Quote from Dapperdan
It wasn't rude, just pointless, and kind of annoying. 
Mind sharing? with me at least?None.
George Bush is awesome. Enough said.
Mind sharing? with me at least?
Wasn't this the thread where I just started agreeing with Will and PwnPirate got mad at me? They all started overlapping and mixing together, so I don't really remember. In any case, I don't like Bush. I'm not overly educated on the details of the matter, but in general, I think pulling out of Iraq would make the most sense.
None.
Quote from Dapperdan
Wasn't this the thread where I just started agreeing with Will and PwnPirate got mad at me? They all started overlapping and mixing together, so I don't really remember. In any case, I don't like Bush. I'm not overly educated on the details of the matter, but in general, I think pulling out of Iraq would make the most sense.
). What do you think about bushes nonmilitary decisions? like regular tax and law enforcement stuff? None.
Quote
What do you think about bushes nonmilitary decisions? like regular tax and law enforcement stuff?
I haven't studied it personally, but from everything I hear he sucks at it. Caused an epic national debt, and basically changed the rules of the constitution to suit his purposes at least once. I would call that bad.
None.
Quote from Dapperdan
I haven't studied it personally, but from everything I hear he sucks at it. Caused an epic national debt, and basically changed the rules of the constitution to suit his purposes at least once. I would call that bad.
). Has he greatly increased our debt from going to war? And does anyone happen to know the current national debt?None.
Before bush took office we were actually paying back the national debt, which was about 5.7 trillion dollars generated over 3 decades. The current Debt is over 9 trillion dollars.
None.
Bushes second best career choice: Beggar
None.
Quote from AntiSleep
Before bush took office we were actually paying back the national debt, which was about 5.7 trillion dollars generated over 3 decades. The current Debt is over 9 trillion dollars.
None.
Quote from Jello-Jigglers
Quote from AntiSleep
Before bush took office we were actually paying back the national debt, which was about 5.7 trillion dollars generated over 3 decades. The current Debt is over 9 trillion dollars.
None.
[quote=AntiSleep]Considering we nerfed the organized military in iraq in under 3 weeks, I do not think that is a valid point. no number of tanks or guns can help us defeat IEDs and insurgents that look like civilians. We need to get out of Iraq sooner rather than later...quote]
Sooner rather than later would have been 8 months ago... Anyone know the casualties stats?
Sooner rather than later would have been 8 months ago... Anyone know the casualties stats?
None.
No, the official figures are basically propaganda, deaths that directly result injuries sustained in Iraq are only counted as Iraq war casualties if the soldier dies in Iraq(or within 24 hours of leaving). The actual figure is somewhere around 15-20 thousand.
None.
Quote from AntiSleep
No, the official figures are basically propaganda, deaths that directly result injuries sustained in Iraq are only counted as Iraq war casualties if the soldier dies in Iraq(or within 24 hours of leaving). The actual figure is somewhere around 15-20 thousand.
Well I remember when people were complaining with 1000 deaths, what are people doing now? Charging the White House?
None.
Quote from Jello-Jigglers
Quote from Dapperdan
Wasn't this the thread where I just started agreeing with Will and PwnPirate got mad at me? They all started overlapping and mixing together, so I don't really remember. In any case, I don't like Bush. I'm not overly educated on the details of the matter, but in general, I think pulling out of Iraq would make the most sense.
). What do you think about bushes nonmilitary decisions? like regular tax and law enforcement stuff? And our allies in Vietnam were obliterated.
Quote from Jello-Jigglers
Quote from AntiSleep
Before bush took office we were actually paying back the national debt, which was about 5.7 trillion dollars generated over 3 decades. The current Debt is over 9 trillion dollars.
War has no bright sides, the only hope we have is that the conflict can be resolved quickly and that the war serves more purpose than the good lives it claims.
Quote from AntiSleep
Quote from Jello-Jigglers
Quote from AntiSleep
Before bush took office we were actually paying back the national debt, which was about 5.7 trillion dollars generated over 3 decades. The current Debt is over 9 trillion dollars.
Yes, we do have enough guns and tanks and military equipment and manpower. We have defenses against the IEDs but we need a faster and more efficient way or neutralizing them. I believe right now the Air Force is responsible for that, you can find information about it on their website. However their tactics take time to set up. Honestly, I dont see why taking a rocket to the car bomb isn't such a bad idea. Quick, swift, efficient, and no more damage than a machine-planted bomb or explosive. But I'm just a civilian.
Quote from Jello-Jigglers
[quote=AntiSleep]Considering we nerfed the organized military in iraq in under 3 weeks, I do not think that is a valid point. no number of tanks or guns can help us defeat IEDs and insurgents that look like civilians. We need to get out of Iraq sooner rather than later...quote]
Sooner rather than later would have been 8 months ago... Anyone know the casualties stats?
Sooner rather than later would have been 8 months ago... Anyone know the casualties stats?
We should leave Iraq when we have completed our objectives and the country is stable.
Quote from AntiSleep
No, the official figures are basically propaganda, deaths that directly result injuries sustained in Iraq are only counted as Iraq war casualties if the soldier dies in Iraq(or within 24 hours of leaving). The actual figure is somewhere around 15-20 thousand.
Twenty-thousand casualties? I really don't believe that. I think the count is under 3,500 or around there. Do you know how insanely high 20,000 is, who told you that? I calculate thats about 13% of all American troops in the area. 20K? Not likely.
EDIT: BTW, there are 175,000 American soldiers in Iraq.
None.
Parties in government do not work. George Washington was the only intelligent president. EVER!
None.
Quote from GuN_Solar90
Twenty-thousand casualties? I really don't believe that. I think the count is under 3,500 or around there. Do you know how insanely high 20,000 is, who told you that? I calculate thats about 13% of all American troops in the area. 20K? Not likely.
None.
Quote from Akar
Parties in government do not work. George Washington was the only intelligent president. EVER!
George Washington was a general, not a politician.
None.
Quote from AntiSleep
Quote from GuN_Solar90
Twenty-thousand casualties? I really don't believe that. I think the count is under 3,500 or around there. Do you know how insanely high 20,000 is, who told you that? I calculate thats about 13% of all American troops in the area. 20K? Not likely.
Well I believe he was misinformed. Whats this medic evac chain you speak of?
Quote from Syphon
Quote from Akar
Parties in government do not work. George Washington was the only intelligent president. EVER!
George Washington was a general, not a politician.
Lol this one'll drive the liberals crazy.
None.
medical evacuation, the people that transport the wounded soldiers from the battlefield to the hospitals(generally a hospital in a nearby country)
And i do think political parties are a bad idea, unless your goal is to limit and maintain power.
And i do think political parties are a bad idea, unless your goal is to limit and maintain power.
None.
EDIT: Man, I've been gone for weeks and the Multi-quote button STILL isn't fixed?
Wtf?
Well, I'm sorry that I have something called a LIFE, and that it takes over sometimes. And I'm also sorry that I don't like to waste my time with 15 year olds who just listen to mommy and daddy's opinions, and have no mind of their own. Even if I was to go through and take my time to explain everything, you're too arrogent to acknowledge that I may have a valid and plausible discussion.
Uh oh, Ad Hominem Abusive.
My bad.
I would go through and get all my sources (Which I was doing before SeN had one of its retarded moments and said that I had no text in the text box) but its honestly a waste of my time. I have much more important things to do than sit and bicker with an arrogent, and egotistical 15 year old (i'm only saying you're 15 cause you told everyone you graduate in 2010)
Completely agree.
Okay GuN, if you agree, why don't you actually do it from time too time?
Its actually spelled high school, and I graduate in 2010.[/quote]
You do realise that by attacking someone's grammar, it shows how weak your debate skills are? Just a question..
Who are you?[/quote]
Someone that's going to be better than you ever will?
Lol, I keed I keed.
Not really though.
Because he, along with most of our first presidents, were fundamentalists?
To everyone who supports Bush: Exactly what "good" has he done for the country? I'd like to see reliable sources and statistics if possible.
Once you do that, I'll retort with sources against him
Wtf?
Quote from GuN_Solar90
I never saw those research topics let me know when you want to edit a post or something so we don't end up looking foolish!
Well, I'm sorry that I have something called a LIFE, and that it takes over sometimes. And I'm also sorry that I don't like to waste my time with 15 year olds who just listen to mommy and daddy's opinions, and have no mind of their own. Even if I was to go through and take my time to explain everything, you're too arrogent to acknowledge that I may have a valid and plausible discussion.
Uh oh, Ad Hominem Abusive.
My bad.
I would go through and get all my sources (Which I was doing before SeN had one of its retarded moments and said that I had no text in the text box) but its honestly a waste of my time. I have much more important things to do than sit and bicker with an arrogent, and egotistical 15 year old (i'm only saying you're 15 cause you told everyone you graduate in 2010)
Quote from GuN_Solar90
Quote from MillenniumArmy
I've been thinking this for a while but...
