But it's OK because the US is going to use them to attack their enemies......oh.

He's just planning ahead, and getting ready to continue doing God's work should he be re-elect...

I've known about Bush's pushing for new weapons for some time now and have had some time to think about it. Of course I do not want any more nukes being made. I do not advocate the use of them. I think everything about them is horrible. However I must support Bush's stance on this...why? I'm very afraid of North Korea's and it's current/future capabilities. They're military is becoming so embedded and capable that they are turning into one of the worlds biggest threats [link] . Every year North Korea's military buries itself underground. Most of the command structure of and much the military (including longer-range missiles) is currently underground and cannot be touched by ANY weapon of ANY military. They are suspected of having nuclear capabilities and they are known to have chemical/biological. They are capable of launching these warheads into Japan, S. Korea, and many of the surrounding countries. They will be capable of hitting Hawaii, Alaska, and other distant targets this year with a new missile [link] .

Bush and our military know that they only way to beat these guys in the event of a war is to hit them underground. Taking over the surface will not solve the case. They still would be able to launch WMD attacks against targets with their missiles. It would take too long to wait them out or to infiltrate the bunkers & underground complexes. How can we hit them underground? Nuclear-bunker busters.

That new nuclear research will going into producing more efficient nuclear bombs (more bang, less contamination). It will also go into designing better bunker bombs that can penetrate the ground better. The further down it is, the more damage to the bunker will occur, and the less amount of contaminated soil will be blown into the environment. [link] . Some believe we would never be able to strike the depths required to take out the North Korean targets (up to 200+ feet). Even if we used the biggest bomb possible and it went down as far as it physically could, it still would not damage the bunker and would simply create a huge environmental disaster in the surrounding areas and possibly countries. [link] . However others feel that multiple smaller nuclear devices in a series of hits would eventually dig (in chunks) a hole to the bunker and take the target out [link] . It would take more time but the environmental effects would be not as harsh.

I hate the idea of using a nuclear weapon. It's a horrible thing. However, if N. Korea gets out of control, I'll push the damn button myself. Some people argue that N. Korea would never launch an attack and they simply stepping up for a defensive strike. Screw that, we know that is never true with our World history. Eventually they will go on the offensive. And the damage they would cause to the world could be far greater than the damage a few nukes in Korea could do. With that I support Bush and his new effort on this.

Here's the scenario in a different context:

The biggest kid in the playground, with great strength and skill goes up to another kid on the playground, an inferior rival, and beats him into a bloody pulp. When taken for questioning the bigger kid's defense is that the victim was going to punch him sooner or later; it was only a matter of time. A few months pass and they eventually find out that the smaller kid/victim never had any limbs.

Of course, as we see in the context of reality, there are many people that will stand firm in believing that the bigger kid was justified in his actions. Many will argue that this 'pre-emptive strike' was a completely rational form of defense. It's an interesting situation...

So where are we now? The bigger kid wants money from his parents so he can show up at school with the biggest gun...for self defense of course.

I'm curious as to how George W. Bush balances the scales when it comes to lives. History has shown that a balance of power, where both sides are to afraid to attack because both would be nearly obliterated, works. Why does the Bush administration feel that having a ridiculous amount of power in comparison to the rest of the world ensures peace? Perhaps this can be linked to racism, the sad facts are that most people are just plain greedy/selfish. I'm sorry for my cynical take on the situation, and again for the glib analogy, but that's the way it looks right now. Someone would rather push a button and have millions of people half way around the world be wiped out than die themselves. It makes me embarrassed to be a member of the human race, I honestly thought we were better than that.

I hope, for the sake of everyone everywhere, that George W. Bush is voted out this coming November. If he's re-elected it will only go to show that a majority of Americans care more about how much their paying for taxes than how many lives are lost because of a disgraceful foreign policy.

To be clear, I don't hate George W. Bush, he's done some good things, but overall I'm rather disappointed. Who know's, maybe he's a nice guy, but his foreign policy needs some rethinking.

'The pen is mightier than the sword, and considerably easier to write with...' - Credit due to original author.

I do not like GWB, plain and simple. I don't like the pre-emptive strike thing either, F GWB for that.

However, I have to question some of your statements though..."Why does the Bush administration feel that having a ridiculous amount of power in comparison to the rest of the world ensures peace?" - When it comes to a truly rogue nation that has the potential to attack someone then yes, it would ensure world peace. If N. Korea eventually had enough military power (that succeeded the rest of the world's) they would most likely start a war. So the U.S. military, backed by Bush, feels that we need to keep an edge on these rogue nations will keep them from attacking other nations. It scares me to think that we need these weapons, but I think it is a necessity in the case of certain nations (N. Korea and their bunkers in example).

"Someone would rather push a button and have millions of people half way around the world be wiped out than die themselves. It makes me embarrassed to be a member of the human race, I honestly thought we were better than that." - Millions? Since when does the U.S. attack millions?
And wouldn't you defend your nation against an attack from another? You are just going to sit their and take it? What if their attack will cause millions of death to your own home country?

I'll say it again I hate these weapons but I know that they, eventually, could end up saving lives. Oh, one more thing, I mean the nuclear buster bunkers. I don't support the above ground blow the city up type of nuclear devices.

I understand your fear of N. Korea it is justifiable. After all, N. Korea is fucking pissed the hell off at America I should believe, their "great leader" did grow up during the Korean war that has heavily damaged his country. I would assume that he bears bad tidings toward Americans and America.

But making more bombs is only going to scare Kim Jong more and if he does crack and launch at us then China will back N. Korea like they have before and we will be left fighting a war in the middle-east a bigger war in the east and we will have started WW3.

The only thing that would make them offensive is a pre-emptive America buying weapons. If you're Kim Jong, you know America will attack you, you know it's making more bombs, what have you got to lose?

"But making more bombs is only going to scare Kim Jong more" - You are right...I hope it does. I hope he gets the feeling he cannot win and maybe gets smart and finally gives up the fight.

China is just about to guaranty that it will not goto war with the U.S. or any of its allies with the completion of a huge power generating dam [link] . That is way too easy of a target to hit and it would destroy China's economy if it was taken out. China will need to build up its industry and structure on the availability of the power from this dam and this will take time. During that time China will be able to stabilize and bring the rest of its nation up to speed to make it capable of a war with the U.S.. I don't think they will risk loosing that dam. I could be wrong though.

"The only thing that would make them offensive is a pre-emptive America buying weapons. If you're Kim Jong, you know America will attack you, you know it's making more bombs, what have you got to lose?" - I think differently but you could be correct. I don't think N. Korea is going to wait forever to make a move. I do think the U.S. is likely to attack N. Korea before this happens though...before they get too capable. That is something I completely support though. The people there are suffering immensly. I would gladly fight over there to free those people if needed. I can't stand the fact that in their prison camps, guards rape the women and girl, get them pregnant, let them carry the baby for almost nine months, and then pump them with saline to abort the child. (sorry that is a little off-topic but I just wanted to show how f'ed up that country is). I like to personally blow the nuts off of those guards.

I don't know, war sucks, nuclear bombs suck, it all sucks. It's a shame this N. Korea is going in the direction it is.

Didn't know about the dam, but you're right. It's a shame that N. Korea is making bombs along with the US... but it especially pisses me off that the US believes that other countries don't have the "right" to have WMDs while they mass produce them.

If we were 100% rightcheous then I would not mind us policing everyone, but I do not think we are.

Poo on America they aren't righteous.

History has rarely shown that having only two powers maintains a balance of peace. Only in the nuclear age of weaponry has this been true, and only due to the threat of ruinous retaliation (complete obliteration of the opposing side).

That said, peace has very often been maintained with just one world power. This is referred to as "Hegemonic Stability", when just one state has a preponderance of power. Generally, this is because the one state in power has a lot to benefit from maintaining peace and with it free and open trade to its benefit.

Examples of this include the post WWII but pre-US-Soviet nuclear arms race, and ages when Britain was the leading/only world superpower.

Now then, let's look at what kinds of WMD the Bush administration is proposing. Mostly, they are tactical nuclear weapons, not designed to destroy cities but bunkers, complexes, and mountainsides.

They are designed to prevent another Tora Bora, as well. One well-placed tactical nuke would have prevented Bin Laden's escape and saved the lives of several US personnel.

Additionally, these weapons are being designed in a way that will prevent excessive long-term effects of radiation. This costs money, but is friendly to the environment.

Yes, it's highly sensational to say, "Bush is making WMD's, he's bad, the US just doesn't want people playing the game!" But the simple fact is that the US, like any other state, wants to increase its power over others while also promoting world peace in order to strengthen its position. Every country is interested in doing it, and the US is no different.

Good way of putting it...except for the "is friendly to the environment" part.

Probably should have read something like, "will not cause as much fall-out as a typical, strategic nuke... but everything in the area will still be glowing green, only for a decade or so instead of centuries" ;)

"I do not like GWB, plain and simple."

Do you know how amusing this is? I hope you understand why because I'm not going to bother getting into the fact that you are a punk ass bitch who hates Bush and will take an opposing stance just to NOT side with him. :D

Nope, I refuse to get into it :D

Hahahaha bitch.

Or "friendlier" than the standard nukes.

Those of us NOT looking to jump on the defensive got what you were saying ;)

He supported Bush's policy in his post, while admitting a personal dislike for him...

Before everyone gets their panties in a bunch, let's stop to consider a few practical issues.

First, this article is an op/ed based on a report from the "Natural Resources Defense Council"- hardly an unbiased source.

Second, consider that our nuclear stockpiles are getting old; they're remnants of the Cold War, and in many cases are pushing 30 years old. As they get older, maintaining them becomes more costly- eventually it becomes cheaper to build new ones than keep maintaining the old ones.

Third, most our nukes were built to be used in a full-scale nuclear war with the Russians- something we're not currently too worried about. We all hope that nukes won't have to be used, but if they are, it is likely to be in the context of striking a few select targets with high precision- not something that our old Minuteman or Peacekeeper ICBM's can do very well. It only makes sense that the military would want to develop smaller, more precise weapons to be used against hardened targets (like an underground weapons facility) that conventional weapons couldn't reach.

Yes, there is the argument that if nukes get smaller and more precise, yielding far less "collateral damage" than our current weapons, that the disincentive in using them is reduced making their use more likely. I say screw those "no nukes" hippies and wackos. If a tactical nuke can eliminate an imminent threat to our national security, I'd like to know we have the appropriate weapons to do the job.

Did you miss the part where I supported him entirely on this subject?

I'm trying very hard at this point not to call you a biased retarded splaterpus who fucking trolls without even reading another's post. I'm trying real hard not to.

Hahahaha bitch.

I hope not.

"History has shown that a balance of power, where both sides are to afraid to attack because both would be nearly obliterated, works."

You do not know your history. If you mean RECENT history, you might have a point, but generally this is not at all true. There has usually been one country or empire that has dominated throughout history that has brought about an era of peace, and when that country or empire falls, the wars that result are a fight to establish dominance. The realm of Alexander, the Roman empire, British Empire, all are examples of eras when peace was ensued (during the realm of the empire mind you, not the wars leading up to the collection of states to become an empire). The only time a "balance of power" has ever been held and they haven't tried to kill each other, was during the cold war. Ever other time there were two strong powers, such as a medieval France and England, there was not peace or any balance of power. It was a continuous shift of power, back and forth, as one gained ground, and the other lost.

"I hope, for the sake of everyone everywhere, that George W. Bush is voted out this coming November. If he's re-elected it will only go to show that a majority of Americans care more about how much their paying for taxes than how many lives are lost because of a disgraceful foreign policy."

Indeed, because this policy was just put in place less then four years ago... Do you actually believe that? Do you really think Kerry will change our foreign policy to result in any kind of change? If you do, those are some serious blinders you have on. I hope for the sake of everyone everywhere that they do their own research, and make up their own mind, not blindly follow political rhetoric.

"To be clear, I don't hate George W. Bush, he's done some good things, but overall I'm rather disappointed. Who know's, maybe he's a nice guy, but his foreign policy needs some rethinking."

This has to be only regarding Iraq. Again, if you think this foreign policy is a recent enactment, please look at your US history. And if you think Kerry will remove our troops, you are mistaken. You do realize that Clinton also had worked up a plan to invade Iraq? I will work to find the article, but I believe he even stated it was a mistake NOT to enact the plan when Saddam blantently ignored UN resolutions.

As for your scenario... Well, that is quite special. If you break anything down enough, I suppose you can make if look to your favor. How about this one...

The biggest kid in the playground, with great strength and skill goes up to another kid on the playground, an inferior rival, and beats him into a bloody pulp. The rival, it seems, has taken over part of another smaller kids playground, and beat the smaller kid to a bloody pulp. As part of the result, the rival is placed on suspension by the school, made to give back that part of the playground and make to due extra homework and help clean. The rival not only denies being beaten, he goes to his friends and claims victory. He then snubs his nose at the school, and when the school takes away his lunch, he simply steals the lunch intended for his friends. Others at the school see this year after year, and as the rivals friends began to take a bad shape, they blame not the rival for not following the rules as a result of his beating, but the biggest kid, for enforcing the rules the school placed. It should be noted that all the kids in the school vote and make up the school, so the rules in fact were placed by all of them. Much later, after taking much heat from others in the school, and the constant snubbing of the biggest kid and the school by the rival, the biggest kid has had enough. In effort to finish what he started, the biggest kid goes back to the rival. Again, the rival puffs his chest and claims he cannot be defeated, taunting the biggest kid. The result being a worse beating then before. The others at the school admonish the biggest kid, only later do we find out that the others at the school who would not support the biggest kid, were actually trading and selling goods to the rival against school rules.

I think that is slightly more along the true lines, but I'm sure Ill get flamed.

*Dons his asbestos suit*

Yes a personal dislike AKA bias.

Yep, reading comprehension. You suck at it. Fucking moron.

Bias prevents impartial judgement. Personal feelings get in the way of being impartial. egardless if this is "in support" he is still biased.

Take you. You have a bias against me. This is why you keep pipingin trying to get back at all the schooling I've done to you. This is an "unfair act stemming from prejudice."

You are TOO easy.

Now DANCE!

Whoops forgot something:

"I don't like the pre-emptive strike thing either, F GWB for that. "

Yep, he supports him on this alright. Of course maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps that F doesn't mean FUCK. I wonder what else it could be though considering he has a personal dislike for him.

You are starting to do that retard dance like a certain Foob who shall remain nameless has been doing.

You know the one... Bob and shuffle, fall on down, stand back up and turn around! :eyemouth:

Fucking tard.

Holy crap... Can't you even let him have an opinion?

Troll.

Fiction again.

""I don't like the pre-emptive strike thing either, F GWB for that. "
Yep, he supports him on this alright. Of course maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps that F doesn't mean FUCK. I wonder what else it could be though considering he has a personal dislike for him."

In case you are too dumb to figure it out yourself, there are two topics here. One - Supporting the dev. of newer nuclear weapons (check plus in my book) and, two, a pre-emptive strike (check minus in my book). So tell everyone here Rev on WTF your problem is. What are you trying to prove? Is it bad that I don't like Bush for one thing, yet I support him on another. Are you trying to get me to slip up on something? Or is it you have nothing to prove at all? Anyways, you are the one that needs to dance. Every time I think of you, I think of the movie "Zoolander" and the part when Stiller is dancing in a monkey suit "Dance Monkey Dance!" The only problem with this is every time I see the movie I remember how much of a monkey you really are. You tarnished a perfectly good movie.

Fucking tard.

Right back at me? Ahem... sorry, I'm not the one making statements about being non-biased about Bush when I am.

"So tell everyone here Rev on WTF your problem is. What are you trying to prove?"

That you are a lying sack of shit that just can't admit the fact that he is a biased mother fucker. You just admitted it yet refused to do so in the other topic. Got it yet fuckmo?

"Is it bad that I don't like Bush for one thing, yet I support him on another."

No what is bad is that you blatantly claim a bias here yet refuse to fucking admit it in the other thread. You are just a fucking liar is all. That is what is bad.

"Are you trying to get me to slip up on something? Or is it you have nothing to prove at all"

No you did it yourself. You shouldn't have tried to hard to defend an obvious lie like you did. Your bias against me fucked that up for you. You let your emotions and feelings get in the way. I proved my point and you just reaffirmed it. Thanks :)

"Fucking tard."

Thanks, you saved me the trouble. You have been schooled and you are dancing just fine.

Hey fucker, did you miss the part where you pointed out that you were totally biased against him?

Me biased? Against retards I am very biased. I'm sorry you fit into that category. stop being such a dipshit and I won't have to keep correcting you or pointing out your contradictions and idiocy.


Yep you are a bitch. You're my bitch. Every time you post I own you. Keep dancing my little retarded cum filled bitch.

Hey cunt, he does have an opinion and I'm not supressing it. I only point out the fact that he is a liar.

Remember cuntboy, you're the one that came back and said you'd be trolling me. So it's a bit ironic that you are piping in with the troll moniker.

I'm just calling a spade a spade. I don't need to troll. He's doing just fine on his own. However when evidence presents itself I will point it out.

Your mother's tit is getting cold boy.

Keep hoping then.

You are always jumping on the defense. You're already doing it now. So like I said keep hoping.

Just saying that for no apparent reason you came in with an insult about him not liking Bush, you said nothing valid to the point at hand and you made an ass of yourself.

Deal with it troll.

Cunt = 2

I finally have seen WTF is going on here and, yet again, it's your warped mind screwing things up. Lets take a couple steps back here monkey-boy. I'll walk slow, I know it's tough to move fast with those little monkey legs. The original argument regarding me and GWB pertained to how my bias towards Bush affects my decisions regarding Bush. What you are arguing here is if I am biased towards Bush. OK, you win you new warped argument, I am biased towards Bush. However, if we go back to the original argument, the one that really counts, you still loose. I clearly showed my support for Bush in the matter of the nuclear weapons even though, yes, I am biased towards him.

So now that you have been proven wrong, yet again, what are you gonna do? Make up some more stuff trying to put me down? Maybe you should try using that rock inside your head before you reply again.

Oh, and me being on the defensive? What is wrong with that? You accused me of something I am not, I proved you wrong, and you come back with more insults, false logic, and warped Rev facts. How else should I react? I'm not a catcher Rev. I'm not gonna sit there, take it, and like it like you are so obviously used to. I once knew someone like you--person that would take jabs at another person until they got pissed off. When the person finally got pissed, the asshole, or troll as I believe you would call them, backed off and tried to make the other person look like a dick. I finally put a lock on your personality.

Now dance for me monkey boy, dance!

Oh you are boring me again, why don't you...Dance monkey-boy dance!

Hey Rev can you wind yourself up or should I? [link]

Dance Monkey-Boy Dance!

Who were you referring too then troll?

Wow I guess that was too direct for you.

Maybe this will help. You can keep hoping but it won't do any good. All the hope in the world won't change the fact that you are a biased, lying, tard.

I don't need to troll. I can just point out your errors and lies and you do the rest. For example, this little piece of stupidity you posted. Not much more I can say about it. It's pretty retarded in it's own right. I don't think even Juan could top it.

Than again Juan is pretty talented...

No apparent reason? I suppose you must have been out of town while the whole oil rig debate was raging. The point at hand is that he is biased.

The only one trolling is you ;)

You're dancing just fine though. Keep it up. Oh wait, I think I hear your mother's tit calling. After you're done feeding you can go take a nap.

Dance.



link]" border="0">

You've


Got


Nothing.

"What you are arguing here is if I am biased towards Bush. OK, you win you new warped argument, I am biased towards Bush. However, if we go back to the original argument, the one that really counts, you still loose. I clearly showed my support for Bush in the matter of the nuclear weapons even though, yes, I am biased towards him."

We'll break this down so you can follow along. You are biased AGAINT Bush. You aren't FOR him thus you aren't biased TOWARDS him.

The original argument was that you were biased and it affects your decision making. Note you mentioned "F GWB" and his prepairdness. Funny, that's going against him and his decisions yet supporting being stocked. Contradictions. You support the effort but will say fuck him just because you are BIASED AGAINT Bush.

Heh. You lost. You are making my points for me. It is way too easy. Supported him regarding the nuclear weapons but Fuck him. Your logic is baffling.

"So now that you have been proven wrong, yet again, what are you gonna do? Make up some more stuff trying to put me down? Maybe you should try using that rock inside your head before you reply again."

I'm wrong because I can prove you wrong? Wow. Is that what they call BAKED logic? PErhaps you should stop doing drugs, it's killing your brain. (Based on the presumption you HAd a brain to begin with.)

"Oh, and me being on the defensive? What is wrong with that? You accused me of something I am not, I proved you wrong, and you come back with more insults, false logic, and warped Rev facts."

Hahaha. Accused you of something you aren't? You just admitted you were a few times now. Sorry chum, the only one telling lies here is you. the facts are yours. The only logic that fails is yours.

"How else should I react? I'm not a catcher Rev. I'm not gonna sit there, take it, and like it like you are so obviously used to."

No you squirm while catching it. I keep pushing it in and you wriggle like a worm on a hook. The way to react is to admit when you are wrong when you are actually wrong (i.e. facts to back up you are wrong.) You already stated you are biased. ADMIT IT and the matter will be dropped. Simple as that.

"I once knew someone like you--person that would take jabs at another person until they got pissed off. When the person finally got pissed, the asshole, or troll as I believe you would call them, backed off and tried to make the other person look like a dick. I finally put a lock on your personality."

I see I'm taking jabs at people to piss them off. Funny, the folks here that will do anything to go in opposition of me are pretty well known here. They reap what they sow. You and I have had discussion on various things, this is the only one that I recall getting this heated. The only reason it got this far is because you have become a defensive little prick that can't just admit when he's wrong. So I'll keep calling you on it until the situation gets resolved.

So I'm sorry to inform you, you don't know what my personality is. If you feel offended that's your issue to work out and deal with. Perhaps you need to look at WHY you feel offended. The saying goes, "truth hurts." Don't like something change it. However, understand you won't change me so the only thing you can change is yourself.

I realize you've just started resorting to the childish antics because you can't hack it but all you are doing is hurting whatever credibility you actually HAD. the more you keep it up the more you can expect to reap a bad crop.

I fuck little chumps like you for breakfast. I'm barbed with veins that grip. Don't fuck with me because I'll leave you bleeding and sobbing in the gutter when I'm through with you.

Have a nice day :)

Man.. seriously... That debate is over. This one is new.

You see, he can like one thing that Bush also likes and still be biased against him...

Do you actually believe what you say?

This just in.. Reverend Jynxed a pedaphile, claims he "Fucks little chumps for breakfast."

Whoa Rev.. Childish antics? Like insulting someone's personality, sex, age, or beliefs in a violent way?

fuck = 2

Still you are wrong, show me how my not liking GWB biased my thoughts in the post. If I was guilty as you say I would not have supported Bush and his actions regarding these tactical nukes. Please show me the connection.

Again I will state that I do not like Bush. Yes I have a bias towards him. However this bias does not, ultimately, affect my decisions regarding his actions. If he does things I do not like, I say so. If he does things I do like, I make sure that is know. Again, what is wrong with this?

In regards to the childish antics you say I've resorted too. This is only in response to your own childish antics. Hippocrate.

"only reason it got this far is because you have become a defensive little prick that can't just admit when he's wrong" - I'll admit when I'm wrong Rev. Prove me wrong. Prove that my negative bias towards GWB caused me to support him in regards to the nuclear weapons.

"If you feel offended that's your issue to work out and deal with. Perhaps you need to look at WHY you feel offended." - I am not offended. However, I am amazed at how you have handled this arguement. Once again I will ask you to prove how my not liking GWB is biasing my decisions.

Prove me wrong and I will admit to it. You have yet to do so.

Have a nice day :)

Is this your last resort to keeping your credibility. Oh I'm sorry, you don't have any.

You accused me of childhood antics. What do you call this last response by yourself? Hippocrate.

Dance for daddy monkey boy.

Again I ask, who was your post referenced too? Answer the question and quit with the fiction.

Fiction. Another word you need to look up. The question has been answered.

I wonder if you can HOPE and DANCE at the same time... so far you are doing pretty well.

Careful though, you might trip on your bias.

I didn't feel offended by his post... I knew he was just pointing out a funny error in my spelling/word usage. I know I messed up (then again, look at the time the post was made), and thought it was funny myself.

You jumped to an unwarranted conclusion.

Huh?

This is what I was talking about in other posts - too many people accept biased editorials as news. This isn't too healthy.

Rev has "experience".... you just wouldn't understand....

Oh, and you're wrong... because... he says so... even though he doesn't attempt to substantiate his claims.

I don't care if you feel offended or not. PErhaps to a liberal pussy it may have seemed like an error and of course the rest of you hens will go around and cackle about it but really, try to be a bit more mature about it hmmm?

There was no unwarranted conclusion. He immediately jumped in and let his bias lead the way. Simple as that.

Now fuck off.

No I'm right because I can prove it. I'm right because those who claim they can prove me wrong can't. It's the trolls like you who refuse to accept the evidence provided, even when it is your own.

Silly troll, why not go back to sucking satan's dick hmmmm?

Since you're so great at defending my posts (when I don't ask for it or need it), I think you'd be awesome in the army! Yeah, but they wouldn't let you in, so maybe you should go join the reserves intead and really make a great defense.

Oh, wait, no... you'd never do such a thing. It's unpatriotic.

Good old Rev, I almost missed your self-proclaimed infallibility. Almost.

-The Artist Formerly known as Leptictitious