Albed, I see what you mean. He is a moron.

got a link for that statement factboy?

He admitted, bragged really, about frying his brains with an assortment of illegal drugs early in his life when he should have been getting a fundamental education.

Suprising he can function at all.

I guess they plan to "wipe Israel off the map" with a large Swiffer™ or possibly a WetVac.

No kidding

Did my own research, now I know what his sources are, as uncredible as they come except for CNN , Yahoo news and maybe the La or Washington times. Won't even bother to aks anymore.

Only wish he could reply without pointing out features that all woman were born with *sigh*

Mal, I asked cause your question really got me curious but now that I have my answer, I will know better from now on ;)

Do you really think Iran would drop a nuke on Israel and wipe out the palestinians in the process? I think not. But if the news report that there is a massive wave of palestinians leaving their land, i'd start worrying. Until then, it's only a smokescreen like those WMD's were.

Too late...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,193176,00.html

LoL :D

The "Destroy Israel" speech is a crowd pleaser in Iran and in some Arab countries too. It's an obvious threat, but whether or not it constitutes real intent by Ahmadinejad to destroy Israel is an other matter. Here are the facts as I see them: Ahmadinejad is a certifiable lunatic, he want's to see Israel wiped off the map, and he doesn't have the ability to do it himself, at least not yet. What we don't actually know is whether he's willing to nuke Israel or if he wants someone else to do it. Since nobody really knows, the best policy is to assume that once he has a nuclear weapon he'll use it against Isreal. The reason Israel hasn't already been wiped off the map is because it takes all threats seriously.

Don't know how it works with your species but human baby girls don't come out that way.:GN:

Mazer, you have a good point.

Just wonder if it's truly their intention? Afterall, India got their nukes against pakistan and Pakistan has their nukes against India, has been a while too and even tho they both hate eachother, they never used it. Hell, if I remember right, at first it was only about producing electricity in Iran with enriched Uranium and even Israel was against that in "Fear" that they might build a nuke bomb. Those talks about wiping off Israel off the map came after Israel declared they would bomb their facilities if they went forward with it.

I wouldn't put too much faith in it, Beside the shia and sunnies who are at eachother jugs in Iraq, Iran wouldn't dare to wipe off the palestinian population in the process. If they did so, it would be an automatic ban from La Mecque and each practicing muslim knows it's a lifetime obligation to go there atleast once. If you see palestinians fleeing their land in massive waves, i'd start to take that threat seriously. Beyond that, it's more like, my daddy is stronger than your daddy complex ATM.

Uranium enrichment for weapons is a lot different then for power and UN inspectors could easily notice the difference which is why Iran booted them out. So the 'power production' claim is a very transparent lie.

The Palestinians are mostly in Gaza and the West Bank regions and would suffer little in an accurate nuclear attack on Israel.



Can't you make a point without referring to female anatomy?

You mean like you never express a viewpoint on topic, instead slander and call everyone that posts something you don't like [everything] names?

I've always assumed you have a defective mental gene.

RB, by now, he made an art of it ;)

please elaborate.

Jug ment at eachother's throat. Is Jug a part of the female anatomy? If it is, please define it.

And if you really firmly believe that, I reckon you'd feel radiation safe if a nuke bomb would land close to Harrisburg or Johnstown, no?

LoL, considering that the US has already an arsenal of nukes and they can't even be transparent to their own population about it, even less toward to the UN, makes me wonder why the fuss about some country that hasn't even build a nuke yet? It's only speculation so far and a parrot would even be that smart to spot it without a master to teach him how to say, polly want a cracker.

That was one of the best song from Nirvana IMO. BTW, thanks for the help in the bite bits forum, good to know we can royally disagree here and help elsewhere ;)

Yeah right!

Like you cared to elaborate previously about your sources...

http://www.answers.com/jugs&r=67

jug (jŭg) pronunciation
n.

1.
1. A large, often rounded vessel of earthenware, glass, or metal with a small mouth, a handle, and usually a stopper or cap.
2. The amount that a jug can hold.
2. A small pitcher.
3. Slang. A jail.
4. jugs Vulgar Slang. A woman's breasts.

You know you can search a word on google and hit the definition link to find out what it means. Jugs has nothing to do with throats.



Direct radiation doesn't have much range and fallout is dependant on the wind and isn't too hard to deal with if you know how.

Plastic sheet and duct tape.

I'll take it you're a liar then, fine by me.

Liar, Liar, pants on firah

Did you forget that you have a blog? Paid a lil visit there to see who you're so called sources were, got to admit had a real blast when I saw that you posted a link to access hollywood about Rosie, too bad it's been erased by their web site, would have loved to read it! hey, got a copy archived?

My god you are a stupid bitch, that article on my blog, here, says that Rosie has been named co-host of the View, no opining just straight fact reporting, are you saying this info is incorrect? Because last week pretty much every news source in the country reported on it.

CNN
ABC
NYT

I could go on, but I think you've been sufficiently embarrassed.

EDIT: Oh look, Rosie herself even blogs about it on her website, link

dipshit, stick to the kiddie topics.

OK, me bad, should have written jug's meaning at eachother's throat.

jug·u·lar Pronunciation (jgy-lr)
adj.
Of, relating to, or located in the region of the neck or throat.
n.
1. A jugular vein.
2. The most vital part: a strategic attack aimed at the enemy's jugular.
[Late Latin iugulris (vna), jugular (vein), from Latin iugulum, collarbone, diminutive of iugum, yoke; see yeug- in Indo-European roots.]

You do love splitting hairs, don't you ;)

If your first link didn't lead me to that lovely message " Access Hollywood has moved spaces online, and has relaunched with even more original up-to-the-minute entertainment news.

The link that you're looking at has changed. You will be redirected to the homepage in 10 seconds, or you can click here" maybe i'd consider to take you seriously :kiss:

IT WAS A NATIONALLY REPORTED STORY YOU IDIOT.

So the accesshollywood link stopped working after they moved articles, THE STORY WAS REPORTED EVERYWHERE.

My god, I didn't think it possible for someone to be such a dim bulb.

OMG, I was sure you couldn't reply without using fowl words, yet again :fru:

Nice try attempting to deflect attention away from your obvious stupidity.

Only being your reflexion :ghug:


wwwwwweeeeeeee, you really made my night, was bored as hell. Actually, you took me down old napster memory lane.

>>>>>>>>>>>>:)<<<<<<<<<<<<


Thank you very much for the flashback!

Please report that to your blog as being under a vicious lib attack :2tu:

It was fun proving that simple things like reading words or watching the news is too much for you. Go back to the kiddie pool.

:fru: >>>>>>>>>>>> :) <<<<<<<<<<<< :fru:

From the railroad-to-topic department
 

from deep down in the battle-of ego's-thread
here at Napsterites Political Asylum
it's TIME to play:

THREAT or BLUFF !!

with your host:

SCOTT MCCLELLAN !!



News Analysis: Iran and the U.S. in a new cold war- by evil NYT reporters
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/...b.0430iran.php

A threat is a threat, even when it's a bluff. The question is moot. However those are good links, multi, very informative.

So what kind of confrontation is really taking place? Is it a war of egos as Repo says, is it a cold war as David E. Sanger and Elaine Sciolino say, is it going to be a conventional or nuclear war as Seymour Hersh suggests, or will international diplomacy work? It's hard to tell based on the war of the trolls taking place in this thread. I mean, there's better things to split hairs over than which newspaper has a better Persian to English dictionary.

Fun how troll seems to be an all emcompassing word around here. You can't voice your opinion without being labeled one.

It's just another excuse to whine.


Like name calling.


People too dumb to keep up their side of an argument just turn to whining about things like that.


ex:

I'd like to point out that I've read intelligent opinions from every participant here, including yourself and albed. I just wish there were more intelligent opinions to read. You don't troll all the time, but what are you trying to prove when you do troll the other memebers? If your personal opinions of them are so low then why do you even engage them in conversation?

Trolling isn't much of a spectator sport, it's boring. People who lurk the Political Assylum never speak up because it's not safe to have an opinion here. It is because of ad hominem attacks that your beloved Politics forum lacks participants, and in turn this forum no longer hosts spirited yet heated debates. I risk being called a whiner for writing this, but these are your own complaints I'm quoting.

Ironic maybe but you exemplified what you said by saying what you said.

Now neither of us are saying anything worthwhile.

once you properly define the issue with Iran, it's not hard to predict where it goes from here. the issue, as far as the administration is concerned, is regime change - once again, wmd's are the excuse and once again, the administration telegraphs it's intentions by refusing direct talks. unfortunately, as with Iraq, our reach once again exceeds our grasp.

Regime change in Iraq has been official US policy since before Bush, and we're not negotiating with Iran directly because the EU, Russia and China would be more immediately affected by a nuclear Iran than the US. Plus, we don't negotiate with terrorists.

the desire for regime change is not a legal reason to go to war - period. and we're not negotiating with Iran because the administration has no desire to achieve a diplomatic solution. EU, Russia, and China are not threatening Iran militarily - we are.

Haven't you liberal lawyer wannabees given up on that "ILLEGAL WAR" squawk after the last Iraq war?



So what are the legal reasons to go to war knife and who applies that law and judges offenders?

Well... that's because you can't have a decent conversation with someone else that disagree with your political affiliation without you trashing em because you feel some different way. Really hard to have a decent political battle when one keeps insulting the opponent because they are not supporting your views ;) :kiss:

:fru: :fru:

The cure for that, sweettits, is to not present yourself as a total moron with little to no grasp on current geopolitical situations, or even current news stories.

:fru: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :ND: <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< :fru:

Indeed :)

:)
:)
:)
:)
:)

You can respect the person even if you disagree with his point of view. And you can agree with the person even if you don't respect him. These are basic tenets of diplomacy and they keep society from falling into total chaos. In a civilized setting you can condemn a person's opinions without sinking to his level, likewise you can agree with your opponents without loosing face. I'd prefer it if this forum was civilized, but it's not all up to me.

Here we agree completly. But if you let the insults just roll off your back you would not be unique, people do this all the time and still manage to remain civilized. You and everyone else here lack the authority to punish someone for flinging insults, but you do have the ability to reward good behavior. I would encourage you to praise your opponents when they are civil and ignore them when they're not.

There are people around who just don't deserve respect and it would be insincere and dishonest to pretend otherwise. They apparently don't comprehend that they're not very intelligent, well educated or mentally balanced so repeatedly informing them of their deficiencies is a good way to encourage them to make improvements.





It looks like Mazer wants a little rewarding miss_silver. :BL:





Or you could retaliate in kind. Clever insults and jabs at psychological weaknesses require a degree of intelligence that some people appreciate and find entertaining.

On the contrary, I find your style of criticism very discouraging. I find that there are certain words I cannot mention in your company, and I'm probably not alone. You don't motivate people to be truthful and factual, albed, you manipulate them into saying exactly what you want to hear. You love it when people get the facts wrong or when they abuse logic or when they lie because it gives you the opportunity to make personal attacks. It doesn't matter what the topic is, in fact the further you stray from the topic the more fun you have. You havn't participated in a good political disucssion in a long time because every time you get involved the topic quickly looses focus and degrades into a flame war. The net result is that the Political Asylum has become a joke, and now I realize why it was created in the first place. It wasn't meant to rid political discussions of mamby crap, it was meant to rid the Underground of posts like yours. And it worked. You've built yourself a nice zoo here, with a sign at the enterance that reads, "Feed the animals at your own risk."

Outside of this forum, you're a regular guy and everybody likes you, especially for the techincal assistance you give in Byte Bits. In here you're a wild animal with no dignity, and people gawk at you like an ape in a cage.

If people can't help but be manipulated by my words then they're weak minded at the least and if they can't even manage to ignore me they they've no self control at all and should do some serious introspection.


A topic loses focus when lies and faulty logic are allowed to infect a thread. If people had serious convictions then they wouldn't go off whining about insults and would instead defend their position with honest facts and reasoning.


Hard to believe people can be such wimps, even in the safety of the internet, that they go off crying over harsh words.


I think instead they just don't like being exposed as fools.

Where would that leave you? With nobody to expose as fools, would you enjoy posting here as much, or at all? Don't worry, that won't happen, but how about this: are you capable of ignoring the lies and faulty logic of others and not posting knee-jerk corrections? Have you any self control?

Got it, so we should just let lies and faulty logic go unchecked and unchallenged, for the good of humanity!

Hegemonic, you're not as reflexive as albed, but I would offer you similar advice for what it's worth. In this unmoderated forum you're free to write whatever you'd like, positive or negative as you see fit. Hence these discussions are what you make of them, and while I may press you to be more respectful, I have neither the authority nor the responsibility to tell you what you can and cannot post. I'm just expressing my desire to see more thoughtful discussions take place in this forum, and if name calling is the most thoughtful response you can give to a person you think is wrong then I can accept that. But I think you're smarter than that.

What fucking good would that do? Have you seen some of the despicable lies posted by the lowlife scum in this forum?-The U.S. government ordered the 9/11 attacks; the Israelis massacred hundreds of Palestinians at Jenin; etc. If you don't have the guts to stand up for the truth then you aren't worth shit imo. But why are you so opposed to my doing it? What are those "words" you can't mention in my company and why? That just sounds so incredibly cowardly to me. Grow a fucking spine and stand up for yourself Mazer. I already know your full of bullshit with your claims of being Morman but not believing in morman tenants like creationism or not gambling, but almost all people claiming to be religious are that way; men swearing loyalty to their wives in a holy ceremony then going out and banging anything that moves; priests molesting children and killing nuns. Religious people know it's bullshit, aetheists know it's bullshit, so stand up for your particular brand of bullshit if it's so important to you.

And here's a little ditty to help everyone stop whining over name calling:

sticks and stones can break my bones but names can never hurt me

You whiners just repeat that to yourselves over and over until being called a name is no longer a traumatic experience to your immature little psyches.

Heh, sorry I haven't said what you want to hear, albed.

Alright, if you're going to attack me personally I think you can do better than that. Attacking my religious beliefs isn't a bad start (it's spelled Mormon, by the way), but put some real thought into it. Hit me where it really hurts. Come on, you know I won't fight back. I'm an easy target and you'll love making an example out of me.








Matthew 7:6

:sto:

neither of you will ever have the flair of jcmd
he was more an equal opportuinty fool basher
who could stay on topic while trampling liberal ideas underfoot

anyway i would reread Mazers last few posts again guys
as usual he has the situation covered quite accurately
:EA:
world war three here we come
:AF:

No, you've inspired some good rants from me so now I insist that you take the opportunity to respond and give your own opinions.

What are the benefits of letting people convey lies and deceive others?

How is it you can proclaim belief in Mormonism but deny its tenants?




I just might pick on you for your response but gather up your courage and post anyway. It's only words and they can't hurt you.

I don't assume there are any benefits for letting mediocrity slide, but I don't think you risk anything by doing so either. Idiots have always outnumbered intelligent people and they always will. There may be no cure for stupidity but it isn't as contagious as you fear. "A topic loses focus when lies and faulty logic are allowed to infect a thread." Infect? I'd have thought that by now you would have built up an immunity to bullshit and it wouldn't bother you. Well, unless it's an allergy, in which case I can offer no advice.

So other than preventing hayfeaver and hives, what are the benefits of not letting people convey lies and deceive others?

As for my religious beliefs, you can ask me again later when you're not compelled to judge me based on a belief system you don't hold yourself nor fully understand. Until that time I'll refer you to the Bible verse cited at the bottom of my last post.

Back to the topic.

I've stated before that I think invasion is not only a bad idea but also not being seriously considered by the government. The president likes to say that the option is still on the table becase he want's to put up a strong front, and as everyone else in the world knows, a threat of military action from the United States is grave. No doubt the top military minds in Washington are working out the logistics of a confrontration with Iran, analyzing every possibility from small incursions and skirmishes to all out invasion and nuclear bombardment. But realistically the United States will not go to war against Iran unless they attack us first. Maybe not even then, after all we let Iraq shoot at our planes for a decade in violation of the ceasefire before we finally retalliated in ernest.

Part of me says, "World war three? Bring it on! We won the last two and we can do it again." But really, I don't see it ever comming to that. Up to this point we've done nothing but talk, and even if Bush and Ahmadinejad continue posturing for the media and never speak directly, at least they're making their desires clear. It's better to threaten war than to silently stand by, doing nothing, while Iran gleefully joins the nuclear club.

Ok...

This thread has hit the botomless pit, when you thought that there couldn't be more shit at the bottom of the barrel, seems that once broken, there is 100 feet more shit under it :/

Attacking someone based on their religion or spititual beliefs if the lowest thing i've seen so far. Personnally I do not believe in god but I think that Jesus teachings or stories are a good moral code, so are those 10 commandments :)

There is nothing religious about thow shall not steal or thow shall respect their father and mother or thow shall not conveit thy neighbor's wife or hubby...

Just can't conceive a heaven or hell, me thinks that hell is life on earth these days ;)

Mazer, didn't know you were a mormon, kewl! one of my best friend is :ghug: Realised I was uncomfortable with other religions or intolerent of them in the past and I know why now, it was because I didn't know where I was standing in the first place ;) Now I know and all is good :AP:

Seen Little buddha recently, really gave me a jolt! This movie is excellent in so many ways :) Just came to realise that this thread is all about our nappy ego, not Iran nor the US, soon we will hit page 7, just a thought ;)

Shit, you never heard of Medieval Witch Hunts, The Inquisition, Naziism, Stalinism, Chinese Communism, Khmer Rouge Communism. That figures.




Ooooh, sooo clever. But you needed to say "detriments" to conform to the standard smarmy non-reply.




You think hypocrisy is a belief system? -Hypocritism- heh heh. Well I understand it very well and you appear to be a dedicated practitioner.

This is by far the weirdest thing you've said.

Contagious stupidity. And pretty detrimental.

Oh, you were giving examples. For a moment there I thought the strain had gotten to you 'cause you weren't making any sense.

So this why you have to be right all the time? You're afraid the stupidity in this forum is going to break out into a holocaust without you to stop it? You're like a superhero, albed. Somebody should crhonicle your exploits in a comic book.

:fru: i'm feeling fluffy :fru:

:ND: