A blog worth checking out

[Mr. P]

I just like answering questions with questions sometimes. Ya know, just to see how it feels.

Well, I'd never, ever ever do such a thing, would I?

 

[Allanon68]

They are liars who support terrorism. Forget what's already been said. Do you think the should be respected for this "journalism" ?

I dont think there journalism is any worse or better than ours. Do you have any proof that they support terrorism ?

 

[Annie]

I dont think there journalism is any worse or better than ours. Do you have any proof that they support terrorism ?

I believe someone posted earlier that the 'coincidences' of their being at sites of IED and suicide bombings as they are happening, seems a bit over the top. AP and Reuters often have the same 'lucky occurances', which explains why they are no longer held in favorable regard by many.

You don't see a problem with this?

 

[Allanon68]

that doesnt mean they are in support of terrorism. Most people here always want proof of something, so could you provide a link that says they are in support of terrorism other than just your accusations. Just trying to be thorough, no one wants to accuse someone of something without some good hard evidence right ?

 

[dilloduck]

that doesnt mean they are in support of terrorism. Most people here always want proof of something, so could you provide a link that says they are in support of terrorism other than just your accusations. Just trying to be thorough, no one wants to accuse someone of something without some good hard evidence right ?

Why do you think all of bin ladens' tapes end up there?-------It ain't because he's afraid of em--that's for sure. If you want to believe they are unbiased--go for it.

 

[CSM]

that doesnt mean they are in support of terrorism. Most people here always want proof of something, so could you provide a link that says they are in support of terrorism other than just your accusations. Just trying to be thorough, no one wants to accuse someone of something without some good hard evidence right ?

Either you have been lurking on this board for sometime, or you are a poster who has been banned. How do I know? Because you joined 1 September and make the statement that most people HERE want links that support thier position.

My question then is: who are you really?

 

[Allanon68]

was my statement incorrect ?

 

[CSM]

was my statement incorrect ?

Nope...

 

[no1tovote4]

Notice how the name pattern matches a certain other poster that was banned before? Hmmm....

Using a different proxy server so the IPs won't match?

 

[Mr. P]

Notice how the name pattern matches a certain other poster that was banned before? Hmmm....

Using a different proxy server so the IPs won't match?

I noticed..

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I noticed..

Please, fill us newbies in

seems like it would take alot to get banned from this board

 

[Allanon68]

No not really. Just disagree with Bush , most posters here are pro-bush. Probably about 95% of them. So if you disagree with anything bush does you must posts your links that prove your point, because they will post links from their biased news sites proving their points, etc etc. Its like a game here. Here is a good example, You could post articles that point out why the war is bad, then Kathianne will post a long ass article as to why it is good. Then they will call your argument debunked cause their thread proves yours inferior. Its kind of funny the way it works. They wont believe anything anti bush espeically if they can find a "link" to validate their point. But then anyone can find a link validating their point no matter which side of the fence they are on.

 

[Said1]

No not really. Just disagree with Bush , most posters here are pro-bush. Probably about 95% of them. So if you disagree with anything bush does you must posts your links that prove your point, because they will post links from their biased news sites proving their points, etc etc. Its like a game here. Here is a good example, You could post articles that point out why the war is bad, then Kathianne will post a long ass article as to why it is good. Then they will call your argument debunked cause their thread proves yours inferior. Its kind of funny the way it works. They wont believe anything anti bush espeically if they can find a "link" to validate their point. But then anyone can find a link validating their point no matter which side of the fence they are on.

Try posting some primary sources, not op-ed peices that you think are biased.

 

[Mr. P]

... But then anyone can find a link validating their point no matter which side of the fence they are on.

Not true at all..

 

[Said1]

Not true at all..

True enough. I can't find a link anywhere that can prove I rule, but whatever. Facts, shmacks.

 

[elephant]

True enough. I can't find a link anywhere that can prove I rule, but whatever. Facts, shmacks.

Right here:

http://www.aurumrecording.com/said1/said1.htm

It actually says you rule. I guess one can find a citation for just about anything on the Internet.

 

[Said1]

Right here:

http://www.aurumrecording.com/said1/said1.htm

It actually says you rule. I guess one can find a citation for just about anything on the Internet.

OMG, can I use this as an official document!!

You da man! But you don't rule, obviously!