yes

8/27/2007 4:22:34 PM

Quote :

"..how the hell do you quantify rebuilding a country? You don't"

Well, this is one of the more asinine things I have read in this section lately. Are you paying attention at all to this Iraq war thing?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070712.html

Btw joesmoe, how do you get your google search number, I get this

Results 1 - 10 of about 2,910,000 for the united states has lost the war in iraq. (0.17 seconds)

[Edited on August 27, 2007 at 6:54 PM. Reason : googleplex]

8/27/2007 6:53:13 PM

Quote :

"and the reason the Wolfpack football argument is utterly retarded is because 3-9 is easily quantifyable"

I'm fairly certain that the rising body count on both sides of the war, absolute abandonment of the country by educated Iraqis, plummet in GDP, failure to bring oil supplies online, and the cost of the war are all quantifiable. Measuring progress in asymmetric warfare is difficult, yes, but we're not talking about nuances here, and the trends . . . until recently . . . have been steadily worsening. So if you want to talk metrics, fine, but you realize that when you look at the entire 4 1/2 years, you're going to lose that argument, right?

Quote :

"a better football analogy would be watching a few plays from one game on sportscenter without ever seeing the scoreboard and trying to say if the season is a success or not...you cant do it"

Six months in, I would agree with you but at 4 1/2 years, we've seen more than enough plays.

I'm not saying progress isn't being made, and I'm not saying that there aren't those who wanted this war to fail from the beginning (I think that was part of the anti-war movement's problem. There were very strong arguments to be made against the invasion of Iraq, but the anti-war movement was collectively unable to get beyond its hatred of GWB and articulate a politically sell-able argument) but we're reaching a point where some hard choices will need to be made regarding troop strength for this war to continue, and it will probably not be able to extend beyond a few more years without a draft. Period.

So while most people don't want to see us fail, they're weighing the options and, from there perspective, see a continued presence in Iraq to be untenable.

8/27/2007 6:59:54 PM

^fair enough

^^stfu

8/27/2007 7:43:59 PM

My bad, apparently you don't like to read. Here is a quick summary, we can discuss them if you want

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6294694.stm

8/27/2007 7:54:36 PM

How can you quantify winning a war? One example would be US/allied casualties compared to enemy casualties, in which case the US is winning by far

Of course there are way too many factors including casualties, money, and a ton of non quantifyable factors like freedoms, etc that can't be quantified which is why the football record analogy is ridiculous

8/27/2007 8:07:02 PM

I still like the football analogy. A lot of intangibles go into a football game; home field, winning/loosing streaks going into the game, climate, altitude, attitude, coaches, etc. but at the end, nothing matters but the score.

In this case, the score boils down to, "is Iraq better or worse off since the invasion." At the moment the answer is, unequivocally, worse.

Now the biggest flaw with the football game analogy, is that there is a set time in a football game, and there is no set time in Iraq. We don't know if we're at half time or late in the 4th, but what we do know, is that no matter where we are in the game, both our team and our fans are getting tired and we don't have the will or energy to keep it up much longer.

[Edited on August 27, 2007 at 9:58 PM. Reason : .]

8/27/2007 9:56:36 PM

Quote :

"In this case, the score boils down to, "is Iraq better or worse off since the invasion." At the moment the answer is, unequivocally, worse."

a war takes a lot longer than 60 minutes obviously or a few months of a season...but if we're sticking to football analogies, Wake Forest looked pretty bad last year when they nearly lost to Duke...I'm sure many fans and analysts were pessimistic at that moment that their whole season would be a failure...yet they ended up in a BCS bowl game and a better season than the program had ever seen in their history...and as Iraq makes progress the country gets better...and I'd expect "non-defeatists" would be optimistic for the future of Iraq even though its a long grueling process


[Edited on August 27, 2007 at 11:26 PM. Reason : .]

8/27/2007 11:08:15 PM

TreeTwista10

youre a fucking imbecile.

Here, try googling this:

Quote :

" Results 1 - 10 of about 101,000 for tree is a retarded jackass. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=tree+is+a+retarded+jackass "

Then try googling this:

Quote :

" Your search - "tree is a retarded jackass" - did not match any documents. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22tree+is+a+retarded+jackass%22 "

how do you not understand the logical difference between AND and OR, you stupid cunt?

8/27/2007 11:56:37 PM

nice worthless troll post

about as worthless as your previous troll post where instead of googling the exact phrase like you did and saying to yourself "how come my numbers are so different? maybe he didnt use an exact phrase since that would significantly limit any relevant results," you just wanted to be a smartass

because people like you who are content with American defeat don't always use the exact same phrase...troll

but i wouldnt expect you to say anything meaningful when you could just harp on your own retarded understanding of search engines

it is funny though that your interpretation of my search query (an exact quote) reveals that zero people think i am a retard

[Edited on August 28, 2007 at 12:07 AM. Reason : .]

8/28/2007 12:01:54 AM

Quote :

"Wake Forest looked pretty bad last year when they nearly lost to Duke...I'm sure many fans and analysts were pessimistic at that moment that their whole season would be a failure...yet they ended up in a BCS bowl game"

Except that Wake Forest players weren't being asked to play the equivalent of a game every other day with minimal time to practice between games.

8/28/2007 6:21:10 AM

Do we have to discuss the war in football analogies so the dumber folks of the group can play along? It's bad enough your original statement said "quantify nation building", then you switched it to "quantify winning a war". Regardless, we can do both, quite readily.

[Edited on August 28, 2007 at 8:15 AM. Reason : dumbest]

8/28/2007 8:15:14 AM

Quote :

"there is just something fundamentally wrong with a portion of a country wanting to lose a war to help empower a party in an upcoming election to stop a war believed to be immoral and based on erroneous facts, assertions, and idealogy.....you liberals can spin it all you want but it is a tragedy what democrats are wanting to happen have expected since learning the real facts about Iraq"

Fixed it.

Quote :

"no mark, the difference is republicans want the United States to win the war"

Except for course for the Republican congressmen that have broken ranks and are calling for a withdrawal.... which would make your assertion patently false...

Quote :

"can the same be said about the Democrats?"

The Democrats want to end the flawed, ineffective, and costly war designed to fight terrorism. The war was based on false premises and has cost +$500 billion and over 4,000 lives. The Democrats look at the situation and believe the cost of staying is not worth the benefit.


"They want us to lose" - Another example of simple-minded ignorance....



[Edited on August 28, 2007 at 1:39 PM. Reason : [Edited on August 28, 2007 at 1:38 PM. Reason : sfd]]

8/28/2007 1:26:10 PM

Quote :

"Do we have to discuss the war in football analogies so the dumber folks of the group can play along? "

You're new here aren't you?

8/30/2007 5:30:21 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071002/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

Iraqi deaths fall by 50 percent

you can read the article if you so please

10/1/2007 10:19:50 PM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bfF5QaQfQuA

10/1/2007 11:50:25 PM

^ Of course it would. The GOP would be able to fearmonger the election process once again. Hell, Rudy is already campaigning hard on that platform. It's repulsive.

10/2/2007 12:30:09 AM

Quote :

"How can you quantify winning a war? One example would be US/allied casualties compared to enemy casualties, in which case the US is winning by far"

bodycounts are not any sort of measure of who is winning a war. by our doctrine, we don't even concern ourselves with them, but even if you were out to engage in attrition warfare, the ultimate goal is still the same:

to get what you want.

THAT is how you quantify winning a war.

by that metric, we are not winning.

warfare is basically politics by force.





and the surge is working from a tactical and operational standpoint...that much is barely even debateable.

whether or not significant gains are being made at the strategic level is less clear (i.e., is Iraq, as a country--particularly the government--capitalizing on the suppression of the insurgency?).

10/2/2007 12:46:15 AM

Quote :

"bodycounts are not any sort of measure of who is winning a war. "

Let alone a bodycount for one freaking month...

10/2/2007 1:00:53 AM

No, but good news is good new.

10/2/2007 8:21:04 AM

They've got a point, you've got to have a plan before you can measure if things are going according to plan.

Good point war supporters, it is indeed unquantifiable since the administration has no idea what they are trying to do, I'll give you that.

10/2/2007 8:39:27 AM

i like how when i point out you cant quantify winning a war i have all types of people like Chance saying I'm an idiot and that you can quantify it, etc...now Duke points it out and the liberals are like "yeah i know right"

10/2/2007 9:44:18 AM

He did quantify it, he said you get what you want, we haven't gotten what we want and we were moving farther away. You were arguing perpetual war on the chance that we might eventually get what we wanted.

10/2/2007 10:04:27 AM

am i the only person who has a clue what 'quantify' means? how exactly is "getting what you want" something quantifyable? its not obviously

10/2/2007 10:07:40 AM

You set a goal and you meet it or you don't. That is quantifiable.

The reason this war is so hard to quantify is because our goals continue to shift based on this administrations attempts to cover its own ass.

[Edited on October 2, 2007 at 10:11 AM. Reason : .]

10/2/2007 10:10:39 AM

qualify =! quantify

the Harris Poll says its "difficult or impossible" to quantify "winning a war"...and thats just based on opinion of winning the war, let alone actually quantifying it

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=269

i thought this was common sense

[Edited on October 2, 2007 at 10:40 AM. Reason : .]

10/2/2007 10:14:46 AM

in my prt 380 class we were told yes/no questions are quantitative questions....cause u can assign them a 1 or a 0....duke said we are not winning...so that sounds quantitative to me

10/2/2007 10:20:50 AM

yes/no questions are quantitative because they have definite logical answers...yes and no are those answers...if the question is "are we winning the war" a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer is a quantitative answer, but it doesn't suffice without some type of reasoning based on what the goals are...saying 'yes' or 'no' to the question "are we winning the war" is quantifiable, but the question is too complex obviously to just say yes or no...you have to decide what factors go into winning the war

my question all along was how do you quantify winning a war? what factors go into deciding if a war is successful or not? and what factors can you assign some type of numerical value to in order to quantify if its successful or not

Chance's example was showing the initial benchmark report...most benchmarks were quantifiable numerical data...if those datum had particular goals, you could quantify if those individual goals were met or not...but how do you relate one goal to a completely unrelated goal quantifiably? you dont because its apples and oranges...you cant assign numerical values for various goals and logically relate them mathematically...you cant simply say "we met 5 goals and failed 3, therefore we are winning the war since 5 is greater than 3"


[Edited on October 2, 2007 at 10:40 AM. Reason : .]

10/2/2007 10:22:27 AM

I thought almost every major required at least introductory statistics.

10/2/2007 1:36:08 PM

Half the people on here don't even have common sense

10/2/2007 1:38:08 PM

I must say that the success of the surge is certainly getting in the way of the Democrat surrender.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=niPmXym7u3g

PS: None of the top-tier Democrat candidates for president now supports immediate withdrawal. Schizos? LOL!

PPS: Dennis Miller rips Harry Reid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miXAZj-tcGI&NR=1



[Edited on October 2, 2007 at 1:55 PM. Reason : .]

10/2/2007 1:52:20 PM

Quote :

"you cant simply say "we met 5 goals and failed 3, therefore we are winning the war since 5 is greater than 3"

Why not? These goals weren't, or at least shouldn't have, been chosen at random. Likely, they were key objectives that had to be met in order to ensure success. Failure to achieve one or more will likely cause significant damage to the overall objective, failing the majority of them certainly isn't winning.

10/2/2007 4:38:59 PM

failing a majority probably isnt winning...but the reason you cant say "we met 5 goals and failed 3, therefore we are winning the war since 5 is greater than 3" is because that would assume that each of the goals had a completely equal value...and that goes back to my original point...how do you assign some type of quantitative value to non-quantitative aspects like "safeness of a city" compared to "amount of violence per region per day"...doesnt seem like the best idea to treat each aspect of the war and subsequent rebuilding of iraq as some type of number...i don't know how you could assign anything definitively quantitative to something like quality of life...I'm sure somebody has worked up some type of equation but I'd be skeptical of it

10/2/2007 4:43:49 PM

hookliar,

NONE of the top democrats (edwards, obama, clinton) EVER supported immediate withdrawal.


and FWIW, I've never thought or said that immediate withdrawal would be a good thing to do. It's always been obvious to me that such an action would be disastrous.

I do support bringing all of the neocon chickenhawk war architects up on criminal charges while we work on a viable solution, however.

I'm afraid I'll be waiting a long time before hearing a candidate make that statement though.





[Edited on October 2, 2007 at 5:02 PM. Reason : ]

10/2/2007 5:02:12 PM

Oy...

I'm pleased to see the overally # of deaths in Iraq fall by 50% in comparison to previous months. I have friends serving in Iraq, and I'd like to see them come home safely. Regardless of political affliations, this is good news. However, in the long-run, this statistic is practically meaningless.

What do I want to see, quantifiably speaking, in Iraq? I want to see fewer American soldiers performing security duties in a foreign country. I want to see an Iraqi government pass more legislation and increase its scope of control in its own country. I want to see the American forces fighting Al Qaida increase and the remaining American forces decrease.


That, it seems, simply hasn't been happening in anything approaching an acceptable speed.

10/2/2007 6:11:15 PM

Quote :

"qualify =! quantify the Harris Poll says its "difficult or impossible" to quantify "winning a war"...and thats just based on opinion of winning the war, let alone actually quantifying it http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=269 i thought this was common sense"

Are you so arrogant that before anyone posts about a topic, you just assume you're automatically correct, and it just doesn't matter what they post, whatever spills out onto the text box via your abortion of a thought process will make sense and 'win' the argument?

For starters, you posted a Harris Poll from 2001, and didn't interpret it correctly at all.

Quote :

"Most Americans are confident that the U.S. government has a clear plan for winning the war on terrorism. Most Americans also think the government has explained clearly what it means to win this war."

Now, would you like to explain to me you got the idea the poll says

Quote :

"its "difficult or impossible" to quantify "winning a war".."

Furthermore, JCash got it exactly right with this post

Quote :

"You set a goal and you meet it or you don't. That is quantifiable. The reason this war is so hard to quantify is because our goals continue to shift based on this administrations attempts to cover its own ass."

Is it really that hard for you to understand? Anyone can define what winning (or success) means no matter what the situation.

Other observations

Quote :

"yes/no questions are quantitative because they have definite logical answers...yes and no are those answers...if the question is "are we winning the war" a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer is a quantitative answer, but it doesn't suffice without some type of reasoning based on what the goals are...saying 'yes' or 'no' to the question "are we winning the war" is quantifiable, but the question is too complex obviously to just say yes or no...you have to decide what factors go into winning the war"

I sure am glad we have you around here to help set us all straight. Are you fucking kidding? Maybe dnl needed that explained, but no one else did.

I honestly don't see how you can get it that right, it's clear you understand it, but then somehow disastrously fail in the application of it. Unbelievable.

Quote :

"my question all along was how do you quantify winning a war? what factors go into deciding if a war is successful or not? and what factors can you assign some type of numerical value to in order to quantify if its successful or not "

Well, if we think back to 2001, when the American people thought it was all clear, I can imagine winning the war on terror went something like this (I'm just speculating because I wasn't politically involved then):
We'll go on the offensive in Afghanistan and destroy the Taleban and give al Qaeda no place to take residence. We will seek out and either kill Bin Laden or bring him to trial in the United States. We will not stop until these goals are met

That is very definitive, very easy to understand. Then, it all changed. Now Iraq is in the picture. And, again, as JCASH pointed out, the goals and metrics for winning went by the wayside, and the spineless senators that should have held the president and his neoclowns accountable, didn't.

Quote :

"but how do you relate one goal to a completely unrelated goal quantifiably? you dont because its apples and oranges..."

This is where you went off in left field. Why would you do this, it makes no sense. If the goal is to win, and you set benchmarks up that lead to winning, and you are meeting the benchmarks, then you are winning. If you are only meeting some of them, then you aren't winning as you yourself defined winning. This is perfectly quantifiable. Either the definition of winning wasn't properly set or too vague (as is the case) or the benchmarks weren't properly set or are too vague.

Quote :

"failing a majority probably isnt winning..."

So you post all that tripe, then you come back to reality. What gives?

Quote :

"but the reason you cant say "we met 5 goals and failed 3, therefore we are winning the war since 5 is greater than 3" is because that would assume that each of the goals had a completely equal value..."

You're arguing the topic from the bottom up, not top down. You're exactly right in the idea that it's hard to assess if we are winning this war on terror, mainly because this administration keeps waffling around the idea of what it means to win, rather, they haven't actually defined it. It's currently open ended.

Quote :

"how do you assign some type of quantitative value to non-quantitative aspects like "safeness of a city" compared to "amount of violence per region per day"...doesnt seem like the best idea to treat each aspect of the war and subsequent rebuilding of iraq as some type of number...i don't know how you could assign anything definitively quantitative to something like quality of life...I'm sure somebody has worked up some type of equation but I'd be skeptical of it"

How is safeness of a city not quantifiable? How about pre-invasion levels of crime?
Quality of life? Water and sewer systems back to levels before the invasion or better since they were probably deficient under Saddam.


How about think a little bit outside your predefined reality that you always stick to in an effort to not lose threads, which you do anyway.

10/2/2007 10:09:19 PM

"hookliar"? Really?

Edwards on timetables and cutting funding.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_8s6QFkjuuc

-AND-

Edwards calls for immediate withdrawal [underscore added], slams Obama

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (CNN) – Former Sen. John Edwards, D-North Carolina, on Wednesday called for an immediate withdrawal of 40-50,000 troops from Iraq [emphasis added] following two days of Congressional testimony by Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/09/12/edwards-calls-for-immediate-withdrawal-slams-obama/

Obama calls for. . .well, you read it.

Obama calls for immediate withdrawal of troops [underscore added]

Quote :

"CLINTON, Iowa - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama called yesterday for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. combat brigades from Iraq [emphasis added], with the pullout being completed by the end of next year. 'Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq and there never was,' the Illinois senator told about 500 people at Ashford University. 'The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year - now [emphasis added].'"

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usobam135372017sep13,0,7486175.story

Clinton at the DNC:

Quote :

"If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009 [emphasis added], as president, I will."

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bR8hqek1svI

-AND-

Hillary Clinton's Thoughtful Plan to End the Iraq War

Quote :

"This plan is a major departure from Sen. Clinton's past stances on the Iraq War, when she refused to commit to draw U.S. troops out of Iraq."

Quote :

"The most important part of my plan is the first step: to end our military engagement in Iraq's civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home [emphasis added] as quickly and carefully as possible."

http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeech2/a/HillaryIraq.htm

-BUT-

On Sunday talk show, Clinton refuses to commit to full Iraq pullout by end of first term

http://rawstory.com//news/2007/On_Sunday_talk_show_Clinton_refuses_0924.html

Even though she actually already said that she would do just that. These are your candidates, schmoe? Pathetic.

No, schmoe, I'd say it's more like you've been hookowned--again.

[Edited on October 3, 2007 at 12:54 AM. Reason : .]

10/3/2007 12:44:01 AM

Quote :

"Anyone can define what winning (or success) means no matter what the situation"

But that doesn't mean you can quantify it...if a war was very lopsided...ie if when the US had executed their bombing campaign when the war started, if somehow miraculously they had taken out the entire Iraqi military (which is obviously impossible, but its an example), you could definitely say the US won a particular goal, or won that particular part of the war...but the war is a lot more complicated than that as far as evaluating...its not as cut and dry as "US casualties" and "Iraqi civilian deaths"...there are many more factors that cannot be easily quantified, which is what I've been arguing all along...and yes the Harris Poll I linked didn't directly address the success or failure of the US war effort in Iraq...but it should have shown you that if quantifying something less complicated than the war itself (like the public's opinion of the war's success/failure), then its certainly even more difficult to quantify success versus failure in a modern guerilla warfare environment

Quote :

"I sure am glad we have you around here to help set us all straight. Are you fucking kidding? Maybe dnl needed that explained, but no one else did. "

Apparently, a number of people needed that qualification, considering my original argument hasn't changed and a number of people disagreed with it initially until I could explain it even further (or more likely since a couple other people seemed to agree in principle after TheDuke posted and I followed up)

Quote :

"We'll go on the offensive in Afghanistan and destroy the Taleban and give al Qaeda no place to take residence. We will seek out and either kill Bin Laden or bring him to trial in the United States. We will not stop until these goals are met That is very definitive, very easy to understand. Then, it all changed. Now Iraq is in the picture"

I definitely agree that the public perception of the main focii ("focuses") of the war on terror has been shifted to Iraq, but we still have troops in Afghanistan...we're still fighting to fend off the Al Queda resurgence through Pakistan even while we fight in Iraq

Quote :

"If you are only meeting some of them, then you aren't winning as you yourself defined winning"

But don't you see, this is the exact scenario that ISN'T easily quantifiable...if you're completing the large majority of obectives, sure you can see you're winning the war...if you're not completing the large majority of objectives, you can say we're failing...but it isn't one extreme like that...we're somewhere in the middle, and thats another reason why its so difficult to assess all of the different aspects

Quote :

"You're exactly right in the idea that it's hard to assess if we are winning this war on terror"

Then why do you keep disagreeing?!?! Thats been my entire point all along!

Quote :

"How is safeness of a city not quantifiable?"

It definitely is, and you gave some good examples of different ways to quantify it...but that was never my argument...not that you can't quantify plenty of aspects of the war, but how can you somehow compare them accurately enough to give a realistic projection of the war's success/failure? Lets look at your examples...pre-invasion crime rates, quality of life (which I still dont think is quantifiable), public utilities (water, sewer)...crime rates are up in many cities, but down from levels immediately after saddam was overthrown...but that varies from city to city, town to town in a way that would be difficult to quantify when you have to consider all towns and cities, the ones with less crime, the ones with more crime...utilities are certainly a very important characteristic of their society...everyone needs water and it sure as hell helps to have a functional sewer system...as far as I've heard, public utilities have been one of the primary objectives in the inital stages of rebuilding some of the cities after either the US aerial strikes, or some of the cities were ridden of bombadier insurgents

Quality of life is still very very difficult, if not completely impossible, to quantify...I'm sure most Iraqi's could tell you things they dislike now more than when Saddam was in power (maybe fear of crime on the street, having a stable govt, etc) but also things they like more (a whole lot more freedom and choice...and how do you quantify freedom?)

Thanks for at least addressing some of my points intelligently...I do appreciate that

10/3/2007 12:58:24 AM

You must have been really high when you wrote that. I am sure it made perfect sense to you, but to the rest of us, it looks like the random murmurings of some clueless stoner around some position that has already been undermined by multiple people in this thread.

Multiple people have destroyed your position that "winning a war is not quantifiable", and here you are at 1am on a Wednesday morning rehashing the same arguments over again.

10/3/2007 8:00:10 AM

and you wonder why nobody takes your bald troll alias ass seriously

it must feel pretty shitty that you create this thread with one faggot alias, then get pwnt on that alias, request it be suspended, create another alias (surprise surprise) and get continuously pwnt on that alias too...and so is your life

whoops i misspoke...you havent gotten owned with 2 aliases in this thread...but actually 3

Quote :

"Message Boards » The Soap Box » Is the surge working? » Replies Username Status Posts 0EPII1 All American 19750 agentlion All American 7261 Amsterdam718 All American 11420 Arab13 Singularity 33302 ben94gt All American 3808 Blind Hate Suspended 1878 Boone All American 1523 caesar Veteran 221 carzak New Recruit 112 Chance Status Name 480 Cherokee All American 3511 drunknloaded spent 98085 Erios All American 1865 GoldenViper All American 13144 Golovko TURBO 19570 HockeyRoman All American 4728 Honkeyball All American 975 hooksaw All American 4950 JCASHFAN misanthrope 2331 jccraft1 Veteran 323 joe_schmoe All American 7989 lottathought Veteran 384 Lowjack All American 10359 LunaK New Recruit 121 markgoal All American 12021 mathman All American 1138 moron All American 8563 Mr. Joshua All American 16923 nastoute All American 23979 NCSUStinger Unsuspended 47886 Noen All American 24628 Opstand All American 8024 ParksNrec hates Brian Chappell 4637 PartisanHack Suspended 132 Paul1984 New Recruit 24 Prawn Star All American 3062 Pred73 Veteran 102 pwrstrkdf250 All American 55596 RedGuard All American 3909 sarijoul All American 7944 Scuba Steve Dot Agitator 4331 Shrapnel Status 3895 SkankinMonky All American 1352 SkiSalomon All American 3193 Solinari All American 10240 ssjamind All American 25941 synchrony7 All American 4368 theDuke866 Cock of the walk 32384 ThePeter All American 3708 TreeTwista10 Nicholas Pileggi 56604 trikk311 All American 2608 wlb420 All American 5267 "

you really need to get a life

as does the next poster, who is also an alias loser

10/3/2007 9:33:03 AM

10/3/2007 9:55:37 AM

i looked at that picture's url and was amazed that you found it since it isn't hosted by mediamatters

10/3/2007 10:02:44 AM

anyone else find it odd that this kid's spent so much money on TWW?

10/3/2007 10:12:41 AM

yep...and i find it more odd that he has spent so much money on a half dozen or so aliases, as well as a premium subscription, while always trying to convince people how much he supposedly doesn't care about this site

10/3/2007 10:13:53 AM

i'm not reading all this, but from the press i've seen thus far, i think the surge is working

10/3/2007 11:05:37 AM

Quote :

"and you wonder why nobody takes your bald troll alias ass seriously"

I don't wonder this at all, thanks for the concern.

However, if I really was worried about it, I'd say you posting 600 words and multiple quote boxes at 1am on a work night pretty much invalidates the comment you just made.

Quote :

"Golovko TURBO 19587 Posts user info edit post anyone else find it odd that this kid's spent so much money on TWW? 10/3/2007 10:12:41 AM TreeTwista10 Nicholas Pileggi 56749 Posts user info edit post yep...and i find it more odd that he has spent so much money on a half dozen or so aliases, as well as a premium subscription, while always trying to convince people how much he supposedly doesn't care about this site 10/3/2007 10:13:53 AM"

Ten dollars and 3 aliases (this one because I just wanted a new one) is a lot of money to spend on a website that has provided me with 7 years of entertainment, connections, and other "nice to haves"?

Look, I'm sorry I had to get snarky with you, but why did you spend 600 words, quote boxes, and a non trivial amount of your time at 1am if you didn't have any new arguments to add to your position?

It has already been undermined most recently by
myself
Jcash
Erios
and theDuke (even though your retarded ass thought he was agreeing with you)

and most likely others earlier in the thread (not bothering to read back through it).

Either add something else, or just concede that your position is dead.

I mean, at the very least just troll, right? Thats what you normally do when your point fails and you get called on it?

10/3/2007 10:17:14 PM

chance were you in a lds 187 seminar tonight?

10/3/2007 10:25:06 PM

Tonight I have been having swordfish, roasted potatoes, salad, wine, and German chocolate.

I have not had any lds.

10/3/2007 10:34:18 PM

man even i wouldnt be on tww for that

10/3/2007 10:39:00 PM

Oh, I've already eaten and the friends went home. Just chillin on the couch watching the brain drain with my gal.

10/3/2007 10:43:39 PM