Where is usama bin laden now?

1. 38

   sairakhanposted 13 years ago

   Usama Bin Laden was killed in pakistan and according to U.S official his body was released in Indian ocean at almost 9 pm on sunday.His body is enjoying floating in wide sea.Now on tuesday any one guess where he is ????  I am waiting for your intresting answers.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      DTR0005posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Bloated and green with crabs working their way into his body bag.

      replyreport
   2. 42

      carriethomsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      i think fish have eaten him

      replyreport
   3. 59

      tony0724posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      He is hanging out with Elvis right now.

      replyreport
2. 88

   I am DB Cooperposted 13 years ago

   I'll give the uncreative answer: they put weights into the body bag before they dump it, so his body is at the bottom of the Indian Ocean. Maybe we'll see his corpse make an appearance in a Finding Nemo sequel.

   replyreport
   1. 38

      wavegirl22posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      As always,profound words with the right amount of humor !

      replyreport
   2. 38

      sairakhanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Heheh...Thats the point.They must put weights into his body bag.

      replyreport
3. 67

   Greek Oneposted 13 years ago

   

   replyreport
   1. 93

      carcroposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I hear he's having his first bath in ten years. Seriously, who knows... his body is in the sea, however the energy that was his does not cease to exist, it must go somewhere, but where?

      replyreport
4. 71

   seanorjohnposted 13 years ago

   My guess he is in hell. Those promised virgins will make him a physical wreck.

   replyreport
5. 60

   JON EWALLposted 13 years ago

   Hubbers
   
   George Bush said that we get him dead or alive. It’s just hard to believe that they had him and he was alive.
   It's not like our people to kill a defenseless unarmed man who would be more important if we captured him alive.
   What they did was outright MURDER.
   
   IT'S something to think about, ERIC HOLDER making statements that everything done was accordingly to the law. was it the laws of war or the laws of the United States Government.
   
   Either way, murder is wrong and killing a prisoner of war is wrong.
   Whoever gave the order to kill should be exposed and put on trial, not by a civilian court but by a military council.
   In one way justice was served, Bin Laden is dead, hopefully at the bottom of the sea.
   
   The Obama administration is responsible for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth for at least once.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      thejeffriestubeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Indeed, Jon. Then perhaps explain to us the people killed by his organization, and some by him personally, that were defenseless and unarmed. We're not talking about a few people, but thousands. So you presume to judge how we could not be nice to someone who is a threat to humanity?
      
      In this country, mass murderers are put to death, and they are unarmed as well. I see this as nothing more then dispensing justice, as his actions warranted.
      
      Your attempt to spin this as a constitutional issue falls on deaf ears; sometimes just doing the right thing is enough. I think the majority of Hubbers, the American people, and certainly the family members of those killed by Osama's organization would agree with me.
      
      And it was the President of the United States that gave the order, during time of war, to carry out a mission to neutralize a threat to the entire world. Put yourself on trial for even contemplating a legal preceeding against members of SEAL Team Six.
      
      Maybe your next Hub can be about the conspiracy theory on how Osama's not really dead. That'll make for some great ad impressions!

      replyreport
   2. 60

      dutchman1951posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Jon, it is obvious it was a kill mission all they way, the US wanted no capture, no trial, no burrial site, no radical worship....on and on
      
      Things were to far gone for a capture, and although they can not come right out and say it, it was Kill all they way.
      
      Team 6 knew it when they left the ship.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         Amanda Severnposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         If it were indeed a 'kill mission', it would be hardly surprising. The Saddam Hussein trial and execution was prolonged and painful to witness. At least the world is spared a repeat performance with Bin Laden. I'm not saying that I agree with the way things were handled, but I can see what might have helped them come to this decision.

         replyreport
   3. 88

      I am DB Cooperposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I'm amazed that you have all this secret information that hasn't been released to the public yet. Do you know that Osama surrendered or was in a position where it was clear he was unarmed (that means not only not holding a gun, but no explosive strapped to his body) and ready to give himself up? That doesn't seem like the Osama bin Laden we've seen in the videos. He seemed like more of a fight to the death kind of guy.
      
      Be careful what you ASSUME, because it sounds like you're accusing some of our best-trained soldiers of murder despite not having a shred of evidence.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         dutchman1951posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Coop it is not secret, just reasoning some things out.
         
         Bush called it alive or dead,made no difference to him, and Obama agreed with that also. It is clear the US wanted no part of taking him to trial, or any of that mess.
         
         If they really wanted that it would not have been dead or alive. It would have been capture at all costs. It was not. When they told the Situation room He was KIA, Obama nodded and said; "We got him!"  that should be obvious enough, right there.
         
         We will not get the details, unless they are leaked out.
         He, Osama, did not get a change to fight, they took him out, to prevent injury to any team member. Its how they work, according to the Navy Seals Interviewed today.
         
         Also if you Think about it, they only shot the wife in the leg, to stop her advance not kill her, but Osama they shot through the head, no other bullet holes they said today. .So to me that says they intended to kill him.
         
         Thats where I was coming from on this. From what I was following on the stations today.
         
         Osama comited an act of War against the United States, they those Seals did the job asked by there commanders. I am NOT and never have accused anyone of murder here what so ever. You are begining to sound like a CNN editor here, no basis just emotional hype.
         
         This situation is a war, kind sir, not an individual commiting murder. Relax. 
         
         Your a contradiction of term here, one min. you say he needed to be captured, and we have no proof, next you claim some-one else is claiming murder?  A false statement?  No way- just relax
         
         The only one implying murder here is you, your statement
         "Do you know Osama surrendered or was in a position where it was clear he was un-armed?"  that implies to me that "YOU" are looking for something here to claim Murder?  Then in the last part here you say accusing some of our best trained..?   
         
         Just relax, I am just thinking of Obama's reaction and the statements from State Department and CIA about no burial site wanted, no marter worship, no trial etc...
         
         they are indicating the mission was to eliminate him. Thats all I mean.
         Those Seals did their job, they are not Murderers what so ever. It is war.

         replyreport
   4. 61

      chamiljposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Don't worry Mr Ban Ki moon will appoint an Advisory Panel to investigate possible war crime like he did to Sri Lanka for killing LTTE leader by Sri Lankan Government forces.

      replyreport
   5. 72

      Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Jon, I could be wrong, but I don't recall you being so "picky" about torture during the Bush administration or his sanctioning of illegal surveillance of American citizens' communications.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         JON EWALLposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Ralph Deeds
         ''Jon, I could be wrong'' yes you are wrong again.
         I trust that our government will use WHATEVER MEANS available to save Americans. Our president Obama has ordered that harsh treatment not to be used since he became the commander. Today he was in New York doing a victory celebration for killing an unarmed man. How much more info maybe we could have gotten from him if he was alive?
         RALPH, just a diversion as to how the economy is in the dumps. It was reported that the judge has charged the government with ignoring his order to stop the moratorium on oil drilling in the gulf, the judge ordered the government to release the drilling permits. ‘’ we need to wean us off the need of foreign oil ‘’, stopping the production of our own oil is not the way to reduce oil prices.
         
         Here is one for you to think about.
         In Massachusetts ,50% of homeowners are underwater. Maybe people need a job instead of an unemployment check.

         replyreport
         1. 72

            Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            "In Massachusetts ,50% of homeowners are underwater. Maybe people need a job instead of an unemployment check."
            
            True. The GOP forced too many compromises in the recovery program with a result predicted by several Nobel Prize economists (e.g., Stiglitz and Krugman who have been saying for a couple of years that the federal stimulus was inadequate and too fearful of inflation and not fearful of much costlier unemployment).
            
            Here's Krugman's column from today's paper--
            
            http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/opini … ef=opinion

            replyreport
            1. 60

               JON EWALLposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Ralph Deed
               ''True. The GOP forced too many compromises in the recovery program with a result predicted by several Nobel Prize economists''
               
               Can you name the compromises ?
               
               ''Krugman's column'' didn't mention any Republicans by name, wonder why?
               The  Fed  buying up the debt is a problem and the dollar is losing value.

               replyreport
               1. 72

                  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  The GOP supported Bush's bailout of the Wall Street banksters, but, with some turncoat Blue Dog Democrats, forced a stimulus package on Obama that was too small to promote much of a recovery in employment.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     JON EWALLposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Ralph Deeds
                     You said
                     ‘’The GOP supported Bush's bailout of the Wall Street banksters, but, with some turncoat Blue Dog Democrats, ’’Hopefully, one must get by the propaganda that the media reports
                       Google Keyword  ‘’votes on the tarp bill’’
                     ALL democrats supported the bill. Most republicans voted against the bill ... Democrats why did B-Obama vote for TARP essentially taking….
                     
                     Let’s not forget that Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid were in  majority control of Congress since  Jan 2007. The recession started in Dec 2007.When the dems took over unemployment was 4.5%, a barrel of oil was $54 and we had a robust economy.
                     
                     JAN 2009 , OBAMA is President with a super majority Democrat Congress with Pelosi and Reid in leadership of Congress. Where are we today after spending $4.5 trillion? Did the stimulus work? HELL NO!
                     Feb 14, 2009 Senate members vote on the $787 billion plan
                     Jan 28, 2009 President Obama is expected to win the House vote today for his economic ... The $819 billion stimulus bill passed the House 244 to
                     House Passes Stimulus Plan With NO G.O.P. Votes.
                     Feb 6, 2009 ... The U.S. Senate is headed toward a possible vote on a $900 billion version of an economic stimulus bill
                     http://www.voanews.com/english/news/a-1 … 11817.html
                     
                     In the end, NO  House Republicans voted for the economic recovery bill. It passed the House on Friday by a vote of 246 to 183. (Seven Democrats also opposed the bill.) Hours later, the Senate just barely passed the bill, 60 to 38, with three crucial Republican votes to reach the 60-vote threshold to AVOID a filibuster.
                     .
                     Lawmakers got to see the final version of the historic 1,073-page bill JUST HOURS  before they had TO VOTE on it. NOT 72 HOURS AS PROMISSED.
                     
                     http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2 … he-sought/(page)/2
                     
                     The package includes $308.3 billion in new spending, $267 billion for social services, and $212 billion for tax breaks.
                     WAKE UP, ARE WE BETTER OFF NOW IN MAY  2011?
                     IN 2.5 YEARS with Obama & Company in CHARGE they  have added $4.5 trillion to the national debt.
                     The Obama Administration has shown how incompetent and inexperienced they are in governing the country. CASE CLOSED!

                     replyreport
                     1. 72

                        Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        The Republicans were skeptical of the stimulus program and were a factor in it's ultimate inadequacy. Jon, what is your personal belief about the effectiveness and desirability of government stimulus vs. balancing the budget when the country is faced by a severe recession. I don't recall your comments at the time, but all my life Keynsian stimulus economics has been a swear word for conservatives who have preferred "voodoo economics" of Arthur Laffer (cut taxes for the rich and corporations) and the "starve the beast" all taxes are bad views of Grover Norquist. If the conservatives had been in charge we would still be in a depression.
                        
                        Just curious, what is your criticism of Obama--that his stimulus package was too small, too big or what? Many economists criticize him and the Democrats because they believe it was too small? Seems to my it's a bit hypocritical to be opposed to economic stimulus and criticize Obama because his program has been inadequate.

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           JON EWALLposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           Ralph Deeds
                           '' If the conservatives had been in charge we would still be in a depression.''
                           We are still in a recession!, unemployment went to 10% ( a phony number). Hhealthcare cost are still going up ( obamacare) hasn't helped
                           ''conservatives had been in charge '' what don't you and the liberals understand about being in charge?
                           A majority control of Congress 2007,2008,2009 and 2010
                           With a supermajority control of government 2009 and 2010 plus a President  ARRAGANT,INCOMPETENT AND A HOLLYWOOD PRODUCTION
                           The Dems control 2/3 of our government today,they can't get the job done!
                           OBAMA AND COMPANY HAVE SPENT $4.5 TRILLION ,GIVE ME THE RESULTS. TO BE CONTINUED!

                           replyreport
                           1. 72

                              Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              Jon, it's easy to criticize. How about some answers. Are you a fan of the reptilian humanoid Paul Ryan who wants to gut Medicare, turn SS over to Wall Street and cut expenditures while we are still in a recession? That's called digging deeper when you find yourself in a hole.

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 JON EWALLposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                 Ralph Deeds
                                 WASN'T IT REPORTED THAT THE RECEESION ENDED IN JUNE 2009?
                                 RYAN'S PLAN DOES absolutely NOTHINg TO MEDICARE RECiPIENTS NOW receiving medicare. Check it out  get past the President's mis information.''turn SS over to Wall Street ''HOW DOES HE DO THAT???
                                 ''cut expenditures'' THE GOVERNMENT'S PROBLEMS ARE NOY MONEY COMING IN, CONGRESS IS SPENDING MORE THAN THEY TAKE IN = BIG TIME PROBLEMS

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 72

                                    Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                    True, I won't be directly affected by Ryan's proposal, but younger people will be screwed with his voucher plan which would put them at the mercy of the insurance companies. Fortunately, it doesn't like he's getting much traction. 
                                    
                                    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/09/opini … ef=opinion
                                    
                                    Congress is spending more than it's taking in thanks to the Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans, Bush's two wars, Bush's unfunded gift to the drug companies (Medicare drug benefit) and the deep recession (thanks to the banksters and regulatory failures) which cut tax revenues deeply. Remember that Bush was left by Clinton with a budget surplus. Please read Paul Krugman's column linked above for a little economics and political history lesson.

                                    replyreport
6. 83

   habeeposted 13 years ago

   Heee ees sleeping weez zee feeshes.

   replyreport
   1. 38

      sairakhanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      hey hey hey... you all took the topic to different side.i was asking about your answer that where is usama bin laden now.Only I am DB Cooper give best answer. You are great Mr. Cooper.

      replyreport
7. 60

   knolyourselfposted 13 years ago

   Typical mafia hit. They gave him concrete shoes.

   replyreport
8. 68

   Pearldiverposted 13 years ago

   Meanwhile, as the debating continues, Bin Ladan gallops off across dusty Pakistani roads and back up into the hills. Given a one hour hour head start, he steers his trusty goat towards his next Prayer Stop and BP Feeding Station!
   
   
   
   
   "Don't Worry" says George "A hand in the bush, is worth two in the bird... and the goat will lead us to the W-O-M-D, hidden behind the BP Goat and Donkey Feeding Station!"
   
   "Can you make sure we've got access to that 599 Trillion Dollar Bin Laden Budget.. because the Pakistani Aunties Magazine is doing another interview with Dad and you know his rate!"
   
   
   
   "Will you be attending the Memorial Service George?"
   "No.. I don't know if I can look them in the eye!"

   replyreport
   1. 38

      sairakhanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      hahahah

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      That picture is just gross in more ways than one.
      
      And the powers-that-be thought it would be inappropriate to post dead Osama pictures for public viewing!   Wow.

      replyreport
9. 87

   rebekahELLEposted 13 years ago

   It was hardly a victory celebration, and now you refer to OBL as an unarmed man? He would think nothing of pointing a gun to any American's head. 
   I didn't see President Obama with a bullhorn. What if this happened when GW was president. Would you be saying the same thing? He would be hailed as a brave hero.

   replyreport
   1. 66

      psycheskinnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Well, he is a man and he was unarmed at the time.  So I don't think you can call that an inaccurate statement.

      replyreport
      1. 87

         rebekahELLEposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I'm simply making an observation about how political views seem to affect how we assess situations and issues. I have never heard OBL referred to as a man, but as a murderer.

         replyreport
10. 68

    AnnCeeposted 13 years ago

    I wonder if they put a locater on him.   Amazing they brought bodies and black boxes from that French plane that went down off South America last year.

    replyreport
11. 60

    BobbiRantposted 13 years ago

    He's probably in Vegas with Tupac, Elvis and maybe Michael Jackson?  Why not?

    replyreport
    1. 38

       sairakhanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       may be he is enjoying some rap of tupac in las vegas bar

       replyreport
12. 72

    Quilligrapherposted 13 years ago

    I can understand why some people refuse to acknowledge that some good may have come from programs they find politically objectionable. They also have to be reminded from time to time that the strength of our republic and our constitution springs from provisions for sharing the role of governance and a built in resistance to dominance by any one political mindset.
    
    The question stated above is  “WAKE UP, ARE WE BETTER OFF NOW IN MAY 2011?”  If I may submit the following facts (sans opinions or theories):
    
    1. The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 10,587 on Jan. 20, 2001, the day George W. Bush was inaugurated.  It closed 2,638 points lower at 7949 when he left office Jan. 20, 2009.  It then rose 4,689 points to close at 12,638 on May 6, 2011 only 836 days into the Obama administration. Are we better off now in May, 2011?
    2. On April 22, 2011, the Treasury Department announced $22.1 billion in taxpayer funds committed to the Public-Private Investment program in March 2009 is showing a $1.7 billion gain that includes $500 million from dividends and other investment profits. Are we better off now in May, 2011?
    3. On March 31, 2011, the Treasury Department reported bank repayments to the government under the TARP program amounted to $251 Billion compared to $245 Billion paid out.  An additional $20 Billion in profit is expect in the future. Are we better off now in May, 2011?
    4. The Total Public Debt, according to TreasuryDirect.gov, increased $4.9 Trillion during President G.W.Bush’s Administrations and $3.7 Trillion, between 1/20/2009 – 5/06/2011, under President Obama recovery programs. Are we better off now in May, 2011?.
    My point is a simple one that is neither red or blue. It is rare that reality is a bleak as blaring pessimistic rhetoric makes it out to be.  An intelligent and informed electorate must make the time to explore the facts and make a balanced assessment based upon those facts. I know many of us are concerned about the future of this country, as we should be.  And I value the opinions of others regarding this administration. But I go to sleep every night confidant our great nation will survive and benefit from this President as it did from the 43 before him.  My  apology to the OP for adding to the off-topic comments.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       JON EWALLposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Quilligrapher
       Let me add to your comment #4
       
       Bush left with the National Debt at $9 trillion
       Today,  Obama is approaching $ 14.3 trillion
       
       Can you agree that in 2.5 years, Obama has added $5.3 trillion and now he is asking Congress for $2.7 trillion more to be added before May 15/2011. The Democrats want it to be raised ,they want to spend more. The Republicans if they agree to raise it will give Obama another 4 years.
       
       We are not better off now than in 2007 because of our economy and the unemployment problems continue. Unemployment recently went up to 10%, oil prices at the pump are sky high and if you have a job you are  taking less money home.

       replyreport
       1. 72

          Quilligrapherposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Rather than continuing off topic comments, I have included my reply in a new hub.

          replyreport
13. 69

    michifusposted 13 years ago

    Osama Bin Laden was reportedly still at the head of the most dangerous terrorist group in existence. He masterminded some of the most heinous crimes ever committed. He did not personally go out and conduct these crimes, but used the Al Qaeda network, which is still in existence.
    
    The most logical thing to do, would have been to shoot the wife in the leg as a distraction, fake his death, take him away, say that he has been buried at sea, not release photos, and take him to some secret location where he could be tortured to get intelligence on the rest of Al Qaeda. Everyone's a winner. well, apart from Bin Laden of course.
    
    Since he was unarmed, there was actually no need to kill him. The US tortures other captives to get information, seems a little odd to me that they didn't even think of doing it with the worlds most wanted, and most dangerous man and stage his death.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       JON EWALLposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       michifus
       ON 60 MINUTES OUR PRESIDENT BARAK OBAMA SAID
       ''That's not who we are '' referring to the capture and killing of UBL
       '' I HAD A GREAT PRIDE IN ME OF THE ACCOMPLISHMENT ''
       
       BARAK '' I '' OBAMA did it all by himself!

       replyreport
14. 61

    mikelongposted 13 years ago

    Concerning the criticism Obama has received from Jon here, and other "conservatives", it if had been a President from the Republican party that had carried out the kill mission on dear old Bin Ladin they would have been singing his praises...  "What a strong leader we have" they would be recounting as they clink champagne glasses to the health (or lack of it) of Osama...
    
    But Bush was too busy steering us into Iraq....again, which had nothing to do with Osama or al Qaida....to get the job done.
    
    Thank you "Project for the New American Century" cronies...
    
    The GOP supports Obama's ideas, just as long as he isn't the one having them....

    replyreport
15. 60

    JON EWALLposted 13 years ago

    mikelong
    
    WRONG AGAIN MIKE
    
    OBAMA TOOK A BIG CHANCE
    He is sucking up all that he can in the last weeks. 60 minutes and 22/20, talk about political points,he hasn't missed a chance.
    Nothing new on jobs and the economy, boy was he lucky????
    
    KUDOS TO OBAMA
    
    Left a steath helicopter parts and executed enemy # 1.
    Check out foxnewssunday   Chris Wallace interview
    
    shocking!

    replyreport
16. 61

    paradigmsearchposted 13 years ago

    "Where is usama bin laden now?"
    
    Oh, please. I am sick of this thread.

    replyreport
17. 61

    paradigmsearchposted 13 years ago

    i do not have edweirdo.

    replyreport
18. 89

    SilentReedposted 13 years ago

    To all the bleeding hearts.How would you feel if after OBL is captured and put on trial.Then a high priced American lawyer gets him freed on a technicality... Are you gonna say "well,at least the American system of Democracy is working and every one is innocent until proven guilty" ???

    replyreport
    1. 60

       JON EWALLposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       SilentReed
       THE STORY HAS NOT ENDED. there were witnesses that will tell the true story about what occurred, that's why our government wants to talk to OBL's wives. Obama remarked that we don't act like our enemies act. Executing a prisoner ( war on terror) who was unarmed is just what our enemies do besides mutilating their bodies afterward  and putting them on display. A disgraceful act, ordered by the president or whoever.
       There is a huge difference in what Bush ( capturing Sadam) did ( brought him to justice ) than what Obama did in murdering bin Laden.

       replyreport
       1. 89

          SilentReedposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Yes, that would be the civilized thing to do "Will give them a trial,then hang them"But you still haven't answer the question. What if OBL got off on a legal technicality? will he be tried in the US or in the world court at Hague. the US raid after all violated a sovereign state. Add kidnapping, illegal detention, violation of human rights.

          replyreport
19. 60

    John Holdenposted 13 years ago

    http://newsthump.com/2011/05/12/conspir … os-anyway/

    replyreport
    1. 59

       hottopicsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Does it really matter. We got him, good I could care less about the manner except to say he died to quickly. It should have been a long, slow, painful death. He is in hell and he is diappointed because there are no vigins wating for him

       replyreport
       1. 60

          John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          A distraction I know, but why do Americans say "I could care less"?
          That indicates that you do care and therefore the matter is of some importance to you.
          
          Surely the intention is to indicate the total insignificance of the matter, in fact, "I couldn't care less" indicating that the matter isn't even worthy of a passing thought.

          replyreport
          1. 59

             hottopicsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             John, you only took part of my sentence to spin it.
             
             " I could care less about the manner "
             Care less about the manner means I could care less about the manner in which he was killed. Others argue he was surrendering, he was murdered. I Truly could care less about the circumstances, bottom line is we got him, the rest is inmaterial.

             replyreport
             1. 59

                hottopicsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                You left out manner

                replyreport
                1. 60

                   John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   No, I didn't miss anything out or spin anything.
                   I asked why many Americans said they could care less when they meant they couldn't care less, but never mind.

                   replyreport
                   1. 59

                      hottopicsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                      John
                      
                      A distraction I know, but why do Americans say "I could care less"?
                      That indicates that you do care and therefore the matter is of some importance to you.
                      
                      
                      Sorry. I took your sentence saying you, I thought you meant me. But you are right. Many care when they say they do not. Thats why they demand to see the photos. Peresonally, they could burn the photos

                      replyreport
                      1. 60

                         John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                         Well, I did include you as you said you could care less when all your subsequent statements indicate that you couldn't care less!

                         replyreport
20. 45

    iQwestposted 13 years ago

    Seriously - people are watching FOX and think they're getting news?  Why are the American people so gullible?

    replyreport
    1. 59

       hottopicsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       No more than those who watch MSNBC

       replyreport
21. 67

    Greek Oneposted 13 years ago

    Kanye is SUCH an ass..
    
    

    replyreport