it was awesome...i read some sweet stuff on pelosi's blog...man that lady really tells it with no spin

8/6/2007 3:25:45 PM

Yea, post it in here so we can discuss her terrorism scaremongering. I don't keep up with her blog as well as you do.

8/6/2007 3:29:27 PM

yeah you do, why are you lying? you read that bitch's blog every day because you can't come up with any thoughts of your own

8/6/2007 3:30:41 PM

Another thread ruined by TreeTwista

[Edited on August 6, 2007 at 3:32 PM. Reason : how is that for originality? And I didn't even have to go to http://www.pelosiblog.org to get it.]

8/6/2007 3:31:53 PM

hey guys i made this alias and paid $5 out of the rents money because i couldnt stand being away from tww for even 24 hours

8/6/2007 3:33:55 PM

Post a pic of yourself. All this "alias noise" you whine and complain like a bitch woman about, and yet you do a better job of hiding from the wolf web than anyone except Amsterdam and salisburyboy.

8/6/2007 3:35:11 PM

sure thing mr. no baldheaded photos in his empty gallery

8/6/2007 3:35:45 PM

hahha, I started to make a comment that your reply would be exactly as you stated it.

Post a pic of yourself. You already know who I am so why do I need to post a pic?

Don't be a pussy. Post a motherfucking pic of yourself you Blackberry support waste of space.

8/6/2007 3:38:56 PM

why dont you post a picture of myself...i'm not really in IT so i dont know how to do something technical like that

Quote :

"hahha, I started to make a comment that your reply would be exactly as you stated it"

well when you call somebody out for not posting a picture and say they're "hiding from the wolfweb" and you have no photos in your own gallery, its pretty easy to guess what the reply is going to be...you simply set yourself up to get pwnt all the time and then when you get pwnt you're like "a ha! i knew you were going to say that!"

8/6/2007 3:39:26 PM

Dude, you already know who I am, my bald head is all over this website. I already posted that pic. You post a pic of yourself. Stop hiding behind your screename you pussy. You're the biggest bitch in this battle. bitch.

8/6/2007 4:04:08 PM

Another thread ruined by State409c

8/6/2007 4:05:52 PM

How would State409c say it?

I won this thread?!

8/6/2007 4:15:07 PM

Quote :

"even all the people who agree with your politics know you're the same damn bald troll as 409, TypeGay, etc"

8/6/2007 4:19:06 PM

Yea yea yea. I'm State40c and my life is better than yours (is that how he would say it?).

8/6/2007 4:24:09 PM

One reason for this image is to symbolize that the Democrats didn't even mention Islamic fascism or terrorism in their last debate. So, I guess we can just wish all the bad things away--kind of like bringing Tinker Bell back to life.

8/6/2007 4:41:47 PM

Yes they did

8/6/2007 4:46:45 PM

Quote :

"^^its a bullshit question...it assumes that there actually is a problem...asking about a hypothetical undermines nothing "

Except a significant percentage of the population and politicians believes that hypothetical, and for good reasons.

You're the one in the minority with your view on global warming. Even if you're right, you can't assert for now that global warming is more of fear mongering than terrorism.

8/6/2007 5:36:30 PM

Quote :

"Even if you're right, you can't assert for now that global warming is more of fear mongering than terrorism."

i think i can...i mean even if all the doomsday scenarios regarding climate change are true, we havent really seen them yet have we? so for now i think terror is more of a legitimate threat to worry about...terrorism kills people in Iraq pretty much every day...global warming's problems still seem to be in the future

8/6/2007 5:43:40 PM

You can't comprehend what you read, or you ignore it so you can keep up your troll agenda.

Read this again

Even if you're right, you can't assert for now that global warming is more of fear mongering than terrorism.

think about it for awhile

then don't post because you obviously don't understand it.

8/6/2007 5:49:28 PM

i'll come to you with questions if/when my hair starts falling out...for now know your role and stfu

[Edited on August 6, 2007 at 5:52 PM. Reason : ^ quit post stalking me asshole]

8/6/2007 5:52:31 PM

Your shit talking is about the worst on this website. You need a healthy does of originality along with a serving of reality.

Post a pic of yourself you pussy.

8/6/2007 5:54:39 PM

you need a job

8/6/2007 5:55:42 PM

I have a job.

8/6/2007 5:56:40 PM

getting paid by mommy and daddy to live at home with them is not a job

8/6/2007 5:57:12 PM

Just post the pic you pussy.

8/6/2007 5:59:27 PM

fine if it will make you shut the fuck up already, holy shit you whine all the time

http://www.thewolfweb.com/photos/00303863.jpg

8/6/2007 6:00:40 PM

Quote :

" i think i can...i mean even if all the doomsday scenarios regarding climate change are true, we havent really seen them yet have we? so for now i think terror is more of a legitimate threat to worry about...terrorism kills people in Iraq pretty much every day...global warming's problems still seem to be in the future "

Actually, there are already climate change issues in the news every day where people's deaths are attributed to climate change issues.

The only problem is that because there's natural variation in the climate, and it's hard to measure what's what without hindsight, it's easy for a denier to say "well that COULD just be natural" and we won't know for sure until no one cares anymore.

I would agree though that terrorism is a more immediate threat than climate change, because terrorism is affected more immediately and directly than the climate (where if we could complete change our lifestyles now, it'd take a minimum of about 2 1/2 years to see meaningful effects with the climate).

However, when the right uses it as fear mongering, it's worse than the left with climate change, because the right's solutions, as history has shown, are more likely to increase terror, not decrease it. They are using it as a power play, not really to solve problems, and with the immediacy of the terrorism issue, we can't really afford those games.

8/6/2007 6:13:51 PM

Man you're so clever, I had no clue when I hovered over the link and it was to youtube, that it was going to be a rick roll.

You got me good!

8/6/2007 6:13:52 PM

Quote :

"I would agree though that terrorism is a more immediate threat than climate change"

and thats all i'm trying to say

^you sure are adamant about wanting to see a picture of a guy aren't you

8/6/2007 6:15:50 PM

^ well, in the context of this thread, that doesn't really need to be said.

8/6/2007 6:26:46 PM

well in TSB i think there are a ton of people who dont realize it...if they dont think terrorism is any threat whatsoever then they think ANYTHING about terrorism is fear mongering

8/6/2007 6:29:02 PM

Quote :

"Yes they did"

PartisanHack

The YouTube debate? Please provide a link to the discussion by the Democrat presidential candidates concerning Islamic fascism and terrorism in that debate.

8/6/2007 6:45:14 PM

Quote :

"One reason for this image is to symbolize that the Democrats didn't even mention Islamic fascism or terrorism in their last debate."

What would doing so have accomplished? Yes, fundamentalist Islamic groups are well correlated with terrorism. Why does this bare being mentioned? Throwing around blanket terms doesn't really solve any problems.

What happens when another group of crazy nutjobs begins using terrorism as a means to its end? Are we going to argue about which politicians made reference to that particular group of nutjobs? What solution is there in that?

[Edited on August 6, 2007 at 7:25 PM. Reason : bear]

8/6/2007 7:25:01 PM

Quote :

"What happens when another group of crazy nutjobs begins using terrorism as a means to its end?"

if they happen to be members of a particular radical sect of a religion, we mention that as well

8/6/2007 7:35:30 PM

^^ Um. . .because they're trying to kill us? Here's some more stuff from the last several days' news that's probably made up, too.

'Plot Would Have Killed Thousands'
EXCLUSIVE: Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff Offers Chilling Details About 2006 Airplane Plot and Current Terror Threats

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=3451976&page=1

Karachi Bomber Seen on New Al Qaeda Video

Quote :

"A man identified as the suicide bomber who killed four people in an attack on the United States Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan last year appears on the new al Qaeda video, smiling and loading explosives into the car that was allegedly used in the suicide bombing in which a U.S. diplomat was killed."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/08/karachi-bomber-.html

New Al Qaeda Web Ad Threatens 'Big Surprise'

Quote :

"A new al Qaeda propaganda ad, headlined 'Wait for the Big Surprise' and featuring a digitally altered photograph of President George Bush and Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf standing in front of a burning White House, was posted on the Internet today. The brief clip from al Qaeda's 'as Sahab' propaganda arm juxtaposes the doctored photo of Bush and Musharraf along with previously seen images of al Qaeda's top leadership -- Osama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahri and Adam Gadahn -- as well as a photo of an SUV in a motorcade. There is no additional information provided in the ad, and it closes with the words, 'Soon -- God willing,' written across the screen and repeated several times."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/08/new-al-qaeda-we.html

8/6/2007 11:17:37 PM

And, the most interesting thing in your post was....

8/7/2007 10:29:49 AM

^^ Do you realize that those last 2 links are about the same thing as the first post in this thread?

I'm guessing though that, as usual, you didn't read them.

8/7/2007 10:36:07 AM

8/7/2007 2:02:48 PM

GLOBAL WARMING INJURES 18, 4 OF THEM SERIOUSLY

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/08/09/arctic.glacier.reut/index.html

Quote :

"OSLO, Norway (Reuters) -- A chunk of an Arctic glacier broke into the sea and triggered a huge wave that injured 18 people on a sightseeing boat, almost all of them British tourists, Norwegian officials said on Thursday. Four people were seriously hurt in the accident by Hornbreen glacier on the Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard and were flown south to a hospital in Tromsoe on the mainland. The others were treated at a local hospital, mostly for minor injuries."

8/9/2007 2:43:47 PM

^that is a good example of global warming scaremongering

BREAKING NEWS: HOLLYWOOD ACTORS GEORGE CLOONEY AND MARK WAHLBERG KILLED BY GLOBAL WARMING

**WARNING THE FOLLOWING IMAGES OF GLOBAL WARMING ARE VERY GRAPHIC**

8/9/2007 4:33:41 PM

^ Ha!

8/9/2007 7:08:51 PM

You can add Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM) to the list of "scaremongers," I guess. He said in the This Week debate on Sunday, and I'm paraphrasing, that "loose nukes" are a bigger threat than a nuclear attack.

Since Richardson doesn't have an R after his name, you left-wing moonbats didn't happen to notice this particular comment, did you? Typical.

8/20/2007 1:42:30 PM

Quote :

"He said in the This Week debate on Sunday, and I'm paraphrasing, that "loose nukes" are a bigger threat than a nuclear attack. "

This is almost common sense considering america has the most powerful military in the world at the moment. What country in its right mind would try a direct military strike against us? Only China and Russia would even have a chance of pulling something like that off, and I seriously doubt they would attack us anytime in the near future. So yes, crazy terrorists are more likely to attack us rather than crazy countries attacking us.

Oh, don't forget that the US hasn't had its mainland attacked in a LONG time by any real army.

8/20/2007 1:49:19 PM

^^ maybe you should start a new thread just about that so you can make sure all the left-wing moonbats see it and are ashamed at their hypocrisy

[Edited on August 20, 2007 at 1:51 PM. Reason : .]

8/20/2007 1:50:56 PM

Unfortunately, such a thread already exists:

/message_topic.aspx?topic=478138

8/20/2007 1:57:36 PM

The following is from PBS, which is hardly part of the right-wing scaremonger machine, as some of you have it.

Quote :

"What does it take to make a bomb? It is much less difficult to make a nuclear bomb than many people imagine. The great expense of the Cold War weapons research effort leads one to suspect that the mechanism of an atomic bomb is arcane and intricate. The Cold War scientists did develop very complex designs for powerful bombs, but that doesn't mean that early nuclear bombs of the 1940s were any less servicable. The level of technology which was used in the Manhattan Project is now readily available to almost anyone with a personal computer. In fact, even during World War II, the scientists at Los Alamos were so certain that their design for a uranium bomb would work that they didn't even test it before it was dropped on Hiroshima, because they didn't want to waste the limited amount highly enriched uranium that they had. (The plutonium bomb was more complex and there was a test blast in New Mexico before it was used on Nagasaki.) The example of the Manhattan Project also illustrates that the main determinant of the speed of an atomic weapons project is how quickly one can obtain the necessary fissile nuclear materials. If it were possible to obtain highly enriched uranium on the black market, the time necessary for a country to develop a nuclear bomb would be cut from years to weeks."

Quote :

"How easy is it to smuggle nuclear materials? Contrary to common belief, it is not necessarily very dangerous to handle fissile materials when certain precautions are taken. In fact, the radiation hazard posed by weapons grade uranium is relatively low. Plutonium has been produced in a nuclear reactor and therefore is more radioactive and more dangerous to handle. But a smuggler may be less interested in plutonium anyway, because it is more difficult to build a crude plutonium bomb than a uranium bomb. The material most attractive to nuclear smugglers is highly enriched uranium (HEU) because it is easier to use and easier to handle. HEU can be shielded to reduce the radiation to a level which would be very difficult to detect by the standard tools available to most customs agents. As in drug smuggling, interdiction of illicit nuclear materials is unlikely unless authorities have prior knowledge of the materials' whereabouts. Plutonium and uranium may be even more difficult to detect than drugs because they have no odor, so the dogs used to find drugs are of no use. In Russia, most customs points are equipped with no more than a hand-held radiation meter which provides a very low probability of detection in high traffic areas. New technical systems sensitive to far lower fields of radiation are being developed; Russia plans to implement them over the next few years, but for now a smuggler would have a good chance of passing through undetected. Even without technological solutions to this problem, there are indications that standard customs control could be more effective. The smuggler in the Munich case testified that he got past controls in the Moscow airport by kicking his bag with his foot past the x-ray machine at customs. The smuggler in the Prague case hid his uranium canisters in his pants as he crossed international borders by train."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/nukes/stuff/faqs.html

8/20/2007 7:10:14 PM

im so glad we invaded iraq to take down al qa.... wait a sec :shifty eyes:

8/20/2007 9:09:23 PM

Quote :

"You can add Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM) to the list of "scaremongers," I guess. He said in the This Week debate on Sunday, and I'm paraphrasing, that "loose nukes" are a bigger threat than a nuclear attack."

ummm

loose nukes ARE a bigger threat than a nuclear attack by any state entity.


and I don't see some group of terrorists building a fucking A-bomb. if they get their hands on one, it will be because they simply bought it.

8/22/2007 4:58:24 PM

^ That's because you didn't read the PBS link:

Quote :

"What does it take to make a bomb? It is much less difficult to make a nuclear bomb than many people imagine. The great expense of the Cold War weapons research effort leads one to suspect that the mechanism of an atomic bomb is arcane and intricate. The Cold War scientists did develop very complex designs for powerful bombs, but that doesn't mean that early nuclear bombs of the 1940s were any less servicable. The level of technology which was used in the Manhattan Project is now readily available to almost anyone with a personal computer. In fact, even during World War II, the scientists at Los Alamos were so certain that their design for a uranium bomb would work that they didn't even test it before it was dropped on Hiroshima, because they didn't want to waste the limited amount highly enriched uranium that they had. (The plutonium bomb was more complex and there was a test blast in New Mexico before it was used on Nagasaki.) The example of the Manhattan Project also illustrates that the main determinant of the speed of an atomic weapons project is how quickly one can obtain the necessary fissile nuclear materials. If it were possible to obtain highly enriched uranium on the black market, the time necessary for a country to develop a nuclear bomb would be cut from years to weeks. [for more information, see: "A Primer on Fissile Materials and Nuclear Weapons Design" by Owen R. Cote, Jr.]"

Here it is again:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/nukes/stuff/faqs.html

8/22/2007 6:00:08 PM

if it was that easy to make a bomb, there would be a lot more nuclear powers.

when state entities can't swing it, what makes you think that a comparatively ragtag group of terrorists can? i have to believe that it would be far easier, cheaper, and quicker to just buy one.

8/22/2007 6:38:43 PM