Discussion in 'Audio Emcee Hook Ups' started by Nimrod, Oct 28, 2004.
^ ah, right on point
he is involved in Iraq and has been for the past year, and has very credible sources that keep him updated on the fuckin DEATH TOLL U STUPID FUCK, SO IT DOES MAKE HIM CREDIBLE U FUCKIN DIMWIT.
involved in iraq? are you involved in america? an i involved in england? rofl, i'm involved!
also, how many non-innocent iraquis have died? like the ones who are not innocent, the baddies who worked for saddams regime.... how many of them died? ask your dad & then come & tell us oj
No, it doesn't. Repeating yourself does not make it any more true. The people that count the bodies are credible, whether it be John Hopkins, or Red Cross or whomever, not your fucking father.
dude you are the dumbest person i have ever met in my entire fuckin life.
if the people countin the dead bodies are credible, and my father has contact with them, u.s. and Iraqi officials and professionals takin the toll, and they tell him how many have died, how THE FUCK does that make his credibility in the matter go down, u fuckin dip shit?
if 10 historians told an author that 5 million people died in the crusades, and the author wrote about it, does his credibility go down in the matter? NO!
thats essentially the same thing as my father, a person who was there first hand, and spoke with many goverment officials, u.s. and iraqi...so when he told me, is he any less credible? NO..
ur a dumb ass dude man.
Ok, you fucking idiot, we just read what nimrod posted John Hopkins study blah blah 100,000 dead. So does that make us all credible resources now? Yes or No?
In this day in age, John Hopkins and the Red Cross are as credible as anyone, you're saying they're credible simply because of there titles. Like they dont have asses to save themselves and there own agendas. Statistics are skewed. Odd Jobs source to me is just as credible as the red cross or the john hopkins one. i take stats with a grain salt. Saying his source is not credible is stupid.
no u fuckin idiot, but if you were there first hand in Iraq speakin with the u.s. and iraqi officials and professionals countin the bodies and you reported back to the president the death toll, should he believe you? would he base decisions on what his general told him about the death count cuz of the people the general spoke with? YES!
so does that make him a credible source? YES!
u fuckin idiot.
thank you cire, this kid is a fuckin moron.
My point has nothing to do if the stats are accurate.
WTF. If your point has nothing to do if the stats are accurate then why are you so vehemently debating the sources? If you're saying the stat accuracy is unimportant in a fucking study that concludes 100,000 innocent iraqis have died whats the fucking point of arguing sources if thats the whole fucking point?
So, the president asked me to find out how many people died, and I found out for him, why wouldnt he believe me? Anyways your father is a business man, who at one point was in Iraq/or still is. Im not saying your father is a liar, or is wrong, but him being in the same place geographically as a war doesnt make him credible. You know what I apologize for calling you an idiot etc, but i dont think we are going to come to an agreement so im just gonna end it at that.
What did your father say the figure was?
Oh god Cire credible just means able to be believed in, or somethings likelyhood/plausibility.
This is a stupid argument, and you are right.
Personally, I think the civillian death toll is a bit inflated, but thats irrelevant.
when he was there the figure was over 90,000 people, that was a month ago.
Why are you even arguing over the credibility of his father? its a worthless debate that i will forget faster than i can hit "post quick reply.." Now what were you arguing about again?
It is a worthless debate, and gosh, you are pretty funny.
.... i try
Separate names with a comma.