Global Warming - Page 12 - Speedzilla Motorcycle Message Forums
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #221 of 3778 (permalink) Old 01-31-2007, 01:12 PM
Senior Member
 
DanST4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,300
Iraq War Not Breaking the Bank

In fact, it’s one of the least expensive conflicts in our nation’s history.
By Jerry Bowyer



Critics of the war in Iraq often complain about the “escalating cost of the war.” Listening to them, you’d never know that the war is one of the least expensive in American history.

Robert Whaples, professor of economics at Wake Forest University, has measured the cost of each major American war up through the first Gulf War. We took these costs and compared them to the cost of the Iraq war and found that the Iraq experience has consumed a smaller percentage of GDP (just 2 percent of one year’s wealth creation) than every other American war except the first Gulf War (which measured just 1 percent of GDP).

This stands in stark contrast to the Vietnam experience, which opponents have often attempted to liken to the Iraq war. Vietnam comprised a much heartier 12 percent of GDP at the time. Other conflicts, such as World War II, took a remarkable 130 percent of a year’s GDP to see through to success.

The work is not done in Iraq, and the financial costs will grow beyond the $251 billion we have spent so far. The real cost, of course, is in human lives, manifested in the debate about whether it is worth losing a few thousand American lives in order to liberate 23 million people. But the data are clear; any attempt to discredit this war based on its effect on the U.S. economy is an unnecessary distraction.


DanST4 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #222 of 3778 (permalink) Old 01-31-2007, 02:54 PM
Senior Member
 
Le Kiwi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: In the warmth of a warming world
Posts: 2,519
Oh, well, thats all right then.
Those two trillion dollars, pfft, a mere drop in the Ocean. "Tis but a scratch !" A "Wal Mart" war, it's cheap, it won't last, and the Human cost behind it is pretty tragic, and your kids may be injured or killed playing in it, but at least it's, er, cheap ! Yay for war !

http://www.csmonitor.com

http://www.cfr.org

I guess attempts to discredit the war will just have to rely on moral, ethical, Humanist and legal means then, if the money doesn't matter.
I wonder how much better the World would be if two trillion dollars was spent on it, instead of filling the pockets of the war-profiteers ?
Le Kiwi is offline  
post #223 of 3778 (permalink) Old 01-31-2007, 03:05 PM
Senior Member
 
DanST4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,300
Yes just think of all the schools and hospitals we could build with that money. Imagine all the additional police and fire department personnel we could hire.

Can you think of all the benefit that money could bring to the poor in this country?

Imagine all the disease we could wipe out with that money.

Yet Bush just throws it away on some made-up war started to please his daddy and to line the pockets of his buddies in the defense industry.

Shame on him for being so stupid to be able to pull off this world domination plan, make his buddies rich beyond imagination, and all the while fake like he's fighting terrorism whatever that is.

Bush = BAD
War = BAD
USA = BAD

DanST4 is offline  
 
post #224 of 3778 (permalink) Old 01-31-2007, 03:18 PM
Senior Member
 
XFBO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NNJ
Posts: 6,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by cutter
-Electric cars
Oh yea, the car YOU would never buy unless millions of others buy it making it more affordable for YOU to buy. LOL!
Talk about walking the talk there cutter!


-Solar Panels
Solar panels are already in use. Power/Energy companies have had incentives for yrs now on installing them or windmills in residences (it aint cheap but the option is there).
Mind you, its a program that I dont recall taking place during the Slickster yrs, now that I think about it.


-Nuclear energy.
What about it?


-Soy hybrid burgers at large fast food chains.
ROFLMAO! Dude, Ive seen a picture of you not too long ago......and your profile indicates TWOHUNDREDFIFTYPOUNDS for your 73" frame.......are you gonna sit there and tell us YOU eat soy burgers????

Ohhhhh yeaaaa, I got it.......its another one of those things that you WANT corporations to adhere to for OTHER ppl to utilize/eat.
I keep forgetting, you hippies dont actually get yourselves involved in any of your own talk.


I know for a fact that you will say something along the lines of trashing all gas cars,
I WILL? Uhhhhh, I think that falls along your mindset bud, not mine.


but I only suggest a introduction of electric cars as a option, and believe it or not, it wont cost anything more to taxes,
Uh yea and Im Bill Clinton and I approve this message. You already made it clear on what you want. YOU want other ppl to buy (in large numbers no less so it gets cheaper for you) electric cars.
But answer this, what do you think the Dems will do once the electric car manufacturers indicate a shortage in sales and indicate the project is too expensive to continue financing and may fail altogether?
Ya think its possible that the HRC's are gonna push for a tax on gas drivers?
Call me crazy but I could definitely see that coming from THAT party.


what is costing us lots of money is this war for oil.
Dude KEEP saying it!
3-4 yrs ago I would of never thought ppl would believe it but apparantly it does work. No matter how much BS it is keep saying it, the suckers are out there and believing it too!
For those with HALF a brain and who want a dose of REALITY.....read Dan's post on what this war is REALLY costing us.

I could still hear LK and cutter asking WTF is GDP???


And I find it hilarious that the same people that say it will cost too much in taxes to reduce emissions, are the first to support the most taxing war ever in the entire history of mankind.
HUH?
Did YOU lose money in taxes over these yrs? I mean, Im NOT collecting welfare so I can say with certainty that I havent paid more taxes other than my property taxes but I got my democratically run state to thank for that.


I think our dependency on foreign oil will cost us 1000 fold more then any zero emission standard could ever even come close to.
ZERO EMISSION? Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatttttttttttt?


But I am really curious were you are getting this reduction of emissions is going to bankrupt America information, I know you wont be able to quote anyone not paid by big oil, but amuse me with this almighty information you are basing your entire foundation of reality on, must be really good for you not to look at any other alternatives.
YEA ME TOO!
Im REALLY curious where you got that out of MY quoted post? LOL! How are those shrink visits going cutter?


I mean the way you guys absolutely hate even the thought of us even thinking about reducing our dependency on oil, so you must know something pretty damn important, did god come down and tell you the devil will take over the earth if we don't burn as much oil as possible?
Who has ever said that???
Did I ever say I wouldnt like to see our oil dependency reduced? Uhhh Nooooooo!
See this is the problem with you foaming at the mouth liberals, you hear ONLY what you wanna hear and see ONLY what you wanna read. Our GREAT President () has indicated many a times we need to lower our dependency........... but not the way you whackos wanna see it done. Oh and heres a GREAT cartoon that shows how YOUR ideology works.

If the tree huggers would let go long enough for us to increase production right HERE in the USA, we might see an immediate drop in M.E. oil dependency.


And does the idea of some country not playing along really a justification for not doing it ourselves?
Absolutely NOT, considering we're ALREADY doing a lot more sh!t that probably all the countries combined. So again I dont get where you get this from.


"Well jimmy next door didn't do his homework dad, so why should I have to do mine?"
Is that the logic I am seeing here?
Only when looking into the mirror, I suppose.
Hey is Jimmy's dad that Christian pedophile whack job who violated his kid and your mind???

'12 Tri Explorer
'05 GSXR1k (4Sale)
'00 RC51 (4Sale)

Last edited by XFBO; 01-31-2007 at 04:10 PM.
XFBO is offline  
post #225 of 3778 (permalink) Old 01-31-2007, 03:34 PM
Senior Member
 
DanST4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,300
Why do conservatives hate the environment?: Unfortunately, most environmental activists today tend to be radical luddites for whom economic considerations are practically irrelevant. We're talking about people who try to stop almost every new power plant from being built, who oppose drilling a desolate Alaska wasteland laden with oil because they fear it might upset the caribou in the region, and who'd happily drive the US economy into a depression by supporting the Kyoto Accord (more on that next).

Conservatives want clean water, clean air, and a clean planet as much as the average person. However, unlike radical environmentalists, we're not purists. Conservatives have a sense of proportion, and we're not willing to drive America's standard of living back 50 years for some unnoticeable environmental gain. So in effect, conservatives are pro-environment, we're just moderates about it compared to the zealots in the environmentalism movement.

Speaking of the Kyoto Accord, why are conservatives so deadset against it?: Conservatives believe Kyoto is an incredibly expensive and yet largely ineffective solution to a dubious problem. While most scientists now seem to agree the earth is warming (in the seventies the consensus was that it was cooling), truth be told, we don't really know exactly why it's warming up or how much hotter it will get over what time period. Furthermore, even if mankind is causing it, Kyoto is a highly ineffective way to address the problem. As Bjorn Lomborg recently said,

"Implementing the Kyoto agreement on climate change would cost at least $150 billion each year, yet would do no more than postpone global warming for six years by 2100. That is to say, it would cause temperatures to increase slightly more slowly - the temperature we would have reached in 2100 without Kyoto, we would now reach in 2106."
DanST4 is offline  
post #226 of 3778 (permalink) Old 01-31-2007, 04:03 PM
Senior Member
 
DanST4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,300
Harper's letter dismisses Kyoto as 'socialist scheme'

Last Updated: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 | 10:15 PM ET

CBC News


Prime Minister Stephen Harper once called the Kyoto accord a "socialist scheme" designed to suck money out of rich countries, according to a letter leaked Tuesday by the Liberals.

The letter, posted on the federal Liberal party website, was apparently written by Harper in 2002, when he was leader of the now-defunct Canadian Alliance party.

He was writing to party supporters, asking for money as he prepared to fight then-prime minister Jean Chrétien on the proposed Kyoto accord.

"We're gearing up now for the biggest struggle our party has faced since you entrusted me with the leadership," Harper's letter says.

"I'm talking about the 'battle of Kyoto' — our campaign to block the job-killing, economy-destroying Kyoto accord."

The accord is an international environmental pact that sets targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Canada officially ratified the accord Dec. 17, 2002, under Chrétien's Liberal government. Harper's Conservative government, which took power January 2006, has since been accused of ignoring the accord.

Harper's letter goes on to outline why he's against the agreement.

Accord based on 'contradictory' data: Harper

He writes that it's based on "tentative and contradictory scientific evidence" and it focuses on carbon dioxide, which is "essential to life."

He says Kyoto requires that Canada make significant cuts in emissions, while countries like Russia, India and China face less of a burden.

Under Kyoto, Canada was required to reduce emissions by six per cent by 2012, while economies in transition, like Russia, were allowed to choose different base years.

"Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations," Harper's letter reads.

He said the accord would cripple the oil and gas industries, which are essential to Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.

He wrote in the letter that he would do everything he could to stop Chrétien from passing the Kyoto agreement.

"We will do everything we can to stop him there, but he might get it passed with the help of the socialists in the NDP and the separatists in the BQ [Bloc Québécois]."

The Prime Minister's Office refused to comment about the letter on the record.

In recent weeks, Harper has spoken strongly about the environment, saying he will dramatically revamp his minority government's much-criticized clean air act.

His comments come as public-opinion polls indicate the environment has become the number one issue among Canadians.

Liberal MP Mark Holland told the Canadian Press on Tuesday that the leaked letter shows that Harper isn't actually committed to climate change.

"Now, suddenly, because he has seen the polls and realized the political opportunism of going green, the prime minister has launched a new campaign — that of trying to convince Canadians that he actually cares about the environment," Holland said.

"But no one is buying it."

The Kyoto Protocol went into effect Feb. 16, 2005, with 141 countries signing on, including every major industrialized country, except the United States, Australia and Monaco.

With files from the Canadian Press
DanST4 is offline  
post #227 of 3778 (permalink) Old 01-31-2007, 04:14 PM
Dr. Carbon
 
20_RC51_00's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,974
You fools are not worth my blood pressure rising, you will see that you are wrong and that is that, the entire global scientific community has widely agreed on this issue. There is nothing for dabate about this issue, other then the spin certain politicians have made to agrue against it. So until your foolish and pittiful generation dies out we will have to tolerate your existance.
Take care and have a happy ignorant life!
20_RC51_00 is offline  
post #228 of 3778 (permalink) Old 01-31-2007, 04:15 PM
Senior Member
 
XFBO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NNJ
Posts: 6,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanST4
the temperature we would have reached in 2100 without Kyoto, we would now reach in 2106."
And your point is?

'12 Tri Explorer
'05 GSXR1k (4Sale)
'00 RC51 (4Sale)
XFBO is offline  
post #229 of 3778 (permalink) Old 01-31-2007, 04:20 PM
Senior Member
 
XFBO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NNJ
Posts: 6,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by 20_RC51_00
You fools are not worth my blood pressure rising,
LMAO!
Hey you might wanna see a Dr. about that?
BTW- Do you think Global Warming is to blame for that too?


you will see that you are wrong and that is that, the entire global scientific community has widely agreed on this issue.
As Dan pointed out already, didnt these scientific geniuses think the opposite just 30-40 yrs ago?


There is nothing for dabate about this issue, other then the spin certain politicians have made to agrue against it.
Wow, you are spent!


So until your foolish and pittiful generation dies out we will have to tolerate your existance.
Take care and have a happy ignorant life!
I bet OUR ignorant lives will outlast your greenpeace hippy ways! Hey is smoking weed one way to help the environment?

Your outlook on life is pathetic, you seem to think G.W. is a bigger threat to mankind than the REAL problems this world is facing RIGHT NOW. Wake the hell up you JA.

'12 Tri Explorer
'05 GSXR1k (4Sale)
'00 RC51 (4Sale)
XFBO is offline  
post #230 of 3778 (permalink) Old 01-31-2007, 04:20 PM
Senior Member
 
DanST4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,300


Quote:
Originally Posted by 20_RC51_00
You fools are not worth my blood pressure rising, you will see that you are wrong and that is that, the entire global scientific community has widely agreed on this issue. There is nothing for dabate about this issue, other then the spin certain politicians have made to agrue against it.
Of all greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide represents only 0.28%. There is little or no correlation between carbon dioxide concentration and temperature change. Natural climate drivers such as solar and orbital variations, on the other hand, correlate well with temperature changes.

Since temperature constantly fluctuates,
Choosing whether earth is warming or cooling is simply a matter of picking end points.
If I start my analysis at midnight and end at noon, I see that it's getting hotter. If I start in August and end in January, I see that it's getting colder. This is the sort of simplistic trick global warming hucksters like Al Gore use to lead gullible nitwits around by the nose.

In the short term, the weather will keep getting warmer, as it has been doing for the last 250 years. In the long term, it will keep getting cooler, as it has been doing for the last 60 million years. Recent warming is an effect of the same 1,100-year solar cycle that produced the Roman and Medieval warming periods.

Gerhard asks the fundamental question and answers it:
So, if there were no people, how would climate be different? It wouldn't be different.
Now can we move on to problems that are real?

Last edited by DanST4; 01-31-2007 at 05:29 PM.
DanST4 is offline  
post #231 of 3778 (permalink) Old 01-31-2007, 04:28 PM
Senior Member
 
XFBO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NNJ
Posts: 6,462
You know something, I think soslow is on to something about conspiracies existing in the US. These liberal MF'ers are suceeding in raping and pillaging the minds of our American youth via tree hugging college professors, the media and the unwaivering campaign of BS untruths being spred worldwide. There ARE several examples of them right here every day and unless some of these tools are changing their s/n's every few weeks it just seems like more n more of them come out of their holes. They've become the modern day cockroach.

We're screwed!

'12 Tri Explorer
'05 GSXR1k (4Sale)
'00 RC51 (4Sale)
XFBO is offline  
post #232 of 3778 (permalink) Old 01-31-2007, 04:32 PM
Senior Member
 
DanST4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,300
James Lovelock differs from most global warming fanatics in that he actually believes in it. You can tell, because he advocates heavy reliance on nuclear energy. As Lorrie Goldstein observes:
[A]ny politician who says he or she is concerned about global warming, who is not advocating for nuclear power, does not really believe our world faces an imminent threat, no matter what they say publicly.
The reason is that if burning fossil fuels really has "brought us to the brink of cataclysmic climate change that threatens humanity," nuclear power is "the only energy source that can stave off disaster without plunging us into a new Dark Age."

Yet you don't hear much about nuclear power from Al Gore et al., because the envirokooks who set the agenda don't approve of it. It's not that they're against human activity that causes global warming. They're against human activity, so they pretend it causes global warming. Plunging us into a new Dark Age is very much a part of the agenda, for those who aren't ambitious enough to want to wipe out the human race altogether.

By the time this antihuman ideology filters down to the average citizen, it takes the form of puttering around in a Prius to save polar bears from falling through the ice, as if anyone intelligent enough to operate a motor vehicle could genuinely believe driving hybrids will affect global temperatures.

Lovelock doesn't. As a co-creator of the "Gaia theory" — which views Earth as a single living organism — his moonbat credentials would seem to be impeccable. The problem is that he isn't using global warming as an excuse to raise taxes, hustle a research grant, or advance some other agenda. He truly believes, so he found the only feasible solution. It's been right under our noses for decades: nukes.

But for some reason no one seems to want to hear about it.

Nice clean steam for those few who actually want a solution.
DanST4 is offline  
post #233 of 3778 (permalink) Old 01-31-2007, 05:26 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 676
Here are some interesting quotes from some great "activists".

Stanford biological sciences professor Stephen Schneider told Discover Magazine that October, "We [scientists] need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."

And one from Mr. Gore.

"I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."

Funny, Mr. Gore does not seem to concentrate on solutions, just scaring his admiring public!!

SP-1, Full Ti-Akrapovic, PCIIIr, 15/41 520, Pazzo's, Scott's, Speedo Healer,
RCrider51 is offline  
post #234 of 3778 (permalink) Old 01-31-2007, 06:46 PM
Senior Member
 
cutter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Lakeville, MN
Posts: 1,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanST4
James Lovelock differs from most global warming fanatics in that he actually believes in it. You can tell, because he advocates heavy reliance on nuclear energy. As Lorrie Goldstein observes:
[A]ny politician who says he or she is concerned about global warming, who is not advocating for nuclear power, does not really believe our world faces an imminent threat, no matter what they say publicly.
The reason is that if burning fossil fuels really has "brought us to the brink of cataclysmic climate change that threatens humanity," nuclear power is "the only energy source that can stave off disaster without plunging us into a new Dark Age."

Yet you don't hear much about nuclear power from Al Gore et al., because the envirokooks who set the agenda don't approve of it. It's not that they're against human activity that causes global warming. They're against human activity, so they pretend it causes global warming. Plunging us into a new Dark Age is very much a part of the agenda, for those who aren't ambitious enough to want to wipe out the human race altogether.

By the time this antihuman ideology filters down to the average citizen, it takes the form of puttering around in a Prius to save polar bears from falling through the ice, as if anyone intelligent enough to operate a motor vehicle could genuinely believe driving hybrids will affect global temperatures.

Lovelock doesn't. As a co-creator of the "Gaia theory" — which views Earth as a single living organism — his moonbat credentials would seem to be impeccable. The problem is that he isn't using global warming as an excuse to raise taxes, hustle a research grant, or advance some other agenda. He truly believes, so he found the only feasible solution. It's been right under our noses for decades: nukes.

But for some reason no one seems to want to hear about it.

Nice clean steam for those few who actually want a solution.
I agree with you, nuclear energy is the only thing that can replace coal burning power plants.
And there are some extreme leftists that can't get that we need nuclear energy to realistically make a change.

And even though I have some issues with the left side, I can never express them because I am usually defending the unfair slandering attacks on them.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
cutter is offline  
post #235 of 3778 (permalink) Old 01-31-2007, 07:08 PM
Senior Member
 
cutter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Lakeville, MN
Posts: 1,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanST4
Iraq War Not Breaking the Bank

In fact, it’s one of the least expensive conflicts in our nation’s history.
By Jerry Bowyer



Critics of the war in Iraq often complain about the “escalating cost of the war.” Listening to them, you’d never know that the war is one of the least expensive in American history.

Robert Whaples, professor of economics at Wake Forest University, has measured the cost of each major American war up through the first Gulf War. We took these costs and compared them to the cost of the Iraq war and found that the Iraq experience has consumed a smaller percentage of GDP (just 2 percent of one year’s wealth creation) than every other American war except the first Gulf War (which measured just 1 percent of GDP).

This stands in stark contrast to the Vietnam experience, which opponents have often attempted to liken to the Iraq war. Vietnam comprised a much heartier 12 percent of GDP at the time. Other conflicts, such as World War II, took a remarkable 130 percent of a year’s GDP to see through to success.

The work is not done in Iraq, and the financial costs will grow beyond the $251 billion we have spent so far. The real cost, of course, is in human lives, manifested in the debate about whether it is worth losing a few thousand American lives in order to liberate 23 million people. But the data are clear; any attempt to discredit this war based on its effect on the U.S. economy is an unnecessary distraction.


Why no link to this report?
You must of forgot it.
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_b...0601230854.asp

There you go, oh you also forgot the date of the report too.
January 23 2006.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
cutter is offline  
post #236 of 3778 (permalink) Old 01-31-2007, 07:22 PM
Senior Member
 
cutter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Lakeville, MN
Posts: 1,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by XFBO
Hey is Jimmy's dad that Christian pedophile whack job who violated his kid and your mind???
Only the people that over preach moral values, (self proclaimed christians or not) are the ones that usually end up being some sort of pedophile.
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=2191

And lets not forget Mark Foley.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Foley_scandal

Both busted after I made that comment publicly on here.

So I wont make you say i'm right, but if you start defending these pedos anymore I might have to start making assumptions about you.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
cutter is offline  
post #237 of 3778 (permalink) Old 01-31-2007, 08:13 PM
Senior Member
 
XFBO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NNJ
Posts: 6,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by cutter
And even though I have some issues with the left side, I can never express them because I am usually defending the unfair slandering attacks on them.
LOL........that's just too funny! Kinda sounds like MY reason why Ive been involved in political debating since 9/11. The unfair practices imposed to this President by all the liberals. So with that statement it sounds as if you think liberals get abused moreso than conservatives these days........is that what you think in your world?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cutter
Why no link to this report?
You must of forgot it.
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_b...0601230854.asp

There you go, oh you also forgot the date of the report too.
January 23 2006.
And what's your point? Has the past yr cost more than the previous 3-4? Has the author since reported the opposite? What's your point? If you have one that is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutter
Only the people that over preach moral values, (self proclaimed christians or not) are the ones that usually end up being some sort of pedophile.
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=2191
How about those who consistently desecrate moral value, faith and God, do those types fall under this category?
Sooooo you been 'hanging' with some teen boys lately cutter?
Maybe under the guise of starting a new rock band?
Or you too can support the ACLU?
Or how to properly hug a tree, smoke a bone or elude the police?
Or how to properly play the skin flute maybe? (I mean your history here clearing speaks out against any person of faith/morals and protects those with alternative lifestyles so perhaps your closet has a loose hinge?)
Or maybe, you too can be a Page, try outs here first?

And lets not forget Mark Foley.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Foley_scandal

Both busted after I made that comment publicly on here.
LOL! Yea cutter you had the scoop before anyone knew about it. LOL!

So I wont make you say i'm right, but if you start defending these pedos anymore I might have to start making assumptions about you.
LMAO!!!!!!! Yeaaaaa that's what Im doing. Who was it again who was FOR NAMBLA??? WHO??? Do I need to go dig out your response? I didnt think so.

'12 Tri Explorer
'05 GSXR1k (4Sale)
'00 RC51 (4Sale)

Last edited by XFBO; 01-31-2007 at 08:36 PM.
XFBO is offline  
post #238 of 3778 (permalink) Old 01-31-2007, 10:02 PM
Senior Member
 
cutter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Lakeville, MN
Posts: 1,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by XFBO
LOL........that's just too funny! Kinda sounds like MY reason why Ive been involved in political debating since 9/11. The unfair practices imposed to this President by all the liberals. So with that statement it sounds as if you think liberals get abused moreso than conservatives these days........is that what you think in your world?
Our rights are getting abused, and any attempt to preserve them are smashed down by the ignorant mass of Bushites blinding by sloganeering and hate propaganda, and reasoning is passed of as liberal garbage not worth paying attention to, like the environment, our rights, the motivations of the GOP in this war in Iraq... ect. ect.
But poor neocons are so bothered with people pushing what is real in their face and making them look outside of their safe little reality box borrowed from the latest spin doctors pushed reality, and ego enhancing treats they all gobble in delight of self satisfaction.

Quote:
And what's your point? Has the past yr cost more than the previous 3-4? Has the author since reported the opposite? What's your point? If you have one that is.
No, the war the past year has be completely free, and I did a check up on the author and he suffered a nervous breakdown and doesn't write anymore.
Maybe his conscience got the better of him.
Quote:
LMAO!!!!!!! Yeaaaaa that's what Im doing. Who was it again who was FOR NAMBLA??? WHO??? Do I need to go dig out your response? I didnt think so.
I'm not for nambla, I'm also not for using the freedom of speech as a tool for persuction, quit the opposite, I would rather the pedos join publically and show themselves instead of hide out in congress preaching about how immoral that is.
But please parade around how unmoral the freedom of speech is, all the while I'll be watching the news waiting for XFBO tot touching report to come on.
Now we know why baby Jesus is crying


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
cutter is offline  
post #239 of 3778 (permalink) Old 01-31-2007, 10:10 PM
Senior Member
 
DanST4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,300
Will you two kiss and make up for crying out loud!

DanST4 is offline  
post #240 of 3778 (permalink) Old 01-31-2007, 10:20 PM
Senior Member
 
cutter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Lakeville, MN
Posts: 1,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanST4
Will you two kiss and make up for crying out loud!

I'm too old for XFBO


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
cutter is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Speedzilla Motorcycle Message Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome