Wow. You guys crack me up.

Whenever John Gee gets involved, you just KNOW it's gonna be a good one!!!




Nick. I didn't say you never said anything OTHER THAN you thought polygamy was harmful.

Lord knows you've said a AWFUL LOT, since then!!!

I simply observed that it was one of those classic Nick B. pronouncements that you often make - loudly, confidently, and almost invariably with no factual support at all.

You did say it. That is a fact.

Deal with that, eh?

*sigh*

Does ANYBODY in here actually think before they type?

I mean, seriously, Google is a mouse click or two away, fellas. Some of you might look a bit less foolish if you simply availed yourselves of just SOME of the information that's out there.

OK, here we go...:

U.S. Constitution: Article II

Section 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

See, that's not an Amendment or anything. That's the ORIGINAL Article II.

The U.S. Constitution was written in May of 1787 and was completely ratified by all member States by May of 1789, I believe.

Lincoln wasn't elected President until 1861 (1861-1865).

So, your timeline is off by about 100 years or so.

What was that about... ????

Oh, never mind.

Here's a hot tip - you MAY be thinking of things like "war powers" and some subsequent debates and laws concerning who can declare war vs. who can commit troops WITHOUT declaring war... (but you didn't get that from me, OK?)

But, far be it from you to actually look any of this up, in any detail, before rambling on.

Funny, I recall you specifically saying that one of mine was the ONLY post in the entire thread that made you stop and think.

And brace yourself, oh Nick-the-wisest, but I had a couple of folks tell me - off the thread - that they thought I was the ONLY one tracking a consistent argument and outing some *cough* other people *cough* for the hypocrites that they seemed to be.

Now, I've got to "contribute" - ONLY in a way that King Nick approves of...

And G.W. Bush is a Nazi?!?!?!

And Nick B. is a progressive liberal?!?!?!

Look up the word "hypocrite", Nick.

Nick, I AM contributing to the conversation.

Just because it makes you angry or uncomfortable when my contributions serve to show you how foolish many of your pronouncements are, doesn't mean I'm not contributing. Sure, it may SEEM like nothing more than sport (it's certainly easy enough), but some of us find it incredibly helpful - as well as entertaining - to disembowel some of the myopic, uneducated, unsupported and half-baked ideas tossed off in here.

knife,

if you're the product of american education,

fine.

where's my ****ing dog?

woof, f-u-c-k-i-n-g-, woof.

point the dog out baby. he's real big, got 125 ft ears!

daddy's waiting!

ps. Big Up to Kelly for mentioning this.

Then he says that without an attack on the order of Pearl Harbor or without a direct external threat, there was no way that the American people would support the imperial mobilization necessary to control

Find the 'Project for the New American Century' website.

find an Article printed in 1999 called 'Rebuilding America's Defences'.

Check out page 68 and others, for reference's to 'A New Pearl harbour' and 'Massive perceived external threat', in relation to the above statement.


Many of the lunatics who sat on this Washington think tank, now adorn your .... administration.

I dunno, John Gee.

Where's my FACTS?????

facts?

look at the photo, tell me where the plane is.

end discussion.

You're kidding, right?

You can't really be THAT dumb.

I won't continue to post the pictures here, out of respect for those that were lost, but can you see any plane in any of the photos of the WTC after impact?

What do you think happens to a 750,000+ pound plane when it hits a building while travelling at a few hundred miles per hour?

It goes INTO the building, Dr. Science.

What, do you think it should've oh, bounced off and landed on the lawn, there?

Crap, you are simple.

won't continue to post the pictures here, out of respect for those that were lost,

hey dr.dickless,

a rolls-royce 747 aviation engine block is by far the strongest structural part of a 747, they survive vertical crashes into mountain sides. that's what rescue teams look for first. they look for the most likely parts to have survived.

i'll ask again.

where is the plane? name a single part you can see. a wing. a tip. a wheel. a nose. a logo. a engine. a seat. a suitcase. a body. 70 tons of aviation fuel. 110 tons of aluminium, titanium and renforced steel.

anything knife.

anything.

you can't.

because it's not there.

and as for your morality on respecting the dead?
how can the ignorant defend the dead?

wakey, wakey sunshine.!
j.

Holy crap. You are a moron.

Again, do you see a Rolls Royce jet engine - or ANYTHING ELSE - in the WTC after the impact???

Anything????

Seriously, this theory re: the Pentagon is just so dumb, its pathetic.

Again, the plane goes INTO the building and explodes (they picked planes fully fueled for trans-continental flight, eh?).

AGAIN - you couldn't EVER see ANY EVIDENCE of a plane in EITHER of the WTC buildings after impact - just a hole.

We know the planes went in there, genius.

But by your incredibly intelligent theory - maybe they didn't, because nobody saw them afterwards!!!

*two thums up*

*not sure I want to ask this, but....*


Uh, so where do you think the plane (and all of its cargo, crew and passengers) went, if you don't think it hit the Pentagon?

Friday: Believe it or not, we are quite in agreement. If Kerry is the best the Democrats can offer, we are all in a lot of trouble. And my opinion of Bush, as yours, has nothing to do with his political affiliation - he is just aimless. And depressingly unintelligent.

John Gee: We missed your rhetoric. Always thought provoking, amuzing and off point. Welcome back, indeed. Now, tell us what you REALLY think

Nick: So, if you have to be a liberal to use a DA7, what console do you get to use if you are a Communist? A Sovtek? Or is Mackie now made in China?

knife,

the photo concerned is about half way up the page.
i have not made ANY other references to any other crashes. the photo is the Pentagon. It has a hole. if you think it was by a plane, please point out Any evidence that clearly indicates this, OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT YOU WATCHED A LOT OF TELEVISION ON THAT DAY AND DIDN'T REALLY BOTHER TO DO ANY THINKING.

put up any picture you can find on the NET of the Pentagon crash. point out the plane. even the smallest part.

you're not suggesting the plane vaporised itself, knife are you? now THAT'S deluded.

what about a black hole? tttttiiiiiiiimmmmmmmeeeeewarp?

no, knife, we're all adults here and we all know something else hit that building. some of us aka, you, don't want to admit to it.

ta.

All:

It's now safe to refrain from making any further posts on this thread. We have the good fortune of having been visited by a hyper-intelligent personage (who is also a DA7 user and a member of the literati!!!). We have been enlighted to the following points:

1) That an American education is sub-standard
2) That Israel will never co-exist peacefully with its neighbors
3) That it's gonna get really hot this summer
4) The US and the UK will fail in Iraq
5) That the Pentagon wasn't really hit by a plane

Phew....it's been a long day. I'm going to bed.