when people are citing your sources, do they even know what those people are talking about in those "sources." Like do they even understand what they are talking about? Seems to me that when people see that a source has a whole bunch of pretty numbers, charts, pictures, or sophisticated words that they think it is concrete proof of whatever they are arguing for or against. Seriously, IMO i believe that in order for someone to properly provide proof or sources for their arguments, they have to first understand what their subject is. If the person responsible for your source has a phD in a certain degree, say a degree in structural engineering, then you've got to first understand what structural engineering. Merely using your highschool or even undergrad college info on such topics aint enough; otherwise there would be no need for such education. Such knowledge is required because then you can verify that such a source is credible or accurate. How do you know they are using the right formulas, data, or w/e? Just because their titles have "Ph Ds or Masters Degrees" doesn't mean everything they say can automatically be assumed to be correct with no revision or questioning. Basically you're putting blind faith into these sources not realizing that they can be misleading or inaccurate. Ok, but if you truly insist that you attain such knowledge to know what these sources, particularly those on such highly sophisticated issues, then that's great; you must be like the next albert einstein or something, especially if you are only in highschool and have already attained such knowledge which would take years and years of high leveled education for most people to attain. Reason I'm saying this is because in many threads, I've seen arguments where people just throw scores of sources and links at each other and the only rebuttles they can come up with is "Prove that my links are wrong! Show me something that is incorrect in my source!" which seems to be that these people do not really know their own sources really well, because if they did, they would be able to point out what's wrong with each other's sources.
when people are citing your sources, do they even know what those people are talking about in those "sources." Like do they even understand what they are talking about? Seems to me that when people see that a source has a whole bunch of pretty numbers, charts, pictures, or sophisticated words that they think it is concrete proof of whatever they are arguing for or against. Seriously, IMO i believe that in order for someone to properly provide proof or sources for their arguments, they have to first understand what their subject is. If the person responsible for your source has a phD in a certain degree, say a degree in structural engineering, then you've got to first understand what structural engineering. Merely using your highschool or even undergrad college info on such topics aint enough; otherwise there would be no need for such education. Such knowledge is required because then you can verify that such a source is credible or accurate. How do you know they are using the right formulas, data, or w/e? Just because their titles have "Ph Ds or Masters Degrees" doesn't mean everything they say can automatically be assumed to be correct with no revision or questioning. Basically you're putting blind faith into these sources not realizing that they can be misleading or inaccurate. Ok, but if you truly insist that you attain such knowledge to know what these sources, particularly those on such highly sophisticated issues, then that's great; you must be like the next albert einstein or something, especially if you are only in highschool and have already attained such knowledge which would take years and years of high leveled education for most people to attain. Reason I'm saying this is because in many threads, I've seen arguments where people just throw scores of sources and links at each other and the only rebuttles they can come up with is "Prove that my links are wrong! Show me something that is incorrect in my source!" which seems to be that these people do not really know their own sources really well, because if they did, they would be able to point out what's wrong with each other's sources.
Completely agree.
Okay GuN, if you agree, why don't you actually do it from time too time?
Quote from AntiSleep
I actually understand what they are talking about, and I graduated highschool in 2004.
Its actually spelled high school, and I graduate in 2010.[/quote]
You do realise that by attacking someone's grammar, it shows how weak your debate skills are? Just a question..
Quote from BeDazed
Starcraft is an old old game now, and a lot of people who has stuck to it for a long long time is old now.
Some people who has played it has jobs now, a wife, and kids. Thats probably beyond you MA.
I do have to agree some there MA. And instead of just citing resources, why not highlight the one you really need to see? And several other sources to compare.
Some people who has played it has jobs now, a wife, and kids. Thats probably beyond you MA.
I do have to agree some there MA. And instead of just citing resources, why not highlight the one you really need to see? And several other sources to compare.
Who are you?[/quote]
Someone that's going to be better than you ever will?
Lol, I keed I keed.
Not really though.
Quote from Akar
Parties in government do not work. George Washington was the only intelligent president. EVER!
Because he, along with most of our first presidents, were fundamentalists?
To everyone who supports Bush: Exactly what "good" has he done for the country? I'd like to see reliable sources and statistics if possible.
Once you do that, I'll retort with sources against him
None.
It doesn't really matter. The 2008 Republican candidates are looking to be a pretty pathetic bunch of political push-overs.
None.
[2024-4-27. : 9:38 pm]
NudeRaider -- UltravioletUltraviolet shouted: NudeRaider sing it brother
trust me, you don't wanna hear that. I defer that to the pros.[2024-4-27. : 7:56 pm]
Ultraviolet -- NudeRaiderNudeRaider shouted: "War nie wirklich weg" 🎵
sing it brother
[2024-4-26. : 6:51 pm]
Vrael -- It is, and I could definitely use a company with a commitment to flexibility, quality, and customer satisfaction to provide effective solutions to dampness and humidity in my urban environment.[2024-4-26. : 6:50 pm]
NudeRaider -- VraelVrael shouted: Idk, I was looking more for a dehumidifer company which maybe stands out as a beacon of relief amidst damp and unpredictable climates of bustling metropolises. Not sure Amazon qualifies
sounds like moisture control is often a pressing concern in your city[2024-4-26. : 6:50 pm]
Vrael -- Maybe here on the StarEdit Network I could look through the Forums for some Introductions to people who care about the Topics of Dehumidifiers and Carpet Cleaning?[2024-4-26. : 6:49 pm]
Vrael -- Perhaps even here I on the StarEdit Network I could look for some Introductions.