The frightening legacy of George W Bush

[rick James]

I never said it was 100% accurate. Don't misquote me. I said it was not a lie. And it isn't. It is a twisting of the facts to paint a certain picture.

And airspace was not simply 'reopened' on the 13th, it was a limited reopening for a limited class of airflight.

And if anything I've stated is open to interpretation, point it out. As far as I am concerned, they are all verifiable facts.

It is a lie. the Bin Ladens were not allowed out of the US until airspace was reopened. That is a FACT. As backed by one of Moore's main reference points and good buddies, adn backed by the 9-11 commission. Adn multiple other sources quoted. It's a FACT they were not allowed out until otherplanes were also allowed to fly out.

If you can't accept it, it becomes clear you are a jaded, small minded cretin who should move to Cuba

 

[just maybe]

It is a lie. the Bin Ladens were not allowed out of the US until airspace was reopened. That is a FACT. As backed by one of Moore's main reference points and good buddies, adn backed by the 9-11 commission. Adn multiple other sources quoted. It's a FACT they were not allowed out until otherplanes were also allowed to fly out.

If you can't accept it, it becomes clear you are a jaded, small minded cretin who should move to Cuba

A limited reopening of airspace for cleared airplanes only is not a 'full reopening' of airspace.

If you can't see the difference, perhaps you should reconsider posting here.

 

[rick James]

The Bin Ladens were allowed out before pretty much any other planes had been cleared for departure - in fact they may have been the first.

In which case it was either

a. not a lie
b. a deliberate use of words to give you that impression.

Neither of which are lies

a deliberate use of words to give an impression isn't a lie? wtf are you talking about, if that impression is FALSE of COURSE it's a lie.

They booked one of the first available flights, rich saudi oil barons can do that. When airspace was reopened, as per the multiple sources I've given you, they flew out, simple as that.

 

[camsmith]

Hahahah, don't you have some homework to do?

Hilarious.

You know i wish you would have given us the link to the site where that list came from, surely you could not have thought up those lies all by yourself?

 

[rick James]

A limited reopening of airspace for cleared airplanes only is not a 'full reopening' of airspace.

If you can't see the difference, perhaps you should reconsider posting here.

they can't just let every booked flight go at once. are you seriously damaged in the head? What do you think would happen if they let every banked up or booked flight go all at once? They have to reopen in stages, usually those with the most cash go first.

you act as if Bush got his mates out before anyone else in the country was allowed to fly. teh fact is, tehy simple chartered a flight and left when airspace was reopened. Hardly scandalous stuff there.

 

[just maybe]

a deliberate use of words to give an impression isn't a lie?

No.

wtf are you talking about, if that impression is FALSE of COURSE it's a lie.

Are you off your nut? If the impression you get is slightly incorrect, that's your problem. The reality is, what was stated by Moore is not a lie and because you have got another impression makes it clever journalism - not a lie at all.

 

[just maybe]

Hilarious.

You know i wish you would have given us the link to the site where that list came from, surely you could not have thought up those lies all by yourself?

OK kid, if they're 'lies', please provide evidence to the contrary. Like skipper kelly, you can't and so you'll conveniently continue to avoid the issue.

I wouldn't pursue any sort of career involving social sciences after school, kid, it appears you won't get very far!

 

[just maybe]

a deliberate use of words to give an impression isn't a lie? wtf are you talking about, if that impression is FALSE of COURSE it's a lie.

They booked one of the first available flights, rich saudi oil barons can do that. When airspace was reopened, as per the multiple sources I've given you, they flew out, simple as that.

By the way, you didn't post ANY sources, Monkster posted one - and you might want to have checked it. Even the writer admits they were allowed to fly around the US during the ban and that whether they flew out early is not necessarily false - it is 'undetermined'. In other words, you're a liar because you're citing sources you don't even know!

# In the two days immediately following the September 11 terrorist attacks on America, the U.S. government allowed bin Laden family members to fly within the country during a general ban on air travel: True.
# During that same period the U.S. government allowed bin Laden family members to fly out of the U.S.: Undetermined.

 

[camsmith]

I wouldn't pursue any sort of career involving social sciences after school, kid, it appears you won't get very far!

Mate i will get further by living in Melbourne than you ever will/have in Adelaide (assuming you are from there )

OK kid, if they're 'lies', please provide evidence to the contrary. Like skipper kelly, you can't and so you'll conveniently continue to avoid the issue.

And you'll continue to avoid the issue of backing up what you have listed. You can't.
It's one thing to just list a whole lot of mumbo jumbo, its another to back it up with facts.

 

[just maybe]

Mate i will get further by living in Melbourne than you ever will/have in Adelaide (assuming you do )

You're not going to get anywhere, no matter where you live, with your attitude.

And you'll continue to avoid the issue of backing up what you have listed. You can't.
It's one thing to just list a whole lot of mumbo jumbo, its another to back it up with facts.

I have listed FACTS. Why do I need to back them up? You and skipper kelly are the only people disputing them, yet you cannot even state which ones you dispute, and you cannot provide anything to dispute them with any way.

Nice try, kid, but you're struggling.

 

[camsmith]

Oh the hypocrisy.

 

[just maybe]

Oh the hypocrisy.

Yep, as I thought...challenge you to tell me what you dispute and you continue to avoid it!

 

[camsmith]

I dont need to, if you dont show me the proof that backs up your "facts", then why should i show you facts that disprove them. Im not avoiding it anymore than you are.

 

[moistie]

The UK once had a mediterranean climate, yes. Proven.

And your evidence for explaining temperatures "rising" is......?

They have been fluctuating across the planet for millenia.

Until there is solid scientific evidence that temperatures have risen on a consistent, widespread basis at a rate which significantly exceeds any past increments then yes, I'll "risk" it.

Okay then.

Global temperatures have always fluctuated, yes. This is a graph of global temperature change and atmospheric CO2 levels over the last 450,000 years.

Note that the largest change has occurred between 20,000 to 8,000 years ago, with a 12 degree change prior to a stable period with some minor cooling in the last 10,000 years. Note that it was a change of approximately 1 degree per 1,000 years.

And, because you cannot see it that well on the first graph, heres the graph of atmospheric CO2, which is at the highest level in the last 450,000 years.

You'll note we've put over a third more CO2 into the atmosphere in the last 200 years.

Now, here is a graph of the temperature change in the last 80 years.

Since the 1920's the temperature has risen from an average of 13.8 degrees to 14.6, or even from 13.9 to 14.6 degrees since 1980. Thats a rise of 0.8 degrees in 80 years and there is no sign of any downward trend in the graph.

So after a global temperature rise of one degree celcius per 1,000 years, we are now experiencing a global temperature rise of one degree celcius per 100 years at exactly the same time the global atmospheric CO2 has increased by a third. If this doesn't constitute a "consistent, widespread basis at a rate which significantly exceeds any past increments" then I have a bridge I would like to sell you. Going cheap.

 

[just maybe]

I dont need to, if you dont show me the proof that backs up your "facts", then why should i show you facts that disprove them. Im not avoiding it anymore than you are.

Um, yes you do. Everything I have posted is common knowledge and only skipper kelly (to be difficult) and yourself are saying otherwise.

As the dissenting minority, making the accusation, the onus is on you to show otherwise.

Your continued failure to do so shows that you simply cannot.

 

[rick James]

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=202611

 

[just maybe]

Unlike your stupid attempt at humour, rJ, the facts I have provided are common knowledge, not conspiracy theories.

 

[rick James]

Unlike your stupid attempt at humour, rJ, the facts I have provided are common knowledge, not conspiracy theories.

Half of your 'facts' are opinion. It's impossible to disprove, you look like a nob.

 

[skipper kelly]

You and skipper kelly are the only people disputing them, yet you cannot even state which ones you dispute, and you cannot provide anything to dispute them with any way.

Please. Show me where I have disputed anything in this thread?

 

[just maybe]

Please. Show me where I have disputed anything in this thread?

You said I made 'broad, sweeping statements'.

I stated facts. My view of them is negative. I asked for discussion.

If you had any other point instead of disputing them, what was it?

 

[skipper kelly]

Half of your 'facts' are opinion.

very true.

 

[just maybe]

Half of your 'facts' are opinion. It's impossible to disprove, you look like a nob.

How are they opinion? My opinion OF them is negative, but none of them are opinion. Please state which ones you believe are and I will explain why they are not.

 

[skipper kelly]

You said I made 'broad, sweeping statements'.

yes.

 

[just maybe]

yes.

None of them are broad and sweeping. I made a statement and backed it up with specific points. Please explain how any of them are 'broad and sweeping'?

But hey, it's not your style to actually answer the point of any of my threads, is it? You just come and nitpick and drag it off topic. Very troll-like behaviour.

God forbid you actually CONTRIBUTED to the topic at hand - namely the negative legacy of Bush's presidency. But actually staying on topic would go against your instincts to have a go at me, wouldnt it?

 

[skipper kelly]

I looked at the 1st 3 points. All broad statements.

Please define attack so you can clarify and discuss Point1.