Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

George H W Bush has died

Options
1…456810

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    markodaly
    Registered Users Posts: 13,948 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    nullzero wrote: »
    There are differing opinions on that point, so it is your belief.

    There is also differing opinion on whether the earth is flat or round, despite being no evidence of the former. A belief based on fact is not the same as a belief based on nothing than mere emotion. Know the difference.


  • Options
    #213
    nullzero
    Registered Users Posts: 16,355 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    ****


    markodaly wrote: »
    There is also differing opinion on whether the earth is flat or round, despite being no evidence of the former. A belief based on fact is not the same as a belief based on nothing than mere emotion. Know the difference.

    There are engineers who dispute the official version of the 9-11 story, qualified people who aren't working off of emotion.
    Comparing this to flat earth theory isn't rational and is another example of your inability to have a discussion with somebody without being condescending and insulting, as is your statement "know the difference".
    I've seen you on other threads acting exactly the same way, you appear incapable of accepting other people's right to hold differing opinions and you express that by being coarse and abusive.

    Glazers Out!



  • Options
    #214
    Laois_Man
    Registered Users Posts: 5,758 ✭✭✭Laois_Man


    Galwayguy35 wrote: »
    He seemed like a decent enough skin and kept kept his fly shut unlike the guy who replaced him.


    Are you sure about that?

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41766987


  • Options
    #215
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,126 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Laois_Man wrote: »
    Are you sure about that?

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41766987


    Not quite in the same league as Bill.


  • Options
    #216
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,358 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    He was never going to get a second term when he reneged on the "no new taxes" claim.

    RIP


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    markodaly
    Registered Users Posts: 13,948 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    nullzero wrote: »
    There are engineers who dispute the official version of the 9-11 story, qualified people who aren't working off of emotion.

    They may dispute it all they want but unless there are actual hard proof and a credible evidence-based alternative proven theory, then its just that, a belief.

    You are free to hold whatever view you want, but I am also free to call those views stupid in return. Them the breaks. There is a forum on boards.ie for cranks and kooks to peddle their conspiracy theories day and night.

    No one is stopping you from posting there. However, if you think you can peddle the same nonsense out in the open without people calling you out on it, well you are going to be sorely disappointed.


  • Options
    #218
    tuxy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,983 ✭✭✭✭tuxy


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Not quite in the same league as Bill.

    Because it was consensual with Bill?


  • Options
    #219
    nullzero
    Registered Users Posts: 16,355 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    ****


    markodaly wrote: »
    They may dispute it all they want but unless there are actual hard proof and a credible evidence-based alternative proven theory, then its just that, a belief.

    You are free to hold whatever view you want, but I am also free to call those views stupid in return. Them the breaks. There is a forum on boards.ie for cranks and kooks to peddle their conspiracy theories day and night.

    No one is stopping you from posting there. However, if you think you can peddle the same nonsense out in the open without people calling you out on it, well you are going to be sorely disappointed.

    The only difference between the official story and the differing opinions is that the official story has the stamp of official on it.
    A number of members of the 9-11 commission stated that they were not allowed to carry out their duties properly after the report was published.
    This is not supposition or simple fantastical whimsy.

    You are free to call anything you want stupid, but it only further highlights your inability to have a conversation on this site without descending into insults which says more about you than anyone else.

    I'm posting here and will continue to do so until I'm told otherwise by the site staff.
    I'm being respectful of other people's opinions (I've noted that people are unlikely to agree on this issue a few days ago), but you feel entitled to be as belligerent and insulting as you want, we'll that's not how discussions work.
    If people want to discuss topics on the conspiracy forum that's their right, you don't have the right to label them cranks and kooks, even if you don't like what they're saying. You should be ashamed of yourself but I'm assuming you're actually quite proud of your behaviour.

    Glazers Out!



  • Options
    #220
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,126 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    tuxy wrote: »
    Because it was consensual with Bill?


    because it was a 90 year old man in a wheelchair who didnt intend anything sexual.


  • Options
    #221
    tuxy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,983 ✭✭✭✭tuxy


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    because it was a 90 year old man in a wheelchair who didnt intend anything sexual.

    Are you sure?
    We were told that Bush had, during a photo opp, groped her and told her that his favourite magician was “David Cop-a-Feel” while fondling her.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,126 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    tuxy wrote: »
    Are you sure?


    groped. Fondled. Words used by the story writer not by the women themselves. I'm not excusing what he did but to describe it as sexual assault is a little bit much.


  • Options
    #223
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,124 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Laois_Man wrote: »
    Are you sure about that?

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41766987

    My mum used to be a geriatric nurse. And she said that you'd always find randy old men. Guys just groping away.

    I wonder if there's something about old age, dementia etc, which makes this kind of behaviour more likely. Or were they like that their whole lives and just continued?


  • Options
    #224
    Neyite
    Administrators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,947 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Neyite


    Grayson wrote: »
    I wonder if there's something about old age, dementia etc, which makes this kind of behaviour more likely. Or were they like that their whole lives and just continued?


    Certain medicines can increase friskiness, such as some for dementia and Parkinsons. Then there's the old fashioned attitudes some old men might still have towards women, and lastly, if they are of a gropey mindset, they probably think that nobody will be bothered to prosecute a really old man in a wheelchair so are emboldened to feel up anyone unfortunately in the vicinity of their wheelchair.


  • Options
    #225
    Galwayguy35
    Registered Users Posts: 16,272 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    Laois_Man wrote: »
    Are you sure about that?

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41766987

    Spare me.

    Yeah I can see how that would be the same as Bill taking out his cock in front of women working in the White house and hopping on anything with a pulse.

    93 year olds in a wheelchair are very dangerous all right.


  • Options
    #226
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    Never knew he had a daughter who died of leukaemia. How sad.


  • Options
    #227
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    This guff and his son the war criminal on Ellen. Trump really has set the bar low with the Bushes being seen as decent or reasonable in comparison.


  • Options
    #228
    ceadaoin.
    Registered Users Posts: 8,094 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    Grayson wrote: »
    My mum used to be a geriatric nurse. And she said that you'd always find randy old men. Guys just groping away.

    I wonder if there's something about old age, dementia etc, which makes this kind of behaviour more likely. Or were they like that their whole lives and just continued?

    Inappropriate sexual behaviour is common in people with dementia. I've read that it could be one of the early warning signs that something is wrong if someone suddenly starts acting in that way when they weren't like that before.


  • Options
    #229
    tuxy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,983 ✭✭✭✭tuxy


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    This guff and his son the war criminal on Ellen. Trump really has set the bar low with the Bushes being seen as decent or reasonable in comparison.

    You leave W alone, all the poor man wants to do is draw paintings of his dogs.

    Screen-Shot-2013-03-21-at-9.43.26-AM.png

    Adorable <3


  • Options
    #230
    RobbingBandit
    Registered Users Posts: 18,075 ✭✭✭✭RobbingBandit


    9/11 conspiracies I'd say you're barking up the wrong Bush


  • Options
    #231
    markodaly
    Registered Users Posts: 13,948 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    nullzero wrote: »
    The only difference between the official story and the differing opinions is that the official story has the stamp of official on it.

    This is what cranks and kooks say all the time, that they claim those in authority and with the expertise to carry out an investigation is merely the mouthpiece of some conspiracy or something.

    Again, to repeat. Having someone disagree with the official version of events does not give them an equal share of expertise or knowledge on the subject matter as those experts who took part in the investigation. The latter are subject to public oversight and congressional hearings, while the kooks and cranks can spin their web of deceit and lies in the shadows and are not subject to the same oversight.

    I'm posting here and will continue to do so until I'm told otherwise by the site staff.

    Grand, never told you otherwise. You are free to continue to post here and spin your 9/11 conspiracy theories all you want but I will call you out on it.
    For one to prevent the more gullible to be sucked into some easy zeitgeist narrative not to mind it being disrespectful to the 3,000 people that died that day.

    you don't have the right to label them cranks and kooks,.

    Oh but I do. I'll call a spade a spade. If people believe in a flat earth, or lizard people or 9/11 black ops, none of which has any evidence to back it up, ill call them cranks and kooks because that is what they are.

    Not all opinions are equal or have to be respected. You have the right to have them or say it, but to respect it is a different matter.

    What you are essentially saying is that you have the right to voice an opinion and NOT be challenged on it. It doesn't work that way.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    nullzero
    Registered Users Posts: 16,355 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    ****


    markodaly wrote: »
    This is what cranks and kooks say all the time, that they claim those in authority and with the expertise to carry out an investigation is merely the mouthpiece of some conspiracy or something.

    Again, to repeat. Having someone disagree with the official version of events does not give them an equal share of expertise or knowledge on the subject matter as those experts who took part in the investigation. The latter are subject to public oversight and congressional hearings, while the kooks and cranks can spin their web of deceit and lies in the shadows and are not subject to the same oversight.




    Grand, never told you otherwise. You are free to continue to post here and spin your 9/11 conspiracy theories all you want but I will call you out on it.
    For one to prevent the more gullible to be sucked into some easy zeitgeist narrative not to mind it being disrespectful to the 3,000 people that died that day.




    Oh but I do. I'll call a spade a spade. If people believe in a flat earth, or lizard people or 9/11 black ops, none of which has any evidence to back it up, ill call them cranks and kooks because that is what they are.

    Not all opinions are equal or have to be respected. You have the right to have them or say it, but to respect it is a different matter.

    What you are essentially saying is that you have the right to voice an opinion and NOT be challenged on it. It doesn't work that way.

    I'm not suggesting for a second that I shouldn't be challenged on what I'm saying, my issue is that you are incapable of accepting differing opinions, and more to the point the fact that you use childish insults to belittle people.

    The thing about 9-11 is that there is evidence to suggest that the official story isn't correct. That evidence is dismissed out of hand and to people such as yourself that makes it "stupid" etc.

    What you've said about not needing to respect certain opinions is fine, but you show a complete lack of respect to the person at the same time which is the issue I take with you personally, you're free to disagree but you really need to accept that opinions you find outlandish exist and that people have the right to hold them and by extension you don't have the inherit right to be insulting towards them as a result.

    As for the pulling on the heart strings bit about being disrespectful towards the victims can I remind you that there wasn't going to be a 9-11 commission until the relatives of those victims demanded it?
    I'm assuming there are a lot of things about this issue you are ignorant of as a lot of people are. The oversight you speak of was laughable, Bush and cheney giving evidence behind closed doors which was never recorded, complete oversight, so incredibly transparent.
    You think you have your ducks in a row and you're showing me up, you patently have no idea what you're talking about and you're being condescending at the same time we'll done, bravo.

    Glazers Out!



  • Options
    #233
    markodaly
    Registered Users Posts: 13,948 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    nullzero wrote: »
    The thing about 9-11 is that there is evidence to suggest that the official story isn't correct.

    What is this 'evidence'?


  • Options
    #234
    nullzero
    Registered Users Posts: 16,355 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    ****


    markodaly wrote: »
    What is this 'evidence'?

    Go to YouTube and search for architects and engineers for 9-11 truth.
    Highly qualified cranks and kooks, what would they know?

    Glazers Out!



  • Options
    #235
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,126 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    nullzero wrote: »
    Go to YouTube and search for architects and engineers for 9-11 truth.
    Highly qualified cranks and kooks, what would they know?


    Jet fuel cannot melt steel beams. Am i doing it right?


  • Options
    #236
    nullzero
    Registered Users Posts: 16,355 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    ****


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Jet fuel cannot melt steel beams. Am i doing it right?

    You got me. Every high rise that's burned for less than two hours in history has collapsed, silly me.

    Glazers Out!



  • Options
    #237
    rossie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 11,341 ✭✭✭✭rossie1977


    nullzero wrote: »
    You got me. Every high rise that's burned for less than two hours in history has collapsed, silly me.

    How many have been hit 80 ton planes travelling at 400mph first?


  • Options
    #238
    markodaly
    Registered Users Posts: 13,948 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    nullzero wrote: »
    Go to YouTube and search for architects and engineers for 9-11 truth.
    Highly qualified cranks and kooks, what would they know?

    Ah, a youtube video. Great 'evidence' there. I am sure its been peer-reviewed by the most vaunted engineering journals.

    So, no evidence then, like I suspected. If the best you have is a youtube video, then I am afraid I will have to stick to the proven turn of events.

    The mere fact that you don't think that the towers collapsed solely due to the planes that flew into them means in my book you join the cranks and kooks category. I guess it must have been all that explosives that were rigged all over the place, yet no one has a shred of proof these explosives existed..... funny that.


  • Options
    #239
    markodaly
    Registered Users Posts: 13,948 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    rossie1977 wrote: »
    How many have been hit 80 ton planes travelling at 400mph first?

    Full of tens of thousands of gallons of aviation fuel mind you as well...


  • Options
    #240
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,126 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    markodaly wrote: »
    Ah, a youtube video. Great 'evidence' there. I am sure its been peer-reviewed by the most vaunted engineering journals.

    So, no evidence then, like I suspected. If the best you have is a youtube video, then I am afraid I will have to stick to the proven turn of events.

    The mere fact that you don't think that the towers collapsed solely due to the planes that flew into them means in my book you join the cranks and kooks category. I guess it must have been all that explosives that were rigged all over the place, yet no one has a shred of proof these explosives existed..... funny that.


    That is just the typical 911 truther tactic. Bombard people with endless YT videos and claim you dont understand what really happened until you do. What makes it worse is that the videos are usually terribly made and very low on facts.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    nullzero
    Registered Users Posts: 16,355 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    ****


    markodaly wrote: »
    Ah, a youtube video. Great 'evidence' there. I am sure its been peer-reviewed by the most vaunted engineering journals.

    So, no evidence then, like I suspected. If the best you have is a youtube video, then I am afraid I will have to stick to the proven turn of events.

    The mere fact that you don't think that the towers collapsed solely due to the planes that flew into them means in my book you join the cranks and kooks category. I guess it must have been all that explosives that were rigged all over the place, yet no one has a shred of proof these explosives existed..... funny that.

    The response I expected, highly qualified people = no proof.

    Tower 7 collapsed having not being hit by a plane with minimal fire damage but I'm sure the "official turn of events" on that is peer reviewed enough to satisfy you.

    In my book you join the ostrich category, but that's your right.

    There is probable cause from the Islamic terrorists to have carried out the attacks no doubt, but they are intrinsically linked to American intelligence agencies, they're from Saudi Arabia funded by people connected to the Bush family and the incident resulted in the foundation for continued military spending and crucially arms manufacturing and sales.
    It's not pleasant to think that American intelligence agencies could be complicit in 9-11 but these people regularly involve themselves in death and destruction all over the world, why would they develop a conscience when it's happening on American soil?

    Glazers Out!



Advertisement