Because I know roughly what it's about and don't need to know more, it's about you being an idiot truther (in denial) and people with a bit more common sense are trying to argue using logic which won't work. Whether you've strayed to a particular part of the bull**** conversation doesn't matter, same ****

This is a thread for the worst quotes of all time. I'm sure you've dropped a few worthy quotes in this back-and-forth you're having, but people shouldn't have to read through pages of deuces-drivel to get there.

Go ruin a spanky thread instead

You know jack ****. People calling me a truther, argument by labeling bull****, is going to be challenged.

I see this thread as a place to deal with actual quotes as oppose to the gossipy bull**** of the worst posters thread but I see you have other designs. I could give a **** if you have to wade through some back and forth you're not interested in. Do you see me whining about Paul D's childlike scribblings about economics ITT. No. I just glide past it or, if I feel like it, read and laugh. I suggest you untwist your panties and follow suit. Or don't.

If you had answered the question in the 9/11 thread where this started instead of requiring shaming in 3 different threads people would still think you're a dick, but they wouldn't be so pissed at you in this thread.

Kerowo please stop engaging him.

I have a record of answering the question, consistently, over many posts spanning back to a 911 thread over a year ago.

If you don't want my discussion in this thread, then don't nominate my quotes. And any time the conspiratard label is thrown at me to discredit me, a discussion of 911 will ensue. That's only fair. I don't think I have ever brought up 911 out of nowhere. I've never started a thread about 911. I don't bump the existing threads to fire them up after the familiar patterns, where attempts at discussions from skeptics are met with baseless ridicule from the faithful, reiterate.

In other words, don't start no 911 stuff won't be no 911 stuff.

Or you could take your lumps like not an insecure child and resist the urge to furiously defend your HoS nominations. That too is an option.

I wanted the discussion in the 9/11 thread where it started.

What actual conspiratard beliefs do you not hold?

what coincitard belief do you not hold, Bushie loyalist? Is there a single one? Or is the narrative 100% as they said?

I suppose you don't need to post these in here when they are made in here, but whatevs.

So you don't have an answer for the very easy question... There's not a single aspect of the official narrative that you don't adhere to. That's how wide the bridge is here.

Telling that you'd be shy to admit you eat it all up, like the good little loyalist you are. Own your "America can do no wrong" patriotism. Don't be afraid.

Meanwhile, we can admit there are kernels of accuracy throughout the bogus overall narrative. You guys the other way? Not a chance.

First, **** off you horrible little man, I bet BruceZ likes you.

Second, I don't give one single **** about anything you spout about in the 9/11 thread. My interest in 9/11 starts and ends with debunking ****tards who think something brought the buildings down besides the planes. I don't read your wall of text posts in that thread. To avoid getting all Dueces up in this thread I'm not going to respond you in this thread anymore. If you want to take it up again in the 9/11 thread go right ahead.

You mad, bro?

All I asked was if there was a single aspect of the official 9/11 narrative that you don't gratefully take deep, deep inside.

Uh huh, sure you don't. Those occasions where you trolled in my wake were just mistaken identity, I guess. The one that displayed your curious obsession with dick size was especially telling. So I'll speak in a language your obv. prefer.

No, your interest starts and ends with being surface-level a troll to anyone in that thread that doesn't deep throat the Bush League version of events, like you hungrily do. Perfect example being:

When you admit reading is a hurdle on a topic you feel obnoxiously passionate about, you've already lost. ...

But do continue to punch your weight. You're no match here.

Yeah, good coice. Run along then.

Jiggs fighting the good fight for peak oil and LIHOP in the ****** quotes thread, ****ing classic man.

Amazing

wow

Pretty bad.

.

RE: Multinational campaign against Islamic State forces in Syria, in which "Aircraft from several Arab states took part in the attack. They were: Bahrain, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates..."

Almost, RowCoach... only 0 for 5. No Middle East states took part in W's coalition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-N...%E2%80%93_Iraq

Phill on why modernizing nuclear weapons is not necessary:

is your objection something like the development of bunker busters and whatnot?

it's always hard to tell because we aren't a forum for mind readers

If only there was some way to find out where a post came from and read the context that it was posted in.

His objection is probably based on the string of terrible assertions Phill condensed into one paragraph of complete wrongness.

For example, it doesn't take a genius to realize that complicated systems with rockets, electronics, explosive materials, and other advanced technologies do in fact have a limited design life, both for maintainability and reliability reasons and also due to technology developments.

Did you really need ikes to point out that it is dumb to say 40-year old systems will be "just as functional" in 30 years as a newer system? You don't have to be a mind reader to lol at that.

And what does "This isnt like smartphones where there are new higher resolution displays every year" really mean? There have been developments in missile countermeasures over the decades, and yes a 40-year old system is not as good as a 10-year old system due to technology advances. Why wouldn't that be the case? Are nukes the only technology in the world that doesn't degrade nor advance?

Also, the systems to deliver nuclear weapons have changed over the years, too. New bombers, subs, and fighters in the future will require new weapons for reasons such as different internal configurations and delivery concepts, newer electronic and communication systems, etc.

I'm not arguing for more nuclear weapons, by the way. But the Phill's quote as posted by ikes is certainly worthy of this thread.

I don't disagree, and as your post points out, there are a multitude of reasons why his post was bad, I'm just curious which specifically motivated bringing it here.

Probably all of it, I guess, such a combination making for a noteworthy bad post and all.

Sounds good. Didn't mean to go nuclear on you.