1). Convenient Timing?
2). The fact that he is still alive vs. going to and still being in Iraq?
October 2004 Bin Laden Bacon369 fucked around with this message on 10-30-2004 at 09:23 AM.
I don't know if it will make people here change votes, but that was it's intent.
I haven't changed my mind. I am still voting for Micheal Badnarik. 
I imagine that my friends are going to eat this up, though, which sucks.
quote:
Azakias had this to say about Punky Brewster:
Just out of curiousity. Where, exactly, are all these tapes 'found'? They are obviously meant to be seen by the US, but where do we find em?
They aren't 'found'. An Al Qaeda sympathizer will usually drop them off at Al Qaeda TV Al Jazeera, and once they're there, the cat's out of the bag, so to speak.
quote:
Azakias had this to say about Duck Tales:
Just out of curiousity. Where, exactly, are all these tapes 'found'? They are obviously meant to be seen by the US, but where do we find em?
Delivered to Al Jazeera, I thought. Intermediaries and so forth.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Suddar had this to say about Optimus Prime:
I love how Binny talks to us like he's an old chum, giving the old heart-to-heart.I imagine that my friends are going to eat this up, though, which sucks.
Yeah, that was pretty much the only way he could show up so Republicans couldn't easily spin it to their advantage. Instead some like to talk about how pathetic he looks in the video.
quote:
Pvednes wrote this stupid crap:
If anything, it's damaging to the tall lanky guy. George Dubya probably smiled a bit upon hearing that his opponent is endorsed by Osama bin Laden.
But he didn't endorse anyone. He pretty much said it didn't matter to him whether Bush or Kerry is elected.
quote:
Azakias had this to say about (_|_):
Just out of curiousity. Where, exactly, are all these tapes 'found'? They are obviously meant to be seen by the US, but where do we find em?
I believe this tape was actually sent to the U.S. Embassy, because it is addressed to the U.S.. Tapes addressed to the Arab people have been given to Al Jazeera.
quote:
JooJooFlop had this to say about Tron:
But he didn't endorse anyone. He pretty much said it didn't matter to him whether Bush or Kerry is elected.
I didn't mean it literally...
What he did do, was give a number of criticisms of Bush that are vaguely reminiscent of the Democratic campaign*'s criticisms. If Kerry were, from now on, to say anything at all to the effect of, say, Bush being inept, a liar, or a cronyist, or anything to that effect, he instantly throws the election.
So he has to walk on eggshells for a very long next few days.
*Why is your election campaign at the very front of the World News section anyway? Pvednes fucked around with this message on 10-30-2004 at 01:29 PM.
quote:
UBT spewed forth this undeniable truth:
If it does end up swaying the votes, then it simply means that we let a terrorist choose our President by forcing the American public to change the votes. Honestly, I think he extremely stupid in showing that he is afraid of G.W. Bush.
I agree, but this could also be reverse psycology. I mean if I knew someone hated me, I'm pretty sure I'd make it look like I didn't want them to do exactly what I wanted them to do.
quote:
Pvednes was naked while typing this:
I didn't mean it literally...What he did do, was give a number of criticisms of Bush that are vaguely reminiscent of the Democratic campaign*'s criticisms. If Kerry were, from now on, to say anything at all to the effect of, say, Bush being inept, a liar, or a cronyist, or anything to that effect, he instantly throws the election.
So he has to walk on eggshells for a very long next few days.
*Why is your election campaign at the very front of the World News section anyway?
"If Kerry were, from now on, to say anything at all to the effect of, say, Bush being inept, a liar,..."
Does he really need to say anything?
the July 31 Promise (failure)
Bin Laden still alive (failure)
quote:
The eggshells in question:
OBL: We didn't find difficulty dealing with Bush and his administration due to the similarity of his regime and the regims in our countries. Whish half of them are ruled by military and the other half by sons of kings and presidents and our experience with them is long. Both parties are arrogant and stubborn and the greediness and taking money without right and that similarity appeared during the visits of Bush to the region while people from our side were impressed by the US and hoped that these visits would influence our countries. Here he is being influenced by these regimes, Royal and military. And was feeling jealous they were staying for decades in power stealing the nations finances without anybody overseeing them. So he transferred the oppression of freedom and tyranny to his son and they call it the Patriot Law to fight terrorism. He was bright in putting his sons as governors in states and he didn't forget to transfer his experience from the rulers of our region to Florida to falsify elections to benefit from it in critical times.
quote:
Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael came out of the closet to say:
Delivered to Al Jazeera, I thought. Intermediaries and so forth.
"I'm Osama bin Laden, and I approve this message."
quote:
Vernaltemptress had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
Here's a full transcript so you'd know what you are talking about.
Although I definately think UBL is one of the worst men alive, his arguments are very logical. While I did roll my eyes at a few things he said, other things that he said were very reasonable, and do outline several gripes with the Bush administration. (some of the more laughable things included "Each state that doenst mess with our security has automatically secured their security." although, is he talking about Federal states, or Nation-states?)
quote:
Bacon369 had this to say about Duck Tales:
"If Kerry were, from now on, to say anything at all to the effect of, say, Bush being inept, a liar,..."
Does he really need to say anything?
the July 31 Promise (failure)
Bin Laden still alive (failure)
I always like when people think wishing hard enough to find someone will work. The Middle-East is a fairly huge area to start with, and is a hard area to gather intelligence in. Kerry(If he won) would have the same intelligence resources/outlook as Bush has now. It would take years to change anything. So his promise to find OBL really doesn't count for anything.
quote:
Alaan had this to say about Pirotess:
I always like when people think wishing hard enough to find someone will work. The Middle-East is a fairly huge area to start with, and is a hard area to gather intelligence in. Kerry(If he won) would have the same intelligence resources/outlook as Bush has now. It would take years to change anything. So his promise to find OBL really doesn't count for anything.
I totally understand its size and difficulty to work with. I do remember the Russians!!
My point was that he has been full of shit since day one.(as are 99% of politicians). Like poker he went "all in" with a bluff hand. His bluff was called and he needs to walk away from the table gracefully. With current "facts", what is there to go on to make me believe that another 4 yrs will be any better? I my opinion Bush has never set realistic expectations and wants us to believe in his "promises".
Also, Kerry has not promised to find and hunt Osama down in four years.
quote:
Nae wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
Nobody in the Middle East wants G.W. Bush to get reelected.
Didn't Iran announce like, just last week that they wanted Bush to be elected again?
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when Lashanna said:
Didn't Iran announce like, just last week that they wanted Bush to be elected again?
They did, yep.
Edit: And I'm pretty sure Israel wants him re-elected. Liam fucked around with this message on 10-30-2004 at 02:54 PM.
Demos fucked around with this message on 10-30-2004 at 02:59 PM.
quote:
Noxhil came out of the closet to say:
although, is he talking about Federal states, or Nation-states?)
Nation-States, of course. It's not like Montana has any say in Bush's foreign policy.
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when Lashanna said:
Didn't Iran announce like, just last week that they wanted Bush to be elected again?
Yasser Arafat supports Kerry
quote:
OBL: Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al Qaeda. Your security is in your hands. Each state that doenst mess with our security has automatically secured their security.
Sounds like a corny Mafia Threat.
quote:
Noxhil stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
Although I definately think UBL is one of the worst men alive....
OBL, OBL!!!!! Please do not be making his initials that damn close to mine. It makes my skin crawl to think that I'm one letter away from being the most wanted terrorist in the known world.
quote:
Drysart had this to say about Knight Rider:
Nation-States, of course. It's not like Montana has any say in Bush's foreign policy.
Nations and states are different things, and rarely coincide these days. Although the term "nation-state" is often incorrectly used to mean any modern state. Think of nations as people of the same culture, and states as political boundaries. The Roma (gypsies), for example, are a nation without a state, or a trans-state nation depending upon how one looks at it.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
There was much rejoicing when Bloodsage said this:
Nations and states are different things, and rarely coincide these days. Although the term "nation-state" is often incorrectly used to mean any modern state. Think of nations as people of the same culture, and states as political boundaries. The Roma (gypsies), for example, are a nation without a state, or a trans-state nation depending upon how one looks at it.
U.S.A is a "nation state". I think thats what Drysart meant. As a whole we influence the national policy not as Independent states.
quote:
Bacon369 thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
U.S.A is a "nation state". I think thats what Drysart meant. As a whole we influence the national policy not as Independent states.
Nope.
The United States is a state, but it's rather a stretch to call it a nation-state, although it comes closer than some.
The fact of the 50 "states" doesn't really matter in this case, as the name is now an anachronism from the time when they were intended to be a bloc of largely independent states in the sovereign political sense.
The best generic term is "state," as "nation-state" has a specific meaning rarely met these days. "Nation" is also often used, but is less accurate than "state."
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
The United States is a state, but it's rather a stretch to call it a nation-state, although it comes closer than some.
The fact of the 50 "states" doesn't really matter in this case, as the name is now an anachronism from the time when they were intended to be a bloc of largely independent states in the sovereign political sense.
The best generic term is "state," as "nation-state" has a specific meaning rarely met these days. "Nation" is also often used, but is less accurate than "state."
[/QUOTEIt being a "stretch" tells me that it is an opinion based term then.
When a nation of people have a State or country of their own, it is called a nation-state. Places like France, Egypt, Germany, Japan, and New Zealand are excellent examples of nation-states. There are some States which have two nations, such as Canada and Belgium. Even with its multicultural society, the United States is also referred to as a nation-state because of the shared American "culture."
Yeah, I copied and pasted the definition from an Encyclopedia and many other information places seem to have the same definition. Maybe we are just looking at diff web sites?? <shrug>
The proper generic term is "state." As I said.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage was listening to Cher while typing:
So what's your point, Bacon? You just agreed with me and confirmed everything I've said.The proper generic term is "state." As I said.
OMG dude what is with you?
When I used the term "Nation-State" you said nope?
I said that the U.S.A is a "Nation-State" you said nope.
Please tell me what i'm missing? Cause this really has nothing to do with this thread.
quote:
Peter's fortune cookie read:
Sounds like a corny Mafia Threat.
I get the feeling something was lost in translation.
That said...I saw this article on the front page of the local paper yesterday morning, and after skimming it I thought: "Sucks for Kerry." Bush is going to play the hell out of "Terrorists don't want me elected so you must elect me!"
Disclaimer: I'm just kidding, I love all living things.
The fastest draw in the Crest.
"The Internet is MY critical thinking course." -Maradon
"Gambling for the husband, an abortion for the wife and fireworks for the kids they chose to keep? Fuck you, Disneyland. The Pine Ridge Indian Reservation is the happiest place on Earth." -JooJooFlop
quote:
Bloodsage came out of the closet to say:
Nope.The United States is a state, but it's rather a stretch to call it a nation-state, although it comes closer than some.
The fact of the 50 "states" doesn't really matter in this case, as the name is now an anachronism from the time when they were intended to be a bloc of largely independent states in the sovereign political sense.
The best generic term is "state," as "nation-state" has a specific meaning rarely met these days. "Nation" is also often used, but is less accurate than "state."
Somebody better explain that to Osama then.
quote:
Bacon369 obviously shouldn't have said:
OMG dude what is with you?When I used the term "Nation-State" you said nope?
I said that the U.S.A is a "Nation-State" you said nope.Please tell me what i'm missing? Cause this really has nothing to do with this thread.
Read the damned thread, and you might be able to keep up.
You jumped in the middle of my quite accurate description of the correct usage of the terms. . .for what reason, exactly? Using "nation-state" as a generic term for international political entities isn't accurate in most cases. "State" is the correct term in all cases, and nation-states are a small subset of that.
Your mistake was that you equated "nation" and "state" and tried to make some random irrelevant point about national policies as opposed to states (which is a use of that word quite different than the one under discussion, though historically, the intent was that the states would retain their individual soverignty), muddying the issue.
Then, after I correct that misperception, you come back and reiterate what I said initially? It's a fast-moving ballgame, try to keep up.
While it's quite common to speak of national policy, it is, again, a different use of the word. If you had read carefully, you'd also note that I mentioned America as pretty close to a nation-state, though your uninformed insistence ignores, for example, the Cherokee nation (among others) which exists within the state that is America.
It all goes back to the original question that Drysart answered, and which I clarified: "state" is the correct generic term. Not "nation-state."
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Drysart Model 2000 was programmed to say:
Somebody better explain that to Osama then.
He used the term in both senses. Where did he get it wrong, and how is my point invalidated thereby?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage was listening to Cher while typing:
Read the damned thread, and you might be able to keep up.You jumped in the middle of my quite accurate description of the correct usage of the terms. . .for what reason, exactly? Using "nation-state" as a generic term for international political entities isn't accurate in most cases. "State" is the correct term in all cases, and nation-states are a small subset of that.
Your mistake was that you equated "nation" and "state" and tried to make some random irrelevant point about national policies as opposed to states (which is a use of that word quite different than the one under discussion, though historically, the intent was that the states would retain their individual soverignty), muddying the issue.
Then, after I correct that misperception, you come back and reiterate what I said initially? It's a fast-moving ballgame, try to keep up.
While it's quite common to speak of national policy, it is, again, a different use of the word. If you had read carefully, you'd also note that I mentioned America as pretty close to a nation-state, though your uninformed insistence ignores, for example, the Cherokee nation (among others) which exists within the state that is America.
It all goes back to the original question that Drysart answered, and which I clarified: "state" is the correct generic term. Not "nation-state."
You should take this show on the road. What I got from the post originally was someone was asking what Osama meant in his statement. Drysart said to that person that Osama obviously means the entire country beacause ONE individual state does not make up the entire foreign policy for a country, hence the montana comment. I made one outright statement "U.S.A is a Nation-State" PERIOD. The ballgame insult is pretty weak. If I insulted you with a direct statement towards you somewhere please point it out and I will appologize. Otherwise learn how to have a conversation without attacking the person you are talking to.
We are both right in our assesment of what we have read.
