Tonight's GOP Debate

[corplinx]

Who watched, what did you think? Don't comment if you just watch sound bytes on the daily show.

[WildCat]

Didn't even know there was one... :boxedin:

[MaGZ]

I watched it. I am glad Ron Paul stood his ground against Rudy. Paul is right. 9/11 was blowback for our policies in the Middle East. Now, I hope Paul attacks the US pro-Israel policy. This would really upset Rudy.

[corplinx]

Didn't even know there was one... :boxedin:

Yes there was. And they tried asking hypotheticals to get the candidates off script.

[MaGZ]

I see Ron Paul has struck a cord. He is now second in the Fox News text poll.
I suppose a lot of those voting are Democrats.

Romney 27%
Paul 26 %

[WildCat]

I predict that Ron Paul gets < 3% of the vote in the first primary.

That won't qualify me for the $1 million though.

[MaGZ]

I predict that Ron Paul gets < 3% of the vote in the first primary.

That won't qualify me for the $1 million though.

If there are no changes, the first primary will be in New Hampshire. Before NH, Iowa will have a caucus.

In some state primaries, anyone who is a register voter can declare himself a Republican or Democrat on election day and then can vote in either primary.

Independents are likely to go with someone like Paul.

BTW Fox News is now repeating the debate.

[davefoc]

I didn't watch it.

I was turned off in the first one by listening to a bunch of guys going off about their religious beliefs and their abortion beliefs and what I see is their simplistic views about the Iraq war.

I wasn't sure what I was going to do with my Republican primary vote since I pretty much wouldn't vote for any of the Republican candidates. After Bush I take much more seriously the possibility that anybody that sounds like he might be a religious nut and a pro war nut might actually be a religious, pro war nut. I've made up my mind that I'm going to vote for some anti free market, pro labor union, pro trial lawyer, pro stupid government program Democrat than risk voting for somebody remotely like George Bush.

I haven't heard much about Ron Paul. He looked a little squirrley to my eyes and I just figured the electorate wasn't going to go for somebody like him. But maybe I'll cast my primary vote for him.

[Oliver]

I watched it. I am glad Ron Paul stood his ground against Rudy. Paul is right. 9/11 was blowback for our policies in the Middle East. Now, I hope Paul attacks the US pro-Israel policy. This would really upset Rudy.


Ditto. I can't believe that Rudy "Never heard such a thing" Giuliani has no Idea what causes blow-backs like 9/11. What an idiot.

ETA: McNugget also agreed with Rudy's view in an interview after the Debate. :rolleyes: Ignorants.

[WildCat]

Ditto. I can't believe that Rudy "Never heard such a thing" Giuliani has no Idea what causes blow-backs like 9/11. What an idiot.

ETA: McNugget also agreed with Rudy's view in an interview after the Debate. :rolleyes: Ignorants.
Yes, it's a terrible thing to not allow the Arabs to finish what the Nazis started. Damn the US and their insistence that there be peace between Israel and their neighbors!

I'll never cease to be astonished at those on this forum who throw their support behind regimes openly calling for genocide.

[Oliver]

Yes, it's a terrible thing to not allow the Arabs to finish what the Nazis started. Damn the US and their insistence that there be peace between Israel and their neighbors!

I'll never cease to be astonished at those on this forum who throw their support behind regimes openly calling for genocide.


Well, it's estimated that 1 Million people died as result of the embargo against Iraq and hundred thousands since the start of the last Iraq War. Maybe it's more comfortable to call it "War on Terror" against some imaginary global enemy who is as dangerous as the Russians in the cold war. This way you don't have to call it Genocide, right?

Gullible. And Dangerous to say they "hate our freedoms". Only brainwashed idiots would believe this crap.

[billydkid]

Yes, it's a terrible thing to not allow the Arabs to finish what the Nazis started. Damn the US and their insistence that there be peace between Israel and their neighbors!

I'll never cease to be astonished at those on this forum who throw their support behind regimes openly calling for genocide.First, who are you talking about - what someone supports what genocidal regime? And you know that US involvement in the middle east has not ever consisted merely of support for Israel. I would be willing to bet that nearly everyone in here is in favor of our support for Israel. You know full well that we have meddled in the middle east in ways that have nothing to do with supporting Israel. You know that our agenda in that area involved very much more than just supporting Israel.

Also, I do hope you are not one of those who thinks that any criticizm of Israeli government policy amounts to hating Jews and wishing they were dead. I have seen that time and again in here and it. I doubt there is a person in here who does not believe that Israel has a right to exist and to exist in peace and without the constant threat of terrorism hanging over the country's head and who does not favor America's support of Israel.

[Oliver]

This way you don't have to call it Genocide, right?


Here's is a list of US military interventions since 1900:


Panama - 1901
Navy supported the revolution when Panama claimed independence from Colombia. American troops have occupied the Canal Zone since 1901 when construction for the canal began.

Honduras - 1903
Marines landed to intervene during a revolution.

Dominican Rep 1903
Troops landed to protect American interests during a revolution.

Korea - 1904
Marines landed during the Russo-Japanese War.

Cuba - 1906
Troops landed during an election.

Nicaragua - 1907
Troops landed and a protectorate was set up.

Honduras - 1907
Marines landed during Honduras' war with Nicaragua.

Panama - 1908
Marines sent in during Panama's election.

Nicaragua - 1910
Marines landed for a second time in Bluefields and Corinto.

Honduras - 1911
Troops sent in to protect American interests during Honduras' civil war.

China - 1911
Navy and troops sent to China during continuous flare-ups.

Cuba - 1912
Troops sent in to protect American interests in Havana.

Panama - 1912
Marines landed during Panama's election.

Honduras - 1912
Troops sent in to protect American interests.

Nicaragua - 1912
Troops occupied Nicaragua and fought guerrillas during its 20-year civil war.

Mexico - 1913
Navy evacuated Americans during revolution.

Dominican Rep 1914
Navy fought with rebels over Santo Domingo.

Mexico - 1914
Navy and troops sent in to intervene against nationalists.

Haiti - 1914
Troops occupied Haiti after a revolution and occupied Haiti for 19 years.

Dominican Rep 1916
Marines occupied the Dominican Republic for eight years.

Cuba - 1917
Troops landed and occupied Cuba for 16 years; Cuba became an economic protectorate.

World War I - 1917
Navy and Army sent to Europe to fight the Axis powers.

Russia - 1918
Navy and troops sent to eastern Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution; Army made five landings.

Honduras - 1919
Marines sent during Honduras' national elections.

Guatemala - 1920
Troops occupied Guatemala for two weeks during a union strike.

Turkey - 1922
Troops fought nationalists in Smyrna.

China - 1922
Navy and Army troops deployed during a nationalist revolt.

Honduras - 1924
Troops landed twice during a national election.

Panama - 1925
Troops sent in to put down a general strike.

China - 1927
Marines sent in and stationed for seven years throughout China.

El Salvador - 1932
Naval warships deployed during the FMLN revolt under Marti.

World War II - 1941
Military fought the Axis powers: Japan, Germany, and Italy.

Yugoslavia - 1946
Navy deployed off the coast of Yugoslavia in response to the downing of an American plane.

Uruguay - 1947
Bombers deployed as a show of military force.

Greece - 1947
United States operations insured a victory for the far right in national "elections."

Germany - 1948
Military deployed in response to the Berlin blockade; the Berlin airlift lasts 444 days.

Philippines - 1948
The CIA directed a civil war against the Filipino Huk revolt.

Puerto Rico - 1950
Military helped crush an independence rebellion in Ponce.

Korean War - 1951
Military sent in during the war.

Iran - 1953
The CIA orchestrated the overthrow of democratically elected Mossadegh and restored the Shah to power.

Vietnam - 1954
The United States offered weapons to the French in the battle against Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh.

Guatemala - 1954
The CIA overthrew the democratically elected Arbenz and placed Colonel Armas in power.

Egypt - 1956
Marines deployed to evacuate foreigners after Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal.

Lebanon - 1958
Navy supported an Army occupation of Lebanon during its civil war.

Panama - 1958
Troops landed after Panamanians demonstrations threatened the Canal Zone.

Vietnam - 1950
Vietnam War.

Cuba - 1961
The CIA-directed Bay of Pigs invasions failed to overthrow the Castro government.

Cuba - 1962
The Navy quarantines Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Laos - 1962
Military occupied Laos during its civil war against the Pathet Lao guerrillas.

Panama - 1964
Troops sent in and Panamanians shot while protesting the United States presence in the Canal Zone.

Indonesia - 1965
The CIA orchestrated a military coup.
Dominican Rep- 1965-66 - Troops deployed during a national election.

Guatemala - 1966-67
Green Berets sent in.

Cambodia - 1969
Military sent in after the Vietnam War expanded into Cambodia.

Oman - 1970
Marines landed to direct a possible invasion into Iran.

Laos - 1971
Americans carpet-bomb the countryside during Laos' civil war.

Chile - 1973
The CIA orchestrated a coup, killing President Allende who had been popularly elected. The CIA helped to establish a military regime under General Pinochet.

Cambodia - 1975
Twenty-eight Americans killed in an effort to retrieve the crew of the ayaquez, which had been seized.

Angola - 1976
The CIA backed South African rebels fighting against Marxist Angola.

Iran - 1980
Americans aborted a rescue attempt to liberate 52 hostages seized in the Teheran embassy.

Libya - 1981
American fighters shoot down two Libyan fighters.

El Salvador - 1981
The CIA, troops, and advisers aid in El Salvador's war against the FMLN.

Nicaragua - 1981
The CIA and NSC directed the Contra War against the Sandinistas.

Lebanon - 1982
Marines occupied Beirut during Lebanon's civil war; 241 were killed in the American barracks and Reagan "redeployed" the troops to the Mediterranean.

Honduras - 1983
Troops sent in to build bases near the Honduran border.

Grenada - 1983
American invasion overthrew the Maurice Bishop government.

Iran - 1984
American fighters shot down two Iranian planes over the Persian Gulf.

Libya - 1986
American fighters hit targets in and around the capital city of Tripoli.

Bolivia - 1986
The Army assisted government troops on raids of cocaine areas.

Iran - 1987
The United States intervened on the side of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War.

Libya - 1989
Navy shot down two more Libyan jets.

Virgin Islands - 1989
Troops landed during unrest among Virgin Island peoples.

Philippines - 1989
Air Force provided air cover for government during coup.

Panama - 1989
27,000 Americans landed in overthrow of President Noriega; over 2,000 Panama civilians were killed.

Liberia - 1990
Troops entered Liberia to evacuate foreigners during civil war.

Saudi Arabia - 1990
American troops sent to Saudi Arabia, which was a staging area in the war against Iraq.

Kuwait - 1991
Troops sent into Kuwait to turn back Saddam Hussein.

Somalia - 1992
Troops occupied Somalia during civil war.

Bosnia - 1993
Air Force jets bombed "no-fly zone" during civil war in Yugoslavia.

Haiti - 1994
American troops and Navy provided a blockade against Haiti's military government. The CIA restored Aristide to power.

Zaire - 1996
Marines sent into Rwanda Hutus' refugee camps in the area where the Congo revolution began.

Albania - 1997
Troops deployed during evacuation of foreigners.

Sudan - 1998
American missiles destroyed a pharmaceutical complex where alleged nerve gas components were manufactured.

Afghanistan - 1998
Missiles launched towards alleged Afghan terrorist training camps.

Yugoslavia - 1999
Bombings and missile attacks carried out by the United States in conjunction with NATO in the 11 week war against Milosevic.

Iraq - 1998
Missiles launched into Baghdad and other large Iraq cities for four days. American jets enforced "no-fly zone" and continued to hit Iraqi targets since December 1998.


My point is that only a blind or dumb person can deny that at least some of the above countries don't like to be bullied by the US and there is indeed a possibility of revenges like 9/11. And I don't even want to know how many tenths of millions died as a result of interferences. Oh well, it's for a good goal - and our God is with us.

And I don't mention the poverty > deaths > modern enslavement caused by global cooperations.

[Overman]

This thread took an interesting turn!

[steverino]

Ditto. I can't believe that Rudy "Never heard such a thing" Giuliani has no Idea what causes blow-backs like 9/11. What an idiot.

ETA: McNugget also agreed with Rudy's view in an interview after the Debate. :rolleyes: Ignorants.

:confused: What the hell is this? Because I did not see the debates, and the idea of this thread is to explain the debates.

What goes "never heard of such a thing" mean?
Who is a "McNugget."
What is a "blow-back?"

And what does that list of wars have to do with the debates? I missed them, and now I have to read in your war post that America fought in World War II and Puerto Rico? Are you saying that if we elect another Republican, we should not have fought in WWII?

[Oliver]

:confused: What the hell is this? Because I did not see the debates, and the idea of this thread is to explain the debates.

What goes "never heard of such a thing" mean?
Who is a "McNugget."
What is a "blow-back?"

And what does that list of wars have to do with the debates? I missed them, and now I have to read in your war post that America fought in World War II and Puerto Rico? Are you saying that if we elect another Republican, we should not have fought in WWII?


Don't ask me - I didn't brought up the Holocaust out of the blue. Neither Genocide nor the Jews were a topic of the GOP debate. :boggled:

[Pipirr]

McNugget = McCain?

[Oliver]

McNugget = McCain?


Yes, I didn't know the spelling of his name. Sorry.

[WildCat]

My point is that only a blind or dumb person can deny that at least some of the above countries don't like to be bullied by the US and there is indeed a possibility of revenges like 9/11. And I don't even want to know how many tenths of millions died as a result of interferences. Oh well, it's for a good goal - and our God is with us.
Damn those Americans for fighting back after being attacked by Japan in 1941, or ending the genocide ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. or driving out Saddam's army after it invaded Kuwait, or bombing al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan after we were attacked, or firing back at Saddam throughout the 90's.

It's a fact that the stated goal of the PA is the extermination of Israel - a state created specifically to give Jews a refuge from the persecution they experienced nearly everywhere they resided. Your country was a particularly heinous example of that, and no matter how you slice it you won't find anything in US history that comes close to that episode. I have no problems whatsoever with Israel's right to exist as a refuge from the genocides inflicted on Jews throughout their history. And it wasn't just you Germans that decided that killing every last Jews would be a good thing - the genocide also happened in Iraq, in Morocco, throughout the entire Arab world. The fact is, there are hundreds of thousands of Muslims worshipping openly and unmolested in Israel today - go find a single synogogue in the Arab world Oliver, just one. Can you do that? Do you know why that is? Look up the word "pogrom" while you're at it.

And I don't mention the poverty > deaths > modern enslavement caused by global cooperations.
Ah, the old "globalists" bogeyman. Go find one example of "globalists" causing poverty, deaths, or enslavement in the modern era. You don't seem to have the slightest idea how economies work, nor how wealth is created. And neither does Ron Paul and all his anti-free trade platform and rantings about Mexicans coming over the border on "the NAFTA superhighway (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul349.html)".

[WildCat]

Don't ask me - I didn't brought up the Holocaust out of the blue. Neither Genocide nor the Jews were a topic of the GOP debate. :boggled:
You agreed with Paul that the 9/11 attacks was a legitimate response to US support of Israel. If you don't support Israel's right to exist and to defend herself from attacks by the genocidal states that surround her, then what are you supporting Oliver?

[Overman]

Oliver reads too much Chomsky.

[WildCat]

First, who are you talking about - what someone supports what genocidal regime? And you know that US involvement in the middle east has not ever consisted merely of support for Israel. I would be willing to bet that nearly everyone in here is in favor of our support for Israel. You know full well that we have meddled in the middle east in ways that have nothing to do with supporting Israel. You know that our agenda in that area involved very much more than just supporting Israel.
This was specifically about the 9/11 attacks - and the reasons given were US support for Israel and the presence of US troops in SA in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Gulf War I, the one everyone supported, remember that one?

Also, I do hope you are not one of those who thinks that any criticizm of Israeli government policy amounts to hating Jews and wishing they were dead. I have seen that time and again in here and it. I doubt there is a person in here who does not believe that Israel has a right to exist and to exist in peace and without the constant threat of terrorism hanging over the country's head and who does not favor America's support of Israel.
Please explain how Israel can exist in peace with its neighbors (you know, the ones that launched 4 wars against it in an attempt to destroy it)without US support.

[Oliver]

You agreed with Paul that the 9/11 attacks was a legitimate response to US support of Israel. If you don't support Israel's right to exist and to defend herself from attacks by the genocidal states that surround her, then what are you supporting Oliver?


I agreed with Ron Paul that ... WTF? No, MagZ brought up the "I hope that Ron Paul attacks the US-Israel Policy". But my response was concerning the debate, not about US-Israel policies. And Ron Paul didn't mention anything about it.

ETA: Even if Israel has a role in US-Middle East politics, it's not the major interest in my opinion.

[Oliver]

Damn those Americans for fighting back after being attacked by Japan in 1941, or ending the genocide ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. or driving out Saddam's army after it invaded Kuwait, or bombing al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan after we were attacked, or firing back at Saddam throughout the 90's.


While I think that intervention in Kosovo and WW2 were necessary in terms of global peace, I don't agree about Hussein. The CIA installed him and the US gave a f*** about the genocide of the Kurds. It's proven that the US knew about it, but sold weapons and ingredients to make WMD's nevertheless.

Also Al Qaida is a result of the Middle East Mess. In fact, they are fighting the US soldiers down there with weapons and Training provided by the US during the Afghan war. That's why many people outside the US didn't wonder at all that there was a revenge. Maybe someone actually starts to listen to Osama and Gang why they are so upset. It's not because Women have the same rights as Men in the Western World - BS.

It's a fact that the stated goal of the PA is the extermination of Israel - a state created specifically to give Jews a refuge from the persecution they experienced nearly everywhere they resided. Your country was a particularly heinous example of that, and no matter how you slice it you won't find anything in US history that comes close to that episode. I have no problems whatsoever with Israel's right to exist as a refuge from the genocides inflicted on Jews throughout their history. And it wasn't just you Germans that decided that killing every last Jews would be a good thing - the genocide also happened in Iraq, in Morocco, throughout the entire Arab world. The fact is, there are hundreds of thousands of Muslims worshipping openly and unmolested in Israel today - go find a single synogogue in the Arab world Oliver, just one. Can you do that? Do you know why that is? Look up the word "pogrom" while you're at it.


I don't slice that - but you seem to forget what happened to the natives or the people shipped over to the US as slaves. The only solution I see is to give the jewish people a place where they can evolve free and in peace.
The problem is religion: "It is our holy place" - "No, it is our Gods holy Place" - "No, it isn't" - "Yes, it is".

Don't you see that this is a big pile of religious crap and all people involved are religious fanatics? So what's the solution: It's not to randomly and falsely chose the wrong ones who had nothing to do with 9/11.

And again, the US-Gov gives a F*** about Pakistan and Saudi Arabia - the ones who have ties to 9/11. But they're both holy cows because financial and strategic interests.

Anyway: "We will hunt down the people who did it" and Iraq were both lies. They lied to you. Don't you care at all?

Ah, the old "globalists" bogeyman. Go find one example of "globalists" causing poverty, deaths, or enslavement in the modern era. You don't seem to have the slightest idea how economies work, nor how wealth is created. And neither does Ron Paul and all his anti-free trade platform and rantings about Mexicans coming over the border on "the NAFTA superhighway (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul349.html)".


It's not the good old globalist bogeyman - it's modern economy relying on people who work for some cents per hour to provide cheap products for the western world. That's a fact - even if many people prefer to watch in another direction because it's someone else's problem. Which is another good reason to hate the western world. Or how do you prefer to twist that?

Just take Walmart as example:
http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-3836296181471292925&q=genre%3ADOCUMENTARY+walmart

[BPSCG]

I propose that anyone who didn't actually watch the debate be barred from further posting in this thread.

[Kerberos]

I propose that anyone who didn't actually watch the debate be barred from further posting in this thread.

I strongly protest against that suggestion! I mean do you really want to set the precedence that people be barred from posting on subjects just because they have no clue what they're talking about? The politics forum would become a wasteland!

[Oliver]

Oliver reads too much Chomsky.


Who is Chomsky? But kidding aside - never read something from him.
But I can recommend Richard Clarke and Zbigniew Brzezinski.

[steverino]

I propose that anyone who didn't actually watch the debate be barred from further posting in this thread.

Why? I didn't watch it, and I am reading each post carefully, trying to get a sense of what happened...Who looked strong, who tanked, which underdog showed up, etc. I am not seeing any of these questions answered. Just talk about Nazi's and stuff.:mad:

I started a thread during the first, dem, debate, with a clear round-up, as I saw it. Obama looked very strong, Hillary played it safe, Richardson tanked, Biden was the underdog who did best, and that Alaskan dude was kooky. I was hoping for a similar post here.

[Oliver]

Why? I didn't watch it, and I am reading each post carefully, trying to get a sense of what happened...Who looked strong, who tanked, which underdog showed up, etc. I am not seeing any of these questions answered. Just talk about Nazi's and stuff.:mad:

I started a thread during the first, dem, debate, with a clear round-up, as I saw it. Obama looked very strong, Hillary played it safe, Richardson tanked, Biden was the underdog who did best, and that Alaskan dude was kooky. I was hoping for a similar post here.


The debate was pretty boring and I don't know half of the guys running for president. And no one really "won" in terms of arguments and there were no mentionable controversies beside the "Ron Paul vs. Giuliani on the Root Causes of Terrorism".

This one:
cH3GO-XWGws

[shecky]

You agreed with Paul that the 9/11 attacks was a legitimate response to US support of Israel. If you don't support Israel's right to exist and to defend herself from attacks by the genocidal states that surround her, then what are you supporting Oliver?


Paul didn't say that 9/11 was a response to US support of Israel, "legitimate" or not.

[President Bush]

Go find one example of "globalists" causing poverty, deaths, or enslavement in the modern era.


And don't forget how the operations of, say, a miniature barking luminous sundial assembly-operations robot in Grenoble, France, being outsourced to a miniature barking luminous sundial assembly-operations robot in, say, Elmwood Park, Illinois, could act as a source of immense civic pride.

[steverino]

The debate was pretty boring and I don't know half of the guys running for president. And no one really "won" in terms of arguments and there were no mentionable controversies beside the "Ron Paul vs. Giuliani on the Root Causes of Terrorism".

Thanks, Oliver. This was an interesting exchange. Out of curiousity, don't you live in rural Germany? I am surprised it would be aired there, or am I mixing you up with someone else?

[Oliver]

Thanks, Oliver. This was an interesting exchange. Out of curiousity, don't you live in rural Germany? I am surprised it would be aired there, or am I mixing you up with someone else?


"Rural" ... Yes, that's me. :D The Debate wasn't aired in the regular Mainstream, especially because people here think it's a farce and are therefore not interested in this stuff. I saw the debate on FOX online and I guess it was on german News-Channels.

[steverino]

"Rural" ... Yes, that's me. :D The Debate wasn't aired in the regular Mainstream, especially because people here think it's a farce and are therefore not interested in this stuff. I saw the debate on FOX online and I guess it was on german News-Channels.

Geeze. And I couldn't get it in my Seattle apartment.:(

Well I give you credit for giving a crap about our politics, which is more than I can say about most Americans who vote for a candidate because of his hair style, height, or they don't bother voting at all.

[Oliver]

Geeze. And I couldn't get it in my Seattle apartment.:(

Well I give you credit for giving a crap about our politics, which is more than I can say about most Americans who vote for a candidate because of his hair style, height, or they don't bother voting at all.


You may not believe it but I actually try to find out what the heck is going on in America concerning this voting behavior based on "Hairstyles" - and general misleading propaganda most Americans seem to buy without questioning.

Mainly because this is happening all over the western world - but America seems to be much more extreme in many social issues.

ETA: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=82048

[mr rosewater]

You may not believe it but I actually try to find out what the heck is going on in America concerning this voting behavior based on "Hairstyles" - and general misleading propaganda most Americans seem to buy without questioning.

Mainly because this is happening all over the western world - but America seems to be much more extreme in many social issues.

ETA: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=82048

Thats funny I'm equally interested in the propaganda about the U.S. that you drool out almost daily, where do you collect the garbage you post about the U.S.

[Oliver]

Thats funny I'm equally interested in the propaganda about the U.S. that you drool out almost daily, where do you collect the garbage you post about the U.S.


Uhm, so you still believe there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq and there was somehow a link between Saddam and 9/11??? :confused:

That's just a small example, but that was Propaganda, too.

[mr rosewater]

I'd like you to explain the CIA installing S.H. to power, I must say I laugh every time you write it.

[Solitaire]

Thats funny I'm equally interested in the propaganda about the U.S. that you drool out almost daily, where do you collect the garbage you post about the U.S.

Could it be this? :D (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/)

[mr rosewater]

Thank you Solitaire, I ordered the t shirt.

[Oliver]

Original Source:
NEW YORK TIMES (purchasable):
A Tyrant 40 Years in the Making (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0F1EFA3B5A0C778DDDAA0894DB4044 82&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fH%2f Hussein%2c%20Saddam)

Internet Source:
http://www.phoenixprojectpac.us/user/A%20Tyrant%2040%20Years.pdf


Monday, December 15, 2003

Remember: Saddam was our man

NEW YORK TIMES
March 14, 2003, Friday

EDITORIAL DESK

A Tyrant 40 Years in the Making

By Roger Morris ( Op-Ed ) 980 words
SEATTLE -- On the brink of war, both supporters and critics of United States policy on Iraq agree on the origins, at least, of the haunted relations that have brought us to this pass: America's dealings with Saddam Hussein, justifiable or not, began some two decades ago with its shadowy, expedient support of his regime in the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980's.

Both sides are mistaken. Washington's policy traces an even longer, more shrouded and fateful history. Forty years ago, the Central Intelligence Agency, under President John F. Kennedy, conducted its own regime change in Baghdad, carried out in collaboration with Saddam Hussein.

*snip*

Full Article:
http://www.phoenixprojectpac.us/user/A%20Tyrant%2040%20Years.pdf

[Renfield]

I agreed with Ron Paul that ... WTF? No, MagZ brought up the "I hope that Ron Paul attacks the US-Israel Policy". But my response was concerning the debate, not about US-Israel policies. And Ron Paul didn't mention anything about it.

ETA: Even if Israel has a role in US-Middle East politics, it's not the major interest in my opinion.


That was great. The only time the debate really got interesting and started to sound like a debate was when Paul was talking. I couldn't believe it when he started talking about "blow back" and the CIA. It was like Chomsky had somehow become a master of disguise and snuck into the GOP debate. Otherwise it was the usual soundbites and tough guy Republican talk.

Ron Paul is a madman. he's the Kucinish of the GOP. I hope by some miracle his campaign suceeds. I might vote for a Republican for the first time in my life.

Paul vs Guiliani: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLkJCjipIAk


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLkJCjipIAk

[Oliver]

I'd like you to explain the CIA installing S.H. to power, I must say I laugh every time you write it.


Here's another article that will make you and your distorted confidence laugh:



U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup
Trade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds

By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 30, 2002; Page A01



High on the Bush administration's list of justifications for war against Iraq are President Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons, nuclear and biological programs, and his contacts with international terrorists. What U.S. officials rarely acknowledge is that these offenses date back to a period when Hussein was seen in Washington as a valued ally.


Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis in defiance of international conventions.



*Snip*



Full Article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29&notFound=true

[BPSCG]

Meanwhile, the Dems announced their debate schedule (http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/politics/debates_dnc_announces_six_two_on_cnn_two_on_nbcmsn bc_59165.asp).

CNN and NBC get two each; ABC and CBS get one each.

Fox News? Zip.

Yes, we're supposed to believe that guys who are afraid to answer questions from Brit Hume are going to be tough on terrorism, tough on Islamofascism, and will bring Osama bin Laden to justice.

I didn't see the debate, but from what corplinx says, and from MSM accounts of it that I've read, it sounds like Fox did a good job. I did see one brief clip of Chris Wallace (the guy who Bill Clinton went off on during an interview several months ago) saying, "Mayor Giuliani, I'll give you an additional thirty seconds to actually answer the question I asked."

I can see why the Dems would quake in fear at the thought of being subjected to this kind of grilling.

[Renfield]

Meanwhile, the Dems announced their debate schedule (http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/politics/debates_dnc_announces_six_two_on_cnn_two_on_nbcmsn bc_59165.asp).

CNN and NBC get two each; ABC and CBS get one each.

Fox News? Zip.

Yes, we're supposed to believe that guys who are afraid to answer questions from Brit Hume are going to be tough on terrorism, tough on Islamofascism, and will bring Osama bin Laden to justice.

I didn't see the debate, but from what corplinx says, and from MSM accounts of it that I've read, it sounds like Fox did a good job. I did see one brief clip of Chris Wallace (the guy who Bill Clinton went off on during an interview several months ago) saying, "Mayor Giuliani, I'll give you an additional thirty seconds to actually answer the question I asked."

I can see why the Dems would quake in fear at the thought of being subjected to this kind of grilling.

They just don't want to give the Republican's pet network several hours to beat up on them with a lot of "Are you still beating your wife?" type questions and one sided commentary. They are thinking strategically for once.

[BPSCG]

They just don't want to give the Republican's pet network several hours to beat up on them with a lot of "Are you still beating your wife?" type questions and one sided commentary. That objection is precisely why I mentioned Wallace's exchange with Giuliani.
They are thinking strategically for once.They are showing that they're afraid of what might happen if they got asked tough questions. They remember how Michael Dukakis shot his campaign in the head when Bernard Shaw of CNN asked him if he'd still oppose the death penalty if his wife were raped and murdered, and Dukakis gave a clinical, policy-laden answer.

They're afraid of Wendell Goler. But they want us to believe they're not afraid of Achmed Ahmadinejad.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Meanwhile, the Dems announced their debate schedule (http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/politics/debates_dnc_announces_six_two_on_cnn_two_on_nbcmsn bc_59165.asp).

CNN and NBC get two each; ABC and CBS get one each.

Fox News? Zip.

Yes, we're supposed to believe that guys who are afraid to answer questions from Brit Hume are going to be tough on terrorism, tough on Islamofascism, and will bring Osama bin Laden to justice.

I didn't see the debate, but from what corplinx says, and from MSM accounts of it that I've read, it sounds like Fox did a good job. I did see one brief clip of Chris Wallace (the guy who Bill Clinton went off on during an interview several months ago) saying, "Mayor Giuliani, I'll give you an additional thirty seconds to actually answer the question I asked."

I can see why the Dems would quake in fear at the thought of being subjected to this kind of grilling.

Har har :rolleyes: . While I realize you are all too eager to jump at the chance to attack the Democrats, this is just stupid. It is simply not in their best interest to be in a debate hosted by the same news channel that airs titles like, "Pump Problem$: The price of a gallon of gas has jumped nearly 40% since Dems won Congress". It says nothing about their strength or weakness in foreign policy pertaining to terrorists.

[steverino]

It is simply not in their best interest to be in a debate hosted by the same news channel that airs titles like, "Pump Problem$: The price of a gallon of gas has jumped nearly 40% since Dems won Congress".

What channel is "Pimp My Ride" on? MTV? Because I don't like that title. Frankly, it offends me deeply, and I would not vote for a candidate who might agree to debate on that channel.

What channel is "Wheel of Fortune" on? Because that show offends me for being so idiotic that I would not vote for a ...

[Tsukasa Buddha]

What channel is "Pimp My Ride" on? MTV? Because I don't like that title. Frankly, it offends me deeply, and I would not vote for a candidate who might agree to debate on that channel.

What channel is "Wheel of Fortune" on? Because that show offends me for being so idiotic that I would not vote for a ...

Congrats on interpreting my post in such a way that I simply do not follow what you are saying :) .

[Kerberos]

I didn't see the debate, but from what corplinx says, and from MSM accounts of it that I've read, it sounds like Fox did a good job. I did see one brief clip of Chris Wallace (the guy who Bill Clinton went off on during an interview several months ago) saying, "Mayor Giuliani, I'll give you an additional thirty seconds to actually answer the question I asked."
I don't know the question so I really can't say whether that was reasonable, but journalists should say that a lot more than they do.

[steverino]

Congrats on interpreting my post in such a way that I simply do not follow what you are saying :) .

I am saying that in my opinion a TV channel, whether it be Fox or MTV, in the context of a debate, is simply a microphone and a camera, a communication device. If some dumb things are expressed on that channel at other times, that is a bad thing. Buy that should not hijack that channel's ability to host 8 people with rehearsed talking points.

[oddball]

Ah, the old "globalists" bogeyman.... Ron Paul and all his anti-free trade platform and rantings about Mexicans coming over the border on "the NAFTA superhighway (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul349.html)".

Are you suggesting that there is no such thing?

http://www.nascocorridor.com/

And that the North American Union is just a CT?

http://www.spp.gov/

Or that we're not headed for global government?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070430-4.html

BTW Ron Paul is all for free trade. It's managed trade he does not support.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I am saying that in my opinion a TV channel, whether it be Fox or MTV, in the context of a debate, is simply a microphone and a camera, a communication device. If some dumb things are expressed on that channel at other times, that is a bad thing. Buy that should not hijack that channel's ability to host 8 people with rehearsed talking points.

It should not, but it is extremely likely that it would. The Democrats are expecting that the host would be too biased to allow themselves to get their talking points through. It is simply not to their advantage when they can easily go to other networks. It has nothing to do with foreign policy.

Remember when Bush did not go in front of the NAACP? He was showing that he's afraid of what might happen if he got asked tough questions. He's afraid of Kweisi Mfume. But he want us to believe he's not afraid of Osama bin Laden.

[BPSCG]

Remember when Bush did not go in front of the NAACP? He was showing that he's afraid of what might happen if he got asked tough questions. He's afraid of Kweisi Mfume. But he want us to believe he's not afraid of Osama bin Laden.Nice try. Bush did speak to the NAACP when running for president in 2000. Then a week before the election, they came out with a harshly critical condemnation of him.

In 2002, NAACP president Julian Bond opened their convention with: (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0708-01.htm)


... an uncompromising attack on the Bush administration, Attorney General John Ashcroft and what Bond called "a right-wing conspiracy."

"We have a president who owes his election more to a dynasty than to democracy," said Bond, chairman of the NAACP board, in an ardent opening address at the George R. Brown Convention Center.

"When he spoke to our convention in Baltimore in 2000, he promised to enforce the civil rights laws," Bond said. "We know he was in the oil business. We just didn't know it was snake oil.

"We have an attorney general who is a cross between J. Edgar Hoover and Jerry Falwell...

(...snip...)


Calling the attorney general "J. Edgar Ashcroft," Bond compared new FBI anti-terrorist guidelines to COINTELPRO, a controversial counterintelligence program implemented by Hoover, the late former director of the FBI.

"The FBI tried to disrupt the civil rights movement," Bond said. "They wanted to smear Martin Luther King Jr. They not only wanted him discredited, they wanted him dead, threatening him with the release of damaging information if he did not commit suicide.

"We thought we had put a stop to Hoover's program of spies and lies in the 1970s after its abuses were exposed. Now under the guise of fighting terrorism, the FBI is going back to spying on law-abiding citizens."

Bond was especially harsh on President Bush, saying he has appointed racially hostile, conservative Republicans to key civil rights positions, including the voting rights section of the Department of Justice.

"While the administration is busy asserting sweeping police powers over the American people, it is sweeping voting rights violations from the 2000 election under the rug," Bond said. Lest anyone think this was a one-off, here's Bond again a little over a year ago: (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48635)


Civil rights activist and NAACP Chairman Julian Bond delivered a blistering partisan speech at Fayetteville State University in North Carolina last night, equating the Republican Party with the Nazi Party and characterizing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her predecessor, Colin Powell, as tokens.

"The Republican Party would have the American flag and the swastika flying side by side," he charged.

Calling President Bush a liar, Bond told the audience at the historically black institution that this White House's lies are more serious than the lies of his predecessor's because Clinton's lies didn't kill people.

"We now find ourselves refighting old battles we thought we had already won," he said. "We have to fight discrimination whenever it raises its ugly head."

He referred to former Attorney General John Ashcroft as J. Edgar Ashcroft. He compared Bush's judicial nominees to the Taliban.

The talk so infuriated at least one black family in attendance among the 900 in the auditorium that they got up and walked out in protest.

"He went on and on name calling," said Leon Delaine. "I walked out in the middle of his speech with my wife and three kids" Anyone who would compare Bush's refusal to appear before this kind of organization to the Dems' refusal to have their debates on Fox has a screw or three loose.

And yet, despite that abuse, Bush did speak at the NAACP's 2006 convention. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/07/20060720.html)

[oddball]

Giuliani Firm tied to NAFTA Superhighway (http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/grassi/070504)

[steverino]

Nice try. Bush did speak to the NAACP when running for president in 2000. Then a week before the election, they came out with a harshly critical condemnation of him.

In 2002, NAACP president Julian Bond opened their convention with: (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0708-01.htm)

Lest anyone think this was a one-off, here's Bond again a little over a year ago: (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48635)

Anyone who would compare Bush's refusal to appear before this kind of organization to the Dems' refusal to have their debates on Fox has a screw or three loose.

And yet, despite that abuse, Bush did speak at the NAACP's 2006 convention. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/07/20060720.html)

BEEPS- Excellent post, just awesome.-Steve:)

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Nice try. Bush did speak to the NAACP when running for president in 2000. Then a week before the election, they came out with a harshly critical condemnation of him.

In 2002, NAACP president Julian Bond opened their convention with: (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0708-01.htm)

Lest anyone think this was a one-off, here's Bond again a little over a year ago: (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48635)

Anyone who would compare Bush's refusal to appear before this kind of organization to the Dems' refusal to have their debates on Fox has a screw or three loose.

And yet, despite that abuse, Bush did speak at the NAACP's 2006 convention. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/07/20060720.html)

No.

I was referring to the 2004 election, when there was the uproar because Bush refused to attend. I thought it would have been obvious, but I guess I was mistaken.

And before you entirely miss the point, I was being satirical of your partisan drivel.

[steverino]

I was being satirical of your partisan drivel.

You're partisan-ness is drivel-free? :p

[Tricky]

Anyone who would compare Bush's refusal to appear before this kind of organization to the Dems' refusal to have their debates on Fox has a screw or three loose.
I agree with you that the situations are vastly different. Bush would hope to pick up some votes by addressing the NAACP, either from a few of the members who disagree with Bond or from sympathetic moderates. The Dems have nothing to gain from debating on Fox when they can gain the same number of votes by debating elsewhere. Probably more since they won't have snarky Fox analysts coming on right afterwards to spin the debate.

Also note that a debate is vastly different from an address. In an address, you know exactly what you're going to say, unless you take questions from the audience, which I suspect Bush didn't do.

Anybody who thinks these two situations are identical... is entitled to his opinion.

[corplinx]

The last presidential debate cycle had the democrats have a primary debate sponsored by Fox. There's many reasons they might not be using Fox, money, connections at MSNBC, and of course the fact that the "conservative media" is a boogeyman of the voting primary base.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

You're partisan-ness is drivel-free? :p

I am not being partisan. I am not defending the Democrat's decision. I am simply not in favor of spewing nonsense.

[steverino]

Tricky- Your reply makes no sense, but when I push "quote" to reply it does make sense. Is this a late edit thinggy?:confused:

Oh, you corrected it. It makes sense.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The Dems have nothing to gain from debating on Fox when they can gain the same number of votes by debating elsewhere. Probably more since they won't have snarky Fox analysts coming on right afterwards to spin the debate.

Exactly.

Anybody who thinks these two situations are identical... is entitled to his opinion.

Okay, for the record, it was satire. Did you notice how I used the same sentences that BPSCG used? The situations were close enough that I thought it would be fun and instructional for Republicans. Obviously, I was mistaken.

[steverino]

Probably more since they won't have snarky Fox analysts coming on right afterwards to spin the debate. :(

That would be the only reason to watch the debates. That, and to see if a death-sentence question goes to Hillary about how she would react if she came home and found someone raping her husband.:p

[mr rosewater]

Can these things seriously be considered debates? They seem more like Q&A sessions.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

:(

That would be the only reason to watch the debates. That, and to see if a death-sentence question goes to Hillary about how she would react if she came home and found someone raping her husband.:p

lol at Hillary :) .

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Can these things seriously be considered debates? They seem more like Q&A sessions.

They are still better than the 2004 Presidential debates. God, they must have repeated the same three sentences for over an hour, no matter what the question was :rolleyes: .

[steverino]

The candidates should wear big signs around their necks. You know how Flavor Flav wears a clock? Like that, only instead of a clock, the signs would say "A-List Candidate" or "B-List Candidate" or, like that kooky Alaskan senator, "Long-Shot Candidate"

[Skeptic Guy]

I didn't see the debates but plan to chase them down on YouTube, but I heard that three of the candidates indicated their disbelief of evolution. Is that correct? And if so, can someone tell me who they were? They would be the "no" votes.

[BPSCG]

Can these things seriously be considered debates? Oh, lordy, no. They can't even casually be considered debates. What we do here on this forum is far more of a debate than any of these television extravaganzas.

If you want to encounter true debate raised to an art form, you can do no better than this (http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Lincoln-Douglas-Debates-1858/dp/0226020843/ref=sr_1_4/002-0343368-8155229?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179435493&sr=8-4).

There are several editions; you can get a used, somewhat tattered copy of one edition for as little as fifty cents. You spend more than that on a candy bar, so you must understand that if you don't have this book in your home, you can not possibly hold yourself out to the world as a serious student of American history and politics.

[steverino]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSiDTfqSOV8

evolution question- – THREE – of the ten Republicans running for President of the United States of America raised their hands. Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas and former Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas don’t believe in evolution. Just like that. As if they’d been asked if the earth were round.

http://thegreatrealization.wordpress.com/2007/05/04/republican-debate-exposes-evolution-views/

[Oliver]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSiDTfqSOV8

evolution question- – THREE – of the ten Republicans running for President of the United States of America raised their hands. Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas and former Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas don’t believe in evolution. Just like that. As if they’d been asked if the earth were round.

http://thegreatrealization.wordpress.com/2007/05/04/republican-debate-exposes-evolution-views/



:monkeyr: :popcorn2 :mdance:

[Skeptic Guy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSiDTfqSOV8

evolution question- – THREE – of the ten Republicans running for President of the United States of America raised their hands. Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas and former Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas don’t believe in evolution. Just like that. As if they’d been asked if the earth were round.

http://thegreatrealization.wordpress.com/2007/05/04/republican-debate-exposes-evolution-views/

That's disturbing...and as the link you included points out, it's also disturbing that such a question was even treated seriously in the debate.

[Tricky]

Tricky- Your reply makes no sense, but when I push "quote" to reply it does make sense. Is this a late edit thinggy?:confused:

Oh, you corrected it. It makes sense.
Yeah, I misinterpreted BeePee's comment. I tried to fix it before anybody caught it. Oopsie.

[Tricky]

:(

That would be the only reason to watch the debates. That, and to see if a death-sentence question goes to Hillary about how she would react if she came home and found someone raping her husband.:p
She'd probably just say, "What? AGAIN??!!", and leave the room.

[MaGZ]

First, who are you talking about - what someone supports what genocidal regime? And you know that US involvement in the middle east has not ever consisted merely of support for Israel. I would be willing to bet that nearly everyone in here is in favor of our support for Israel. You know full well that we have meddled in the middle east in ways that have nothing to do with supporting Israel. You know that our agenda in that area involved very much more than just supporting Israel.

Also, I do hope you are not one of those who thinks that any criticizm of Israeli government policy amounts to hating Jews and wishing they were dead. I have seen that time and again in here and it. I doubt there is a person in here who does not believe that Israel has a right to exist and to exist in peace and without the constant threat of terrorism hanging over the country's head and who does not favor America's support of Israel.

My view is Israel is a terrorist state and does not have the right to have WMDs.
http://irish-nationalism.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2082

[MaGZ]

This was specifically about the 9/11 attacks - and the reasons given were US support for Israel and the presence of US troops in SA in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Gulf War I, the one everyone supported, remember that one?


Please explain how Israel can exist in peace with its neighbors (you know, the ones that launched 4 wars against it in an attempt to destroy it)without US support.

Israel started the 1967 war. Israel attacked first.

Also let's include last year's war in Lebanon. Israel attacked first.

Israel can live in peace if she wants peace.

[WildCat]

Israel started the 1967 war. Israel attacked first.
Conveniently, their enemies had massed their troops along the border, probably just to have a big old bbq or something.

Also let's include last year's war in Lebanon. Israel attacked first.
Bizarre, did you forget about the Israeli soldiers attacked and killed in Israel just prior to that incident? Several were also taken prisoner, and have never been heard from again.

Israel can live in peace if she wants peace.
And you represent which of the factions surrounding it that are pledged to Israel's destruction?

Not that I expect that the person who thinks that latinjrl's and S&S's "paranormal hat" is actually an air-to-air missile to have a rational view of these matters.

[MaGZ]

Conveniently, their enemies had massed their troops along the border, probably just to have a big old bbq or something.


Bizarre, did you forget about the Israeli soldiers attacked and killed in Israel just prior to that incident? Several were also taken prisoner, and have never been heard from again.


And you represent which of the factions surrounding it that are pledged to Israel's destruction?

Not that I expect that the person who thinks that latinjrl's and S&S's "paranormal hat" is actually an air-to-air missile to have a rational view of these matters.

Israel started last year war in Lebanon because she planned it months in advance. The only thing she needed was a reason to invade. Also, it has never been determined which side of the border the soldier was captured.
Are you really suggesting Israel has never planned her wars but is always caught by surprise?

[WildCat]

Israel started last year war in Lebanon because she planned it months in advance.
If that, the greatest military debacle in Israel's history - fraught with indecision, confusion, and a total lack of an apparent goal was the result of months of planning then the last 50 years of Israeli success was a fluke. Either that or you're completely wrong about this... but you're a guy who thinks a bird flying in front of a camera on 9/11 is really a missile striking WTC 7.

The only thing she needed was a reason to invade. Also, it has never been determined which side of the border the soldier was captured.
Wrong, and wrong to a ridiculous degree.

Are you really suggesting Israel has never planned her wars but is always caught by surprise?
Just quoting this sentence as an illustration of troofer reading comprehension.

[MaGZ]

If that, the greatest military debacle in Israel's history - fraught with indecision, confusion, and a total lack of an apparent goal was the result of months of planning then the last 50 years of Israeli success was a fluke. Either that or you're completely wrong about this... but you're a guy who thinks a bird flying in front of a camera on 9/11 is really a missile striking WTC 7.

In time I will be proven correct about
The Missiles at Ground Zero
http://missilesatgroundzero.blogspot.com/

A missile, not a bird
http://www.public-action.com/911/psyopnews/Extra/3/flash91.htm

[WildCat]

In time I will be proven correct about
The Missiles at Ground Zero
http://missilesatgroundzero.blogspot.com/

A missile, not a bird
http://www.public-action.com/911/psyopnews/Extra/3/flash91.htm
:dl:


MaGZ, I'll refer you to the first thread we had here about this paranormal hat missile, way back in 2002:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=33

[BPSCG]

Y'know, I can have heated, passionate arguments about all manner of political and social issues here with people I always disagree with, even to the point of thinking, "Oh lord, what idiocy is this feeble-minded son of bombast and confusion going to come up with this time?" every time I see one of them has posted something new to a thread.

But whenever I see a troofer posting, I'm reminded of my late father's wisdom when he told me never to waste my time arguing with a drunk or a religious persuader. He never lived to understand what a troofer was, but I am certain that if he had, he would have added them to the list.

For that reason - as well as many others - I realized (too late in life) that my father was probably the most intelligent man I ever knew.

Reading a troofer post is like listening to a drunk in a bar. They both can be kind of amusing, and both leave me wanting to take a bath in Clorox afterwards. Mrs. BPSCG has explicit instructions to take me to the vet and have me put down if I ever get soft-brained enough to attempt to argue with one of them. I offer her services to anyone else here who thinks he might need to avail himself of those services.

[Tricky]

Y'know, I can have heated, passionate arguments about all manner of political and social issues here with people I always disagree with, even to the point of thinking, "Oh lord, what idiocy is this feeble-minded son of bombast and confusion going to come up with this time?" every time I see one of them has posted something new to a thread.

But whenever I see a troofer posting, I'm reminded of my late father's wisdom when he told me never to waste my time arguing with a drunk or a religious persuader. He never lived to understand what a troofer was, but I am certain that if he had, he would have added them to the list.
Ah, but Troofers serve such a useful role. After all, it would be folks like you and I, liberals and conservatives who were thinking "what idiocy" and thinking it of each other. Then a Troofer comes in and is is like the honeysuckle-scented breeze of spring has wafted through the crater-filled war zone between us. Suddenly our ideological differences seem so small and pointless. We can turn and, with linked arms, gaze in absolute dumbfounded incredulity at one who either of us will agree makes our former opponants look like geniuses.

It isn't the bird of peace. It is the missile of mutual priorities.

[Pardalis]

Y'know, I can have heated, passionate arguments about all manner of political and social issues here with people I always disagree with, even to the point of thinking, "Oh lord, what idiocy is this feeble-minded son of bombast and confusion going to come up with this time?" every time I see one of them has posted something new to a thread.

But whenever I see a troofer posting, I'm reminded of my late father's wisdom when he told me never to waste my time arguing with a drunk or a religious persuader. He never lived to understand what a troofer was, but I am certain that if he had, he would have added them to the list.

For that reason - as well as many others - I realized (too late in life) that my father was probably the most intelligent man I ever knew.

Reading a troofer post is like listening to a drunk in a bar. They both can be kind of amusing, and both leave me wanting to take a bath in Clorox afterwards. Mrs. BPSCG has explicit instructions to take me to the vet and have me put down if I ever get soft-brained enough to attempt to argue with one of them. I offer her services to anyone else here who thinks he might need to avail himself of those services.

What a perfectly worded post. :)

[Dr Adequate]

Meanwhile, the Dems announced their debate schedule (http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/politics/debates_dnc_announces_six_two_on_cnn_two_on_nbcmsn bc_59165.asp).

CNN and NBC get two each; ABC and CBS get one each.

Fox News? Zip.

I can see why the Dems would quake in fear at the thought of being subjected to this kind of grilling. In other news, the leading contenders for Heavyweight Champion of the World have declined an offer to hold their bout in a pig-sty. Experts in armchair-sittology attribute this to cowardice.

[steverino]

What a perfectly worded post. :)

Can someone please tell me the origin of "troofer?" I see it not on google.

Thanks.:blush:

[Oliver]

Can someone please tell me the origin of "troofer?" I see it not on google.

Thanks.:blush:


"Troofers" or "Twoofers" refers to "Truther" which is a member of the so-called Truth-Movement, claiming that Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz and some others pulled off 9/11 (AKA: Inside Job).

[Pardalis]

And they are acting like babies (they want the "twoof").

[steverino]

OK. Thanks.:blush:

[Patejdl]

Ron Paul does seem a bit weak but he had a few really good arguments. I doubt he understands everything he releases from mouth but he does seem using some rationality there. Even if it isn't his own rationality. If I were a US citizen I would definitely vote for him.

Yes and I really really dislike Israel! I'm quite a jew myself (biologicaly). The insanely vile hypocrisy is clearly to be seen in the rotten state under the star of David so as it is seen all over the world. But this very vile hypocrisy has quite an effect on everything here in Europe. Not that i'm not touched by the **** that is going on in China or some African mad countries but seeing how they use the same thing all over again to claim their "rights" puts me into schock and fury mode everytime.

Israel + muslim world = perpetual hatred

The best solution would be to wipe off everyone touched by the hatred happening (jews,muslims,europeans.. everyone) from the book of time. Just like Ahmadenijad originaly said.. with a few of my words :D

And a bird missile?? Now i'm a guy who's really critical of the way the 9/11 was investigated and I smell thousands of official lies, but this?? C'mon.. let's spend more time on something that is atleast a bit more chance of being valid ;) Like the ex 9/11 comissioner accidentaly said that Pentagon was hit by a missile.. plane.. I mean a bird missile :D (Reall look for it on liveleak.com) :)

[steverino]

Yes and I really really dislike Israel! I'm quite a jew myself (biologicaly).

You'll fry like the rest of us Jews, regardless of your self-hatred.

[Dr Adequate]

The best solution would be to wipe off everyone touched by the hatred happening (jews,muslims,europeans.. everyone) from the book of time. A big "Hi there!" from Europe, and thanks a lot, we do appreciate your thoughts.

:uk:

I'm looking forward to being wiped from the book of time. Cheers.

[BPSCG]

Ron Paul does seem a bit weak but he had a few really good arguments. I doubt he understands everything he releases from mouth but he does seem using some rationality there. Even if it isn't his own rationality. If I were a US citizen I would definitely vote for him.

Yes and I really really dislike Israel! I'm quite a jew myself (biologicaly). The insanely vile hypocrisy is clearly to be seen in the rotten state under the star of David so as it is seen all over the world. But this very vile hypocrisy has quite an effect on everything here in Europe. Not that i'm not touched by the **** that is going on in China or some African mad countries but seeing how they use the same thing all over again to claim their "rights" puts me into schock and fury mode everytime.

Israel + muslim world = perpetual hatred

The best solution would be to wipe off everyone touched by the hatred happening (jews,muslims,europeans.. everyone) from the book of time. Just like Ahmadenijad originaly said.. with a few of my words :D

And a bird missile?? Now i'm a guy who's really critical of the way the 9/11 was investigated and I smell thousands of official lies, but this?? C'mon.. let's spend more time on something that is atleast a bit more chance of being valid ;) Like the ex 9/11 comissioner accidentaly said that Pentagon was hit by a missile.. plane.. I mean a bird missile :D (Reall look for it on liveleak.com) :)

You're being seen by a whole [B]team of psychiatrists, aren't you?
[/James Earl Jones]

[Patejdl]

Hatred is perpetual and lasts forever. Imagine you were a muslim and someone killed your child. Someone killed your child because of lies of weapons of mass destruction. You'd spend your life hating the people who killed your child. The probability that something goes wrong in your head and you start thinking of murderous revenges will be pretty high. Such a person touched by the hatred happening goes somewhere and kills tens of people generating hatred on the other side. This goes on an on and can be never undone and the hatred will spend a lifetime with everyone involved. The wiping off was more of a joke thing for people who thought that Ahmadenijad said that we should wipe Israel off map (original said that regime that's in israel should be ereased from the book of time... nothing about wiping off israelis.. just the regime).

And this is what Ron talks about all the time. Stop generating more hatred and look the ways how to stop this process and let the world heal atleast a bit. If US attacks Iran because of another series of lies then we can prepare for more and more people with tendencies to irrational revenge. Remember the 2004 Madrid bombings and the links to Al-qaeda?? I don't want this to happen in my city because my country supported those wars.

BPSCG : I don't need to see a psychiatrist. Maybe a sensivity trainer because my sensitivty to this world and people is gone a long time ago ;)

steverino : Please?? Self-hatred?? Where?? Why should I be hating myself?? I hate anyone I want to :) I don't have any localized biological nor social links to Isreal (well when not counting my long time friend an IT manager who moved to Vienna with his wife because of what's going on in Israel). Those people for me are as distant as anyone in Japan, Africa or Iceland. Don't try to picture me as someone who whims over some idiots with which I maybe share a big nose :P

[steverino]

steverino : Please?? Self-hatred?? Where??

Don't try to picture me as someone who whims over some idiots with which I maybe share a big nose

:boxedin:

[Patejdl]

Yes, and there you go again hiding in the box having that blue expression :P Smile next time ;)

[billydkid]

Ron Paul does seem a bit weak but he had a few really good arguments. I doubt he understands everything he releases from mouth but he does seem using some rationality there. Even if it isn't his own rationality. If I were a US citizen I would definitely vote for him.


What do you mean when you say Ron Paul seems a bit weak? Do you mean he doesn't look like a weight lifter? I can't imagine you are referring to his willingness to stand up and speak out for what he believes to be true in the face of mockery and against the agenda of the powers that be. I think Ron Paul understands very well everything he says and if people will listen he makes some effort to explain exactly why he holds the positions he does.

[BPSCG]

Newt Gingrich (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/05/17/gingrich_wants_focus_on_ideas/) has perhaps the most trenchant analysis of this "debate" process that I've seen:
"We have shrunk our political process to this pathetic dance in which people spend an entire year raising money in order to offer nonanswers, so they can memorize what their consultants and focus groups said would work."

[Oliver]

Does someone in here know when the next GOP debates will take place? I can't wait to see them. :)

[Oliver]

Does someone in here know when the next GOP debates will take place? I can't wait to see them. :)


Does anyone know the schedules for the next discussions?