and any other number of places that the USA has decided to impose it's version of democracy on: Debt, raging "terrorist" or "rebel" groups (depending on which side of the fence you fall), a destitute lower class and crippling trade restrictions imposed by sanctions and blockades.
> To be fair, it was done with the best of intentions. Even if some of
> the worst things in History have been done with the best intentions.
Possibly, yes. But as per usual, reams of links and quotes were tossed out with no mention made of the fact that we (The West) played a vital and instrumental role in the fact that he is in power. We are solely responsible for Pinochet, as we are with Hussein and The Taliban.
> That could just be a flaw in his person.
Which would be fine if he wasn't so bloody pious about others. Say what you like about my views, at least I'm consistent.
> But we can't expect only those effected by it to talk about it.
Absolutely true.
But my issue with Belldandy is that he *never* posts his feelings about a situation. He never explains how it makes him feel, it's always Daily Mail-lite reporting with links (often barely-read if at all, as unknown has pointed out above and I have on numerous occasions).
And with September 11th, I have never read, not once, a post about how Bell feels.
It's always "We must take action to prevent terrorism" etc etc, never "I was shocked/appalled/upset". Anyone can cut and paste links from google, but it takes emotion, feelings and understanding to be able to write why a situation affects you.
I may rant, I may shout and scream but I always try and explain *why* I do, explain my emotions and feelings about a situation, to try and convey why I act and think the way I do.
> Then what do we do, stop reading papers and phone people around the
> world to get all of our information?
No, but you take a view and stick to it, or at least be consistent.
He's sneered and dismissed the BBC, yet feels he can use links from them when it suits his argument. There is zero consistency to his methods, reasons or arguments.
I read the Daily Mail, The Times, The Observer, CNN, BBC, Sky News, Al Jazeera and a number of other publications. I then try and filter out the hyperbole, hysteria and inflammatory rhetoric and try to see what the story is common to all these sources. I purposely read odios right-wing hate like The Daily Mail so I'm not missing what the "other side" is saying, whether I agree or not I make myself aware of their position.
> It really does depend on you perspective and how you phrase it.
No it doesn't when that person is saying "I may be anti-war but I am not pro-Saddam".
And especially when that person explains, time and time again, why he is not in favour of Hussein but takes a step back to ask "Well why now?" and questions what he is told.
> Not being sarcy, but what are your views and ideology's?
Mate, if you haven't been reading what I've been writing since last September when this started to flare up, or even further back to pre Sept 11th then I haven't got time to list them!
I'm trying to find posts from when Bush Jr got elected, because I remember posting how it was going to be a dark time for this planet and will create so many wars it won't be funny.
---------
It's not what Bell posts I find so laughable.
It is his refusal to stick to a view, to chop and change depending on the current climate.
It is his ability to ignore points made, focus on one thing he can prove with googled links and then bleat about others not replying to his points.
It is his sheer stubbornness to refuse to even entertain that another viewpoint might have validity if it digresses from what our glorious leaders are being told.
It's his childish "Waaaah waaaaah" at anyone that takes the time to pick his posts apart and prove, time and time again, what utter monkeycock he posts 95% of the time.
And it's about time he offered another "I'm leaving" post, takes his ball and goes home.
For 9 days before returning refusing to be "cowtowed by Goatboy's disciples" etc etc.
> Trying to stay middle-orientated in this one, but i can't help myself.
Fair enough, but my points,frustration and anger are towards Bell and solely Belldandy. Not at anybody else, nor are the points I have raised to reflect on anybody else or their posts.
But I'll try and answer your points, purely so you may have an idea of where I am coming from in relation to my feelings:
-----
> I understand he has a perspective we don't have, but, not being
> sarcy, does he ever tell you of any people pleased to see him?
Of course he does. But I don't discuss his feelings and emotions 9/10 because they are a release for him, to discuss them with somebody that isn't in his unit/company/batallion etc and won't judge him. I'm just an ear across the world for a fed up, confused and lonely guy that wants to go home to his new baby and wife.
> Well, what will be left then? I doubt it could be much worse than
> Saddam. I'm betting it'll be a dam site better infact, given time.
In my view? The same as Iran, Afghanistan, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Colombia, Guatamala, Mexico and any other number of places that the USA has decided to impose it's version of democracy on: Debt, raging "terrorist" or "rebel" groups (depending on which side of the fence you fall), a destitute lower class and crippling trade restrictions imposed by sanctions and blockades.
> To be fair, it was done with the best of intentions. Even if some of
> the worst things in History have been done with the best intentions.
Possibly, yes. But as per usual, reams of links and quotes were tossed out with no mention made of the fact that we (The West) played a vital and instrumental role in the fact that he is in power. We are solely responsible for Pinochet, as we are with Hussein and The Taliban.
> That could just be a flaw in his person.
Which would be fine if he wasn't so bloody pious about others. Say what you like about my views, at least I'm consistent.
> But we can't expect only those effected by it to talk about it.
Absolutely true.
But my issue with Belldandy is that he *never* posts his feelings about a situation. He never explains how it makes him feel, it's always Daily Mail-lite reporting with links (often barely-read if at all, as unknown has pointed out above and I have on numerous occasions).
And with September 11th, I have never read, not once, a post about how Bell feels.
It's always "We must take action to prevent terrorism" etc etc, never "I was shocked/appalled/upset". Anyone can cut and paste links from google, but it takes emotion, feelings and understanding to be able to write why a situation affects you.
I may rant, I may shout and scream but I always try and explain *why* I do, explain my emotions and feelings about a situation, to try and convey why I act and think the way I do.
> Then what do we do, stop reading papers and phone people around the
> world to get all of our information?
No, but you take a view and stick to it, or at least be consistent.
He's sneered and dismissed the BBC, yet feels he can use links from them when it suits his argument. There is zero consistency to his methods, reasons or arguments.
I read the Daily Mail, The Times, The Observer, CNN, BBC, Sky News, Al Jazeera and a number of other publications. I then try and filter out the hyperbole, hysteria and inflammatory rhetoric and try to see what the story is common to all these sources. I purposely read odios right-wing hate like The Daily Mail so I'm not missing what the "other side" is saying, whether I agree or not I make myself aware of their position.
> It really does depend on you perspective and how you phrase it.
No it doesn't when that person is saying "I may be anti-war but I am not pro-Saddam".
And especially when that person explains, time and time again, why he is not in favour of Hussein but takes a step back to ask "Well why now?" and questions what he is told.
> Not being sarcy, but what are your views and ideology's?
Mate, if you haven't been reading what I've been writing since last September when this started to flare up, or even further back to pre Sept 11th then I haven't got time to list them!
I'm trying to find posts from when Bush Jr got elected, because I remember posting how it was going to be a dark time for this planet and will create so many wars it won't be funny.
---------
It's not what Bell posts I find so laughable.
It is his refusal to stick to a view, to chop and change depending on the current climate.
It is his ability to ignore points made, focus on one thing he can prove with googled links and then bleat about others not replying to his points.
It is his sheer stubbornness to refuse to even entertain that another viewpoint might have validity if it digresses from what our glorious leaders are being told.
It's his childish "Waaaah waaaaah" at anyone that takes the time to pick his posts apart and prove, time and time again, what utter monkeycock he posts 95% of the time.
And it's about time he offered another "I'm leaving" post, takes his ball and goes home.
For 9 days before returning refusing to be "cowtowed by Goatboy's disciples" etc etc.
*I have read the whole post by the way*
Storm the Winter Palace... take that Czar.
Storm the Winter Palace... take that Czar.
Practical Magic wrote:
> And by
> the way, http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/
> vol13no1/06odalg.gif is an old table showing aid given to just South
> Africa between 93-97 , totalling close to US$105 billion
Quite apart from anything else, Belldandy, this is just plain wrong. If you read the article that went with that graph (or read the labels) then you would see that that figure is the aid for ALL of Africa, not just S. Africa.
http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/ afrec/vol13no1/aid2ngo.htm
Or this, which says pretty much the same thing: that Africa gets about $16 billion in aid every year, of which South Africa gets half a billion.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/40/27/7504863.PDF
So that 'paltry' $87 billion would, in fact, pay for 5 and a half years of aid to Africa, which might make a bit of a difference to the 850 million people who live there. Assuming it isn't used to service debt to the West.
> And by
> the way, http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/
> vol13no1/06odalg.gif is an old table showing aid given to just South
> Africa between 93-97 , totalling close to US$105 billion
Quite apart from anything else, Belldandy, this is just plain wrong. If you read the article that went with that graph (or read the labels) then you would see that that figure is the aid for ALL of Africa, not just S. Africa.
http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/ afrec/vol13no1/aid2ngo.htm
Or this, which says pretty much the same thing: that Africa gets about $16 billion in aid every year, of which South Africa gets half a billion.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/40/27/7504863.PDF
So that 'paltry' $87 billion would, in fact, pay for 5 and a half years of aid to Africa, which might make a bit of a difference to the 850 million people who live there. Assuming it isn't used to service debt to the West.
Is that actually Belldandy? Sounds like him, although he's not using the same account and doesn't have the colon after "Gamertag".
Er, you mocked him being middle class, which seemed a little hypocritical to me, seeing as you're middle class too, from what I an gather.
Just an observation, I'll still storm that Russian place for you.
Just an observation, I'll still storm that Russian place for you.
Trying to stay middle-orientated in this one, but i can't help myself.
Goatboy wrote:
> In regards to Iraq? Because I have a cousin out there. And he emails
> me every couple of days with what's going on. Not what's in the
> news.
I understand he has a perspective we don't have, but, not being sarcy, does he ever tell you of any people pleased to see him?
