Gold mine

[RidinSpinnas]

Most people don’t realize that George Bush Sr. had a gold mine: Barrick Gold Mining Corp. Just before Mr. Bush left office at the request of two-thirds of the American people, he changed the rules for gold mine claims, allowing one corporation named Barrick to lay claim to a $10 billion gold mine, the biggest in the United States, and pay the U.S. Treasury $10,000. They then gave President Bush a lucrative job as their senior international advisor. Barrick got the gold mine, the public got the shaft and Pops got the job.

Funny how that works?!?

[black01gt]

Originally posted by RidinSpinnas
Most people don’t realize that George Bush Sr. had a gold mine: Barrick Gold Mining Corp. Just before Mr. Bush left office at the request of two-thirds of the American people, he changed the rules for gold mine claims, allowing one corporation named Barrick to lay claim to a $10 billion gold mine, the biggest in the United States, and pay the U.S. Treasury $10,000. They then gave President Bush a lucrative job as their senior international advisor. Barrick got the gold mine, the public got the shaft and Pops got the job.

Funny how that works?!?
I haven't got it yet, but I'm getting the new book, "House of Bush, House of Saud", should interesting reading and chocked full of stuff like the above post. :cool:

[KorruptKonservatives]

Originally posted by black01gt
I haven't got it yet, but I'm getting the new book, "House of Bush, House of Saud", should interesting reading and chocked full of stuff like the above post. :cool:

Let me know when you get the book. I'm going to read it too.
I think it would make interesting discussion.

"15 out of the 19 hijackers were saudi's, and yet we go after Iraq. That's like going after Mexico if Canada were to attack us." - Richard Clark

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by RidinSpinnas
Most people don’t realize that George Bush Sr. had a gold mine: Barrick Gold Mining Corp. Just before Mr. Bush left office at the request of two-thirds of the American people, he changed the rules for gold mine claims, allowing one corporation named Barrick to lay claim to a $10 billion gold mine, the biggest in the United States, and pay the U.S. Treasury $10,000. They then gave President Bush a lucrative job as their senior international advisor. Barrick got the gold mine, the public got the shaft and Pops got the job.

Funny how that works?!? And Kerry dosent? oh yea he is married to Heinz....:rolleyes:

[AL P]

Originally posted by RidinSpinnas
Most people don’t realize that George Bush Sr. had a gold mine: Barrick Gold Mining Corp. Just before Mr. Bush left office at the request of two-thirds of the American people....


I read this far into this statement before I found a lie. Clinton got 43% of the popular vote in that election.

I would read more of the post but I really don't see the point.

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by RidinSpinnas


Funny how that works?!? But whats really funny is how you can marry rich women, and then donate alot to charity win running for election
1991 $0 to charity
1992 $800 to charity
1993 $900 to charity
1994 $2039 to charity
1995 $ 0 to charity
and so on
then
2003 43,700 to charity

Hmmm, wonder why?
And then pays the lower income tax level and the state of Mass
B/c Kerry hates spending his money, but loves spending yours.;)

[That_Is_My_El_Camino]

Originally posted by AL P
I read this far into this statement before I found a lie. Clinton got 43% of the popular vote in that election.

I would read more of the post but I really don't see the point.

That is correct. Clinton had 43%, Bush had 37%, Perot had 19%, and the other guys had about 1%.

Approximately 63% (close to two-thirds) wanted Bush out of Washington, they just chose different routes.

[AL P]

Originally posted by That_Is_My_El_Camino
That is correct. Clinton had 43%, Bush had 37%, Perot had 19%, and the other guys had about 1%.

Approximately 63% (close to two-thirds) wanted Bush out of Washington, they just chose different routes.

Wow I didn't know Perot and Bush Sr. were the same person, thanks for clearing that up, Mr. El Camino mullet guy.

[That_Is_My_El_Camino]

Originally posted by AL P
Wow I didn't know Perot and Bush Sr. were the same person, thanks for clearing that up, Mr. El Camino mullet guy.

I'm sorry. Is it the sixth-grade math or the eight-grade common sense portion of my statement that's kicking your ass?

I'll try this again: 37% of the population wanted to keep Bush, 63% didn't (they voted for Clinton, Perot, and the others).

[AL P]

Originally posted by That_Is_My_El_Camino
I'm sorry. Is it the sixth-grade math or the eight-grade common sense portion of my statement that's kicking your ass?

I'll try this again: 37% of the population wanted to keep Bush, 63% didn't (they voted for Clinton, Perot, and the others).

I'm sorry I can't take your insults seriously when I'm looking at that picture of the turd you drive....

[That_Is_My_El_Camino]

Originally posted by AL P
I'm sorry I can't take your insults seriously when I'm looking at that picture of the turd you drive....

Then I'll try again:

I'm sorry. Is it the sixth-grade math or the eight-grade common sense portion of my statement that's kicking your ass?

I'll try this again: 37% of the population wanted to keep Bush, 63% didn't (they voted for Clinton, Perot, and the others).
















































































































































































































Now, how's that?

[RidinSpinnas]

Originally posted by AL P
Wow I didn't know Perot and Bush Sr. were the same person, thanks for clearing that up, Mr. El Camino mullet guy.

I think you meant to say that you "didn't know that Perot and CLINTON were the same person." And he did clear that up. Thank you.

[AL P]

Nope, it still doesn't work. Remove that fucking turd from your signature...

[That_Is_My_El_Camino]

Originally posted by AL P
Nope, it still doesn't work. Remove that fucking turd from your signature...

I think you have helped to demonstrate to everyone how the true "conservative" is the one that would rather point fingers and bitch over technicalities and minor details than focus on the real issue.

[AL P]

Originally posted by RidinSpinnas
I think you meant to say that you "didn't know that Perot and CLINTON were the same person." And he did clear that up. Thank you.

No, he didn't clear anything up. The people who voted for Perot didn't vote for Clinton.

[AL P]

Originally posted by That_Is_My_El_Camino
I think you have helped to demonstrate to everyone how the true "conservative" is the one that would rather point fingers and bitch over technicalities and minor details than focus on the real issue.

Its nice to see that you judge credibility to be just a "technicality".

Personally, I don't.

[That_Is_My_El_Camino]

Originally posted by AL P
No, he didn't clear anything up. The people who voted for Perot didn't vote for Clinton.

Nobody said that the people who voted for Perot voted for Clinton. The statement was that "two thirds of the people wanted Bush gone." Two thirds of the people voted for someone other than Bush, be it Clinton, Perot, or the others.

By the way:

http://www.dallasimports.net/forums/uploads/photo-466.jpghttp://www.dallasimports.net/forums/uploads/photo-466.jpghttp://www.dallasimports.net/forums/uploads/photo-466.jpghttp://www.dallasimports.net/forums/uploads/photo-466.jpghttp://www.dallasimports.net/forums/uploads/photo-466.jpg
http://www.dallasimports.net/forums/uploads/photo-466.jpghttp://www.dallasimports.net/forums/uploads/photo-466.jpghttp://www.dallasimports.net/forums/uploads/photo-466.jpghttp://www.dallasimports.net/forums/uploads/photo-466.jpghttp://www.dallasimports.net/forums/uploads/photo-466.jpg

Like it? I really don't give a conservative's ass.

[AL P]

Originally posted by That_Is_My_El_Camino
Nobody said that the people who voted for Perot voted for Clinton. The statement was that "two thirds of the people wanted Bush gone." Two thirds of the people voted for someone other than Bush, be it Clinton, Perot, or the others.



So now 63%= two thirds

I now know why you drive that El Camino....it's because you're a dumbass....

[That_Is_My_El_Camino]

Originally posted by AL P
So now 63%= two thirds


Pretty damn close, I would say. Much more than 37%.

[AL P]

Originally posted by That_Is_My_El_Camino
Pretty damn close, I would say. Much more than 37%.

That's true, but I never said 37% equals two-thirds. I've had some advanced Calculus and I've never heard the term "close enough" used in math. Maybe they teach that at the graduate level?

[That_Is_My_El_Camino]

And my exact words were:

Originally posted by That_Is_My_El_Camino
Approximately 63% (close to two-thirds) wanted Bush out of Washington, they just chose different routes.

And I would like to take this time to add,
AL P got owned.

[AL P]

Originally posted by That_Is_My_El_Camino
And my exact words were:



And I would like to take this time to add,
AL P got owned.

Those were your exact words, but aren't we arguing about what the quote says? I don't see anything in there about "approximately". Why if I didn't know better I would say that they are exaggerating! Hell if I didn't know better I'd say that they are trying to imply that Clinton got two-thirds of the popular vote!

Naa, that would never happen.

And BTW, you still drive an El Camino so no matter what you say or do, you are a retarded mullet head.

[That_Is_My_El_Camino]

Originally posted by AL P
Those were your exact words, but aren't we arguing about what the quote says? I don't see anything in there about "approximately".

The quote said two thirds, whose only exact form is that of the fraction 2/3 (a theory). However, you disagreed, and I substantiated it with actual, inexact numbers, that approximated two thirds.

Originally posted by AL P
Why if I didn't know better I would say that they are exaggerating! Hell if I didn't know better I'd say that they are trying to imply that Clinton got two-thirds of the popular vote!

Naa, that would never happen.

You're right. We've exaggerated by 4.5%. Damn us all. I'm just thankful we got seven solid years of prosperity before Junior came back to Washington and picked up where Daddy left off (pissing away the economy, that is).

Originally posted by AL P
And BTW, you still drive an El Camino so no matter what you say or do, you are a retarded mullet head.

So here you are, talking shit about my car and a hair style that hasn't been popular since you tried it. Ouch. Well, how do I come back against something like that? Let me think really hard. Really, really hard. Boy, this would be so much easier if I weren't retarded. Ah, therein lies the solution and my response: I'm not retarded, I don't have a mullet, and I my remarks are the result of logical thought, good organization, and proper syntax while yours are illogical and brimming with, well, bullshit.

[AL P]

Originally posted by That_Is_My_El_Camino
The quote said two thirds, whose only exact form is that of the fraction 2/3 (a theory). However, you disagreed, and I substantiated it with actual, inexact numbers, that approximated two thirds.



You're right. We've exaggerated by 4.5%. Damn us all. I'm just thankful we got seven solid years of prosperity before Junior came back to Washington and picked up where Daddy left off (pissing away the economy, that is).



So here you are, talking shit about my car and a hair style that hasn't been popular since you tried it. Ouch. Well, how do I come back against something like that? Let me think really hard. Really, really hard. Boy, this would be so much easier if I weren't retarded. Ah, therein lies the solution and my response: I'm not retarded, I don't have a mullet, and I my remarks are the result of logical thought, good organization, and proper syntax while yours are illogical and brimming with, well, bullshit.

So, after all that you are still sticking with the article where 63%=2/3 huh?

Well, I can recommend a math tutor if you'd like....

[HookEm]

2/3 of the American people????

only 50% voted, and of that 50%, less than 50% voted for Clinton.
where do you get your fuzzy math from?


Originally posted by RidinSpinnas
Just before Mr. Bush left office at the request of two-thirds of the American people

[HookEm]

What a stupid fuck.
let's make this easy:
50% of the US public is registered to vote.
In that election, slightly less than 50% of registered voters voted......
so, even if Bush Sr got ZERO votes, that would put the number who voted agaisnt him at 25%....a far cry from your bullshit claim.



Originally posted by That_Is_My_El_Camino
Nobody said that the people who voted for Perot voted for Clinton. The statement was that "two thirds of the people wanted Bush gone." Two thirds of the people voted for someone other than Bush, be it Clinton, Perot, or the others.

By the way:

[

[HookEm]

to be more correct, and to shore up my guesstimates:

potential voters: 255 407 000
registered voters: 133 821 178
registered voters who voted against Bush: 64,852,226

%/100= is/of

x/100=64,852,226/255,407,000

x=
25.39171832


so, I was slightly off......I didnt realize 78% of registered voters actually voted.

But Clinnochio NEVER took a majority of electoral votes...he only took 43% of the pop.

http://cdp.binghamton.edu/era/elections/usa92pres.html

[RidinSpinnas]

This thread is a good example of how semantics can cause people to lose sight of an issue. A little word play (regardless of how you see it) causes an uproar and the whole message is overlooked. Personal gain can be acheived by pouring money into people who have power over policy. Reminds me of people that focus on what Kerry did after the war with his medals/ribbons instead of the fact that he actually WENT to war.

edit: Most people don’t realize that George Bush Sr. had a gold mine: Barrick Gold Mining Corp. Just before Mr. Bush left office at the request of NEARLY two-thirds of the VOTING American public....

If we tried to dissect everybody's posts on here in regards to validity and the evidence of solid facts, we wouldn't get past the first couple of sentences on anyone's posts, period. Somebody will always bitch about it from one side of the fence or another.

[HookEm]

You tried to claim that 2/3 of America didnt want Bush Sr in office.....and now you're confused as to why no one gives a rip about the rest of the thread?

Originally posted by RidinSpinnas
This thread is a good example of how semantics can cause people to lose sight of an issue. A little word play (regardless of how you see it) causes an uproar and the whole message is overlooked. Personal gain can be acheived by pouring money into people who have power over policy. Reminds me of people that focus on what Kerry did after the war with his medals/ribbons instead of the fact that he actually WENT to war.

edit: Most people don’t realize that George Bush Sr. had a gold mine: Barrick Gold Mining Corp. Just before Mr. Bush left office at the request of NEARLY two-thirds of the VOTING American public....

If we tried to dissect everybody's posts on here in regards to validity and the evidence of solid facts, we wouldn't get past the first couple of sentences on anyone's posts, period. Somebody will always bitch about it from one side of the fence or another.

[RidinSpinnas]

Originally posted by HookEm
You tried to claim that 2/3 of America didnt want Bush Sr in office.....and now you're confused as to why no one gives a rip about the rest of the thread?

No, I tried to claim that Bush Sr. changed policy for a private company and in the end many people profited from it, including he and his family. I don't give a rat's ass about how many voted for/against him. One thing is certain, they didn't want him in office any more.

[HookEm]

Dude, you should have tried to be Clinnochio's press secretary, the way you spin.
You didn't give a rat's ass, yet this is the second sentence in your foaming post:

Just before Mr. Bush left office at the request of two-thirds of the American people
Right...you don't give a rats ass about it, and I dont give a rats ass about Texas losing to the Sooners....mmmm kay.
And to take a page from YOUR BOOK:


potential voters: 255 407 000
registered voters: 133 821 178
registered voters who voted against Bush: 64,852,226

%/100= is/of

x/100=64,852,226/255,407,000

x=
25.39171832

if x=25.39%, then to get y, we subtract x from 100%.( y is the % of Americans who DID NOT vote for Clinton, )we get 74.61%.

So, while your statement that 2/3 of Americans voted against Bush is wildly inaccurate, my statement is as follows, and supported by actual numbers:
74.61% of Americans elgible to vote, did not vote for Clinton.
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Originally posted by RidinSpinnas
No, I tried to claim that Bush Sr. changed policy for a private company and in the end many people profited from it, including he and his family. I don't give a rat's ass about how many voted for/against him. One thing is certain, they didn't want him in office any more.

[RidinSpinnas]

Originally posted by HookEm
Dude, you should have tried to be Clinnochio's press secretary, the way you spin.
You didn't give a rat's ass, yet this is the second sentence in your foaming post:

Right...you don't give a rats ass about it, and I dont give a rats ass about Texas losing to the Sooners....mmmm kay.
And to take a page from YOUR BOOK:


potential voters: 255 407 000
registered voters: 133 821 178
registered voters who voted against Bush: 64,852,226

%/100= is/of

x/100=64,852,226/255,407,000

x=
25.39171832

if x=25.39%, then to get y, we subtract x from 100%.( y is the % of Americans who DID NOT vote for Clinton, )we get 74.61%.

So, while your statement that 2/3 of Americans voted against Bush is wildly inaccurate, my statement is as follows, and supported by actual numbers:
74.61% of Americans elgible to vote, did not vote for Clinton.
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

True 74.61% of americans did NOT vote for CLinton. Roughly 50% (47.6% 121585822) of the american public that could vote, didn't care to. Now 62% of voting public did vote for a Bush delete option. That is pretty close to 2/3 thirds of the voting public. Clinton also got 69% of the electoral college votes. That's 370 votes. 32 states (not including DofC). 32/50= 64%. Do you want to break it down into what states voted which way and look at the county population totals too? We could probably find more ways to beat this down.


Gimme a break, I don't care to argue all night long about one sentence in a single post. My foaming post was wildly inaccurate. You are right. Clinnochio's press secretary? Ha. I'll go back to reading MY BOOK.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by RidinSpinnas
This thread is a good example of how semantics can cause people to lose sight of an issue. A little word play (regardless of how you see it) causes an uproar and the whole message is overlooked. Personal gain can be acheived by pouring money into people who have power over policy. Reminds me of people that focus on what Kerry did after the war with his medals/ribbons instead of the fact that he actually WENT to war.

edit: Most people don’t realize that George Bush Sr. had a gold mine: Barrick Gold Mining Corp. Just before Mr. Bush left office at the request of NEARLY two-thirds of the VOTING American public....

If we tried to dissect everybody's posts on here in regards to validity and the evidence of solid facts, we wouldn't get past the first couple of sentences on anyone's posts, period. Somebody will always bitch about it from one side of the fence or another.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sooners suck and so do the longhorns. Hook 'em horns good buddy.

[That_Is_My_El_Camino]

Originally posted by HookEm
Dude, you should have tried to be Clinnochio's press secretary, the way you spin.
You didn't give a rat's ass, yet this is the second sentence in your foaming post:

Right...you don't give a rats ass about it, and I dont give a rats ass about Texas losing to the Sooners....mmmm kay.
And to take a page from YOUR BOOK:


potential voters: 255 407 000
registered voters: 133 821 178
registered voters who voted against Bush: 64,852,226

%/100= is/of

x/100=64,852,226/255,407,000

x=
25.39171832

if x=25.39%, then to get y, we subtract x from 100%.( y is the % of Americans who DID NOT vote for Clinton, )we get 74.61%.

So, while your statement that 2/3 of Americans voted against Bush is wildly inaccurate, my statement is as follows, and supported by actual numbers:
74.61% of Americans elgible to vote, did not vote for Clinton.
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Alright, I see what your saying. However, I used a different website for my figures (because two significant digits is quite inexact when projecting to hundreds of millions). The only thing it didn't include was the number of eligible voters.
Actual Numbers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1992)

From this, let x be the percentage of eligible voters that voted for Bush.
x = 39,102,343/255,407,000 = 0.15309816488976418030829225510656 = (approximately) 15.31%
Then let ~x (compliment of x) be the percentage of eligible voters that did not vote for Bush: ~x = 1 - x = 0.84690183511023581969170774489 = (approximately) 84.69%

Alrighty, I'll put my previous statements differently:
"The majority of the voting population, approximately 85% (for the sake of two significant digits), did not support Bush's re-election."

Anyone that wants to dispute that, good luck.

[HookEm]

and approximately 75% did not support Clinton....point?



Originally posted by That_Is_My_El_Camino
Alright, I see what your saying. However, I used a different website for my figures (because two significant digits is quite inexact when projecting to hundreds of millions). The only thing it didn't include was the number of eligible voters.
Actual Numbers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1992)

From this, let x be the percentage of eligible voters that voted for Bush.
x = 39,102,343/255,407,000 = 0.15309816488976418030829225510656 = (approximately) 15.31%
Then let ~x (compliment of x) be the percentage of eligible voters that did not vote for Bush: ~x = 1 - x = 0.84690183511023581969170774489 = (approximately) 84.69%

Alrighty, I'll put my previous statements differently:
"The majority of the voting population, approximately 85% (for the sake of two significant digits), did not support Bush's re-election."

Anyone that wants to dispute that, good luck.

[That_Is_My_El_Camino]

Originally posted by HookEm
and approximately 75% did not support Clinton....point?

I was just putting your statement into context. Fewer people did not support Clinton than did not support Bush; more people supported Clinton et al than supported Bush et al, and more people supported Clinton than supported Bush. The 75% that you said opposed Clinton just made it look unfavorable, so I decided to make Bush's figures seem downright sad.

[HookEm]

it's 10%..........not much at all.

Kinda like the "Not much at all" burnouts you've been leaving.


Originally posted by That_Is_My_El_Camino
I was just putting your statement into context. Fewer people did not support Clinton than did not support Bush; more people supported Clinton et al than supported Bush et al, and more people supported Clinton than supported Bush. The 75% that you said opposed Clinton just made it look unfavorable, so I decided to make Bush's figures seem downright sad.

[That_Is_My_El_Camino]

Originally posted by HookEm
it's 10%..........not much at all.

Kinda like the "Not much at all" burnouts you've been leaving.

Ten percent is quite a bit: it's 25,540,700 people and their votes, their hopes and their wings that take dreams...

[HookEm]

no, it isnt votes..it's people who did not vote for candidate x or y...nice try, no cigar......


Originally posted by That_Is_My_El_Camino
Ten percent is quite a bit: it's 25,540,700 people and their votes, their hopes and their wings that take dreams...

[That_Is_My_El_Camino]

Originally posted by HookEm
no, it isnt votes..it's people who did not vote for candidate x or y...nice try, no cigar......

Um, yes. Those who didn't vote elected not to use their vote, but they still had a vote.

[HookEm]

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

Listen asshat...AGAIN....only 50% of the US population that is ELGIBILE to vote, is REGISTERED to vote....is it that fucking hard???????????
GD you are an idiot......not voting doesnt mean they chose not to vote for Bush...it means they were too fucking lazy to go vote. OR, in the case of 50% of Americans who could vote, were too lazy or apathetic to register.


Originally posted by That_Is_My_El_Camino
Um, yes. Those who didn't vote elected not to use their vote, but they still had a vote.

[That_Is_My_El_Camino]

Originally posted by HookEm
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

Listen asshat...AGAIN....only 50% of the US population that is ELGIBILE to vote, is REGISTERED to vote....is it that fucking hard???????????
GD you are an idiot......not voting doesnt mean they chose not to vote for Bush...it means they were too fucking lazy to go vote. OR, in the case of 50% of Americans who could vote, were too lazy or apathetic to register.

Okay, so the ones that weren't registered chose not to register and vote for Bush. It was a choice, they chose not to register and vote for Bush (they did the same for Clinton, too).
The ones that were registered but did not vote chose to not vote for Bush.

[HookEm]

Look dude....
I've grown tired of pummeling you over the head with a logic stick. Obviously, you could fall from every tree in the logic forest, run thru every bush in the logic field, and still manage to evade logical thought.

As you said: "It's called spontaneity, a childish lapse in reason/morality/sense of consequences. Oh well. Maybe I'll do it next time"



Originally posted by That_Is_My_El_Camino
Okay, so the ones that weren't registered chose not to register and vote for Bush. It was a choice, they chose not to register and vote for Bush (they did the same for Clinton, too).
The ones that were registered but did not vote chose to not vote for Bush.

[black01gt]

Originally posted by AL P
I read this far into this statement before I found a lie. Clinton got 43% of the popular vote in that election.

I would read more of the post but I really don't see the point.
Nice diversion numbnuts!
Point is, Daddy B is a crooked motherfucker, just like Jr. B, Neil B, and Jeb (what a name) B. Barbara might be alright.
No math needed.:cool:

[HookEm]

Sources, please.

Originally posted by black01gt
Nice diversion numbnuts!
Point is, Daddy B is a crooked motherfucker, just like Jr. B, Neil B, and Jeb (what a name) B. Barbara might be alright.
No math needed.:cool: