I-Mockery Forum - Reply to Topic

Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options Automatically parse links in text

Jun 6th, 2003 03:34 PM

mburbank

"I will do it as soon as you quit with the moronic use of the term "clambake" for one year."

I think he's saying that being called 'clambake' upsets him and admitting that he couldn't back up his source.

Jun 6th, 2003 02:08 PM

Zero Signal

I WIL DO IT AS SON AS U QUIT WIT TEH MORONIC USE OF TEH T3RM CLMBAEK FOR ONE YAAR1111 OMG WTF

Jun 6th, 2003 12:38 PM

KevinTheOmnivore

Quote:

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

I will do it as soon as you quit with the moronic use of the term "clambake" for one year.

Max, can I get a "Vincelation" on this response...?

Jun 6th, 2003 12:21 PM

mburbank

Sure you will. Because you're 'Lexus/Nexus'. Hey, Vinth, I just discovered research that states categorically you are a human shaped zip lock bag of watery crap. I could give you the URL and I would to, except I just think I heard it somewhere one time and I don't know what a search engine is and I'm lazy as hell and I made it up.

"OH! OH! Say Jew, why don't you do a Jewish thing while being jewish you jewjewjew. BAGEL! WOOOOOF! WOOO-WOOO-WOOOO!!! WOOF!"
Vinth 'don't call me clambake' Vintherino

Jun 6th, 2003 11:48 AM

VinceZeb

I will do it as soon as you quit with the moronic use of the term "clambake" for one year.

Jun 6th, 2003 11:40 AM

KevinTheOmnivore

Quote:

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Sorry, Max, but the Upper West Side and studies done by the Nation don't count as life and studies.

Right, but your source proved Boortz to be a super honest guy. Who's "they," Vince? Who is this mysterious "they" that conducted this study to prove how super honest only conservatives are....?

Like Max said, provide a source, or shut your ass up. I've told you repeatedly to stop interjecting your naive and unsubstantiated opinions into these threads.

So please, go do whatever you gotta do. Go check the Boortz website, go ask your buddies at NewsFilter.org, or go check some other pundit's opinions and articles. I don't expect you to formulate your own opinions or do your own research, but I do expect you to back up the bile that flows from the hole in your face.

Back it up, clambake. Let's see a source.

Jun 6th, 2003 10:43 AM

VinceZeb

Sorry, Max, but the Upper West Side and studies done by the Nation don't count as life and studies.

Jun 6th, 2003 10:39 AM

mburbank

Now Vinth, life AND studies show I am right all the time. You can be in disagreement yourself on that one, but that would be forgetting that I am always right and studies and life have made it shown. Now who is the dumbass?

I'm sorry, I missed where I said I was heartbroken. I was comparing economic impact of snactions on N. Korea and Iraq, which I personlly think have been pretty much equally effective. I'm sorry that wasn't clear enough for you.

I think you just had low blood sugar the last few days. You're back.

Jun 6th, 2003 10:25 AM

VinceZeb

Life shows I am right most of the time, Max.

And if you are so damn heartbroken about the starvation and treatement of the N. Korean's, why don't you rant about that pie-faced Il instead of America. Is America forcing them to build super-highways and not allowing citizens to have cars? Is America forcing them to build nukes but leave their citizens who aren't in the military to starve?

Jun 6th, 2003 10:22 AM

mburbank

Actually, I'm returning to an old isuue, ie. that you can't 99% of the chit that tumbles out of your chow hole any better than your submarine letter.

"Oh! What am I you Jewjewjew, a Lexus?!? When I claim something outrageous and thupid you need to prove it for m,e or that I am wrong of it you jew!"
-Vinth.

But. While I do think the Guardian should have included the entire context of the quote, I don't think it changes the picture very much. All it does is allow Wolfowitz to ignore the economic straights Iraq was in by saying they had a natural resource the North Koreans did not, and acting as if that changes the moral, political picture. Our options in economically strangling the North Koreans are greater than the ones we had in Iraq, but we'd done a fairly good job of impovrishing the general populace all the same. I think if the difference between the two is oil, than you can't say this war had nothing to do with oil. And including pieces of quotes without the entire article is hardly a lie. It's the stock and trade of your #1 ruth raated source, Vinth. And before you disagree, I remind you, a study hs shown I am always right.

Jun 6th, 2003 09:53 AM

VinceZeb

Nice way to avoid the discussion, Goldstein.

Jun 6th, 2003 09:46 AM

mburbank

Hete's what, though. A study? Showed I'm always right no matter what I say all the time. And it was researched. It has a URL but I don't know it or who did it or how they determined this finding.

But it's right. And you know it;s right becuase I just said so and a study proved I'm always right.

