Northern Iraq falls to Al Qaeda, $400 million looted from central bank.

greenlikemoney said:

Lets regress to talking about guns. Killary said today on national TV the supporters of the 2nd Amendment are terrorists. No shit, that crazy bitch actually said that, right after saying the little illegal children showing up at our southern border should be reunited with their familes in Central America. Guess this bitch just wants to piss off everyone.

Click to expand...

just some body blows to test public reaction. win over some conservatives, see if we're ripe for disarming yet.

londonfog said:

I know enough to know that the reason given was a lie. I also know that Cheny profited very well off this. I also know Bush Jr wanted to prove something to daddy. I realize that oil control played a heavy heavy part in it. When I add 2 +2 +2 ... I come up with 6. What do you come up with

Click to expand...

You don't "know" any of those things. You just assume them, because it fits your world view.

Red1966 said:

You don't "know" any of those things. You just assume them, because it fits your world view.

Click to expand...

lets deal with one...Cheney..did he not profit off the Iraq war.. Please answer so we can all see exactly what you are.

Dr Kynes said:

clinton's epa set the staredecisis

the epa under clinton crippled the ability of the COE to maintain the levies.

bush, preferring to avoid another eco-fight, went with the flow, in a stunning lack of leadership, and followed clinton's established doctrine.

net result: levy failures.

bush didnt blame clinton, I blame clinton.

i also blame the epa, the sierra club, eco-loons in general, the COE, the courts and bush for the fuckup.

they ALL failed miserably, but clinton was the proximate cause.

Click to expand...

You might fool others, but I see you are full of BULLSHIT

DonAlejandroVega said:

Rome fell.................

Click to expand...

But not because of them exorcising their power over other nations.

Red1966 said:

But not because of them exorcising their power over other nations.

Click to expand...

Did Cheney not profit off the war in Iraq ???

ginwilly said:

Selfishly, I'm hoping I am able to position myself to profit off the fall. Still learning the trade game though. Some people most certainly will.

Click to expand...

Buy stock in coal mines!

londonfog said:

Did Cheney not profit off the war in Iraq ???

Click to expand...

Not that I know of. Before you claim that you do, be sure you are correct and not just taking some Democratic talking point for it.

Red1966 said:

Not that I know of. Before you claim that you do, be sure you are correct and not just taking some Democratic talking point for it.

Click to expand...

I think we all can agree that if you don't know how Cheney profited of the war in Iraq you have no place in the politics section. Even a die heart Republican would have to say yes to this. Google ..Cheney Iraq Halliburton. Doing research yourself will make you understand it better. Now please leave until you are better informed about world politics.

Red1966 said:

But not because of them exorcising their power over other nations.

Click to expand...

exorcising..........hmmmmm.........good choice of misspellings, perhaps.........
I think I'll get higher, and think on that.

no......not solely from that. de-based currency. high cost of foreign military diplomacy. loss of small, independent farmers, a period of global warming and disruption.........................
12 global deep-water naval ports
Rome...check, Britain...check, USA....check
700 over-seas military bases
*repeat above*
that shit is expensive, and it forces the Empire to apply more coercion upon the people of the Empire, to pay for it. it then must curtail their right to protest the shearing. the Empire dies from within, until Italians are shouting "benevito!!!"
to Ostrogoths. please. don't step into the "History of Empires" ring with Joe Louis.

londonfog said:

You might fool others, but I see you are full of BULLSHIT

Click to expand...

you can believe that if you wish, but clinton didnt spend any of his (imaginary) surplus of infrastructure, and he left bush a fucking mess.

you can dickride that tubby southern democrat racist pile of sheep dung if you want, but he still was a failure.

Dr Kynes said:

you can believe that if you wish, but clinton didnt spend any of his (imaginary) surplus of infrastructure, and he left bush a fucking mess.

you can dickride that tubby southern democrat racist pile of sheep dung if you want, but he still was a failure.

Click to expand...

both achieved exactly what they set out to do, while the media threw candy, in shiny wrappers up in the air.

the Republic has fallen.......this is not a drill

DonAlejandroVega said:

no......not solely from that. de-based currency. high cost of foreign military diplomacy. loss of small, independent farmers, a period of global warming and disruption.........................
12 global deep-water naval ports
Rome...check, Britain...check, USA....check
700 over-seas military bases
*repeat above*
that shit is expensive, and it forces the Empire to apply more coercion upon the people of the Empire, to pay for it. it then must curtail their right to protest the shearing. the Empire dies from within, until Italians are shouting "benevito!!!"
to Ostrogoths. please. don't step into the "History of Empires" ring with Joe Louis.

Click to expand...

rome's success was due to an extended period of warming, it did not cause the fall.

the romans enjoyed a climate optimum (warm weather over an extended period of time) between 200 bc and 400 ad with significant COOLING during their decline and fall.

the warm weather allowed the northern barbarians to breed like rabbits, until sea levels rose, driving them from the Low Countries, so they invaded gaul

then when it started getting really fucking cold up north (the cooling period after ~400ad) they came south in droves, resulting in the teutone, vandal and visigoth invasions.

i already covered this previously.

sup with that?

ayr0n said:

Kynes you are a little confused...categorizing me as every other liberal is pretty "ignorant" as you might put it. I'm pro death penalty, I'm all for gun rights, and I think the government spends too much money. Yeah I lean left on some issues but I'm not one of your enemy "socialist" liberal soldiers.

Click to expand...

These mistakes are often made on politics I have noticed.

Is there some sort of test to determine any labeling? If there is I am genuinely curious, that would be pretty interesting.

Individuals are complex.

Labels such as they are, are much to general. Liberal, conservative, left, right, not enough definition usually


Perhaps I am far too stoned. Sugar Mama, grown in the fertile and sunny Sacramento Valley.

Gotta love light dep, lovely small early harvest.

Profiting is the point of war.

Dr Kynes said:

rome's success was due to an extended period of warming, it did not cause the fall.

the romans enjoyed a climate optimum (warm weather over an extended period of time) between 200 bc and 400 ad with significant COOLING during their decline and fall.

the warm weather allowed the northern barbarians to breed like rabbits, until sea levels rose, driving them from the Low Countries, so they invaded gaul

then when it started getting really fucking cold up north (the cooling period after ~400ad) they came south in droves, resulting in the teutone, vandal and visigoth invasions.

i already covered this previously.

sup with that?

Click to expand...

exactly. it became so lucrative to grow wheat, that small land-holders were bought out, or coerced out, to be replaced by huge slave-farms. this loosened the yeoman's ties to the land, and reduced his willingness to serve in a citizen army, increasing the need for mercenary troops with loyalty to charismatic commanders, and not the state, SPQR.
Rome went out of her way, to bring Northern blood into the Empire. Adrianople resulted from mismanagement of an established practice of admitting Germanics. the Barbarian Invasions are mostly myth.

don't step into the Rome ring with me, Doc.......fair warning. lol

the Germanic Invasions, that is. the Huns was fer real, fer real

AlecTheGardener said:

These mistakes are often made on politics I have noticed.

Is there some sort of test to determine any labeling? If there is I am genuinely curious, that would be pretty interesting.

Individuals are complex.

Labels such as they are, are much to general. Liberal, conservative, left, right, not enough definition usually


Perhaps I am far too stoned. Sugar Mama, grown in the fertile and sunny Sacramento Valley.

Gotta love light dep, lovely small early harvest.

Click to expand...

I agree 100% but in the defense of anyone making those assumptions, we are becoming quite a divided people. Often the people most vocal about their political views are further to one side or the other, so it's hard not to assume someone fits in a category when it's more than often true.

Anyways I've come to the conclusion I'm not ready to play ball with you guys yet. Everyone knows way too much about everything (couple historians up n here?) for me to compete. I know it sounds conceded af but in most crowds I feel like a mental giant - not so much here. Ironically enough this is a forum revolving around getting high (aren't we supposed to be the inferior class of people lmao??) But this is not the spot to go if ur trying to run laps around someones intellect (or lack of). GG, it's been fun. I'll only be observing the political section for now. Back to getting this grow up n running.