Putting the Kook In Kucinich

Brainster · 30th January 2007, 07:31 AM

Well, the Truther's have their first candidate for President in 2008. Dennis Kucinich, addressing the antiwar protestors over the weekend, said:

"And finally, our plan is to tell the truth about 9-11 and to tell the truth..."

Unfortunately the video fades out there to get to Eve Ensler and her vagina.

The video is up at SLC. The interesting thing is this is obviously a coded appeal to the Truthers; probably 50% of the people at the speech hadn't a clue as to what he was talking about, and after all, who can object to knowing the truth about 9-11?

chipmunk stew · 30th January 2007, 08:51 AM

He used a similar phrase in a speech on the House floor back in June '06:

Quote:

....

"We separate ourselves from human unity by not participating in a wide range of international agreements, and yet we are the United States. Our very name speaks to unity.

"How then can we find ourselves again as a Nation? How can we come to reconnect with the deeper meaning of who we are? How can we step away from this experience which, since 9/11, has taken us into a blind alley?

"If there was ever a time when this country needed a period of truth and reconciliation, this is it. We find so many of our fellow countrymen and women still believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. It did not. But at a time when 9/11 gave us an opportunity to start a whole new national discussion about who we are and how we can reconnect with the world, decisions were made which further separated us. We went down a blind alley, and in that blind alley we remain, unaware of the truth behind 9/11, not with respect to who did it, but with respect to what is our role in the world, what is America's position in the world.

....

He clearly isn't denying the events, just arguing the meaning and response.

I think you're making this into a new "new Pearl Harbor".

chippy · 30th January 2007, 09:05 AM

Chipmunk, I absolutely love your signature.

Arkan_Wolfshade · 30th January 2007, 09:26 AM

Have to disagree with you Chipmunk. Kucinich is woo. I can say that with some authority, as I lived in Ohio from '78 to '04 and got to hear lots of his rantings.

fyi, the name is pronounced koo-sin-itch fwiw

fuelair · 30th January 2007, 09:33 AM

How have the mighty fallen!!!

uk_dave · 30th January 2007, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade

Have to disagree with you Chipmunk. Kucinich is woo. I can say that with some authority, as I lived in Ohio from '78 to '04 and got to hear lots of his rantings.

fyi, the name is pronounced koo-sin-itch fwiw

How do you pronounce 'fwiw'?

Arkan_Wolfshade · 30th January 2007, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by uk_dave

How do you pronounce 'fwiw'?

for what it's worth

WildCat · 30th January 2007, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade

for what it's worth

We better stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

Brainster · 30th January 2007, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by chipmunk stew

He used a similar phrase in a speech on the House floor back in June '06:

He clearly isn't denying the events, just arguing the meaning and response.

I think you're making this into a new "new Pearl Harbor".

I don't think he's fully embracing the Deniers, but he's definitely giving them a nod and a wink with that language.

firecoins · 30th January 2007, 10:15 AM

In the speech quoted, the context would lead me to believe he NOT refering to a massive coverup. However, having met his supporters whne this guy ran for president, I find it easy to believe that he believes in a conspiracy.

DavidJames · 30th January 2007, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by Brainster

I don't think he's fully embracing the Deniers, but he's definitely giving them a nod and a wink with that language.

I think you are making a CTist like leap. Other then using the word "truth" he has expressed nothing which suggests he has anything in common with the CTists.

Unless you have more then what's been posted already.

Note: I'm not a Kucinich fan.

chipmunk stew · 30th January 2007, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade

Have to disagree with you Chipmunk. Kucinich is woo. I can say that with some authority, as I lived in Ohio from '78 to '04 and got to hear lots of his rantings.

fyi, the name is pronounced koo-sin-itch fwiw

Originally Posted by Brainster

I don't think he's fully embracing the Deniers, but he's definitely giving them a nod and a wink with that language.

Originally Posted by firecoins

In the speech quoted, the context would lead me to believe he not refering to a massive coverup. However, having met his supporters whne this guy ran for president, I have no doubts he believes in a conspiracy.

Originally Posted by DavidJames

I think you are making a CTist like leap. Other then using the word "truth" he has expressed nothing which suggests he has anything in common with the CTists.

Unless you have more then what's been posted already.

Note: I'm not a Kucinich fan.

I consider Kucinich a crank, but I've never read or heard anything to suggest that he entertains even LIHOP notions. I suppose it's possible that he'd use that language to win over Deniers--I don't know how stupid the guy is (he's at least savvy enough to have kept his office and, I presume, his likeability)--but it's perhaps more likely that he qualified the phrase similarly to the way he did in the speech I linked to. It's a phrase without context, and, as we who engage in arguing this topic should well know, phrases without context can be extremely misleading.

I think it's an unjustified leap, so long as there's no corroborating evidence from prior writing or speeches that he has Truther leanings.

PerryLogan · 30th January 2007, 11:12 AM

I certainly didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition...

It's not a good sign when JREFers start thinking like conspiracists, grasping at phrases in YouTube clips to make a huge case against someone. There's a clip at this place which may clarify Kucinich's position on 9/11:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/1283

The blogger interprets it to mean Kucinich is a Truther. But Truthers are very inclined to misinterpret what people say.

Kucinich is obviously talking about criminal incompetence in connection with 9/11. That's what the parallels to Katrina and the Iraq War are meant to convey.

He's a righteous Democrat, way too smart to be a Truther. Now go back into skeptic mode, people.

boloboffin · 30th January 2007, 11:23 AM

Currently, I am a Kucinich supporter. I am so because of several reasons which belong in the politics forum. Suffice it to say I want his viewpoint (for the most part) at the table of ideas. However, if he really is more woo than the quote Brainster highlights (hey, Deniers get to vote too!), I'd like to know about it. The inevitable switch to Hillary has to be made at some point.

I've also seen a 2001 bill he introduced about space weaponry which proscribed chemtrails. The ick factor went up quite a bit there, and it wouldn't take too much more to switch candidates. So, Arken, lay it on me!

pagan · 30th January 2007, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

Well, the Truther's have their first candidate for President in 2008. Dennis Kucinich, addressing the antiwar protestors over the weekend, said:

"And finally, our plan is to tell the truth about 9-11 and to tell the truth..."

Unfortunately the video fades out there to get to Eve Ensler and her vagina.

The video is up at SLC. The interesting thing is this is obviously a coded appeal to the Truthers; probably 50% of the people at the speech hadn't a clue as to what he was talking about, and after all, who can object to knowing the truth about 9-11?

Dennis Kucinich. Presidential candidate for us truthers?

We have a few other politicians on our side like Ron Paul.

Can this be a sign that we truthers are becoming so plentyful that ambitious politicians are considering it as good platform?

Hope so

Firestone · 30th January 2007, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by pagan

Dennis Kucinich. Presidential candidate for us truthers?

We have a few other politicians on our side like Ron Paul.

Can this be a sign that we truthers are becoming so plentyful that ambitious politicians are considering it as good platform?

Forget it ...

uk_dave · 30th January 2007, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by pagan

Dennis Kucinich. Presidential candidate for us truthers?

We have a few other politicians on our side like Ron Paul.

Can this be a sign that we truthers are becoming so plentyful that ambitious politicians are considering it as good platform?

Hope so

ooooops your post is just crying out for an edit.......

Quote:

We have a ... politician on our side .... Ron Paul.

There, fixed!

pagan · 30th January 2007, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by uk_dave

ooooops your post is just crying out for an edit.......

There, fixed!

For you Dave, I can mention a few others who's carears have suffered a great deal:

Rep. Curt Weldon

Rep Cynthia Mckinney. (Real heroine)

Morgan Reynolds Phd ( an *******)

Paul Craig Roberts Phd

Robert Bowman Phd

And many more take a look at this site:

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Brainster · 30th January 2007, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by pagan

Dennis Kucinich. Presidential candidate for us truthers?

We have a few other politicians on our side like Ron Paul.

Can this be a sign that we truthers are becoming so plentyful that ambitious politicians are considering it as good platform?

Hope so

Yes, and there's guaranteed to be a pony under all that horsebleep somewhere!

Back to the original point, it's a stretch indeed to think that Kucinich didn't know what he was doing with that comment. Again, it's kind of a wink, so there remains some deniability. Maybe in the clip that was cut, he went on to say something like Ward Churchill, that the truth about 9-11 was that it was the chickens coming home to roost. Maybe he went on to say that the truth about 9-11 was that it was a result of our support for Israel.

jon · 30th January 2007, 01:01 PM

with apologies for stating the obvious, has anyone contacted his campaign team to ask. Presumably he's got staff who can answer questions about his political position - or are US presidential candidates less accessible?

David Wong · 30th January 2007, 01:36 PM

Republican commentators used to do this with Bill Clinton and the "49 Clinton Murders" thing. They'd say something like, "...and we need to get to the bottom of this Vince Foster thing, because, with the reputation these people have, you can't just take their word for it."

What they're doing is straddling the woo line. Back then when the right-wing conspiracy nuts would hear that, out in the woods with their Militia gear, they'd say, "YEAH! THAT'S RIGHT THE CLINTON MAFIA HAS KILLED AGAIN FOR THE NWO." When the normal people would hear it, they'd interpret it as simply meaning Clinton was dishonest and everything should be investigated as a result.

Same here, he wants the woo vote. It's a solid 10% of the Democrats (10% of about any group is nuts) and so this phrase simultaneously gets them going, and doesn't sound nutty to the moderates because it's vague enough to mean anything.

PerryLogan · 30th January 2007, 01:43 PM

This is a reprehensible thread. There's not a shred of debunking going on here. It's really just a sort of lukewarm character assassination, based largely on the JREFers' ability to read minds. We are acting just like conspiracy guys--making a case out of nothing, deciding whom to ridicule.

boloboffin · 30th January 2007, 05:26 PM

I'd agree, Perry. Unless someone has something more than this single comment at an anti-war rally, which could mean a great many things and was meant to, then let's really get a grip.

Hierosis · 30th January 2007, 07:01 PM

Originally Posted by PerryLogan

This is a reprehensible thread. There's not a shred of debunking going on here. It's really just a sort of lukewarm character assassination, based largely on the JREFers' ability to read minds. We are acting just like conspiracy guys--making a case out of nothing, deciding whom to ridicule.

Well said. Rep. Kucinich has said since the day that the 9/11 Commission report was released that he felt it to be a convenient cover up (which it was, regardless of your side of the argument). He has CONSISTENTLY said that he feels a new investigation should take place where the conflicts of interest brought on board by the members aren't as prevelent as they were here. Actually many Hosue Democrats will tell you that if you take the time to talk to them.

Does that mean they're saying that 9/11 was carried out by a mysterious cabal such as the New World Order of the Illuminati rather than Islamic terrorists? Absolutely not.

It's a bit troubling to see that even asking the most basic questions about 9/11 will earn you an automatic thread on "ScrewLooseChange."

Anti-sophist · 30th January 2007, 07:12 PM

I hate this topic because it's where honest political inquiry and conspiracy theory merge. People like Bob Graham who have legitimate issues with the 9/11 commission and what is and isn't public knowledge get lumped into the most crazy and bizarre conspiracy theorist gibberish. Conspiracy theorists aren't smart enough to differentiate. They honestly believe that 9/11 was an inside job and all these people believe that as well...

It's this kind of stuff that has led me to form a personal rule that I do not discuss LIHOP issue with anyone who believes a word of MIHOP. If you are that broken in the head to believe in the MIHOP nonsense, you don't have a hope or prayer for understanding LIHOP issues.

David Wong · 30th January 2007, 08:09 PM

Can we at least agree that:

1. There was likely a significant number of 9/11 deniers at that rally?

2. That Mr. Kucinich is likely aware of the 9/11 denial movement? He has to get their letters, if nothing else.

3. That Mr. Kucinich therefore knew he was talking to some 9/11 deniers when he spoke?

4. That what he said could EASILY be interpreted as 9/11 denial if spoken in the context described above? And that he would have been aware of that when choosing the words?

5. That there is therefore a fair chance his words were chosen for that purpose? To throw them a bone and get their support, while not stepping completely over the line?

6. That, as evidence, we have a truther in this very thread who interpreted the words that very way?

What's "reprehensible" about that? Other than Perry's desire to use the most inflammatory language possible when he slips into extreme partisan mode as he so often does when a member of the sacred Democrat party has been sullied?

After all, if it's "reprehensible" to accuse Kucinich of playing to 9/11 deniers, then it's "reprehensible" for Perry to ever accuse Bush of lying. Either we take politicians' words at face value, or we don't. We can't make exceptions for our own political party, saying we should dig behind Bush's words but refuse to believe anything bad about Kucinich until he comes out and says it. How many of you believe Bush has been honest about his plans for the Middle East?

No, it's smart to look at the context when any of these people are speaking. And in this case, in this climate, knowing who he was talking to and knowing what those people believe, it's very reasonable to say Kucinich was tossing a bone to the Truthers here.

ConspiRaider · 30th January 2007, 08:33 PM

Originally Posted by David Wong

Can we at least agree that:

1. There was likely a significant number of 9/11 deniers at that rally?

2. That Mr. Kucinich is likely aware of the 9/11 denial movement? He has to get their letters, if nothing else.

3. That Mr. Kucinich therefore knew he was talking to some 9/11 deniers when he spoke?

4. That what he said could EASILY be interpreted as 9/11 denial if spoken in the context described above? And that he would have been aware of that when choosing the words?

5. That there is therefore a fair chance his words were chosen for that purpose? To throw them a bone and get their support, while not stepping completely over the line?

6. That, as evidence, we have a truther in this very thread who interpreted the words that very way?

What's "reprehensible" about that? Other than Perry's desire to use the most inflammatory language possible when he slips into extreme partisan mode as he so often does when a member of the sacred Democrat party has been sullied?

After all, if it's "reprehensible" to accuse Kucinich of playing to 9/11 deniers, then it's "reprehensible" for Perry to ever accuse Bush of lying. Either we take politicians' words at face value, or we don't. We can't make exceptions for our own political party, saying we should dig behind Bush's words but refuse to believe anything bad about Kucinich until he comes out and says it. How many of you believe Bush has been honest about his plans for the Middle East?

No, it's smart to look at the context when any of these people are speaking. And in this case, in this climate, knowing who he was talking to and knowing what those people believe, it's very reasonable to say Kucinich was tossing a bone to the Truthers here.

Well stated, and agree with the premise that DK was wink-wink-nudge-nudging the 911 Twoofers. Slickly done. Not unique - I've seen this tactic before from Dems in the spotlight. Once Bush is really gone (that's assuming he does not kill everybody in the next roughly 2 years) the Dems will drop this tactic, in my opinion.

Brainster · 30th January 2007, 09:39 PM

Perry and Bolo, you guys have done great work in debunking. My point in posting this is not to get some silly little advantage over Dennis Kucinich who we can all agree is going to get about the same percentage of the vote in the Democratic primaries as he did in 2004, which is to say not much.

But when Kucinich talks about "telling the truth about 9-11", he's either dumb or playing a game, and I don't think it's at all unreasonable to assume that he's not dumb. I will absolutely admit that I'd like to see the full speech, and I feel a little uncomfortable due to the edits in the video elsewhere. But I can't back away from the idea that pols who dip their toes in the swamp of 9-11 Denial deserve to have their feet bitten off--preferably by their own side.

I have been harshly critical of Ron Paul for his flirting with Alex Jones and will remain so, even though I tend towards a lot of Paul's other ideas, being a Libertarian conservative myself. I am not going to allow my political philosophy to allow me to blind me to the fact that any politician who endorses the 9-11 nuttery, however obliquely (and this was not that oblique) deserves nothing but scorn.

Pardalis · 30th January 2007, 09:55 PM

He doesn't seem to endorse 9/11 CTs on his website though.

http://kucinich.us/search/node/9/11

Maybe he didn't mean "the truth about 9/11" the way Truthers do. Maybe he meant "truth" with a small 't'.

Cylinder · 30th January 2007, 09:57 PM

So...why don't he just tell us the truth instead of telling of his plan to tell the truth? Is he waiting for sweeps week or something?

DavidJames · 30th January 2007, 10:02 PM

Originally Posted by ConspiRaider

Well stated, and agree with the premise that DK was wink-wink-nudge-nudging the 911 Twoofers. Slickly done.

In the absence of genuine CTist, it's good to see someone picking up the torch. Read what you said and then read what CTists say about what Sliversteen, Cheney, Bush etc. said.

In lieu of facts, lets interpret their words.

Sheesh, I hope the CTist come back soon to get people focused again

.

CurtC · 30th January 2007, 10:05 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

I have been harshly critical of Ron Paul for his flirting with Alex Jones and will remain so, even though I tend towards a lot of Paul's other ideas, being a Libertarian conservative myself.

Hey, I actually voted for Ron Paul for president.

Pardalis · 30th January 2007, 10:06 PM

I agree with DavidJames, Kucinich seems to be referring to Iraq having no link to 9/11, and 9/11 being used to go for war, not anything about 9/11 being an inside job. At least, he doesn't mention anything about it in his website.

ConspiRaider · 30th January 2007, 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by DavidJames

In the absence of genuine CTist, it's good to see someone picking up the torch. Read what you said and then read what CTists say about what Sliversteen, Cheney, Bush etc. said.

In lieu of facts, lets interpret their words.

Sheesh, I hope the CTist come back soon to get people focused again

.

Well then call it best-guess speculation, which is still legal. Who can definitively infer exactly what Kucinich meant? No one. The only thing wrong with this thread is that it is NOT in the Politics forum.

Your "picking up the torch" comment is way out of line. This cannot be compared, David, to what the woos infer from Silverstein's "pull it", correct? That's a bit of an unfair comparison you just made.

EvilSmurf · 30th January 2007, 10:53 PM

I think he was certainly "dog-whistling" the twoofers. However, I do not think he was saying "9-11 was an inside job". If you take it in its full context, it looks to me like he was talking about how 9-11 was used as a justification to go into Iraq.

LashL · 30th January 2007, 11:14 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

Perry and Bolo, you guys have done great work in debunking. My point in posting this is not to get some silly little advantage over Dennis Kucinich who we can all agree is going to get about the same percentage of the vote in the Democratic primaries as he did in 2004, which is to say not much.

But when Kucinich talks about "telling the truth about 9-11", he's either dumb or playing a game, and I don't think it's at all unreasonable to assume that he's not dumb. I will absolutely admit that I'd like to see the full speech, and I feel a little uncomfortable due to the edits in the video elsewhere. But I can't back away from the idea that pols who dip their toes in the swamp of 9-11 Denial deserve to have their feet bitten off--preferably by their own side.

I have been harshly critical of Ron Paul for his flirting with Alex Jones and will remain so, even though I tend towards a lot of Paul's other ideas, being a Libertarian conservative myself. I am not going to allow my political philosophy to allow me to blind me to the fact that any politician who endorses the 9-11 nuttery, however obliquely (and this was not that oblique) deserves nothing but scorn.

Agreed on the larger message, but for the record, I'm not "Libertarian conservative" and I do not ascribe to the political views expressed above in that regard.

But I agree with the larger message which you directed to Perry and Boloboffin, both members whose opinions I respect, even if I disagree with them sometimes, which was:

Leave the politics to the politics forum, guys. I don't give a flying **** for Bush or his politics or his minions, but do try to keep your politics to the appropriate thread. If a left leaning politician exhibits woo tendendies, he's going to get called on it here, and that's as it should be, just as it would be if a right leaning politician exhibits woo tendencies.

Maybe you should try to separate your politics from your posts in this particular sub forum, where politics are really not an issue.

Just a suggestion.

boloboffin · 31st January 2007, 12:01 AM

Last thing I'm going to say about it, because we are veering off into the politics of it. I remind everyone of what chipmunk stew quoted from Kucinich's site:

Quote:

If there was ever a time when this country needed a period of truth and reconciliation, this is it. We find so many of our fellow countrymen and women still believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. It did not. But at a time when 9/11 gave us an opportunity to start a whole new national discussion about who we are and how we can reconnect with the world, decisions were made which further separated us. We went down a blind alley, and in that blind alley we remain, unaware of the truth behind 9/11, not with respect to who did it, but with respect to what is our role in the world, what is America's position in the world.

That's a third thing Kucinich could mean, Brainster. There are legitimate questions to be asked concerning 9/11, and if the "truth" movement keeps us from asking them, it would be wrong.

SezMe · 31st January 2007, 02:01 AM

Originally Posted by David Wong

Can we at least agree that: <snip>

5. That there is therefore a fair chance his words were chosen for that purpose? To throw them a bone and get their support, while not stepping completely over the line?

Yes, we might agree that there is a "fair chance" of that. But does that also mean that there is also a "fair chance" that his words were NOT thus chosen? And thus that your subsequent conclusions also have a "fair chance" of being wrong?

Such sloppy thinking does not befit this forum.

Arkan_Wolfshade · 31st January 2007, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by boloboffin

Currently, I am a Kucinich supporter. I am so because of several reasons which belong in the politics forum. Suffice it to say I want his viewpoint (for the most part) at the table of ideas. However, if he really is more woo than the quote Brainster highlights (hey, Deniers get to vote too!), I'd like to know about it. The inevitable switch to Hillary has to be made at some point.

I've also seen a 2001 bill he introduced about space weaponry which proscribed chemtrails. The ick factor went up quite a bit there, and it wouldn't take too much more to switch candidates. So, Arken, lay it on me!

http://www.raven1.net/govptron.htm
is one of the things I recall off the top of my head.

I also recall him being quite fond of lots of fed gov't involvement in just about everything, ex http://www.thepeacealliance.org/.

Unfortunately, today is nucking futs for me at work so I can't devote the time to a quality discussion on it.

Admittedly, I run so diametrically opposed to him on so many political issues, that every little thing is just another nail in the coffin for me.

30th January 2007, 07:31 AM	#1
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,428	Putting the Kook In Kucinich Well, the Truther's have their first candidate for President in 2008. Dennis Kucinich, addressing the antiwar protestors over the weekend, said: "And finally, our plan is to tell the truth about 9-11 and to tell the truth..." Unfortunately the video fades out there to get to Eve Ensler and her vagina. The video is up at SLC. The interesting thing is this is obviously a coded appeal to the Truthers; probably 50% of the people at the speech hadn't a clue as to what he was talking about, and after all, who can object to knowing the truth about 9-11?
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

30th January 2007, 08:51 AM	#2
chipmunk stew The Spikey Mace of Love and Mercy Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: SE PA Posts: 7,465	He used a similar phrase in a speech on the House floor back in June '06: Quote: .... "We separate ourselves from human unity by not participating in a wide range of international agreements, and yet we are the United States. Our very name speaks to unity. "How then can we find ourselves again as a Nation? How can we come to reconnect with the deeper meaning of who we are? How can we step away from this experience which, since 9/11, has taken us into a blind alley? "If there was ever a time when this country needed a period of truth and reconciliation, this is it. We find so many of our fellow countrymen and women still believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. It did not. But at a time when 9/11 gave us an opportunity to start a whole new national discussion about who we are and how we can reconnect with the world, decisions were made which further separated us. We went down a blind alley, and in that blind alley we remain, unaware of the truth behind 9/11, not with respect to who did it, but with respect to what is our role in the world, what is America's position in the world. .... He clearly isn't denying the events, just arguing the meaning and response. I think you're making this into a new "new Pearl Harbor".
	__________________

30th January 2007, 09:05 AM	#3
chippy Muse Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Minneapolis, MN Posts: 523	Chipmunk, I absolutely love your signature.
	__________________ http://911debunker.livejournal.com

30th January 2007, 09:26 AM	#4
Arkan_Wolfshade Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Making Mytheon come to life Posts: 7,158	Have to disagree with you Chipmunk. Kucinich is woo. I can say that with some authority, as I lived in Ohio from '78 to '04 and got to hear lots of his rantings. fyi, the name is pronounced koo-sin-itch fwiw
	__________________ 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.

30th January 2007, 09:33 AM	#5
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,942	How have the mighty fallen!!!
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,942

30th January 2007, 09:38 AM	#6
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,866	Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade Have to disagree with you Chipmunk. Kucinich is woo. I can say that with some authority, as I lived in Ohio from '78 to '04 and got to hear lots of his rantings. fyi, the name is pronounced koo-sin-itch fwiw How do you pronounce 'fwiw'?
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,866

30th January 2007, 09:45 AM	#7
Arkan_Wolfshade Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Making Mytheon come to life Posts: 7,158	Originally Posted by uk_dave How do you pronounce 'fwiw'? for what it's worth
	__________________ 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.

30th January 2007, 09:48 AM	#8
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,049	Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade for what it's worth We better stop, hey, what's that sound Everybody look what's going down

30th January 2007, 09:48 AM	#9
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,428	Originally Posted by chipmunk stew He used a similar phrase in a speech on the House floor back in June '06: He clearly isn't denying the events, just arguing the meaning and response. I think you're making this into a new "new Pearl Harbor". I don't think he's fully embracing the Deniers, but he's definitely giving them a nod and a wink with that language.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

30th January 2007, 10:15 AM	#10
firecoins Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Nyack, NY Posts: 3,191	In the speech quoted, the context would lead me to believe he NOT refering to a massive coverup. However, having met his supporters whne this guy ran for president, I find it easy to believe that he believes in a conspiracy.
	__________________ NY Paramedic, skeptic, 9/11/01 Reality-ist. I am both right wing nut and left wing lunatic. Deal with it. Last edited by firecoins; 30th January 2007 at 10:43 AM.

30th January 2007, 10:27 AM	#11
DavidJames Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Front Range, CO Posts: 7,087	Originally Posted by Brainster I don't think he's fully embracing the Deniers, but he's definitely giving them a nod and a wink with that language. I think you are making a CTist like leap. Other then using the word "truth" he has expressed nothing which suggests he has anything in common with the CTists. Unless you have more then what's been posted already. Note: I'm not a Kucinich fan.
	__________________ I will no longer respond to those who choose to have tools of murder as their avatars. Everyone is a skeptic except, of course, for the stuff that they believe Beaver Hateman: Is your argument that human life loses value proportionate to the number of humans available? Malcolm Kirkpatrick: That's part of the argument. Value is determined by supply and demand.

30th January 2007, 10:47 AM	#12
chipmunk stew The Spikey Mace of Love and Mercy Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: SE PA Posts: 7,465	Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade Have to disagree with you Chipmunk. Kucinich is woo. I can say that with some authority, as I lived in Ohio from '78 to '04 and got to hear lots of his rantings. fyi, the name is pronounced koo-sin-itch fwiw Originally Posted by Brainster I don't think he's fully embracing the Deniers, but he's definitely giving them a nod and a wink with that language. Originally Posted by firecoins In the speech quoted, the context would lead me to believe he not refering to a massive coverup. However, having met his supporters whne this guy ran for president, I have no doubts he believes in a conspiracy. Originally Posted by DavidJames I think you are making a CTist like leap. Other then using the word "truth" he has expressed nothing which suggests he has anything in common with the CTists. Unless you have more then what's been posted already. Note: I'm not a Kucinich fan. I consider Kucinich a crank, but I've never read or heard anything to suggest that he entertains even LIHOP notions. I suppose it's possible that he'd use that language to win over Deniers--I don't know how stupid the guy is (he's at least savvy enough to have kept his office and, I presume, his likeability)--but it's perhaps more likely that he qualified the phrase similarly to the way he did in the speech I linked to. It's a phrase without context, and, as we who engage in arguing this topic should well know, phrases without context can be extremely misleading. I think it's an unjustified leap, so long as there's no corroborating evidence from prior writing or speeches that he has Truther leanings.
	__________________

30th January 2007, 11:12 AM	#13
PerryLogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: In the earth's deep core Posts: 980	I certainly didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition... It's not a good sign when JREFers start thinking like conspiracists, grasping at phrases in YouTube clips to make a huge case against someone. There's a clip at this place which may clarify Kucinich's position on 9/11: http://www.911blogger.com/node/1283 The blogger interprets it to mean Kucinich is a Truther. But Truthers are very inclined to misinterpret what people say. Kucinich is obviously talking about criminal incompetence in connection with 9/11. That's what the parallels to Katrina and the Iraq War are meant to convey. He's a righteous Democrat, way too smart to be a Truther. Now go back into skeptic mode, people.
	Last edited by PerryLogan; 30th January 2007 at 11:23 AM.

30th January 2007, 11:23 AM	#14
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 5,001	Currently, I am a Kucinich supporter. I am so because of several reasons which belong in the politics forum. Suffice it to say I want his viewpoint (for the most part) at the table of ideas. However, if he really is more woo than the quote Brainster highlights (hey, Deniers get to vote too!), I'd like to know about it. The inevitable switch to Hillary has to be made at some point. I've also seen a 2001 bill he introduced about space weaponry which proscribed chemtrails. The ick factor went up quite a bit there, and it wouldn't take too much more to switch candidates. So, Arken, lay it on me!

30th January 2007, 12:03 PM	#15
pagan Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 399	Originally Posted by Brainster Well, the Truther's have their first candidate for President in 2008. Dennis Kucinich, addressing the antiwar protestors over the weekend, said: "And finally, our plan is to tell the truth about 9-11 and to tell the truth..." Unfortunately the video fades out there to get to Eve Ensler and her vagina. The video is up at SLC. The interesting thing is this is obviously a coded appeal to the Truthers; probably 50% of the people at the speech hadn't a clue as to what he was talking about, and after all, who can object to knowing the truth about 9-11? Dennis Kucinich. Presidential candidate for us truthers? We have a few other politicians on our side like Ron Paul. Can this be a sign that we truthers are becoming so plentyful that ambitious politicians are considering it as good platform? Hope so
pagan Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 399	Last edited by pagan; 30th January 2007 at 12:07 PM. Reason: typo

30th January 2007, 12:11 PM	#16
Firestone Proud Award Award recipient Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Belgium Posts: 1,493	Originally Posted by pagan Dennis Kucinich. Presidential candidate for us truthers? We have a few other politicians on our side like Ron Paul. Can this be a sign that we truthers are becoming so plentyful that ambitious politicians are considering it as good platform? Forget it ...
	__________________ The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it, with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age. -- Carl Sagan

30th January 2007, 12:13 PM	#17
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,866	Originally Posted by pagan Dennis Kucinich. Presidential candidate for us truthers? We have a few other politicians on our side like Ron Paul. Can this be a sign that we truthers are becoming so plentyful that ambitious politicians are considering it as good platform? Hope so ooooops your post is just crying out for an edit....... Quote: We have a ... politician on our side .... Ron Paul. There, fixed!
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,866

30th January 2007, 12:31 PM	#18
pagan Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 399	Originally Posted by uk_dave ooooops your post is just crying out for an edit....... There, fixed! For you Dave, I can mention a few others who's carears have suffered a great deal: Rep. Curt Weldon Rep Cynthia Mckinney. (Real heroine) Morgan Reynolds Phd ( an *******) Paul Craig Roberts Phd Robert Bowman Phd And many more take a look at this site: http://patriotsquestion911.com/
pagan Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 399

30th January 2007, 12:51 PM	#19
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,428	Originally Posted by pagan Dennis Kucinich. Presidential candidate for us truthers? We have a few other politicians on our side like Ron Paul. Can this be a sign that we truthers are becoming so plentyful that ambitious politicians are considering it as good platform? Hope so Yes, and there's guaranteed to be a pony under all that horsebleep somewhere! Back to the original point, it's a stretch indeed to think that Kucinich didn't know what he was doing with that comment. Again, it's kind of a wink, so there remains some deniability. Maybe in the clip that was cut, he went on to say something like Ward Churchill, that the truth about 9-11 was that it was the chickens coming home to roost. Maybe he went on to say that the truth about 9-11 was that it was a result of our support for Israel.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

30th January 2007, 01:01 PM	#20
jon Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 923	with apologies for stating the obvious, has anyone contacted his campaign team to ask. Presumably he's got staff who can answer questions about his political position - or are US presidential candidates less accessible?
jon Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 923

30th January 2007, 01:36 PM	#21
David Wong Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,768	Republican commentators used to do this with Bill Clinton and the "49 Clinton Murders" thing. They'd say something like, "...and we need to get to the bottom of this Vince Foster thing, because, with the reputation these people have, you can't just take their word for it." What they're doing is straddling the woo line. Back then when the right-wing conspiracy nuts would hear that, out in the woods with their Militia gear, they'd say, "YEAH! THAT'S RIGHT THE CLINTON MAFIA HAS KILLED AGAIN FOR THE NWO." When the normal people would hear it, they'd interpret it as simply meaning Clinton was dishonest and everything should be investigated as a result. Same here, he wants the woo vote. It's a solid 10% of the Democrats (10% of about any group is nuts) and so this phrase simultaneously gets them going, and doesn't sound nutty to the moderates because it's vague enough to mean anything.
	__________________ Author, John Dies at the End. Available now in hardcover. Editor, Cracked.com.

30th January 2007, 01:43 PM	#22
PerryLogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: In the earth's deep core Posts: 980	This is a reprehensible thread. There's not a shred of debunking going on here. It's really just a sort of lukewarm character assassination, based largely on the JREFers' ability to read minds. We are acting just like conspiracy guys--making a case out of nothing, deciding whom to ridicule.
	Last edited by PerryLogan; 30th January 2007 at 01:45 PM.

30th January 2007, 05:26 PM	#23
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 5,001	I'd agree, Perry. Unless someone has something more than this single comment at an anti-war rally, which could mean a great many things and was meant to, then let's really get a grip.

30th January 2007, 07:01 PM	#24
Hierosis Scholar Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 81	Originally Posted by PerryLogan This is a reprehensible thread. There's not a shred of debunking going on here. It's really just a sort of lukewarm character assassination, based largely on the JREFers' ability to read minds. We are acting just like conspiracy guys--making a case out of nothing, deciding whom to ridicule. Well said. Rep. Kucinich has said since the day that the 9/11 Commission report was released that he felt it to be a convenient cover up (which it was, regardless of your side of the argument). He has CONSISTENTLY said that he feels a new investigation should take place where the conflicts of interest brought on board by the members aren't as prevelent as they were here. Actually many Hosue Democrats will tell you that if you take the time to talk to them. Does that mean they're saying that 9/11 was carried out by a mysterious cabal such as the New World Order of the Illuminati rather than Islamic terrorists? Absolutely not. It's a bit troubling to see that even asking the most basic questions about 9/11 will earn you an automatic thread on "ScrewLooseChange."
Hierosis Scholar Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 81

30th January 2007, 07:12 PM	#25
Anti-sophist Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 1,542	I hate this topic because it's where honest political inquiry and conspiracy theory merge. People like Bob Graham who have legitimate issues with the 9/11 commission and what is and isn't public knowledge get lumped into the most crazy and bizarre conspiracy theorist gibberish. Conspiracy theorists aren't smart enough to differentiate. They honestly believe that 9/11 was an inside job and all these people believe that as well... It's this kind of stuff that has led me to form a personal rule that I do not discuss LIHOP issue with anyone who believes a word of MIHOP. If you are that broken in the head to believe in the MIHOP nonsense, you don't have a hope or prayer for understanding LIHOP issues.
	__________________ A witty saying proves nothing. -Voltaire

30th January 2007, 08:09 PM	#26
David Wong Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,768	Can we at least agree that: 1. There was likely a significant number of 9/11 deniers at that rally? 2. That Mr. Kucinich is likely aware of the 9/11 denial movement? He has to get their letters, if nothing else. 3. That Mr. Kucinich therefore knew he was talking to some 9/11 deniers when he spoke? 4. That what he said could EASILY be interpreted as 9/11 denial if spoken in the context described above? And that he would have been aware of that when choosing the words? 5. That there is therefore a fair chance his words were chosen for that purpose? To throw them a bone and get their support, while not stepping completely over the line? 6. That, as evidence, we have a truther in this very thread who interpreted the words that very way? What's "reprehensible" about that? Other than Perry's desire to use the most inflammatory language possible when he slips into extreme partisan mode as he so often does when a member of the sacred Democrat party has been sullied? After all, if it's "reprehensible" to accuse Kucinich of playing to 9/11 deniers, then it's "reprehensible" for Perry to ever accuse Bush of lying. Either we take politicians' words at face value, or we don't. We can't make exceptions for our own political party, saying we should dig behind Bush's words but refuse to believe anything bad about Kucinich until he comes out and says it. How many of you believe Bush has been honest about his plans for the Middle East? No, it's smart to look at the context when any of these people are speaking. And in this case, in this climate, knowing who he was talking to and knowing what those people believe, it's very reasonable to say Kucinich was tossing a bone to the Truthers here.
	__________________ Author, John Dies at the End. Available now in hardcover. Editor, Cracked.com.

30th January 2007, 08:33 PM	#27
ConspiRaider Writer of Nothingnesses Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 11,169	Originally Posted by David Wong Can we at least agree that: 1. There was likely a significant number of 9/11 deniers at that rally? 2. That Mr. Kucinich is likely aware of the 9/11 denial movement? He has to get their letters, if nothing else. 3. That Mr. Kucinich therefore knew he was talking to some 9/11 deniers when he spoke? 4. That what he said could EASILY be interpreted as 9/11 denial if spoken in the context described above? And that he would have been aware of that when choosing the words? 5. That there is therefore a fair chance his words were chosen for that purpose? To throw them a bone and get their support, while not stepping completely over the line? 6. That, as evidence, we have a truther in this very thread who interpreted the words that very way? What's "reprehensible" about that? Other than Perry's desire to use the most inflammatory language possible when he slips into extreme partisan mode as he so often does when a member of the sacred Democrat party has been sullied? After all, if it's "reprehensible" to accuse Kucinich of playing to 9/11 deniers, then it's "reprehensible" for Perry to ever accuse Bush of lying. Either we take politicians' words at face value, or we don't. We can't make exceptions for our own political party, saying we should dig behind Bush's words but refuse to believe anything bad about Kucinich until he comes out and says it. How many of you believe Bush has been honest about his plans for the Middle East? No, it's smart to look at the context when any of these people are speaking. And in this case, in this climate, knowing who he was talking to and knowing what those people believe, it's very reasonable to say Kucinich was tossing a bone to the Truthers here. Well stated, and agree with the premise that DK was wink-wink-nudge-nudging the 911 Twoofers. Slickly done. Not unique - I've seen this tactic before from Dems in the spotlight. Once Bush is really gone (that's assuming he does not kill everybody in the next roughly 2 years) the Dems will drop this tactic, in my opinion.

30th January 2007, 09:39 PM	#28
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,428	Perry and Bolo, you guys have done great work in debunking. My point in posting this is not to get some silly little advantage over Dennis Kucinich who we can all agree is going to get about the same percentage of the vote in the Democratic primaries as he did in 2004, which is to say not much. But when Kucinich talks about "telling the truth about 9-11", he's either dumb or playing a game, and I don't think it's at all unreasonable to assume that he's not dumb. I will absolutely admit that I'd like to see the full speech, and I feel a little uncomfortable due to the edits in the video elsewhere. But I can't back away from the idea that pols who dip their toes in the swamp of 9-11 Denial deserve to have their feet bitten off--preferably by their own side. I have been harshly critical of Ron Paul for his flirting with Alex Jones and will remain so, even though I tend towards a lot of Paul's other ideas, being a Libertarian conservative myself. I am not going to allow my political philosophy to allow me to blind me to the fact that any politician who endorses the 9-11 nuttery, however obliquely (and this was not that oblique) deserves nothing but scorn.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog. Last edited by Brainster; 30th January 2007 at 09:42 PM.

30th January 2007, 09:55 PM	#29
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831	He doesn't seem to endorse 9/11 CTs on his website though. http://kucinich.us/search/node/9/11 Maybe he didn't mean "the truth about 9/11" the way Truthers do. Maybe he meant "truth" with a small 't'.

30th January 2007, 09:57 PM	#30
Cylinder Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Arkansas Posts: 3,859	So...why don't he just tell us the truth instead of telling of his plan to tell the truth? Is he waiting for sweeps week or something?
	__________________ If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm

30th January 2007, 10:02 PM	#31
DavidJames Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Front Range, CO Posts: 7,087	Originally Posted by ConspiRaider Well stated, and agree with the premise that DK was wink-wink-nudge-nudging the 911 Twoofers. Slickly done. In the absence of genuine CTist, it's good to see someone picking up the torch. Read what you said and then read what CTists say about what Sliversteen, Cheney, Bush etc. said. In lieu of facts, lets interpret their words. Sheesh, I hope the CTist come back soon to get people focused again .
	__________________ I will no longer respond to those who choose to have tools of murder as their avatars. Everyone is a skeptic except, of course, for the stuff that they believe Beaver Hateman: Is your argument that human life loses value proportionate to the number of humans available? Malcolm Kirkpatrick: That's part of the argument. Value is determined by supply and demand.

30th January 2007, 10:05 PM	#32
CurtC Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 4,758	Originally Posted by Brainster I have been harshly critical of Ron Paul for his flirting with Alex Jones and will remain so, even though I tend towards a lot of Paul's other ideas, being a Libertarian conservative myself. Hey, I actually voted for Ron Paul for president.
	__________________ Is there a God? Find the answer at The Official God FAQ.

30th January 2007, 10:06 PM	#33
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831	I agree with DavidJames, Kucinich seems to be referring to Iraq having no link to 9/11, and 9/11 being used to go for war, not anything about 9/11 being an inside job. At least, he doesn't mention anything about it in his website.

30th January 2007, 10:38 PM	#34
ConspiRaider Writer of Nothingnesses Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 11,169	Originally Posted by DavidJames In the absence of genuine CTist, it's good to see someone picking up the torch. Read what you said and then read what CTists say about what Sliversteen, Cheney, Bush etc. said. In lieu of facts, lets interpret their words. Sheesh, I hope the CTist come back soon to get people focused again . Well then call it best-guess speculation, which is still legal. Who can definitively infer exactly what Kucinich meant? No one. The only thing wrong with this thread is that it is NOT in the Politics forum. Your "picking up the torch" comment is way out of line. This cannot be compared, David, to what the woos infer from Silverstein's "pull it", correct? That's a bit of an unfair comparison you just made.

30th January 2007, 10:53 PM	#35
EvilSmurf JREF Bowl Pool Champion Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: The USA Posts: 1,551	I think he was certainly "dog-whistling" the twoofers. However, I do not think he was saying "9-11 was an inside job". If you take it in its full context, it looks to me like he was talking about how 9-11 was used as a justification to go into Iraq.
	__________________ Ah, Australian animals. If it isn't venomous, carnivorous, or has foot-long claws, it's a tourist.