And I'm not even where I get hard from the news about. Wanna ask me where I do to it? No? I didn't think so. That shuts you up before you are shown to be a idiot.

Jun 6th, 2003 07:53 AM

VinceZeb

My sources of news have are more correct than any you get it from.

Let's take boortz for example. They did this rating system where they rated truth telling and perdictions. He read it on air or I would get you the url. He came in 4th with a 94+%, I believe. Rush of course came in number 1 with a 98.7% percentage.

And that isn't even where i get hard news from. Would you like to know more or keep talking to show how stupid you are?

Jun 6th, 2003 12:46 AM

theapportioner

Vince, considering that your sources of "news" are no more than hand-waving, ancient, rhetorical splatters of turd, you are not in a position to judge.

Jun 5th, 2003 11:06 PM

GAsux

Well....

First, I think there is of course some truth to the statement. However, I also agree that in all likelihood it was reported out of context to suit the Guardians purpose.

Never the less, Kev is right. He should have gotten the boot a few weeks ago.

Jun 5th, 2003 10:05 PM

KevinTheOmnivore

Yeah, it's unfortunate that they can't be held to the standards of integrity that folks like Bill O'Reilly stand by.

(if yo play stupid and ask "wah wah! What has O'Reilly lied about!!?? Wah Wah! I will remind you as I have already in the past, clambake).

Jun 5th, 2003 09:46 PM

VinceZeb

Wow, the Guardian lied about something and is now trying to do a CYA stunt... no suprise here.

Jun 5th, 2003 03:49 PM

theapportioner

To rebut:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/correction...971436,00.html

Corrections and clarifications

Thursday June 5, 2003

A report which was posted on our website on June 4 under the heading "Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil" misconstrued remarks made by the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, making it appear that he had said that oil was the main reason for going to war in Iraq. He did not say that. He said, according to the Department of Defence website, "The ... difference between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq." The sense was clearly that the US had no economic options by means of which to achieve its objectives, not that the economic value of the oil motivated the war. The report appeared only on the website and has now been removed.

Jun 4th, 2003 03:03 PM

KevinTheOmnivore

Rummy should've canned this guy a week ago.

Jun 4th, 2003 03:00 PM

Oh, it wasn't all about oil.

It was also about getting re-elected.

Jun 4th, 2003 02:57 PM

Zero Signal

Wolfowitz admits the Iraq war was about oil

Quote:

Oil was the main reason for military action against Iraq, a leading White House hawk has claimed, confirming the worst fears of those opposed to the US-led war.
The US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz - who has already undermined Tony Blair's position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a "bureaucratic" excuse for war - has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is "swimming" in oil.

The latest comments were made by Mr Wolfowitz in an address to delegates at an Asian security summit in Singapore at the weekend, and reported today by German newspapers Der Tagesspiegel and Die Welt.

Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

Mr Wolfowitz went on to tell journalists at the conference that the US was set on a path of negotiation to help defuse tensions between North Korea and its neighbours - in contrast to the more belligerent attitude the Bush administration displayed in its dealings with Iraq.

His latest comments follow his widely reported statement from an interview in Vanity Fair last month, in which he said that "for reasons that have a lot to do with the US government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on: weapons of mass destruction."

Prior to that, his boss, defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, had already undermined the British government's position by saying Saddam Hussein may have destroyed his banned weapons before the war.

Mr Wolfowitz's frank assessment of the importance of oil could not come at a worse time for the US and UK governments, which are both facing fierce criticism at home and abroad over allegations that they exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein in order to justify the war.

Amid growing calls from all parties for a public inquiry, the foreign affairs select committee announced last night it would investigate claims that the UK government misled the country over its evidence of Iraq's WMD.

The move is a major setback for Tony Blair, who had hoped to contain any inquiry within the intelligence and security committee, which meets in secret and reports to the prime minister.

In the US, the failure to find solid proof of chemical, biological and nuclear arms in Iraq has raised similar concerns over Mr Bush's justification for the war and prompted calls for congressional investigations.

Mr Wolfowitz is viewed as one of the most hawkish members of the Bush administration. The 57-year old expert in international relations was a strong advocate of military action against Afghanistan and Iraq.

Following the September 11 terror attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon, Mr Wolfowitz pledged that the US would pursue terrorists and "end" states' harbouring or sponsoring of militants.

Prior to his appointment to the Bush cabinet in February 2001, Mr Wolfowitz was dean and professor of international relations at the Paul H Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), of the Johns Hopkins University.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...970331,00.html

Imagine that! /sarcasm

About Us |

Store |

Advertising |

Contact

Features

Shorts

Editorials

Games

Comics

Blogs

Forum

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads You may post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts vB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off