Iraq

M2 · Post by M2 » Tue Apr 11, 2006 7:36 am

Why are we there?

Saddam puts a "hit" on Dumbya #1

Retarded "Son" is told to make up for that

.99 cents a gallon... now $2.74 a gallon.

How'd that work out for ya?

case closed.

the truth

M2 · Post by M2 » Tue Apr 11, 2006 7:44 am

Republican response...

"You're an idiot"

Great,

the truth

TenTallBen · Post by **TenTallBen** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 7:46 am

m2 wrote:Why are we there?

The hotties. Duh??

Atomic Punk · Post by **Atomic Punk** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 7:48 am

I believe the crude oil is plentiful. Is it that there is a lack of refineries in this country on purpose?

Last I've heard, neither corrupt political party's elected cronies aren't hurting in the wallet either.

Why don't you firebomb Boxer, Pelosi, and Feinstein's offices since you are in BART distance on Chevron's port.

M2 · Post by M2 » Tue Apr 11, 2006 7:54 am

Atomic Punk wrote:I believe the crude oil is plentiful. Is it that there is a lack of refineries in this country on purpose?
.

Who should we blame for this???

Bush and the oil boys???

They do make the most profit from the finite resource .

Is it worth killing the white trash of the country?

So they can make money?

m2

Atomic Punk · Post by **Atomic Punk** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 8:34 am

The "white trash" don't have the balls to put down the bong and defend our country.

Risa · Post by **Risa** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:50 am

Atomic Punk wrote:I believe the crude oil is plentiful. Is it that there is a lack of refineries in this country on purpose?

Clinton is usually blamed for that....
but it's not like Bush rectified it.

Follow the money.

Or ask warren

Cicero · Post by **Cicero** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 1:41 pm

Another pointless Bush callout thread.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 2:13 pm

Cicero wrote:Another pointless Bush callout thread.

No shit. That fucker never comes in here and smacks back.

tough love · Post by **tough love** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 4:11 pm

The "white trash" don't have the balls to put down the bong and defend our country.

If the American people ever do grow a pair; the first thing they need to do is round up everyone of your spoilt and dysfunctional poli-tards, beat them senseless then dump them off in Mexico.

Rack Fu · Post by **Rack Fu** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:43 am

m2 should stick to starting threads that he's good at.

Whatever that may be.

silvurna · Post by **silvurna** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 1:04 am

We had to go into Iraq so that we have a place from which to initiate fighter attacks on Iran. A close proximity airbase negates the need for in-flight refueling necessary for longer distance missions. :D

Rich Fader · Post by **Rich Fader** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 1:09 am

m2 wrote:Republican response...

"You're an idiot"...

...Well, deuce, you are an idiot.

Atomic Punk · Post by **Atomic Punk** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 7:49 am

silvurna wrote:We had to go into Iraq so that we have a place from which to initiate fighter attacks on Iran. A close proximity airbase negates the need for in-flight refueling necessary for longer distance missions. :D

I've said that all along. Saddam is the weakest link and to beat up on an archaic dictatorship to stomp out Iran then let Syria crumble next is what this is about.

The valid question that the followers of their party's have yet to ask of their elected officials on both sides... "Why aren't you asshats putting pressure on the oil companies to refine the oil?"

If you come back with "It's a Republican thing" then Pelosi, Boxer, and Feinstein are off the hook while manipulating you bleeding heart masses. At least the Repubs don't deny their ties to big oil.

Fucking jackasses that post here about Repubs this and Dems that are tools as both sides of the corrupt aisles laugh at you like a MLB player laughs at you when he signs a ball for your tard kid that defends Barry Bones.

Sheep.

tough love · Post by **tough love** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 11:12 am

silvurna wrote:
We had to go into Iraq so that we have a place from which to initiate fighter attacks on Iran. A close proximity airbase negates the need for in-flight refueling necessary for longer distance missions.

It appears that The Bu$h Corp attack on Iran is going to happen, regardless of what anyone thinks.
The big question hovers...Will that imminent attack result in stirring up the global shit storm which many fear it will?

Military Gamblers Make For Scary Times.

Atomic Punk · Post by **Atomic Punk** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:09 pm

If our gas prices keep going up, I'm all in favor of seeing oil execs and their families being executed on American soil. I'm serious too. I want to see these people pay.

