Obama Moves to Counter China With Pentagon-NASA Link

shiznit770 · Jan 5, 2009

Goobieman said:
I asked you to support your claim that the Bush administration did look to weaponize space.
I was simply reminding you of what you would need to include to do this.
Can you support your assertion, or not?

They made statements to the effect that they wanted to weaponize space. I linked you an article. Are you saying this cannot be true because it was already weaponized?

Zyphlin · Jan 5, 2009

Moderator's Warning:

Alright, there's a number of posters in this thread that need to calm down towards each other, immedietely. If you can't post without having laced insults and personal digs in every one of your posts, then I'd suggest leaving the thread or you'll be shown the door from it forcefully. Keep it civil, keep on topic.

Goobieman · Jan 5, 2009

shiznit770 said:
They made statements to the effect that they wanted to weaponize space. I linked you an article.

Linking to an article that makes the same claims as you without addressing the issues I pointed out does nothing to support your position.
So, can you support your assertion or not?

shiznit770 · Jan 5, 2009

Goobieman said:
Linking to an article that makes the same claims as you without addressing the issues I pointed out does nothing to support your position.
So, can you support your assertion or not?

I said, 'The Bush administration did look to weaponize space.' and showed you an article that supports the assertion. Perhaps you were referring to something else?

Goobieman · Jan 5, 2009

shiznit770 said:
I said, 'The Bush administration did look to weaponize space.' and showed you an article that supports the assertion. Perhaps you were referring to something else?

And, as I stated:
Linking to an article that makes the same claims as you without addressing the issues I pointed out does nothing to support your position.

(As if an op-ed from CommonDreams is a viable source... :rofl)

shiznit770 · Jan 5, 2009

Goobieman said:
And, as I stated:
Linking to an article that makes the same claims as you without addressing the issues I pointed out does nothing to support your position.

(As if an op-ed from CommonDreams is a viable source... :rofl)

You didn't respond to the article with any issues.

Goobieman · Jan 5, 2009

shiznit770 said:
You didn't respond to the article with any issues.

I presented you with the issues you need to address.
You can address them, or you can admit that you cannot support your assertion.

shiznit770 · Jan 5, 2009

Goobieman said:
I presented you with the issues you need to address.
You can address them, or you can admit that you cannot support your assertion.

You can state them in a coherent fashion or choose to be ignored. :2wave:

Goobieman · Jan 5, 2009

shiznit770 said:
You can state them in a coherent fashion or choose to be ignored. :2wave:

You're either deliberatley playing stupid, or your arent paying attention.

Remember, that for the Bush administration to 'weaponize' space, it must first not have already been 'weaponized', and that the program that 'weaponizes' it must have been initiated by the Bush administration.

shiznit770 · Jan 5, 2009

Goobieman said:
You're either deliberatley playing stupid, or your arent paying attention.

I asked you about that and you shrunk back. If you won't even respond to a question about an issue you raised, what reason do I have to address it?

Goobieman · Jan 6, 2009

shiznit770 said:
I asked you about that and you shrunk back. If you won't even respond to a question about an issue you raised, what reason do I have to address it?

I see that you neither bothered to quote, nor address, the rest of the post you just responded to.

Obviously, its because you know you cannot address the issues raised.

Good to see you continue to live up to the expectations I have for you.