2008-09-11
{Author's post-notes are inserted in curly braces. }
{My interactions with Craig Hawley began on the Coloradoan in early February 2008.}
Dear Mr. Hawley,
Boring because you already know the material presented? Or boring because it required you to think too much?
Its purpose was not to entertain you. You have way too many 24/7 cable television channels for that.
Its purpose was to refute the constant twisting of meanings and definitions of acceptability in the course of our nation. Its purpose was to provide some documentation that begins to link together the monumental crimes of our times so that we can do something about it.
Its purpose was to go on public record that someone did speak up and complain about the destruction of our Constitution and nation as we were taught to believe it was.
And I can assure that you if you follow the links, if you have any brain cells to connect dots, you won't be bored; you'll be scared.
Maxwell
Dear Mr. Hawley,
In a previous post you wrote:
"I can't believe this but I found my self actually wanting to see some passionate name calling or profanity."
You won't find any of that here. That's what gets your posting flagged as abusive, which could then lead to your message not being heard at all. I had written some witty, cutting put-downs to a couple of pesky government trolls who immediately snipped at some good old fashioned truth about 9/11 not with anything specific to the topic but with belitting comments about the author, a reich-wing tactic. Those exchanges between me and my debate partners were removed from public record.
Let that be a lesson to you. If you want to criticize any of the specific points that the message makes, please; be my guest. It is an intellectual debate on issues of weighty importance in our nation and a critical juncture point in its history.
Bro, I'm just another Blues Brother on a mission from God. "Feed my sheep" is what I was told.
Maxwell
Dear Mr. Hawley,
I regret to inform you that you have failed your reading comprehension test. The context of where I used "reich-wing" made it in reference to some postings on another list by other participants, not to our exchange.
You are too quick to put on the reich-wing shoe, something I never called you. However, I am glad to see that you recognized the tactic that you employed for what it was.
Here's hoping that we can elevate the level of debate beyond that.
Maxwell
R. Russell Jones:
“Again, we slog through the rationale that 9/11 has changed everything - and for some, perhaps it has. We believe a fairytale as the gospel of 9/11 because we cannot accept even the idea of the complicity of our own government: the government that has spent more energy preventing an honest investigation of the event than it spent preventing the event itself; the governors who agreed to testify only if they didn't have to tell the truth.”
ClearThinking1 wrote:
"Can you tell us what your motivation is for writing such junk? Is it ignorance of the facts, dishonesty, a mental disorder, hatred of your country, a longing for attention or just plain old stupidity?"
I turn those questions back on you. What is your motivation for pooh-poohing any mention of 9/11 being not what we were told?
It obviously isn't ignorance of the facts, because several of us have attempted to provide them. You just don't want to see them. You don't follow up on them. You'd prefer to believe they don't exist.
You are being dishonest about both the evidence and what it means for this nation. By all means, please prove your case. Take a look at my signature before you do.
A mental disorder? Guess what, a Zogby poll from last summer or so showed that 30% of the American people do not believe the official 9/11 coincidence theory told to us by the Bush Administration. Even more remarkable, that 30% is higher than those who approve of Bush. So who has a mental disorder?
I think you have a hatred for your country, because if you understood its roots, its founding, its principles, and its struggles, you would not be so quick to slander true patriots who only want the truth and honesty from our elected officials.
"The End of America, A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot" by Naomi Wolf.Feed my sheep.
Ah, ha! Here we hit the crux of your argument! And lo and behold, we see that it doesn't have any teeth.
Just because you ~BELIEVE~ that the world is flat and refuse to confront the evidence to the contrary, don't go slamming those of us who ~KNOW~ from more enlightened reasoning, observation, physics, telescopes, and evidence that it is round.
Do some historical research, because it is not beyond the realm of possibility. Historically, it has happened or been planned more often than you care to admit. Starting point: google "Operation Norwood" during the Kennedy Administration.
ClearThinking1 wrote:
"EVERY piece of "evidence" you have put forth has been proven false."
It has not, and you have not. Saying it does not make it so. It must be hard to type with your fingers in your ears as you chant "don't wanna hear it!"
On the flip side of the coin, you and your fellow "coincidence theorists" haven't put up any evidence to support your contention. [Let's ignore that most of the evidence was destroyed/recycled despite complaints from Fire Investigators and other groups, evidence was carted off by the FBI within minutes of the attacks (Pentagon), and evidence like the FAA voice tapes was cut up into little pieces and distributed in several trash cashs.]
You have yet to counter the arguments from Sir Isaac Newton regarding the equations that determine the speed of objects falling under the force of gravity.
"Popular Mechanics", aside from cherry-picking strawman arguments, did not address all issues. It has been debunked.
Go to www.911tv.org and shell out $12 or $20 per DVD to experience an hour or so of truth.
ClearThinking1 wrote:
"You also ignore the most obvious of reasons why you are wrong, the size and scope of the conspiracy that would be required to pull something like that off."
Give me a number as to how many you think it would take. Don't throw out generalizations.
You delude yourself into thinking that it would require lots and lots of people. It is estimated that only 4000 pounds of explosives would be needed to bring down a single tower. Let's try some higher math that I know you are so good at.
4000 lbs divided by 40 lbs in a liftable load equals 100 loads. 100 loads divided by, say, 10 demolition experts equals only 10 trips per person into the building at night. If you have fewer grunts moving exlosives, you have more trips but not so many that would be unthinkable to a group having complete access to the buildings over an extended period of time. The point is, 10 people with insider access (thanks to a Bush brother on the board of the security company for the WTC complex) could carry out much of the leg work. They could even be foreigners.
So, you tell me? How many demolition experts would it really take to bring down WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7?
As for everything else, do some research into the four military exercises that took place that day. More than enough distractions in the air for FAA people to ask "Is this real or an exercise?"
And please, do answer the question that you posed previously:
"Can you tell us what your motivation is for writing such junk? Is it ignorance of the facts, dishonesty, a mental disorder, hatred of your country, a longing for attention or just plain old stupidity?"
Feed my sheep.
Maxwell
Dear Mr. Hawley,
Imagine that you told everyone that I was a bad driver even though my mode of transportation had been parked in the driveway for years. You carjack it from me at gun point. Then you proceed to trick out my ride: rims, hubcaps, tires, complete detailing, engine enhancements, etc. Your argument to the judge is that your stewardship of my car is better than mine. In awarding possession, what is the judge's verdict going to be? Is he going to ignore how you obtained my vehicle and let you keep it simply because you possess it now and improved it?
The question of how the USA got involved in Iraq (illegally) cannot be brushed aside just because we are there now and have invested so much. ("You break it, you bought it" means that you have to pay for what you destroyed, not that you are entitled to live in the store and suck up its revenue.)
In fact, the condition of that stolen Iraqi car under our stewardship is a key issue that keeps the grand theft auto bubbling to the surface. The vehicle is "tricked out" only in the trick-or-treat Halloween sense. It sits on cinder-blocks and most of its useful components have been dismantled and carted off under our watchful eye. The mechanics/contractors who were hired to make it into a speeding hot rod have been fraudulently overcharging, pocketing our cash, and failing to deliver on even cheap sets of bald tires. They are unaccountable except in how they are Bush Administration cronies; political beliefs were a major factor in awarding contracts.
We have no basis to be pointing to our stewardship, our liberty, or our freedom without it easily being exposed as lying politik-speak. Worse, the joy ride that America imposed on the Iraqi population wasn't an accidental crime of opportunity; it was premeditated to the point of intelligence being fixed to match the policy to change public perception. Look into Naiomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" for an eye-opening lesson in "disaster capitalism."
You can certainly drag out the argument that Saddam was a bad driver -- no question about it --, but in the same breath it must be pointed out who gave him his driving lessons, who issued his driver's license, who supplied him with the vehicle, when the driving infractions occured, and what sanctions were imposed and enforced to contain him to keep his car in his driveway on blocks.
Mr. Hawley, you erroneously overstate the level of military support for Bush's missions overseas.
Feed my sheep.
Maxwell
Mr. Hawley wrote:
"George Bush won twice and that is what history will say no matter how much you moan, so get over it."
If you cheat, is it truly a win?
History will indeed show that George Bush became or remained President after two elections, but only after proven election fraud. Refer to Investigative Reporter Greg Palast.
Mr. Hawley wrote:
"I supported the war based on the same intelligence world wide that said Saddam had WMD's and the fact that he was pursuing them and had used them in the past. After the fact we now know that is what he was trying to do was fool the world into thinking he had WMD's with the purpose of supposedly scaring the world so badly we would not attack."
George Bush and seven of his highest ranking staff members uttered 935 lies in the run-up to the war in a concerted effort to misdirect public opinion and garner support for this endeavor.
You and nearly everyone else were neo-conned into an illegal war of aggression. Those who weren't conned were labeled pascifists, peace lovers, French, unpatriotic... I'm sure you know the lingo.
Hermann Goering, the Nazi Reichsmarshall, said:
Why, of course, the "people" don't want war. [I]t is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
You fail to point out was that invasion of Iraq was on Bush's agenda before even taking office and from day one in office. Refer to the Project for a New American Century (PNAC).
Mr. Hawley wrote:
"And please God all of you quit blaming just George Bush for the war as though he was there all by himself. From now on you had better include every country that went with us and include all the Liberals that voted for the war when it was popular right after 911."
You're right that Bush wasn't there all by himself; he had his Cheney. He had his Rice, Rumsfeld, and Powell. As for the all of the other countries, they were motivated by self-interest. Only those participating got a share of the war spoils.
Given the information (and lies) Congress was spoon-fed at the time, why would they vote any other way? Few had access to all of the intelligence, and those who did couldn't divulge anything for reasons national security. All were kow-towed by Anthrax threats and labels of unpatriotism.
Mr. Hawley wrote:
"Saddam had years and 17 resolutions to comply with the U. N. that world body America bashers love so much. ... So he tried to make the world think he had WMD's and would use them ( mother of all battles and all that jazz ) , and when they believed him and told him to give them up or suffer the consequences , he said make me. So we all made him."
Just a little bit too simplistic. You left off the part when Bush began to marshall his forces, Saddam let weapons inspectors into his country, and the inspectors destroyed a few weapons and looked everywhere (and anywhere the CIA pointed them), and they found nothing. The inspectors begged for more time (and more intelligence on where to look), but Bush had is PNAC plan of attack and couldn't be stopped.
Mr. Hawley wrote:
"[I]f we are still here after the next war that is coming because of the same lack of guts to confront evil that allowed Hitler to come to power."
I commend to your attention again: "The End of America, A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot" by Naomi Wolf.
Fascism can exist without dictatorship. Where are your guts in confronting evil? What makes you think that the US is above evil? Even the military and our elected officials are sworn to defend the Constitution against its enemies, both foreign and domestic. Why would the founding fathers have us guard against domestic enemies? What would domestic enemies look like?
Mr. Hawley wrote:
"George Bush listened to the left on Iran and we have let Europe run the negotiations and so far Iran has said screw you world we will have nuclear power and the only way you can stop us id to attack us and if you do we will destroy the world."
Wrong in your facts and analysis. Bush refused to negotiate with Iran at all under some assumption that "talking only emboldens the enemy." He failed to realize that saber rattling, putting troops on the border, and moving more battle ships to the region is more likely to embolden the enemy -- out of fear.
To avoid another Iraq debacle, Europe was bringing Iran to negotiations.
Dear Mr. Hawley,
What motivates someone (in security) from Reseda, California to contribute 3.64 posts per day to the online forum of a small, Northern Colorado newspaper?
How impressive that you can regurgitate the Bush Administration talking points without analysis or without consideration of evidence that contradict them.
You also exhibited a tactic worthy of exposing to this forum. No, I'm not talking about how you belittle others (with a manical laugh to yourself on the floor), or how you purposely set up strawman arguments supposedly coming from others that you then vigorously attack. This is pretty self-evident and very Karl Rovian.
No, the tactic you employ is to over-run with talking points and then to distract with emotions to cut-off rebutal. What was this whole thing about the military funeral, the girlscout cookies, or the "step son being shipped out 5 days before his Mom's Birthday?" Yep, park the debate into an emotional cul-de-sac in order to make anyone debating your points unsympathetic and to give them the appearance of maligning the troops.
It was recently called to my attention that the same technique was used by a guest commentator on 9/11 while the dust from the second tower was still hanging in the air. The respected news anchor tried to make the comment that the collapses looked just like controlled demolitions, what with the buildings coming straight down at near free-fall speed. The guest commentator (not a structural engineer but a policy wonk) quickly countered with what would ultimately become the official 9/11 story (paraphrased): "I don't think it was a demolition at all. No, the aircraft of the Al-Queda terrorist hitting the towers weakened them. Then the massive fires from the jet fuel melted the steel to the point where it failed. The falling mass was just too much for the underlying floors." Before the news anchor could interject a "yeah, but", the commentator went on to steer the conversation into new emotional territory (paraphrased), "But we've had such tragic loss of human life today, both of those trapped in the buildings but of the heroic police and fire departments." And so the story gets planted early, and then repeated often.
[With respect to planting stories early, I especially liked how the collapse of WTC-7 got to the BBC 20 minutes before it actually fell, whereby a news anchor was commenting about just-breaking-news of a third collapse -- the Solomon Brothers Building (WTC-7) -- while a standing WTC-7 was clearly visible behind her in the smoking live shot.]
I already know, Mr. Hawley, that you are a "9/11 coincidence theorists" believing only in the single outrageous conspiracy theory from Bush that involved 19 Muslim hijackers (a story also fleshed out to 90% early within 24 hours of 9/11 and repeated often) and that everything else was just a very lucky coincidence.
It sure is a coincidence:
I particularly like the coincidence of the 935 lies given by seven top officials in the Bush Administration in a concerted effort to get that war.
I also like the coincidence that the string of military bases we have in Afghanistan matches the proposed natural gas pipeline route that we were negotating with the Taliban pre-9/11 with encouraging words: "Either you accept our carpet of gold, or we'll bury you with a carpet of bombs."
Investigative Reporter Greg Palast [http://www.gregpalast.com/] has done more homework than you about Bush Administration "coincidences," not just those dealing with election fraud. He makes a great point regarding Iraqi oil in that control can mean both "turn it on" and "turn it off", and that limiting the supply today drives up prices and helps oil companies and Saudi Arabia, Bush/Cheney constituents.
In conclusion, Mr. Hawley, I call upon your self-promoted MENSA abilities to prove more than just your ability to take tests and spit back talking points. Let's see if it permits you to think critically about all of the evidence.
Maxwell
Dear Mr. Hawley,
You are too quick to put on the reich-wing shoe, something I never called you. However, I am glad to see that you recognized the tactic that you employed for what it was.
Maxwell
Dear Mr. Hawley,
Here is a generalization I heard. Until experience proves otherwise for individuals, Democrats initially tend to ~TRUST~ their fellow man, while Republicans initially tend to ~DISTRUST~ their fellow man.
This initial distrust might explain why Republicans are so fearful, assume the worst, and advocate extreme measures in terms of defense, immigration, and the sacrificing of civil rights in exchange for security.
Another difference I've noticed is that Democrats really do resemble the proverbial circular firing squad. They'll point out the deficiencies not only of Republicans but also of their fellow Democrats. Their loyalty isn't to the party, but to gains for their districts. It's why they have a hard time getting veto-proof majorities.
On the other hand, the Republicans tend to have much more loyalty to the party at the expense of what might be better for the nation and their districts, particularly when fear is employed and their patriotism called into question. They march and vote in almost total lock-step, which is why they have been so effective at repeatedly scuttling the congressional initiatives of the Democrats.
Case in point, when the Democrats were in the minority, they attempted filibusters only a small number of times, much to the wailing and moaning of the majority Republicans who sought legislative loop-holes to shut down this power of the minority party. Fourteen blue-dog Democrats crossed party lines and negotiated settlements. Now that the Republicans are in the minority, they filibuster or support Bush's veto threats to a much more frequent degree (orders of magnitude more often). There are zero red-dog Republicans who cross party lines to help pass useful legislation from the opposing party.
The above explains partly why impeachment proceedings are not happening. Another reason has to do with the gang of eight and the gang of four in Congress who control legislation going to committee and coming to the floor for votes. If for some reason this small number of people aren't on-board with a measure, it ain't going to happen. Refer to "The Silence of the 999 Monkeys".
(Once the page loads, you'll have to search on "999" or scroll down.)
If you have enough dirt on someone -- maybe obtained through the illegal wiretaps we've heard so much about -- and maybe have muscle like the 2002(?) anthrax mailings to members of congress, the gang of eight/four would be easy to manipulate.
Mr. Hawley, you challenged me with:
"If all that you said is true and Christophe wrote was true you have but to file a lawsuit in federal court against George Bush using your lunacy and the others who call him a war criminal as evidence."
This shows your "lunacy" and how little you understand. Sitting Presidents/vice-Presidents cannot be hauled into federal court like you or I can. (It didn't happen to President Clinton for anything he was accused of.) Regardless, they'd claim executive priveledge, put pressure on their judges, and side-step everything.
At best, they can be investigated and impeached by Congress. Once kicked out of office, then the federal courts could kick in if the offense so merited and if their successor didn't pardon them.
How strong is the case for war crimes? If Donald Rumsfeld ever sets foot in Germany, he will be arrested and tried as a war criminal. A good start.
If you are man enough:
Feed my sheep.
Maxwell
Mr. Hawley wrote:
"just something to throw out there , but I seem to see many who decry the people killed in Iraq during this war but said absolutely nothing while Saddam butchered those same people for decades. So you will excuse me if I find the left in Hollywood for instances sudden compassion for the people of Iraq. I suspect it is more about hating Bush then loving Iraq."
Another strawman argument as you attempt to blame the left, who indeed have been consistently vocal about injustices throughout the world.
Reagan and Bush I were the ones who armed Saddam. The year when Saddam turned those weapons on his own people was 1989, the middle of Bush I's term and agenda, which included propping up their CIA creation(s). As we move a bit further forward in history, we see that Republican's then had a majority in Congress under Clinton. Those Republicans hammered Clinton on all fronts. They claimed that his various small military exploits and attempts to get bin Laden were "wag the dog" to help down-play the scandals that the Republicans hyped.
So now we've put your question into the proper framework. Many of the very same Republicans who claimed in 2003 we had to oust Saddam for humanitarian reasons did and said nothing at the time Saddam committed his crimes. What is even more sickening is that the humanitarian reason for invading Iraq only came into play after the WMD argument, the WMD programs argument, the links to al-Queda arguments, etc. were proven bust.
Mr. Hawley wrote:
"It is like Darfur. Should we go there and invade to stop the slaughter? If we don't we are guilty of turning our back on humanity and if we do we are imposing our morality on others."
Should we go to Darfur and invade to stop the slaughter, you ask. No. But we should make our forces available to the UN for a UN peace keeping presence. Then it wouldn't be US morality but commonly acceptable standards of world morality.
Feed my sheep.
Maxwell
ClearThinking1:
You say that you won't be dragged into a discussion about 9/11. So be it. Let your silence be your answer, because in all honesty you don't have the facts or evidence that could bolster your contention that 9/11 happened as the government told us.
I mean, what are you going to point to? The "complete and thorough" 9/11 Commission Report? Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, the two chairmen of the 9/11 Commission, have stated twice publicly that there are inaccuracies in their report and unanswered or mis-answered questions.
Oh, little inaccuracies or unansered questions like not mentioning WTC-7, testimony of eye-witnesses in the basement of the towers about explosions, 6 hijackers alive, whistle-blowing about cover-ups in FBI investigations that would have exposed "the patsies", etc.
I'll be the first to admit that an issue here or there about 9/11 can be debunked -- particularly when it veers into speculation --, because few people have all of the facts. (And the government has been very active in not releasing information and evidence and in outright destroying such evidence.)
But every speck of information on 9/11 does not have to be defended and won to prove conspiracy probability; proving only one or two shoots down the government's coincidence theory. Contriwise, every aspect of the government's story has to be defended and won, otherwise there is reasonable doubt and probability of conspiracy. And there are so, so, so many holes in their version.
The 9/11 truth movement isn't going away; it is growing because the case against your "coincidence theory" and for "conspiracy probability" is so obvious for anyone diving even superficially into the subject with an open-mind.
ClearThinking1, you are proof-positive about why the 9/11 truth isn't vocalized more strongly and loudly. You in your role as government troll have been quick to pinkel on anyone bringing up the subject.
You, sir, are guilty of name-calling and slander, most recently when you wrote:
"Can you tell us what your motivation is for writing such junk [about 9/11]? Is it ignorance of the facts, dishonesty, a mental disorder, hatred of your country, a longing for attention or just plain old stupidity?"
How is what you wrote educated thought or reasoned debate? I am still waiting for you to answer those questions posed back on yourself.
What, indeed, is your motivation for being such an uncritical thinker on 9/11, for believing everything in the government's story, for defending them unconditionally, and for not researching the debunking of the debunking to find some truth? Come on! It isn't as if the Bush Administration's lies, stonewalling, and cover-up's in so many other areas really gives us full confidence in their version.
Will learning the truth mean that you'll have to hate your country, or does it just mean that you'll have to take patriotic steps to make it better?
Here's the real reason why you, whom I'm suspecting is a Republican, should care that the truth be exposed and the true perpetrators be brought to justice. The next president will be a Democrat. If Bush/Cheney go unpunished, the next President gains the latitude to instigate more such autricities.
"People of faith" are often accused of allowing their faith to override evidence. With regard to 9/11, The greatest obstacle to seeing the truth -- that 9/11 was an inside job -- is not the lack of evidence but what can be called "nationalist faith" -- the belief that America is the "exceptional nation," whose leaders never deliberately do anything truly evil, at least to their own citizens."
Dr. David Ray Griffin
http://communitycurrency.org/911TV/
Feed my sheep.
Maxwell
Dear Mr. Hawley,
Why is someone from Reseda, California working in security so infatuated with the online discussions of two Northern Colorado publications, namely the Coloradoan and the CSU Collegian, to the point where he averages 3.5 posts a day?
I read the physical pages of the Coloradoan every day and find it not nearly so appealing or informative except for the local movie schedules and real estate market. I get much better world news through www.truthout.org and others.
Discovering recently that I could vent online to various misguided soapboxes and opinions that I read with my morning cereal has been a nice find. What is your excuse?
Maxwell
P.S. The bowl you refer to could explain your paranoia and distrust issues to the point of desiring pre-emptive preventative red button pushing.
Dear Mr. Hawley,
It isn't always what you know, but how you use what you know. You could have looked up my profile and postings to learn what my tenure on the Coloradoan list has been. I don't post here everyday and on every subject. I haven't even been a member for more than a month, I don't think.
I wrote:
"Discovering RECENTLY that I could vent online to various misguided soapboxes and opinions that I read with my morning cereal has been a nice find."
You have failed your online reading comprehension test yet again. So much for your bragged about IQ. How many times have you brought that up, anyway? A line from Shrek, "must be compensating for something." If you have to state how smart you are based on tests from 20 to 30 or more years ago, how smart are you really? Shouldn't your intelligence be self-evident in your well thought-out and edited posts? Didn't your writer Dad teach you that?
I can trash the Coloradoan because (a) I subscribe, (b) I'm well-read, (c) I know where they are getting their news, and (d) it says just as much about the paper for the news it leaves out as it does for the news it leaves in and slants certain ways. I have seen first hand through the Coloradoan what media consolidation has done to local newspapers, to local coverage, and to corporate media bias.
Why did I care about your involvement on this list? Because you are a "damn California foreigner" skewing the views of the list. You post on so many different subjects, so verbosely, and so frequently, it is you who might be considered a stalker or one with an agenda. One might rightly conclude that you are a government troll the way you always come down on the side of Bush/Cheney and your neo-con views, not always in a friendly way or in a manner adequately reflecting the tested intelligence you brag about.
I'm assuming that your comment about worthless websites refers to www.truthout.org. Given that it is a consolidator website locating articles from many other publications too numerous to list, you find all of those source websites worthless, too? Your stellar IQ makes you so smart that you know a book by its cover, eh?
Allow me to point out that "liberal" is not a cuss word, and actually has some very redeeming qualities that could flatter all of us to have more of. "Conservative" is also not a swear word and also something we all could employ more frequently.
Be that as it may, I am a registered Republican and a delegate to the county convention. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, as they say.
It is not me but your neo-con ditto-head buddy, misnamed ClearThinking1, who makes the cheap shots on herb usage just because he can't stomach the evidence of 9/11 being an inside job.
I have nothing against you having a bowl; have a hit for me next time.
Maxwell
Dear Mr. Hawley,
Let's take a look at your recommended website.
One speculative website in favor of coincidence theory whose author/contributor won't reveal himself.
Versus
An army of 9/11 conspiracy probability websites whose membership and contributors are known and are experts in many cases.
Not comprehensive or in any particular order:
Your debunking website is interesting but not convincing. I've scanned some pages and seen what an axe to grind he has. Its author's tactic is to overwhelm us with information so that we won't look into the details.
That doesn't make the debunking website definitive. None of the other legion of 9/11 websites are definitive either. Taken as a whole and in context, though, the latter are far more convincing.
It has to do with which speculative story ties all of the pieces of the 9/11 puzzle together neatly and simply. Means, motive, and opportunity along with known cover-ups, retaliations, and seeing who benefits all paint a different picture.
The stumbling block people seem to have is overcoming their disbelief that our government would carry out an operation against its own people. If the recent relevations about the Gulf of Tonkin resolution that took us into Vietnam or the Operation Norwood document from the JFK administration aren't proof enough, let's look at WWII. After the losses from WWI, FDR knew he couldn't get America to sign on to another war without some event. The US had broken the Japanese codes and knew of their movements. We purposely egged them on by refusing to trade steel with them. Navy commanders were against orders from on high of putting so many ships into one place, Pearl Harbor. The rest is history.
Mr. Hawley, another posting on another list has you asserting strong feelings about what a liar is and what being one means.
Once you've determined that someone you know -- anyone -- regularly embellishes the truth or outright lies, doesn't that change how readily you accept any future statements? More to the point, don't you re-think what they may have said in the past and reclassify it as "iffy" or "must be verified"?
The Bush Administration has no credibility on any issue spanning the spectrum from fiscal policy to education, from justification for wars (in Iraq, Iran) to supporting our troops. They've been caught in so much spin, lies, scandals, cover-ups.
Although some of us have been stating that 9/11 was a lie almost from the beginning, certainly with revelation after revelation painting the Bush Administration as bold-faced liars, even people like you would start opening your eyes and re-evaluating the story of 9/11.
Maxwell
P.S. You challenged me to take Bush to court for war crimes in a previous posting.
"A new proposal to be voted on in the township of Brattleboro, Vermont would authorize local law enforcement to arrest Bush and Cheney should they venture into that county. In town after town in Vermont, the people have voted to support impeachment recognizing that Bush and Cheney have committed high crimes and misdemeanors. The Brattleboro indictment of Bush and Cheney is reflective of the tide of opposition to the current administration. The people of this country are refusing to let Bush leave office without facing charges for his criminal deeds."
www.impeachbush.org
Dear Mr. Hawley,
You wrote:
"Now I am a Dammed California Foreigner."
Foreigner, alien, outsider, stranger.
Foreign:
Damned: To condemn as of poor quality, harmful, unfit or illegal.
You ain't from here.
Dear Mr. Hawley,
Your test-taking intellect has failed you yet again in a real-world situation, as you set up another strawman argument. I never said an anonymous website made it untrue. I said it was one lone website of dubious origin against a legion of others more open in their make-up and biases.
You also said I was in a tiny minority of the people. Define tiny.
Is >30% tiny? That's where the 9/11 truthers stand today.
You appear to be in an even tinier minority (<30%) of people who approve of the Bush Administration.
You wrote:
"I won't even dignify your response with an answer to all the crazy theories I have already studied them and found them to be totally lacking in credibility."
That's a mighty big gun you carry, but you're shooting blanks. You're all hat and no cattle.
You won't venture a response because you don't have anything.
Step up to the plate and take on something specific. Come on, I've given you lots of targets that you could take apart... If you had something. If you were really so versed in the subject matter to categorically rule that it all lacks credibility.
But NOOOooooo! You haven't, because you can't.
You said you were in the military, so you might know about "need to know" and "compartmentalization of information." The team required to plant bombs in all three buildings could have been very small, like around 10 people. They don't even have to be American; Israeli is a likely nationality. A number like that is easy to shut up with money or other more permanent measures. I mean, if they were willing to sacrifice whoever was unlucky enough to be in the towers above the crash site and then our military forces in the planned & desired wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, what's a few more operational conspirators?
As for the military, they were coincidentally distracted by more than four military exercises happening at that time that coincidentally practiced exactly what 9/11 was and that coincidentally fell under the command of Vice President.
Coincidentally, the small number people in the military or agencies who were in a position of power to influence delays, indecisions, misdirections, etc. were not fired for their incompetence but instead were promoted and/or given Freedom Medals.
As for Ron Paul on Glenn Beck, he's a politician who still has to watch his language. [It wasn't Howard Dean's overhyped and out-of-context scream that set the forces of election fraud in the Iowa/NH primaries after him. It was his statement that he was in favor of investigating 9/11 more closely.]
That you watch the lunatic Glenn Beck says a lot about you.
Maxwell
Mr. Hawley and Mr. (Clear?) Thinking1 are so superior in their intellect, reasoning, and argumentation that they don't have to do mundane things like make a convincing case. Just them saying the words, "this is so absurd as to be not worth debating" just makes it so.
Not.
Your argument isn't with me. It is with >30% of the American people.
It is with these gutsy American Patriots who are willing to stand up for truth and the Constitution of the United States.
Go on, tell these people that they're crazy. Go destroy their arguments.
There's over 910 of them. Surely you could pick one of them out and thoroughly demolish what they are saying. 910 too many? How about just focusing on the military or just on the engineers and architects.
Or how about just on Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret). Google her and see what she has to say.
Be careful. In trying to debunk them, you just might get convinced yourself.
Just as I thought.
You two trolls are so lame.
What makes your ineffectiveness on 9/11 two notches lamer is that when it becomes clear that the US government inflicted 9/11 on us, either through inaction/incompetence or through willful participation, it'll undercut everything you've been saying about Iraq and Iran.
Feed my sheep.
Maxwell
Very witty postings, trolls. Very convincing, too. Not.
"I hereby dispel your arguments! Consider yourself rebuked!"
Too bad you can't back up your wishful boasting.
Did you even have the jewels to follow the links? Do you even know who Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski is and what role she played?
If you two trolls can't write anything substantial, how about simply not posting and do us all a huge favor by bringing your daily averages down.
From our perspective here in Colorado, Mr. Hawley, you are indeed a "damned California foreigner." You ain't from here, and your views do not represent our community. You are an outsider. Go expound your venom in Los Angeles... Unless of course their message boards have already expelled you and deflated your 1970's IQ.
As for you, Mr. (Clear?) Thinking!, your handle is wrong on both accounts.
P.S. As long as we're picking weapons, I chose stones: black and white. The game is Go, 1000 years older than Jesus Christ. The rules are simpler than chess, but the strategies more complex.
Mr. Clear as Mud Thinking,
I just couldn't resist.
"Among all Americans, 19% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 77% disapprove. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 14% approve and 79% disapprove."
http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/
Given that the numbers of 9/11 Truth seekers keeps growing, currently in the mid to high 30's ... even higher among New Yorkers who were affected ... we almost have double your numbers.
Hang on to your ignorance all the way down, baby. Or see the light, become a true patriot, and do something other than become a ditto-head echo chamber of reich-wing talking points.
Maxwell
Dear Mr. Hawley,
You should take your own advice about shutting up.
A "troll" is someone of a radically different political mindset who hangs around online discussion groups for the sole purpose of spouting his venom and egging people into online fights. A troll feels a need to post frequently and on different subjects, but is marked by a high degree of intolerance and personal attacks to make his weak cases.
I don't have to go very far into your history of postings ON ANY GIVEN DAY to find you so far into a political discussion that you were losing to observe you resort to name calling and snide belittling comments. If you can't win by staying on subject, insult the messenger. It is your MOS.
For all your boasting of all that brain-power packed into your 6'3" body, of all your test-taking abilities from 20+ years ago, and of a father who was a writer and made you read, you don't show much of it.
You keep failing your reading comprehension tests, as is evident by what you say about my postings.
Or, you are playing your reich-wing troll role of purposely mischaracterizing my postings and twisting it to create strawman arguments from my words.
I mention a simple ancient oriental board game called Go that is played with black and white stones and give a reference to another historical figure, Jesus Christ, in order to help you gauge how old it is (>3000 years), and you go off on a bender about religion.
I think you are just addicted to online fighting and deluding yourself into thinking that you are always right, with this forum being the only place in the world you can do that.
Ich weiss haargenau, was ich screibe, wenn ich Dich als Nationalsozialist benenne. Ich verstehe etwas von Geschichte. Du, aber nicht.
BTW, the Democrats have a low approval rating because they haven't done what they were elected to do, namely stop the war and impeach Cheney and Bush. They've cow-towed to Bush on too many points, and this nation is suffering because of it.
Mr. Hawley deludes himself into thinking that he has masterfully proven every single 9/11 truth seeker wrong without coughing up any evidence, much less any reasoned thought.
To help him make his case, I asked him to limit his debunking to, say, only 120+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials.
Better yet, I tell him to debunk what Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski says about the Bush Administration, Iraq, Afghanistan, and 9/11. (He can find one reference to her in the link above; although googling her can produce many many more.)
The masterful Mr. Hawley doesn't even have to mention her name to put the issue to rest: 9/11 was not an inside job and isn't worthy of further investigation; Iraq wasn't planned before Bush took office; Bush/Cheney are the most honest and upright administration officials our country has ever seen.
Mr. Hawley, if you can skillfully make your case ~WITHOUT~ evidence, links, supporting material, or even reasoned argument, then by all means please continue to send your step-daughter's out-of-state tuition to CSU ~WITHOUT~ you being here. Stay hunkered down in California with your medical Mary-Jane.
Whereas I would applaud you for your efforts to monitor your step-daughter's environment, there is a difference between monitoring and meddling. Did you ever think that the reason why your step-daughter even came to our fine institution of higher education was because maybe -- like all teenagers spreading their wings at college --, she wanted to get away from you? You've already mentioned how your active participation in this forum has had negative repercussions on her. So how does your loud mouth bragging and belittling others in this forum -- and worse, the CSU Collegian -- benefit her? It doesn't.
I don't think I'd like it very much to go into my adopted community's online forums to find my Dad using his real name, spouting off, causing fights, talking about his whole family -- including me --, and discovering that his inconsideration is impacting me should one of his debating partners get offended. This is her Colorado college experience, not yours.
Think about someone besides yourself when you post. And maybe choose a different forum to spout your vitriol. Here's a couple of good ones who absolutely love ripping into trolls like you:
Maybe you'll learn something.
Mr. Hawley,
Again you miss the point. Your online presence isn't "monitoring" things for your daughter, it is "meddling."
You write:
"The rest of your post is (too) ignorant to even comment on."
You failed to read it. So I will repeat the important items.
I want you to put-up or shut-up. Here are 120+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials who don't agree with the 9/11 fairy tale and all of them outrank you, Private Hawley. Please by all means, debunk what they have to say.
Or if you want one specific person: Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski.
TEACH ME, oh wise one.
I'm clairvoyant. I already know your Mary-Jane induced lack of motivation will have you mumble with Dorito breath:
"You pesky lunatic 9/11 conspiracy theorists don't have any credibility. Why, when I was doing my patriotic duty in the military over two decades ago and there was no danger, I knew better than any of those top-brass, and I know better than them today, too, about conflicts I haven't been engaged in. My IQ tests from the 1970's proves that I don't have to read anything from any American history for me to know that I am right. America, right or wrong; and my mother, drunk or sober. Me? Google a name like Kwiatkowski? What do you think I am? A researcher? I can debunk her and everything she's publicly said without moving my mouse, because, you know, I'm so very very MENSA smart, very humble, and a 6'3" gun-loving California freak show. Bring it on! I'll destroy your tiny arguments like I just destroyed Kwiatkowski's message. Didn't you catch it? I just debunked her. You're a nut, albeit one who can write better than me, but still a nut. I don't have to respond to you; but you know I will. Because I'm addicted. I have to have the last word. I have to be on top. I have to be right. So, fool. Don't try to censure me! And don't tell me where to post or what to read! I don't read anything, because Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity tell me everything I need to know as part of those so-called "reich-wing" talking points you're always harping on, LMAO! Oh, and Rush-bo, because he's an addict, too. Wait, hold on a second. Let me loosen the shoelaces on my black paratrooper jump boots; it was cutting off the circulation to my brain. Where was I? Oh yeah. Consider 9/11 conspiracies debunked because in my eloquence I have disproven them just now. Sir Isaac Newton? Never heard of that foreigner. I don't do math, least of all math with fractions and square roots. I'm also so funny, I'm going to fall on the floor laughing manically to myself at my own witticisms, ROFLOL. I am a balanced person. Can't you tell, you ignorant pansy? Don't go throwing facts, evidence, or links at me; I won't follow them; I won't read them. Why? Because you are so ignorant, I don't have to. I don't have to lower myself to your level. I am a California American, so I'm not a foreigner, or outsider, or not a member of Colorado. I am MENSA smart and the most unignorant person I know. I am right; you are wrong. End of story."
Of course, I could be mistaken. If so, my bad.
Still. Put-up or Shut-up.
Dear Mr. Hawley,
I guess I didn't do a good job of reading your thoughts. Sorry. Well, we can't all be know-it-all's, now can we? I'll leave you that job. What I did get right was that you wouldn't respond with anything substantial.
"Oh wow 120 people who are as nutty as you."
When you can't attack their arguments, attack the people out of hand. Brilliant.
Before you put your foot in your mouth and swallow, I suggest you review where the link points and what's on its page. If you scroll down almost to the bottom there is a section in red with 9/11 Commissioners and Staff Members.
Much of your conclusions about 9/11 you seem to draw (2nd and 3rd hand) from the 9/11 Commission Reports, right?
Read what your so-called "nutty" 9/11 Commissioners have to say:
Evan Solomon: The first chapter of the book is 'the Commission was set up to fail.' ... Why do you think you were set up to fail?
Hamilton: Well, for a number of reasons: ... we got started late; we had a very short time frame - indeed, we had to get it extended; we did not have enough money - 3 million dollars to conduct an extensive investigation. We needed more, we got more, but it took us a while to get it. ...
We had a lot of people strongly opposed to what we did. We had a lot of trouble getting access to documents and to people. ... So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail. ...
Solomon: I guess the question is, you know, if forty odd million dollars were spent investigating President Bill Clinton’s sexual infidelities, why did the American people and the world have to wait 441 days for a commission [to begin its work] that was originally budgeted for 3 million dollars and given barely a year [to complete the investigation]?
Hamilton: I think basically it’s because they were afraid we were going to hang somebody, that we would point the finger, right in the middle of a presidential campaign - 'Mr. Bush, this was your fault' ..."
So, Mr. Hawley, in yet another effort to hold your hand in this discussion and to help you make your point about 9/11 [if you have one], please explain the significance of the above?
Feed my sheep.
Dear Mr. Hawley,
Allow me to extend my most sincere complements. Your last posting is indeed one of your best postings ever. It has elements that you could even use as your signature, so true to your heart have you written it. Bravo!
More importantly, it sheds a light into who you are, what you might be thinking, and how someone -- like a mere mortal or maybe God or Jesus Christ -- might be able to get through to you.
I told you before, Bro. I'm just another Blues Brother like Jake and Elwood. I, too, am on a mission from God.
Feed my sheep.
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 12:45 am
Just watching Chris Rock and I loved his take on both Liberals and Conservatives. It was right on and funny.
But what caught my attention was one point. He basically said anyone that makes up their mind based on party only before hearing an issue is an idiot ( he used a word I can't repeat here ).
He is right. I call my self a very Independent Liberal Conservative. Because on some things I am Liberals and on some I am Conservative. Other issues I am right down the middle with the Independents.
Chris Rocks whole rant was funny and accurate. If you want to catch it it is his show called Never Scared. I am sure Blockbuster or someone had it.
Live Large
Craig
Dear Mr. Boggs,
You wrote:
"Where there is money to be made, we'd expect to see supply expanding, with new providers entering the system in hopes of making a buck. So, what's whacking the system?"
The answer is that we don't have a free market economy, and we don't want one that is perfectly free either. We will always require government intervention to some degree, which all of us hope will be small, but needed none-the-less.
A government-regulated free market is what restricts monopolies that, when unregulated, expand unmercifully, overcharge, and discriminate. Government regulation is important for the preservation and proper use of the common goods, which aren't limited to national parks but include (power) utilities, air space (for airplanes), air waves (for broadcast and telephones), and protection of clean water, clean air, clean land, clean food.
Corporations are not people, although they have more rights than individuals, and have as their sole motivation profit. Yet these uncaring beings when left to their own devices in a totally free free-market economy do not care one hoot about being fair, using commons wisely, protecting the environment, or even in offering a quality service.
The above discussion relates to health care in how money is made. Health insurance companies compete for the same limited pool of healthy individuals who don't need expensive health care and who pay their premiums. To increase their profits further over the cost of paying only wellness benefits, insurance companies actively exclude sick people and deny payment for certain treatments (when the lack of government regulations let them get away with it). That's what a competitive market place does.
Your argument about excessive regulation are a little bit stilted. Would you really want new drugs and treatments to enter the marketplace without testing and regulation? Secondly, most of the expense in developing new drugs and treatments isn't as much with the research and complying with regulations as it is with the marketing and advertisement: ads on television, radio, and magazines aren't cheap.
You wrote:
"What's whacking demand is the fact that most Americans don't pay for much of their own health care. Either they shove it off to insurance, or go to a hospital and get it free."
That isn't completely true. People pay insurance premiums that is calculated to cover their treatment and make the company a profit. Thus, there is no "shoving [cost] off to insurance"; it is having insurance cover what your premiums allow. And as for going to a hospital and getting it for free, what nonsense! Yes, you might get treated when you really needed it despite having empty pockets, but you better believe that they will come after you with bill collectors to get their due. (Most bankruptcies are the result of health issues and expenses, not frivolous credit card expenditures.)
We've been regulating natural monopolies like utilities for years. The rates they charge covers their expenses and gives them a small (>3%) guaranteed profit. Really not a bad deal; better than the risk of a loss with true competition.
Health care could be run in much the same way. It can require that all pay in (maybe like a tax in proportion to income.) It doesn't have to be expensive (if they aren't advertising on TV), yet companies could still get their expenses covered and make a modest guaranteed profit.
I've lived and worked in Europe and experienced their universal health care. The one thing that struck me with the people under such a system was their feeling of "entitlement", like a "use it or lose it" mentality. They figured they paid into it, so they might as well get mileage out of it to the point of not only more frequent time off work to visit the doctor, but also of doctor prescribed sick days and even doctor prescribed days/weeks in a health care facility (with massages, hot baths, sleep, relaxation, etc.)
Maxwell
TD wrote:
"We are occupying Iraq, so we should not be paying more than a buck a gallon for gas? Diesel should be half that."
Wrong.
Greg Palast, one of the last great American investigative reporters (who works for a newspaper that values such, the Guardian out of England) had this to say:
“Control is what it’s all about,” one oilman told me. “It’s not about getting the oil, it’s about controlling oil’s price.”
“To believe that George Bush and Dick Cheney hustled us into war in Iraq to open up that nation’s untapped bounty of petroleum is to believe that these two oil Texans in the White House are deeply troubled that the price of oil will rise unless they get us more crude,” writes Palast. In fact, as he documents at great and fascinating length, politically connected interests in the oil industry have been trying to prevent “overproduction” in Iraq, the key “swing” producer, in order to stabilize OPEC.
Unnaturally increasing petroleum profits, as Palast notes (with, once again, impeccable documentation) was an objective shared by the Bush clique, Osama bin Laden, and OPEC. “Only through the unique power of government monopoly can a nation hold back production to the OPEC quota,” notes Palast. Thus it is immensely significant the Bush regime’s plans for reconstructing Iraq’s oil industry offered “a choice of seven options for their oil — all of them the same: seven flavors of state-owned oil companies.”
“Iraq’s [oil] output in 2003, 2004 and 2005 was less than produced under the restrictive Oil-for-Food program,” Palast points out. At the same time, profits of the five US oil majors have tripled, at least in part because of artificial scarcity. And the cost of the war has exceeded a quarter-trillion dollars. “To fund his binge spending, our President could have taxed us directly [which is to say, signed congressional tax increases into law], say, a dollar a gallon tax on gasoline,” Palast continues. “Instead, our leader has arranged an indirect tax on gasoline” in the form of OPEC’s more than $70 a barrel price of crude, “which translates roughly into a dollar a gallon at the pump. Think of the gas pump price spike as a war tax.”
AMY GOODMAN: Is the war in Iraq a war for oil?
GREG PALAST: Is the war in Iraq for oil? Yes, it’s about the oil, but not for the oil. In my investigations for Armed Madhouse, I ended up with a story far more fascinating and difficult than I imagined. We didn’t go in to grab the oil. Just the opposite. We went in to control the oil and make sure we didn’t get it. It goes back to 1920, when the oil companies sat in a room in Brussels in a hotel room, drew a red line around Iraq and said, “There’ll be no oil coming out of that nation.” They have to suppress oil coming out of Iraq. Otherwise, the price of oil will collapse, and OPEC and Saudi Arabia will collapse.
Dear Mr. Bogg,
You wrote:
"Regret to inform that due to 9/11 having been an inside job, I cannot support turning over our healthcare system to the very same people who perpetrated that horrible crime."
I agree.
Let the states' governments lead the charge and administer the programs.
On the flip-side, I don't really want to turn health-care over to business owners who only care about profits (not health care) and who financially support a criminal administration just so they influence political appointments for agencies that regulate their industry and laws that loosen their restrictions at the expense of individuals' health care.
» 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