View Single Post
Old 08-12-2008, 08:07 AM   #38 (permalink)
menaz
Avant Garde
 
menaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: ST.Louis, Mo.
Posts: 16,819
menaz will do you doggie style!menaz will do you doggie style!menaz will do you doggie style!menaz will do you doggie style!menaz will do you doggie style!menaz will do you doggie style!menaz will do you doggie style!menaz will do you doggie style!menaz will do you doggie style!menaz will do you doggie style!menaz will do you doggie style!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nu'maaN View Post
but bin laden being sought after is related to him being dead. it goes hand in hand. if you think he is alive, then you either 1. think the us gov't is after him 2. us gov't is not. that is all i wanted to know. never mind tho. i didn't know we had to follow strict guidelines in in posting that were in accordance with your thoughts lol ...

...
Thats a red herring/straw man though, the op wasn't about anyone soughting after osama. The OP was bin laden is dead by omar sheikhs hand according to Bhutto. Which I answered/corrected. That was the OP on the topic. You agreed, but then switched the topic to a completely different subject by misconstruing the context in which i meant something going on to assume my position on the matter for me. The U.S. goverment being after him becomes a totally didn't topic which has nothing to do with the OP I replied to. I had to point this out. I was under the impression an answer to the OP is all you wanted to know here. I wasn't under the impression you were going to switch the topic to is the us gov't after osama. I said he was alive but at the same time I wasn't under the impression the u.s. government being after him was the new topic. How can you sit there with a straight face and say you didn't purposely try to misconsture what I said inorder to switch the topic? You obviously did. All I said was I wasn't under the impression this thread wasn't about that. However, I did carry on the new discussion though and thoroughly answered your unrelated question. An answer I hope you fully understand. All I really did was point this out for your own benefit!
__________________
"Spending for the common good" is not equitable to "spreading the wealth." Taxation for spending for the common good is paying a fee for services rendered. For example, I pay a tax and I get military/police/fire protection, infrastructure improvements, and mail services. Taxation for spreading the wealth is paying a fee for no services rendered. For example, I pay a tax and it goes in the form of a check to someone who pays no taxes.-menaz The Communist Manifesto's second plank is, "A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."-Marx & Engles http://www.reason.tv/roughcut/show/628.htmlJanuary 20th, 2009. A date which will live in infamy.

Last edited by menaz; 08-12-2008 at 08:48 AM.
menaz is offline   Reply With Quote