Webster Tarpley credits Truth Movement, speculates Bush insanity impeachment

ref · 26th January 2007, 03:26 AM

In his latest writing, Webster Tarpley makes some very straightforward truther assumptions and accusations.

From rockcreekfreepress.com article written by Webster Tarpley

http://rockcreekfreepress.com/RCFPJan2007-Pg8.pdf

"9/11 truth movement was a critical component in creating the climate of
opinion for Bush’s defeat at the polls in November 2006"

"The only way to attrit and erode Bush’s hard-core base of support is to bring home the leading facts of 9/11 truth: the 9/11 attacks did not emerge from the world of Bin Laden, Atta, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the laptop, and the cave in Pushtunistan; they were a deliberate war provocation and coup d’etat launched by the invisible government or rogue network..."

Okay then.. this gets only better:

"To ignore the centrality of 9/11 to Bush’s every move is like trying to fight Hitler without mentioning anti-Semitism. Attacks on Bush that do not include 9/11 truth are simply impotent, and will not be effective."

"Impeachment takes only a majority of the House, but requires two thirds of the Senate. Bush can be declared mentally unfit for office by reason of insanity by half of the cabinet under the XXV Amendment, but it takes two thirds of both houses to make this stick if Bush protests that he is not insane."

Nice going there, W.T.

MortFurd · 26th January 2007, 03:58 AM

I only see one little problem:

They've got to present SOMETHING to the House or the Senate to make them start the impeachment proceedings.

All I see from the "911 Truth Movement" is screaming and hollering - no evidence, and no attempt to present anything to anyone in a position to start any kind of legal proceedings.

I would almost go so far as to kick money into the pot to hire a lawyer (Truther's choice) to review anything they've got for evidence so that they can get an opinion on how their "evidence" would fare before a court or in Congress.

PerryLogan · 26th January 2007, 04:22 AM

It's just dumb white guys who think they're brilliant.

ref · 26th January 2007, 04:25 AM

Originally Posted by MortFurd

I only see one little problem:

They've got to present SOMETHING to the House or the Senate to make them start the impeachment proceedings.

All I see from the "911 Truth Movement" is screaming and hollering - no evidence, and no attempt to present anything to anyone in a position to start any kind of legal proceedings.

It is ridicilous, that they claim to have the facts. Facts supported by what? Their own assumptions.

If they had the facts, why wouldn't they push them to authorities, or do anything? Because they are not facts, because no evidence backs them up. I so much dislike the claiming of facts, based on some hypothetical and biased assumptions of events. Some theorist's own opinion is not a fact of life.

PerryLogan · 26th January 2007, 04:36 AM

It doesn't even make sense as a scenario. If Bush is part of mass murder, he needs to be prosecuted, not impeached.

(Impeachment is only used for embarrassing popular Presidents. Doesn't Tarpley know that?)

And if he was part of 9/11, how does this lead us to impeachment by reason of insanity?

And of course, some Truthers don't think GWB even knew. The Truthers have to agree on their story--as well as find some actual facts--before they move ahead.

Arkan_Wolfshade · 26th January 2007, 05:57 AM

Originally Posted by ref

In his latest writing, Webster Tarpley makes some very straightforward truther assumptions and accusations.

From rockcreekfreepress.com article written by Webster Tarpley

http://rockcreekfreepress.com/RCFPJan2007-Pg8.pdf

"9/11 truth movement was a critical component in creating the climate of
opinion for Bush’s defeat at the polls in November 2006"

"The only way to attrit and erode Bush’s hard-core base of support is to bring home the leading facts of 9/11 truth: the 9/11 attacks did not emerge from the world of Bin Laden, Atta, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the laptop, and the cave in Pushtunistan; they were a deliberate war provocation and coup d’etat launched by the invisible government or rogue network..."

Okay then.. this gets only better:

"To ignore the centrality of 9/11 to Bush’s every move is like trying to fight Hitler without mentioning anti-Semitism. Attacks on Bush that do not include 9/11 truth are simply impotent, and will not be effective."

"Impeachment takes only a majority of the House, but requires two thirds of the Senate. Bush can be declared mentally unfit for office by reason of insanity by half of the cabinet under the XXV Amendment, but it takes two thirds of both houses to make this stick if Bush protests that he is not insane."

Nice going there, W.T.

One major problem with his brilliant idea to go for insanity, power goes to the VP

Quote:

Section 4
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Additi...#Amendment_XXV

ref · 26th January 2007, 06:25 AM

Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade

One major problem with his brilliant idea to go for insanity, power goes to the VP
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Additi...#Amendment_XXV

Imagine their faces. We got rid of Bush!! And who did we get in return.. Cheney, mother of all evil

The Almond · 26th January 2007, 06:52 AM

Quote:

To ignore the centrality of 9/11 to Bush’s every move is like trying to fight Hitler without mentioning anti-Semitism. Attacks on Bush that do not include 9/11 truth are simply impotent, and will not be effective.

These are the words of a man divorced from reality. The Democrats did quite well without mentioning any of the 9/11 Truth garbage. They hit hardest on Iraq policies, the ineffectiveness of GOP leadership (Immigration, national security, social reform), and the corruption inherent to big money, big oil, and big industry that so heavily dominates the Republican majority.

The smartest thing the Democrats did was not mention 9/11, terrorism or the war on terror. Nice going guys, enjoy your recently vacated former republican held offices.

Brainster · 26th January 2007, 07:17 AM

Originally Posted by PerryLogan

It's just dumb white guys who think they're brilliant.

Tarpley probably is legitimately brilliant, but he's a kook anyway. He's a longtime LaRouche insider who was graduated (according to his Wikipedia entry) summa cum laude from Princeton in 1966, and became a Fulbright Scholar. I assume he's just looking at this as a gravy train.

skepticalcriticalguy · 26th January 2007, 09:02 AM

Originally Posted by Brainster

Tarpley probably is legitimately brilliant, but he's a kook anyway. He's a longtime LaRouche insider who was graduated (according to his Wikipedia entry) summa cum laude from Princeton in 1966, and became a Fulbright Scholar. I assume he's just looking at this as a gravy train.

His Unauthorized Biography of George Bush is free to read at http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm

Regnad Kcin · 26th January 2007, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by PerryLogan

...The Truthers have to agree on their story--as well as find some actual facts--before they move ahead.

So, in other words, never?

pomeroo · 26th January 2007, 07:53 PM

Here is the record of my negotiations with Webster Tarpley. Would it be fair to conclude that his silence translates into, "Hey, you mean I can't just come on the show and spout silly crap without being challenged?"

From: Ronald Wieck
To: tarpley (address deleted)
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 9:55 AM
Subject: Debate

Dear Mr. Tarpley,

I occasionally host a cable show, 'Hardfire,' that airs in New York City. We taped a debate last week between two of the creators of 'Loose Change' and Mark Roberts, debunker extraordinaire. The conspiracy fantasists had good reason to be displeased with the outcome. The tinfoil-hat blogs cry out for a stronger champion, and your name keeps coming up.

Are you interested? I'd be happy to discuss 9/11-related issues with you on either one or two half-hour shows.

Yours Truly,
Ronald Wieck

From: Webster G. Tarpley
To: Ronald Wieck
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 11:05 PM
Subject: Re: Debate

Sounds interesting - can you let me know a little more about your program, and about Mark Roberts.

WGT

December 29, 2006

Dear Mr. Tarpley,

Sure. The show is a small one, although we've recently expanded to Nassau County, NY. Here are the links to the two-part debate between Roberts and the Loose Change Team.

The first program is at http://tinyurl.com/tkfhj.

The second program is at http://tinyurl.com/yfkqeo.

You could either debate Roberts--the match people on both sides seem to be clamoring for--or you could be interviewed by me. The range of 9/11-related issues could be broad or restricted to a few topics of your choosing.

Ron Wieck

----- Original

January 15, 2007

Dear Mr. Tarpley,

I haven't heard from you for a while. Are you still interested in appearing on Hardfire?

Regards,
Ron Wieck

January 25, 2007

Dear Mr. Tarpley,

I'm beginning to get the idea that you're not too interested in discussing 9/11 conspiracy theories on Hardfire. Mark Roberts is terrifyingly well-informed, but there is no need to confront him. You can simply be interviewed by me and I'm a pushover.

Regards,
Ron Wieck

kookbreaker · 26th January 2007, 08:28 PM

Originally Posted by ref

"9/11 truth movement was a critical component in creating the climate of
opinion for Bush’s defeat at the polls in November 2006"

Its a perfectly logical conclusion! Its just like the rock on my table that keeps the Polar Bears away!

Loss Leader · 26th January 2007, 09:27 PM

How many damn times can I say this: If the Democrats had a single shred of evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, they would have hollered about it as loudly as possible. Impeachment wouldn't be necessary because Kerry would have won in 2004. Even if Bush won, impeachment would be much easier because the Democrats would have 95% of the House.

It's just so stupid.

DarkMagician · 26th January 2007, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

How many damn times can I say this: If the Democrats had a single shred of evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, they would have hollered about it as loudly as possible. Impeachment wouldn't be necessary because Kerry would have won in 2004. Even if Bush won, impeachment would be much easier because the Democrats would have 95% of the House.

It's just so stupid.

Unless, {turns to other camera} THEY'RE IN ON IT!

DUH duh duh!

{/tinfoilhat}

ref · 27th January 2007, 06:26 AM

Originally Posted by pomeroo

Here is the record of my negotiations with Webster Tarpley. Would it be fair to conclude that his silence translates into, "Hey, you mean I can't just come on the show and spout silly crap without being challenged?"

He must have seen the debate between Mark, You and the LC guys and drew his own conclusions. He doesn't stand a chance when his facts are compared to real facts. His silence is telling. Truth Movement is losing all of their 'star players' because of the lack of even a slightest credibility. And refusal to really test their theories against others. If they really believed in their story, there would be no promblem in coming.

Btw, your last mail to Webster was hilarious

Wild guess we'll never see him on your show.

pomeroo · 27th January 2007, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ref

He must have seen the debate between Mark, You and the LC guys and drew his own conclusions.

By the oddest coincidence, his silence dates from the moment I sent him the links to the debate.

Quote:

He doesn't stand a chance when his facts are compared to real facts. His silence is telling. Truth Movement is losing all of their 'star players' because of the lack of even a slightest credibility. And refusal to really test their theories against others. If they really believed in their story, there would be no promblem in coming.

Some of the prominent twoofers are genuine true-believer wackos, others are cynical charlatans hustling a pernicious message for their fifteen minutes of fame, but most combine the village idiot and the snake oil salesman into a single ugly package.

Quote:

Btw, your last mail to Webster was hilarious

Wild guess we'll never see him on your show.

I think we can safely conclude that Mr. Tarpley's ardor has cooled.

CHF · 27th January 2007, 12:25 PM

A perfect insight into the minds of twoofers.

The Republicans lost an election in which 911 twoof WAS NEVER AN ISSUE. All twoofer candidates lost badly!

And yet the result was somehow thanks to the twoofers.

LashL · 27th January 2007, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by pomeroo

I think we can safely conclude that Mr. Tarpley's ardor has cooled.

Well, that's too bad, really. I would love to see him on your show. Let's hope he gets his courage up.

26th January 2007, 03:26 AM	#1
ref Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 2,663	Webster Tarpley credits Truth Movement, speculates Bush insanity impeachment In his latest writing, Webster Tarpley makes some very straightforward truther assumptions and accusations. From rockcreekfreepress.com article written by Webster Tarpley http://rockcreekfreepress.com/RCFPJan2007-Pg8.pdf "9/11 truth movement was a critical component in creating the climate of opinion for Bush’s defeat at the polls in November 2006" "The only way to attrit and erode Bush’s hard-core base of support is to bring home the leading facts of 9/11 truth: the 9/11 attacks did not emerge from the world of Bin Laden, Atta, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the laptop, and the cave in Pushtunistan; they were a deliberate war provocation and coup d’etat launched by the invisible government or rogue network..." Okay then.. this gets only better: "To ignore the centrality of 9/11 to Bush’s every move is like trying to fight Hitler without mentioning anti-Semitism. Attacks on Bush that do not include 9/11 truth are simply impotent, and will not be effective." "Impeachment takes only a majority of the House, but requires two thirds of the Senate. Bush can be declared mentally unfit for office by reason of insanity by half of the cabinet under the XXV Amendment, but it takes two thirds of both houses to make this stick if Bush protests that he is not insane." Nice going there, W.T.
ref Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 2,663	Last edited by ref; 26th January 2007 at 03:31 AM.

26th January 2007, 03:58 AM	#2
MortFurd Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: An American in Germany Posts: 1,975	I only see one little problem: They've got to present SOMETHING to the House or the Senate to make them start the impeachment proceedings. All I see from the "911 Truth Movement" is screaming and hollering - no evidence, and no attempt to present anything to anyone in a position to start any kind of legal proceedings. I would almost go so far as to kick money into the pot to hire a lawyer (Truther's choice) to review anything they've got for evidence so that they can get an opinion on how their "evidence" would fare before a court or in Congress.
	Last edited by MortFurd; 26th January 2007 at 04:26 AM.

26th January 2007, 04:25 AM	#4
ref Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 2,663	Originally Posted by MortFurd I only see one little problem: They've got to present SOMETHING to the House or the Senate to make them start the impeachment proceedings. All I see from the "911 Truth Movement" is screaming and hollering - no evidence, and no attempt to present anything to anyone in a position to start any kind of legal proceedings. It is ridicilous, that they claim to have the facts. Facts supported by what? Their own assumptions. If they had the facts, why wouldn't they push them to authorities, or do anything? Because they are not facts, because no evidence backs them up. I so much dislike the claiming of facts, based on some hypothetical and biased assumptions of events. Some theorist's own opinion is not a fact of life.
ref Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 2,663

26th January 2007, 05:57 AM	#6
Arkan_Wolfshade Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Making Mytheon come to life Posts: 7,158	Originally Posted by ref In his latest writing, Webster Tarpley makes some very straightforward truther assumptions and accusations. From rockcreekfreepress.com article written by Webster Tarpley http://rockcreekfreepress.com/RCFPJan2007-Pg8.pdf "9/11 truth movement was a critical component in creating the climate of opinion for Bush’s defeat at the polls in November 2006" "The only way to attrit and erode Bush’s hard-core base of support is to bring home the leading facts of 9/11 truth: the 9/11 attacks did not emerge from the world of Bin Laden, Atta, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the laptop, and the cave in Pushtunistan; they were a deliberate war provocation and coup d’etat launched by the invisible government or rogue network..." Okay then.. this gets only better: "To ignore the centrality of 9/11 to Bush’s every move is like trying to fight Hitler without mentioning anti-Semitism. Attacks on Bush that do not include 9/11 truth are simply impotent, and will not be effective." "Impeachment takes only a majority of the House, but requires two thirds of the Senate. Bush can be declared mentally unfit for office by reason of insanity by half of the cabinet under the XXV Amendment, but it takes two thirds of both houses to make this stick if Bush protests that he is not insane." Nice going there, W.T. One major problem with his brilliant idea to go for insanity, power goes to the VP Quote: Section 4 Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Additi...#Amendment_XXV
	__________________ Amy: You should try homeopathic medicine, Bender. Try some zinc. Bender: I am forty percent zinc. Amy: Then take some echinacea, or St. John's Wort. Professor: Or a big fat placebo. It's all the same crap.

26th January 2007, 06:25 AM	#7
ref Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 2,663	Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade One major problem with his brilliant idea to go for insanity, power goes to the VP http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Additi...#Amendment_XXV Imagine their faces. We got rid of Bush!! And who did we get in return.. Cheney, mother of all evil
ref Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 2,663

26th January 2007, 04:22 AM	#3
PerryLogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: In the earth's deep core Posts: 980	It's just dumb white guys who think they're brilliant.

26th January 2007, 04:36 AM	#5
PerryLogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: In the earth's deep core Posts: 980	It doesn't even make sense as a scenario. If Bush is part of mass murder, he needs to be prosecuted, not impeached. (Impeachment is only used for embarrassing popular Presidents. Doesn't Tarpley know that?) And if he was part of 9/11, how does this lead us to impeachment by reason of insanity? And of course, some Truthers don't think GWB even knew. The Truthers have to agree on their story--as well as find some actual facts--before they move ahead.

26th January 2007, 06:52 AM	#8
The Almond Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,015	Quote: To ignore the centrality of 9/11 to Bush’s every move is like trying to fight Hitler without mentioning anti-Semitism. Attacks on Bush that do not include 9/11 truth are simply impotent, and will not be effective. These are the words of a man divorced from reality. The Democrats did quite well without mentioning any of the 9/11 Truth garbage. They hit hardest on Iraq policies, the ineffectiveness of GOP leadership (Immigration, national security, social reform), and the corruption inherent to big money, big oil, and big industry that so heavily dominates the Republican majority. The smartest thing the Democrats did was not mention 9/11, terrorism or the war on terror. Nice going guys, enjoy your recently vacated former republican held offices.
	__________________ "Perfection, even in stupidity, is difficult to achieve without a conscious effort."--pomeroo, JREF Forum Member

26th January 2007, 07:17 AM	#9
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,429	Originally Posted by PerryLogan It's just dumb white guys who think they're brilliant. Tarpley probably is legitimately brilliant, but he's a kook anyway. He's a longtime LaRouche insider who was graduated (according to his Wikipedia entry) summa cum laude from Princeton in 1966, and became a Fulbright Scholar. I assume he's just looking at this as a gravy train.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

26th January 2007, 09:02 AM	#10
skepticalcriticalguy Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 1,319	Originally Posted by Brainster Tarpley probably is legitimately brilliant, but he's a kook anyway. He's a longtime LaRouche insider who was graduated (according to his Wikipedia entry) summa cum laude from Princeton in 1966, and became a Fulbright Scholar. I assume he's just looking at this as a gravy train. His Unauthorized Biography of George Bush is free to read at http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm

26th January 2007, 01:44 PM	#11
Regnad Kcin Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: The ol' Same place Posts: 6,216	Originally Posted by PerryLogan ...The Truthers have to agree on their story--as well as find some actual facts--before they move ahead. So, in other words, never?
	__________________ My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.

26th January 2007, 07:53 PM	#12
pomeroo Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: In a Little Cafe Just the Other Side of the Border Posts: 7,091	The Doubtful Guest Here is the record of my negotiations with Webster Tarpley. Would it be fair to conclude that his silence translates into, "Hey, you mean I can't just come on the show and spout silly crap without being challenged?" From: Ronald Wieck To: tarpley (address deleted) Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 9:55 AM Subject: Debate Dear Mr. Tarpley, I occasionally host a cable show, 'Hardfire,' that airs in New York City. We taped a debate last week between two of the creators of 'Loose Change' and Mark Roberts, debunker extraordinaire. The conspiracy fantasists had good reason to be displeased with the outcome. The tinfoil-hat blogs cry out for a stronger champion, and your name keeps coming up. Are you interested? I'd be happy to discuss 9/11-related issues with you on either one or two half-hour shows. Yours Truly, Ronald Wieck From: Webster G. Tarpley To: Ronald Wieck Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 11:05 PM Subject: Re: Debate Sounds interesting - can you let me know a little more about your program, and about Mark Roberts. WGT December 29, 2006 Dear Mr. Tarpley, Sure. The show is a small one, although we've recently expanded to Nassau County, NY. Here are the links to the two-part debate between Roberts and the Loose Change Team. The first program is at http://tinyurl.com/tkfhj. The second program is at http://tinyurl.com/yfkqeo. You could either debate Roberts--the match people on both sides seem to be clamoring for--or you could be interviewed by me. The range of 9/11-related issues could be broad or restricted to a few topics of your choosing. Ron Wieck ----- Original January 15, 2007 Dear Mr. Tarpley, I haven't heard from you for a while. Are you still interested in appearing on Hardfire? Regards, Ron Wieck January 25, 2007 Dear Mr. Tarpley, I'm beginning to get the idea that you're not too interested in discussing 9/11 conspiracy theories on Hardfire. Mark Roberts is terrifyingly well-informed, but there is no need to confront him. You can simply be interviewed by me and I'm a pushover. Regards, Ron Wieck

26th January 2007, 08:28 PM	#13
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,178	Originally Posted by ref "9/11 truth movement was a critical component in creating the climate of opinion for Bush’s defeat at the polls in November 2006" Its a perfectly logical conclusion! Its just like the rock on my table that keeps the Polar Bears away!
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,178	__________________ Thanks for helping me win Best Children's Gifts and Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011 & 2012! Spectrum Scientifics - My store - Google it people!

26th January 2007, 09:27 PM	#14
Loss Leader Opinionated Jerk Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: New York Posts: 11,885	How many damn times can I say this: If the Democrats had a single shred of evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, they would have hollered about it as loudly as possible. Impeachment wouldn't be necessary because Kerry would have won in 2004. Even if Bush won, impeachment would be much easier because the Democrats would have 95% of the House. It's just so stupid.
	__________________ Follow me on Twitter! @LossLeader This force is receiving all the right to vote through the use of magic. - Miernik Wieslaw <NEW> VOTE FOR ME JUST BECAUSE <NEW>

26th January 2007, 10:11 PM	#15
DarkMagician Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Des Moines, IA Posts: 1,539	Originally Posted by Loss Leader How many damn times can I say this: If the Democrats had a single shred of evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, they would have hollered about it as loudly as possible. Impeachment wouldn't be necessary because Kerry would have won in 2004. Even if Bush won, impeachment would be much easier because the Democrats would have 95% of the House. It's just so stupid. Unless, {turns to other camera} THEY'RE IN ON IT! DUH duh duh! {/tinfoilhat}
	__________________ Sometimes going by "Nyke" \| "Pascal's Wager: Believe in Unicorns, or one might kick you in the nads!" \| "There is no hope for humanity. Reason is dead and we dance on the corpse. Tra la la la la!" --c4ts \| Intelligent Design & Expelled Exposed \| I'm on dial-up. If you want to reply to me, summarize please.

27th January 2007, 06:26 AM	#16
ref Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 2,663	Originally Posted by pomeroo Here is the record of my negotiations with Webster Tarpley. Would it be fair to conclude that his silence translates into, "Hey, you mean I can't just come on the show and spout silly crap without being challenged?" He must have seen the debate between Mark, You and the LC guys and drew his own conclusions. He doesn't stand a chance when his facts are compared to real facts. His silence is telling. Truth Movement is losing all of their 'star players' because of the lack of even a slightest credibility. And refusal to really test their theories against others. If they really believed in their story, there would be no promblem in coming. Btw, your last mail to Webster was hilarious Wild guess we'll never see him on your show.
ref Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 2,663

27th January 2007, 11:25 AM	#17
pomeroo Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: In a Little Cafe Just the Other Side of the Border Posts: 7,091	Reluctant Loons Quote: Originally Posted by ref He must have seen the debate between Mark, You and the LC guys and drew his own conclusions. By the oddest coincidence, his silence dates from the moment I sent him the links to the debate. Quote: He doesn't stand a chance when his facts are compared to real facts. His silence is telling. Truth Movement is losing all of their 'star players' because of the lack of even a slightest credibility. And refusal to really test their theories against others. If they really believed in their story, there would be no promblem in coming. Some of the prominent twoofers are genuine true-believer wackos, others are cynical charlatans hustling a pernicious message for their fifteen minutes of fame, but most combine the village idiot and the snake oil salesman into a single ugly package. Quote: Btw, your last mail to Webster was hilarious Wild guess we'll never see him on your show. I think we can safely conclude that Mr. Tarpley's ardor has cooled.

27th January 2007, 12:25 PM	#18
CHF Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,875	A perfect insight into the minds of twoofers. The Republicans lost an election in which 911 twoof WAS NEVER AN ISSUE. All twoofer candidates lost badly! And yet the result was somehow thanks to the twoofers.

27th January 2007, 12:41 PM	#19
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Administrator Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 26,232	Originally Posted by pomeroo I think we can safely conclude that Mr. Tarpley's ardor has cooled. Well, that's too bad, really. I would love to see him on your show. Let's hope he gets his courage up.