> At the end of the day Bell, you're a moron.
> Face it. Doesn't matter how many books you read, you're a tool.
> Why?
> Because you harp on about learning from history about why Iraq is a
> threat if left to carry on. Yet you are stupid enough to honestly
> believe that democracy is what will be left in Iraq.
Well, what will be left then? I doubt it could be much worse than Saddam. I'm betting it'll be a dam site better infact, given time.
> Because you were stupid enough to defend Rumsfeld's sale of nuclear
> reactors to North Korea by saying "That was a different
> administration, what does it matter?"
I think Rumsfeld was a plum by doing that. See, i am sort of in the middle.
> Because you are stupid and insensitive enough to defend Pinochet by
> saying "He was on our side", without mentioning that he was
> installed in a coup by us and America.
To be fair, it was done with the best of intentions. Even if some of the worst things in History have been done with the best intentions.
> Because you're stupid enough to take an immediate side to an
> argument, and defend it more and more until it becomes obvious to
> even you that you're an idiot - but you lack the honour to say
> "Whoops! Sorry".
That could just be a flaw in his person.
> Because you're stupid enough to talk about September the 11th with no
> experience outside of what Foxnews tells you.
But we can't expect only those effected by it to talk about it.
> Because you're stupid enough to think that just because your
> newspapers say so, it must be true.
Then what do we do, stop reading papers and phone people around the world to get all of our information?
> Because you're stupid enough to say that anyone who opposed the war
> was pro-Saddam
It really does depend on you perspective and how you phrase it.
> Because I stand for everything that you and your idols loathe.
Not being sarcy, but what are your views and ideology's?
It seems you two should get together on Jerry Springer and have it all out. But i'll leave it all up to you.
Goatboy wrote:
> In regards to Iraq? Because I have a cousin out there. And he emails
> me every couple of days with what's going on. Not what's in the
> news.
I understand he has a perspective we don't have, but, not being sarcy, does he ever tell you of any people pleased to see him?
> At the end of the day Bell, you're a moron.
> Face it. Doesn't matter how many books you read, you're a tool.
> Why?
> Because you harp on about learning from history about why Iraq is a
> threat if left to carry on. Yet you are stupid enough to honestly
> believe that democracy is what will be left in Iraq.
Well, what will be left then? I doubt it could be much worse than Saddam. I'm betting it'll be a dam site better infact, given time.
> Because you were stupid enough to defend Rumsfeld's sale of nuclear
> reactors to North Korea by saying "That was a different
> administration, what does it matter?"
I think Rumsfeld was a plum by doing that. See, i am sort of in the middle.
> Because you are stupid and insensitive enough to defend Pinochet by
> saying "He was on our side", without mentioning that he was
> installed in a coup by us and America.
To be fair, it was done with the best of intentions. Even if some of the worst things in History have been done with the best intentions.
> Because you're stupid enough to take an immediate side to an
> argument, and defend it more and more until it becomes obvious to
> even you that you're an idiot - but you lack the honour to say
> "Whoops! Sorry".
That could just be a flaw in his person.
> Because you're stupid enough to talk about September the 11th with no
> experience outside of what Foxnews tells you.
But we can't expect only those effected by it to talk about it.
> Because you're stupid enough to think that just because your
> newspapers say so, it must be true.
Then what do we do, stop reading papers and phone people around the world to get all of our information?
> Because you're stupid enough to say that anyone who opposed the war
> was pro-Saddam
It really does depend on you perspective and how you phrase it.
> Because I stand for everything that you and your idols loathe.
Not being sarcy, but what are your views and ideology's?
It seems you two should get together on Jerry Springer and have it all out. But i'll leave it all up to you.
Stryke wrote:
> Whats the Winter Palace? Do you really want us to storm it?
---
It was a reference to the Russian Revoltion. And dont storm for another 36hrs, we need to loot and smash stuff first.
Bell - I've restricted my comments to you about what you post, the manner in which you post and why I find your posts ludicrous.
Yet you felt the need to mock my band, my job, my age and my smoking.
That says mountains about your supposed intelligence and maturity if you have to make it personal instead of keeping it to stuff written in forums.
I've said nothing about your hobbies or your dreams/ambitions.
Which is another tick to the "Pique of frothing anger" column for reasons not to take you seriously.
> Whats the Winter Palace? Do you really want us to storm it?
---
It was a reference to the Russian Revoltion. And dont storm for another 36hrs, we need to loot and smash stuff first.
Bell - I've restricted my comments to you about what you post, the manner in which you post and why I find your posts ludicrous.
Yet you felt the need to mock my band, my job, my age and my smoking.
That says mountains about your supposed intelligence and maturity if you have to make it personal instead of keeping it to stuff written in forums.
I've said nothing about your hobbies or your dreams/ambitions.
Which is another tick to the "Pique of frothing anger" column for reasons not to take you seriously.
Page: