Bob, that looks more like a list of charges at a trial than a investigation into 911. Well, in this case an impeachment of the government, the whole government. Anyone with half a brain knows the Bush crime family was involved. Now, all you democrats think everything is going to be okay. But why are the democrats not procceding with impeacment? Because they are involved as well.
Down with the king, and all of his court gesters!
9-11
Billy, there is no doubt that the Democrats are complicit in this as well. Especially about the war in Iraq. Leading Democrats like Clinton, Biden, Kerry, Edwards and many more gave Bu$h a blank check by giving him the authority to go to war. That's why none of them, at least the ones that still won't admit their mistake, will never get my vote. But as you know Billy, it's really not about political parties, it's about the secret sub-culture that permeates beneath politics. Most of the members of those secret groups do have far right leanings however. And the Bu$hes are the poster children of that secret and evil society.
-
Cappy Erikksen
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Well, Bob, with all due respect, that list of Bushisms doesn't contain what I would call "facts". It's more like a list of ultra-leftwing accusations and propaganda cooked up by the likes of people like Michael Moore and Ward Churchill, both of whom I consider dyed-in-the-wool, bona-fide crackpots with personal axes to grind on anything that appears to be remotely conservative.
I've seen Ward "SkunkStripe" Churchill interviewed on television before. He couldn't debate his way out of a wet paper bag. Like most liberals, he refuses to answer straight, basic questions (because he can't) but dances around them by changing the subject over and over again, no matter how many times he's asked to answer one simple question. In one televised phone interview with Bill O'Reilly, he wriggled his way out by claiming he had lost the signal transmission and couldn't hear what was being asked. The whole time, there was another guy standing right next to him who, for some reason, could clearly hear everything O'Reilly was saying. The scene was quite comical and highly revealing about the character of this asanine fool who is unfortunately employed in a position of educating young, impressionable minds.
As Neal Boortz once said on the air, "There are no liberal talk-radio shows because a talk-radio host has to be able to defend everything he says with facts. Liberals are unable to do that. Facts are a liberal's worst enemy. The only avenue they have for defending their beliefs is to call their opponents names like 'stupid', 'racist', 'bigot', ect. and to make them look silly with childish jokes. They use these methods in videos and news articles and walk away without having to respond to any criticism. You can't do that on talk radio. When you have callers, you have no choice but to defend your words immediately, and to do that requires being armed with lots of facts to back up what you say."
If Michael Moore had to respond to callers, within ten minutes he'd be pulling the plug on his phone and rolling into the nearest mudhole to hide.
Earlier in this thread, a member described Cynthia McKinney as "brave" and "heroic" and such. Outrageous statements like those make it virtually impossible for me to believe anything else the person might say from then on. IMHO Cynthia Mckinney has all the validity of a back-alley crackwhore, and it amazes me that any human being, black or white, is unable to recognize that.
Well, in my last post I said I'd try not to offend the rest of you from now on, but I'm sure this response will do exactly that. Not that I'm trying to offend...I'm not...but I don't see any way of being honest about my beliefs without raising the hackles of most of the active members here. That's why I'd prefer to stick to the JFK topic.
I've seen Ward "SkunkStripe" Churchill interviewed on television before. He couldn't debate his way out of a wet paper bag. Like most liberals, he refuses to answer straight, basic questions (because he can't) but dances around them by changing the subject over and over again, no matter how many times he's asked to answer one simple question. In one televised phone interview with Bill O'Reilly, he wriggled his way out by claiming he had lost the signal transmission and couldn't hear what was being asked. The whole time, there was another guy standing right next to him who, for some reason, could clearly hear everything O'Reilly was saying. The scene was quite comical and highly revealing about the character of this asanine fool who is unfortunately employed in a position of educating young, impressionable minds.
As Neal Boortz once said on the air, "There are no liberal talk-radio shows because a talk-radio host has to be able to defend everything he says with facts. Liberals are unable to do that. Facts are a liberal's worst enemy. The only avenue they have for defending their beliefs is to call their opponents names like 'stupid', 'racist', 'bigot', ect. and to make them look silly with childish jokes. They use these methods in videos and news articles and walk away without having to respond to any criticism. You can't do that on talk radio. When you have callers, you have no choice but to defend your words immediately, and to do that requires being armed with lots of facts to back up what you say."
If Michael Moore had to respond to callers, within ten minutes he'd be pulling the plug on his phone and rolling into the nearest mudhole to hide.
Earlier in this thread, a member described Cynthia McKinney as "brave" and "heroic" and such. Outrageous statements like those make it virtually impossible for me to believe anything else the person might say from then on. IMHO Cynthia Mckinney has all the validity of a back-alley crackwhore, and it amazes me that any human being, black or white, is unable to recognize that.
Well, in my last post I said I'd try not to offend the rest of you from now on, but I'm sure this response will do exactly that. Not that I'm trying to offend...I'm not...but I don't see any way of being honest about my beliefs without raising the hackles of most of the active members here. That's why I'd prefer to stick to the JFK topic.
I understand where you are coming from Cappy. But I would be willing to debate point for point the Bu$h list I provided earlier with you. But if the JFK assassination is where you want to stay focused, that's fine as well. There is no doubt that your point of reference is slanted from the right and mine is slanted from the left, but that doesn't mean we can't have some real dialogue. By the way, what was your take on the Dynasty of Death articles concerning the Bu$hes and Operation Northwoods?
Cappy, one other point I would like to address. You mentioned Bill O"Reilly. Please Cappy. The guy talks out of both sides of his mouth. How about his accusing the Americans of war atrocities at Malmedy, when it was the other way around. And he never had the guts to apologize. He always says he's an independent. Yet on his voter's registration card, he checked off Republican. If one fact checks Bill, one will find a mountain of utter bullshit. To me, O'Reilly and Sean Hannity are nothing more than bombastic blowhards that work for the biggest right wing propaganda machine ever produced in the world of "news" organizations. Nobody is more rabid as right wingers than Rupert Murdoch or Roger Ailes. And their "news" organization reflects that.
-
Cappy Erikksen
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Bob, Bob, Bob...you liberals are so hard to talk to. Whenever I'm trying to make a point to a left-winger, one simple word (in this case "O'Reilly") can touch a nerve so quickly that the whole topic can be immediately destroyed and abandonded. I was having the same problem with my sister last night. She claims she wants to understand my beliefs, and she pleads, "Please explain what you mean!" but then, before I can finish the first or second sentence, a word will come out of my mouth that will send her into a frenzy. Of course, then I'll be immediately interrupted and the whole conversation will be derailed. In my experience, that's how liberals argue...not with facts but with conversational sabotage. Then, after she's steered the topic away from every single point I've tried to make, she walks away not having learned a single thing about my beliefs, and thinking somehow she's achieved some sort of victory. It's really maddening and a complete waste of time.
Anyhow, just because I used Bill O'Reilly in an anecdote, you really shouldn't assume that I worship the guy or subscribe to everything he believes. I don't even watch him at my own house, but when I'm visiting my Mom, she watches him every night. He just happened to be the one who was interviewing Ol' Skunkstripe that evening, and it was hilarious. As far as I'm concerned, Bill O'Reilly is just another puppet of the Zionist media. Now and then he might say something I agree with, but mostly I think he's just an opinionated blowhard who grabs for ratings by overexposing every stupid distraction that comes down the pike simply because he knows the majority of his viewers are mediocre lemmings with little capacity for intelligent, independent thought.
Anyhow, just because I used Bill O'Reilly in an anecdote, you really shouldn't assume that I worship the guy or subscribe to everything he believes. I don't even watch him at my own house, but when I'm visiting my Mom, she watches him every night. He just happened to be the one who was interviewing Ol' Skunkstripe that evening, and it was hilarious. As far as I'm concerned, Bill O'Reilly is just another puppet of the Zionist media. Now and then he might say something I agree with, but mostly I think he's just an opinionated blowhard who grabs for ratings by overexposing every stupid distraction that comes down the pike simply because he knows the majority of his viewers are mediocre lemmings with little capacity for intelligent, independent thought.
Cappy...Cappy...Cappy, first off Merry Christmas. You mentioned O'Reilly in your previous comment and I just wanted to give my opinion of him. That's all. By the way, my Dad watches him religiously. But you act as though all of the stuff I've posted here is bullshit. Some liberal bullshit bias. As I said earlier, I'm slanted to the left, but I call them like I see them. Trust me, I don't just post things to get a reaction. I research them first. I am just as disgusted with some Democrats as I am with Republicans. I mentioned a few earlier that gave Bu$h a blank check on the war in Iraq. Again, it's not so much political affiliation, but corruption and greed, no matter the party. I've brought this up before, but have you noticed the Bill Clinton-George H.W. Bu$h love fest as of late? No two people are more politically opposite, but their past was joined in the drug running days out of Mena, Arkansas. They both know that they each have plenty on each other. You and I talked about the LCAP earlier. Barry Seal was in the LCAP and also was a prominent figure out of Mena. Again, he was murdered in his car with Poppy Bu$h's telephone number in his trunk. Finally, you still haven't responded to my question about "Dynasty of Death" concerning the Bu$h family history and about Operation Northwoods.
-
Cappy Erikksen
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Merry Christmas to you too, Bob.
The reason I haven't commented on the links you provided is because I haven't studied them yet. As I mentioned briefly earlier, I'm out of town right now for the holidays. I'm in the state where I grew up, visiting different family members on a day-to-day basis, so I really don't have time to engage in a detailed debate. (My slow typing is a factor too)
Anyhow, I've made a promise to myself to get to it eventually. Until then, I hope you and all the other forum members here enjoy your holidays.
Cheers!
Cappy
The reason I haven't commented on the links you provided is because I haven't studied them yet. As I mentioned briefly earlier, I'm out of town right now for the holidays. I'm in the state where I grew up, visiting different family members on a day-to-day basis, so I really don't have time to engage in a detailed debate. (My slow typing is a factor too)
Anyhow, I've made a promise to myself to get to it eventually. Until then, I hope you and all the other forum members here enjoy your holidays.
Cheers!
Cappy
-
M.C.Newton
- Posts: 100
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Sorry for the late addition to the debate/conversation/argument, but I couldn't help but to feel offended by most everything Cappy has said.
Now Cappy,
Just observing the back and forth of this thread has been very interesting. You've seemingly walked into a room and started slandering everybody you see. Interesting technique using your first post to "slam" a significant portion of this forum. Then when members who raise absolutely legitimate questions, challenging your views, you avoid the questions altogether and label them "a list of ultra-leftwing accusations and propaganda". Seems that this could be an apt description of your actions thus far:
"...has to be able to defend everything he says with facts. Liberals are unable to do that. Facts are a liberal's worst enemy. The only avenue they have for defending their beliefs is to call their opponents names like 'stupid'['liberal'], 'racist'['marxist'], 'bigot' [back-alley crack whore], ect. and to make them look silly with childish jokes... [I suppose you also think Tupac is still alive, smoking a joint somewhere with Elvis and Jim Morrison...]" "...You can't do that on talk radio [forum]. When you have callers [other members of forum], you have no choice but to defend your words immediately, and to do that requires being armed with lots of facts to back up what you say."
So there you have it Cappy you better start defending your words immediately but remember that that is going to require some facts, lest the day should arrive when you have to look in the mirror and call yourself a
"liberal" (by your stated definition above). It would appear from the outside looking in on the debate that you are the exact thing that you vehemently oppose only on the opposite end of the spectrum. Interesting.
Now regarding 9/11
You have also stated that "I based my own conclusions on what I saw on the news reports and videos." Interesting is this the same "news" as the "liberal Marxist media" or was it more of your standard run of the mill "Zionist media" that you referred to before. From where I'm standing it looks like you've based your conclusions on what you were fed by sources which you seem to be absolutely opposed to.
For you to dismiss out of hand the scores of important and legitimate questions regarding 9/11 (or Iraq, or Oklahoma City, Pearl Harbor, etc..) is irresponsible at best. To not feel inclined to see any of the information regarding 9/11 is pretty telling as well. You think anyone who is opposed to Bush is a liberal or better yet "...people who had the rational parts of their brains removed right after they were born, in a government experiment to see what causes mental retardation." That's a good point Cappy. You think some of these people couldn't possibly be people who care about their country, and saw some things that were being glossed over, and decided to investigate? That would be impossible, right? Their all "liberals", Hell bent on achieving their Jewish goals. Sound ridiculous? It should.
Then you go on a tirade about the Jews. You just seem to use the generalized term Jew so freely and negatively. It would seem from your words that you believe that there is a conspiracy, but that that conspiracy is a Jewish one. Make no mistake about it when you use a term that describes a whole swath of people (i.e. Jew, Muslim, Black, White, American, French, etc.) you are going to be wrong just about everytime.
But maybe it's just semantics. In which case I wouldn't necessarily call you anti-semitic but more anti-semantic.
But anyway moving forward, you came into the room slandered as many as could hear, you just have to expect some people to raise their voice in opposition. Otherwise we'd be spineless liberals.
P.s. To answer your question in this statement:
"You say that towers can't collapse straight down and that plane fuel can't melt steel. How do you know that? How many times in history have airliners been crashed into the world's tallest superstructures? If you don't know, I'll tell you...NEVER!"
Well one time actually, http://library.thinkquest.org/J002604/EmpireState.html
The size of the plane is smaller true, but the building I would say was not built to the same strength of the WTC 1 & 2, to a significant degree. (Speculative)
Now Cappy,
Just observing the back and forth of this thread has been very interesting. You've seemingly walked into a room and started slandering everybody you see. Interesting technique using your first post to "slam" a significant portion of this forum. Then when members who raise absolutely legitimate questions, challenging your views, you avoid the questions altogether and label them "a list of ultra-leftwing accusations and propaganda". Seems that this could be an apt description of your actions thus far:
"...has to be able to defend everything he says with facts. Liberals are unable to do that. Facts are a liberal's worst enemy. The only avenue they have for defending their beliefs is to call their opponents names like 'stupid'['liberal'], 'racist'['marxist'], 'bigot' [back-alley crack whore], ect. and to make them look silly with childish jokes... [I suppose you also think Tupac is still alive, smoking a joint somewhere with Elvis and Jim Morrison...]" "...You can't do that on talk radio [forum]. When you have callers [other members of forum], you have no choice but to defend your words immediately, and to do that requires being armed with lots of facts to back up what you say."
So there you have it Cappy you better start defending your words immediately but remember that that is going to require some facts, lest the day should arrive when you have to look in the mirror and call yourself a
"liberal" (by your stated definition above). It would appear from the outside looking in on the debate that you are the exact thing that you vehemently oppose only on the opposite end of the spectrum. Interesting.
Now regarding 9/11
You have also stated that "I based my own conclusions on what I saw on the news reports and videos." Interesting is this the same "news" as the "liberal Marxist media" or was it more of your standard run of the mill "Zionist media" that you referred to before. From where I'm standing it looks like you've based your conclusions on what you were fed by sources which you seem to be absolutely opposed to.
For you to dismiss out of hand the scores of important and legitimate questions regarding 9/11 (or Iraq, or Oklahoma City, Pearl Harbor, etc..) is irresponsible at best. To not feel inclined to see any of the information regarding 9/11 is pretty telling as well. You think anyone who is opposed to Bush is a liberal or better yet "...people who had the rational parts of their brains removed right after they were born, in a government experiment to see what causes mental retardation." That's a good point Cappy. You think some of these people couldn't possibly be people who care about their country, and saw some things that were being glossed over, and decided to investigate? That would be impossible, right? Their all "liberals", Hell bent on achieving their Jewish goals. Sound ridiculous? It should.
Then you go on a tirade about the Jews. You just seem to use the generalized term Jew so freely and negatively. It would seem from your words that you believe that there is a conspiracy, but that that conspiracy is a Jewish one. Make no mistake about it when you use a term that describes a whole swath of people (i.e. Jew, Muslim, Black, White, American, French, etc.) you are going to be wrong just about everytime.
But maybe it's just semantics. In which case I wouldn't necessarily call you anti-semitic but more anti-semantic.
But anyway moving forward, you came into the room slandered as many as could hear, you just have to expect some people to raise their voice in opposition. Otherwise we'd be spineless liberals.
P.s. To answer your question in this statement:
"You say that towers can't collapse straight down and that plane fuel can't melt steel. How do you know that? How many times in history have airliners been crashed into the world's tallest superstructures? If you don't know, I'll tell you...NEVER!"
Well one time actually, http://library.thinkquest.org/J002604/EmpireState.html
The size of the plane is smaller true, but the building I would say was not built to the same strength of the WTC 1 & 2, to a significant degree. (Speculative)