George Bush is awesome. Enough said. (Topic)

Quote from PwnPirate

Quote

Oh, and if you research the Skull and Bones, you'll notice how both Bush's of the Bush family, and Cheyney were in it.

And you'll also learn that the Skull and Bones are linked up with a bunch of nasty events.

And if you knew anything about the Bush familia, you'd know that Bush Grandpa (Bush SR's father) struck it rich in Texas because of Oil.

Hmm.. Both Bush's declared war on Iraq when they were in the presidency.. Iraq has Oil... The Bush familia is rich because of Oil... Hmm......

Your whole argument can only be accounted up to a moderate case of magical thinking.
There's no proof of any of this, they are just vague connections which cannot be used as defense in an argument.
Sure it's possible, but until it's proven you can't use it as if it's valid.

A moderate case of magical thinking? Researching heavily is magical thinking?

Sorry, but burdon of proof is on you. You fail in debate until you prove that my heavy research is "a moderate case of magical thinking".

None.

Quote

A moderate case of magical thinking? Researching heavily is magical thinking?
Sorry, but burdon of proof is on you. You fail in debate until you prove that my heavy research is "a moderate case of magical thinking".

The burden of proof is on you. What heavy research? Where is the consensus of historians that Bush blew up the twin towers and caused the war for oil? It's magical thinking because you are piecing together coincidences as fact. Until you prove to us that it is fact, it's merely a hypothesis.

None.

Kellimus:Bush did it for oil.
PwnPirate:Proof?
Kellimus:I did heavy research.

What heavy research? I see none.

tits

Some citations would be nice.

None.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

None.

Quote from Wilhelm

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

that is entertainment, not research.

None.

Quote from AntiSleep

Quote from Wilhelm

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

that is entertainment, not research.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

Maybe try reading those then, which he links to.

None.

All those links are a little short on references, maths, and test data.

Try some of these:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200612/NIST-WTC-Investigation.pdf look through the appendix of eyewitness accounts.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf
http://www.journalof911studies.com/

None.

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.

None.

I actually understand what they are talking about, and I graduated highschool in 2004.

None.

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.

None.

Quote from TitanWing

That would be the personal opinion of the average undereducated Bush hater. :-_-:

Because, of course, everybody that disagrees with Bush must be undereducated, right? The universe would implode if it were any other way, I'm certain. (/sarcasm)

None.

Quote from AntiSleep

I actually understand what they are talking about, and I graduated highschool in 2004.

I wasn't accusing anybody; I was pretty sure u knew ur stuff, but I was just asking all that stuff in general. Do the others know their stuff?

None.

Quote

Do the others know their stuff?

Well, I think that was your point, we can't really know in most cases.

None.

Quote from AntiSleep

No, but we did do a pretty damn good job at preventing them from exporting oil, which was probably the objective all along.

I don't see any proof of not allowing them to export oil. And why would that be our objective? Thats detrimental to both sides.

Quote from Kellimus

Quote from GuN_Solar90

Quote from Kellimus

Quote from GuN_Solar90

Moo[/SIZE]

So, I put the "Moo" in there because frankly: I'm not going to go through that long ass list of your retorts...

I'm going to retort against your claims that he protected us during 9/11.

Alright. So you think he protected us during 9/11?

How?

By sitting in a classroom full of children for ten-plus more minutes after being told of the attacks?

By hiding away in underground bunkers, not even giving any orders to the people he should?

By ignoring the problem and letting it happen?

I choose the latter. There are WAY TOO MANY INCONSISTANCIES with 9/11, to make me think it was a "terrorist attack"

Was Perl Harbor really a suprise?

No, it wasn't. It was a way for the president to get us into a war with Japan.

How do I know this?

Because there is PROOF that we knew about the attacks, yet we did NOTHING about it.

Just like we did with 9/11.

Oh wait, maybe we did it ourselves....

I honestly do think we did.

Why in god's name would terrorists attack a building that just holds debt for massive coorporations?

And a building that is exempt from New York City Building Codes?

Mmmmm, I can taste the inconsistancies...

Oh, can't forget about how Dick Cheyney is/was CEO of Haliburton, one of the largest OIL CORPORATIONS IN THE WORLD.. And can't forget about how the Bush family is only in power because of, OH NO!

Oil.

Our two highest people in command have ties with OIL.

What is the only thing Iraq has had since THE FIRST BUSH that we want?

Oil.

We claim we went in for WMD, but have we found any?

No.

Then why are we still there?

