2008-06-20
{Author's post-notes are inserted in curly braces.}
Reg Indy,
Instead of "lions and tigers and bears, oh my!", your paranoia sees "Mad Max" lurking behind every alias you don't recognize, particularly if the flames of intolerance and religious wars against Islam (and Iran) aren't fanned in the posting. Like Hawley before you, you exhibit indications of your failing reading comprehension skills and weakening powers of observation. I view it as further proof that you aren't a very good lawyer.
CSU student Obamarama who is "Not Max Bridges" cleaned your clock, eh? Where's your apology? Oh right. To admit you are wrong is not a reich-wing talking point thing, is it?
And what's your affiliation with CSU or Fort Collins? Assuming you're younger than Hawley, I can boast that my family's association with both goes back before you both were born. Back in my day, "freak forest" was the only thing separating my high school from CSU. I have had a CSU library card for decades. Siblings, cousins, and my PhD spouse are CSU graduates.
Hawley is out to lunch, probably because
http://chun.afterdowningstreet.org/amomentoftruth.pdf
Reg Indy, could you get your sharp legal mind to figure out how to make your VCR/DVR record Comcast local access channel 22 (soon to be channel 97) on Saturday morning from 4-6 a.m.? Have you had a chance to watch it?
Or are you avoiding it because you don't want the truth to give you a heart attack, too?
How are you coming along with researching the links:
Asshat Idiotarian Sheepdoggie Sockpuppet wrote:
"i was just as arroused as every leftist asshat when these 'conspiracy theories' emerged.... So stop drinking the bong water, take your Haldol, and try to resist the urge to publicly smear yourself in feces."
Such a fine example of how you improve the level of discourse in this forum.
Based on what you say turns your crank, have you ordered your Viagra below?
They're sure to get your pecker up, you Chesapeake troller.
And, they're on topic!
Yep, better study up on these and those 35 impeachment articles, because the war in Iraq and the war you're trying to incite with Iran are rolled into it.
http://chun.afterdowningstreet.org/amomentoftruth.pdfFeed my sheep.
Maxwell C. Bridges
Reg Indy,
You should stay away from topics that you know "less than zero" about, like math and probability.
You've already proven yourself incapable of performing high school math involving fractions and a square root to calculate the time it takes an object in a vacuum to free-fall the heights of the three (3) WTC towers that fell on 9/11.
Even when the answers are provided for you, you've proven yourself incapable of taking those calculated results and critically thinking about the time measurements (taken directly from video and given in the 9/11 Commission Report) of the observed collapses of those (3) buildings and how the fundamental laws of physics involving conservation of energy are completely broken on 9/11.
The laws of physics are not like the US laws that reich-wing political hacks can ignore, bend, or break at will, Ms. Legal Eagle.
Here is another stellar example of how math challenged you are. How many individuals posted on the "Taser This, F*** Bush!" thread on this CSU forum? There were some thousand postings. Even if we said that each person posted ten times, we'd still have more than a hundred individuals.
Using the mathematical operation known as "subtraction", the text at the bottom provides a percentage of those who thought the Bush administration was lying about 9/11. Using the mathematical operation known as "division" (and is associated with "fractions" of which a "third" is), the text also provides the percentage who think federal officials assisted in 9/11 or let it happen.
Here's the hard part. Take the "Taser This..." number and multiply it by either number given above, remembering to handle the decimal point from the percentage correctly. Or, you can take the student, faculty, and staff population of CSU and multiply it by either number. Or, you can take the population of Fort Collins and multiply it by either number.
In all cases, you'll get a number that is... drum roll please... GREATER THAN ZERO!!!
Thus, for you to say in essence that "Max Bridges = Not Max Bridges (Obamarama)" just because we both don't believe the US government's fairy tale about 9/11 ~AND~ in spite of the true calculated probabilities against us being the same, the numerous writing clues suggesting otherwise, and FLAT OUT denials by both parties, makes you (a) very stupid, (b) a liar, or (c) both.
Yep, your logic on this one is so fouled up, you prove yet again that you are a very sucky lawyer.
By your screwed up logic and faulty math skills, if "Max Bridges = Not Max Bridges (Obamarama)", then you, Hawley, and Asshat Sockpuppet are one and the same, too. Thanks for the admission.
Do you even live here?
I've provided my legitimate affiliation to CSU and Fort Collins. You have not. CSU does not have a law school. And the huge gaps in your mental reasoning, logic, and argumentation skills raises big questions whether or not you are a lawyer, a practicing one, and a good one. Maybe you're like Hawley in hyping your credentials, you paralegal you.
=====
Continuing with an assumption that you do reside in Northern Colorado, is it your same math challenged mind that makes programming your VCR/DVR such a technical hurdle?
The assignment is to record Comcast local access channel 22 (soon to be channel 97) on Saturday morning from 4-6 a.m.
After recording it, you are to watch it, think about, and debunk it all if you can.
How are you coming along with researching the links:
===============
"A New York Times/CBS News poll in 2006 revealed that only 16 per cent of Americans polled believed the Bush administration was telling the truth about 9/11. More than half thought it was “hiding something”. This is not the same as believing the government actually launched the attacks, but a Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll the same year found that more than a third of those questioned suspected that federal officials assisted in the attacks or took no action to stop them so that the US could go to war."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8d66e778-3128-11dd-ab22-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1
Hawley,
In writing up the lessons from the Karl Rove School of Online Debate (not yet published, but soon), I've refined what I called the "Hee-Haw-ley Chorus." Apropos to you, your chorus is now the acronym HATER for "Hype Associate Twist Egg Repeat."
Most of your postings are HATER fodder. Case in point:
"You denigrate our troops , and our Lord..."
You've twisted that around full circle, now haven't you? It is certainly a repeated false association that has been hyped, mostly just to egg me on, eh?
It is you who denigrate the troops, not I.
You denigrate the troops when you don't question the true reasons the wars are being fought and certainly the grand-daddy foundation of them all, 9/11. (Had a chance to view the 9/11 DVD? Did you crack a 9/11 book this last weekend while sitting by your pool celebrating your 51st birthday? Why don't you try it this Father's Day Weekend.)
You denigrate the troops when you don't question how the wars are being fought: from contractors to war profiteers, from rendition to torture. (You denigrate your Lord by trying to hype the twisted lie that the wars are righteous and just. You denigrate your Lord by not condemning the methods of our warfare.)
You denigrate the troops when you ignore the Bush Administration political games of staying one step ahead of serious judgment by stacking the deck in the courts, the judicial system, the agencies (oversight and otherwise), and even the media, and by piling on one affront after another so that the average person is overwhelmed and loses track.
You denigrate the troops when you ignore the bait-and-switch tactics of the (Mc)Bush Administration when they say they support the troops (with armor, with better pay, with VA benefits, with health care) yet their votes and (veto) actions prove otherwise.
You'd think that you'd be paying more attention to this so that your step-son gets the treatment he needs before "going postal" or offing himself. Such a loving step-father you are (not).
Because you aren't man enough to call a lie a lie when it is repeatedly spoken by someone of your political party, because you aren't man enough to be a peace maker to take what little actions are in your power to research, learn, and protest what is going on, and because you advocate further killing in your language and rhetoric, you denigrate the very religious figure who you claim as your Lord and savior. Hypocrite.
Am I going to burn in the hell fires for using the alias "Jesus H. Christ?" Nope. The commandment from the Old Testament against taking the name of the Lord in vain applied to God, not Jesus the man. A significant number of people on this planet don't believe that Jesus was God anyway, although they agree he was a very spiritual person (if indeed he wasn't a composite of many other very spiritual people.)
Jesus chased the money changers from the temple, and that's what my alias Jesus H. Christ was doing to hypocrites like you who try to use his name to justify the lying and deceitful actions of the Bush Administration, including saber-rattling against Iran and Islam in this very thread.
==================
The passage below is from "The War in Iraq Is Pure Murder" by Chris Hedges and Laila al-Arian
The politicians still speak in the abstract terms of glory, honor, and heroism, in the necessity of improving the world, in lofty phrases of political and spiritual renewal. Those who kill large numbers of people always claim it as a virtue. The campaign to rid the world of terror is expressed within the confines of this rhetoric, as if once all terrorists are destroyed evil itself will vanish.
The reality behind the myth, however, is very different. The reality and the ideal tragically clash when soldiers and Marines return home. These combat veterans are often alienated from the world around them, a world that still believes in the myth of war and the virtues of the nation. They confront the grave, existential crisis of all who go through combat and understand that we have no monopoly on virtue, that in war we become as barbaric and savage as those we oppose.
This is a profound crisis of faith. It shatters the myths, national and religious, that these young men and women were fed before they left for Iraq. In short, they uncover the lie they have been told. Their relationship with the nation will never be the same. These veterans give us a true narrative of the war -- one that exposes the vast enterprise of industrial slaughter unleashed in Iraq. They expose the lie.
...
War is always about betrayal: betrayal of the young by the old, of idealists by cynics, and of troops by politicians. This bitter knowledge of betrayal has seeped into the ranks of America's Iraq War veterans. It has unleashed a new wave of disillusioned veterans not seen since the Vietnam War. It has made it possible for us to begin, again, to see war's death mask and understand our complicity in evil.
...
Military machines and state bureaucracies, which seek to make us obey, seek also to silence those who return from war and speak to its reality. They push aside these witnesses to hide from a public eager for stories of war that fit the mythic narrative of glory and heroism the essence of war, which is death. War, as these veterans explain, exposes the capacity for evil that lurks just below the surface within all of us. This is the truth these veterans, often with great pain, have had to face.
...
The vanquished know war. They see through the empty jingoism of those who use the abstract words of "glory," "honor," and "patriotism" to mask the cries of the wounded, the brutal killing, war profiteering, and chest-pounding grief. They know the lies the victors often do not acknowledge, the lies covered up in stately war memorials and mythic war narratives, filled with stories of courage and comradeship. They know the lies that permeate the thick, self-important memoirs by amoral statesmen who make wars but do not know war.
...
We make our heroes out of clay. We laud their gallant deeds and give them uniforms with colored ribbons on their chests for the acts of violence they committed or endured. They are our false repositories of glory and honor, of power, of self-righteousness, of patriotism and self-worship, all that we want to believe about ourselves. They are our plaster saints of war, the icons we cheer to defend us and make us and our nation great. They are the props of our civic religion, our love of power and force, our belief in our right as a chosen nation to wield this force against the weak, and rule. This is our nation's idolatry of itself. And this idolatry has corrupted religious institutions, not only here but in most nations, making it impossible for us to separate the will of God from the will of the state.
Prophets are not those who speak of piety and duty from pulpits -- few people in pulpits have much worth listening to -- but are the battered wrecks of men and women who return from Iraq and speak the halting words we do not want to hear, words that we must listen to and heed to know ourselves. They tell us war is a soulless void. They have seen and tasted how war plunges us into perversion, trauma, and an unchecked orgy of death. And it is their testimonies that have the redemptive power to save us from ourselves.
==================
Hawley wrote:
[QUOTE id="f89d9277-ff8e-4aad-9330-e204d85c85ee"]
Max forgot to include that the 35 articles of impeachment will go nowhere and that even Democrats interviewed so far said so.
Also Max even if Bush were impeached wouldn't that just tie him with CLINTION.
...
You denigrate our troops , and our Lord and you have the audacity ( of hopelessness lol )to attack others.
[/QUOTE]
How many articles of impeachment were presented against Clinton? Two. How many against Bush? Thirty-five. Bush is 17 times worse.
Yep, just like how the articles of impeachment against Cheney were sent to committee never to see the light of day, we can expect the same for those against Bush. That doesn't make any of the articles against either leader less valid. Without proof and validity, they never would have made it to the House floor.
If it gets stuck in committee, it'll just mean that the leaders in Congress reflect their low approval rating and lack moral and Constitutional fortitude to perform their sworn duties. It could also mean that the Bush Administration has enough dirt (and/or the means for physical harm ala Anthrax, rendition, torture, assassination) on those same leaders to pressure them into submission. Or haven't you been paying attention to how they stack the deck EVERYWHERE ELSE.
We'll just chalk up your blinders on this to your HATER lessons that you practice so well. Truth is the enemy of a HATER.
Athough you attempt to dismiss the articles of impeachment by baselessly denigrating Rep. Kucinich (whose moral standing and integrity you'll never have), you ignore that the House voted in favor of sending it to committee. They did ~NOT~ vote against it and thereby say it had no merit whatsoever so shouldn't even be sent to committee for further review. Nice try at a Twist, you HATER.
Final thoughts from Neal Boortz with my annotations in [brackets]:
"The people who have been telling you about all the rights you have are simply exercising one of theirs - the right to be imbeciles."
[Hawley and his reich-wing echo chamber exercises this with each and every posting.]
"Liars cannot be trusted, even when the liar is the president of the country. If someone can't deal honestly with you, send them packing."
[Are you paying attention!!!]
"Don't bow to the temptation to use the government as an instrument of plunder. If it is wrong for you to take money from someone else who earned it -- to take their money by force for your own needs -- then it is certainly just as wrong for you to demand that the government step forward and do this dirty work for you."
[Please apply this to Afghanistan and Iraq, where our government and military are used as an instrument of plunder.]
{to Craig Hawley}
Within your first three sentences, you screw up.
It helps if you would read things more thoroughly. I've clearly marked off where the quote begins, where it ends, and who wrote it.
It is not from me.
The passage is from "The War in Iraq Is Pure Murder" by Chris Hedges and Laila al-Arian
Got a problem with what they wrote? Take it up with them (the authors). Alternet.org has a posting area.
As such, the HATER (hype, associate, twist, egg, repeat) attack on me you attempt falls on face.
Because your premise (that I wrote it) is false from the beginning, it kind of makes everything you wrote after it invalid. (An interesting parallel to if 9/11 is false, it makes the wars waged on the basis of 9/11 false. Or, if the Iraqi war was waged on a lie (even without 9/11), it makes continuing in the war a lie and all extensions.)
Sure enough... Not only do you put your foot in your mouth, it is a smelly foot with lots of fungus. There truly isn't much worthy about your posting that I shoud respond to. I mean, such gems as:
You go off on a NATO tangent, ignoring that I proved how you denigrate both the troops and YOUR Lord and Savior. You ignore the essense of the articles of impeachment in your silly attempts to save the sinking USS (Mc)Bush.
Here's another direct quote from you that I want you to be man enough to stand up to when it comes to supporting the troops, being a true American Patriot, and being a true Christian:
"We need people like you to live up to your words and leave this country."
Go drive a truck in Iraq with KBR or Halliburton. You'll probably make more than your mall security guard job.
[QUOTE id="9199a7f0-4131-4543-86b1-1e143ac2bc5f"]
Quote from Max.
"War is always about betrayal: betrayal of the young by the old, of idealists by cynics, and of troops by politicians. This bitter knowledge of betrayal has seeped into the ranks of America's Iraq War veterans. It has unleashed a new wave of disillusioned veterans not seen since the Vietnam War. It has made it possible for us to begin, again, to see war's death mask and understand our complicity in evil. "
[/QUOTE]
{to Registered Independent}
You wrote: "Not one sale here Maxwell."
I'm not selling anything. I'm giving it away free. Your problem is that you don't even want to inspect the goods or confront the evidence even for yourself, let alone this public debate. Your willful ignorance may be in your mouth sweet as honey, doesn't it also make your belly bitter? [Rev 10:9-10]
You underestimate my words. They will stand the test of time. As will yours. Such is the nature of databases. The question you must ask yourself is, how will history treat you?
Are database archeologists and anthropologists in the future going to say that your stance, your views, and your speculations were accurate, well-founded, and supported by evidence [even if we must wait for the Presidential archives to take the cloak of secrecy off]?
You can ridicule me and call it and me "whacko". Makes you a HATER writer. (HATER: hype, associate, twist, egg, repeat.) Nice attempt to make false associations with me that you forever repeat and hype. HATER speech is about your only weapon in the 9/11 debate.
With you, it is not about the mounting evidence. Hell, you won't record Comcast local access channel 22 (soon to be channel 97) Saturday from 4-6 a.m.; you won't shell out $20 for a 9/11 DVD (www.911tv.org) or $15 for a book from Amazon. You won't so much as review the material.
You truly do have a nationalistic belief. No amount of proof will ever convince you that American leaders could ever be just outright plain bad, even criminally bad, and certainly never would they do anything to harm American citizens like on 9/11! (Unless of course the leader is a "liberal", which through HATER means you and your ilk try to paint as a swear word.)
And why is that? Why are you so closed minded? Why aren't you listening?
Feed my sheep.
P.S. Reg Indy, you might as well sign your true alias under the words you've written even if playing with the exposed alias is fun as Sgt. Asshat Sheepdoggie Sockpuppet showed you. Otherwise, Hawley will criticize you for not having the genitals of either sex to stand up for the words you've written.
[QUOTE id="c9a25754-ba37-4fad-84b1-c5345905d927"]
*
Max has spent the last month trying to peddle his whacko Sept. 11th conspiracy pamphlets here. Guess he thought some naive frosh might buy his nonsense.
Surprise! Not one sale here Maxwell, guess you'll have to go try to peddle that made-up crap at the high school next.
*
[/QUOTE]
Mr. Hawley,
The number one HATER writer. (HATER: hype, associate, twist, egg, repeat.)
I wrote recently to another poster (Reg Indy?):
With you, it is not about the mounting evidence. Hell, you won't record Comcast local access channel 22 (soon to be channel 97) Saturday from 4-6 a.m.; you won't shell out $20 for a 9/11 DVD (www.911tv.org) or $15 for a book from Amazon. You won't so much as review the material.
You truly do have a nationalistic belief. No amount of proof will ever convince you that American leaders could ever be just outright plain bad, even criminally bad, and certainly never would they do anything to harm American citizens like on 9/11! (Unless of course the leader is a "liberal", which through HATER means you and your ilk try to paint as a swear word.)
I believe it applies to you, as well. With the exception, of course, that you have the DVD and book in hand.
Tell us honestly.
Have you reviewed the complete DVD with your finger hovering over the pause button on your remote so that you could absorb all of the bulleted information in the PowerPoint Presentations? What page are you on in the book?
Actions speak louder than words.
The question isn't as you miswrote it:
"Where is Pelosi or Reed saying they are backing these articles of impeachment."
The question is, where are you?
Ask yourself this: Do the articles of impeachment have merit? If not all, does any single one of the articles have merit?
And what exactly are you doing about it? You could call the members of the committee and voice your opinion.
Can't you even take the advice of Neal Boortz, whose words you have blatantly copyright infringed upon, who said:
"Liars cannot be trusted, even when the liar is the president of the country. If someone can't deal honestly with you, send them packing."
Some patriot you are (not), Mr. Hawley. (Some Christian, as well.) Some supporter of the troops (not). Please go reread my 6/13/08 @ 12:45 PM MST posting. Your questions were answered.
I've got to admit that once in a blue moon you really do write something that is meaningful. Here is a very apropos quotation from you:
"people [Maxwell] quotes ... are considered by most thinking human beings to be idiots."
Moreover, my "feed my sheep" tag is a quotation from Jesus H. Christ; I find it fitting that you should expose your religious hypocrisy in the very same sentence.
[QUOTE id="7260ba09-6a59-4133-a651-f373c4029987"]
- Max the author of the obvious and still clueless.
- crazy Kucinich.
- a fellow nut job sides with Max.
- Max is crazy
- people that support his thinking are just as nuts.
- far left lie factories
- people he quotes ... are considered by most thinking human beings to be idiots.
[/QUOTE]
This isn't a constructive argument. It is a smear job. And without it, HATER Hawley has no case and no basis to stand on.
Feed my sheep.
And while you are at it, Hawley, with Toto... I mean, Conway, in your arms, click the heels of your ruby red shoes together three times and chant "there's no place like home, there's no place like home, ..."
Aside from HATER techniques (hype, associate, twist, egg, and repeat), a cousin of HATER from the Karl Rove School of Online Debate is WTFBS.
The first reaction to a WTFBS instance may indeed by the more profane "WTF? BS!", but it really stands for "wishful thinking: false bold statement."
With just a few comments in [brackets] from me, here are some of Hawley's latest WTFBS with some HATER mixed in:
[QUOTE id="cbeedfe3-8ec0-4fbc-8b76-78dbd090b578"]
- "Bush has never been proven to be a liar"
["President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials... made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."]
- "It is the left that hates ... and wants to take away all individual freedoms for some collective percieved good."
[Who wrote the USA Patriot Act and rammed it through Congress? Military Commissions Act? Who has been illegally spying on all US citizens in direct violation of the FISA courts?]
- "I wrote to Neal Boortz to ask permission to use that commencement speech"
[Just like WTFBS about serving in Vietnam and coming to CSU for a paid speaking engagement. If such were the case, you should have written words to the effect: "Re-published with the author's permission." ]
- "these peace loving Muslims that Max embraces are animals and need to be erased from the planet and history."
[So, just how do Jesus’ teachings fit into this statement? Love your enemies?]
- "These people are sick and need to exterminated with extreme prejudice."
[Yep, another example proving that Hawley lied about being a Christian.]
- "General Petraeus ... was a genius. His strategy obviously worked to perfection and should now be applied all over Iraq and Afghanistan."
[You probably can't even state what his strategy was. Given that he oversees all American forces, one would think that it is already being applied all over Iraq and Afghanistan, obviously with dismal results otherwise you'd be touting its success there, too. Do you get dizzy with all that spinning?]
- "Why in hell would any one call for us to withdraw now that we can see the finish line."
[The only finish line people can see is a new administration, most likely Democrat by a landslide with huge Republican losses in the House and Senate. It probably won't be as easy for lock-stepping and lock-voting Republicans to rubber stamp neo-con-jobs.]
- "If we win no one is going to remember that the war went badly for long."
[Except the families of those who fought, except the Iraqis, except anyone with a conscience who knew it was wrong from the beginning.]
- "Liberals and Democrats and people like Max are the worst kind of cowards and apologists , and defeatists."
[Here is an example of a few lessons mis-learned. Not too long ago, Hawley wanted to take me to task for someone else's quote: "War is always about betrayal: betrayal of the young by the old, of idealists by cynics, and of troops by politicians." His error-filled and laughable response began: "Never use a term like 'always' in a debate Max you loon. It will always be easily defeated and wrong." The lesson mis-learned isn't limited to the word "always" (which Hawley also shot himself with); it includes "never", "all", and the implied all in front of "Liberals" and "Democrats". Good job of smearing most of the United States, whose citizens lean towards "liberal" ideals on many things even if they don't use that term or label themselves as such.]
- "War is not evil... And it is not always about betrayal."
[Spoken by someone who never saw combat, is a wanna-be but not quite "Vietnam ~ERA~ Veteran," and didn't understand the quotation.]
- "They are not real Americans and deserve our contempt."
[And what exactly is a real American? Such a WTFBS utterance proves that Hawley isn't here to have reasoned, rational discussion. He wants to provoke a fight, about anything and everything.]
[/QUOTE]
As much as I would like to address these WTFBS and HATER instances and others in more detail, the revelation has been slow in coming to me that doing so would not benefit Hawley. (Or Reg Indy. Or Sgt. Asshat.) They don't want to know the truth.
Hawley himself can't be bothered to even read a book or watch a DVD. How many books did I give you? Have you read any of them? What page are you on in "Debunking 9/11 Debunking"? I rest my case.
What does their reluctance to study readily available material say about them? It goes beyond mere "reluctance." Their words violently oppose any nuggets of truth (and mounds of evidence) that would contradict their belief in the righteousness of America and its leaders.
Their eagerness to dismiss [9/11, Iraq, Iran, Christian] truth out of hand without review paints a very unflattering portrait of their closed minds. How can we be sure that the bill of goods they are selling us about Islam and Iran (Afghanistan and Iraq) isn't bound and limited in the same manner?
"Liars cannot be trusted, even when the liar is the president of the country. If someone can't deal honestly with you, send them packing." Neal Boortz
Readers beware: These three (3) beat the drums of war. They fan the flames of xenophobia and religious intolerance against anything Muslim, Arab, (Iranian), or otherwise having to do with the Middle East. The many articles that they planted here serve as a whole to "dehumanize the enemy" and to ridicule the religion piece by piece.
Thanks for plugging my website, www.maxbridges.us, Reg Indy, and giving me another opening to talk about 9/11.
Still too bashful to sign even your normal alias? Hawley is losing all respect for you.
By the way, where's your website? Where do you collect the articles and opinions that help mold your thought and form the basis for your positions? I suspect that you don't have one of your own, preferring instead to use the reich-wing talking-points verbatim; whatever they post, you swallow... hook, line, and sinker.
How is your Amazon book order coming?
What about your order of a 9/11 DVD with presentations by physics professor Steven Jones?
I would ask you how your reading and viewing were going, but it is a silly question in light of your (in)actions on the above tasks. Such a closed mind you wield. Chicken! Scared-y cat! Afraid of the truth! Terrified of what you might learn!
You made the comment:
"Anyone who points out reality ... is labeled a 'hater'."
It is factually wrong on both counts.
Count One: You have never pointed out the reality of 9/11, never made the government's case (well), never defended them (convincingly), and never torn apart the arguments of the 9/11 truth movement, arguments that are in the public domain, easy to acquire, and even easier with my most generous offer to purchase and send those very materials to your doorstep. (Of course, because Hawley has proven he isn't using what I sent him, maybe you should request that he send his to you, that way your identity and address will never be known to me.)
I even made it easy for you to pick out lone 9/11 truth arguments, like Sir Isaac Newton's equations for a falling mass and the laws of conservation of energy.
Is that irrational? Is that being a lunatic? I suppose for someone as math and science challenged as you, maybe it is.
Count Two: To my knowledge and particularly in the recent postings, I have not called anyone a "hater" (a noun, lower-case), although it probably applies. I certainly, though, have called you a "HATER writer", where the HATER term is an acronym (adjective, upper-case), is defined in all posts first time where it is used, and means: Hype Associate Twist Egg Repeat.
If you can't see the spelling differences as well as the grammatical usage differences, then we can possibly chalk that up to the same bottom-of-her-class education as your math and science skills.
(The new cousin acronym of HATER is "WTFBS" for "wishful thinking: false bold statement.")
Shall we point out some of your HATER and WTFBS efforts?
[QUOTE id="120f6e32-1224-4a72-88fe-e620f677e407"]
- CONSPIRACY-THEORY TROLL:
- a September 11th Conspiracy-theory nut
- Maxwell is an irrational conspiracy-theory lunatic
- [Maxwell's] postings are from the twilight zone)
- MAXWELL'S LOONY WEBSITE AT www.maxbridges.us
[/QUOTE]
A valiant effort to associate me with negative branding that is repeated. But does it have any substance there? You attack me, maybe because you can't attack the concept.
(Please, as I've requested before, I'm urging you to do some 9/11 research and then teach me where I'm wrong. Unlike you, I have an open-mind; I can be convinced; I can change my opinion. I'm tired of being called a "nut" and "lunatic". I want to be just another sheep grazing in the pasture.)
Now if you want to exhibit even more HATER skill by twisting this acronym to mean that ~YOU~ are a "hater" (lower-case, noun: "one who dislikes intensely and feels strong hostility towards"), by all means if the shoe fits...
I'm embarrassed to have to point out yet another grammatical point that you missed regarding channeling Jesus H. Christ. It was a question with hypothetical undertones. I wrote:
"You mock me for having used the moniker, 'Jesus H. Christ.' Can you be so sure that when the letters typed themselves out into my keyboard that the resulting words -- many of them very common direct biblical quotations -- weren't the channeled thoughts of Hey-sus himself?"
So, Reg Indy, are you sure? Are you positive that biblical quotations from Jesus in my writing were indeed ~NOT~ the channeled thoughts of Jesus trying to pierce your stubbornness and get you to think and maybe act differently, like in accordance with your professed beliefs?
Whatever your answer, at least I have an excuse. Who are you channeling?
I'll state it again. I'm just another Blues Brother on a mission from God. My directives concerning 9/11 truth were very clear. "Feed my sheep."
Check out the article linked to my alias.
Here are some short quotes from the article. Below Hawley's message are some longer passages.
- "McCain [rallies] his crowds against all the major isms: terrorism, socialism, elitism, anti-Americanism."
- "McCain never veers off a strikingly Bushian binary version of reality, in which the world is divided into clear-cut camps of God-fearing American good and un-Christian, bomb-tossing foreign (and foreign-enabling) evil."
- "The instant both [McCain and Clinton] crossed into the hater column and began feverishly jacking off the toothless racists of the Deep South with broadsides against the America-hating socialist menace Obama, all was instantly forgiven.
- "Fear and hatred in this country have never gone out of style."
Now we know where Hawley and his echo chamber get their talking points: McCain speeches. Words from Hawley:
[QUOTE id="cbeedfe3-8ec0-4fbc-8b76-78dbd090b578"]
- "It is the left that hates ... and wants to take away all individual freedoms for some collective percieved good."
- "these peace loving Muslims that Max embraces are animals and need to be erased from the planet and history."
- "These people are sick and need to exterminated with extreme prejudice."
- "General Petraeus ... was a genius. His strategy obviously worked to perfection and should now be applied all over Iraq and Afghanistan."
- "Why in hell would any one call for us to withdraw now that we can see the finish line."
- "If we win no one is going to remember that the war went badly for long."
- "Liberals and Democrats and people like Max are the worst kind of cowards and apologists , and defeatists."
- "War is not evil... And it is not always about betrayal."
- "They are not real Americans and deserve our contempt."
[/QUOTE]
Below are longer exerpts from "McCain's Playbook: Hate, Fear and Caveman Politics" by Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone Magazine
The reality is that the once independent-thinking McCain has by now completely remade himself into a prototypical, dumbed-down Republican Party stooge - one who plans to rely on the same GOP strategy that has been winning elections ever since Pat Buchanan and Dick Nixon cooked up a plan for cleaving the South back in 1968. Rather than serving up the "straight talk" he promises, McCain is enthusiastically jumping aboard with every low-rent, fearmongering, cock-sucking presidential aspirant who's ever traveled the Lee Atwater/William Safire highway.
...
[T]he one-time "insurgent" McCain has finally decided to sail with the wind at his back by going dumb and courting the same talk-radio demographic that used to despise him. What enables him to do so is a key insight: that while George W. Bush may be unpopular as an individual, fear and hatred in this country have never gone out of style.
The remarkable metamorphoses this year of both Hillary Clinton and John McCain would be puzzling and inexplicable were it not for a basic truism of the political-hate game. The reasons McCain and Clinton were villains of the Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity crowd [... was...] their stubborn refusal to indulge in drooling-caveman demagoguery. The instant both of them crossed into the hater column and began feverishly jacking off the toothless racists of the Deep South with broadsides against the America-hating socialist menace Obama, all was instantly forgiven.
...
This dumbed-down, hypersimplified incarnation of McCain offers the vehicle for his new platform, which is just the same old ring-around-the-collar fear-mongering horseshit used by a generation of conservatives, warmed over to fit 2008. In fact, in his stump speeches these days, McCain never veers off a strikingly Bushian binary version of reality, in which the world is divided into clear-cut camps of God-fearing American good and un-Christian, bomb-tossing foreign (and foreign-enabling) evil.
...
Break it down and this is basically the same old label game, with McCain trying to rally his crowds against all the major isms: terrorism, socialism, elitism, anti-Americanism. His crude attempts to paint Obama with these brushes are more or less the whole of his argument for the presidency. Obama is terrorist-coddler because he is "ready to talk in person with tyrants" like Ahmadinejad, he hates soldiers because he refused to condemn MoveOn's "General Betray Us" ad, and he's a socialist because he favors health-care reform - despite the fact that the Obama plan isn't "socialized" medicine any more than the universal requirement to buy private auto insurance is socialism.
...
It's not about the war, or the economy, or the faltering Republican brand, or any of that: This is about hate and fear, and a dark instinct in our blood going all the way back to Salem, and whether or not a desperately ambitious ex-heretic named John McCain can whip up a big enough mob in time to drown the latest witch.
Hawley,
That is like the third time I've seen you post those third- or fourth-hand extracts from Dr. Peter Hammond. Have some net-courtesy!
Rather than flooding us with it again and again, a link to the source would serve us better. After you posted it the first time to this forum, a reference to the date and time of your first posting (and possibly a link to your posting if on a previous page) would serve us better. Marking where the included text starts and ends would serve us better.
==============
Be that as it may, your question about which country hasn't had problems with Muslims is framed to suit your goals of "purveyor of hate and intolerance."
In another era in America, we'd be having this same discussion about (Native American) Indians, Chinese, Irish, Italians, "uppity Negros", Japanese, Koreans, Asians, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Indians (from India), Catholics, Puritans, etc.
Every country on the planet in all eras has had "us versus them" problems whose roots are often in tasks that are deemed below the level of a certain class of people living there, so they "invite" guest workers to perform them. The ruling class in the host country write laws: the guest workers is restricted where they can work, what jobs they can perform, where they can live, and how long they can have that job before they are expected to go "home." The root problem is: the guest worker is a person who has likes and dislikes, religious beliefs, and languages; he acquires over time loved ones, friends, belongings, and lifestyles in the host country. The baggage builds as does his feeling of belonging in the host country (regardless of his level of integration) and his estrangement from his native land.
In your hate mongering against Muslims, you've simply re-packaged the age-old class (and race) issues. You try to re-frame the issue as the problem being all one sided: an outsider's unwillingness to integrate.
However, the insiders have a natural tendency to exclude. Ever been to England or Germany, where the first words out of a person's mouth can determine their subsequent treatment? A native going from one region to another of the same country can have his region's dialect exclude him. You add foreign languages, skin colors, and religions to the mix, and the exclusion in every country in the world is even more pronounced. Such language exclusion happens here in America if you consider the region dialects of the mid West, South, New York, Boston, LA, etc. and that's before you dive into inner-city speech which often evolves with the expressed purpose of exclusion.
The one different element you bring up with Muslims are religious practices that you deem unworthy. (Don't twist this to imply I condone them.) You and Sgt. Asshat tend to bring up isolated instances in the news and want to paint all Muslims in that color. And hey, the culprit is caught, tried, and convicted as per the laws of the host country, sending an appropriate message to thousands or millions of other Muslims in that country with regards to the limits of their religious freedoms.
Do you want all Christians to be associated with and defined by the actions of the Mormons in Texas, the Branch Davidians, the shootings at a Christian school and church in Colorado, [Jim Jones, Jim Crow-KKK, slavery, slaughter of native American Indians], etc.? Do you want all Americans to be defined by the numerous shootings at colleges and schools by "God-less" and misguided American youth? Do you want all Americans to be defined by drug abuse, physical violence, and deaths by firearms (as depicted by Hollywood)?
The obvious answer is "No".
Yet, you seem oblivious to the fact that you are doing the same thing in your stilted depiction of Muslims.
Moreover, you are oblivious to American foreign policy's role in pouring gas on the flames of regional extremists (regardless of their religious affiliation). The excerpt below is a prime example.
Aside from the political ramifications, the cultural ones should also be pointed out. These military bases are not designed to integrate Americans in any manner, shape, or form. A little slice of America -- from God-less McDonalds to Christian churches -- right in the middle of a Muslim land.
From "The Greatest Story Never Told: Finally, the US Mega-Bases in Iraq Make the News" by Tom Engelhardt
Think of [106 bases, mega to micro, all across the country] as the greatest American story of these years never told - or more accurately, since there have been a few reports on a couple of these mega-bases - never shown. After all, what an epic of construction this has been, as the Pentagon built a series of fortified American towns, each some 15 to 20 miles around, with many of the amenities of home, including big name fast-food franchises, PXes, and the like, in a hostile land in the midst of war and occupation.
...
Iraqi leaders close to the Bush administration... were angered by, and leaking like mad about, American strong-arm tactics in negotiations for a long-term Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that would officially embed American-controlled bases in Iraq for the long-term, potentially tie the hands of a future American president on Iraq policy, and represent a sovereignty grab of the first order. (A typical comment from a pro-Maliki Iraqi politician in that Post piece: "The Americans are making demands that would lead to the colonization of Iraq.")
...
It couldn't have been clearer just how little they cared for Iraqi sovereignty or pride when L. Paul Bremer III, George W. Bush's personal representative and viceroy in Baghdad, before officially "returning sovereignty" to the Iraqis in June 2004, signed the infamous (though, in this country, little noted) Order 17. As the law of the land in Iraq, among other things, it ensured that all foreigners involved in the occupation project would be granted "freedom of movement without delay throughout Iraq," and neither their vessels, nor their vehicles, nor their aircraft would be "subject to registration, licensing or inspection by the [Iraqi] Government." Nor in traveling would foreign diplomats, soldiers, consultants, security guards, or any of their vehicles, vessels, or planes be subject to "dues, tolls, or charges, including landing and parking fees," and so on.
...
And all private contractors were to have total immunity from prosecution anywhere in the country. This was, of course, freedom as theft. Order 17 would have seemed familiar to any nineteenth century European colonialist. It granted what used to be termed "extraterritoriality" to Americans. Think of it as a giant get-out-of-jail-free card for an occupying nation.
[T]he Bush administration remained in the same Order 17 frame of mind. ... Cockburn (and other journalists subsequently) would report that they were asking for Order 17-style immunity for the U.S. military and all private contractors in the country, as well as the use of up to 58 bases.
...
They also evidently insisted on control over Iraqi air space up to 29,000 feet, the right to bring troops in and out of the country without informing the Iraqis, and the right to "conduct military operations in Iraq and to detain individuals when necessary for imperative reasons of security," again without notification to the Iraqis, no less approval of any sort. They may even have insisted on the freedom to strike other countries from their Iraqi bases, again without consultation or approval.
...
With their secret SOFA negotiations, they've attempted to fly under the radar screens of both the U.S. Congress and the Iraqi people. They wanted to embed permanent bases and a long-term policy of occupation in Iraq in perpetuity without letting the matter rise to the level of a treaty. (Hence, no advice and consent from the U.S. Senate.)
Not surprisingly, this episode, too, is threatening to end in debacle. The Iraqi leadership is in virtual revolt. Across the political spectrum, as Tony Karon of the Rootless Cosmopolitan blog has written, the negotiations have forced upon the Iraqis "a kind of snap survey or straw poll? on the long-term U.S. presence, and goals for Iraq" from which the Americans are likely to emerge the losers.
Lest there be no confusion.
Maxwell C. Bridges
The sheople I need to convince about 9/11 are not necessarily reading this in the here and now. And of those who might be reading this now, their silence means neither confirmation nor denial. (And even in case of the latter, time can turn it into the former.)
For my purposes, they don't have to reveal themselves (and risk ridicule by you.) I've planted the 9/11 seeds, and you provide ample opportunity for me to water them. Eventually, there'll be enough re-enforcement here and elsewhere for those seeds to germinate and take root; 9/11 study will grow; the overwhelming evidence and truth will shine forth about the falsehoods perpetrated on the US citizens by its government. And I'll be vindicated and lauded for having endured again and again your Roman crosses to express Truth.
As for you and your ilk, no, I have not convinced you. Don't know that I ever will.
That you haven't been convinced has nothing to do with the merit of the 9/11 truth movement arguments, because you've never been curious enough, fair enough, or tolerant enough to give them a reasoned, rational study. Your silence to the questions about your progress in the 9/11 materials I gave you is an admission that speaks volumes about your mentality and mindset, and very little about the 9/11 subject either way.
As long as you avoid a reasoned discussion and keep trying to slam me down with tactics of HATER (hype associate twist egg repeat) and WTFBS (wishful thinking; false bold statement), you lose in more ways than one. I'm thankful that you egg me on and thereby play your role in God's plan for me to fulfill my duties in feeding his sheep.
=================
You wrote in true HATER form:
"Max would have been one of the people before WWII that would have defended Hitler and told us that Germany was just misunderstood."
Further proof that you have not read "The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot" by Naomi Wolf, a book that I also sent you.
Quite the contrary to your HATER twist, I would have been a German in Germany trying to raise awareness in my fellow countrymen about the dangers of Nazism and the encroachment on German civil liberties. By the likes of you, I would have been put into a labor concentration camp or executed immediately after a kangaroo court trial (much like Guantanamo) for the crime of speaking out.
And for the record, Prescott Bush, the grandfather of your beloved President, was not only a Nazi sympathizer and Hitler supporter, he was a war profiteer who made money illegally doing business with Nazi Germany.
You wrote in true WTFBS:
"WWIII is right around the corner according to the Bible , and Max is wanting to hand out flowers to the purveyors of hate and intolerance."
If there is any truth to the WWIII being right around the corner, it is being helped along by Christian hypocrites and false American patriots such as yourself, who feed and unleash the dogs of war and won't listen to reason. Of the so many biblical lessons taught in countless Christian churches that you have yet to learn is that a loving act as simple as "handing out flowers to the purveyors of hate and intolerance" could help dispel the very same hate and intolerance.
Here's an analogy I know will rub you the wrong way.
The one theory not explored by official 9/11 government reports is controlled demolitions. Yet, this is the one theory that explains completely all features and anomalies in the three collapses, and doesn't break the laws of physics or deviate from historic trends in building fires to do so. (Those official government reports were to be scientific, based on scientific methods, thorough, complete, and explore ~all~ possibilities. Evidently, that is Bush-speak for "cover-up", because they start with their conclusions and try to twist the data to comply; they don't entertain the theory of controlled demolition; and they completely ignore WTC-7!)
What is the one theory that explains completely your unwillingness to review the 9/11 material and your over eagerness to march America into WWIII? When future generations view your contributions to online databases, they will not hold up the body of your written work as a model of intelligence and reasoned thought; they will suspect your true motives for posting so voraciously in this and numerous other forums using HATER techniques to offend your opponents. The more parallels are found between you and (Mc)Bush campaign rhetoric and "bomb-bomb-bomb bomb-Iran", the greater the probability of your honorary position as a (Mc)Bush Propaganda Minister, aka government troll, charged with controlling an academic corner of the internet. If you aren't that, then why do you play that role?
Reg Indy,
We don't need further proof about what a bad lawyer you are.
As if it makes any difference whether the statement "2+3=5" came from a math professor or a history professor. Is a true statement limited by its medium of expression, particularly when there are other means to validate it?
And as a right-winger, it surprises me that you don't know what the true purpose of the Rolling Stone magazine is and its writers: to make money. Period.
They make money by selling advertisements that are separated by feature articles. The job of the writers is to write something worth reading that then bring reader's eyeballs close enough to the ads to see the ads (to help sell the product and brand for the advertiser.) Whereas the advertisements might indeed "sell lousy music", the articles themselves don't have to.
Others will argue the point about whether or not the RS audience is the "under 25, easily-led set". Based on your (Mc)Bush flag-waving and your utter refusal to even scratch the surface of 9/11 research, I'd say that it is you who is in the "easily-led set," whatever your age.
You're really straining to discredit me, aren't you?
Why don't you re-direct those efforts and strain yourself to discredit THE POINTS that I bring up about McCain, about Iraq, about 9/11...
And while you are at it, please identify your affiliation with CSU and Northern Colorado.
And for your reading pleasure, another funny extract from the RS article.
From "Full Metal McCain"
I catch up with a man named Ron Saucier and a woman who would only identify herself as Mary. Ron says his problem with Obama is the integrity thing. "He exaggerates too much," Ron says. "He's not honest."
"OK," I say. "What does he exaggerate about?"
"Well, like that time he was saying he had a white mother and a white grandmother," he says.
I ask him how this is an exaggeration.
"Well, he was saying . . ." he begins. "As if that qualifies him to . . ."
Despite my repeated prodding, Ron seems unable or unwilling to say aloud exactly what he means. Finally, his friend Mary, a grave-looking blonde with fierce anger lines around her eyes, jumps in, points a finger and blurts out one of the all-time man-on-the-street quotes.
"Look, you either are or you aren't," she says.
"And he aren't," Ron says, nodding with relief.
{to Sgt. Asshat}
Your point being...?
Is discussion of anything 9/11 verboten by government trolls except in smears and personal attacks?
You prove my point regarding ridicule.
Why don't you address the topic of the one theory not explored by official 9/11 government reports? Come on, I'd love to hear you explain why all of those wonderful government agencies deviated from standard scientific methodolgy, wrote their conclusion first, tweaked the data to match the predefined conclusions, and completely ignored even discussing other reasonable explanations, like controlled demolition. Why did they not report on WTC-7?
How is your Amazon book order coming? Or is your reluctance to cough up some money indicative of your tiny closed mind which is reflected in the substandard wages you earn making it impossible to afford such a luxury?
Oh yes. You should follow your own advice about feeding the trolls.
[QUOTE id="6588fa86-f997-466f-be9c-1f9e784b1b6b"]
For my purposes, they don't have to reveal themselves (and risk ridicule by you.)
...
That you haven't been convinced has nothing to do with the merit of the 9/11 truth movement arguments, because you've never been curious enough, fair enough, or tolerant enough to give them a reasoned, rational study. Your silence to the questions about your progress in the 9/11 materials I gave you is an admission that speaks volumes about your mentality and mindset, and very little about the 9/11 subject either way.
As long as you avoid a reasoned discussion and keep trying to slam me down with tactics of HATER (hype associate twist egg repeat) and WTFBS (wishful thinking; false bold statement), you lose in more ways than one.
...
The one theory not explored by official 9/11 government reports is controlled demolitions. Yet, this is the one theory that explains completely all features and anomalies in the three collapses, and doesn't break the laws of physics or deviate from historic trends in building fires to do so. (Those official government reports were to be scientific, based on scientific methods, thorough, complete, and explore ~all~ possibilities. Evidently, that is Bush-speak for "cover-up", because they start with their conclusions and try to twist the data to comply; they don't entertain the theory of controlled demolition; and they completely ignore WTC-7!)
What is the one theory that explains completely your unwillingness to review the 9/11 material and your over eagerness to march America into WWIII? When future generations view your contributions to online databases, they will not hold up the body of your written work as a model of intelligence and reasoned thought; they will suspect your true motives for posting so voraciously in this and numerous other forums using HATER techniques to offend your opponents. The more parallels are found between you and (Mc)Bush campaign rhetoric and "bomb-bomb-bomb bomb-Iran", the greater the probability of your honorary position as a (Mc)Bush Propaganda Minister, aka government troll, charged with controlling an academic corner of the internet. If you aren't that, then why do you play that role?
[/QUOTE]
Beware the leader who bangs the drum of war,
In order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor,
for patriotism is indeed a double edged sword.
It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind.
And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch
And the blood boils with hate
And the mind has closed,
the leader will have no need of seizing
the rights of the citizenry.
Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism,
will offer up all of their rights unto the leader, and gladly so.
How do I know?
For this is what I have done.
And I am Caesar.
------------- Julius Caesar
Another hype, associate, twist, egg, repeat (HATER) smear job by Hawley, through and through.
I have not ignored your Muslim rants. I talked about the age-old "us-versus-them" mentality and how what you're doing is just another form of that. I said Sgt. Asshat's posted articles were isolated instances hyped and twisted out of context, so that your forum echo chamber could beat the drums of war for (Mc)Bush's venture against Iran and Islam. Such saber rattling against the two I's appears to be based on the same lies and techniques that got us into the third I, Iraq. A huge part of the hype to get us into Iraq was the repetition of the false connection "Saddam-9/11-Saddam-9/11". Finally, 9/11 is the used car that don't run for anyone who lifts its hood or kicks its tires. So anything done on the basis of 9/11 needs to be re-evaluated for validity, like even the invasion of Afghanistan.
You wrote:
"I don't lie or change my name for anybody least of all an nut like you."
Let's see, we know the "I don't lie" part of that sentence is... A LIE. We have:
Hmmm... We know that you lie. We know that you practice the Karl Rove lessons of trying to caste your weaknesses onto others. Given that you can't get over the fact that there were aliases I didn't cop to (because they weren't me and had you not been lying about contacting DHS/authorities, you'd already know that)... then, what is the possibility that you and Reg Indy and Sgt. Asshat are one in the same?
We can always tell when Hawley is losing the debate, because he reaches deeper and deeper into unfounded personal attacks and distortions (the "T" for twist in "HATER"). Here's some libelous "wishful thinking; false bold statements" (WTFBS) from Hawley:
- "you are is a consummate liar that is willing to distort , and lie to get pothers to believe his version of the truth"
- "You on the other hand have tried to mislead , distort and outright lied whenever you thought it would win an argument"
- "you feel that you can lie , cheat and distort to achieve your angelic goals"
- "If God spoke to you you would not have lied so many times and tried to pretend you were other people to win an argument."
Projecting a lot of yourself onto me, aren't we now? If you are going to make such bold declarations, you should back them up with evidence. With you, it is all about barney and bluster, grand sweeping statements you can't back up. You let your anger get the better of you, and it is reflected in your repetitious (poor) writing (the "R" in "HATER").
And before you repeat more falsehoods, multiple alias usage doesn't count:
- The use of multiple aliases isn't considered lying. And if by itself that were sufficient, then Reg Indy and Sgt. Asshat are proving themselves to be the consummate liars. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. (Reg Indy & Sgt. Asshat: I have no issues with your alias usage. I'm pointing out that if Hawley were honest and fair, either he would have issues with you or he'd drop this stupid strawman argument with me.)
- Admitting to certain aliases when exposed isn't lying; connecting aliases together for you before exposure isn't lying; leaving a very broad trail isn't lying (like "Jesus H. Christ" and "Feed My Sheep"; re-use of concepts on www.maxbridges.us; a consistent writing style).
- Denying certain alias usage isn't lying, particularly if they aren't me. I guess that fact makes you madder than all else: Maxwell wasn't alone and didn't have to rely on out-of-state re-enforcements. If you truly believe I pulled a Sgt. Asshat in the underwear thread, the burden of proof lies with you and will be quickly solved by your buddies at DHS or with a little reading, thinking, and typing/writing analysis. I recommend you go the DHS route, because you've repeatedly demonstrated dismal reading comprehension, thinking, and analysis skills; I'd prefer my vindication coming from an independent third-party.
========= Hawley ain't... Christian
I don't know why you were trying to pass off a knowledge of Revelations. I'm still stuck in the four Gospels, because that's where Hey-sus made his mark. You didn't get very far in your biblical analysis, though. How about giving a reference to where it says WWIII is coming ("you fool")? How about outlining what all the signs are from the Bible and how exactly you think they have been fulfilled? Until you do so, your attempt at biblical scholarship remains a WTFBS instance, another hollow argument, and a "refutable fact."
More to the point, we know you aren't a Christian (thereby almost nullifying anything you might gleam from Revelations). Here are two direct quotations from you (among many that could be data mined) that prove you aren't a Christian:
- "these peace loving Muslims that Max embraces are animals and need to be erased from the planet and history."
- "These people are sick and need to exterminated with extreme prejudice."
I just love this apropos quotation from you:
- "people [Maxwell] quotes ... are considered by most thinking human beings to be idiots."
In one sentence, you call yourself an idiot as well as Jesus, because I provided a lot of quotations from him. If you were a Christian, isn't that blasphemy, Hawley, to call your Lord and Savior an idiot?
I leave you with another of your wonderful quotes where you were talking about yourself in the second person:
"You have no honor or credibility."
=========
Now that your leaky swift boat attack has been swamped, let's return to the topic at hand.
How about doing your 9/11 assignment already all right? Stop procrastinating! It has only been since, like, February that you've had them, right?
If you want to put an end to me ever bothering you in a thread again... Hell, if you want public apologies from me as well as chocolates and flowers delivered to your door as further tokens of my repentance... then do your damn homework. You have excellent 9/11 books and a 9/11 DVD that 9/11 truthers such as myself refer to. Debunk them. Please. Debunk their facts, their evidence, their physics, their math, their analysis. Please! I'm tired of being called nuts, loony, or even "the mark of the beast!" I want to be just another sheep in the pasture.
Until then and meanwhile.
----------
...
I'm a soul man
Got what I got
The hard way
And I'll make better
Each and every day
So honey
Now don't you fret
'Cause you ain't seen
Nothin' yet
I'm a soul man
...
---------- Sam and Dave
Just another Blues Brother on a mission from God. My directives concerning 9/11 truth were very clear. "Feed my sheep."
Nice hatchet job, Hawley. Read the damn 9/11 books I gave you.
The NIST report on 9/11 was charged with looking into **HOW** the towers fell, not **WHO** felled them. They were to look into **ALL** possibilities, all reasonable explanations. Their supposedly scientific methods left many holes:
- They pre-suppose that the damage from the airplanes combined with "raging" fires initiated the collapse, despite lots of contradictory evidence regarding the extent of the damage from the planes and that the fires weren't so raging.
- Even if their analysis could explain (poorly) the initiation of the collapse, it does not explain the cascading collapse and the level of destruction. They have since recanted the pancake effect given in their first report -- and which Popular Mechanics bases its propaganda -- and now talk about the sagging floors pulling the walls in.
- In order to get their computer simulation to come even close to explaining the failure initiation, not only did they have to plug in worst case values (e.g., extremely hot & uniform fire like from a blast furnace under ideal conditions, insulation uniformly torn off by the aircraft, key support structures destroyed, etc.) -- which firefighter witnesses and video evidence shows was not the case --, but they had to overdrive and tweak even those worst case values beyond the limits of reality to get the structure to fail in simulation.
- Their analysis essentially stops once the collapse initiation starts. It does not explain what happens after failure starts: how the collapse breaks the laws of physics and conservation of energy by both falling at free fall speeds *AND* having the extra energy to pulverize concrete and break steel beams.
- The NIST report covers only the collapse of WTC-1 and WTC-2; it does not cover the collapse of WTC-7, which was not hit by a plane and had no jet-fueled fires.
- If the NIST report would have been thorough and complete in its reporting and if it would have been following scientific methods as is the norm for scientific papers, then it would have addressed all of the common hypotheses of the day, including controlled demolition instead of or in addition to the planes and fires. It would have explored the evidence of such and either defended or refuted it. No mention is made of controlled demolition, despite it being the one theory that can adequately address all aspects of the collapses of all three buildings at free fall speeds into their own footprints.
===============
What we know to be facts are:
The above is reason enough to demand a new investigation. The above is reason enough to question the Bush Administration's integrity on 9/11, if for nothing else incompetence and a cover-up...
The above is reason enough to question all things based on 9/11, like Afghanistan, Iraq, the Patriot Act, Iran/Islam wars, etc.
===============
Now Mr. Hawley, if you want to get into SPECULATION about who brought down the buildings, that is an entirely different topic.
I don't need to go there, but when I do, it will certainly be with more honesty and integrity than you have shown.
George Soros?! You're just trying to throw sand into our eyes.
You play your 9/11 government troll to perfection in your unfounded speculation. Lots of HATER and WTFBS. (see previous postings for the definitions of these acronyms.)
If you wanted to be reasonable about this, you'd READ THE BOOKS I sent you.
In fact, I don't need to address your wild-ass questions and speculations (designed to distract, mislead, and muddy), because answers are provided in more detail than I can offer here in the materials in your possession.
Read and watch them. Then. Feed my sheep.
{to Craig Hawley}
There's a myth that all you need to do is outline your vision and prove it's right—then, quite suddenly, people will line up and support you.
In fact, the opposite is true. Remarkable visions and genuine insight are always met with resistance. And when you start to make progress, your efforts are met with even more resistance. Products, services, career paths... whatever it is, the forces for mediocrity will align to stop you, forgiving no errors and never backing down until it's over.
If it were any other way, it would be easy. And if it were any other way, everyone would do it and your work would ultimately be devalued. The yin and yang are clear: without people pushing against your quest to do something worth talking about, it's unlikely it would be worth the journey. Persist.
------------- Seth Godin
You wrote the following wishful thinking false bold statement (WTFBS):
"None of the facts you say are lies I told are proven to be lies. They are just your opinion that I lied."
Sorry to disappoint you, Hawley, that is just your opinion. These are all lies that were exposed at one point or another that you'd prefer to see buried.
========= Hawley ain't... Christian
Here are two direct quotations from you (among many that could be data mined) that prove you aren't a Christian:
- "these peace loving Muslims that Max embraces are animals and need to be erased from the planet and history."
- "These people are sick and need to exterminated with extreme prejudice."
I just love this apropos quotation from you that reflects so well on you:
- "people [Maxwell] quotes ... are considered by most thinking human beings to be idiots."
=========
We can always tell when Hawley is losing the debate, because he reaches deeper and deeper into HATER techniques and avoids what he should be doing.
How about doing your 9/11 assignment already all right? Stop procrastinating! It has only been since, like, March that you've had them, right?
If you want to put an end to me ever bothering you in a thread again... Hell, if you want public apologies from me as well as chocolates and flowers delivered to your door as further tokens of my repentance... then do your damn homework. You have excellent 9/11 books and a 9/11 DVD that 9/11 truthers such as myself refer to. Debunk them. Please. Debunk their facts, their evidence, their physics, their math, their analysis. Please! I'm tired of being called nuts, loony, or even "the mark of the beast!" I want to be just another sheep in the pasture.
Until then and meanwhile.
Often the voice of conscience whispers
Often we silence it
Always we have to pay
---------- Cletus Nelson Nwadike, Nigerian poet
I'm just another Blues Brother on a mission from God. My directives concerning 9/11 truth were very clear. "Feed my sheep."
Nice try at a distraction, Hawley, but what a campaign organizer does for the media to make a good television shot doesn't mean that the organizer or the person they are campaigning for is bad or even rascist.
You're just desperate to change the subject from your lies.
If your starting point for evaluating the world around you is the firm belief that this nation is somehow endowed by Providence with unique qualities that make it morally superior to every other nation on Earth, then you are not likely to question the President when he says we are sending our troops here or there, or bombing this or that, in order to spread our values - democracy, liberty, and let's not forget free enterprise - to some God-forsaken (literally) place in the world. It becomes necessary then, if we are going to protect ourselves and our fellow citizens against policies that will be disastrous not only for other people but for Americans too, that we face some facts that disturb the idea of a uniquely virtuous nation.
------------- Howard Zinn
How about doing your 9/11 assignment already all right? Stop procrastinating! It has only been since, like, March that you've had them, right?
If you want to put an end to me ever bothering you in a thread again... Hell, if you want public apologies from me as well as chocolates and flowers delivered to your door as further tokens of my repentance... then do your damn homework. You have excellent 9/11 books and a 9/11 DVD that 9/11 truthers such as myself refer to. Debunk them. Please. Debunk their facts, their evidence, their physics, their math, their analysis. Please! I'm tired of being called nuts, loony, or even "the mark of the beast!" I want to be just another sheep in the pasture.
Until then and meanwhile.
In all affairs, it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted.
---------- Bertrand Russell
I'm just another Blues Brother on a mission from God. My directives concerning 9/11 truth were very clear. "Feed my sheep."
A person is entitled to change their minds about what they will or won't do in the future based on new circumstances.
That applies to both my statements made in anger and frustration about you, which led me to say I won't visit here again... and to your Christian faith.
So what that you had a Christian baptism as a teenager?
Your subsequent statements as a 51 year-old adult relating to eliminating millions of people based on their Islamic faith (and not in self-defense as you so put it), is just evidence that you no longer follow the Christian faith and are not entitled to say that you are one. (It really muddies the brand.)
To continue to make such statements about wiping people off of the face of the planet while at the same time proclaiming how Christian you are, that's lying. The two couldn't be more opposed. That pig even with lipstick ain't gonna fly.
Either you continue with your war mongering, or you dig deep into your religious faith and practice its tenants. Jesus even has a passage you can look up relating to serving two masters that you should look up.
============
Is this the weekend you're going to crack a book on 9/11?
Feed my sheep.
» Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 2: Registered 420 Jimmy
» Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 3: Semaphore for Truth
» Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 4: 9/11 Christian Science Treatment
» Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 5: Mind Your P's & Q's
» Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 6: Q Dots
Choice Quotations from the Hee-Haw-ley Himself showing his God-given character & charm:
* 1
* 2
* 3
* 4
* 5
* 6
* 7
* 8
* 9
* 10
* 11
* 12
* 13
* 14
* 15
* 16
* 17
* 18
* 19
* 20
* 21
* 22
* 23
* 24
* 25
* 26
* 27
* 28
* 29
* 30
* 31
* 32
* 33
* 34
* 35
* 36
* 37
* 38
* 39
* 40
* 41
* 42
* 43
* 44
* 45
* 46
* 47
* 48
* 49
* 50
* 51
* 52
* 53
* 54
* 55
* 56
* 57
* 58
* 59
* 60
* 61
* 62
* 63
* 64
* 65
* 66
* 67
* 68
* 69
* 70
* 71
* 72
* 73
* 74
* 75
* 76
* 77
* 78
* 79
* 80
* 81
* 82
* 83
* 84
* 85
* 86
* 87
* 88
* 89
* 90
* 91
* 92
* 93
* 94
* 95
* 96
* 97
* 98
* 99
* 100
* 101
* 102
* 103
* 104
* 105
* 106
* 107
* 108
* 109
* 110
* 111
* 112
* 113
* 114
* 115
* 116
* 117
* 118
* 119
* 120
* 121
* 122
* 123
* 124
* 125
* 126
* 127
* 128
* 129
* 130
* 131
* 132
* 133
* 134
* 135
* 136
* 137
* 138
* 139
* 140
* 141
* 142
* 143
* 144
* 145
* 146
* 147
* 148
* 149
* 150
* 151
* 152
* 153
* 154
* 155
* 156
* 157
* 158
* 159
* 160
* 161
* 162
* 163
* 164
* 165
* 166
* 167
* 168
* 169
* 170
* 171
* 172
* 173
* 174
* 175
* 176
* 177
* 178
* 179
* 180
* 181
* 182
* 183
* 184
* 185
* 186
* 187
* 188
* 189
* 190
* 191
* 192
* 193
* 194
* 195
* 196
* 197
* 198
Choice Quotations from Hee-Haw-ley's Echo Chamber, Registered Independent:
* 1
* 2
* 3
* 4
* 5
* 6
* 7
* 8
* 9
* 10
* 11
* 12
* 13
* 14
* 15
* 16
* 17
* 18
* 19
* 20
* 21
* 22
* 23
* 24
* 25
* 26
* 27
* 28
* 29
* 30
* 31
* 32
* 33
* 34
* 35
* 36
* 37
* 38
* 39
* 40
* 41
* 42
* 43
* 44
* 45
* 46
* 47
* 48
* 49
* 50
* 51
Choice Quotations from Hee-Haw-ley's Superior Officer, Sgt. Asshat:
* 1
* 2
* 3
* 4
* 5
* 6
* 7
* 8
* 9
* 10
* 11
* 12
* 13
Quotations from Jesus H. Christ:
* 1
* 2
* 3
* 4
* 5
* 6
* 7
* 8
* 9
* 10
* 11
* 12
* 13
* 14
* 15
* 16
* 17
* 18
* 19
* 20
* 21
* 22
* 23
* 24
Quotations from others:
* 1
* 2
* 3
* 4
* 5
* 6
* 7
* 8
* 9
* 10
* 11
* 12
* 13
* 14
* 15
* 16
* 17
* 18
* 19
* 20
* 21