Crap Throwing Monkey

And you still haven't answered my question: what was the aim point for the raids? That speaks directly to the "deliberation" you keep harping on...and yet, you can't answer the question. Probably because you don't know what you're talking about. You also don't understand the root of the "moral outrage" the raid caused...you blame it on "165 tons of incendiary bombs" which is twice wrong: 165 tons weren't used, and people weren't outraged by them. To explain it would take too long; books have been written on the subject. Lots of good ones. None of which you've read, obviously. I'm not going to rewrite one on a message board just for your convenience. You didn't comprehend a word I said, did you? The international commission responsible for determining such things says that human races are not subspecies. Period. That's not my opinion, that's hard fact. It just happens to contradict your opinion, based entirely on your inability to read and understand a medical dictionary.

Clearly you're ignorant, else you'd know why it's ignorant.

Didn't your mother ever tell you not to stick screwdrivers too far into your ear?

That proves nothing more than the video in the original post proves: Americans are !@#$ing stupid.

Oh goody...yet another person telling me I didn't see a plane hit the Pentagon. Guess what? I actually, with my own eyes, saw the plane that hit the Pentagon.

Thank you, but I like my balls.

Those numbers aren't even remotely accurate. Not even close. Nor is your interpretation of the reaction of "many reasonable people" to the use of incendiaries. Once again, all you're proving nothing more than you're completely ignorant about it. And you didn't answer my question. What was the aim point? Not "What was destroyed" (which you don't even know, anyway), but "What was aimed at?" Of course, you couldn't answer that, because you're a blockhead. Only by you. The way you use "race", it's synonymous with speciation. The way the rest of the non-Nazi world uses it, it's not. According to the authoritative body in charge of determining such things. So you disagree with the entire zoological community...and I'm the one who's arrogant. Go figure.

1) Get a second opinion. 2) See #1.

Oil. Lots of it.

Colorado abuts Four Corners; Wyoming's to the north. It's really not that hard.

Posting stoned, however...that's another story. It's very dangerous, as it entails the very severe risk of exposing innocent bystanders to idiocy like this...

But this is KurtGoebbels77 we're talking about. "Facts" are a completely alien concept to him.

That would be The Dean and...I have no idea.

Third-best. I'd have to rank watching the preseason meltdowns of pinheads on the board here second.

No...but a friend of a friend has been known to paint smiley-faces on them...

Are you an uninsured blue-collar worker? Because if you are, you should use a butter knife, masking tape, and a hair dryer to do it...

Answer a very simple question, then: what was the aim point for the bombers? Really, that should solve it: just tell me what the bombers were aiming at. Of course, you don't know...because you've never actually bothered to investigate anything about the bombing. Now you're an expert on military science as well? It's funny how you continually lecture me on things that I actually am an expert in. Downright hilarious. Hey, Princeton thinks "subspecies" and "race" are synonyms. But don't let that stop you from calling me a Nazi for embracing that same definition. This situation is a good example of why you have so little credibility in my eyes. I use the word "subspecies" as a synonym for race--just like Princeton. I went on to say that I wanted the world's races to continue to exist. You responded by accusing me of producing "nonsense about racial purity based on blacks being a separate and distinct species." Maybe it's too much to expect you to understand the difference between the words "species" and "subspecies." Hey, kingdom, family, order, class, genus, species, subspecies--they all mean the same thing, right? 747119[/snapback] Unfortunately, you're wrong again. You're confusing the biological definition of "race" with the sociological definition. The specific biological definition of "subspecies" is not "race" - in fact, the authoritative body that dictates such (the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) specifically states that "infrasubspecific entities" (i.e. human races) cannot be taxonomized zoologically, as they are not distinct enough - i.e., there's no process of speciation going on. However, to refer to different human races (a sociological distinction) as "subspecies" (a biological distinction) is a direct statement that you believe there is speciation going on - as I said earlier, you defined it (you actually defined it quite well...even though it was completely accidental). And I know you're going to come back with something to the effect of how DARE I disagree with Princeton. I don't disagree with Princeton. They're right. Within the appropriate context (i.e. biology). You're just - once again - far too stupid to understand them. But, I must say, you've finally confused me. I may actually have to admit the possibility that you may not be a Nazi: although the inability to distinguish sociology from biology is a true hallmark of Nazi racial philosophy, I have to admit in your case it may not be an intentional confusion, but stem solely from your almost total ignorance of...well, everything, really.

Oh, my God... "The professional celebutante..." Three words - two words and one made-up one, actually - and I've already found four things wrong with it.

You've never done brain surgery on yourself, have you?

Missed it when you posted it; I was apparently too busy arguing on behalf of the Jewish-Bolshevik conspiracy for the genocide of the German race...

Uhhhh...yeah...what?

It very well may be the greatest title ever. Doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid as well.

Because the title is so ungodly stupid. That's pretty much the only reason. Nice thing is, you either want to see it, or you don't. The title doesn't really leave much grey area. "Hey, do you want to go see Snakes on a Plane tonight?" "Uhhh...I dunno. What's it about?" Doesn't really work...

Draw smiley faces with what, exactly? Did you ask? I mean...if she's using oil-based exterior-grade latex paint, it's one thing. But if she's talking about chocolate sauce...

You can't say I'm biased. You aren't entirely accurate, though. While "moles" are desirable, sigint has it's place - and a very notable one at that. It's certainly the most reliable of intelligence in the military sphere, and I'd wager most of the successes in the GWOT have derived from signals intercept, even when the content of the signals isn't know (last week's fun was apparently spurred by a message traffic pattern that indicated the terrorist operation was imminent, not just being planned.) Plus...last time the administration acted on human intelligence (i.e. "moles"), we invaded Iraq. Humint is notoriously unreliable...because people are notoriously self-serving, dishonest, and stupid.