Tell me how I'm 100 miles from the port of San Fagsissyco and Chevron is there and I'm paying $3/gal. How does that equate with the logic this is a war for oil.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 2:57 pm

mvscal wrote:
tough love wrote:Will that imminent attack result in stirring up the global shit storm which many fear it will?

No.

You use the same brain that thinks racism is good to come up with that conclusion?

What a fucking tard you are.

tough love · Post by **tough love** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 2:58 pm

mv wrote:
No

You don't know that, but I sure in a global hell storm hope that your guess is correct.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 3:07 pm

The interesting thing about gas prices is that the Auto manufacturers and the Oil companies are starting to blame each other for the situation. Oil notes that fuel efficiency has not dramatically improved in Detroit, while Auto points to the staggering profit that Oil is pulling down these days.

Here's a salvo in that battle:

http://www.detroitproject.com/index.html

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 3:17 pm

Have a look at that site...they're going to be ramping up quite a bit soon. We're going to see it on TV, hear it on Radio, read it in the printed medium.

There's a GM blog that takes the other side, can't find the url right now...but this spat might get pretty interesting.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 3:19 pm

aha:

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar ... /604110394

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 3:27 pm

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar ... /604110377

The Facts on Rising Fuel Prices

By Jason Vines

Here we go again. Just as the weather warms and Americans are turning their thoughts to hitting the roads for vacations or weekend getaways, the prices of gasoline and diesel fuel are rising faster than the odds of the Detroit Lions playing the Super Bowl.

It's a "coincidence" that has nothing to do with chance, but almost everything to do with greed by the big oil companies.

Despite a documented history of blowing their exorbitant profits on outlandish executive salaries and stock buybacks, and hoarding their bounty by avoiding technologies, policies and legislation that would protect the population and environment and lower fuel costs, Big Oil insists on transferring all of that responsibility on the auto companies.

Yes, even tough the automakers have spent billions developing cleaner, more efficient technologies such as high-feature engines, hybrid powertrains, multi-displacement systems, flexible fuel vehicles, and fuel cells, Big Oil would rather fill the pockets of its executives and shareholders, rather than spend sufficient amounts to reduce the price of fuel, letting consumers, during tough economic times, pick up the tab.

Where's the proof? Put on your reading glasses, because there's plenty.

*In 2005, according to its financial report, ExxonMobil earned $36.1 billion, up $11 billion from 2004. Yet the oil giant isn't going to waste any of that dough on developing alternative fuels or significantly increase the amount of money it spends to find oil or refine it into gasoline, which would help boost supplies and raise prices. The company's own literature states, "current renewable technologies do not offer near-term promise for profitable investment relative to attractive opportunities that we see in our core business."

Last December 20, the Wall Street Journal reported that spikes in oil prices were due to "Big Oil's emphasis on profits over finding oil."

In fact, Big Oil vehemently opposed the renewable energy standard included in the U.S. Energy Policy Act of 2005. A Renewable Fuels Standard requires that a certain percentage of motor fuel in the U.S. must be obtained from renewable sources, such as ethanol or biodiesel. The auto industry strongly supported the Renewable Fuels Standard which will go a long way toward vastly reducing our dependency on imported oil. It will also boost employment in our country by an estimated 200,000 jobs by energizing the ethanol-producing industry and agriculture.

*Big Oil has repeatedly used the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina as a convenient excuse for sidestepping their responsibilities. Despite record 2005 profits, ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco and other oil giants have sought to delay national standards to lower sulfur content in fuels, pleading "Katrina relief." Big Oil wants a regional, rather than national approach to the issue, which would allow it to drag its feet on compliance. A national standard is needed because the advanced technologies we put into the vehicles depend on clean, low-sulfur fuel. The low emission vehicles of the next decade will be at what the industry calls "99 percent control level," which means there's not much more we can do through technology without cleaner fuels.

* Indeed, gas station owners accused ExxonMobil in particular for price gouging the wake of Katrina. The Federal Trade Commission is now investigating.

While Americans showed their generosity to Katrina victims by donating $500 million toward relief efforts, the four largest oil companies came up with relative pennies--$11 million total! Nevermind that ChevronTexaco facilities leaked six million gallons of oil into pristine Gulf wetlands in Katrina's aftermath--one of the largest oil spills in U.S. history.

