 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tag povrayorg> wrote:
> I found this article at cracked.com a good read. It's a bit long and uses
> a bit vulgar style in some parts, but I warmly recommend you to read it.
>
> http://www.cracked.com/article_15740_was-911-inside-job.html
>
> It's not a debunking article per se, but more of an opinion of why the
> conspiracy theorists are nuts. Especially the second page makes good points
> about why keeping a huge conspiracy like that is basically impossible: There
> simply are way too many people involved and too many witnesses who could
> blow up the whole thing with simple evidence (eg. by showing a paycheck by
> the government to keep them quiet).
>
> The conspiracy theorists claim that all the people involved, who would
> could blow up the whole conspiracy, were paid by the government to keep
> quiet. As the article aptly puts it, how much money would *you* take in
> order to keep quiet about the murder of your family, friends or co-workers?
>
> --
> - Warp
True statement: There are plenty of bona fide wackos out there alleging all
sorts of crazy conspiracies.
False statement: Anyone proposing that one or more persons in authority might be
abusing that authority and misusing the sometimes legitimate need for government
secrecy to obscure their misdeeds is automatically just one of those wackos.
Best Regards,
Mike C.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-7-2009 13:56, John VanSickle wrote:
> Aside from a handful of people who think that our federal government is
> always up to something evil, no matter who is in office, a small number
> of people were afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome to such a degree
> that they believe him capable of anything evil. In all fairness,
> conspiracy theories about Clinton abounded during his time in office as
> well.
IIRC there was a clear hatred in the republican party when Clinton came
in office right from the start. At least from where I live it seemed as
if they could not admit they had been defeated in the election and every
means to correct that was justified. With Bush you had the same problem,
but now in reverse. So I assumed that was the normal state of US
government presumably because if they would stop fighting they might
have to take decisions. US policy never seems to amaze because I have
not seen much hatred or personals attacks on Obama yet. The only
exception may be Dick Cheney, but he is desperately trying to stay out
of prison, so he does not count that much in my opinion.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> US policy never seems to amaze because I have
> not seen much hatred or personals attacks on Obama yet.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp
etc.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-7-2009 20:59, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> US policy never seems to amaze because I have
>> not seen much hatred or personals attacks on Obama yet.
>
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp
>
> etc.
>
None of these seem to come directly from the republican party and most
if not all date from during the campaign. So there is no reason to
change my conclusion that the republican party has accepted Obama as
their president and are not using foul play to remove him from power
and/or cripple the administration simply because he is from that other
party. Also McCain's reaction when confronted with a xenophobe supporter
during the campaign points to a more 'mature' attitude by both parties.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> So there is no reason to
> change my conclusion that the republican party has accepted Obama as
> their president and are not using foul play to remove him from power
> and/or cripple the administration simply because he is from that other
> party.
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/07/17/health-care-and-the-tea-partie
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/07/20/obama_pushes_back_against_talk.html
Uh, no. Living here, I can guarantee you there's frequent "defeat obama even
at the cost of the rest of america" going on pretty frequently.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/30/09 14:15, andrel wrote:
> None of these seem to come directly from the republican party and most
> if not all date from during the campaign. So there is no reason to
The Republican Party may not be doing it directly, but issues of his
being a citizen via birth haven't gone away. One soldier recently
managed to get himself undeployed from Iraq on the basis of his
challenging whether Obama is the commander in chief, because he doesn't
believe Obama is a natural born citizen.
And as for the Muslim issue, wasn't that something Hilary was
responsible for?
--
To call a man an ass is to insult the jackass. M.Twain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/30/09 18:00, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> being a citizen via birth haven't gone away. One soldier recently
> managed to get himself undeployed from Iraq on the basis of his
Actually, I meant Afghanistan.
--
To call a man an ass is to insult the jackass. M.Twain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> Aside from a handful of people who think that our federal government is
> always up to something evil, no matter who is in office, a small number
> of people were afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome to such a degree
> that they believe him capable of anything evil. In all fairness,
> conspiracy theories about Clinton abounded during his time in office as
> well.
>
> Regards,
> John
I think Bush was a borderline idiot, and Cheney, and other around him,
where pushing the agendas in some really stupid ways, with what "is" a
clear goal of making the country more like what a small minority of
loonies want it to be, as his supposed "advisors". Do I qualify? lol
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 30-7-2009 20:59, Warp wrote:
>> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>> US policy never seems to amaze because I have not seen much hatred or
>>> personals attacks on Obama yet.
>>
>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp
>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp
>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp
>>
>> etc.
>>
> None of these seem to come directly from the republican party and most
> if not all date from during the campaign. So there is no reason to
> change my conclusion that the republican party has accepted Obama as
> their president and are not using foul play to remove him from power
> and/or cripple the administration simply because he is from that other
> party. Also McCain's reaction when confronted with a xenophobe supporter
> during the campaign points to a more 'mature' attitude by both parties.
>
There is a Youtube on this issue, which I don't have a link to. Someone
from Huffpo (man that place is a weird mix of fact based stuff and pure
bullshit, but that is a different issue), where one of their reporters
tries to get a clear answer from people on "if" Obama was born in the
US. It was only like 5-6 people, but one tried damn hard to *not* be
interviewed, most of the others waffled a lot, and wouldn't answer,
except to babble, in a few cases, about, "Its being looked into", and
only one admitted that he "accepted" the truth, only he also claimed
that Obama was trying to systematically destroy the country with his
policies.
Some times you don't need conspiracy, just paranoia, combined with
rampant delusion, and a blind refusal to accept reality, all topped with
a hint of lime (without the m).
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-7-2009 22:08, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> So there is no reason to change my conclusion that the republican
>> party has accepted Obama as their president and are not using foul
>> play to remove him from power and/or cripple the administration simply
>> because he is from that other party.
>
> http://spectator.org/blog/2009/07/17/health-care-and-the-tea-partie
>
> http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/07/20/obama_pushes_back_against_talk.html
There may be some retrospective(*) religious inspired idea that health
care for poor people is inherently bad for the country but to me this
sort of 'reasoning' does indeed make no sense.
> Uh, no. Living here, I can guarantee you there's frequent "defeat obama
> even at the cost of the rest of america" going on pretty frequently.
I believe you, it is just that we here don't see that as often (i.e.
almost not at all). Perhaps because things like the above do not make
sense if you publish them in a Dutch newspaper, other than 'those silly
americans', and what is the news value of that?
*) first you have an idea and then you try to find a religious sounding
reasoning for it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