Oh, that's right, good ol' Furhur Bush said it himself: "We're going to stay in Iraq to help protect Iraq Oil Reserves from the terrorists"

If terrorists wanted these Oil Reserves, they would already have them.

Invaded Iraq because Suddam was consulting with terrorists, wait no, we went in there for Weapons of Mass Destruction, wait, since we didn't find any, we're going to protect the Oil Reserves from the "terrorists", that's it!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well shit. Since we invaded a sovereign nation and annexed Suddam's government with our Puppet Democracy (Which WE even drafted and wrote their constitution), wouldn't WE be the TERRORISTS and INFIDELS?

I really hate how stupid my fellow Americans are.

[/endrant]

But research about the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, The Illuminatie (I spelled it wrong, wtf ever), The New World Order, Skulls and Bones, and even check out a book that was written in the 70s: "None Dare Call It Conspiracy"

The book talks about shit that's ALREADY happened already, or IS happening.

And everyone thinks I'm crazy.....

Btw: Both Bush's and Cheyney were in the Skulls And Bones....

CEOs and Vice CEOs in Secret Societies?

And you retards voted for him...

Do you listen to yourself? So you're saying we're stealing oil and Bush has this conspiracy plan that he ordered the destruction of the WTC to go to war to steal oil and he's profiting from it with the VP from the Haliburton Corporation. I don't take your post seriously because the ideal of it is extremely far fetched and because you put so many spaces like its a movie on YouTube or something... History Channel proved this incorrect with their 9/11 Conspiracies show thats on from time to time I suggest you rent it.

Quote from AntiSleep

Quote from CookiesLikeWhoa

And if we were in Iraq for oil, why the heck are our gas prices still so high?

Because we did not go into iraq for the oil supplies, but for the control thereof. The oil companies want oil to be expensive, just not so expensive that people invest in alternate sources of energy.

We didn't steal any oil from Iraq. That kind of drilling equipment would be noticed. Its really starting to agitate me that people think we steal oil from Middle Eastern nations, especially when people from foreign countries say that.

And did you go and research ANY of the things I listed off here:

Quote

But research about the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, The Illuminatie (I spelled it wrong, wtf ever), The New World Order, Skulls and Bones, and even check out a book that was written in the 70s: "None Dare Call It Conspiracy"

More then likely, not.

Because you're too close-minded and think that I'm fabricating everything.

Research them all, and you'll see how they tie into everything since the late 1800's.

Too many inconsistancies give me reason to look into them, and I've researched everything and have came up with my conclusions. I'm sorry you're not open-minded enough to do the same

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!

None.

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.

Completely agree.

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 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.

Who are you?

None.

Isn't this topic about Pres. Bush? Anywho, I think bush isn't the best, but isn't the worst. From my standpoint, he is by far the best choice this country had at last election, and him taking action and going to Iraq took guts that most of our pussy presidents wouldn't have, and I say they should move to France. :lol:

But seriously I'd rather do something instead of nothing. ***

Anyone agree? Disagree?

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Oct 10 2007, 8:51 pm by Jello-Jigglers.

None.

Quote

Isn't this topic about Pres. Bush? Anywho, I think bush isn't the best, but isn't the worst. From my standpoint, he is by far the best choice this country had at last election, and him taking action and going to Iraq took guts that most of our pussy presidents wouldn't have, and I say they should move to France.

It's a good thing you made it clear that this was a joke.

Quote

But seriously I'd rather do something instead of nothing.

I think that reasoning is absolutely absurd when it comes to something of such proportions, for reasons that should be obvious. And you can stop saying "That's just my opinion". We know that already, that's why you said it. If it's an attempt on your part to act like you're not forcing it anyone, you weren't in the first place.

None.

Quote from Dapperdan

Quote

But seriously I'd rather do something instead of nothing.

I think that reasoning is absolutely absurd when it comes to something of such proportions, for reasons that should be obvious. And you can stop saying "That's just my opinion". We know that already, that's why you said it. If it's an attempt on your part to act like you're not forcing it anyone, you weren't in the first place.

Sorry I was just trying to be courteous. I didn't mean it to be rude or anything I just thought that(like such) people would disagree and I didn't want it to sound like , "This is the right thing and I wish all presidents would do this. Etc...." so I guess I didn't know it was bothering you so I apologize and I'll stop.

None.

Quote

Sorry I was just trying to be courteous. I didn't mean it to be rude or anything I just thought that(like such) people would disagree and I didn't want it to sound like , "This is the right thing and I wish all presidents would do this. Etc...." so I guess I didn't know it was bothering you so I apologize and I'll stop.

It wasn't rude, just pointless, and kind of annoying.

None.