Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

Visit these great anti-Madonna sites:

Madonna Blows Chunks: An Anti-Madonna Blog / Site (NEW!)

Madonna Blows Chunks: An Anti-Madonna Site (site closed as of May 2017)

madonnasuxx's Anti Madonna Site (Internet Archive)

Help us keep ads off our board!



Add us to your bookmarks!
(works in FireFox and Internet Explorer)
Please read the Discussion Board Rules before joining the board!
New Madonna haters: Come introduce yourself!
Board Help & Updates

Stop Forum Spam

  Full List of Emoticons
Avatars
Thread Indexes:

One Stop Index Thread | Persons | Subjects A - L | Subjects M - Z | Aisha's Lawsuit

Life Universe Everything Forum Index

Barf-inducing Madonna links or news -


Flea on Twitter: @fleadip / Link to Flea's Twitter Page | Follow admin Melissa on Twitter @melissatreglia


BREAKING & IMPORTANT MADONNA-RELATED NEWS:

See the "Shout Box" Section at the bottom of the discussion board's main page for the latest anti- Madonna news and links

Welcome to The Anti-Madonna Discussion Board. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
More Fun With Conspiracy Theories; - esp. 9/11, World Trade Cntr. Towers
Topic Started: Aug 15 2005, 05:33 PM (477 Views)
The 1 Not Fooled
Member Avatar
Licensed & Board-certified!

Part Two of my response -
Quote:
 
Unlike you, I don't usually subscribe to conspiracy theories or use them to understand phenomenon. Why would you assume that a shift in the Democratic Party was the result of a conspiracy theory? I certainly do not believe that it's due to any conspiracies.

If you'd like to find out how or why the Democratic Party was hi-jacked by the far left nut- cases, please get a copy of Rush Limbaugh's book See, I Told You So, published in 1993 by Pocket Books. I'm sure you could get a copy from a public library.

How the heck do you define conspiracy, then? You said "nutcases, so you must believe more than one person is responsible.
As for your supposition that I have some sort of emotional need to satisfy, such as in "Ooh, wouldn’t it be exciting if something secret and sinister was the real explanation”… I ask you, you do not feel the story of 19 fanatical Arab hijackers is sensational? Think about it: they sucked at aviation school, but were skillful enough to simultaneously hijack four planes and smash three of them into buildings without getting shot down? They were so passionate about their paradise with Allah and their “72 virgins” (or whatever) that they left their Qurans behind in their cars at the airport, after they dutifully brought them along the night before when they were letting loose at a strip joint.(Oh, yeah, that’s another thing – I guess they were still amazing pilots even with hangovers.) And of course everybody was so paralyzed with shock that absolutely no one thought to follow standard s.o.p. and send fighter jets out to intercept these hijacked planes until it was pretty much too late? And the twin towers collapsed neatly like, uh, controlled demolitions because the stress from the planes hitting them just caused the floors to topple pretty much symmetrically. Oh, and Building Seven came down because (insert Muslim-based reason here). How is this version any LESS sensational? Or LESS incredible?
And another point, which I'd been saving, but might as well use now:
Have you ever actually seen me sit and defend Clinton’s policies and/or personality? Urm, no. How about Gore? I thought not. Have I “bashed” Reagan (whose terms I barely remember, having been apathetic at the time), Ford, Nixon, Eisenhower, Dole, Kemp, Agnew, Nelson Rockefeller, Barry Goldwater, Joe McCarthy, Newt Gingrich, who else…??? And I can tell you I don’t really have any praise for Lyndon Johnson. So you might want to think about these things before you keep repeatedly tossing out silly accusations about me being a “Republican-basher”. :laugh:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
flea dip
Member Avatar
Rock Star From Mars

You know that Osama Bin Laden declared war on the USA some years ago, right?

I'd have to look it up, but I think Bin Laden did so while Clinton, and not George W. Bush, was in office. You can do a "google" on it, as I just did, and it showed up on many pages. Here is one such page, from CNN.com:

Previously unseen tape shows bin Laden's declaration of war

Bin Laden is viewed as a hero by many Muslims around the world, and this is why (the reason why: he hates Americans and Jews and encourages other extremist Muslims to kill Non-Muslims):
Here's an excerpt:
Quote:
 
ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- A never-before-seen al Qaeda video obtained by CNN shows Osama bin Laden declaring war against the United States and the West.

The tape of a May 26, 1998, news conference is among 64 obtained in Afghanistan from a source, who said the tapes were found in an Afghan house where bin Laden had stayed. Experts say the collection of tapes sheds new light on al Qaeda's training, capabilities and mindset.

"By God's grace," bin Laden says on the tape, "we have formed with many other Islamic groups and organizations in the Islamic world a front called the International Islamic Front to do jihad against the crusaders and Jews."

"And by God's grace," he says at another point in the tape, "the men ... are going to have a successful result in killing Americans and getting rid of them."
Now, the average conspiracy theorist will say that the above tape was "dis-information" put out by the government to quash the "real" story. Anything that disproves the conspiracy theory is a part of the conspiracy, so goes the thinking.

Just like when I told you there was film footage shown on the media of Muslims overseas rejoicing over the 9/11 attacks when they heard that Muslims had killed Americans - you chalked that up to a government or media cover-up, i.e.,
"How do *I* know that is what those Muslims were really doing, maybe they were rejoicing for some other reason?"

This demonstrates a lack of intellectual honesty.

You also may want to read The Problem of Unfalsifiable Claims.

Excerpt:
  • The desired implication is that acceptance and denial of the proposition is on the same level, which is a remarkably effective, if ultimately fallacious, rhetorical tool. Many in the audience will fail to realize that this is an argument from ignorance, a textbook logical fallacy. A claim is not true, or even likely, merely because it hasn't been adequately debunked.
I don't have full interest to address the rest of your post (I do not like arguing with people, for one thing), nor do I know if I want to, I will only skim it over. - So I may be missing some points here and there.
Quote:
 
How about Gore? .... So you might want to think about these things before you keep repeatedly tossing out silly accusations about me being a “Republican-basher”.
Didn't you tell me in another post in another thread that you were going to vote for Gore, or you wanted Gore to win? And I'm supposed to think you have absolutely no bias against Republicans and for Democrats?

9/11 happened under a Republican administration. Bush is a Republican, and by accusing him of being "in on" the 9/11 attacks (which is an immoral thing to do, as it's a disgusting charge with no evidence backing it up), you're bashing a Republican, yes.

The first time the Islamo-facists struck the World Trade Center towers was under Clinton's watch ("WTCA1," World Trade Center Attack 1), and Clinton was a Democrat.

Yet, I have not seen you accuse that Democratic president of knowing about WTCA1 in advance or sending out his secret collection of goons to orchestrate it. Islamo terrorists struck the USS Cole (and other American targets) under Clinton's watch, but I see you ascribing no blame to him for that.

The Able-Danger fiasco happened under Clinton, not Bush. Army intelligence individuals were prevented, under Clinton's administration, and thanks to Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, from letting other intelligence agencies know about Atta being in the nation.

But Bush gets blamed for 9/11?? :wth:

Lastly, you usually quote and listen to anti-Republican sources. You expect me to believe what they have to say; you cite such sites as your evidence.
Quote:
 
Oh, and Building Seven came down because (insert Muslim-based reason here). How is this version any LESS sensational? Or LESS incredible?
- etc etc

Just because something is a huge, unusual occurence and is "sensational" does not necessarily mean it's due to a conspiracy.

You don't have any proof. It's all speculation:
"Oh boy, I sure find "x" hard to believe, I think this idea of secret groups being involved is much more plausible and exciting, therefore, it MUST be a conspiracy!"
-or-
"It sure is odd that "x" happened like 'this' and not like 'that'!"

Those are suspicions, not evidence. That kind of thinking is not proof.
Quote:
 
You said "nutcases, so you must believe more than one person is responsible.
When I tell you that I don't believe that the shift in the Democratic Party was due to a conspiracy, as I did in my last post, you can take me at my word.

As I said, political parties change naturally over time, just like American fashions. My mom wore "saddle shoes" and "poodle skirts" when she was in high school. When I was in high school, on the other hand, I wore Nike sneakers, swatch watches, and Levi's jeans.

If you want to think that the Democratic Party's move to the far left was due to a conspiracy, that is up to you, but it is not what *I* believe.

Next point: So what if more than one person is involved in a movement or incident? Just because more than one person is involved in something doesn't necessarily make it a "conspiracy." I went grocery shopping with my sister about a week ago, I wouldn't peg that as a "conspiracy."
Quote:
 
I ask you, you do not feel the story of 19 fanatical Arab hijackers is sensational? Think about it: they sucked at aviation school,
Actually, that's not true according to a documentary I saw - I think it was on the National Geographic channel.

It was either their 9/11 special, or the one about the 9/11 hi-jackers and the role that their faith, Islam, played in the attack.

One of the flight teachers was interviewed, and he said one of the guys (I don't recall his name, but I remember it wasn't Atta; it was the one who wore glasses, he was said to be more friendly, less stern, than the others, more 'westernized,' and he had a girl friend) - the flight instructor said this guy was 'above average' in written tests and in flight tests.
Quote:
 
They were so passionate about their paradise with Allah and their “72 virgins” (or whatever)
Yes, this is in part what highly motivates them.

You are too quick to dismiss how important their religion is to them, how much it motivates them (I discuss this even more farther below).

If you read their Koran (I have read parts of it, translated), it TEACHES MUSLIMS to kill Non-Muslims, and to use deception, too. Please go read Taqiyya (Lying in Islam) to see what I mean.

Before I began posting about it, had you ever heard of "taqiyya?" Have you bothered to read any of the links I've given you about it?

Muslims are taught to conquer the world for Allah, and that killing others is a means of accomplishing this. They teach this openly in many Mosques around the world. Tony Blair in Britain recently banned some Islamic clerics from his nation for teaching these things publicly in their mosques and schools.

It is the goal of radical Muslims to institute Sharia Law all over the entire world. (I would hope that "moderate Muslims" don't want anything to do with such thinking, but the fundamentalist Muslims do want this.)

Have you heard of Sharia Law?

Please, go read Prophet of Doom.
Quote:
 
I ask you, you do not feel the story of 19 fanatical Arab hijackers is sensational?
So we're going to automatically assume that a 'sensational' event is due to a conspiracy? If there was a conspiratorial plot, it was by a bunch of religious extremist kooks to fly planes into U.S. landmarks.

From everything I've read, these Muslim fanatics are very, very patient people. They will wait decades or more to carry out an attack. They are very dedicated.

They're like the Japanese kamikaze (spelling?) pilots who would willingly fly suicide missions, fly their planes into U.S. bases and such for the greater cause, which for them, I am guessing, was the emperor of Japan.

The Apostles Paul and Peter, as well as early Christian believers such as Stephen (see the book of Acts, I think), were willing to be martyred for their faith, rather than renounce Jesus as mankind's savior and the Jewish messiah.

Buddhist monks have been known to set themselves on fire and kill themselves in protest to various things, such as the Vietnam Conflict.

Therefore, why would you then doubt that religion would or could motivate some Islamic crack pots to fly planes into buildings?

Oh, some of these idiots are promised money. Like I think Hamas, which is an Islamic terror group based in Palestine -

They are told if they blow themselves up in the process of blowing up some Jews (or Americans, Europeans, or whomever the favored target it at the time), their families will receive big bucks, a lot of money, from other Palestinians. So greed and money are other enticements for them (the money going to their poor families), not just spending eternity in Paradise with Allah and virgins.

Do you deny that some extremist Muslims teach that Muslims will be rewarded by Allah for killing Non-Muslims? Do you deny that to do this, they use the teaching of spending eternity in Paradise with Allah and that they get virgins?

Do you deny that some of the fanatical Muslims preach the use of violence against "infidels" (Non-Muslims), as well as against Muslims who wish to leave the Islamic faith?

-I hope you do not deny those things, because all of those things are spelled out in the Islamic Koran and in the Hadith, as well as in public pronouncements by some imams (Muslim clergy).

Posted Image I mainly wanted to post this: Posted Image

Another example - which actually was reported a few days ago, but I haven't been on the computer at all for about five days.

I'm amazed only that the headlines didn't scream, "George W. Bush's Nephew Arrested for Intoxication."

But we all know who Jeb Bush's brother is, don't we? *wink wink, nudge nudge*

I see that the Houston Chronicle, via Reuters, point blank mentioned President (George) Bush in recounting this story:
  • Sept 16, 2005
    John Ellis Bush, the son of Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and nephew of President Bush, was arrested in Austin today on charges of public intoxication and resisting arrest, police said.
More links:Many, many other news agencies are carrying this story, this was only a few.

I note that some liberal blogs are also carrying this story, making conservatives out to be hypocrites.

Er, you're not going to find any conservatives condoning Jeb Bush's son getting drunk. Anyway, this is another example of the main stream media reporting (negatively) on a family member (one who is not a public figure) of a Republican / conservative, something that can cause damage or embarrasment to a Republican politician.
-----------------------------
Taqiyya (Lying in Islam)

Prophet of Doom

Al Qaeda Training Manual

Islamic schools under abuse scrutiny.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 1 Not Fooled
Member Avatar
Licensed & Board-certified!

Um, I hope you noticed I had backed off for a while, but since you posted a strong reply to this thread, I will respond.
Bin Laden=CIA asset, so I take any "news" about him with a grain of salt.
Quote:
 
"How do *I* know that is what those Muslims were really doing, maybe they were rejoicing for some other reason?"

This demonstrates a lack of intellectual honesty.

No, it demonstrates a willingness to question mainstream media. I don't keep calling you "dishonest" because you believe something I don't. Why do you persist in doing so?
Quote:
 
Didn't you tell me in another post in another thread that you were going to vote for Gore, or you wanted Gore to win? And I'm supposed to think you have absolutely no bias against Republicans and for Democrats?

Yes, I completely and 100% own up to this fact. And - you can check this out by going back - it was because Tipper Gore was an advocate for people with mental illness, as she went public about her struggle with bipolar disorder. What does that have to do with either party?
Quote:
 
9/11 happened under a Republican administration. Bush is a Republican, and by accusing him of being "in on" the 9/11 attacks (which is an immoral thing to do, as it's a disgusting charge with no evidence backing it up), you're bashing a Republican, yes.

The Bushes have really been the only Republican Presidents that I have spoken out against. Are you going to ignore the good point I made about all the other Republicans I have not "bashed" (your defintion of expressing dissent)?
Quote:
 
Yet, I have not seen you accuse that Democratic president of knowing about WTCA1 in advance or sending out his secret collection of goons to orchestrate it.

Admittedly, I don't know as much about the WTCA1, as I was rather sick at the time. I don't give any apologies for Clinton (have you seen me do so? No.)
In fact, I just briefly mentioned his administration's complicity in WACO and the Oklahoma City Bombing, and no, I did not tie either Bush' name into it, LOL.
Quote:
 
You don't have any proof. It's all speculation:
"Oh boy, I sure find "x" hard to believe, I think this idea of secret groups being involved is much more plausible and exciting, therefore, it MUST be a conspiracy!"
-or-
"It sure is odd that "x" happened like 'this' and not like 'that'!"

Those are suspicions, not evidence. That kind of thinking is not proof.

And I asked you, how is believing the official version of events is any less "exciting". You did not answer the question. Also, why did Building Seven fall down?
Quote:
 
Next point: So what if more than one person is involved in a movement or incident? Just because more than one person is involved in something doesn't necessarily make it a "conspiracy." I went grocery shopping with my sister about a week ago, I wouldn't peg that as a "conspiracy."

I just asked you to be consistent in your definition of a conspiracy, and you come back at me with (what I guess you feel are analogies) about somebody accusing your father, or you and your sister grocery shopping. Why are you making this personal? :wth:
Quote:
 
Do you deny that some extremist Muslims teach that Muslims will be rewarded by Allah for killing Non-Muslims? Do you deny that to do this, they use the teaching of spending eternity in Paradise with Allah and that they get virgins?

For the 1,257th time, I do NOT "deny" that there are extremist Muslims. I just think we should be 100% sure of their lone guilt in such matters before we go bombing the crap out of other countries and spreading radioactive materials around. If that makes me "immoral" as you have so pronounced me, then you must have a very bizarre way of defining the word.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
flea dip
Member Avatar
Rock Star From Mars

1NF said,
Quote:
 
And I asked you, how is believing the official version of events is any less "exciting".
I don't regard what happend on 9/11 as being "exciting" in the same sense that conspiracy buffs find conspiracies "exciting."

What happened on 9/11 was reality, a fact of life. It was sad and tragic, it was not entertainment.

Conspiracy theories are the equivalent of pulp fiction novels (i.e., to some people, intriguing, enticing entertainment).
Quote:
 
You did not answer the question. Also, why did Building Seven fall down?
Why should I answer the question?

But here's my answer: Because an Islamic terrorist flew a plane into it. (Look up Occam's Razor. :) )

You have zero proof for your conspiracy theories. I think that's part of the reason why they're called "theories."

It's all based on "what ifs" or "isn't it odd that..."
  • (i.e., "If a plane hit Building Seven, wouldn't you expect thus- and- so to happen, but oddly and strangely, it did not, so answer me, how did Building Seven fall down?! So obviously, Flea, this points to a conspiracy theory!!!!!")
but there's no evidence, only "you can't trust the official version of events."

Let's say that I can never explain why or how Bldg. 7 fell down.

My inability to come up with an alternative explanation (and one that suits your ultra, per-snick-iety conspiracy theory world view) does not automatically prove your thesis that there was a conspiracy.

To put this another way - and at first this won't seem related at all, but it is (to the point directly above)...

While reading more Free Republic board visitor reviews of "Brokeback Mountain," (a film about two male sheep herders who become lovers), I came across a post that quoted C. S. Lewis.

Someone on the Free Republic board had explained that it was the homosexual community's standard operating procedure to make any and all close male friendships (we're talking totally platonic friendships) out to be homo-erotic, as this helps to advance their cause of making homosexuality appear normal and common place.

Here's a C. S. Lewis passage that someone quotes, and yes, it applies to what I was saying about conspiracy theories and lack of evidence, not being able to offer alternative explanations, etc. etc.:
  • C.S. Lewis had a funny riff on this one, in The Four Loves:

    It has actually become necessary in our time to rebut the theory that every firm and serious friendship is really homosexual.

    The dangerous world 'really' is here important. To say that every Friendship is consciously and explicitly homosexual would be too obviously false; the wiseacres take refuge in the less palpable charge that it is really - unconsciously, cryptically, in some Pickwickian sense - homosexual.

    And this, though it can never be proved, can never of course be refuted.

    The fact that no positive evidence of homosexuality can be discovered in the behavior of two Friends does not disconcert the wiseacres at all: "That," they say gravely, "is just what we should expect."

    The very lack of evidence is thus treated as evidence; the absence of smoke proves that the fire is very carefully hidden.

    Yes - if it exists at all. But we must first prove its existence.

    Otherwise we are arguing like a man who should say "If there were an invisible cat in that chair, the chair would look empty; but the chair does look empty; therefore there is an invisible cat in it."

    A belief in invisible cats cannot perhaps be logically disproved, but it tells us a good deal about those who hold it. ...
You never did understand why that blog which quoted that lame Lyndon LaRouche paper was not proof for your assertion that the USA was going to nuke Iran by October 2005, either. :)

You can't or don't seem to understand 'fact verses opinion' or 'speculation vs. evidence.'

The editorial page of a newspaper is NOT the same thing as the front section of the news paper which carries hard, objective news.

A hard, objective news piece would consist of,
  • #1. Today a dog bit a man in the park. The dog was small and brown.
An opinion/editorial piece would be,
  • #2. I think it's just awful when dogs bite people in parks. I think the police should more strictly enforce leash laws.
Point #1 is either true or false. That event either happened or it did not.

Point #1 - Either it was accurate or it wasn't (the dog was small and brown or large and purple.) Or it was partially accurate, the dog was small but green.

If Point #1 actually happened, it has the ability to be proven - by asking anyone who may have witnessed the event if the dog bit the man or not.

Point #2 is simply giving an opinion on an event that may have happened, but it doesn't prove if #1 happened or not, nor does it prove how accurate #1's depiction of events is.

Even if there was a conspiracy in Point #1 and the dog did not bite the man but the man made it all up (to conspire against dogs - he's a "cat person"), one should look to prove or disprove it in the same way.

Can you bring me any witnesses who saw what happened, for example? Any video footage of the man with the dog in the park, etc. that shows me that the dog at no time bit the man?

You'd probably wish to argue that the reason we don't have any video tapes of the man's day in the park is because the video tapes showing the dog biting (or not biting) the man were destroyed or hidden by some secret group. And this lack of evidence should be taken as evidence for your position. :laugh:

You might want to ask me things like, "Explain to me how, if he was bitten by the dog, there are no bite marks on his leg! If you cannot do so, it proves there was a conspiracy!"

-Maybe the dog jumped up and bit the guy on the arm and not the leg, I don't know. The point is, my inability to come up with a billion different other plausible ways of how it could've happened or not happened or why or how he does or does not have a bite mark doesn't prove your conspiracy theory.

But what this (conspiracy theories) has to do with the media being liberally biased (the topic of this thread), I don't know, but then, it's been weeks since I've looked this thread over.

I don't remember how or why the 9/11 stuff was brought up. (It's even possible that I brought it up in this thread, but I don't know why I would've done so.)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 1 Not Fooled
Member Avatar
Licensed & Board-certified!

Quote:
 
I don't regard what happend on 9/11 as being "exciting" in the same sense that conspiracy buffs find conspiracies "exciting."

What happened on 9/11 was reality, a fact of life. It was sad and tragic, it was not entertainment.

Oh, so now I consider 9/11 to be "entertainment"? Here we go again with the ad hominem...
Quote:
 
 
You did not answer the question. Also, why did Building Seven fall down? 

Why should I answer the question?

But here's my answer: Because an Islamic terrorist flew a plane into it. (Look up Occam's Razor.)

Wow! So there was a fifth plane and it crashed into Building Seven? Why hasn't the rest of the world heard about this?:) (Occam's Razor doesn't really seem to apply when people have a vested interest in believing one explanation over others, so I don't know why you bring it up.)
Anyways, I got you on this point. And since you subscribe to the "Oswald-did-it-all-by-his-Commie-self" explanation of JFK's assassination, you believe in The Single/Magic Bullet THEORY.
You said:
Quote:
 
A hard, objective news piece would consist of,
#1. Today a dog bit a man in the park. The dog was small and brown.

And hard, objective news pieces state (and film footage PROVES it) that Building Seven was not hit by a plane. Building Seven collapsed in the late afternoon/early evening hours of 9/11. All your fancy philosophical posturing does not address this.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ironshadow
#1 mandona hater

Oh, come the #$#$ on. WTC7 was on fire from the minute it was hit by tons of flaming debris. It burned all day and collapsed as soon as the mass of that structure reached instability.
Why do you want to waste your time buying into this conspiracy crap? Are you aware that this sh!t was authored by the Baath party (which was created by the Nazis in WW2) and piled onto by the Republican's political opponents? Do you have any idea how many billions these combined bastards have spent on attacking Bush and trying to keep terrorism and the instability in the middle east going?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maddyhater
Member Avatar
Duranie Madonna Hater
[ *  *  * ]
Have you ever noticed that noone seems to "win" these political arguements? I'm sick to death of EVERY politican anymore, Dems and Reps. They are all crooked a-holes and out to line their own pockets. I hope sometime before I die that I can vote for an honest politician without having to feel like I settled for less.





MH
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 1 Not Fooled
Member Avatar
Licensed & Board-certified!

Quote:
 
Oh, come the #$#$ on. WTC7 was on fire from the minute it was hit by tons of flaming debris. It burned all day and collapsed as soon as the mass of that structure reached instability.

At least you actually attempted to answer this, although I could take this further by asking why this collapse was so nice and symmetrical just like a demolition?
As for this part
Quote:
 
Why do you want to waste your time buying into this conspiracy crap? Are you aware that this sh!t was authored by the Baath party (which was created by the Nazis in WW2) and piled onto by the Republican's political opponents? Do you have any idea how many billions these combined bastards have spent on attacking Bush and trying to keep terrorism and the instability in the middle east going?

are you saying everybody's been conspiring since WWII to bring down Republicans? :confused:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
flea dip
Member Avatar
Rock Star From Mars

1NF, I do not know or care about the details of any "Bldg. 7. " I do not care to argue boring minutia with you.

I am not an engineer, jet plane pilot, or architect, so I cannot provide in-depth, scientifically satisfying responses as to how and why a plane crashes / buliding collapses. But apparently without degrees in any of those areas, you think you can.

Even if I could do so, given the conspiracy theorist mind set (which is prone to paranoia or unreasonable, hyper-skepticism), you'd try to explain away any such reasoning as being "planted" by the men in black precisely to throw us off.

I've actually seen this happen.

Went to a site by a pro-9/11 conspiracy theorist months ago, where he tore through a paper arguing against the 9/11 conspiracy theory view, and he just explained it away by piling on speculation after speculation, unproven theory on unproven theory.

I repeat a point I raised before:

Just because someone cannot offer an alternative explanation does not mean that yours is necessarily correct.


About the silliest thing I do with my time is search for funny anti-Madonna articles on the web.

I am not interested in investing (wasting) my time pouring over fringe, kook web sites that contain hundreds of pages spouting off how and why a tall building can collapase, or how and why a plane plows into other structures.

(And I'm sure all the authors of such pro-conspiracy theory pages are experts at architecture, aerodynamics, explosives, engineering :laugh:)

I have skimmed such sites before, but I don't care to invest hours in it.

If this conspiracy theory was as evident as you think it is, more people would've seen it - but this gets into the ego of conspiracy theorists, which I discuss below.

Someone somewhere would've reported on it by now if such a thing had happened. There's not a journalist alive who would keep it a secret, since it would equal big ratings and all kinds of awards and prestige.

I agree with Iron Shadow. I don't know why anyone would want to invest time in conspiracy theories like this.
Quote:
 
Oh, so now I consider 9/11 to be "entertainment"? Here we go again with the ad hominem...
It's not meant to be ad hominem.

I think people who are into this nonsense find if utterly fascinating, it's a kind of entertainment - and it's a boost to the ego.

You're in this select group who feels that they and they alone see "the truth" while the rest of us are easily misled and too stupid to see it or figure it out.

You're just so much more clever and smarter than the rest of us simpletons.

I'm just one of the "sheeple," so easily duped and misled.
Quote:
 
All your fancy philosophical posturing does not address this.
What "fancy philosophical posturing" are you talking about?

I see holes in your position without having to argue the smaller, finer points - such as how or why a Building 7 blew up.

I used to debate religious kooks who believed that the King James Version was the only word of God, the only "true" Bible.

I could see holes in the underlying views of the King James Version Only belief system, so that it was not even necessary having to poke holes and debate them on the finer points.

They'd want to argue over why or why not 1 Jn 5.7 (or whatever verse it was) should or shouldn't be in the New Testament, why wasn't it in the NIV, rather than address the overall concept of textual (ie. manuscripts) / translational matters of the Bible, which would explain why or why not 1 Jn 5.7 was an authentic reading.

Because I knocked the legs out from the basis of their position - what supported their views on details - it wasn't even necessary to argue about the details.

To put this another way:

If your underlying assumptions, premises, etc. are sloppy, illogical, and what have you, it follows that many of the points that comes after it will be as well.

Therefore, there is no need to debate finer points about how a building blew up.
It would be a waste of my time and your time to debate the details. The conspiracy theory way of looking at the world and the sloppy, dishonest way it handles evidence is incorrect to start with.


To put this as kindly as I can...
Based upon posts I have seen of yours on these issues, you are not a good critical thinker, not at topics such as this. You don't know how to handle news reports.

I still don't think you grasp the difference between fact/opinion and straight news vs. opinion/editorial- and that's kid's stuff; there's nothing fancy and philosophical about it. If you have a college degree, you should know that. I'm stating it as I see it, that's not meant as ad hominen.

Besides that (or because of it), I see no sense in trying to talk rationally with someone and to have a rational debate with a conspiracy theorist. It can't be done. I've explained why before - actually, I've explained it again in this very post....

You'll notice I usually don't respond to these conspiracy theory threads. I can just feel my I.Q. going down anytime I get involved in such threads. :laugh:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 1 Not Fooled
Member Avatar
Licensed & Board-certified!

Quote:
 
1NF, I do not know or care about the details of any "Bldg. 7. " I do not care to argue boring minutia with you.

Well, you should if you want your pro-official-storyline arguments to be taken seriously. Your choice, really.
Quote:
 
I am not an engineer, jet plane pilot, or architect, so I cannot provide in-depth, scientifically satisfying responses as to how and why a plane crashes / buliding collapses. But apparently without degrees in any of those areas, you think you can.

Your favorite "if-it-walks-like-a-duck" comes into play here. If it looks like a controlled demolition...
Quote:
 
If this conspiracy theory was as evident as you think it is, more people would've seen it

Denial is a pesky thing, isn't it?
Quote:
 
You're in this select group who feels that they and they alone see "the truth" while the rest of us are easily misled and too stupid to see it or figure it out.

You're just so much more clever and smarter than the rest of us simpletons.

I give people much more credit than you realize. I feel the majority of people have the ability to comprehend what's going on here. I'd say very few people are "too stupid" to understand it once they see it. Some conspiracy theorists may get an ego boost from this, just as some Bush supporters do (just look at your remark about "losing IQ points"). If you posit that ALL people who have ever believed in a conspiracy theory EVER are such elitists, then you need to prove it. Otherwise, your position is just another theory.
Quote:
 
You'll notice I usually don't respond to these conspiracy theory threads.

You do and you'll be back for more. :laugh:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 1 Not Fooled
Member Avatar
Licensed & Board-certified!

I just saw a wacky pseudo-scientific thing on the Discovery Channel called “JFK: Beyond The Magic Bullet” or something like that. Well, actually I caught ¾ of it. I say it’s pseudo-science because even though these blokes had their crafty measurements and their clever gelatin torso replicas, this ain’t true detective work. You don’t take a pre-supposition/foregone conclusion (“Oswald did it all alone”) and then try to tweak everything to see how you can make the facts “fit”. However, they tried their darnedest. They couldn’t completely replicate the fate of the magic bullet because IT ENDED UP SMASHED SOMEWHAT, NOT PRISTINE. But they did what I think is called a “bait-and-switch”. They tried to make you forget about the final state of the test bullet by having some {pathologist? coroner?} “autopsy” the fake torsos. Supposedly, this guy had no clue what was being simulated here (yeah, only if he’s lived in a cave all his life). His impression was that he was looking at damage caused by two different bullets, which proves…jack sh*t! He looked at models (which did not have “clothing”, by the way) – a most interesting omission* - which were for mimicking bullet paths, not autopsies (What about blood splatter patterns and skin? Muscles that were in the action of flexing? Organs? Oh, forget it…) So, because they confused some guy into “mis-concluding” that there was more than one bullet involved, PRESTO!! This faulty logic somehow lays to rest all the unanswered questions.
I must say, it was very entertaining. Given the fact that this was airing on the Discovery Channel, I was fully expecting someone to “find” the {temporarily lost} test bullet undamaged in the brush, LOL. And all this doesn’t change the fact that forty some years ago, doctors and medical examiners could tell you that you don’t have a bullet do that much harm and look untouched. And I’m sure they didn’t have gelatin blocks at their disposal!
* All the better to have the bullet trajectory line up according to the Warren Report…
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
flea dip
Member Avatar
Rock Star From Mars

I still do not see why you used the term "self loathing Jew" in response to the post I made in the other thread, as I didn't mention anything about religion in my post about 9/11 movies.

Aside from maybe a couple of exceptions, I do not see what someone's religion has to do with their patriotism (or lack there-of), so from whence comes the "self loathing Jew" sarcastic remark?

I could care less if Spielberg is a Jew, Gentile, atheist, or rock-worshipper.

If he produces a film that makes excuses for the Islamic terrorists (who are the enemies of the American people -and of Europeans- and not just of Israel), he is anti American.
Quote:
 
Apparently, I said that back in August,
Yes, it was in an old thread. I didn't look at that thread until yesterday, when I wanted to add links about the new United 93 movie.

You did choose to comment on my comment the other day. You certainly don't have to reply to this post.

There are a number of threads where I gave you last word, where I did not even go back into the thread to read your last post.
Quote:
 
and as you should have noticed, I have refrained from commenting on political stuff for a few months now.
And I haven't really made any political posts - especially not in the Outlook forum - for a month or two now.

I mainly post about new medical techniques and so on in this forum.
Quote:
 
I gave up on trying to have rational discussions with you because...well, let's just leave it at "it doesn't work".
If you read our older threads about conspiracy theories, I was the one who told you originally I did not care to continue because I could not have a rational discussion with you.

- Largely because some of the kookier conspiracy theories are not rational in and of themselves.
Quote:
 
FWIW, my remark was directly related to the post you made before it where you said
More liberal bias/ anti-Americanism to look forward to from Hollywood:
- Yes, I realize that was the post you were replying to.

And, btw, that was the only comment I made in that post!

The rest of that post consisted of a long review I pasted in. That one remark I put in that post didn't warrant the sarcastic response I received.

The article I quoted from was correct - movies of late (or ones scheduled to come out in the future) have been sympathetic to terrorists, including the Muslim ones, so yeah, that makes those films anti-American.
Quote:
 
"V" for Vendetta was mentioned, starring Natalie Portman, as was Steven Spielberg's "Munich". Why anyone would call him "anti-American" was what had me scratching my head.
More specifically, if I remember correctly, I think the article I pasted in was saying the MOVIES were anti-American, not necessarily the people themselves who directed the movies (though I suppose the people behind them would have to be, to produce such anti-American ~ or pro-terrorist ~ trash).

Why are such films (and possibly those who make them) anti American? Here's why:

Anti American because such films were depicting terrorism and terrorists in a favorable light, including (in the case of Spielberg) Muslim terrorists.

Seeing as how the Islamic terrorists hate all Jews, the nation Israel, Hindus, Buddhists, Americans, and Christians (in short, all Non Muslims), and that they repeately blow people up (and threaten to) -

- my view is that any American who sides with them or rationalizes their violent behavior is anti-American, as well as anti-Western civilization. Islamic terrorists are enemies of the United States.

Back around the '40s, Hollywood actually made some decent pro-American films, to unify the American people and to support our troops. These days, they generally do not do that, they go the opposite route.

The American entertainment industry is by and large LIBERAL - so their movies are colored with pro-liberal views. Their movies serve as propaganda.

Please name all the conservative entertainers in rock / pop/ rap / or in the movies that you know of. You'll come up with a very short list.

Notice how at the Democratic conventions or at Democratic fundraisers, you'll see lots of famous singers, actors, etc. in attendance (Streisand is one very famous example.) -That's because most entertainers are liberal Democrats.

As for the Jarhead movie - I didn't see it or bother to read too much about it, so I don't know about that specifically.

I am not saying that every single movie out there is pro-terrorist or necessarily has a leftist political agenda, but some of them do.

I even pointed out in the other post in the other thread (which is entitled "Movies about 9/11 and Terrorism") that I was happy that the self-avowed liberal who directed United 93 didn't allow his personal political views color the film too much or how the story was told.
--------------------
EDIT: Hours after I made this post, I made a political one in the Global forum. It was a response to "Maddy Hater's" political post in the "Life and ... Everything" forum.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 1 Not Fooled
Member Avatar
Licensed & Board-certified!

Quote:
 
I still do not see why you used the term "self loathing Jew" in response to the post I made in the other thread, as I didn't mention anything about religion in my post about 9/11 movies.

Aside from maybe a couple of exceptions, I do not see what someone's religion has to do with their patriotism (or lack there-of), so from whence comes the "self loathing Jew" sarcastic remark?

I could care less if Spielberg is a Jew, Gentile, atheist, or rock-worshipper.

Mine was not some "out-of-the blue" remark like you're trying to make it seem. You have used that term before in describing some people who supported or endorsed something that you did not feel they should have. Yes, I could understand if you were talking about, say, Jews who became Nazis/neo-Nazis, but I do not believe that was the case. Yes, my tone was sarcastic, but it was my way of wondering what you were going to say next, since you sure gave the impression of having pre-decided that these movies were "Anti-American" just because that author used the magic words.
Anyways, I'm not going to post it, but I had recently seen a very appropos (sp?) article where the author suggested a simple experiment: that the reader invite two friends over to watch the nightly news on a mainstream media network such as NBC or CBS, one friend being a self-avowed "right-wing" person and the other a "left-wing" type. Lo and behold! Both people will have watched the same exact broadcast, but each will be convinced that it's slanted "toward the other side".
But as I said, I will no longer anymore try to challenge you to re-think your constant use of labels, because you take it personally, even though you implied that you were open to intelligent debate.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
flea dip
Member Avatar
Rock Star From Mars

Quote:
 
Mine was not some "out-of-the blue" remark like you're trying to make it seem. You have used that term before in describing some people who supported or endorsed something that you did not feel they should have.
Yes, it was out of the blue.

You're missing the point (perhaps deliberately?) :dunno:

Yes, I have used the term "self loathing Jew" before, but that was in threads about Judaism or Zionism.

The thread to which you refer, however, was not about religion, it was about movies.

You used the phrase "self loathing Jew" in a thread where I did not use that phrase myself, nor did I discuss Zionism or anti-Semitic people or anti-Semitic views in that thread.

Your use of the phrase "self loathing Jew" was out of place in that thread, there was no need for it.

I can't emphasize this enough:

I didn't bring up religion or use that term because that is a thread which pertains to movies about 9/11, (especially movies by liberals who portray terrorists in their films in a sympathetic way).

Any discussion of religion in that thread would be incidental, since many of the movies mentioned dealt with Islamic terrorists.

Just because I mention someone in a thread who happens to be a Jew - and it's a thread that doesn't have anything to do with religion or Zionism - doesn't mean I am discussing Judaism / Zionism, nor is it an excuse for you to use the phrase "self loathing Jew" sarcastically, as you did in this case.
Quote:
 
since you sure gave the impression of having pre-decided
You got the correct impression!

Why the insistence that someone has to sit through a film in its entirety to know what it's about or to form some kind of opinion about it?

I have to sit through a Madonna movie to determine that it sucks?

I know beforehand it's going to suck (it's a pretty sure bet), therefore, I really don't have to watch it firsthand. I can read reviews of the film and watch clips taken from the film, too.

The piece of trash book TDVC (The Da Vinci Code) is being made into a movie which is supposed to be released in a few months.

I haven't read the book, nor do I have to see the movie ---

-- I've already read many books / articles etc. which summarize TDVC's content (and which point out its many mistakes) to already know what it's about -
  • (e.g., - and ALLEGEDLY - Jesus was married, the Holy Grail supposedly referred to Mary Magdalene, Mary Magdalene and Jesus had children together, the Roman Catholic Church allegedly (falsely) ascribed deity to Jesus, etc.)
So why would I have to see TDVC movie (or read the book for that matter)?
Quote:
 
you to re-think your constant use of labels,
What is the hang up with "labels?" I don't have a problem with it.

I know you mentioned it once before in an old thread, but labels just don't bug me.

My label (one of them) = "conservative Republican."

Another would be "Madonna hater." :laugh:

I wouldn't find it insulting if someone gave me those labels, as they describe accurately who and what I am.
Quote:
 
because you take it personally, even though you implied that you were open to intelligent debate.
I am open to intelligent debate, but . . .

1.) kooky conspiracy theories (Oswald didn't act alone, Bush was behind 9/11, aliens abduct people to perform experiment on them) are not "intelligent," from what I've seen, partly because they can't be backed up with documented, verifiable proof.

2) you generally use sarcasm in your posts, while I have tried to remain polite despite it. I think the use of sarcasm indicates that you may also be taking things personally.

I do take sarcasm personally, especially when I've gone out of my way to be a nice person in the discussion.

Am I always perfect in these aspects? No -

- but I usually do not get rude / sarcastic until I've taken it off the other person time after time after time. (I can only turn the cheek so many times before I lose my temper and snap back.)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 1 Not Fooled
Member Avatar
Licensed & Board-certified!

I’m well aware of what YOU consider to be intelligent debate; it mostly consists of bashing open-minded individuals. I prefer not to go around insulting people who believe differently than I do.
Yes, I readily admit that I enjoy defending conspiracy theorists from sarcastic attempts to paint them all as excitement-starved lunatics who always react predictably. And when I’m provoked, I’ll fire back, no matter how politically incorrect and/or blunt I may be. (No, I do not use epithets, unless you count the word “c*nt” in reference to a certain world-renowned b*tch we all can’t stand, LOL.)
A frequent mistake coincidence theorists make is to assume that someone such as myself simply must believe whole-heartedly in EACH and EVERY single theory out there, heck, even if they’re mutually exclusive. Honestly, you’ll never hear me talking about Area 51, Elvis “faking” his own death, Jesus fathering children with Mary Magdalene, etc.

Having said thus, the following really is my last political post on this board*:

You may be wondering why I’ve chosen the present time to “announce” my intentions. Actually, I’d quietly made my decision a couple of months ago. But you recently responded belligerently to a comment from last summer (“do you want to start fights?”) So, I made an attempt to explain where I was coming from, since you have a tendency to take my comments out of context and make me out to be antagonistic.
Despite what you think, I’m not out to attack your mores, as I’m actually quite conservative myself in some aspects. (That is, I completely abstain from – and actively loathe – promiscuity, drinking alcohol, and smoking of any kind.)
OK – so why did I start posting, stop, and then come back after a “hiatus”? Well, just keep in mind that I didn’t immediately start making political posts when I first joined the board. But both times it was the constant pacifist-trashing and “anti-American” remarks that compelled me to point out certain things:

1) Not all people who object to this war are universally alike. They are not ALL hippie-wannabe’s trying to make themselves look good (which, ironically, was EXACTLY what I thought about Gulf War 1 dissenters when I was in college.) For what it’s worth, I’ve never been particularly impressed by hippies. Pee-yew!
2) Just because someone does not agree with this war and/or this current administration does NOT make them “anti-American”, nor does it make them apologists for extremist Muslims.
3) Branding people as “anti-American” is rapidly becoming akin to calling somebody a Communist in the 1950’s. I’m not going to insult anybody’s intelligence here by explaining the McCarthy era. But dangerous precedents are being set here and now (especially with the spying on civilians) which puts the U.S. on the path to becoming a police state.
(I know you’ll want to debate these points, but please read this to the end before replying.)
And just for the record, I do NOT spit on soldiers/veterans/recruits. Nor do I go around calling them “baby killers”. I do not endorse such behavior and never have. I do not know anybody that does.

I can’t discuss this political stuff with you because it gets nasty in no time. Despite your “no-skin-off-my-nose” protests, I realize now that it’s just too personal for you.
Although my tone throughout most of this long-winded post is angry, I’d like to end on a softer note. (I am not being sarcastic here.) I’m sorry. I made a mistake twice; I WON’T do it a third time. You have my word.

*From now on – permanently – the political content of my posts will be limited to just reporting Madonna’s latest phony criticisms of the current war and administration, etc.

P.S. Thus, if there are any other old threads in which I had the last word and it was an angry one, I’m asking you if you could ignore it. Right now I don’t recall everything that I’ve said, but I won’t be back to comment on it one way or another.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
flea dip
Member Avatar
Rock Star From Mars

Sadly, kookiness can also come from the Right of the political spectrum, too - though I posit this kind of thing comes from the Left far more often.

(I for one don't think that Obama is "plotting with terrorists to attack the U.S.," unless someone can come forth with some pretty strong evidence to the contrary):

Education official refuses to retract Obama terror claim
  • Nov 3, 2008

    AUSTIN — State Board of Education member Cynthia Dunbar isn't backing down from her claim that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is plotting with terrorists to attack the U.S.

    The Texas Freedom Network, a watchdog group that monitors the board, released a public statement on Monday asking Dunbar to retract the statement.

    "I don't have anything in there that would be retractable," said Dunbar, R-Richmond. "Those are my personal opinions and I don't think the language is questionable."

    In a column posted on the Christian Worldview Network Web site, Dunbar wrote that a terrorist attack on America during the first six months of an Obama administration "will be a planned effort by those with whom Obama truly sympathizes to take down the America that is threat to tyranny."

    She also suggests Obama would seek to expand his power by declaring martial law throughout the country.

    "No matter who you support for president, we should all be able to agree that Ms. Dunbar's disgusting attack is a shocking example of the extremism that has infected the state board," TFN President Kathy Miller said.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mihoshi Marie
Member Avatar
to whom it may concern
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I doubt he's working with terrorists. Just like that whole thing about him being born in Kenya. Or the rumor that he stole the election.

These silly conspiracy theories aren't going to do the right any good. We should try to be civil when discussing our differences.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
noone3
Member Avatar
Desperately Seeking Clarity
[ *  *  *  * ]
“Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members. The virtue in most request is conformity. Self-reliance is its aversion. It loves not realities and creators, but names and customs.”

Ralph Waldo Emerson.
One thing i accept as an axiom in life is this-"Whenever a truth makes one uncomfortable with their reality they will reject truth". I have made it a point in life to listen to the opinions of others because, guess what, I might be wrong. I want the truth, i seek the truth. If doesn't matter if that truth shatters my reality. I seek it for it's own sake. Most people want to live stable, ordered lives. I don't begrudge them, however i would ask those of you who do not wish to seek out truth not to be disrespectful to those who do seek it. Those who would explore the areas where you wouldn't tread.

Films like Loose Change do present factual evidence. Comparing a Madonna film and Loose Change is silly. Real information should not be scoffed at. Operation Paper Clip was once widely regarded as a conspiracy theory. It has since been proven this country did indeed smuggle Nazi war criminals into the country. It's been proven forced sterilization was in practice in this country and we injected black males with syphilis. Those ideas were at one point called wild conspiracy theories. It's no longer conspiracy once the apparent outrage over such an act would be gone. Then it doesn't matter if anyone knows about it. People will be so busy mindlessly consuming they won't care if their government has been directly responsible for suffering, death and misery around the globe. American's have this messianic mindset about their country. American is "going to free the world" etc. America would do better to leave people alone and let them live in peace.

My husband is in Afghanistan right now. I don't want to hear about how this war is just. I came to terms with it long ago when i sat there and watched a woman holding her child's brains in, screaming and crying. We never stop to think about the life we take. American's feel somehow their lives are more valuable then the lives of these brown Muslims living in countries American's can't even find but want bombed anyway. Please spare me the belligerence, i have nothing more to say and i won't read this thread again.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
flea dip
Member Avatar
Rock Star From Mars

It is strange that you are just now commenting in this thread - after I gave you a link to it in a thread about a month ago, and at that time, I had said,
"If you'd like to comment on conspiracy theories, here's a link to a thread to do so, please do not use this thread for that purpose, since it is off-topic."

You could have commented to this thread at that time, when I gave a link to it.

Why wait until now, right after I made a recent post to it?

noone3
 
Those who would explore the areas where you wouldn't tread. / to seek out truth not to be disrespectful to those who do seek it.
So the implication here is that I am not interested in the truth; I am dishonest or naive. And you're asking me not to be disrespectful to you?

Some people who adhere to conspiracy theories are usually very condescending to those who do not agree with them:
We are told that we are "sheeple," and it is implied that we are too "scared" or "stupid" to see "the truth."

And just above you were implying that those like me, who reject nutty conspiracy theories, are not interested in truth - which I find insulting.

noone3
 
Those who would explore the areas where you wouldn't tread.
I have explored those areas and found them woefully lacking.

noone3
 
Films like Loose Change do present factual evidence. Comparing a Madonna film and Loose Change is silly.

Screw Loose Change -refutes claims in the movie "Loose Change"

From what I have read (I refuse to actually sit through a viewing), Loose Change doesn't really have "factual evidence," but it does contain propaganda in spades.

No, my comparison was not silly: I was using it to illustrate a point that one does not necessarily have to sit through a movie to already know what it is about.

For example, suppose you had never actually seen the movie Star Wars for yourself.

I'm sure you have read enough reviews of the movie to get an idea of its plot, world view and its characters:

there's a power called 'the force' that is used and misused by good and bad people; there's a big hairy guy named Chewbacca in it, etc. and so forth.

You would not actually have to see the Star Wars movie yourself to be familiar with its stories, characters, and mythology.

By the same token, I do not have to sit though Michael Moore's "Farenheit 411" (or whatever it was called) first hand to have an idea of the arguments he used in the movie (especially since I read refutations of those arguments by people who do not agree with Moore).

Speaking of Loose Change:

Screw Loose Change -refutes claims in the movie "Loose Change"

noone3
 
I don't want to hear about how this war is just
I don't understand why you are bringing that point up.

The last post I did in this thread (on November 11, 2008) was about rejecting conspiracy theories about Democratic- President- elect Barack Hussein Obama.

My last post to this thread had nothing to do about American troops being in Iraq.
noone3
 
It's been proven forced sterilization was in practice in this country and we injected black males with syphilis
If you've read my previous posts to board member 1NF in this thread and in other conspiracy theory threads, you can see I never said there was no such thing as a conspiracy theory.

I just do not subscribe to crap like the moon landings were faked, or that Bush plotted with terrorists to bring about 9/11, etc.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
« Previous Topic · Global Outlook · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Disclaimer: The contents of the posts contained herein are the sole property of their respective users and do not necessarily reflect the forum's views as a whole.
All content Copyright © 2005-2018 The Anti-Madonna Discussion Board, unless otherwise noted. All rights reserved.