Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 166

Thread: What are the reasons to want Bush re- elected ?

  1. #126
    Banned
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    B.C & USA
    Posts
    1,869
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re:What are the reasons to want Bush re- elected ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pumpkin Pie link=board=1;threadid=10537;start=msg132815#msg132 815 date=1088892771

    Yes, I do, but what does this have to do with the topic we were discussing? That being state-sponsored international terrorism after the start on the War on Terrorism.
    Problems in Liberia were indeed going on long before 9/11 - read the up on Charles Taylor- many of the problems there continue today. Your statements shows you didn't read anything I took the time to look up for you on Liberia.


    Quote Originally Posted by Pumpkin Pie link=board=1;threadid=10537;start=msg132815#msg132 815 date=1088892771
    Where have I denied that is exists? We were talking about state-sponsored international terrorism after the War on Terrorism was declared. Liberia doesn't apply to that discussion.
    yes you did- By saying there is no other state supported terrorism in the world now that Bush attacked Afag. and Iraq. There is lots of other places on the planet where it exists !


    And what about Cuba. Have you forgotten Cuba ?
    Quote Originally Posted by Pumpkin Pie link=board=1;threadid=10537;start=msg132815#msg132 815 date=1088892771
    Not at all. But again, what international terrorism has it backed since the US declared a War on Terrorism?

    This sounds like a quote from a news article. Please give its source.

    Oh, and what it cited is pre-War on Terrorism.

    - sorry I did so much research for you I forgot to add this link

    The terrorism in Cuba has not ended since Bush declared war, it goes on just the same as it did before.


    Quote Originally Posted by Pumpkin Pie link=board=1;threadid=10537;start=msg132815#msg132 815 date=1088892771
    By the above, I've shown I'm not blind. I would also appreciate if you would return to your previous polite discourse. I do not care to discuss topics with anyone that continues to throw insults at me.
    Yes you are being blind by continuing to deny that state supported terrorism still exists. Bush chooses to focus his efforts on Iraq for one reason and one reason only- he wants what they have -OIL !!!!!!

    By the way plenty of terror acts occur in N. Korea as well- they arrest people up to 3 Generations down from those they consider traitors and put them in jails and practice chem. warfare on them. Look it up !

    Bush doesn't offer help to any of these nations because he wouldn't profit much. It's not about terrorism or human rights for him it's about PROFIT!!!!!!!

    oh by the way you did insult me by saying I had no facts and then trying to imply that I was intentionaly trying to mislead readers???? Which is a bold face lie.

    You have not proven anything of your claims that Bush ended state supported terrorism everywhere in the world. What you have proved is that you aren't well informed and are buying into what Bush preaches.

    I'm not wasting anymore time on someone who chooses to stay ignorant despite obvious facts.

    Good day to you Mr. SHEEP !

  2. #127
    Veteran Member Pumpkin Pie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    718
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts

    Default Re:What are the reasons to want Bush re- elected ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerlilly link=board=1;threadid=10537;start=msg132830#msg132 830 date=1088897616
    Quote Originally Posted by Pumpkin Pie link=board=1;threadid=10537;start=msg132815#msg132 815 date=1088892771
    Yes, I do, but what does this have to do with the topic we were discussing? That being state-sponsored international terrorism after the start on the War on Terrorism.
    Problems in Liberia were indeed going on long before 9/11 - read the up on Charles Taylor- many of the problems there continue today. Your statements shows you didn't read anything I took the time to look up for you on Liberia.
    The topic of discussion was state-sponsored international terrorism after the War on Terrorism was declared. Liberia doesn't apply to that discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pumpkin Pie link=board=1;threadid=10537;start=msg132815#msg132 815 date=1088892771
    Where have I denied that is exists? We were talking about state-sponsored international terrorism after the War on Terrorism was declared. Liberia doesn't apply to that discussion.
    yes you did- By saying there is no other state supported terrorism in the world now that Bush attacked Afag. and Iraq. There is lots of other places on the planet where it exists !
    We were discussing state-sponsored INTERNATIONAL terrorism AFTER the War on Terrorism was declared by Bush. None of the examples you've so far given (including in the last post) have disproven my assertion ... whereas I've given solid examples that back my assertion.

    And what about Cuba. Have you forgotten Cuba ?
    Quote Originally Posted by Pumpkin Pie link=board=1;threadid=10537;start=msg132815#msg132 815 date=1088892771
    Not at all. But again, what international terrorism has it backed since the US declared a War on Terrorism?

    This sounds like a quote from a news article. Please give its source.

    Oh, and what it cited is pre-War on Terrorism.


    http://www.iacsp.com/o2001.html
    - sorry I did so much research for you I forgot to add this link
    When you quote from another person, common decency states that you give them credit for their words. Not to do so is considered plagiarism. When you use another source in a debate, proper form is to tell who you're debating with what source you're using to back up your argument so your opponent can evaluate that source. If they're your own words, you simply say that. These were not your own words so you should have given their source.

    However, I can understand why you would like to not give the source since, after reading the article, it supports my assertion.

    The terrorism in Cuba has not ended since Bush declared war, it goes on just the same as it did before.n
    Another unsubstantiated assertion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pumpkin Pie link=board=1;threadid=10537;start=msg132815#msg132 815 date=1088892771
    By the above, I've shown I'm not blind. I would also appreciate if you would return to your previous polite discourse. I do not care to discuss topics with anyone that continues to throw insults at me.
    Yes you are being blind by continuing to deny that state supported terrorism still exists.
    Except that is not what I was saying. I was talking about state-sponsored INTERNATIONAL terrorism. Again, you've yet to prove my assertion false.

    Bush chooses to focus his efforts on Iraq for one reason and one reason only- he wants what they have -OIL !!!!!!
    Another unsubstantiated assertion.

    By the way plenty of terror acts occur in N. Korea as well- they arrest people up to 3 Generations down from those they consider traitors and put them in jails and practice chem. warfare on them. Look it up !
    But that isn't state-sponsored INTERNATIONAL terrorism. That was the topic of discussion.

    Bush doesn't offer help to any of these nations because he wouldn't profit much. It's not about terrorism or human rights for him it's about PROFIT!!!!!!!
    Another unsubstantiated assertion.

    oh by the way you did insult me by saying I had no facts and then trying to imply that I was intentionaly trying to mislead readers???? Which is a bold face lie.
    No, they're facts.

    Fact: You made the following unsubstatiated assertion: "I am afraid that is just not true on a worldwide level." I called you on it and asked you to give facts to back it.

    Fact: After reading that I called you on it, you went back and edited your post to add what you felt were facts that back your assertion. That can easily be viewed as potentially misleading readers.

    Stating facts isn't throwing insults. However, calling someone a "blind sheep" and such is throwing insults.

    You have not proven anything of your claims that Bush ended state supported terrorism everywhere in the world. What you have proved is that you aren't well informed and are buying into what Bush preaches.
    Then you need to re-read what I've already posted in response to this and show how I'm wrong in those facts that I use to back my assertions. You haven't. Nor have you given evidence to the contrary. In fact, you've twice given evidence that backs MY assertion.

    I'm not wasting anymore time on someone who chooses to stay ignorant despite obvious facts.

    Good day to you Mr. SHEEP !
    You haven't proven your assertion or disproven the items I've used to back my assertion. On this point, you've lost. Calling me put-down names just indicates a sad state of immaturity and/or desperation on your part.

    And calling me a blind follower of Bush is rather ridiculous since I've a long-time libertarian, ran on the LP ticket in 1996 for my state's legislature (http://www.boogieonline.com/revoluti...ampaign96.html ... my name is Scott T. Jensen), and have only identified myself as a libertarian on this forum and others when such a question arises, such as the following SW thread: http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/ind...10468;start=15 For over the last twenty years, I've voted Libertarian. So I'm anything but a blind follower of Bush or the Republican Party. That I'm now considering voting for Bush should give you pause and wonder how such an important decision for someone so politically active in the LP came about. It was with a great deal of thought and discussion with other fellow libertarians, both big and little "L". One night, I raised the topic and a very serious discussion took place ... and is continuing to take place. It was surprising to me how many of them also leaning towards Bush before or as a result of that discussion.
    Have a question about boarding schools?
    Get it answered at Boarding School Forums.

  3. #128
    Banned
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    B.C & USA
    Posts
    1,869
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re:What are the reasons to want Bush re- elected ?

    Ok Pumpkin here's what you are looking for, the only acceptable reply in your mind.

    YOU ARE RIGHT THERE IS NO TERRORISM ANYWHERE SINCE BUSH ATTACKED IRAQ. HE HAS ENDED ALL TERRORIST ACTIVITY WORLDWIDE.

    YOU ARE ALSO ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD. YOU ARE THE SMARTEST PERSON TO EVER WALK THE EARTH-- PAST PRESENT OR FUTURE, WE ALL SHOULD BOW DOWN AND SERVE YOU OH MASTER OF THE UNIVERSE.







  4. #129
    Veteran Member Pumpkin Pie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    718
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts

    Default Re:What are the reasons to want Bush re- elected ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerlilly link=board=1;threadid=10537;start=msg132881#msg132 881 date=1088913393
    Ok Pumpkin here's what you are looking for, the only acceptable reply in your mind.

    YOU ARE RIGHT THERE IS NO TERRORISM ANYWHERE SINCE BUSH ATTACKED IRAQ. HE HAS ENDED ALL TERRORIST ACTIVITY WORLDWIDE.

    YOU ARE ALSO ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD. YOU ARE THE SMARTEST PERSON TO EVER WALK THE EARTH-- PAST PRESENT OR FUTURE, WE ALL SHOULD BOW DOWN AND SERVE YOU OH MASTER OF THE UNIVERSE.
    No, an acceptable apology for me would be: "I'm sorry for calling you names. I'm very emotional about this election and I guess I got a bit carried away. I'm very embarrassed for having bashed you ... especially after stating I wouldn't bash any poster that contributed to this thread that I started. Please accept my apologies and let's get back to discussing issues in a respectful polite manner." Note that nowhere in this do you concede to my position.

    As for conceding that you cannot substantiate your assertion that there is still state-sponsored international terrorism in the world after the War on Terrorism was declared, you could have just not replied. It's called a silent concession. Since you cannot adequately counter my assertion, you do not continue to counter it to just counter it thus drawing further attention to the weakness of your position.

    Unfortunately, your above reply just continues your insulting behavior towards me. It does says quite a bit about you though. Too bad it isn't anything good.
    Have a question about boarding schools?
    Get it answered at Boarding School Forums.

  5. #130
    Banned
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    B.C & USA
    Posts
    1,869
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re:What are the reasons to want Bush re- elected ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pumpkin Pie link=board=1;threadid=10537;start=msg132814#msg132 814 date=1088892393
    I was under the impression that you wanted to listen to those that you disagreed with and, to quote from the post you started this thread with:

    "I promise not to bash those that have the guts to explain their point of view in this thread and I hope my other anit-Bush people will refrain fom doing so as well.

    Lets give them a chance to explain their side."

    Has your position now changed? Do you want the bashing to start? Impress me. Apologize and let's get back to the civilized discussion we had been having.
    oy yeah one last thing I forgot to respond to earlier today- I didn't start this thread Isis did I have nothing to apologize to you for

    you're wrong about there being no more state supported terrorism in the world.

  6. #131
    God/dess Silverback's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    On board the Kobayashi Maru
    Posts
    2,387
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default Re:What are the reasons to want Bush re- elected ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerlilly link=board=1;threadid=10537;start=msg132881#msg132 881 date=1088913393
    Ok Pumpkin here's what you are looking for, the only acceptable reply in your mind.

    YOU ARE RIGHT THERE IS NO TERRORISM ANYWHERE SINCE BUSH ATTACKED IRAQ. HE HAS ENDED ALL TERRORIST ACTIVITY WORLDWIDE.

    YOU ARE ALSO ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD. YOU ARE THE SMARTEST PERSON TO EVER WALK THE EARTH-- PAST PRESENT OR FUTURE, WE ALL SHOULD BOW DOWN AND SERVE YOU OH MASTER OF THE UNIVERSE.






    Did you edit that post, Tigerlilly?
    "He will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Vuldrini, the traveler came as a large and moving Torg! Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the McKetrick supplicants, they chose a new form for him: that of a giant Slor! Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!"

  7. #132
    Banned
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    B.C & USA
    Posts
    1,869
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re:What are the reasons to want Bush re- elected ?

    LOL! Yes I did , go ahead and get out the guns and fire away at me for using a site feature

  8. #133
    Veteran Member Pumpkin Pie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    718
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts

    Default Re:What are the reasons to want Bush re- elected ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerlilly link=board=1;threadid=10537;start=msg132901#msg132 901 date=1088915811
    Quote Originally Posted by Pumpkin Pie link=board=1;threadid=10537;start=msg132814#msg132 814 date=1088892393
    I was under the impression that you wanted to listen to those that you disagreed with and, to quote from the post you started this thread with:

    "I promise not to bash those that have the guts to explain their point of view in this thread and I hope my other anit-Bush people will refrain fom doing so as well.

    Lets give them a chance to explain their side."

    Has your position now changed? Do you want the bashing to start? Impress me. Apologize and let's get back to the civilized discussion we had been having.
    oy yeah one last thing I forgot to respond to earlier today- I didn't start this thread Isis did
    My mistake. Due accept my apology for attributing Isis's wishes for civilized conduct in this thread to you.

    I have nothing to apologize to you for
    Sad. Truly sad.

    you're wrong about there being no more state supported terrorism in the world.
    Sorry, you repeating this over and over doesn't make it true.
    Have a question about boarding schools?
    Get it answered at Boarding School Forums.

  9. #134
    Banned
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    B.C & USA
    Posts
    1,869
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re:What are the reasons to want Bush re- elected ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pumpkin Pie link=board=1;threadid=10537;start=msg132919#msg132 919 date=1088916911
    Sorry, you repeating this over and over doesn't make it true.
    Sure Pumpkin whatever you say I mean like I said you are the smartest person to ever walk the earth, past, present or future. If you say there is no goverment supported terrorist activity in the world since Bush declared war then it must be true right

    How silly of me to have ever questioned the master of the universe


  10. #135
    Veteran Member Pumpkin Pie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    718
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts

    Default Re:What are the reasons to want Bush re- elected ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerlilly link=board=1;threadid=10537;start=msg132927#msg132 927 date=1088917371
    Quote Originally Posted by Pumpkin Pie link=board=1;threadid=10537;start=msg132919#msg132 919 date=1088916911
    Sorry, you repeating this over and over doesn't make it true.
    Sure Pumpkin whatever you say I mean like I said you are the smartest person to ever walk the earth, past, present or future. If you say there is no goverment supported terrorist activity in the world since Bush declared war then it must be true right

    How silly of me to have ever questioned the master of the universe
    There's a lot more smart people like me if your only criteria for brilliance is that one substantiates one's assertions with solid facts and requests you substantiate your assertions. You need to get out more. That might also help you learn to be polite and respectful to those you disagree with.

    Maturity isn't about age. It's about reflection. Those that never reflect, never mature.
    Have a question about boarding schools?
    Get it answered at Boarding School Forums.

  11. #136
    Banned
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    B.C & USA
    Posts
    1,869
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re:What are the reasons to want Bush re- elected ?

    I guess these for example are all figments of imagination:


    Thomas Janis was murdered by Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia terrorists on 13 February in Colombia. Mr. Janis was the pilot of a plane owned by Southern Command that crashed in the jungle. He and a Colombian army officer were wounded in the crash and shot when the terrorists discovered them. Three American passengers on the plane -- Keith Stansell, Marc D. Gonsalves, and Thomas R. Howes -- were kidnapped and are still being held hostage.


    In 2003, the FARC conducted several high profile terrorist attacks, including a February car-bombing of a Bogota nightclub that killed more than 30 persons and wounded more than 160, as well as a November grenade attack in Bogota’s restaurant district that wounded three Americans.


    also check out :

    Which shows several other attacks that took place after the War on Terror declared as well as who funded these attacks. There several there that are state supported .

    Sure seems to be alot of imaginary terror attacks there Pumpkin.

  12. #137
    Banned Madcap's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Saint effing Louis
    Posts
    6,804
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re:What are the reasons to want Bush re- elected ?

    Not to mention Hamas and Hezbollah. I'm "sure" the Palestinian Govornment in Exile "Doesn't" sponser them... I'm also "sure" neither group are sponsored by Syria, Lebenon, or Jordan, either. Our cuddly arab allies would never do something like that... right?

    Al Q was hardly the only state sponsored terrorist group, and it's arguable that even they are STILL being supported by our supposed allies Saidi Arabia (Not to mention other states, ranging from Indonesian nations, to the middle east).

    Pumpkin Pie makes a good show of demanding facts, while supposedly proving his negative statement with facts of his own. However, it is logically impossible to prove a negative. This is why we still have people insisting that the lock ness monster is real, because no-one can prove it isn't or at least wasn't real. You can't say something doesn't exist and then logically prove it's non-existance. This works as well for state sponsored terror as it does faeries.


  13. #138
    Veteran Member Pumpkin Pie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    718
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts

    Default Re:What are the reasons to want Bush re- elected ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Madcap link=board=1;threadid=10537;start=msg132947#msg132 947 date=1088921390
    Not to mention Hamas and Hezbollah. I'm "sure" the Palestinian Govornment in Exile "Doesn't" sponser them... I'm also "sure" neither group are sponsored by Syria, Lebenon, or Jordan, either. Our cuddly arab allies would never do something like that... right?
    I think Palestine is a poor example to counter my assertion with. It ignores the Palestinians' claims to their land and how Israel has taken their land. I view Israel as an occupying land-grabbing military force in Palestine ... as does most of the world. Do I understand why Israel is conducting itself this way? Yes. I'm even sympathetic to their point of view ... but I can also see the other side of the equation as well.

    Al Q was hardly the only state sponsored terrorist group, and it's arguable that even they are STILL being supported by our supposed allies Saidi Arabia (Not to mention other states, ranging from Indonesian nations, to the middle east).
    Individual Saudi Arabians, yes. Supported by the Saudi Arabian government? I'd like to see evidence of this since the fall of Afghanistan and Iraq ... or, even though it would fall outside of the point I was making, beforehand. Also, look what the Saudis are currently doing against terrorists within their own country. They're now very much going after the terrorists with vengeance.

    Pumpkin Pie makes a good show of demanding facts, while supposedly proving his negative statement with facts of his own. However, it is logically impossible to prove a negative.
    I made it exceptionally easy to attack my assertion by making the assertion extremely strong. To disprove, you just need to find one good example to counter it. If instead I lowered the assertion to simply "Since the declaration of a War on Terrorism by Bush and the toppling of Afghanistan and Iraq, state-sponsored international terrorism is dramatically declined worldwide.", there would be no debate. However, I purposely went out on a limb because I was and still am interested to see if such a strong assertion could withstand attack.

    As for Tigerlily, I'm not going to spar with her anymore due to her unapologetic disrespectful, impolite, and insulting conduct she has been exhibiting towards me. I like discussing issues, but am only interested in discussing them with mature civilized individuals. Tigerlily has more than proven that she isn't such. Additionally, she's very sloppy in what support evidence she presents and, due to finding two of the links she presented turning out to be backing my assertion, I've been running on the assumption that she doesn't actually fully read the articles she posts links to.

    This is why we still have people insisting that the lock ness monster is real, because no-one can prove it isn't or at least wasn't real.
    There's always kooks in the world. There are people that still believe that the world is flat and that the whole Moon mission was filmed on a Hollywood set. However, only a fool would state that everyone must agree on everything for it to be considered real. If that was the case, nothing would be considered real. Nothing.

    You can't say something doesn't exist and then logically prove it's non-existance.
    Yes, you can. The Loch Ness monster is a good example of this. No scientific community or respected scientist asserts that there is a Loch Ness monster. No creditable evidence has been ever presented to prove that there is one. Spinning that to my assertion...

    I made a very strong assertion that can be disproved with one solid example. A similar assertion would be that Germany is no longer supporting the Nazi SS. By your reasoning above, I couldn't make that statement since it is a negative. However, both you and I know I'm right on that point. The burden of proof would be on those that say that Germany is still supporting the Nazi's SS. Along those lines...

    Let's not forget Tigerlily's positive assertion that there is still state-sponsored international terrorism. When asked to present supporting facts, she couldn't. She did keep repeating her assertion over and over, but you and I both know that doesn't make an assertion true.
    Have a question about boarding schools?
    Get it answered at Boarding School Forums.

  14. #139
    Banned Madcap's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Saint effing Louis
    Posts
    6,804
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re:What are the reasons to want Bush re- elected ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pumpkin Pie link=board=1;threadid=10537;start=msg132969#msg132 969 date=1088932605
    I think Palestine is a poor example to counter my assertion with. It ignores the Palestinians' claims to their land and how Israel has taken their land. I view Israel as an occupying land-grabbing military force in Palestine ... as does most of the world. Do I understand why Israel is conducting itself this way? Yes. I'm even sympathetic to their point of view ... but I can also see the other side of the equation as well.
    Yeah, but the P.G.I.E. is recognized by quite a few people. I think they are allowed as observers at the U.N. (though i'm not sure). My point was that since the Palistinians themselves recognize the P.G.I.E. (It might be known as another name now, as i haven't kept up on it since Arafat 'stepped down&#039.

    Individual Saudi Arabians, yes. Supported by the Saudi Arabian government? I'd like to see evidence of this since the fall of Afghanistan and Iraq ... or, even though it would fall outside of the point I was making, beforehand. Also, look what the Saudis are currently doing against terrorists within their own country. They're now very much going after the terrorists with vengeance.
    'Going after the terrorists with a vengance' only means so much. After all, the King over there isn't the only one with power and cash. Even if HE wasn't sponsoring Al Q, yet Nephew Ali, Cousin Abu, and so on ARE supporting them, i'd still call that state sponsored, since govornment officials are doing the supporting.

    I made it exceptionally easy to attack my assertion by making the assertion extremely strong. To disprove, you just need to find one good example to counter it. If instead I lowered the assertion to simply "Since the declaration of a War on Terrorism by Bush and the toppling of Afghanistan and Iraq, state-sponsored international terrorism is dramatically declined worldwide.", there would be no debate. However, I purposely went out on a limb because I was and still am interested to see if such a strong assertion could withstand attack.
    I would have totally agreed with "Dramatically declined" so you are right on that count. But NO state sponsored terrorism has nothing backing it up. Even one example will disprove it, and they are all no doubt laying low at the moment for reasons that will be obvious. I'd say the strongest evidence that the statement is false is that the current administration still has a list of states that sponsor terrorism.


    There's always kooks in the world. There are people that still believe that the world is flat and that the whole Moon mission was filmed on a Hollywood set. However, only a fool would state that everyone must agree on everything for it to be considered real. If that was the case, nothing would be considered real. Nothing..
    Now we are getting somewhere. Nothing CAN be proven without conclusive evidence. If i tell you there's a rock in my garden and then go get it, you know there was a rock in my garden. If i told you i had a flying, Intangible, invisible, soundless, heatless-fire-breathing dragon in my garage, you would think there was something very strange going on in my head, but you couldn't disprove it. There's no way to. This is why it would be up to ME to prove that there was said Dragon in my Garage.

    The burden of proof is on the claiment.

    To use another example, In order to prove the negative conclusively that, say, faeries don't exist, you would have to go out and get everything in the universe and bring it to me so i could say "Nope, that's not a faerie, nope that's not one either." This is impossible. Therefore if *I* was to claim faeries existed, it would be up to me to prove it. Even though anyone above the age of 10 knows Queen Mab and Tam Lin are just faerie tales.

    This both helps and hurts your argument. See, I can't say "There ARE still state sponsored terrorist groups" without being able to conclusively prove it, BUT even if i was unable to provide such proof you still couldn't say "Aha! So there are NO state sponsored terrorist groups" because in order to do that conclusively you would have to scan the entire surface of the earth and all it's nooks and crannies.

    My argument was mainly with the definitive statement. Us Agnostics tend to think about things like *conclusive proof* and *Negative/Positive Statements.* We are just wired that way.

    Yes, you can. The Loch Ness monster is a good example of this. No scientific community or respected scientist asserts that there is a Loch Ness monster. No creditable evidence has been ever presented to prove that there is one. Spinning that to my assertion....
    But, without scanning the entire lake you couldn't 100% DISprove it. And even then, if there was an underground channel or something to the ocean, that would open another can of worms entirely. And i could also bring up the Coelicanth for the Scientists (Or the megamouth shark), once it was 100% accepted that the Coelicanth died out 300 million years ago, "things change" i could say. But this is just hypothetical, as Nessie is ridiculous.

    I made a very strong assertion that can be disproved with one solid example.
    Yes, it can. But without Omnipotence it can't be proven, either. Nothing says fifteen countries we don't even know about don't sponsor terrorism. I'd say it's on the low-low at the moment, because the Marines are hot on the tail, but i don't doubt it one bit. NO state sponsored terror means the War on Terror is almost over, since there would only be a few more landless terror groups to asskick. Bush still talks about the WoT, there is still a list of states that 'sponsor' it (LIBYA is still on that list), that's pretty strong evidence to back up the other side, but it doesn't disprove yours.

    A similar assertion would be that Germany is no longer supporting the Nazi SS. By your reasoning above, I couldn't make that statement since it is a negative. However, both you and I know I'm right on that point. The burden of proof would be on those that say that Germany is still supporting the Nazi's SS. Along those lines...
    Actually, there is pretty good conclusive proof that the Nazi SS is dead and buried. Conclusive proof is possible, but without it nothing can really be said 100% either way.

    Let's not forget Tigerlily's positive assertion that there is still state-sponsored international terrorism. When asked to present supporting facts, she couldn't. She did keep repeating her assertion over and over, but you and I both know that doesn't make an assertion true.
    No, repetition doesn't make anything true. But i tend to lean towards the idea that there is still state sponsored terror. This is part emotional, since i'd rather not be at at a football game when VX gas is pumped into the STL dome. But part of it is that it just plain seems logical. The list is still there, after all, and the Administration probably knows more about this than we do (An appeal to authority, i know, and also illogical, but probably true).

    Anyway, not PROOF per se, but good evidence. Plus it's usually better to err on the side of caution. Hell, i'd love it if you were right, but what i am really saying is this "How do we know that?"

  15. #140
    Sitri
    Guest

    Default Re:What are the reasons to want Bush re- elected ?

    I don't have the energy to debate right now,

    but here is a link to election stories in the Times.

  16. #141
    Veteran Member Pumpkin Pie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    718
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts

    Default Re:What are the reasons to want Bush re- elected ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Madcap link=board=1;threadid=10537;start=msg132974#msg132 974 date=1088935001
    Quote Originally Posted by Pumpkin Pie link=board=1;threadid=10537;start=msg132969#msg132 969 date=1088932605
    I think Palestine is a poor example to counter my assertion with. It ignores the Palestinians' claims to their land and how Israel has taken their land. I view Israel as an occupying land-grabbing military force in Palestine ... as does most of the world. Do I understand why Israel is conducting itself this way? Yes. I'm even sympathetic to their point of view ... but I can also see the other side of the equation as well.
    Yeah, but the P.G.I.E. is recognized by quite a few people. I think they are allowed as observers at the U.N. (though i'm not sure). My point was that since the Palistinians themselves recognize the P.G.I.E. (It might be known as another name now, as i haven't kept up on it since Arafat 'stepped down&#039.
    That P.G.I.E. has some recognition around the world doesn't really counter my argument that using Palestine isn't a good counter-argument to my assertion. Not all Palistinians recognize P.G.I.E. or think they're doing the job that needs to be done.

    By the way, whoever came up with that organization's name was a PR moron. The abbreviation is horrible ... especially when you consider that the pig is considered a filthy creature in the Arabic world.

    Individual Saudi Arabians, yes. Supported by the Saudi Arabian government? I'd like to see evidence of this since the fall of Afghanistan and Iraq ... or, even though it would fall outside of the point I was making, beforehand. Also, look what the Saudis are currently doing against terrorists within their own country. They're now very much going after the terrorists with vengeance.
    'Going after the terrorists with a vengance' only means so much.
    But is an important development and shouldn't be lightly tossed out of hand.

    After all, the King over there isn't the only one with power and cash. Even if HE wasn't sponsoring Al Q, yet Nephew Ali, Cousin Abu, and so on ARE supporting them, i'd still call that state sponsored, since govornment officials are doing the supporting.
    No, you cannot say that because members of a government privately support terrorism that it means that government supports terrorism. Also realize that the Saudi monarchy isn't a figurehead monarchy like the royal family in Britain. It controls and runs that country. It is an absolute monarchy and if the king isn't behind something, you cannot say that his government is when a prince or so privately does.

    I made it exceptionally easy to attack my assertion by making the assertion extremely strong. To disprove, you just need to find one good example to counter it. If instead I lowered the assertion to simply "Since the declaration of a War on Terrorism by Bush and the toppling of Afghanistan and Iraq, state-sponsored international terrorism is dramatically declined worldwide.", there would be no debate. However, I purposely went out on a limb because I was and still am interested to see if such a strong assertion could withstand attack.
    I would have totally agreed with "Dramatically declined" so you are right on that count.
    Nice to have a civilized person to debate with. Acknowledging a good point made by one's debating opponent is a mark of civilized discourse.

    But NO state sponsored terrorism has nothing backing it up.
    I'd appreciate if focus was on what I was specifically talking about. That being state-sponsored international terrorism. It is an important distinguish (the international aspect) and is what my assertion is about. I'm not saying you're not meaning this, but did want to raise this issue with you as it was a problem elsewhere in this thread.

    Even one example will disprove it...
    But the example has to be a good one. It is a double-edge sword. On the one hand, those opposing the assertion only have to find one example to disprove the assertion. On the other hand, the example has to be one acceptable by both parties. This is where reasoned discourse comes into play and shows the caliber of those debating.

    ...and they are all no doubt laying low at the moment for reasons that will be obvious.
    Again, what my assertion was about was state-sponsored international terrorism. No activity can mean they're laying low. It can also mean they're ceasing such operations. They longer the time period that they do, the more it is ceasing than laying low. They might mumble that they're just waiting for the right moment, but if they never act, such words are only for show.

    I'd say the strongest evidence that the statement is false is that the current administration still has a list of states that sponsor terrorism.
    No, that doesn't disprove my assertion. It can just as easily be a tactic ... and it VERY likely is ... to scare the crap out of those nations and put them on notice. "We know what you are and what you're doing so if something goes down and if the trail leads back to you, you'll be the next nation to go down." That tactic worked excellently well against Libya. They shit their pants when Afghanistan was taken down and started whimpering when Iraq was brought down. They screamed "Uncle!" and now they're actively trying to prove to the world they're out of the international terrorism game.

    The way to disprove my assertion is to show that there has been a state-sponsored international terrorism attack.


    There's always kooks in the world. There are people that still believe that the world is flat and that the whole Moon mission was filmed on a Hollywood set. However, only a fool would state that everyone must agree on everything for it to be considered real. If that was the case, nothing would be considered real. Nothing..
    Now we are getting somewhere. Nothing CAN be proven without conclusive evidence.
    No, you can prove something by lack of evidence to the contrary. What we're debating is what level of evidence (or lack thereof) is necessarily to make a reasonable judgment.

    The burden of proof is on the claiment.
    Two assertions were made. One by me and one by Tigerlily. Hers was positive and mine negative. A clear example that proves hers disproves mine. No clear example that proves hers strengthens my argument and I win by default. In such a debate scenario, the burden of proof is on the one advocating the positive statement. Tigerlily wasn't able to and, in fact, gave evidence that strengthened my assertion.

    To use another example, In order to prove the negative conclusively that, say, faeries don't exist, you would have to go out and get everything in the universe and bring it to me so i could say "Nope, that's not a faerie, nope that's not one either." This is impossible. Therefore if *I* was to claim faeries existed, it would be up to me to prove it. Even though anyone above the age of 10 knows Queen Mab and Tam Lin are just faerie tales.
    However, if one person makes the statement "There are no faeries." and another person makes the statement that "There are faeries.", the burden of proof is on the advocate of the positive.

    This both helps and hurts your argument. See, I can't say "There ARE still state sponsored terrorist groups" without being able to conclusively prove it, BUT even if i was unable to provide such proof you still couldn't say "Aha! So there are NO state sponsored terrorist groups" because in order to do that conclusively you would have to scan the entire surface of the earth and all it's nooks and crannies.
    No, that's exactly what can be done. The burden of proof is on the advocate of the positive when there are advocates of both positive and negative. The negative wins the argument if the positive cannot make their case.

    My argument was mainly with the definitive statement. Us Agnostics tend to think about things like *conclusive proof* and *Negative/Positive Statements.* We are just wired that way.
    There is also the issue of what's a reasonable level of proof or lack of proof. If I made my statement immediately after Bush declared War on Terrorism, that wouldn't be a reasonable level. The point in discussion would need time before a negative can be reasonably placed forward. It is my contention that such a reasonable period of time has now pass. With everyday that now passes and with no examples to counter it, my assertion gains further validity.

    Yes, you can. The Loch Ness monster is a good example of this. No scientific community or respected scientist asserts that there is a Loch Ness monster. No creditable evidence has been ever presented to prove that there is one. Spinning that to my assertion....
    But, without scanning the entire lake you couldn't 100% DISprove it.
    No, that's being unreasonable in such a debate and rather childish if advocated by the side that opposes the negative. Civilized debate requires no such absolutes but an agreement of what is reasonable for a negative conclusion to be made.

    But this is just hypothetical, as Nessie is ridiculous.
    Thus why it is a good example to use when discussing this since both sides agree that it is ridiculous thus neither side takes offense when their side is challenged.

    I made a very strong assertion that can be disproved with one solid example.
    Yes, it can. But without Omnipotence it can't be proven, either.
    If you're splitting hairs in a debate club, I'd agree. If you're making a reasonable real world argument, I'd disagree.

    Nothing says fifteen countries we don't even know about don't sponsor terrorism.
    If you're advocating the positive, the burden of proof would be on you, not the negative.

    I'd say it's on the low-low at the moment, because the Marines are hot on the tail, but i don't doubt it one bit. NO state sponsored terror means the War on Terror is almost over, since there would only be a few more landless terror groups to asskick. Bush still talks about the WoT, there is still a list of states that 'sponsor' it (LIBYA is still on that list), that's pretty strong evidence to back up the other side, but it doesn't disprove yours.
    First, I'm not advocating that anti-terrorism activity be ceased. Nowhere in this entire discussion did I advocate that.

    What I am saying is that the actions of Bush has brought about my assertion as far as state-sponsored international terrorism. Privately-sponsored international terrorism is likely to always be with us and thus the War on Terrorism will likely never be over, should never cease, and we should always be vigilant. The same logic applies to having standing armies. Just because there isn't a country currently attacking one's country, it doesn't mean one shouldn't have a standing military. However, one can say we've not had WWIII since WWII. That is a negative statement. Can it be proven? Yes. Can someone say that the possibility of WWIII is no more? Yes. It has been over sixty years since any major power attacked another major power. Is there logic behind this statement? Yes, and that would be the unacceptable use of nukes by both sides. There was still tension, but it was defensive in nature on both sides.

    A similar assertion would be that Germany is no longer supporting the Nazi SS. By your reasoning above, I couldn't make that statement since it is a negative. However, both you and I know I'm right on that point. The burden of proof would be on those that say that Germany is still supporting the Nazi's SS. Along those lines...
    Actually, there is pretty good conclusive proof that the Nazi SS is dead and buried. Conclusive proof is possible, but without it nothing can really be said 100% either way.
    No, by your line of reasoning, you cannot say that the Nazi SS is not being sponsored by the German government. All I have to say is that it is a super-secret operation that the Germans don't want people to know about. As counter arguments, I can point to the top-secret military research projects (i.e., the Manhattan Project, the stealth fighter, etc.) that governments have kept buried to show that it is possible to keep such buried. Now if that reasonable? Of course not.

    Let's not forget Tigerlily's positive assertion that there is still state-sponsored international terrorism. When asked to present supporting facts, she couldn't. She did keep repeating her assertion over and over, but you and I both know that doesn't make an assertion true.
    No, repetition doesn't make anything true.
    Except to little children. And their "winning" debating strategy is holding their hands over their ears and loudly singing to themselves so they cannot hear you.

    But i tend to lean towards the idea that there is still state sponsored terror. This is part emotional, since i'd rather not be at at a football game when VX gas is pumped into the STL dome. But part of it is that it just plain seems logical. The list is still there, after all, and the Administration probably knows more about this than we do (An appeal to authority, i know, and also illogical, but probably true).
    My assertion wasn't that there are not government actively working to conduct state-sponsored international terrorism, but only that none has been committed since the War on Terrorism has begun and that it is reasonable that none will ever happen due to assured destruction of those that do it. With each passing day, my assertion gains strength. It doesn't advocate a ceasing of anti-terrorism efforts. If anything, it advocates the opposite since that is what I'm stating makes my assertion possible.

    Anyway, not PROOF per se, but good evidence. Plus it's usually better to err on the side of caution. Hell, i'd love it if you were right, but what i am really saying is this "How do we know that?"
    Again, I'm not advocating a ceasing of anti-terrorism efforts, but just the opposite. All I am saying is that such efforts have proven themselves fruitful and thus my assertion.
    Have a question about boarding schools?
    Get it answered at Boarding School Forums.

  17. #142
    Moderator Djoser's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Key West
    Posts
    16,343
    Thanks
    1,395
    Thanked 5,487 Times in 2,768 Posts

    Default Re:What are the reasons to want Bush re- elected ?

    Time for this thread to die.
    You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star.
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    Free your mind, and your ass will follow.
    George Clinton

    ______________________________________

  18. #143
    Veteran Member Pumpkin Pie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    718
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts

    Default Re:What are the reasons to want Bush re- elected ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Djoser link=board=1;threadid=10537;start=msg133128#msg133 128 date=1088974521
    Time for this thread to die.
    Ah, it is so nice to hear the voice of censorship on Independence Day.
    Have a question about boarding schools?
    Get it answered at Boarding School Forums.

  19. #144
    Moderator Djoser's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Key West
    Posts
    16,343
    Thanks
    1,395
    Thanked 5,487 Times in 2,768 Posts

    Default Re:What are the reasons to want Bush re- elected ?

    Censorship? I can't stop you, PP--knock yourself out...

    But how much longer do you think anyone is going to waste their time reading your interminable screeds? Soon one of your replies will take an entire page all by itself, at the rate you are going.

    This 'point-by-point mutual dissection and rebuttal' style of debate generally is seen for what it is by everyone else, a form of mental masturbation.

    Give it up, go find yourself a girlfriend or something, you will be much happier.

    You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star.
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    Free your mind, and your ass will follow.
    George Clinton

    ______________________________________

  20. #145
    Veteran Member Pumpkin Pie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    718
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts

    Default Re:What are the reasons to want Bush re- elected ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Djoser link=board=1;threadid=10537;start=msg133146#msg133 146 date=1088976168
    Censorship? I can't stop you, PP--knock yourself out...

    But how much longer do you think anyone is going to waste their time reading your interminable screeds? Soon one of your replies will take an entire page all by itself, at the rate you are going.

    This 'point-by-point mutual dissection and rebuttal' style of debate generally is seen for what it is by everyone else, a form of mental masturbation.

    Give it up, go find yourself a girlfriend or something, you will be much happier.
    If you do not like a thread, I'll tell you a top-secret way to deal with it. *whispers* Do not read it. Yes, it is really that simple. I do it all the time on this forum and others. You do not have to read all threads or contribute to all. Trust me, we will be able to get along without you. Yes, yes, I know that's almost impossible to believe but it nevertheless true.

    And to come onto any thread and to tell those participating in it that they shouldn't anymore is just being a cad. Even more so since we know you are not for Bush and this thread is for those that are to express themselves. That's nothing less than trying to censor them.

    And your above insults simply underscores just how much of a cad you are.
    Have a question about boarding schools?
    Get it answered at Boarding School Forums.

  21. #146
    Banned
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    B.C & USA
    Posts
    1,869
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re:What are the reasons to want Bush re- elected ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pumpkin Pie link=board=1;threadid=10537;start=msg133097#msg133 097 date=1088968525
    But the example has to be a good one. It is a double-edge sword. On the one hand, those opposing the assertion only have to find one example to disprove the assertion. On the other hand, the example has to be one acceptable by both parties.
    And the fact of the matter is there will never be an example you will find acceptable no matter how logical or factual it may be because you don't think you are ever wrong about anything ever and would never in a zillion years admit it even in the off chance you did consider it a possibilty. So when it comes down to it there is no point in debating with you on any subject.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pumpkin Pie link=board=1;threadid=10537;start=msg133097#msg133 097 date=1088968525
    Tigerlily wasn't able to and, in fact, gave evidence that strengthened my assertion
    Nope, sorry, Wrong.


    Quote Originally Posted by Pumpkin Pie link=board=1;threadid=10537;start=msg133097#msg133 097 date=1088968525
    With everyday that now passes and with no examples to counter it, my assertion gains further validity.
    In your mind and your mind only, I see no one here backing your up your ridiculous claim of no more state supported terrorism since Bush declared war.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pumpkin Pie link=board=1;threadid=10537;start=msg133097#msg133 097 date=1088968525
    Except to little children. And their "winning" debating strategy is holding their hands over their ears and loudly singing to themselves so they cannot hear you.
    Which is exaclty what you do and have done on other subjects as well.

    I agree state supported terror attacks have lessened but groups do still exist and attacks have occured since Bush's declaration of war . It's not a war on terror however, if it were then he would have gone into Liberia instead of withdrawing his promised support.

    Liberia is the perfect example as Charles Taylor was still the President of Liberia after Bush declared war and Taylor directly supported and created his Army of children and continued to do so after Bush declared war his so called War on Terror. Taylor did not step down as President untill August of 2003.

    That conclusivly disproves your riduclous statement. Now kindly excuse yourself and don't forget to tuck your tiny tail between your legs

  22. #147
    Moderator Djoser's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Key West
    Posts
    16,343
    Thanks
    1,395
    Thanked 5,487 Times in 2,768 Posts

    Default Re:What are the reasons to want Bush re- elected ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pumpkin Pie link=board=1;threadid=10537;start=msg133151#msg133 151 date=1088977183
    If you do not like a thread, I'll tell you a top-secret way to deal with it. *whispers* Do not read it.
    I didn't fucking read it, are you kidding me? I had things to do today, like hang out with my girl.

    BTW, I have seen many a post requesting a thread be terminated, having long degenerated into tedious arguments that noone will ever win or lose, because noone is listening to each other. On more than one occasion I was involved in the argument. But I never took offense to such requests, nor did I scream "censorship".

    Chill out, man--it's just not that important.
    You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star.
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    Free your mind, and your ass will follow.
    George Clinton

    ______________________________________

  23. #148
    Veteran Member Pumpkin Pie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    718
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts

    Default Re:What are the reasons to want Bush re- elected ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Djoser link=board=1;threadid=10537;start=msg133220#msg133 220 date=1089000700
    Quote Originally Posted by Pumpkin Pie link=board=1;threadid=10537;start=msg133151#msg133 151 date=1088977183
    If you do not like a thread, I'll tell you a top-secret way to deal with it. *whispers* Do not read it.
    I didn't fucking read it, are you kidding me? I had things to do today, like hang out with my girl.
    You didn't read the thread and yet wanted to end a thread that participants were involved in because what? You thought we had discussed it enough? Your arrogance is quite remarkable.

    BTW, I have seen many a post requesting a thread be terminated, having long degenerated into tedious arguments that noone will ever win or lose, because noone is listening to each other.
    If you had read the thread instead of casting judgment out of ignorance (you've admitted that above), you would have seen that Madcap and I were listening to each other. It is true that I'm no longer discussing things with Tigerlily, but that's due to her uncivilized conduct towards me. But Tigerlily isn't the only one participating in this thread.

    On more than one occasion I was involved in the argument. But I never took offense to such requests, nor did I scream "censorship".
    Because others do wrong doesnt' excuse you when you do it.

    Chill out, man--it's just not that important.
    Then why do you tell us to end it if it isn't that important? Think about it. Again, if you don't like a thread, don't read it and don't participate in it. Calling for a thread to end is nothing other than trying to censor speech. So take your own advice and chill out. Don't read this thread. It isn't hurting you. We can discuss things here without you.
    Have a question about boarding schools?
    Get it answered at Boarding School Forums.

  24. #149
    God/dess montythegeek's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    2,103
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 9 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re:What are the reasons to want Bush re- elected ?

    I would like to echo DJ's sentiments. This thread has deteriorated to the point of pointless bickering. Call it a draw and agree to disagree. Neither side is going to convince the other of diddly-squat. This is not an attempt to censor since I have no control whatsover over the situation. I do not even know who is on what side anymore!

  25. #150
    Veteran Member Pumpkin Pie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    718
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts

    Default Re:What are the reasons to want Bush re- elected ?

    Quote Originally Posted by montythegeek link=board=1;threadid=10537;start=msg133332#msg133 332 date=1089039957
    This thread has deteriorated to the point of pointless bickering.
    Madcap and I weren't. It was even looking like we were actually arriving at concensus ... until someone came along and tried to censor us.

    Neither side is going to convince the other of diddly-squat.
    Again, that wasn't the case between Madcap and I.

    This is not an attempt to censor since I have no control whatsover over the situation.
    To call an end to a discussion which one was not part of is trying to censor that discussion.

    I do not even know who is on what side anymore!
    Then you weren't reading the discussion.
    Have a question about boarding schools?
    Get it answered at Boarding School Forums.

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 174
    Last Post: 12-31-2008, 02:55 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-05-2008, 08:09 AM
  3. Why Dems Don't Get Elected
    By Deogol in forum Member Boards
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-09-2006, 02:20 PM
  4. is this how Barack Obama was elected ?
    By Melonie in forum Political Poo
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 05-15-2005, 07:27 AM
  5. Bush company 3 or Great Alaskan Bush in Phoenix
    By honeygirl in forum Club Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-22-2005, 05:38 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •