Guest quasicartes Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 The end of the world is far, far away...Cos Neo, our saviour is here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Memento Mori Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 tdpatriots12 says the world will end in one of two ways:Celestial body collides with Earth, causing massive dust cloud to cover Earth and bring us into a new ice age. We'd have a significant warning with this, and would be able to save some of the population, quite a bit depending how much warning and how technologically advanced we are.Sol dies or goes nova (this will happen eventually). By then we'll either be killed by the above scenario or have left Earth for a new homeworld (or many new homeworlds).Heres a bonus world ending scenario: Cubs win World Series, Earth implodes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 Did you hear the European Union, initially only sent $4million in relief aid?Stingy bastards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SympathysSilhouette Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 Did you hear the European Union, initially only sent $4million in relief aid?Stingy bastards. The key word being here "initially". The American aid figure for the current disaster is now $35 million, and we applaud Mr. Bush's turnaround. But $35 million remains a miserly drop in the bucket, and is in keeping with the pitiful amount of the United States budget that we allocate for nonmilitary foreign aid. According to a poll, most Americans believe the United States spends 24 percent of its budget on aid to poor countries; it actually spends well under a quarter of 1 percent. Bush administration officials help create that perception gap. Fuming at the charge of stinginess, Mr. Powell pointed to disaster relief and said the United States "has given more aid in the last four years than any other nation or combination of nations in the world." But for development aid, America gave $16.2 billion in 2003; the European Union gave $37.1 billion. In 2002, those numbers were $13.2 billion for America, and $29.9 billion for Europe. Source NY Times Seems you are at least twice as 'stingy' as we are. Thanks for playing, anyways... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SympathysSilhouette Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 Dont know if any of you know this. But the Americans who control the satelites for weather or whatever it is knew about this and knew it was going to happen, They had 3 hours to warn ppl to get out, Thyre excuse was that they didnt know how to contact any of them. <_<Earthquakes are only mildly predictable. Even if they knew, it is not guaranteed that they would have known the extent of the richter scale reading.Also, the earthquake caused the tsunami. Earthquakes can not be monitored by satellites. They are not weather patterns. The shifts of the tectonic plates are monitored by instruments set up in the ground that measure seismic waves. None of this could have been forseen by satallite.Whether or not Americans knew in advance is irrelevant. America is not the only country with this kind of equipment and technology. So, before you go about making accusations against one thing or another, I suggest you get your facts as straight as you perfectly can. And if you received this information from a credible news source, I wonder if they were doing their jobs properly.*forgive all typing errors, it is past 3:30 amTrue. If anyone should be held responsible in that region, it should be China. They have a tradition in monitoring seismic activity (in fact, I believe they pioneered a lot of the technology used to monitor) and they were geographically in a more advantageous position to accurately 'predict' the tsunami's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest quasicartes Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 No one should be held responsible. This is totally unpredictable. Not even the US spy satellite or any other of their satellites can detect this. Most of the US technology is over-rated, the missile-shield project still doesn't work, even their GPS guided missile still doesn't work that good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt Snow Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 Did you hear the European Union, initially only sent $4million in relief aid?Stingy bastards. The key word being here "initially". The American aid figure for the current disaster is now $35 million, and we applaud Mr. Bush's turnaround. But $35 million remains a miserly drop in the bucket, and is in keeping with the pitiful amount of the United States budget that we allocate for nonmilitary foreign aid. According to a poll, most Americans believe the United States spends 24 percent of its budget on aid to poor countries; it actually spends well under a quarter of 1 percent. Bush administration officials help create that perception gap. Fuming at the charge of stinginess, Mr. Powell pointed to disaster relief and said the United States "has given more aid in the last four years than any other nation or combination of nations in the world." But for development aid, America gave $16.2 billion in 2003; the European Union gave $37.1 billion. In 2002, those numbers were $13.2 billion for America, and $29.9 billion for Europe. Source NY Times Seems you are at least twice as 'stingy' as we are. Thanks for playing, anyways... Non-Military foreign aid, that is what those figures are. Do you realize how much we spend in Military man power to help struggling countries? People in disaster areas are disorganised, the US, along with other countries spend a great deal of money on Military foreign aid each year to place troops,military engineers and the like in the countries in which these things happen. Troops provide security, carry the major load of reconstruction in some cases, and do all the dirty work which the ailing country needs done. Leadership is provided to get things back on track as quickly as possible. These services are invaluable, and most of the money for these things comes out of US citizens pockets. Not British, or Frenchmens pockets, US pockets. And it's all free to the ailing country. And yet these countries are unappreciative. We are a single country, the EU is 25 or 28, there is no reason they shouldn't have fronted more money to begin with. And shouldn't end up putting more into the bucket in the end. Development aid has nothing to do with this crisis, this is disaster relief. After the clean-up then there will be developmental aid. It makes no sense that a 25 Nation Union cannot afford anymore than twice what the US provided. And I picked up on your sarchasm at the end there, those types of things are things that get people heated, and in turn cause problems, keep it to yourself from now on. There is no reason we can't hold a discussion and keep sarchasm out of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
expert Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 I think SOCOM's avatar is the best picture I've seen of Petra yet. What a smile!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt Snow Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 It is a pretty cute pic, isn't it. Great Avatar Socom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
expert Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 It makes no sense that a 25 Nation Union cannot afford anymore than twice what the US provided. Do remember that the economy of many of these countries is smaller than many single states in the U.S. An example is the economy of California is equal to or greater than Germany. The European Union was formed to create an economy from many smaller national economies in order to compete in the world ecomomy. If any one of the individual nations could have done this without the EU then it would not have been formed. Data regarding the size of each individual country's economy and the sum of the EU would be more helpful than citing the number of countries in the Union. What the heck does any of this have to do with Petra? Discussions about the sun becoming a nova pale in comparison with the way Petra can light up a room just by being there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt Snow Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 What the heck does any of this have to do with Petra? Discussions about the sun becoming a nova pale in comparison with the way Petra can light up a room just by being there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SympathysSilhouette Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 Did you hear the European Union, initially only sent $4million in relief aid?Stingy bastards. The key word being here "initially". The American aid figure for the current disaster is now $35 million, and we applaud Mr. Bush's turnaround. But $35 million remains a miserly drop in the bucket, and is in keeping with the pitiful amount of the United States budget that we allocate for nonmilitary foreign aid. According to a poll, most Americans believe the United States spends 24 percent of its budget on aid to poor countries; it actually spends well under a quarter of 1 percent. Bush administration officials help create that perception gap. Fuming at the charge of stinginess, Mr. Powell pointed to disaster relief and said the United States "has given more aid in the last four years than any other nation or combination of nations in the world." But for development aid, America gave $16.2 billion in 2003; the European Union gave $37.1 billion. In 2002, those numbers were $13.2 billion for America, and $29.9 billion for Europe. Source NY Times Seems you are at least twice as 'stingy' as we are. Thanks for playing, anyways... Non-Military foreign aid, that is what those figures are. Do you realize how much we spend in Military man power to help struggling countries? People in disaster areas are disorganised, the US, along with other countries spend a great deal of money on Military foreign aid each year to place troops,military engineers and the like in the countries in which these things happen. Troops provide security, carry the major load of reconstruction in some cases, and do all the dirty work which the ailing country needs done. Leadership is provided to get things back on track as quickly as possible. These services are invaluable, and most of the money for these things comes out of US citizens pockets. Not British, or Frenchmens pockets, US pockets. And it's all free to the ailing country. And yet these countries are unappreciative. We are a single country, the EU is 25 or 28, there is no reason they shouldn't have fronted more money to begin with. And shouldn't end up putting more into the bucket in the end. Development aid has nothing to do with this crisis, this is disaster relief. After the clean-up then there will be developmental aid. It makes no sense that a 25 Nation Union cannot afford anymore than twice what the US provided. And I picked up on your sarchasm at the end there, those types of things are things that get people heated, and in turn cause problems, keep it to yourself from now on. There is no reason we can't hold a discussion and keep sarchasm out of it. I didn't realize that sarcasm was against the rules of conduct. How do you feel about irony? (*disclaimer - this post is sarcasm free, the only thing you should be picking up this time is ennui - disclaimer*) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt Snow Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 I didn't say it was against the rules, I just said in this discussion it should be kept to yourself, because it causes problems.There's nothing wrong with sarchasm, it just has no place in a serious discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SympathysSilhouette Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 I didn't say it was against the rules, I just said in this discussion it should be kept to yourself, because it causes problems.There's nothing wrong with sarchasm, it just has no place in a serious discussion.Fair enough. Peace amico. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronin Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 lighten up by looking at the candids...!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOCOM Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 Thanks Capt Snow and expert for the compliment. Took me a while to decide what pic to use. This is like my 20th pic as my avatar... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronin Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 ^ love that avatar...it should have been one of th eones i put in mine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOCOM Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 ^ love that avatar...it should have been one of th eones i put in mine HEHE u got beat to it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronin Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 the last one is my avatar is amazing though!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOCOM Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 I personally think she looks Freakin FINE in all of her pics... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.