l3ubba

This is great. I used to make liveries for GTA IV like 9 years ago, but haven't used photoshop since then so this is a perfect refresher for me. Also looking forward to you releasing those Fresno based liveries, they look awesome!

So you resent that I pointed out the truth? I am truly at a loss for words, I point out the truth and I get called out for it. I don't even know how to respond anymore, out of all the debates I have been in this is the most astonishing one I have ever seen. Yes, it is clear that this is going nowhere. Next time when someone spits out an inflated statistic I will restrain myself from correcting them.

I think that is the least amount of cars I have ever seen on 19.

What?! That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Frankly I don't care about if someone would put a "positive spin" on it. I care about facts and the fact is that out of the 11 attacks he listed 8 of them were linked to Islamic terrorist. Put whatever spin on that you want but that is what the truth is. This has to be the most ridiculous thing anyone has ever argued with me about. I don't think anyone has ever "called me out" for telling someone what the correct statistic is.

So if a middle eastern country invites us to set up a base in their country we should turn it down? You do realize that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and all the other middle eastern countries invite us to stay there. There is not a single country in the entire world that we occupy. Every country we have a military base in we are there because that country allows us to be there. All of these countries want US bases there because it benefits them in some way (economically, militarily, etc). There might be portions of the population in those countries that don't want us there but that is between them and their government, not us.

Call me out on what!? Seriously, what exactly did I say that required you to call me out? If you say "Look at these 11 car crashes that were caused by old white guys" and I come back and say "Actually only 8 out of those 11 crashes were caused by old white guys and the others were unrelated" would you still interpret my message the same way you are now? All I was saying is that out of the 11 attacks he listed 8 of them were actually tied to Islamic extremist and the others were unrelated. What is so bad about fact checking someone's work? Why is it bad that I am saying the number of attacks is lower than what he said it was? This is the most ridiculous thing anyone has "called me out" on.

Nope, not what I was doing at all. I'm about to give up explaining that though because you seem to believe that is what I meant. You are the only person who interpreted my statement that way.

Actually the first Gulf War has little to do with it. I'm not going to go into a long history but it all stems from stuff that happened back in the 50s-60s and has been ongoing ever since. The most immediate reason Bin Laden had a problem with the U.S. is because he did not like that Saudia Arabia (his home country) was allowing the U.S. to station soldiers there. Like you said, this is a discussion for another thread. My point was that we didn't just start bombing them for no reason.

Well if we want to go back to how this whole thing started, it is because they brought the war to us first (and by us I mean the United States). All throughout the mid-90s to 2000 we were not fighting any wars in the middle east. We had some soldiers stationed in some middle eastern countries but we were there because those countries allowed us to be there. There were some Muslims (like Bin Laden) who didn't think westerners should be in the middle east at all (even if those governments invited them to be there) and so they attacked us, most notably on 9/11. So if we want to point fingers lets remember that we didn't start this, we wouldn't be bombing their countries if they hadn't flown a couple of planes into our buildings and killed thousands of Americans.

I am not saying that any attacks are acceptable. When I say that "only 8 out of the 11" it is because I am saying he is exaggerating the number a bit. I don't know how that could be twisted into me saying there is an acceptable number of attacks. I am seriously confused on how you even got to that conclusion, I mean seriously, that is the most confusing response I have ever got to one of my posts.