Oil for Food humanitarian aid?

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
It really is quite simple, we will all get along as soon as you realize I'm right :D
 

ris

New Member
as long as i can reserve the right to convince myself you are also wrong.

i think that made sense :nuts2:
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
as soon as you convince yourself, share. I've seen no concrete evidence to disprove what I've been arguing.
 

ris

New Member
the oil for food wotsit has been going for years. wrong people been getting the food though, which is hardly a surprise because rarely do the right people get it with those deals.
 

ris

New Member
yeah but you said you aren't debating the reasoning anymore so whether or not i am convinced is a moot point. you are and have made it clear that discussion of it will not move your position so my sharing is of little importance.
 

madrin

New Member
I ran out of mud....

I have this other substance though...not sure what it is....it looks like mud...but it isn't....

hmmmm...


I'll get back to you on this....

MADrin
 

ris

New Member
always best to check before you sling, some people just don't like chocolate being thrown at them :shrug:
 

ris

New Member
thank you gonz for an interesting discussion. i have family near london to see tomorrow and its nearly 1am here so i take my leave

night :)
 

flavio

Banned
Professur said:
Pard'n me. Just passing through.

Oh, here's a little reading material on the subject, if anyone want's to continue an informed discussion on the subject.

So now the Washington Times is considered an unbiased source all of the sudden?

Geezus, it's even an opinion piece like Gonz was complaining about.

What's going on here? :confuse3:
 

PostCode

Major contributor!
So which of my sources are in question here exactly?

BBC?

Guardian?

Sfgate?

Amnesty International?


Unbiased? You read Amnesty International, SFGate, and liberal shit like that and consider it unbiased.

What in the fuck is the difference?
 

flavio

Banned
PostCode said:
So which of my sources are in question here exactly?

BBC?

Guardian?

Sfgate?

Amnesty International?


Unbiased? You read Amnesty International, SFGate, and liberal shit like that and consider it unbiased.

What in the fuck is the difference?

I didn't say they were unbiased, I did however ask which ones were in question. Especially since Putor used info from Amnesty to make his point and it was the only reason I was even on their site.

What do you read?
 

ris

New Member
prof never said it was unbaised, just interesting reading material for those wanting to be informed on the subject. that subject could be washington post news articles ;)
 

flavio

Banned
ris said:
prof never said it was unbaised, just interesting reading material for those wanting to be informed on the subject. that subject could be washington post news articles ;)

Prof didn't claim it was unbiased. Just relating thiings back to earlier in the thread really.
 
Top