The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Apparently so. Both Bush and Blair are comfirming it but I only just heard the news so I don't know any of the details. If you have any further news or any thoughts on the subject please post them here, thanks.
Page:
Why Blank, are you insinuating that Belldandy intentionally posts idiotic remarks to get a reaction?
Are you in fact, labelling him a troll?
Are you in fact, labelling him a troll?
Light wrote:
> Surely I'm not the only person who finds winding up Bell to the point
> of bursting to be an incredibly amusing pasttime?
Yes, it is amusing, but he's getting a reaction which is what he wants.
> Surely I'm not the only person who finds winding up Bell to the point
> of bursting to be an incredibly amusing pasttime?
Yes, it is amusing, but he's getting a reaction which is what he wants.
Dr Duck wrote:
> In a half-ashed attempt to get back to the topic, and because I'd like
> to hear peoples' thoughts on these things...
Heh. Sorry. C'mon; haven't you ever picked at a sore?
>
> Dr Duck wrote:
> Two things have wormed into my mind today:
>
> 1. On the news this morning someone mentioned that (slightly) over
> 50% of Americans believe Iraq were involved in Sept. 11.
>
> This shocked me a lot.
> Even Bush admitted that there was absolutely no evidence for this.
> Then again, he had earlier claimed that there was. Maybe once he'd
> placed the thought in peoples' minds, it stayed there, despite his
> retraction.
>
> It's a sad day if a president can lie to his people, admit to having
> lied, and the people still believe him!
> Jeez, I can't get my head round how screwed up that is.
I can. You'll be hard pressed to find anything resembling decent news coverage in the US. The programs (FOX news being the worst offender) are presented by coiffeured airheads who have the IQ of dead houseplants. They barely ever cover politics of any kind; mostly you'll find them covering such priority items such as the top 10 grossing films in the state that week, or some dangerous wildlife. And whilst they do that, they're busy trying to conjure up some hint of sexual tension (I kid you not) between the two hosts in order to keep viewers interested. In fairness to Dubya, his initial statement connecting Iraq to Sept 11 probably didn't get much coverage either. As to why 50% of Americans believe this...well, an awful lot of Americans don't know a damn thing about anything outside their borders. That's not to say they're dumb. They simply don't get to hear about it. I can't say for certain what has led to so many people believing Saddam had something to do with Sept 11th (except of course in Belldandy's case; it's sheer stupidity), but I'm fairly certain that it's not something that we can lay at Dubya's door.
>
>
> 2. Something just occured to me: Before the war, Blair claimed to
> have access to detailed info on Iraq (which we weren't allowed to
> see).
> When he published his stoled thesis, surely the shows, or at least
> very strongly suggests, that he had no information of his own. If he
> had so much classified info, surely he would have also had enough
> detail which could be released that he could make his own dossier.
> Even if it'd been a crap rush-job it'd have been better than
> stealing
> a decade-old thesis.
>
> So does this show he never did have much information?
Unfortunately, he can claim that to release the detailed Iraq info would "put Intelligence resources at risk". Not that this stopped the White House leaking the name of an active CIA agent, but I digress.
Basically, a government can hide behind the excuse that to release what they know would cause the death's of Intelligence agents or sources. There is almost certainly a degree of truth to that, but that doesn't really excuse the use of an old thesis as 'evidence'. Personally, I still don't believe that the coalition had any such information that showed Iraq definitely had WOMD, links to Al-Quaida, or a secret passage to Narnia. I believe this because, although I can accept they couldn't produce all the evidence into the public domain, that which they have introduced is flawed at best (the thesis) or downright lies at worst (the 45 minute claim).
> In a half-ashed attempt to get back to the topic, and because I'd like
> to hear peoples' thoughts on these things...
Heh. Sorry. C'mon; haven't you ever picked at a sore?
>
> Dr Duck wrote:
> Two things have wormed into my mind today:
>
> 1. On the news this morning someone mentioned that (slightly) over
> 50% of Americans believe Iraq were involved in Sept. 11.
>
> This shocked me a lot.
> Even Bush admitted that there was absolutely no evidence for this.
> Then again, he had earlier claimed that there was. Maybe once he'd
> placed the thought in peoples' minds, it stayed there, despite his
> retraction.
>
> It's a sad day if a president can lie to his people, admit to having
> lied, and the people still believe him!
> Jeez, I can't get my head round how screwed up that is.
I can. You'll be hard pressed to find anything resembling decent news coverage in the US. The programs (FOX news being the worst offender) are presented by coiffeured airheads who have the IQ of dead houseplants. They barely ever cover politics of any kind; mostly you'll find them covering such priority items such as the top 10 grossing films in the state that week, or some dangerous wildlife. And whilst they do that, they're busy trying to conjure up some hint of sexual tension (I kid you not) between the two hosts in order to keep viewers interested. In fairness to Dubya, his initial statement connecting Iraq to Sept 11 probably didn't get much coverage either. As to why 50% of Americans believe this...well, an awful lot of Americans don't know a damn thing about anything outside their borders. That's not to say they're dumb. They simply don't get to hear about it. I can't say for certain what has led to so many people believing Saddam had something to do with Sept 11th (except of course in Belldandy's case; it's sheer stupidity), but I'm fairly certain that it's not something that we can lay at Dubya's door.
>
>
> 2. Something just occured to me: Before the war, Blair claimed to
> have access to detailed info on Iraq (which we weren't allowed to
> see).
> When he published his stoled thesis, surely the shows, or at least
> very strongly suggests, that he had no information of his own. If he
> had so much classified info, surely he would have also had enough
> detail which could be released that he could make his own dossier.
> Even if it'd been a crap rush-job it'd have been better than
> stealing
> a decade-old thesis.
>
> So does this show he never did have much information?
Unfortunately, he can claim that to release the detailed Iraq info would "put Intelligence resources at risk". Not that this stopped the White House leaking the name of an active CIA agent, but I digress.
Basically, a government can hide behind the excuse that to release what they know would cause the death's of Intelligence agents or sources. There is almost certainly a degree of truth to that, but that doesn't really excuse the use of an old thesis as 'evidence'. Personally, I still don't believe that the coalition had any such information that showed Iraq definitely had WOMD, links to Al-Quaida, or a secret passage to Narnia. I believe this because, although I can accept they couldn't produce all the evidence into the public domain, that which they have introduced is flawed at best (the thesis) or downright lies at worst (the 45 minute claim).
Urusei Yatsura wrote:
> Hmm, only 8 ?
The funny thing is that there were actually only four: one of mine was a reply to someone else; another just pointed out that I used to like a band with the same name as you; one of IB's posts expressed (I think) indignation that I described Urusei Yatsura as some manga thing; and my last post explained to IB that it could have been much worse. So you are only half the man you thought you were.
> Hmm, only 8 ?
The funny thing is that there were actually only four: one of mine was a reply to someone else; another just pointed out that I used to like a band with the same name as you; one of IB's posts expressed (I think) indignation that I described Urusei Yatsura as some manga thing; and my last post explained to IB that it could have been much worse. So you are only half the man you thought you were.
Blank wrote:
> The funny thing is, you are all getting into a bit of a huff about it.
Depends on the tone really, and tone is a difficult thing to get across. Personally, I'm not actually huffed or angry at Bell, and I would imagine that the same could be said of yourself Blank, and IB, and Goaty. I'll agree that, if you read those posts and imagine them being said in an angry tone of voice, we all seem rather huffy. If however you read them in the manner which they (well...my posts) are intended, then it will sound like someone being immensely patronising and sarcastic to an imbecile.
Surely I'm not the only person who finds winding up Bell to the point of bursting to be an incredibly amusing pasttime?
> The funny thing is, you are all getting into a bit of a huff about it.
Depends on the tone really, and tone is a difficult thing to get across. Personally, I'm not actually huffed or angry at Bell, and I would imagine that the same could be said of yourself Blank, and IB, and Goaty. I'll agree that, if you read those posts and imagine them being said in an angry tone of voice, we all seem rather huffy. If however you read them in the manner which they (well...my posts) are intended, then it will sound like someone being immensely patronising and sarcastic to an imbecile.
Surely I'm not the only person who finds winding up Bell to the point of bursting to be an incredibly amusing pasttime?
In a half-ashed attempt to get back to the topic, and because I'd like to hear peoples' thoughts on these things...
Dr Duck wrote:
> Two things have wormed into my mind today:
>
> 1. On the news this morning someone mentioned that (slightly) over
> 50% of Americans believe Iraq were involved in Sept. 11.
>
> This shocked me a lot.
> Even Bush admitted that there was absolutely no evidence for this.
> Then again, he had earlier claimed that there was. Maybe once he'd
> placed the thought in peoples' minds, it stayed there, despite his
> retraction.
>
> It's a sad day if a president can lie to his people, admit to having
> lied, and the people still believe him!
> Jeez, I can't get my head round how screwed up that is.
>
>
> 2. Something just occured to me: Before the war, Blair claimed to
> have access to detailed info on Iraq (which we weren't allowed to
> see).
> When he published his stoled thesis, surely the shows, or at least
> very strongly suggests, that he had no information of his own. If he
> had so much classified info, surely he would have also had enough
> detail which could be released that he could make his own dossier.
> Even if it'd been a crap rush-job it'd have been better than stealing
> a decade-old thesis.
>
> So does this show he never did have much information?
Dr Duck wrote:
> Two things have wormed into my mind today:
>
> 1. On the news this morning someone mentioned that (slightly) over
> 50% of Americans believe Iraq were involved in Sept. 11.
>
> This shocked me a lot.
> Even Bush admitted that there was absolutely no evidence for this.
> Then again, he had earlier claimed that there was. Maybe once he'd
> placed the thought in peoples' minds, it stayed there, despite his
> retraction.
>
> It's a sad day if a president can lie to his people, admit to having
> lied, and the people still believe him!
> Jeez, I can't get my head round how screwed up that is.
>
>
> 2. Something just occured to me: Before the war, Blair claimed to
> have access to detailed info on Iraq (which we weren't allowed to
> see).
> When he published his stoled thesis, surely the shows, or at least
> very strongly suggests, that he had no information of his own. If he
> had so much classified info, surely he would have also had enough
> detail which could be released that he could make his own dossier.
> Even if it'd been a crap rush-job it'd have been better than stealing
> a decade-old thesis.
>
> So does this show he never did have much information?
Am I?
The funny thing is, you are all getting into a bit of a huff about it.
Urusei Yatsura wrote:
> Still, you all jumped, as predicted.
Heh. There is a big difference between everyone "taking your bait", and the whole forum pointing and laughing at you for consistently proving yourself to be an absolute moron.
It is a difference you would do well to learn.
> Still, you all jumped, as predicted.
Heh. There is a big difference between everyone "taking your bait", and the whole forum pointing and laughing at you for consistently proving yourself to be an absolute moron.
It is a difference you would do well to learn.
Don't even bother mate. It's been going on for ages. Kinda like people constantly chatting about how they hate celebrities.
Page: