| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 7:44 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Correct. First W. Bush was going to steal the midterm election. But the Democrats won.
Then W. Bush was going to stage another 9/11, blame it on Tehran, declare war, and then use that state of emergency to suspend further elections and seize power indefinitely.
If you include Canuckistan, we need to reference a stolen election that did not occur last week as well as her alleged Chinese hackers who never appeared -- unless they engineered B. Obama's victory, that is.
What a scary time we live in.
This being said, there is one point which, depending on how we interpret it, might partially lend credence to their claims. Sea Smurf. It is irregular and we should pay attention to it. Might not mean anything. But it remains noteworthy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would imagine Bush just wants to sit in his Crawford Ranch without having to answer the phone, at this point.
He doesn't strike me as someone who would want to be 'self-imposed dictator-for-life'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Correct. First W. Bush was going to steal the midterm election. But the Democrats won.
Then W. Bush was going to stage another 9/11, blame it on Tehran, declare war, and then use that state of emergency to suspend further elections and seize power indefinitely.
If you include Canuckistan, we need to reference a stolen election that did not occur last week as well as her alleged Chinese hackers who never appeared -- unless they engineered B. Obama's victory, that is.
What a scary time we live in.
This being said, there is one point which, depending on how we interpret it, might partially lend credence to their claims. Sea Smurf. It is irregular and we should pay attention to it. Might not mean anything. But it remains noteworthy. |
http://www.miltontrainworks.com/MTW/services/KCC/images/K_tony_thumbs_up.jpg |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 6:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tiger Beer wrote: |
I would imagine Bush just wants to sit in his Crawford Ranch without having to answer the phone, at this point.
He doesn't strike me as someone who would want to be 'self-imposed dictator-for-life'. |
I would hope even by now Bush has realized everything he's tried to do, for Jesus of course, has gone wrong, wrong, wrong. At least I'll be alive long enough to see how history records the Bush II presidency. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agentX
Joined: 12 Oct 2007
Location: Jeolla province
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 8:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hey! What happened to your "Jesus rides the dinosaur" photo?
Speaking of an Iran attack, there was this incident a few weeks back.
http://news.trendaz.com/index.shtml?show=news&newsid=1327827&lang=EN
| Quote: |
ran, Tehran, 23 October / Trend News corr. E.Namdar /The Belorussia�s war-plane, which violated the air borders of the Iranian Republic, was stopped.
The Iranian media reported that the war-plane violated the air borders of Iran on 22 October. Despite of the warnings by the Iranian Anti Air Forces, the war-plane continued flying and was stopped.
The efforts of the Tehran based correspondent of Trend News to get the information on the issue failed.
Iranian Armed Forces officials have not made statement on returning the war-plane to Belorussia. This was the second fact of violation of the Iranian air forces within a month.
In early October, the Iranian press released information of forced landing of an aircraft, which belonged to the U.S. Armed Air Forces. The U.S. Defense Ministry denied the information that the aircraft belonged to its country. Later, Hungary stated that the aircraft belonged to them and stated that the aircraft flying via Iran must have land in Afghanistan. |
Looks like there was some 'sparking' going on but the Iranians didn't feel like lighting the fuse. Guess the Mullahs were reading fivethirtyeight.com and realized the odds were in Obama's favor so rocking the boat was not needed.
Nonetheless, if things get real ugly for Bush in the next month or so, don't be surprised if he tries to 'poison the well' with an air strike or two. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 8:47 am Post subject: Re: So no war with Iran before the election? |
|
|
Don't misidentify me. And don't attribute to me what another may say in something I post. You really should try to read, or post, a bit more carefully. And why go starting a whole new thread?
Ralph Nader said that in a video I posted, but he was merely quoting Rep. Olver who gave that as a reason for not bringing articles of impeachment. That is pretty damn far removed from ME saying it now, isn't it?
But yes, I should have updated the poll after the election. All those of you who had "before the election" or "on election day" have lost. Again, I merely posted a poll and evidence for it going either way.
I sincerely hope your HIV obsession does nto have a personal basis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 2:06 pm Post subject: Re: So no war with Iran before the election? |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
Don't misidentify me. And don't attribute to me what another may say in something I post. You really should try to read, or post, a bit more carefully. And why go starting a whole new thread?
Ralph Nader said that in a video I posted, but he was merely quoting Rep. Olver who gave that as a reason for not bringing articles of impeachment. That is pretty damn far removed from ME saying it now, isn't it?
But yes, I should have updated the poll after the election. All those of you who had "before the election" or "on election day" have lost. Again, I merely posted a poll and evidence for it going either way.
I sincerely hope your HIV obsession does nto have a personal basis. |
Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Nice try to wiggle out of this too. Not gonna work, wacko boy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 6:12 pm Post subject: Re: So no war with Iran before the election? |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
Don't misidentify me. And don't attribute to me what another may say in something I post. You really should try to read, or post, a bit more carefully. And why go starting a whole new thread?
Ralph Nader said that in a video I posted, but he was merely quoting Rep. Olver who gave that as a reason for not bringing articles of impeachment. That is pretty damn far removed from ME saying it now, isn't it?
But yes, I should have updated the poll after the election. All those of you who had "before the election" or "on election day" have lost. Again, I merely posted a poll and evidence for it going either way.
I sincerely hope your HIV obsession does nto have a personal basis. |
Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Nice try to wiggle out of this too. Not gonna work, wacko boy. |
As everyone can see, you can't show where I said what you attribute. Resorting to ad hominems only shows the desperation of your position. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 4:25 am Post subject: Re: So no war with Iran before the election? |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| As everyone can see, you can't show where I said what you attribute. Resorting to ad hominems only shows the desperation of your position. |
Oh good god. At least two threads (the HIV and vaccine threads) I've asked you to produce peer reviewed science to back your claims and you just refer me to Alex Jones type blogs or simply rely on your supposed authority of being a mighty ESL teacher who has two or three science degrees (yeah right). A bit late to start now protesting I'm resorting to your fact free method of debate. Geez. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 7:35 am Post subject: Re: So no war with Iran before the election? |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| As everyone can see, you can't show where I said what you attribute. Resorting to ad hominems only shows the desperation of your position. |
Oh good god. At least two threads (the HIV and vaccine threads) I've asked you to produce peer reviewed science to back your claims and you just refer me to Alex Jones type blogs or simply rely on your supposed authority of being a mighty ESL teacher who has two or three science degrees (yeah right). A bit late to start now protesting I'm resorting to your fact free method of debate. Geez. |
No. You attributed to me, as the OP of the original thread, the claim that there was sure to be an attack on Iran before the election while the truth is I merely posted a poll asking what others thought. Can you show where I said there would be an attack? I am not asking for peer-reviewed science here. No, you can't because I did not.
Congratulations. You won a debate in which I said I hadn't kept up with the literature for 15 years, and I reconsidered my position because unlike you, I am able to make a reformulation when I encounter new evidence. Apparently that has not been enough for you as you keep hammering at it to no end. Apparently it is the first debate you have ever won so again, congratulations.
Instead of posting on the original Iran attack poll thread, you began an entire new thread - just to ridicule me. How pathetic is that, not to mention in violatin of the TOS. I didn't begin a whole new thread when yo deserved ot be ridiculed after you said seven months ago that there would be no recession or economic collapse six months later, now did I?
I am glad to be able to provide some kicks for you while you search for a life. Enjoy them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
