mardigrasbob 0 #251 July 6, 2004 Snuck in last night; paid for Spiderman! All I can say is: The Roof The Roof The Roof is fire We don't need no water let the Muther F****er Burn! --------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #252 July 6, 2004 >What proof is there that people are being abducted? Eyewitness testimonials. Polygraph tests. Blurry pictures. Reports of UFO's from military and commercial pilots. Small samples of altered materials at landing sites. Here is a whole website full of proof, including chemical analyses of those landing sites. So I will ask you a final time the question you are evading: You said "If we had indesputable proof a UFO had landed and then went back later and could find no physical evidence, would you conclude it never happened?" I replied: "We have such proof. Scorch marks, blurry streaks on photographs, crop circles, even reports from military and civilian pilots. Do you believe that people are abducted, experimented on and returned to earth by extraterrestrials?" So - do you believe in UFO abductions or not? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #253 July 6, 2004 Okay Quade, I'll play your funny analogy game... If there is proof that something exists, then it is reasonable to think that it does exist. If there is proof that UFOs exist, why would that lead me to beleive that they are abducting people? That's like saying I have proof that donuts exist, so I also beleive they are out to take over the world. Stop being silly. Your answers the cop out pal! Remember we WERE talking about the article that said Fox viewers are more likely to be wrong about the WMD issue in Iraq... and until there is a definite answer to that question... you can't 100% say that anyone is right or wrong. Right?Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #254 July 6, 2004 > Okay Quade, I'll play your funny analogy game... I'm not Quade. >If there is proof that something exists, then it is reasonable to think that >it does exist. If there is proof that UFOs exist, why would that lead me to >beleive that they are abducting people? Because there are eyewitness accounts, polygraph test results, and medical reports. Check out the link above. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #255 July 6, 2004 I don't consider that as undisputable proof. So your arguement has no validity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #256 July 6, 2004 Quote> Okay Quade, I'll play your funny analogy game... I'm not Quade. >If there is proof that something exists, then it is reasonable to think that >it does exist. If there is proof that UFOs exist, why would that lead me to >beleive that they are abducting people? Because there are eyewitness accounts, polygraph test results, and medical reports. Check out the link above. I don't mean to step into the middle of this, but I think this subject would be an interesting thread on its own..."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #257 July 6, 2004 Sorry about that, I saw green and remembered seeing him in here.... Either way, my comments stand, and you didn't answer my question. Your argument is a non-sequitur. Because there is proof of A, doesn't mean B is true, only that A is.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mardigrasbob 0 #258 July 6, 2004 QuoteSo - do you believe in UFO abductions or not? In the immortal words of Bubba LeeRoy Ladner " Hogwash!" --------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #259 July 6, 2004 Quote>What proof is there that people are being abducted? Eyewitness testimonials. Polygraph tests. Blurry pictures. Reports of UFO's from military and commercial pilots. Small samples of altered materials at landing sites. Here is a whole website full of proof, including chemical analyses of those landing sites. So I will ask you a final time the question you are evading: You said "If we had indesputable proof a UFO had landed and then went back later and could find no physical evidence, would you conclude it never happened?" I replied: "We have such proof. Scorch marks, blurry streaks on photographs, crop circles, even reports from military and civilian pilots. Do you believe that people are abducted, experimented on and returned to earth by extraterrestrials?" So - do you believe in UFO abductions or not? Gee, Bill. I'm beginning to worry about you. Do you really believe the above link provides undisputable proof there are UFO's and Aliens visiting the Earth? I mean with your education, I'm just surprised your level of proof is so low. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #260 July 6, 2004 >Gee, Bill. I'm beginning to worry about you. So you are 100% fine with believing that Hussein has WMD's without physical proof, but think that when you apply that logic to other situations it's looney. Check! Nice dodge on the answer, by the way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #261 July 7, 2004 Quote>Gee, Bill. I'm beginning to worry about you. So you are 100% fine with believing that Hussein has WMD's without physical proof, but think that when you apply that logic to other situations it's looney. Check! Nice dodge on the answer, by the way. Lets put it this way. If you were an undercover police officer and you sold me crack in a drug sting, even if I got rid of it before you bust me, I'm still guilty and any judge will or jury would agree. You are the one who believes in alien abductions and you are calling me looney? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #262 July 7, 2004 >Lets put it this way. If you were an undercover police officer and you > sold me crack in a drug sting, even if I got rid of it before you bust > me, I'm still guilty and any judge will or jury would agree. Suppose someone sold you ecstasy twenty years ago, back when it was legal. Could you be prosecuted for possessing it today if you had used it all 19 years ago? Suppose you couldn't prove you had used it all; should you go to jail? Does your inability to produce evidence of its destruction equivalent to your possession of the drug? Again, feel free to ignore the question if thinking about it will cause you to think about your logic. >You are the one who believes in alien abductions and you are calling me looney? I don't. See, absence of physical evidence actually means something to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #263 July 7, 2004 Quote>Lets put it this way. If you were an undercover police officer and you > sold me crack in a drug sting, even if I got rid of it before you bust > me, I'm still guilty and any judge will or jury would agree. QuoteSuppose someone sold you ecstasy twenty years ago, back when it was legal. Could you be prosecuted for possessing it today if you had used it all 19 years ago? Suppose you couldn't prove you had used it all; should you go to jail? Does your inability to produce evidence of its destruction equivalent to your possession of the drug? It wouldn't matter whether I possesed it or not. The mere fact that I purchased it would mean I'm guilty of possession. Please tell me what the statute of limitations is on possessing WMDs. Again, feel free to ignore the question if thinking about it will cause you to think about your logic. >You are the one who believes in alien abductions and you are calling me looney? QuoteI don't. See, absence of physical evidence actually means something to me. Only because of the looney definition you have of physical evidence. The proof is that we sold WMDs to SH thats an eye witness account, The evidence is the receipts (your words on these forums) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #264 July 7, 2004 no. you would not be "guilty of possession" because Billvon's post stated that you purchased it WHEN IT WAS LEGAL and used it WHEN IT WAS LEGAL. you simply could not produce any evidence that you didn't have any after it was outlawed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #265 July 7, 2004 Quoteno. you would not be "guilty of possession" because Billvon's post stated that you purchased it WHEN IT WAS LEGAL and used it WHEN IT WAS LEGAL. you simply could not produce any evidence that you didn't have any after it was outlawed. Apparently you are having trouble distinguishing between the hypothetical part of our discussion and the reality. You can't just jump in and start reframing it to fit your own sense of justifications. Please go back to the beginning and re-read it all before making a comment which adds nothing and serves no purpose except to make a few changes in the parameters to suit your defense of Bill. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #266 July 7, 2004 Bill can defend himself just fine. He doesn't need me to do it for him. YOU apparently didn't read all of HIS statement, or else you didn't understand it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites crozby 0 #267 July 7, 2004 Give up Bill. These guys apparently have more faith in Dubya than most Christians have in God. Nothing you or anyone else can say will convert them into non-believers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #268 July 7, 2004 QuoteBill can defend himself just fine. He doesn't need me to do it for him. YOU apparently didn't read all of HIS statement, or else you didn't understand it. Apparently you fail to understand the speciousness of your statements. The demands the UN placed upon SH had nothing to do with whats legal and whats not by the legal definition of US law. The demand made upon SH by the UN put the onus on SH to prove what he did with the WMDs the UN knew he had. I've only asked what proof there is he destroyed them. You can theorize all you want about what happened to them, but in doing so, you fail to provide the proof demanded by the UN. Now explain to me what part I don't understand without bringing in more specious information. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #269 July 7, 2004 what proof is there that he kept them? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freeflydrew 0 #270 July 7, 2004 Quotewhat proof is there that he kept them? There is literaLLY NO proof that he kept them, yet that doesn't seem to make their justification for war less convincing. Heck, it's only been a year and 89 days since we first attacked Iraq and we still haven't found them, the UN inspectors never saw any evidence that there were programs, the US inspectors have left Iraq without finding them, and now Tony Blair says we probably won't find them... Bush won't say a word about it before the election as it will surely sway votes from him in November. There's no arguement against the war being unjust... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mardigrasbob 0 #271 July 7, 2004 speciousness noun 1 obsolete : SHOWY 2 : having deceptive attraction or allure 3 : having a false look of truth or genuineness : SOPHISTIC - spe·cious·ly adverb - spe·cious·ness noun --------- Let's put this argument another way. If the crazy bastard who lived down your street broke into his next door neighbor's house, raped the family, then poisoned his own family and shot at you when you came to help and the cops were either too afraid or corrupt to do anything. What would you do? -------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,998 #272 July 7, 2004 >It wouldn't matter whether I possesed it or not. The mere fact that I > purchased it would mean I'm guilty of possession. No it wouldn't. It is not illegal to buy something that later becomes illegal, if it is legal when purchased. >Please tell me what the statute of limitations is on possessing WMDs. There is no law against possessing them. If there were we'd be in trouble. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,998 #273 July 7, 2004 >If the crazy bastard who lived down your street broke into his next door > neighbor's house, raped the family, then poisoned his own family and >shot at you when you came to help and the cops were either too afraid or >corrupt to do anything. What would you do? Clearly, the answer is to kill the rest of his neighbors, kill his friends and destroy the rest of the neighborhood. All in the name of "freeing them" of course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #274 July 7, 2004 QuoteNo it wouldn't. It is not illegal to buy something that later becomes illegal, if it is legal when purchased. gee... that sounds like what I said. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mardigrasbob 0 #275 July 7, 2004 Quote>If the crazy bastard who lived down your street broke into his next door > neighbor's house, raped the family, then poisoned his own family and >shot at you when you came to help and the cops were either too afraid or >corrupt to do anything. What would you do? Clearly, the answer is to kill the rest of his neighbors, kill his friends and destroy the rest of the neighborhood. All in the name of "freeing them" of course. Your left wings are showing!!! Action takes courage! Inaction requires only cowardise! Time will tell; My friends, we are living in the golden age of freedom and democracy! GWB will go down in history as a man of incredible vision, foresight and yes courage. Just like the '60s, all the bleeding heart liberals, who at the time were so hip, will soon go the way of Abby Hoffman, the Weather Underground, SLA, Eldridge Cleaver, the Chicago 7, Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin, AKA H. Rap Brown, Huey Newton and yes Jane Fonda. The one who are not dead(suicide, OD, or killed by cops) sold out their ideals, and became the capitalist pigs they railed against. It is easy to follow the sheep! It takes a sharp eye and sharper talons to be an eagle! --------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next Page 11 of 14 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Nightingale 0 #264 July 7, 2004 no. you would not be "guilty of possession" because Billvon's post stated that you purchased it WHEN IT WAS LEGAL and used it WHEN IT WAS LEGAL. you simply could not produce any evidence that you didn't have any after it was outlawed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #265 July 7, 2004 Quoteno. you would not be "guilty of possession" because Billvon's post stated that you purchased it WHEN IT WAS LEGAL and used it WHEN IT WAS LEGAL. you simply could not produce any evidence that you didn't have any after it was outlawed. Apparently you are having trouble distinguishing between the hypothetical part of our discussion and the reality. You can't just jump in and start reframing it to fit your own sense of justifications. Please go back to the beginning and re-read it all before making a comment which adds nothing and serves no purpose except to make a few changes in the parameters to suit your defense of Bill. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #266 July 7, 2004 Bill can defend himself just fine. He doesn't need me to do it for him. YOU apparently didn't read all of HIS statement, or else you didn't understand it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #267 July 7, 2004 Give up Bill. These guys apparently have more faith in Dubya than most Christians have in God. Nothing you or anyone else can say will convert them into non-believers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #268 July 7, 2004 QuoteBill can defend himself just fine. He doesn't need me to do it for him. YOU apparently didn't read all of HIS statement, or else you didn't understand it. Apparently you fail to understand the speciousness of your statements. The demands the UN placed upon SH had nothing to do with whats legal and whats not by the legal definition of US law. The demand made upon SH by the UN put the onus on SH to prove what he did with the WMDs the UN knew he had. I've only asked what proof there is he destroyed them. You can theorize all you want about what happened to them, but in doing so, you fail to provide the proof demanded by the UN. Now explain to me what part I don't understand without bringing in more specious information. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #269 July 7, 2004 what proof is there that he kept them? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflydrew 0 #270 July 7, 2004 Quotewhat proof is there that he kept them? There is literaLLY NO proof that he kept them, yet that doesn't seem to make their justification for war less convincing. Heck, it's only been a year and 89 days since we first attacked Iraq and we still haven't found them, the UN inspectors never saw any evidence that there were programs, the US inspectors have left Iraq without finding them, and now Tony Blair says we probably won't find them... Bush won't say a word about it before the election as it will surely sway votes from him in November. There's no arguement against the war being unjust... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mardigrasbob 0 #271 July 7, 2004 speciousness noun 1 obsolete : SHOWY 2 : having deceptive attraction or allure 3 : having a false look of truth or genuineness : SOPHISTIC - spe·cious·ly adverb - spe·cious·ness noun --------- Let's put this argument another way. If the crazy bastard who lived down your street broke into his next door neighbor's house, raped the family, then poisoned his own family and shot at you when you came to help and the cops were either too afraid or corrupt to do anything. What would you do? -------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #272 July 7, 2004 >It wouldn't matter whether I possesed it or not. The mere fact that I > purchased it would mean I'm guilty of possession. No it wouldn't. It is not illegal to buy something that later becomes illegal, if it is legal when purchased. >Please tell me what the statute of limitations is on possessing WMDs. There is no law against possessing them. If there were we'd be in trouble. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #273 July 7, 2004 >If the crazy bastard who lived down your street broke into his next door > neighbor's house, raped the family, then poisoned his own family and >shot at you when you came to help and the cops were either too afraid or >corrupt to do anything. What would you do? Clearly, the answer is to kill the rest of his neighbors, kill his friends and destroy the rest of the neighborhood. All in the name of "freeing them" of course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #274 July 7, 2004 QuoteNo it wouldn't. It is not illegal to buy something that later becomes illegal, if it is legal when purchased. gee... that sounds like what I said. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mardigrasbob 0 #275 July 7, 2004 Quote>If the crazy bastard who lived down your street broke into his next door > neighbor's house, raped the family, then poisoned his own family and >shot at you when you came to help and the cops were either too afraid or >corrupt to do anything. What would you do? Clearly, the answer is to kill the rest of his neighbors, kill his friends and destroy the rest of the neighborhood. All in the name of "freeing them" of course. Your left wings are showing!!! Action takes courage! Inaction requires only cowardise! Time will tell; My friends, we are living in the golden age of freedom and democracy! GWB will go down in history as a man of incredible vision, foresight and yes courage. Just like the '60s, all the bleeding heart liberals, who at the time were so hip, will soon go the way of Abby Hoffman, the Weather Underground, SLA, Eldridge Cleaver, the Chicago 7, Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin, AKA H. Rap Brown, Huey Newton and yes Jane Fonda. The one who are not dead(suicide, OD, or killed by cops) sold out their ideals, and became the capitalist pigs they railed against. It is easy to follow the sheep! It takes a sharp eye and sharper talons to be an eagle! --------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
