Great site for 9/11 Kool-Aid drinkers

[mainline]

If anyone is wearing the clown shoes, SLC, it's you with giving credence to all these 9/11 conspiracy theories.?

That is the point.

I don't give credence to these theories as you (or the other poster who does the same thing, hence "Clown shoes") claim.

I do think some of the questions asked are good ones and should be discussed/addressed. I also think the story we are given about 9-11 does not add up. That is about it.

What questions?  What doesn't add up?

Seems to me that the only difference between you and the conspiracy theorists is the latter is at least willing to spell out their accusations of what they believe did or did not happen.? Just offering some vague opinion of "there being questions that need addressing" or "the official story doesn't add up" doesn't mean you haven't put on the clown shoes.

For instance, anyone who believes the planes didn't bring down the WTC towers has to do more than just make that claim.? They have to offer what they believe actually did instead.? And whether it be the towers, the Pentegon, or Flight 93 in PA, few are willing to go that far because anything and everything they come up with eventually proves ridiculous and even more unbelievable than the "official story."

But I guess anyone who wants there to be a conspiracy will find one.? Even if everything surrounding 9/11 is cut and dry and as plain as can be....

[Guns N RockMusic]

Heartless?? You want to talk about heartless?? How about morons who advocate that 9/11 was an inside job?? How about morons who equate US servicemen with terrorists?? Heartless, how about people that would rather see America be hit again rather than George Bush be right?? That's heartless; to spin everything with contempt for anyone that believes in what we're doing.

As far as my post is concerned, do you concede your point?

No, I don't.  The Democrats ran congress up untill 1994.  So while you had some who supported civil rights, you had a substantial margin who didn't.  You were quick to point to Strom Thurmond, but he was a racist while he was a Democrat.  Only later in life when he was no longer a segregationist did he become a republican.  Rovbert Byrd was in the KKK.  It was southern democrats who opposed civil rights.  It was Republicans who freed the slaves and led the civil rights movement.  Only in the past 25 years have the Democrats taken a change on the race issue. 
   I do use liberal and Democrat as interchangable because in contemporary America they are.  The radical left has hi-jacked the Democratic party just as like the neo-cons have high-jacked the republican party.  I think Kennedy was a great President, but think Carter was a fool.  So I concede nothing, in as much as we're debating the usage of such terms in common speech.  I dare not go into their greater and true meanings or those who still read books with pictures would be lost.

[SLCPUNK]

Seems to me that the only difference between you and the conspiracy theorists is the latter is at least willing to spell out their accusations of what they believe did or did not happen. 

Again, I have already posted in detail in the other thread that was locked. How hard is it for you to understand that?

You guys have the audacity  to run around calling people conspiracy nuts after you  backed Bush?s claim about pretend  WMD and that Saddam was a threat to the world? After you told us all that we would be greeted as liberators and flowers would grow out of the streets? Hahaha?.you are calling me a conspiracy nut? Talk about CLOWN SHOES!

[Guns N RockMusic]

Seems to me that the only difference between you and the conspiracy theorists is the latter is at least willing to spell out their accusations of what they believe did or did not happen.?

Again, I have already posted in detail in the other thread that was locked. How hard is it for you to understand that?

You guys have the audacity? to run around calling people conspiracy nuts after you? backed Bush?s claim about pretend? WMD and that Saddam was a threat to the world? After you told us all that we would be greeted as liberators and flowers would grow out of the streets? Hahaha?.you are calling me a conspiracy nut? Talk about CLOWN SHOES!

What did you post SLC?? Nothing, you posted nothing of any value.? You said a thing about cell phones and one architect.? Both accounts have been proven wrong, or at the very minimum, probable by other experts. I myself have used a cell phone while on an aircraft.? You keep saying you won't repeat yourself, but you never said anything of any substance anyway.? You drop one liners with 4 picturs to follow, then refer back to these post as if they were a doctorate thesis on quantum mechanics.? I mean for fucks sakes, you got your information from a fucking movie; a movie of all places.? Where I come from, people don't expect to be taken seriously when they quote shit from movies.

I posted these links in hopes that people would read them to form their own opinion based on what they may have observed in Loose Change and what they may have gathered from those sources.  Unfortunately, you were quick to avoid the subject at hand and wonder off.  Then you claim that "right wingers" run away only to come back later after they were defeated.  This issue has shit to do with politics, it has everything to do with claims based on hearsay and sketchy information at best.  This thought occured to me after you were quick to bash the PM article.  Did you even ever read the PM article and discover that the author had a "conflict of interest"?  Or did you read an article on some biased website that brought the PM article to your attention, and the author of said article claimed their was a conflict of interest?  Cause if it's the latter, and you're just echoing the thoughts of someone else cause they happen to agree with your pre-conceived notion, well let's just say that's pretty sad.

[SLCPUNK]

What did you post SLC?  Nothing, you posted nothing of any value.  You said a thing about cell phones and one architect.

This is not what I recently posted.........

  I mean for fucks sakes, you got your information from a fucking movie; a movie of all places.  Where I come from, people don't expect to be taken seriously when they quote shit from movies.

Wrong again.

I posted these links in hopes that people would read them to form their own opinion based on what they may have observed in Loose Change and what they may have gathered from those sources. 

I may believe you if the title of this thread were different. But it seems you came more to stir the pot than anything.

I can't do anything but joke after a while. You seem to have a reading comprehension problem paired with accute memory loss. Your posts (and your buddies in arms) make me laugh out loud most times. The other times I am left simply shaking my head.

Say what you will, but I am not here to babysit and point out my previous posts for you all. Here is a hint: KEEP THE FUCK UP. It's that simple. If you are unable to keep up with me, and remember something I posted just last week, then maybe you should get off the porch.

[Booker Floyd]

No, I don't.  The Democrats ran congress up untill 1994.

 

Now youre just too dishonest to admit that you were wrong.

Yes, Democrats held Congress until 1994.  That civil rights legislation was enacted in the 50s and 60s, the most significant ones being signed by Lyndon Johnson.

So while you had some who supported civil rights, you had a substantial margin who didn't.

Again, youre being dishonest.  It wasnt "some," it was the majority of Democrats, especially the liberal members.

You were quick to point to Strom Thurmond, but he was a racist while he was a Democrat.  Only later in life when he was no longer a segregationist did he become a republican.

Wrong again.  Thurmond switched in 1964 as a result of the national partys support for civil rights legislation.  He, along with much of the segregationist South, supported Barry Goldwater.  It was Goldwaters positioning against the legislation that brought the Republican partys first South Carolina victory in a presidential contest since the mid 1800s, and its part of the reason the South remains solidly Republican.  It was followed by Nixons Southern Strategy and Reagans endorsement of "states rights" in Philadelphia, Mississippi.  Republican strategist (and mentor to Karl Rove) Lee Atwater said this in 1981 as a member of Reagans administration:

"As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn?t have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he?s campaigned on since 1964? and that?s fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster?"

"You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Nigger, nigger, nigger.' By 1968 you can't say 'nigger' - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.  And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me - because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'Nigger, nigger."

Rovbert Byrd was in the KKK.  It was southern democrats who opposed civil rights.

This is a really fatuous parcing of partisanship.  Robert Byrd was, and is, a conservative Democrat.  Every Dixiecrat was unquestionably conservative.  Thats why many left the party. 

It was Republicans who freed the slaves and led the civil rights movement.  Only in the past 25 years have the Democrats taken a change on the race issue.

Again...Republicans were the liberals during the days of slavery, it was quite a different party - thats been addressed.  As for leading the civil rights movement, back it up.  Ive already referred to Democrats that led on the issue:

"My fellow Americans, this is a problem which faces us all--in every city of the North as well as the South. Today there are Negroes unemployed, two or three times as many compared to whites, inadequate in education, moving into the large cities, unable to find work, young people particularly out of work without hope, denied equal rights, denied the opportunity to eat at a restaurant or lunch counter or go to a movie theater, denied the right to a decent education, denied almost today the right to attend a State university even though qualified. It seems to me that these are matters which concern us all, not merely Presidents or Congressmen or Governors, but every citizen of the United States." - John F. Kennedy, 1963

It was Democrat Paul Douglas that Martin Luther King Jr. described as "the greatest of all the senators."

It was Democrat Mike Mansfield that introduced the 1964 Act.

It was Democrat Lyndon Johnson that signed it into law.  He, Mansfield and Hubert Humphrey championed the bill and appealed to Minority Leader Everett Dirkson to follow in support.

It was Lyndon Johnson that sent the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to Congress and signed it into law.

These are the two greatest pieces of civil rights legislation in the countrys history and they were largely creations.  They were enacted over 40 years ago, not 25.  That they were disputed by a band of conservative southern Democrats does not negate the fact that Democrats led on the legislation. 

It was the Republican Party, with the support of the South, that ran the anti-civil rights candidate at the height of the movement.  These are the facts.  Most Republicans supported the legislation as well, but they were not the leaders. 

I do use liberal and Democrat as interchangable because in contemporary America they are.

1.) Thats untrue. 

2.) The Democrats you referred to were staunch conservatives.

The radical left has hi-jacked the Democratic party just as like the neo-cons have high-jacked the republican party.

Youre free to believe this I suppose, but youre wrong again and it contradicts youre point that liberals (which you insist is interchangable with Democrats) were in charge of the party in the 1950s and 1960s when they supposedly rejected civil rights.  However, its easy to see that youre just clumsily using semantics to bolster a point thats been disproved. 

I dare not go into their greater and true meanings or those who still read books with pictures would be lost.

Someone so misinformed, reliant on simplistic generalizations and incapable of accepting facts need not deign to others on comprehension.

[sandman]

i have no idea what possesses a grown man to make shit up about other posters. it's quite sad actually. it's one thing to make a mistake, but to then continue to post lies after lies. unbelievable.

I don't have to make anything up.

You compared the violence in Iraq to everyday violence in USA cities. You were trying to find a way to condone what we have created over there. Just as many of your buddies here call civilian deaths "Collateral damage." You were justifying civilian deaths? in that region by downplaying the significance of the deaths themselves. Which is indeed: heartless.

i never said any of these things. nor do i believe these things. 

you continue to lie. posting the same thing over and over is not gonna make it true.

it's actually hilarious how you just type the same thing over and over. it seems like you are brainwashed and are just programmed to type the "i hate republicans" tag lines. 

you assume all bush supporters fit into one category. you try to paint us all in a negative way. and then you criticize us for beliefs that we don't even have.

unbelievable.

you provide constant reminders of why we are not allowed to have political threads. 

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

sandman, we're just trying to understand how you can be a bush supporter ....

i mean .... GEORGE W BUSH !!! do you realize !!!??? have you seen the Will Ferrel Clips about George mending his fences ?!!!

come on ... george double u bush ..... COME on

[sandman]

sandman, we're just trying to understand how you can be a bush supporter ....

i mean .... GEORGE W BUSH !!! do you realize !!!??? have you seen the Will Ferrel Clips about George mending his fences ?!!!

come on ... george double u bush ..... COME on

good question. and i'm always up for a friendly debate.

first off, let me clarify and say that i do not blindly support any politician. i hate them all. and i hate the political game that is played.

i like some of the things bush has done. and i dislike some things bush has done.

- i agree with his proactive approach to fighting terrorism. he invaded afghanistan which i strongly supported. that war showed the world that we were now active participants in the global war vs. terrorism. that war had been going on for years, and we finally began fighting. i believe he has done a great job in fighting terrorism. 

- i agreed with the decision to invade iraq (as did many politicians on both sides).
- i'm a HUGE supporter of Sarbanes-Oxley.
- i believe his tax cuts have helped the economy.
- i'm a fan of the patriot act
- NCLB

on the other side....
- MANY mistakes have been made in iraq, and he needs to be held accountable.
- he spends too much.
- he should have handled Katrina better.
- he seems a little too close to the religious nut jobs.   

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

i can see that. ok.

so you agree on proactive actions against terrorism, so do you agree with the proactive approach of terrorists against the evil power of western civilization ?

iraq ? i thought everybody agreed on how the usa fooled you and lied to the world?


tax cuts good / spends too much bad : well you need to pick your side.

[sandman]

i can see that. ok.

so you agree on proactive actions against terrorism, so do you agree with the proactive approach of terrorists against the evil power of western civilization ?

iraq ? i thought everybody agreed on how the usa fooled you and lied to the world?


tax cuts good / spends too much bad : well you need to pick your side.

i'll assume your first question is a joke.

"everyone agreed" again, i'll assume you're kidding. but just check hillary clinton's comments on iraq. nobody fooled me. personally, i wanted saddam removed long before we invaded.

your third comment is the only one that appears serious, but it makes no sense whatsoever....

i'm in favor of tax cuts, which means less of MY money goes to the government. therefore, the government needs to spend less. 

[SLCPUNK]

You compared the violence in Iraq to everyday violence in USA cities. You were trying to find a way to condone what we have created over there. Just as many of your buddies here call civilian deaths "Collateral damage." You were justifying civilian deaths  in that region by downplaying the significance of the deaths themselves. Which is indeed: heartless.

i never said any of these things. nor do i believe these things. 

you continue to lie. posting the same thing over and over is not gonna make it true.

Reply #234 on: September 21, 2004, 06:32:21 PM ?

"
as bad as everyone tries to make things seem in iraq, there are more murders in detroit on a daily basis than there is in all of iraq."

- Sandman



FUCKING CLOWN SHOES!

Now a real man would apologize. But I don't expect that from you. What are you going to do now? Claim that is something completely different? You are the liar, and so are all your buddies on the right, case closed.

[Kujo]

There you go confusing people with facts again

[SLCPUNK]

There you go confusing people with facts again

[Kujo]

Love what you've done with your hair

[SLCPUNK]

Love what you've done with your hair

Markusa helped me with it.............

[Guns N RockMusic]

Booker, although this initial reply will be brief, please don't take it as me ignoring or avoiding your reply.  I simply have to get to work and will edit this post later.

Some simple stats on how each patry voted for the civil rights act of 1964:

The Original House Version:

[House]
Democratic Party: 153-96   (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34   (80%-20%)
[Senate]
Democratic Party: 46-22   (68%-32%)
Republican Party: 27-6   (82%-18%)

The Senate Version, voted on by the House:

Democratic Party: 153-91   (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35   (80%-20%)

Booker, you seem to want to ignore the cold hard facts here.  Further, if a democrat was against civil rights, you call them conservative which you equate with racist.  So if a democrat doesn't toe the line, he's just a conservative.  This is bullshit and since each party has unique views that define them as liberal or conservative, you're avoiding the issue.  It's fair to say that Lieberman is more conservative than Kennedy, but it wouldn't be fair to call Lieberman a conservative.  It's fair to call McCain more liberal than Cheney, but not fair to call him a liberal.  What you're trying to do is paint a picture that liberals (common usage of the word) were behind all advances in our society when that's simply not true.

[Kujo]

Damn, dude that was brief? 

Well I was hoping to see sandmans response before I left work, but I have a hurricane to out run on I-95.

[SLCPUNK]

Damn, dude that was brief? 

Well I was hoping to see sandmans response before I left work, but I have a hurricane to out run on I-95.

He is out shopping for some credibility............

[sandman]

You compared the violence in Iraq to everyday violence in USA cities. You were trying to find a way to condone what we have created over there. Just as many of your buddies here call civilian deaths "Collateral damage." You were justifying civilian deaths? in that region by downplaying the significance of the deaths themselves. Which is indeed: heartless.

i never said any of these things. nor do i believe these things.?

you continue to lie. posting the same thing over and over is not gonna make it true.

Reply #234 on: September 21, 2004, 06:32:21 PM ?

"
as bad as everyone tries to make things seem in iraq, there are more murders in detroit on a daily basis than there is in all of iraq."

- Sandman



FUCKING CLOWN SHOES!

Now a real man would apologize. But I don't expect that from you. What are you going to do now? Claim that is something completely different? You are the liar, and so are all your buddies on the right, case closed.

i did compare the STATS (which was not your original argument).

but i did not, am not, and never will try to condone OR undermine the killing of innocent civilians (which is what i really take exception to).

that was not the meaning of my statement. the context had to do with the media's reporting of the war. ?

and i'll say it now so there's no confusion, innocent civilian deaths are horrible (and major) events that cannot be taken lightly. very sad.