*Katrina certainly took its toll on refineries, knocking several out of commission, but it's clear Big Oil has taken little action to shore up its capacity. According to an editorial in the Sept. 2, 2005 edition of the Washington Times, no new refineries have been built in a quarter century. "Yes, existing refineries have undergone significant expansion over the years as others have been shuttered," the editorial said, "but many of them are more than 30 years old. Already operating near total capacity before Katrina, the aging refinery infrastructure left little margin for error. Katrina, needless to say, obliterated that margin and then much more. Now we are paying the price, which, appropriately enough, has reflected itself in soaring gasoline prices around the nation."

*In December, ExxonMobil and BP were charged by Alaskan authorities with conspiring to withhold natural gas from U.S. markets by putting their heads together to slow the flow of the fuel to drive up prices, as we said.

*ExxonMobil had the gall to say in a recent print ads "Every form of transportation--planes, trains and automobiles--now benefits from improved fuels and engine systems. So why is that despite this overall progress, the average fuel economy of American cars is unchanged in two decades?"

That would be powerful--if it were true. According to the EPA's latest figures, 2005 model year vehicles averaged 21 miles per gallon--the "highest since 1996." In 1975, average fuel economy was just 13.1 miles per gallon.

The auto industry is doing its job by building cleaner, leaner, more efficient vehicles and embracing alternatives to gasoline such as biodiesel and ethanol and hybrids.

So while we make these important and responsible strides despite the challenges of global competition and legacy costs, Big Oil is swimming in profits, content to let the nation's drivers drown in rising prices, every time they fill up.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 3:29 pm

"The Detroit Project"...with Arianna Huffington, your host...

tough love · Post by **tough love** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 3:49 pm

Sorry if this is deemed to be to off topic but:

mv wrote:
We are already at war with Iran and have been for the last three years.

Perhaps there are those who have been esoterically at war with America for the past three yrs as well, and your clued out self absorbed chest pounders just may be about to take their bait.

Hoping it ain't so. :?

tough love · Post by **tough love** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 6:03 pm

mv wrote:
I'm talking about guns, money and personnel. Insurgencies don't grow on trees.

So am I, or to be more precise, the esoteric backing of a global insurgency.
I suggest you ponder a tad just which countries would most profit from a crippled America, and then let me know whom you come up with, beside the stone age ones who have already come out of that closet.

Or not.

The forgone conclusion of your supposed poli-intelligence coming up with the answer being an attack on Iran will still amount to being just another added god awful to this escalating spiralling world.

jtr · Post by **jtr** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 6:28 pm

your right tl we should just attack china and get the bombs out of the way.

silvurna · Post by **silvurna** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 10:08 pm

I will attempt to hold my political beliefs in abeyance for a few moments and focus on what I perceive to be some common-sense approaches to this Iraq-now-that-Iran-has-been-mixed-into-the-discussion-I'll- follow -suit thread..Iranian leadership might be the biggest gamblers ever.
IAEA inspectors travel inside Iran and get to see what Iran wants them to see...no more random looks.
We believe they have started down the road to nuclear weapons. To do so, involves, specially-constructed, very expensive centrifuges which extract minute amounts of semi-purified Uranium , a metal, from Uranium Hexafluoride, a gas. Metal from a gas! Lots of centrifuges are needed to produce small quantities of weapons-grade Uranium which is later converted to Plutonium.....kaboom!
Perhaps the Iranians are gambling that we will not proceed with our ultimatums..that we will not initiate any incursions into their country to destroy what they claim are facilities that are intended to produce radioactive materials/isotopes for the production of electricity only, because,...if we drop a few MOAB's on a nuclear facility, we are in effect creating a dirty bomb..they are gambling that the U.S. does not want to be held accountable for releasing clouds of dust into the atmosphere which will probably travel hundreds if not thousands of miles and make plenty of people sick for generations to come. They are gambling that the outcry from the world in general and our our dwindling list of allies specifically would be so great as to preclude any actions along these lines..i.e.no bombs.
I hope you are willing to stay with me for a few more minutes and read further.
Take it on faith that I may know a thing or two about military strategy.
Please also take it on faith that I know a few things about MOAB's, smart weapons and what happens when they detonate.
Surgical strikes on a nuclear materials facility are ill-advised. Let's say that the bomb aiming programmers are able to accurately pinpoint and destroy the control room of a processing plant. This puts them out of business only temporarily.
The U.S. has ordnance in its arsenal of surprises to penetrate hard spots..but these would be the reactor core structures...yes, the building and its contents are incinerated/turned into dust in a millisecond, but what comes up into the ensuing cloud isn't only dust, it's a death warrant for those who inhale it. How much of this radioactive dust do you have to inhale to get sick and stay that way for a long time? Not much.
The U.S. could order air strikes on the homes of those who run the nuclear facilities, but the material will still be there.
I believe that the procedures and training that the U.S. military is currently involved with as regards Iraq could easily be supplanted across the border.
This is just one example:
We are in the early stages of exit-strategy planning for our drawdown in Iraq..estimates put this as far ahead as the year 2009..pretty easy to believe as I see it.
Focusing on air power for a moment, the U.S. employs two distinct strategies for fighter/bomber strikes. One should be rather obvious, known problem area targeting whereby a site is selected because of known enemy activity with intelligence for the operation coming from Air Force Operations Centers in the MEast. Bombing attacks are scheduled and real-time results transmitted by ELINT/Satellite.
The second method is the one more frequently used in Iraq. The Air Force refers to it as ,'adaptive targeting', and during the process, fighters/bombers racetrack around a wide area and look for targets of opportunity and/or wait for alerts from groundborne units who direct them to the targets.
In a scenario where U.S. forces have proceeded to destroy targets in Iran, some thought must be given as to which type of targeting we will use. In the event a facility with lethal nuclear capabilty is discovered by landborne troops, and it is deemed necessary to obliterate that target, how much time will those ground troops be given to exit the area? Waste the nuke plant, waste anyone nearby>>our guys.
In the case of Iran, it might seem that predetermined targets are the only targets, yet intelligence tells us, the Iranians have gone underground with many of their facilities. Shall we sacrifice some of our own troops to get to those buried nuke plants?
If we understand that some of the nuke facilities are deep underground, we all know there may be only one way to destroy them...and you may carry the scenario forward if you wish.
Is Iran merely engaging in saber-rattling? My gut instincts tell me ..no.
Are the Iranians truly looking to be a nuke-nation and willing to call the cards to the table? My gut instinct tells me ..yes.

Atomic Punk · Post by **Atomic Punk** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 10:19 pm

Look mang, you talk a mean run on sentence/BigO paragraph and all.

I was a nuclear weapons safety and security instructor in theeeee Younited States of America and all..... Your enlisted ass (possibly in the Chair Force) may know a little bit, but come the fuck on.

A "dirty bomb" ain't shit! That accident can be cleaned up quickly and it ain't the end of civilization.

Secondly, just like the Chinks and Gooks up North of them, how are they going to create critical mass, assuming they get enough U239 and THEN, have the perishable gasses ('sup Tritium and Beryllium) to enhance a yield?

Have you ever seen the tests the DOE has done at White Sands, NM? I have, and tactical nukes are so overhyped it's a joke.

CNWDI... ever hear of that acronym? Didn't think so. I'm sure we are going to get a good yield placed upon us right about, ummm, never.

The kinder and loving new,

-Dinsnukeyield

jtr · Post by **jtr** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 11:36 pm

if all these strikes are just about oil we should be looking at the nigerian front soon, they already supply 15% of our oil now anyways.

Atomic Punk · Post by **Atomic Punk** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:19 am

Jess, why did you feel the need to tard up this bitch?

Seriously, it's shit like this that's going to bring the situation to a head, man.

silvurna · Post by **silvurna** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:46 am

Atomic Punk wrote:Look mang, you talk a mean run on sentence/BigO paragraph and all.

I was a nuclear weapons safety and security instructor in theeeee Younited States of America and all..... Your enlisted ass (possibly in the Chair Force) may know a little bit, but come the fuck on.

A "dirty bomb" ain't shit! That accident can be cleaned up quickly and it ain't the end of civilization.

Secondly, just like the Chinks and Gooks up North of them, how are they going to create critical mass, assuming they get enough U239 and THEN, have the perishable gasses ('sup Tritium and Beryllium) to enhance a yield?

Have you ever seen the tests the DOE has done at White Sands, NM? I have, and tactical nukes are so overhyped it's a joke.

CNWDI... ever hear of that acronym? Didn't think so. I'm sure we are going to get a good yield placed upon us right about, ummm, never.

The kinder and loving new,

-Dinsnukeyield

Not in the Chair Force, not enlisted, but thanks for the guess.
That isotope of Hydrogen, Tritium, ...hard to come by..agreed...money talks....do the Iranians have lots of money?.. Berylium, not a gas, a metal, much more easily obtained.
Dirty bombs easily contained?...contain the weather..no problem....
Do not underestimate your enemy...perhaps more importantly, know your enemy.
The Middle East Cocktail
In a blender,
One part, death wish for all who do not believe in the teachings of Allah.
Three-hundred interpretations of what Allah meant.
Two tons of scientists
Five tons of deception
Two-thousand centrifuges
One carat deeply-ingrained blood hunger
Mix vigorously and wait.

I offered my opinion..you offered yours. We'll find out some day.

Atomic Punk · Post by **Atomic Punk** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:54 am

You are a new "troll" on this board and are dissin' the cred from the 40'ish crowd that has blasted each other for eons.

Now you come in here with your weak-assed SissyRoo shit???

You have vomitted up Arab semen from your "credible and loving" gullet (spell check me please) and type this response?

You gave an opinion. Fine. I responded as being one that worked in that business in which you don't know your own ass, "Paht-nah."

Your credibility is shot and my scroll wheel now will suffer due to your pathetic tard existence on this board. It's not like we are out shopping for new tards, but goddamn! Where did we go wrong to attract the likes of your dumb ass???

Please help us become a better board.

TIA

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 1:13 am

silvurna wrote:Is Iran merely engaging in saber-rattling? My gut instincts tell me ..no.
Are the Iranians truly looking to be a nuke-nation and willing to call the cards to the table? My gut instinct tells me ..yes.

I agree. I also believe through either some propaganda tactic, or true ignorance, Iran is grossly overestimating their military capabilities, and grossly underestimating that of the US.

I also believe that the Iranian "leadership" thinks that if the US tangles with them, it will start some holy war (didn't work so well for Bin Laden and co.), and that the American people will become further divided over yet another war...and this will be their undoing.

I think I'm on the record here as being opposed to the Iraq War, but maybe not for the same reasons as a lot of other people, although I share a slight amount of both the "bleeding heart" and "it's not our place" stance as well. But my main concerns are strategic and economic.

In my day to day travels and dealings, I come across a lot of people, from all walks of life. Unfortunately, some of them want to talk politics. I'd say, strictly off the cuff, that people's support or opposition is in roughly the same proportion as what the poll numbers reflect. Give or take a bunch, since my methodology of "I've seemed to notice" is even more flawed that the media polls.

Anyhow, even with the majority of people I talk to now being firmly opposed to the Iraq War, and how it's gone down, I can't recall ever hearing anyone who is opposed to dealing with Iran in no uncertain terms.

While AP maintains that Iran is a loooong way from making big booms, it brings up the question -- how big a BOOM against a US target is acceptable? I'll bet I'm kicking around the exact same number the rest of you are.

So, to my point -- I'm no military strategist (unlike the armchair generals here), but blasting a uranium facility might not be the best idea. And a ground invasion is out of the question, due to our "other commitments"(way to fuck that up, W).

So, my ideas (which are worth squat, granted) revolve around fucking up the surrounding infrastructure beyond recognition, and saving the cleanup for another, more opportune time. Surely their nuke pregram must be dependent on roads, railways, and other such things? Buh-bye. Enjoy your new moonscape, Iran. Don't bother rebuilding it either, since we'll be along at our earliest convenience to clean it up for you.

I believe (until convinced otherwise) that rather than attack the facilities, which should be handle with kid gloves, a serious hit, or ongoing hits if neccessary, would slow them down enough to lessen the threat.

What are they going to do about it? Come attack our troops in Iraq? Yeah, THAT would be a good idea...our military's hands are tied, and fairly fucked at the moment, and basically is pretty weak...unless some dumbasses decide to step right into our wheelhouse. That would probably end up going down as one of the great blunders in military history. Are they going to mobilize their navy? Run it through the Straits? That would be a brilliant move too, one which I'm SURE our military leaders haven't considered.

Sorry, I may be a peace-loving hippy freak, but any nation whose official stnce includes wiping another country (as big a bastards as they are) off the map...they just don't need to be building enrichment facilities.

They will eventually get a firsthand look at what this great nation of ours is really capable of, when we all get on the same page and put our collective resolve into something, especially when we have the support of our wonderful allies. WW2 ring any bells?

silvurna · Post by **silvurna** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 1:23 am

Atomic P,
You could easily be an Arab goober...you shall pass judgement on those of which you know nothing...congrats, young man. You have officially labeled yourself.....verrrry adult...verrrry astute. One of the Great Thinkers Of Our Times.
Have a nice day.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 1:37 am

Atomic Punk wrote:I responded as being one that worked in that business in which you don't know your own ass

This coming from the guy who just claimed beryllium (but at least you spelled it right, unlike our other resident chemistry expert) is a gas, and implied it's hard to come by?

Ohhhhkay there, bud. You GO, boyeeeee!

And AP...save it. This is the part where you do your predictable backpedalling, and launch into the schpeil where you captured the Soviet sub by yourself. And when it's all said and done, you still implied that beryllium was a gas and was hard to come by. Newsflash, chest-thumper -- beryllium is a metal, and I've got a few pounds of it for sale to the highest Muslim bidder. If I don't get the price I want for it, I guess I'll just leave it in my golf bag, where it currently resides.

But go ahead and keep commenting on the "credibility" of others, BushicePunk.

Dumbass.

Atomic Punk · Post by **Atomic Punk** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 1:39 am

Look new troll.

Tell me your credentials so I don't have to waste my time on ripping your bullshit apart. Mmkay?

tough love · Post by **tough love** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:03 am

silvurna wrote:
We believe they have started down the road to nuclear weapons.

With a lot of help, right?
Which is where my main concern would lay, before going after those wigwads.
Iran Crap is behaving to freakishly wanting of an ass kicking, which just don't seem right, especially after viewing what the U.S did to Iraq. It's as if they are begging it on.

Something just don't smell right, if you get my drift. (~)

And when you get right down to it, is there really all that much dif between the nut job in Iran who see's a white light whenever he talks about destroying Israel, and America's President Poli_Poser Burning Bush?

It's as though they are both on the same freaky page for opposite reasons.

Scary Times.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:09 am

Atomic Punk wrote:Tell me your credentials so I don't have to waste my time on ripping your bullshit apart.

Uhmmm....
I'd say knowing what type of material that beryllium is (which YOU brought up) was about all the credentials he needed in this case.

And once again, save your formulaic backpedalling. You've beaten it to death, every time you say something ignorant and stupid. I could fucking write your stupid response for you at this point, since you offer nothing but the same song and dance every single time you try to claim knowledge that you don't have, and get called out for it.

Save it.

As a matter of fact, I'm granting you a free pass. Eject. Not up for negotiation. One time offer. I suggest you heed it. Otherwise my Board Improvement Project is going to shift its focus in a big fucking hurry. If I can start the process of getting Cicero turned the right direction in 12 hours, just think of what I can do to your sorry, drunk ass.

I hope I've made myself clear. This wasn't an invitation to a flamewar, this wasn't a potential smack battle, and it wasn't a callout -- this was an ultimatum.

This garden still needs plenty of weeding, Daisy. And I'm just the guy to do it. And you're definitely not the guy to stop me. I have no problem in making you the next example of what happens when you post the stupid.

NO problem.

Make your time. Or come correct. The choice is yours. Make it now, because soon it will become mine.

Atomic Punk · Post by **Atomic Punk** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:23 am

Yes, Dinsnuke, tell me all about it.

I mock you in my sig for a purpose.

Go on Charlie Murphy!

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:32 am

Bad move, dumbass.

Ask Bushice how well his commitment to stupidity is going for him.

At least Cicero looked within, and saw the light.

So, how does it feel to now be officially dumber than Cicero?

Make your time.

T1B

Iraq

Iraq

Re: Iraq