Ya gotta choose, Ace...you're either sane or you're not.

 

I'm sane tonight,,,,,I'm on my liberal hallucinogenic medication,which makes me see things so much clearer.

 

Sometimes people who are out of touch with reality do react well to strong drugs. You just never know.

 

That's ok Rock.....I respect your opinion....but hon, aren't you all getting a little bogged down by this whole "sources" thing? Most of the stuff I post doesn't really require sources because it's opinion. And the stuff that I post as fact...well feel free to do a little looking around on your own if you like...if not, that's cool too.

You are kinda acting like Stumbler here....by clouding the issue with a diversion....a slight of hand. But I understand, you have obviously watched Stumbler and Kimiko do it for so long that it's probably second nature by now.

I'm not an internet big shot. I hate internet big shots....but more than that, I hate message board cliques that act as a gang (or a "Pack") of internet tough guys.

I AM full of myself, but I do NOT expect, nor do I give a fuck if everyone believes what I say is true. If I say something you don't agree with...let me know....and if you do so respectfully, I will try to state my case with the same level of respect right back at ya.

Nice to meet you, by the way.

 

I 'll interpret that as a yes.:excited:

 

Oh yay!! I could with a holiday!! Umm I will be able to bring my sheep won't I?

Are the wolves going to eat my lambies? *shock*

 

Smca you can be the Claytons member........a wolf in sheep's clothing

 

Baa!!

 

I hate to admit it, but that was pretty good

 

Ok that's two Ace and you can have his wife because it sure looks like he's desperate enough to let you have her.

Yeah I was going to ask you about that support thing. I see they are apparently riding to your rescue in droves of one.

I think RockPrincess was quite clear about what she thinks of you and more importantly unsubstantiated opinions. But let's see:

No that seems very clear to me Share. But I'll tell you what. Why don't you go ahead and really make a fool of yourself by trying to claim that Rockprincess and I are in the same "clique." The whole forum would get a big kick out of that.

I don't think kissing RP's ass is going to work either Share. But why don't you tell her again how she's acting like me. And apparently how she looks up to Kimiko and I.

I'm sure you'll score big points with that line of reasoning.

Now you're not going to try and tell us playing the victim and martyr is enough for you are you Share? I mean you've pushed yourself as some kind of forum crusader against an imaginary wolf pack and me as a terrorist.

That kind of makes you look like you want to be a big shot doesn't it?

No you won't Share. Or at least you haven't. When I disagreed with you on the Fort Hood thread you accused me of making up excuses for the killer and tried to say I supported him at the expense of the victims.

Now that kind of pissed me off Share because it was not true. But when I challenged you about that you became the little boy screaming wolf pack and have continued to do that. And in the meantime you refuse to state any case at all except crying help I'm the martyred victim of a vicious internet wolf pack.

Nice to meet you? Man by the way you talked and tried to flatter her I thought you and RP were old friends. Otherwise it looks like you were just trying to butter her up because you want people to come and rescue you.

 

Stumbler, maybe it's just the style (or lack of style) in your responses that is totally tedious, boring and borderline unreadable.

First of all...You still don't get it....I don't need to be rescued The increase in board chatter challenging the status quo is good enough for me. I understand how it may make you nervous considering you have been able to run unchecked around here for so long.


I don't know RP at all, I was just trying to be civil and polite. She may wind up thinking I'm a prick, and that's her right. It certainly doesn't appear as she is part of your clique, but time will tell. Looking at some of her previous posts, I would say that she seems to be a tad too thought provoking to be a Pack member.

The louder you cry like a bitch about me exposing your Wolfpack, the more legitimacy it gives me. Continue...please.

 

I shall continue Share because you're just bluffing and trying to save face which is failing miserably because its just that obvious.

Just like you're claim that I'm the one crying. You haven't seen me claiming I'm under attack by some wolf pack of internet terrorists. You haven't seen me backing up from my statements, changing tactics, and trying to rally reinforcements to my cause.

I also haven't seen any increase in board chatter which is actually just another bluff on your part. But I'll tell you what it would make absolutely no difference to me if there was. I always go alone on this forum and always have.

Share bullshit does not make me nervous and that's all you've got.

 

Now that one was a lot easier to read. You took my advice and changed your style and you kept it under 10,000 words. Maybe there is hope for you yet.

You are still incredibly repetitive however (maybe we can work on that next). To help you out for the umpteenth time, you and your Pack don't have the ammo to "attack" me, so I'm certainly not worried about that.

I have no real desire to rally the troops...I just want the dissenters to know that someone has their back when you inevitably try to ridicule and intimidate them. The dissension is only going to grow from here on out. this place is no longer your personal playground...and you are no longer the playground bully....you might as well get used to it.

 

Oh Stumbler, I almost forgot.

A an example of the dissenters standing up and fighting back......you are getting your ass handed to you on the DC Sniper thread. So much so that I don't even feel compelled to get into the conversation.

 

Now, now Share these little dodges of yours aren't going to work. That's actually really stupid on your part that you would try to claim I'm changing my style when you don't really know what it is but anyone who's been around here for awhile already knows me and will surely know I haven't changed or done anything out of the ordinary.

You're really no good at this bluffing thing Share because you started out false and have been losing ground ever since. Here's your problem. What you're trying to do is base your actions and responses on your original misconceptions. That's not going to work because the people around here already know me. Some like me, some don't and the majority could care less. But at least they've been around long enough to know when you're bluffing. Which you are.

By the way didn't you notice back a few posts ago when instead of coming up with anything original you just began to parrot the things I said about you. Did you really think no one else would notice that?

Liar:

False claim and call for reinforcements right there Share.

So now after calling for reinforcements and help now you're going to switch and try to be the hero again Share? I got news for you Share. Nobody around here is intimidated by me in the first place.

So you saying you're just here to protect anyone from me is foolish not heroic Share. But you've been doing a grand job of revealing yourself as just that.

Really Share?? Well I'll tell you what. How about if I just take my chances on that OK there big guy? Because I really don't think your presence here is going to change anything. In fact I think you just revealed yourself as an egotistical fool again Share.

But I guess we can see, and I'll be right here tough guy.

 

Well I'll get right over there when I'm done with this. The last time I checked no one was handing anyone's ass to anyone.

But we'll see about that and if you're lying Share I'm going to call you on it there and here.

 

Hm let's see what my opinion on all this is.

I realize both major parties are corrupt but it seems lately that the liberals are almost abusing the power they have in Congress. They really need to suck it up and realize that the GOP is right occasionally. Idk, "man-up" is my philosophy.

 

Either, you do not understand how dates work, or you are just talking without looking at the articles that Kimiko provided.

The day that Hunt Oil signed the contract with Kurdish region was on September 7, 2007.

The article talking about Hunt Oil having a contract is dated on July 13, 2008.

The article talking about any prior contracts before the new oil law being passed being voided is dated November 11, 2008.

So by going by the dates, it is evident that with the proof provided by Kimiko, that the contract would be voided.

Now then you provided an article dated June 24, 2009. Which supersedes all other articles.

So I did pay very well attention to the dates of the articles.

As for my need to do my personal research is not essential in this aspect. Kimiko was trying to prove her point with proof. Her proof did not sustain her points. So, it is not me being careless, but it is her being careless for using contradicting articles as forms of proof. Because the burden of proof is on her for trying to prove a point against me, not a burden of proof on me.

I have never stated an expertise in this subject. Furthermore, I have never stated that putting out fires in the oilfields was the only oilfield related work that Halliburton got paid for. If you have read all of my answers, it also states about the reconstruction efforts on the pipelines and refineries, all of these being support operations.

According to this article, it states that Iraq did pay Halliburton, but it does not state that it was with revenue from selling oil, nor that Iraq paid for all of what Halliburton did in support operations in the oilfields. So no idea where you got that Halliburton was getting paid with the revenue of Iraq from selling barrels of oil.

As I stated before, your article does not state that Halliburton was paid with the revenue of Iraq from selling barrels of oil. Okay, so Iraq paid Halliburton for support operatoins in the oilfields, but it does not state that Iraq was the only one who paid for the support operations in the oilfields.

So if Iraq did not pay for all of the support operations in the oilfields, then the US must have also paid Halliburton. And if the US pays Halliburton, it comes frorm federal funds. Search for two things called CERP and JFUB.

Despite the Autonomous Region's governmental institutions, genuine self-rule did not exist in Kurdistan in 1988. The central government in Baghdad continued to exerciseimportant tight control by reserving to itself the power to make all decisions in matters pertaining to justice, to police, to internal security, and the administration of the frontier areas. The Baath Party, through the minister of state for regional autonomy and other ministerial representatives operating in the region, continued to supervise activities of all governing bodies in the region. The minister of justice and a special oversight body set up by the Court of Cassation reviewed all local enactments and administrative decisions, and they countermanded any local decrees that were deemed contrary to the "constitution, laws, or regulations" of the central government. The central government's superior authority had been most dramatically evident in the frontier areas, where government security units forcibly evacuated Kurdish villagers to distant lowlands.

So, they might have had semi autonomy, but the central government if Iraq, which was led by Saddam Hussein was the ultimate decision maker on many aspects. You do understand that a semi autonomy does not have complete control and complete decision making process, right? They can make decision on internal affairs in the Kurdish nation, but again, it is the central government of Iraq, Saddam Hussein who was the ultimate decision maker.

He did kill tons of Kurds, you acting like it is not true, is sad. Here you go, read this. And I used your credible site, Wikipedia.

*not_secure_link*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein's_Iraq

Now I am curious, about you asking me to show all of this. In your response to me above, in your first paragraph, you call me careless for not doing my own research, which in this case, you would be guilty of. But I will show you, because the burden is on me to prove to you with proof, as I stated above.

Now, we know that Hunt Oil signed the contract with the Kurdish region on September 7, 2007. That means we cannot use the Law of Administration for the State of Iraq for the Transitional Period or also known as the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL), which was effective from June 28, 2004 until the Constitution of Iraq was adopted on October 15, 2005.

Now according to the Constitution of Iraq, the federal government has exclusive power over the management of oil and gas, in cooperation with the governments of the producing regions and governates. So with the cooperation of the Kurds in certain regions and governates, the centralized Iraqi government approved the decision to sign a contract with Hunt Oil.

*not_secure_link*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Iraq#Regions

But to go further into the detail of the region considered Iraqi Kurdistan, click on here and check politics where it further goes into detail about after the 2003 Liberation of Iraq.

*not_secure_link*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Kurdistan#Politics

Considering that Saddam Hussein was caught and executed, I think it would be evident that the government was changed. But there was a temporary government set in place as of March 8, 2004. Here are the temporary laws.

*not_secure_link*en.wikipedia.org/w...the_State_of_Iraq_for_the_Transitional_Period

Now you must be the one who does not pay much attention to dates.
The Kurds did not sign a contract with Hunt Oil until September 7, 2007. And there was already a set government in Iraq with a Constitution of Iraq, since October 15, 2005. So the contract occurred almost 2 years after the new Constitution of Iraq was accepted and there was a new centralized government of Iraq. So your other points are moot.

 

I get the same feeling. Grant it, I am sure I am a little biased, but it seems as if the liberals were so ecstatic to finally get the White House back that they forgot that they actually have to achieve something in order to keep it.

 

Sorry, but I already do, any news network with an anti immigration and abortion hater, looking at you O'reilly, isnt allowed on my set.