....lybob Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 But if I do shoot the messenger, maybe it'll be considered an act of terrorism and the US taxpayer will pay me a salary for it. And any reasonable person knows what I mean by that. Since you've quoted 3rdrate 5 times in this thread I'd think you'd be in line for a huge salary - I mean what could be more terrifying than those WMD (weapons of massive dumbassery) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 16, 2011 Author Share Posted August 16, 2011 Since you've quoted 3rdrate 5 times in this thread I'd think you'd be in line for a huge salary - I mean what could be more terrifying than those WMD (weapons of massive dumbassery) lyrbob, when are you going to have the balls to tell me what expertise you have in the mortgage and real estate industries? The way you have run away from this shows me what a gutless coward you really are. You know that you made a statement that is false and can be proven false. You just don't know what it is, do you? You are pathetic and deserve your new roomie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 You truly are a douche, any reasonable person on this board knows that. What you really are is a whore though. You will side with anybody at any time if you think you can make some points. Arguing with me over semantics while ball washing lyrbob & frenkle? Maybe you should throw a little Hedd in there too. I think you are really Cliff Clavin without the backbone. It's a shame to waste a brain by not supporting it with a spine. More accurately, they're siding with me. Because I'm the one that caught you out being a complete ****head. Though really, the fact that you at all consider it taking sides to point out your shitheadedness speaks volumes all on its own. lyrbob, when are you going to have the balls to tell me what expertise you have in the mortgage and real estate industries? The way you have run away from this shows me what a gutless coward you really are. You know that you made a statement that is false and can be proven false. You just don't know what it is, do you? You are pathetic and deserve your new roomie. Maybe he will after you explain how the US pays terrorists more for worse deeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsidethebox Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 ooh this could be a fun game of stringing the connection, how about 1. U.S. taxpayers - provided money to bail out the banks- who laundered Mexican cartel money- who killed thousands of Federales- So the headline should be "U.S taxpayers support killing of thousands of Mexican Federales" 2. U.S. taxpayers- provide money to contractors- who use the money to buy off the Taliban to allow supplies through- the Taliban uses the money to buy weapons to attack U.S troops. Headline "U.S taxpayers support the killing of U.S troops" 3. U.S. taxpayers provide money to Israel so if Israel engages in collective punishment or drops white phosphorus on people or attacks ships in international waters killing members from a fellow NATO country- Headline should be "U.S. taxpayers support Israels multiple War crimes" fun game but once you start you may never end. How about Gov't pays welfare benefits to flash mob families. Gov't supports flash mobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 Only about 50% of them. The rich terrorists should be paying their fair share though and they are not. That's why there is so much unrest over there. Hedge Fund terrorists are the worst! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 Maybe he will after you explain how the US pays terrorists more for worse deeds. probably not - it amuses me that that in his wildest dreams he thinks he deserves an answer from anyone BTW How many times can you get a complete moron to ask the same question? I don't know but probably less than 3rdrate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 BTW How many times can you get a complete moron to ask the same question? I don't understand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 Do Tea Party terrorists in the house draw a salary? Oh wait...wrong thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 16, 2011 Author Share Posted August 16, 2011 More accurately, they're siding with me. Because I'm the one that caught you out being a complete ****head. Though really, the fact that you at all consider it taking sides to point out your shitheadedness speaks volumes all on its own. Maybe he will after you explain how the US pays terrorists more for worse deeds. It is established that the PA is a terrorist organization. We know that they have a law that pays terrorists for their misdeeds, and increasingly more the worse the deed. The U.S. gives the PA a large share of its funding but has no complicity here? Did you also use to post as Conner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 It is established that the PA is a terrorist organization. We know that they have a law that pays terrorists for their misdeeds, and increasingly more the worse the deed. The U.S. gives the PA a large share of its funding but has no complicity here? Did you also use to post as Conner? And how do you get "The worse the deed the more they get from the USA" from that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 16, 2011 Author Share Posted August 16, 2011 And how do you get "The worse the deed the more they get from the USA" from that? Where does the money that pays the terrorists come from? Many different countries, right? Who is the largest contributor? When the U.S. didn't know about the law all it was doing was funding a corrupt organization, hoping for better days. Now that we know where some of that money is going should we continue to fund the PA? By funding the PA are we in effect funnelling money to the terrorists and their families? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 Where does the money that pays the terrorists come from? Many different countries, right? Who is the largest contributor? When the U.S. didn't know about the law all it was doing was funding a corrupt organization, hoping for better days. Now that we know where some of that money is going should we continue to fund the PA? By funding the PA are we in effect funnelling money to the terrorists and their families? Okay...and then how do you get from there to "The worse the deed the more they get from the USA"? Do you really think US funding increases based directly on the severity of terrorist attacks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 It is established that the PA is a terrorist organization. We know that they have a law that pays terrorists for their misdeeds, and increasingly more the worse the deed. The U.S. gives the PA a large share of its funding but has no complicity here? Did you also use to post as Conner? Yes the PA is a total terrorist organization while Lehi and Irgun were just freedom fighters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 16, 2011 Author Share Posted August 16, 2011 (edited) Okay...and then how do you get from there to "The worse the deed the more they get from the USA"? Do you really think US funding increases based directly on the severity of terrorist attacks? I will grant you this......it could have been worded better. If there was room it could have been "Paying Terrorists, The worse the deed the more they get from the PA funded by the USA". Obviously the funding doesn't increase from the U.S. based on the severity of the terrorist attack but their "salary" increases based on the severity of the attack, and that money comes at least partially from the U.S. Do you agree that the U.S. is at least partially funding the "salaries" of the terrorists in jail? Edited August 16, 2011 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 I will grant you this......it could have been worded better. If there was room it could have been "Paying Terrorists, The worse the deed the more they get from the PA funded by the USA". Obviously the funding doesn't increase from the U.S. based on the severity of the terrorist attack but their "salary" increases based on the severity of the attack, and that money comes at least partially from the U.S. "Could have been worded better?" Like, maybe, replacing "US" with "PA"? Would have fit...and wouldn't have been completely dishonest either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 16, 2011 Author Share Posted August 16, 2011 "Could have been worded better?" Like, maybe, replacing "US" with "PA"? Would have fit...and wouldn't have been completely dishonest either. Who is doing the funding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 Who is doing the funding? http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/23/38/1882818.gif Not that it matters...since, again, you said "The worse the deed the more they get from the USA." Which, in any context, is patently false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 You truly are a douche, any reasonable person on this board knows that. What you really are is a whore though. You will side with anybody at any time if you think you can make some points. Arguing with me over semantics while ball washing lyrbob & frenkle? Maybe you should throw a little Hedd in there too. I think you are really Cliff Clavin without the backbone. It's a shame to waste a brain by not supporting it with a spine. And that, my friend, says it all. You think it's about "making some points", but really it's about thinking critically and forming your own opinion. The "side with anybody" comment is very, very telling. Let your fear-mongering, ratings-driven network of choice tell you what to think. Go team, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 16, 2011 Author Share Posted August 16, 2011 (edited) And that, my friend, says it all. You think it's about "making some points", but really it's about thinking critically and forming your own opinion. The "side with anybody" comment is very, very telling. Let your fear-mongering, ratings-driven network of choice tell you what to think. Go team, right? WTF? I didn't say it was about making points. I accused Tom of that. I already stated that I could have worded the headline on the OP better but the article fully explained what was going on and that is the important thing. Now, if the U.S. continues to support the PA by giving them money, knowing full well that we will be funding salaries for convicted terrorists, are we now complicit? I guess some other people feel that the US is in effect paying terrorists salaries. http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=5451 Edited August 16, 2011 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 WTF? I didn't say it was about making points. I accused Tom of that. I already stated that I could have worded the headline on the OP better but the article fully explained what was going on and that is the important thing. Now, if the U.S. continues to support the PA by giving them money, knowing full well that we will be funding salaries for convicted terrorists, are we now complicit? I guess some other people feel that the US is in effect paying terrorists salaries. http://palwatch.org/...157&doc_id=5451 I was more talking about the "side with anybody" part. If the GOP jumped of a bridge, would you jump too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts