2009-04-11
{Author's post-notes are inserted in curly braces. }
Colin Powells son voting McCain. Dad must be getting senile. LMAO
Guess the apple does fall far from the tree. Especially when the tree is rotted from Liberalism.
I watched Colin Powell's endorsement again and he had not one good reason to vote for Obama he used a bunch of buzz words and catch phrases , but he could point to no legislation that was ground breaking or one ounce of executive experience.
Like all Obama supporters he was stuck using empty words.
Obama supporters are like lemmings when asked for Obamas qualifications they stand there like a deer in the headlights and then someone holds up a shiny button that says change and they all scream YES WE CAN.
Yes we can destroy America.
Yes we can get a man that is unqualified elected POTUS.
Yes we can sell our freedom down the toilet and implement a socialist or communist America.
Yes we can insure America is taken from the one superpower left on earth and leave it broken and bankrupt from social programs.
YES WE CAN KILL OUR COUNTRY LIKE BLIND , HYPNOTIZED , MINDLESS , DISCIPLES OF OUR OBAMESSIAH
George H. W. Bush's son voting McCain. Dad must be getting senile. LMAO
Guess the apple does fall far from the tree. Especially when the tree is rotted from neo-conservatism.
Not one good reason to vote for McCain except a bunch of buzz words and catch phrases (and slander and smear) , but he could point to no legislation that was ground breaking or one ounce of executive experience (except the Keating Five, except caving on Torture, except voting with Bush 90% of the time, except picking small town beauty pageant runner-up Palin.)
Like all McCain supporters, stuck using empty words.
McCain supporters are like lemmings when asked for Palin's qualifications they stand there like a deer in a helicopter's spotlight and then someone holds up a shiny button that says "drill, baby, drill" and they all scream YES WE CAN.
Yes we can destroy America. (Just look at what President Bush has done. He's ruined our military. He's ruined America's reputation. He's ruined our economy. He's subplanted the Constitution. Stock market bubble; real estate bubble; Bush's life in a bubble.)
Yes we can get a man that is unqualified elected POTUS. (Yep, that's Dubya.)
Yes we can sell our freedom down the toilet and implement a socialist or communist America. (Yep, the Wall Street bailout is socialism in its truest form. Of course, it isn't "redistribute wealth to the masses" but "redistribute losses to the masses." Yep, we can wage two foreign wars without raising taxes, because we'll have the masses pay for it with inflation and the devaluation of their savings.)
Yes we can insure America is taken from the one superpower left on earth and leave it broken and bankrupt from social programs. (Thank you President Bush.)
YES WE CAN KILL OUR COUNTRY LIKE BLIND , HYPNOTIZED , MINDLESS , DISCIPLES OF OUR PALINISTA!
{Email off-list.}
You wrote on a Ron Paul discussion list:
> Don't forget, the Demo(n)cratic Party and major media are > the accommodators to treason on the American people!!! > Janet > Lee
Janet,
You need to dial your partisan vitriol back several notches.
First and foremost, you misjudge your audience. Many many Democrats crossed party lines to support Ron Paul. Without them, the revolution never would have made it off the ground.
Secondly, your one-sided slur betrays more about you than the negative message about Democrats that you want to impart.
The fact of the matter is, it wasn't the Democrats:
I could go on and on about the treasonous Republicans. Before I stop, though, I have to point out that the Republicans in power did not prevent 9/11. In fact, the most benign reading of the 9/11 events shows them woefully incompetent except in covering their asses and awarding Freedom Medals.
Moreover, any true unbiased scholar of 9/11 will quickly deduce those same Republicans had a hand in 9/11 at the least intrusive level by ordering stops to FBI investigations that would have exposed those foreigners (who later became 9/11 patsies) and their plots, by rewriting intercept and command procedures (to go through Rumsfeld/Cheney), by ignoring warnings from other countries' agencies, by having their agencies mishandle evidence, by delaying the investigation, by stonewalling the investigation, by having their agencies write woefully unscientific reports (to support political positions and fairy tales)...
Again, that is at the level of least suspicion and giving the Republicans a degree of the benefit of the doubt that their words and actions [from their earliest days in office] have repeatedly proven that they do not deserve.
Of course, once you start sniffing around this 9/11 rabbit hole, you'll discover that it goes very deep.
So that you know where I stand, in recent months I've become convinced that no commercial planes hit the twin towers. Go to YouTube and search on "September Clues". The towers were probably targeted by missiles fired from military aircraft more for shock-and-awe than the damage they'd do to the buildings. (Military aircraft and missiles help explain why none of the "commercial planes" were intercepted as per standard operating procedures. It explains why those on the scene didn't hear the commercial aircraft and why some reported hearing missiles.) It should be pointed out that the lack of aircraft debris, luggage, and bodies at the Pentagon and Pennsylvania already hints that two of the four commercial planes didn't exist. My revelation was that all four didn't exist at least from the perspective of hitting targets.
What the entire world observed on television was computer animated graphics. Hey, we've all seen Superman fly on TV as well as many other wonders; why not a faked aircraft to inspire a "New Pearl Harbor" and get this nation to rally behind PNAC agendas? Upon request, I can elaborate as to why computer generated planes would be better than real ones once you've swallowed the red pill that says 9/11 was an inside job.
[To your point, the media has proven themselves treasonous by accepting the government's feed on 9/11, in planting government exports who seeded the 9/11 fairy tale, in waving the flag, in constantly arguing down and belittling 9/11 truth seekers as "loony conspiracy theory nuts", in not providing truly fair and balanced analysis, in relying too much on faulty, unscientific, partisan government reports, in not questioning blatant contradictions, and in distracting us with Britney and Bradolina.]
Also, as long as we're talking deep rabbit holes, the three towers' (WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7) near free-fall collapses and total destruction can only be explained by planted explosives. They were mostly likely felled by tactical mini-nukes from within the buildings. (Remember, Bush/Cheney backed out of the nuclear test ban treaty before 9/11; they wanted to use such weapons in the wars as Bunker Busters.)
I believe the use of mini-nukes on 9/11 can be proven. The most damning evidence are the photos of damaged vehicles sometimes blocks away from the towers and beyond the path of any falling debris (burning or otherwise) but in line-of-site of radiated waves. Line of site explains why damage leapfrogged some vehicles, because sometimes larger vehicles in the line of site shielded neighboring vehicles. The damaged vehicles, including many emergency vehicles, received unique burn patterns sometimes originating from the ~inside~ of the passenger compartment, as opposed to engine area, gas tank, or external damage from felled (?) burning (?) debris that clearly wasn't there. (Think of the EM waves from a mini-nuke as the primary side of a power transformer. The mini-nuke blast sent EM fields through steering wheels, mirrors, and other rings of metal turning them into secondary transforming windings and thereby inducing so much current, they burst into flames.)
We also have the complete destruction of the towers... not just toppling, not just crumbling, but pulverizing into fine particles: a huge energy sink that gravity (and an aircraft impact and jet fuel) can't account for. A mini-nuke would have the effect of rapidly expanding water molecules into steam, which explains the pulverization of all content (office furniture, etc.) and the lack of human remains. [Tactical nuclear weapons don't all have the same radiation signatures and fall out; Bush did pressure the EPA into declaring NYC safe when it wasn't. Rescue dogs were the first to die, but 9/11 rescue workers are dropping like flies.] Let's not forget the white hot fires that burned for weeks under the rubble. We also have eye-witnesses receiving radiation burns and recounting flickering lights, etc.
So much for Republicans at the helm.
Am I saying that the Democrats are innocent in wrong-doing? Under Clinton's watch, we had passage of many pieces of legislation (like NAFTA) that made our situation today worse. Oklahoma City was the shock-and-awe dress rehearsal for 9/11, where the take-away lessons learned were that they shouldn't use US citizens as patsies, (foreign boogey-man patsies get you more mileage as does a declared war against a tactic [terrorism] instead of against a nation or people), that U-Haul shit bombs don't cut it as a smoke-and-mirror distraction, that the destruction should be complete so that unexploded bombs aren't discovered...
As per our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, we need revolution to change all of government. Your demonization of the Democratic party -- who hasn't had a president in 8 years and has only held Congress for the last 2 years out of like 14 -- is disingenuous.
Your "crucify Obama" messages about a birth certificate is very much like kicking sand into our eyes about Bush and Cheney. Whereas people like you couldn't move on beyond Bill Clinton's lies about oral sex "because it is the principle of the matter," you seem all too eager to sweep under the rug Bush Administration's war crimes, crimes against humanity, crimes against our Constitution, and lies to the American people "because they're lame ducks and are soon to be out of office and history... so let's get Obama!"
Hey, if the principle of the matter applied to lies about blow jobs [even though it was a hyped, right-wing, witch hunt & media circus] and if you hold up the same thing about birth certificates, then it certainly applies to Bush and Cheney. Impeachment isn't an act that is limited to their tenure; it can happen once they are out of office.
And if your partisanship continues to ignore Bush's much bigger lies to land on a dubious Obama birth certificate claim, such inconsistency undermines you and claims of being an American Patriot (and Christian).
The Bush Administration -- your beloved Republicans -- need to be tried, convicted, and punished (not unlike Saddam) just for the principle of the matter, otherwise you'll have zero standing in going after Obama or any future president for similar or lesser crimes.
Maxwell C. Bridges
I'm a no-planer. I wasn't 6 months ago, but as an open-minded person willing to consider the evidence and contradictory views, I became convinced. It boils down to the physics. The physics of the falling towers (including WTC-7) into their own footprints at free fall speed was what convinced me that 9/11 was an inside job. However, the exposure of the doctored 9/11 video footage ("September Clues") along with the physics of planes crashing into steel towers convinced me that no-planes actually crashed into the towers. We already knew that the Pentagon plane was no commercial aircraft. As for Shanksville Plane, the lack of wreckage, body parts, and luggage suggests it wasn't a commercial plane either.
But back to the physics. A commercial plane is a little bit better than a flying beer can. When such an object flies into the massive steel structures like the towers, one expects some penetration, sure. But one also expects sudden deceleration and deformation of the aluminum plane as it hits that hard structure. In fact, the force of the deceleration should have torn the wings from the body and certainly the engines from the wings while still on the outside of the building. Certain plane parts should have done an accordian and/or bounced off the building, with the massive engines being the only parts with that enough mass for full penetration.
The CGI we saw on television, much like Spiderman and Superman, had the planes enter the building without deformation at the speeds they were traveling through thin air, which when you think about it, is just as hard to believe as the top floors of the towers traveling through the lower floors without resistance while turning things not just into rubble but into fine powder -- a huge energy sink.
Planes traveling at their supposed speed and that low to the ground would have been deafening. Up until the repeat broadcasts worked its PSYOPS through our collective fuzzy memories, people in NY on that day did not hear the planes. The first things they heard and saw were the explosions. And if you'd watch "September Clues", you can see where raw footage also did not show the planes and where doctored footage covered up their CGI glitches and gotchas.
So, all of this talk about "no-plane disinformation" really needs to be turned around. Those who try to debunk the no-plane concept may really be the spreaders of disinformation.
The reasons for going no-planer and CGI are numerous, like all of the variables and risks of getting a real plane to fly into the towers. More importantly, if the towers were designed to withstand such assaults, then the even greater risks would be the planes getting stuck halfway in the tower or even getting crushed & bouncing off, which in turn would not offer sufficient believable damage that would lead to believable total destruction.
Eye witnesses of the day did report hearing missiles. My speculation is that military planes fired missiles into the towers, whereby the CGI planes would be required to hide the missiles as well as provide an emotional ruse for what initiated the destruction.
We all have hazy pictures of the events of the day. When new evidence presents itself, we can and should all adjust our perception to take it into account. I get the feeling that those people calling no-planes disinformation are simply married to the initial drafts that "Loose Change" was and don't want to go further down the rabbit hole. "September Clues" doesn't debunk the entirety of "Loose Change"; it enhances and refines it. Much of "Loose Change" still holds up.
Peace Love
Lots of false correlations in your posting. Lots of misguided attempts to tug at our heart strings with false stories of insurgents and female flight attendants.
Oh, and "insurgents" had nothing to do with the twin towers.
Demonstrate to all that your facts are wrong and hence your conclusions as well.
You call them terrorists just like white settlers called the Native-American Indians barbarians, who -- like most of the patriotic freedom fighters of Afghanistan and Iraq -- were just defending their country from an invading and occupying army. The British army had fine names for those we now call Revolutionary War Patriots, who themselves also employed guerilla tactics which were less than savory for the day.
Let's see if your CSU affiliation has taught you anything about learning things you didn't know before, about keeping an open-mind, and about weighing all the evidence before coming to a conclusion.
You wrote:
"It's about time we treated these terrorists... as affectionately as they treated our fellow citizens."
On this point, I couldn't agree more providing that your definition of "terrorists" is broadened to include "domestic terrorists" and "domestic enemies to our Constitution" even if, and particularly when, such terrorists are found at the highest levels of our government.
My understanding is that even out of office Bush & Cheney can still be impeached. I'm sure neither will be making trips all that liberally and frequently abroad, particularly to even some of our allied countries, who might just arrest them on the spot for International War Crimes and render them to the Hague.
The "Move On" Defense Of George W. Bush
Did you miss the story about Republican's holding up Obama's Attorney General confirmation unless they get assurances that he won't prosecute those involved with torture at the behest of the Bush Administration?
Torture is the tip of the iceberg.
Peace Love, if you're going to bring up 9/11, at least do it with some intelligence.
9/11 was an inside job, which you'd know if you'd done your homework. The math of the Newtonian physics of falling objects is really all that is required. A new twist is to apply physics and sudden deceleration to a light, fast-moving, commercial aircraft impacting a much, much heavier fixed steel & concrete object.
If you really wanted a "Matrix" Red Pill ala Morpheus's choice given to Neo, search "September Clues" in YouTube and see just how far down that 9/11 rabbit hole goes. 9/11 will be talked about for generations to come as the most successful PYSOPS event ever, for even today eight years later, people like you still don't question the government's fairy tale and still make false associations about it to justify questionable and misguided foreign policy.
Oh, and don't forget the peace and love, Peace Love.
Peace Love
posted 1/23/09 @ 8:39 PM MST
I'm so proud of Obama and you Coffee for supporting his decision.
It's about time we treated these terrorists, excuse me, "insurgents", as affectionately as they treated our fellow citizens.
For example:
When the flight attendants protested their detention on the airliners, the "insurgents" didn't detain the women at all; they just immediately slit their throats.
Oh, and lets not forget the various rights they gave to the thousands of innocent men, women, and children in the Twin Towers: the right to be blown apart, the right to burn to death, or the right to jump from 30 stories up and splatter on the pavement.
And how could we forget the right to have your own custom made jump suit and make your own full color home video before and during your decapitation.
So thanks again Obama, and Coffee, for showing the "insurgents" of the world that when they butcher our fellow Americans, men, woman, and children, by the thousands, in the most horrific manner possible, we will serve them Coffee and cookies.
Oh, and don't forget the sugar...Coffee.
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."
-- Noam Chomsky
On the surface, it would seem that we are destined to tolerate and consume the partisan postings of Californians like Registered Independent and Craig Hawley, as they bang the drums for Guantanamo (and "Christian" torture), for Israel, for Bush policies, ...
... Unless their postings and opinions aren't their own.
From the article linked above: "The Pentagon’s War on the Internet". Pay particular attention to the last paragraph quoted.
The Pentagon has developed a comprehensive strategy for taking over the internet and controlling the free flow of information.
The Defense Dept. places a high-value on controlling information. The new program illustrates their determination to establish the parameters of free speech.
The Pentagon sees information as essential in manipulating public perceptions and, thus, a crucial tool in eliciting support for unpopular policies. The recent revelations of the military placing propaganda in the foreign press demonstrate the importance that is given to co-opting public opinion.
Information-warfare is used to create an impenetrable cloud around the activities of government so that decisions can be made without dissent. The smokescreen of deception that encompasses the Bush administration has less to do with prevaricating politicians than it does with a clearly articulated policy of obfuscation. “The Information Operations Roadmap” is solely intended to undermine the principle of an informed citizenry.
The War Dept. is planning to insert itself into every area of the internet from blogs to chat rooms, from leftist web sites to editorial commentary. The objective is to challenge any tidbit of information that appears on the web that may counter the official narrative; the fairytale of benign American intervention to promote democracy and human rights across the planet.
zeb smeester,
Your equating of "we have not had an attack since 9/11" to "Bush kept us safe" and the direct inference that Bush's ordering of waterboarding prevented another 9/11 and kept us safe lacks substantiation. For all the proof you provide, you could also say that my consumption of micro-brew beers since 9/11 has been proven to keep us safe.
For what 9/11 was designed to do in manipulating public opinion in supporting questionable policies, some could argue that the cratering of our economy is another 9/11 event, right on down to the speculation that it was an inside job.
Twenty-five people at the heart of the meltdown ...
Before you go glorifying what a God-send technique waterboarding is or how much better the detainees in Guantanimo have it, I suggest you have yourself waterboarded and incarcertated under similar conditions.
You wrote:
"The individuals (or guards) who were involved in the abuses there have been held accountable, but I suppose it was probably a conspiracy."
But their superiors -- all the way up the chain of command to the White House -- have not. Here is an interesting article to water the seeds that it was a conspiracy.
Republican Senators Resort to Extortion on Holder Nomination
"In an effort to derail the nomination of Attorney General-designate Eric Holder, it seems Senate Republicans are now resorting to extortion. They'll confirm Holder if he promises not to prosecute any Bush Administration officials for any involvement in acts of torture."
Your posting is a good representation of what is hinted at this article:
The Pentagon’s War on the Internet
"The War Dept. is planning to insert itself into every area of the internet from blogs to chat rooms, from leftist web sites to editorial commentary. The objective is to challenge any tidbit of information that appears on the web that may counter the official narrative; the fairytale of benign American intervention to promote democracy and human rights across the planet."
BTW, it was not as you so wrote in an effort to re-write history:
"Bush has been pretty up front with "harsh" interrogation tequniques; he has admitted we use them and has even said who we have used them on."
No, Bush stated over and over again "We (America) does not torture" despite evidence to the contrary. Bush, ever the silver-spoon-in-mouth-and-up-nose exception on whom no rule or law were ever written that could limit his actions, went so far as to have his weasel lawyers say that the ratified Geneva Conventions barring torture were "quant," had more weasel lawyers re-define the definition of torture -- I mean, "enhance interrogation techniques" --, and had more ass-kissers try to re-write the Army's Field Manual on interrogation techiques.
Whereas you ask a seemingly relevant question about "where are they going to put the detainees?", the more important questions relate to giving them writ of habeas corpus (the ability to contest their detention), fair trials, and treatment in the meantime sanctioned by the Geneva Convention & the Red Cross. Most of the detainees that you worry about have not been charged with anything; most of the evidence against them will not hold up in a U.S. court of law or even a fair military tribunal, which is important to consider lest an overzealous CSU Police Officer Dexter Y. apply the same low standards to you.
Your question about where the detainees are placed is really a moot point. Most of them should be let go. (Of course, we have so branded them, few countries will accept them.)
And should perchance any those released detainees later join with greater fervency organizations promoting the swift exit of American undue influence on, say, the Middle East using military tactics against the occupying foreign military albeit with civilian casualties, you as a red-blooded Christian American have only yourself to blame. Because their detention without trial these past six or seven years under the harshest of conditions gave them that resolve and proved in their minds the hypocracy in their captors with respect to "Christianity" as defined in the Holy Scriptures and "America" as defined in its founding documents and YOU did nothing about it. You didn't speak up against it. And in fact, you continue promoting it today.
Moreover, Zeb, you should watch less television and certainly less "24". Even those who engage in torture will confess to you, torture does not "tell you where the next bomb is." The information obtained from torture is highly unreliable; those tortured will say anything and admit to just about anything to stop the pain. There is a reason why confessions obtained through torture do not hold up in a court of law.
[QUOTE id="44f0c96a-bac0-4e02-bdd9-08701cd17f73"]
What exactly do you mean by "the island prison has been a galring example of the hypocrysy of Bush's policies in the U.S."? Bush has been pretty up front with "harsh" interrogation tequniques; he has admitted we use them and has even said who we have used them on. What is "hypocrytical"? Also, what would you like them to do, just ask yes or no questions and release them if they say no. Waterboarding is a God send tequnique. No one dies, is harmed, or maimed and it pursuades terrorists who would strap a bomb to their chest to tell us where the next bomb is. The individuals (or guards) who were involved in the abuses there have been held accountable, but I suppose it was probably a conspiracy. The guys in Gauantonimo have it better than anyone in state prison. If your write about a problem why don't you put forth a solution; where are they going to put the detainees? Not in state prisons, they would certainly be abused by most other prisoners. And we certaily don't want thier fenatical ideolotgy being spread throughout the prison system among others who are already upset with the system who put them there. I, as well as the majority of Americans, disagree with Obama's decision. I think it is unbeleivably stupid. If you're worried how the international communities see this, ask those countries how they treat terrorist, and prisoners in general. One cannot get anymore humane then the U.S. I don't agree with everything Bush has done but I am also realistic. We have not had an attack since 9/11 and Bush has kept us safe. I am not an Obama hater, however it is apparent you are "Bush haters".
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE id="57a641c2-accd-43cb-a92d-0c46f15d94fa"]
How comical some of these posters here are, who try to cast an analysis differing significantly from their own as originating from "the Pentagon".
Try to keep in mind, people, that 46 percent of voters, voted for Obama's opponent. That's a somewhat larger group than work for the Pentagon. By tens of millions. A very large group of the "loyal opposition".
Mr. Hawley you'll have to remind me. What was the name of that moon-beam lunatic last year, the September 11th Conspiracy-Theorist poster, who was always beaming in his completely made-up "facts" in his postings from Pluto? The one who was stalking you on the internet and sending you idiotic conspiracy-theory "research" in California?
And issuing straight-faced demands to be taken seriously? The guy who compulsively ended most of his postings with the obsessive phrase "Feed My Sheep" and was always attempting to misinterpret Bible passages to supposedly bolster his arguments?
I'm certain the same guy contributed "The Pentagon's War On the Internet", above.
His entire game is to try and subvert the discussion thread from the subject being discussed, to a discussion of the imaginary "facist agent" background of anyone whose opinion he finds logical and therefore of course, threatening. Meaning of course, most rational people.
And never mind the fact that the Pentagon and the various intelligence agencies have been the sentries making sure that that there have been no more attacks on American soil since the death of 3000 of our civilians on September 11th. Ah, that's 7 years and 4 months so far folks, and counting. And you don't notice Obama disbanding them, either. Believe me, he won't. All that Disney-esque "It's a Small, Small World" sing-song was just for campaign purposes.
Meanwhile the Moon Unit conspiracy-theorist apparently thinks that the mere mention of the phrase "Pentagon Agents" here is going to throw liberals into a tizzy. Good heavens, they might hear an opinion here not officially sanctioned by "Move-On.Org". Could they handle it? Close your ears, quickly everyone, or you could be accidentally converted to the Dark Side against your conscious will.
Somehow, I think readers might have grown up a bit in the last year or two, and not fall for that "psych-ops agent" story so quickly again. This guy tries variations of that theme on every thread, you'll notice.
So which is it, Moon Unit, am I a secret Israeli agent, or am I really working under deep cover for the U.S. Pentagon? What form is your classic paranoid analysis taking this semester?
The freshmen would probably like to hear all about it. (As engrossing as an episode of "24"!!!) They don't yet recognize paranoid schizophrenia when they run across it.
[/QUOTE]
Registered Independent, a lawyer from California with no connections to CSU or the front-range, is very quick to throw out labels to distract from her own misdirections. She writes:
- moon-beam lunatic
- September 11th Conspiracy-Theorist
- beaming in his completely made-up "facts"
- postings from Pluto
- idiotic conspiracy-theory
- Moon Unit conspiracy-theorist
What is she objecting to now?
Evidently the shoe-fitting paragraph from an article called "The Pentagon's War on the Internet":
[QUOTE id="9f23cc56-c966-4083-ac5d-af2c036f85e0"]
The War Dept. is planning to insert itself into every area of the internet from blogs to chat rooms, from leftist web sites to editorial commentary. The objective is to challenge any tidbit of information that appears on the web that may counter the official narrative; the fairytale of benign American intervention to promote democracy and human rights across the planet.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11901.htm
[/QUOTE]
Go and read the whole thing. See if it is made-up.
Then judge the veracity of what Registered Independent and her little buddy, Craig Hawley, write.
And what exactly are they trying to subvert our attention from in their "Moon Unit conspiracy-theorist" denials skillfully juxtapositioned with emotional statements like "the death of 3000 of our civilians on September 11th" and patriotic statements like "the Pentagon and the various intelligence agencies have been sentries making sure that there have been no more attacks on American soil"?
Evidently, their game is indeed to challenge any tidbit of information on 9/11 with belittling comments, because it counters the official narrative. In their propaganda playbooks, September 11th can't be mentioned unless in an emotional and patriotic sense to promote misguided policy, like support for keeping open the Guantanamo Bay prison and all its flavors of torture or for Israeli war crimes.
P.S. Blinders-on vocal defense of Israel and working for the U.S. Pentagon are not mutually exclusive.
Man, anyone who tries to discredit an individual and a website through innuendo is a lost cause before he clicks on the "Post" button.
{Posting from Craig Hawley:}
[QUOTE id="e43d9855-3e87-41df-bfa4-cec3d2ccf48d"]
Man anyone that reads the Huffington Post is a lost cause before they open their mouth.
[/QUOTE]
Judging a book by its cover, eh?
The irony in your pithy post, Hawley, is that your ignorance of Huffington Post's content sources used indirectly (with... *gasp*... "liberal" annotations) and directly puts you in the uncomfortable position of discrediting ALL of your news sources as well, if you have any other than the Dept. of War's talking points.
Staying true to your mandate to insert yourself into leftist web sites and editorial comments with the objective of challenging any tidbit of information that may counter the official narrative, your unwarranted slams on news sources that you seem too afraid to read doesn't serve to make any valid discussion points to this thread.
It does serve to undermine the principle of an informed citizenry. Bravo!
Written by someone who either did not attend CSU or has no ties to CSU or the front-range.
Clearly, he has no respect for the CSU institution or the people who attend it.
So why does he post to this CSU forum? From which state?
{From Peace Love}
[QUOTE id="5971c5cf-7f36-4d6c-b89b-d269a6ff24f8"]
With undergrads as ignorant as this, does anyone now still wonder why college diplomas from CSU are not worth the paper they are written on?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE id="c5e76845-838e-4f19-854b-9a9040653dc4"]
Response to Arvensis:
You are clearly not the person that I was referring to as the "Moon Unit." He had an unmistakably hostile posting style, toward anyone who disagreed with him.
If you don't understand why we were attacked on September 11th, I refer you to the videotape that Bin Laden sent out shortly after the event, in which his galloping insanity is on full display. In which he is gleefully describing the civilians body parts flying through the air. He is an absolute madman who inherited enormous sums of money with which to fund his insane "projects."
But asking why Al Quaeda did this is like asking why Hitler and his henchmen burned 6 million Jews up in ovens. There is no rational explanation for the behavior of insane mass murderers. Because they're insane, that's why. They were both hate-filled sociopaths for whom the destruction of other humans became their life's work. Criminally insane people who somehow came into enough money and power to work their destruction upon the world at large.
Regarding why Building 7 came down, I assume that it was more shoddily built than the other surrounding buildings, and it's foundation and joints were shaken to bits when the towers came down, like an earthquake. Some buildings always collapse during an earthquake, while others around them remain standing. I'm not sure you have a good idea of just how large the towers were, and therefore the magnitude of their impact. Did you ever see them up close when they were still standing? I was on the top story of one of the Twin Towers once, in the Windows On the World restaurant. It was frighteningly high up, like being on top of a mountain. And each tower was a large city block square. They were so huge that they cast enormous shadows over large parts of Manhattan for much of the day, causing a great deal of complaints.
As for the FBI having the terrorists passports, they undoubtedly picked them up in the apartment in which the terrorists had been staying. They wouldn't have needed a passport to get on the flight from Boston to L.A.. And in any event they wanted the world to know who they were, after the fact.
The price of oil skyrocketed for a year or two recently, primarily because of speculators. Hedge fund managers, who trade in enormous size, (hundreds of millions at a clip), were buying oil "futures contracts" as an investment position when they thought the economy would continue to do well, or even better. As the oil market began to climb, other investors jumped on board to make money as well, causing the prices to rise further still. But now they have gambled and lost, which the rest of us non-speculators can be pleased about. They have now taken enormous losses on the oil futures contracts, and are dumping them right and left, causing the oil market to slide further. Last summer at the peak of the speculative frenzy, oil reached an all-time high of $145 per barrel. Today as I am writing this, it is back down to just $42 per barrel. The hedge funds are taking staggering losses on their oil positions, and no one is shedding a tear for them.
I could go on about the economy in general, but I haven't sufficient time today to explain it well. Suffice it to say that the recent proliferation of questionable mortgage-backed securities, combined with the ill-advised use of financial "leverage" started the problem off initially. A lot of banks had mortgage-backs in their portfolios and had to write them down (take a paper loss) due to the mark-to-market rules. This stifled lending. But now what we have going on is a domino effect, throughout the entire economy. People aren't spending because they fear for their jobs, and consumer spending is two-thirds of the national economy. Lack of spending causes businesses to take losses or prepare for losses by making more layoffs. Unfortunately, it is a self-perpetuating cycle of events.
And I believe we have gotten pretty far off the track of this thread now, since the original article was about the closing of GITMO.
[/QUOTE]
Registered Independent,
Thy hypocracy seems to know no bounds.
You accuse others of making stuff up even in the face of substantiation. Regardless of whether or not you or Hawley consider the referenced source valid, its existence and 3rd-party authorship repute your accusation of that forum's participant "making stuff up."
Worse by many orders of magnitude, when you are called upon to defend your position using the very government reports that seem to form the basis for your opinions, not only do you not read or reference them, you completely make stuff up.
Arvensis encouraged you to:
"Take a look at the 9/11 commission report - the one the was published and available to the public explaining the 9/11 tragedy. Seriously look at it. Examine some details. Why were the planes and buildings incinerated, but yet the lead hijacker's passport ends up in investigators hands at ground zero? Why the hell did building 7 come down?"
And what do you pull out of your booty?
"(Emphasis added) ***I assume*** that [WTC-7] was more shoddily built than the other surrounding buildings, and it's foundation and joints were shaken to bits when the towers came down, like an earthquake. ... As for the FBI having the terrorists passports, they undoubtedly picked them up in the apartment in which the terrorists had been staying."
You can assume anything you want, but that doesn't make it fact, honey. You were asked to review the official reports and the evidence. Clearly, you have not.
No government reports attempting to explain the collapse of any of the towers (WTC-1, WTC-2, or WTC-3) allude to shoddy construction individually or in comparison to other buildings.
The seismic data is on public record and provided in many of the reports you have yet to read. Whereas vibrations from the collapse could be felt by those on the scene, they were nowhere close in magnitude or duration to an earthquate powerful enough to "shake to bits" its foundation and joints.
Authorities supposedly found the "magic passport" at Ground Zero within the buried rubble, underneath of which had red-hot fires burning for weeks after the collapse.
Given that your weak scholarship completely flubbed the WTC-7 analysis, it should be no surprise that you flub the reasons we were attacked on 9/11 with reference to a misremembered, if not debunked, video tape of Bin Laden. Give us the link to the video, and make sure it isn't to the "fat" Bin Laden video, which uses a fat imposter who only remotely resembles Osama.
FTR, the true Osama bin Laden has never taken responsibility for 9/11, although he has expressed agreement with the outcome and exploited it to motivate his followers, just like Bush and Cheney.
You don't understand why we were attacked on September 11th.
The reasons a domestic cabal within our goverment perpetuated the 9/11 attack on ourselves (with the use of foreign patsies and other PYSOP ruses) were given in the document "Rebuilding America's Defenses" from the Project for a New American Century, whose proponents assumed instrumental positions in the Bush Administration to carry out its aims and objectives.
Now that they are out of office, it left as an exercise for you to compare their agenda going into office with their accomplishments upon leaving.
[QUOTE id="c5e76845-838e-4f19-854b-9a9040653dc4"]
Regarding why Building 7 came down, I assume that it was more shoddily built than the other surrounding buildings, and it's foundation and joints were shaken to bits when the towers came down, like an earthquake. Some buildings always collapse during an earthquake, while others around them remain standing. I'm not sure you have a good idea of just how large the towers were, and therefore the magnitude of their impact. Did you ever see them up close when they were still standing? I was on the top story of one of the Twin Towers once, in the Windows On the World restaurant. It was frighteningly high up, like being on top of a mountain. And each tower was a large city block square. They were so huge that they cast enormous shadows over large parts of Manhattan for much of the day, causing a great deal of complaints.
As for the FBI having the terrorists passports, they undoubtedly picked them up in the apartment in which the terrorists had been staying. They wouldn't have needed a passport to get on the flight from Boston to L.A.. And in any event they wanted the world to know who they were, after the fact.
...
If you don't understand why we were attacked on September 11th, I refer you to the videotape that Bin Laden sent out shortly after the event, in which his galloping insanity is on full display. In which he is gleefully describing the civilians body parts flying through the air. He is an absolute madman who inherited enormous sums of money with which to fund his insane "projects."
But asking why Al Quaeda did this is like asking why Hitler and his henchmen burned 6 million Jews up in ovens. There is no rational explanation for the behavior of insane mass murderers. Because they're insane, that's why. They were both hate-filled sociopaths for whom the destruction of other humans became their life's work. Criminally insane people who somehow came into enough money and power to work their destruction upon the world at large.
...
And I believe we have gotten pretty far off the track of this thread now, since the original article was about the closing of GITMO.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE id="c645ac0b-fd13-48f3-b570-4798506854eb"]Man Troofers are just so hilarious. I don't even argue with them any more. I just refer them to Rosie O'Donnell. She is the kind of brain trust these types are and gravitate towards.
There have been these types of people in every decade and for every imaginable incident.
Bottom line to end all their conjecture and pseudo investigations.
IT IS SIMPLE. IF YOU TROOFERS HAVE ALL THIS ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOBE THEN IT IS YOUR DUTY AS AMERICANS TO FILE A LAW SUIT , PRESENT YOUR EVIDENCE AND LIVE BY THE VERDICT.
Let us know when you get that verdict and we an talk again.
Until then , take your meds and try not to spend so much time on these threads wasting your time with people who are just not buying your insanity.
[/QUOTE]
Man, those "9/11 Coincidence Trolls" are just so hilarious and gullible, willing to rest their understanding on only the improbable coincidences and weak explanations that the government tells them and (considering) changing that skewed understanding only after the slow wheels of justice administered by government works through its glacier slow revolutions to put that same government on trial, as if the government's own self-interest and self-preservation hasn't been working -- overtime, based on the posting frequency and agendas of certain forum participants -- to derail, stall, and otherwise obstruct the necessary public interest and pressure that would bring such a trial into fruition.
[QUOTE id="c645ac0b-fd13-48f3-b570-4798506854eb"]
Man Troofers are just so hilarious.
...
Bottom line to end all their conjecture and pseudo investigations.
IT IS SIMPLE. IF YOU TROOFERS HAVE ALL THIS ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOBE THEN IT IS YOUR DUTY AS AMERICANS TO FILE A LAW SUIT , PRESENT YOUR EVIDENCE AND LIVE BY THE VERDICT.
Let us know when you get that verdict and we an talk again.
[/QUOTE]
Hawley, your limited knowledge about the duties of Americans tracks your skewed understanding of current affairs.
If Americans have any duty to their country as charged by America's founders like Jefferson, it is to become well-informed.
From a well-informed citizenry springs all that is required, including the courage to look at what is wrong, the outrage to put change into motion, and the strength to make it right.
{Based on Rogers Innovation Curve}
Clearly, Hawley, you aren't an innovator. You aren't in the early, middle, or late majority. You are a laggard (late) in every sense of the word and in every aspect & development of your life & politics.
"Laggards: Traditional people, caring for the "old ways", are critical towards new ideas and will only accept it if the new idea has become mainstream or even tradition."
And because you are such a extremely late laggard at the far-right of the curve (see graph in link), it isn't your place or your role to throw wrenches into the gears of progress and understanding, particularly when the 9/11 Truth Movement you denigrate has already advanced into the Early Majority phase and won't be shrinking anytime soon.
So if you insist on waiting for that verdict, for your own good and future legacy, do so with mouth shut.
[QUOTE id="aa1b1a37-20d2-4e27-8693-a34cb8f53e2d"]
Come on are you kidding me. We have been assured by Liberals that these guys are all just poor misunderstood freedom fighters.
You mean one of them was actually a bloodthirsty terrorists and is now laughing at us for letting him go.
And hey isn't it wonderful that Obama signed an executive order closing GITMO , and then admitting he didn't really have a plan yet as to what the heel to do with these animals.
Wonderful. Or new POTUS is already showing his lack of experience. I mean I am not the POTUS , but I was alwasy told that it was more intelligent to have a plan before you do something liek close GITMO.
I loved the one Senators suggestion that they open up Alcatraz again in Pelosi's backyard. Poor Pelosi pulled the typical NIMBY exscuse used by Liberals in Congress that want to fix the worlds problems as long as it is with other people money and doesn't effect them.
I think the Liberals pushing for these animals release and wanting to give them rights they have not earned and certainly do not deserve , should have to deal with them.
Make those Liberals take the detainees in their backyards and represent them and take care of the whole process.
Then when they let them go and they return to attacking America , those who helped them , shoudl be held both criminally and civilly responsible.
[/QUOTE]
Leave it to Hawley to have his facts completely wrong and to attempt to frame this as a "liberal" problem in his partisan rants.
Who was President, Vice President, and Secretary of Defense:
I'll give you a hint. It wasn't a Liberal.
When Obama signed his executive order, he gave a tentative deadline of one year. He didn't have to have a definitive plan on what to do with those detained. He left that to those involved to come up with the best solution, like say his Secretary of Defense Gates, a Republican Bush holdover.
Now if you want to harp on POTUS lack of experience, let us remember that the Bush Administration established these black-site prisons without any clear plan on what should be done with them. Worse, they had, oh, a good 6 or 7 years to figure out what to do with the detainees. Of all the people they detained, how many were even charged with a crime? How many were tried in military tribunals?
Because your frames are known to have unsquare corners, let us examine your oft-repeated piece of purposeful disinformation:
"... the Liberals [push] for these animals release and [want] to give them rights they have not earned and certainly do not deserve..."
We should probably call you "Hypocrit Hawley," because you are hard and firm about not calling any of the Bush Administration criminals until they have been tried and convicted in a court of law despite glaring evidence. Yet, you effectively do much worse in your judgment of the detainees.
As for "rights they have not earned", of what do you speak? You seem to conflate US rights with UN rights and with Geneva conventions regarding the treatment & rights of all detainees, whether combatants or civilians. Do some research. Aside from there being much overlap in the US rights and international rights, it should be noted that the US has ratified the Geneva Conventions and is legally bound to adhere to it.
Before you throw out another feel-good lie relating to the "lack of nationality" of the combatants, Bush set a new low bar precidence with regards to re-defining and re-writing common terms. The term "enemy combatant" is a big weasel-worded excuse to avoid calling those picked up on the battle field "prisoner of war" just to get out of International War Crimes in which the Bush Administration was engaged. It had everything to do with legally covering their own asses, and nothing whatsoever to do with the war in question and those captured, whether or not engaged in hostile acts.
The side-effect of this mean-spirited re-definition is the legal limbo it puts the detainees in, which benefited the Bush Administration immensely, because they'd just as soon push to the next administration all unpleasantries of their administration -- two wars, black site prisons, tanking economy.
As for whether or not detainees deserve rights, that is for the courts to decide and to take away if appropriate. Which brings us full circle. If they can't have their day in court and if Americans like you are happy in denying them even that, then the immorality and rot in American civil society of which you constantly speak will have its root found in YOUR heart. You will represent everything that you try to pin on "amoral liberals".
You wrote:
"Then when they let them go and they return to attacking America , those who helped them , shoudl be held both criminally and civilly responsible."
So when are you going to take Bush, Cheney, and the Bush cabal to court for this great blunder? They were clearly in charge.
[QUOTE id="aa1b1a37-20d2-4e27-8693-a34cb8f53e2d"]
We have been assured by Liberals that these guys are all just poor misunderstood freedom fighters.
You mean one of them was actually a bloodthirsty terrorists and is now laughing at us for letting him go.
And hey isn't it wonderful that Obama signed an executive order closing GITMO , and then admitting he didn't really have a plan yet as to what the heel to do with these animals.
Wonderful. Or new POTUS is already showing his lack of experience. I mean I am not the POTUS , but I was alwasy told that it was more intelligent to have a plan before you do something liek close GITMO.
...
I think the Liberals pushing for these animals release and wanting to give them rights they have not earned and certainly do not deserve , should have to deal with them.
Make those Liberals take the detainees in their backyards and represent them and take care of the whole process.
Then when they let them go and they return to attacking America , those who helped them , shoudl be held both criminally and civilly responsible.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE id="ff688b91-2602-4511-a0d2-69a9e93576fe"]
Beef - you seem to understand the big picture; thank you.
What we have here is a horrific situation. Americans are so in love with Uncle Barry, that he can do no wrong. The only thing he really promised us was "change" and "hope".
Few of his adamant supporters ever cared to ask: "What is change, Barry? and what do YOU hope for, Barry?" When Barry says, "Yes we can!" What can we do? and ultimately who is "WE"???
I am so sick of Americans being divided. We need to get over political parties. They only exist to pin us against each other - both sides execute the same plans put it place by the international bankster elite. That, my friends is the truth. If you doubt me, ask yourself why they never tell us the truth about the Federal Reserve or the central banking system? Why do they continue to let a "private, for profit" corporation print our money?
If our public servants gave a damn about the people they serve, they would never allow such and atrocity to exist. As mentioned above, Ron Paul is the only person willing to go out on a limb and tell the truth about these crooks.
This huge stimulus package is being printed out of thin air by the Federal Reserve bank. Guess what that means?.........INFLATION!! All they have to do is turn on the press. Here you go America: have a trillion worthless pieces of paper (probably just some digits on a computer these days) but, the only catch is, you will have to pay us interest on what we lend you. This is a great deal for THE largest corporation in America.
I tell you folks, if we get rid of the F***ing FED, American can be returned to its constitutional, successful, and rightful place. Keep in mind as well people, our politicians are supposed to serve us; not lie to us, steal from us, and treat us like shit. Maybe you should call them and remind them of that.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE id="8233d835-e2c1-4ada-b12c-15eb67e40dd6"]
This is absolutely not a Stimulus plan and the Democraps and Libtards are doing what Rahm Emanuel and trying not to waste a crisis. He was right they are using the financial crisis to try to further the Liberal agenda instead of actually stimulate the economy.
They throw a little towards that goal to throw off skeptics. But this thing is a pork laden handout bill.
Here is a link to 200 professors and 5 Nobel Prize winners that told Mr. Obama they oppose his Stimulus plan.
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/10/hundres-of-econ.html
Wake up people. This guy is a used car salesman. He will talk a good line and in the end America will end up a broken down lemon.
[/QUOTE]
Hawley,
Pork laden bills with pet projects could stimulate the economy, particularly if those projects fix and build our infrastructure, which puts Americans to work. At the very least, the money for material and labor circulates locally.
Tax-cuts won't stimulate the economy, because they're given to individuals who in these economic times are more inclined to pay down debt or save than they are to spend. And if they do spend, it's most likely going to be on some cheap import from China (or Japan) via Walmart. The money doesn't circulate around our economy as intended.
"Pinhead Liberal Democraps?" As if that's the verbiage and tone that will foster rational and reasoned discussion to get America working together to solve common problems. You're just poking readers in the eyes with your rabble-rousing.
The eye-poking blinds us from some little known facts about voting in Congress. Like that Democrats have the moxie to cross party lines and vote against bills sponsored by their own party. The Republicans, on the other hand, have been consistently voting lock-step with each other with nary a dissenting vote.
Congressional Republican votes and your postings have common threads, such as: party is more important than policy and country; bi-partisanship means the Democrats are free to cross party lines but not Republicans.
You're good about knocking down proposals and calling their proponents names, but you aren't good about offering alternatives and compromising to achieve something for everyone. You champion whatever the party's objectives are that have been disseminated to you through email talking points, otherwise it's crap in your closed book.
[QUOTE id="35b8f02a-7083-486e-88a5-b23cdcb2ec4b"]
In America you have the right to be wrong. Nice to see you excersising that right.
I offer alternatives as do Republicans. FYI I am a registered Independent.
And as far as this idea that you want to be bipartisan and work together to solve problems , I hope you don't mean like the left did with Bush for eight years , or the Liberal biased media ( Proven by study done at Harvard , Obama's school lol ).
We have seen Obama's bi partisan approach when he told the republicans that wer trying to offer the bipartisan solutions , I WON , and dismissed them , humiliating and denigrating them all with two words.
He then went on to say You have to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh if you want to do anything here.
These are not the words of a bipartisan man , but a conqueror saying my way or the highway.
So let's put the Democrats and Liberal Bipartisan sham to rest shall we , or do I need to embarrass you further with Reid and Pelosi's antics.
Now let's talk that stimulus package you wanted to talk about. Republicans were rebuffed in creating it. The infrastructure you talk about is part of the bill and is full of holes that waste it and many projects will not be spent until 2011 and beyond providing nothing to kick start the economy now.
Maybe you haven't read the bill so here is a link so that you may educate your self with the bill instead of just using vast generilizations like change and we need to work together and all the non specific democratic talking points you just used.
I have criticized Bush for thing , something I never see from Obamazombies. To them he is the Messiah and is perfection.
Now not one Republican in the house voted for the bill and 11 democrats crossed the line and also knew that the bill is chock full of pork and pet Liberal projects that will have very little or no impact on creating jobs and stimulating the economy.
Next please read the statement made by Rham ( dead fish ) Emmanuelle , who said we should never waste a good crisis , in regards to the stimulus package.
Now Obama has made four picks to his administration that have had to quit in shame for tax and other problems. And now we here thast Leon Panetta is having conflict of interest problems and money problems. That is aside from the fact he has no business being put in charge of the CIA.
Then Obama comes out and does interviews with all the Networks and gets hit by all with questions about his picks especially Daschle. He admits he has screwed up on Daschle and other pics and that he will correct the errors and try not to screw up so bad in the future. His words not mine or the RNC spanky.
Jim Cooper was one of the Democrats from the house that voted no on the stimulus package.
YOU JUST ACCUSED ME OF USING ONLY REPUBLICAN TALKING POINTS AND NOW I WILL MAKE YOU EAT THOSE WORDS.
Jim Cooper , A DEMOCRAT , said when he voted against the stimulus he got quiet support from the White house. He then went on to say that they knew the stimulus package was doomed and full of pork and they wanted it defeated ( since Pelosi created it no them ) so they can create a clean bill that will not reflect badly on their administration once passed.
He then went on to say that the Democratic leadership didn't give a damn what was in the bill , they just wanted it passed quickly and if they could get it unanimously.
Then after saying all this on tape , a couple days later he retracts everything and says he never talked to the White House.
DO YOU SEE A PATTERN HERE. IT HAPPENED A FEW TIMES IN THE CAMPAIGN ALSO. SOMEONE WOULD SPEAK THE TRUTH IN AN UNGUARDED MOMENT AND THEN AFTER THE WHITE HOUSE TALKS TO THEM OR DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP THEY GET AMNESIA OR SAY THEY LIED OR WERE MISTAKEN.
You would have to be the biggest moron in the world no to know what is being done. So that is from a Democrat and inside information on the reality which , OH MY WHAT A SURPRISE , meshes perfectly with what I have been saying.
That's just the tip of the ice berg. If you want to delve into it deeper just read the bill i sent the link for and then we can talk again.
But I say it is you , the blind DNC and Obama disciple that is blind and hypnotized by Liberal Democratic talking points. Even some Democrats defend my interpretation of whats happening and not you.
[/QUOTE]
{Submitted from Facebook.}
Dear Mr. Hawley,
I take it you are bored and want to gore someone into fighting you online. The last line of your email says it all.
"God help us , these pinhead Liberal Democraps are going to destroy this country."
You show little ability to give someone the benefit of the doubt until their actions confirms or refutes the tiny bit of faith you might begrudgingly muster in them. You seem too eager to build up minor glitches into major characteric flaws, which you'll then beat rythmicly like a drum into your postings, as if on cue from a coordinated talking point email.
Your sincerity ought to be questioned. What does your savior Jesus say on the matter? "Judge not, that ye shall not be judged."
[QUOTE id="36e98533-a25e-4fb7-b635-0d946a50c719"]
Yes we have all heard the Ad Hominem attack rant.
Fist of all I choose who deserves to have a civil discourse with me and those who are picking a fight or have no intention of having civil discourse.
What you call being uncivil I simply call verbal self defense.
Notice it was I that was attacked personally by the poster by name.
I suggest that if you don't want to recieve an uncivil response from me that you start by being civil and not personally attacking me.
What I am not is a victim and someone that is going to allow that to go one without a response in defense.
So one mans thought of being pacifistic at all times is another mans your just being a doormat for fools.
If you wish to debate the issues with me I am always up for that.
If you choose to become Juvenile like McSawnae and many of the profanity spewing young crowd , then I can grapple in that arena also.
I do choose not to use profanity , even when it is used against me , and I do not threaten anyone.
so your way of handling personal attacks is duly noted and soundly rejected.
Hey I know , why don't you handle things your way and I will handle them my way.
Have a nice day. Oops that is not going to happen with Obama socializing America.
Oh well try to survive is probably a more accurate phrase now.
[/QUOTE]
Victim Hawley,
Saw your "atta-boy" and "Amen" posting on the Christian bible-thumping thread.
Then I saw your hypocritical postings here (..., there, and everywhere.)
*Boo-hoo!* You were attacked personally. *Sniff*.
You learned nothing from the Ad Hominem attack rank you claim to have heard.
You've learned nothing from your tenure in either online forums or Jesus Christ. Both would have given you the same advice regarding the proper response.
What you "simply call verbal self defense", I plainly call written crap. And you wallow in it. You instigate it. You propagate it.
Next time "you have [such] a thought JUST LET IT GO."
[QUOTE id="36e98533-a25e-4fb7-b635-0d946a50c719"]
Yes we have all heard the Ad Hominem attack rant.
....
What you call being uncivil I simply call verbal self defense.
Notice it was I that was attacked personally by the poster by name.
...
What I am not is a victim and someone that is going to allow that to go one without a response in defense.
[/QUOTE]
"The Pen" activist.thepen@gmail.com
Real Prosecutors Don't Let War Criminals Walk For The Price Of A Confession
One of the most sappy ideas we've heard in a long time was the suggestion of a certain Democratic Senate leader last week that the worst criminals at the top of the Bush administration should be effectively granted blanket immunity in exchange for "fessing up". We can only hope Leahy's actual strategic intent was to have the proposal get shot down, as it quickly was by others, for being pretty much totally toothless. We need to make sure that message was not missed. Indeed, we need to put an exclamation point on it.
The fact is that without prosecution, the top war criminals in American political office of the future will presume that they can always get off the hook by the so-called "truth" commission route. And yet the people who are in the media calling for non-enforcement of the laws against torture and illegal wiretapping are the SAME ones who are "zero tolerance" fanatics when little people get in trouble.
Prosecution Commission Action Page
One of Leahy's non-arguments was that prosecuting all the criminals in the Bush administration would take 10-15 years. Oh, really? Did they commit THAT many hideous crimes? That's all the more reason to get moving on it as soon as possible. As a former prosecutor himself he should know that immunity is granted to GET testimony against the criminal kingpins, not to let them skate themselves entirely.
Thankfully at least John Conyers on the House side, and other senators like Whitehouse and Reed, have come forward to stand up for the principle that ONLY prosecution is any deterrent in cases like these. Did the pardon of Nixon send a message for the future? Of course it did? It led Cheney and Rumsfeld, who were IN that administration, to believe that they would have their own chance to get away with mass murder.
IMPORTANT NOTE: We are not asking anyone to file a "formal" criminal complaint yourself. Common sense tells us that a state prosecutor will only act, in the exercise of their OWN discretion, if they believe there is a non-frivolous case to bring. But by speaking out, we can let them know there is community support for them to do so.
Why do we care so much about what others are saying about us?
[L]acking in quality are long tirades and wordy paragraphs which seem intellectually sound, but ultimately equate to what could be said much briefer and better—or not at all. Some kooks and cranks have been using this since the early Usenet days as a time-wasting technique to bait others into what appears to be a sensible discussion, but is actually barbed wire beneath blankets.
Nevertheless, if you’re the target of vicious attacks, you’re going to feel it. Contrary to a popular, mistaken approach, I’m not going to tritely admonish you by saying “don’t take it personally.”
Instead, here’s a fresh path I’d like to take you on, and by the end of our journey, you’ll have a revitalized outlook on how to make the best of bad words.
...
If your aim is to be more popular, don’t try to silence the critics. Especially on the Internet, it won’t work. (Look up the “Streisand Effect”.) Realize (even if your critics don’t) that by bringing you up, they’re keeping you—and the ideas you stand for—alive. It’s so strange that people would rather blabber on about someone they dislike than doom them to obscurity, but it’s true.
Instead, it’s more important that you express yourself. Be vibrant and responsive to valid criticisms. Be earnest, tell your side of the story, and you can certainly correct inaccuracies and politely-yet firmly clarify when others are wrong. Don’t be defensive, effectively meaning, don’t act as if you did something wrong. All too often, persistent critics will use this to snare you into a trap, where they can say “See! I told you so!” and proceed to verbally assail you further. Keep in mind: you can’t defend what isn’t there. You can’t even relate to it, so walk on.
- * Scan and size up what’s being written and by whom. If someone has a chronic history of bashing you and they’ve been unappreciative of past olive branches on your part, give priority to others.
- * Common but underdone: leave the trolls alone. Don’t feed them, don’t pay them attention—let them devote their time & energy to you! You’ll be better off.
- * Keep an eye out for patterns. Often, especially when much discussion has already happened, many remarks overlap or reinforce (“+1”) previous ones—they aren’t new ideas. They can be of obvious use and may be the “wisdom of the crowds” that confirms what you already felt, but beware of the dark side: mob mentality, aka “dumbasses of the masses.”
More precious than those...
- * Zoom in to search for exceptionals you can make use of. There may be a fan voicing their well-reasoned support of you or an eclectic insight you didn’t expect to see. Really glimmering substance can be rare (hence why it’s exceptional), but worth not missing.
- * Given your finite time, respond where it’ll be seen the most. If things heat up more hotly than you can stand and you’re under pressure to respond (especially if there’s a glaring error which can’t go unspoken for), promptly reply via a post on your own site/blog, or respond online but link to your site. This is particularly important if you know your official presence will get more views than some forum out there, and a side benefit is that future people will link/trackback to your source again—building trust and boosting search engine rankings. This is simply more publicity for the word straight from your fingertips.
- * Always have a sense of humor. Humor exposes the irrelevant non-issues and moot points, and diffuses the artificial tension brought upon by snobby critics. Plus, if you can parody yourself, you’re instantly more likeable; you’ve awakened a sort of meta-awareness which is a rare character trait.
- * Be pleasantly terse. Say thank-you to useful critics. If there are one-liners and accusations which anger you and are hard to merely ignore, place the onus on the original poster to elucidate. I often ask, “Details please?” Don’t get into a “tl;dr” (too long; didn’t read) word war consisting of tedious paragraphs and nested quotes. Do your best not to misinterpret others; give them the good grace of clarifying their position. Fly-by jerks tend to not come back to read the discussion— another good reason to leave them alone.
“Criticism is nothing more than other people’s opinion.”
— Clint EastwoodIt’s that simple.
You can’t always judge someone’s intent, especially if the most you know about them is words on a screen. But you can look at each piece of criticism as it comes in, and you’ll become like a human spam filter, increasing accuracy. The non-spam is a tiny percentage of everything you’ll come across. As I’m fond of saying, “chop the slop” and concentrate on the very best.
An easy example of “slop” is someone who reacts without reading what you have to say. You can quick-filter that easily with minimal practice. It’s sad to see a “leaper who didn’t look,” who skipped the first sentence of something you wrote and glosses over the rest, then overreacts to it. Complete rubbish. Encourage people to stay away from foolish assumptions and approach those being curious and inquisitive. The sooner you realize many people are more interested in listening to themselves speak than being receptive in a heated discussion, the better off you’ll be. Keep cool.
» 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