Loose Change - Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Damn that President Bush for lowering my taxes and trying to stop terrorism!

Taxes are taxes and I don't see taxes going down. Check out how much you are paying on a gallon of gasoline.

It is a magic act, looky looky over here while he does something over there where you are NOT looking.

Nothing is going down but the money in our wallets.

Oil and the price of it affects the price of everything we buy just about.

The sound of the POP! is the sound of your LOWER TAXES BUBBLE bursting.

Sir Michael
 
Taxes are taxes and I don't see taxes going down. Check out how much you are paying on a gallon of gasoline.

It is a magic act, looky looky over here while he does something over there where you are NOT looking.

Nothing is going down but the money in our wallets.

Oil and the price of it affects the price of everything we buy just about.

The sound of the POP! is the sound of your LOWER TAXES BUBBLE bursting.

Sir Michael

Sir Knight,
You may want to try reading your own posts - your "logic" is self-defeating.
 
NO NOT AT ALL, SPENDING MONEY ON MILITARY BUILDING A BIGGER BETTER MILITARY LIKE WAS REFERRED TO IN THE MOVIE


PNAC was referred to in Loose Change. PNAC calls for an increase in spending of defense research. It states that such a change in funding is unlikely unless some significant event occurs like a new Pearl Harbor.


YOU TOOK OUT ONLY ONE PART OF WHAT I SAID, THE IMPORTANT PART "TO GO TO WAR OVER" IT WASN'T ALL THAT BAD FOR US, WE NEEDED SOMETHING WORSE TO HAPPEN TO GIVE REAL CAUSE TO GO TO WAR. AMD THE SECOND SENTENCE REFERS TO TERRORISM BEFORE 9/11.

SO WHY ASK ME IF I DONT THINK THERE IS ANY TERRORISM?


Okay, I'm going to assume you do think terrorism exists. Now please answer my first question. Do you think Radical Islamic Terrorism is an enemy of western civilisation?



NO NOT AT ALL, BECAUSE THE POWERS THAT BE HAD TO SHOCK THE PEOPLE INTO FEARING THINGS GREATLY FOR THEM TO GRAB POWER WITHOUT TOO MANY OBJECTIONS.


Without too many objections? You yourself said they got told by US courts that what they were doing was ILLEGAL! You can't get a much stronger objection than that!


IT IS LIKE "MARTIAL LAW", THERE MUST BE CONDITIONS THE WARRANT IT.


You said yourself that the US courts determined that their actions were NOT acceptable, and that they just do it anyway because they don't care! If they don't care about abiding by the LAWS of the United States why do they need to stage an elaborate event to "justify" their actions? Given that the elaborate event has been shown to NOT justify their actions.


OK, BASED ON WHAT YOU SAID I AM LIMITED TO SAYING WHAT I THINK OR FEEL ABOUT THE MOVIE.


Nonsense. I am simply not interested in hearing your political rant. I'm quite frankly sick to death of American politics, which is why I keep out of the politics subforum on this website most of the time.



AND YOU KNOW I HAVE MY FIRST POST WHICH SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED AND QUOTED SOMEONE THAT HAD POSTED A PICTURE ABOUT THE PENTAGON ALONG WITH A STATEMENT REFERRING TO THE MOVIE LOOSE CHANGE, AND NO ONE HAS EVEN BOTHERED TO RESPOND TO THAT IN SPECIFIC, JUST THAT SOMEONE ELSE HAD REBUTTED IT SOMEWHERE ELSE WITH NO REFERENCE LINK OR ANYTHING ELSE.


No one has responded to your very few direct references to Loose Change for several reasons:

1) From the outset you displayed an irrational and highly antagonistic stance towards anyone who does not accept the so-called facts of Loose Change.

2) If the others are like me, they can't be bothered digging your Loose Change references out of the dreary mountain of paranoid political schlock that amounts to the vast majority of your posts.

What many of us HAVE done, REPEATEDLY, is asked you to identify specific parts of the documentary which you wish to discuss. You have failed to do this over and over again.


WELL YOU OBIVOUSLY HAVE NOT READ MY FIRST POST OR SEVERAL OF OTHERS I HAVE POSTED. BECAUSE WHAT YOU HAVE SAID ABOVEE IS A TOTAL LIE. YOU ARE NOT REFERRING TO ONE POST BUT HAVE SAID IT LIKE IT WAS AN ABSOLUTE FACT.


How do you know what I am "referring" to? Do you claim to be psychic? Because that will go down like a lead balloon here.


YOU HAVE NO INTEREST IN THE IMPORTANCE OF THE MOVIE OR IF THERE IS ANY TRUTH TO IT AT ALL.

I am already fairly confident that the movie is entirely unimportant and has no truth in it whatsoever. If you wish to provide some evidence otherwise, I will be glad to discuss it with you. But please be aware myself and others here are pretty familiar with all aspects of the film.


THAT SOUNDS LIKE IT IS COMING FROM THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF.
BECAUSE, IF 9/11 GIVES THEM AN EXCUSE WHICH A LOT OF PEOPLE WILL ACCEPT IT IS NOT IRREVELANT.


Are you saying Americans will accept their government doing something which their courts have determined is illegal?



IT REALLY IS AMAZING THAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN TELL US ONE THING ONE DAY, AND WE BELIEVE IT, AND THEN THEY WILL TELL US SOMETHING DIFFERENT THE NEXT DAY AND WE WILL BELIEVE IT, EVEN WHEN THE LATTER DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS THE FIRST THING THEY SAY.

Well, if you want to do that, fine. But I don't take what my own governments says at face value, so I certainly don't plan on taking what the government of a foreign country says at face value.

Those that blindly choose not to believe everything their government tells them are as bad as those that blindly believe everything their government tells them.

-Andrew
 
Duh, money, power and control = OIL.

That just sounds like a very simplistic explanation, considering how bad things are in Iraq now, and how high gas prices have gotten, for everyone INCLUDING Americans.

The point was there was NO WMD, and they had to finally admit it, so what the ADMIN/GOV tells you is NOT always the truth, mostly FAR FROM IT.

Not to defend the Bush administration but did you ever consider that they could simply have been wrong ?

Also, beign lied to by politicians is pretty much tautological.

Why can't you stay on point? So many agendas so little time. So many topics but so little minds.

I simply asked a question. Calm the hell down. I don't need to adress all your points. This IS a free country, isn't it ?

Well considering our Government's war's in the middle east has boosted oil prices from $30 a barrel to now $70 I guess they got the help with low prices huh?

Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy ?

I have the answers and facts, problem is you guys don't know what to do with them or even like them.

I must've missed them.
 
Quoting someone isn't funny when it isn't true, it gives out FALSE information. And I didn't see anything funny or comedic in what you said.
You could have said it in many ways that would possibly be an attempt to conform to what you are saying now, but there was no JOKING or JK put at the end. It was a QUOTE and UNQUOTE plain and simple.

And I do read sarcasm, that wasn't the problem, and exaggeration is another word for LIE. And again if are you a comedian, don't they have a board for that? But don't give up your day job.

Sheesh. I'm the one obsessed with honesty and even I don't mind exaggeration for comic effect. Get a life.
 
OMG, go away for 14 hours, and there are 3.5 pagesof post....damn thats a lot of reading...

Sir Knight:

If you are asserting, which I think you are, that the US govt are the ones who put together and carried out 9/11, a complex and multilocationed event, and that they were powerful enough to keep anything significant about their role in it from leaking, than don't you find it, as we do, completely insane, that they could not then do something as simple as planting a few weapons of mass destruction in the large country of Iraq, to affirm in the eyes of the american people, the justification for the war?

Seriously. Since the war began, and no WMDs were found, Bush has fallen lower than any president in terms of approval. His entire admin is under the gun for it, and they may lose the next election as a result.

Yet, with all that, even now, NO WMD have turned up...compared to the skill, preparation, and deceit required for them to carry out 9/11, don't you think to plant a few of these things wouldn't be that hard????
 
Avery, on his trip to Washington
i'll put it to you guys this way.

we're settling the pentagon issue once and for all.

I'm reminded of that line from Aliens, where Hudson reacted to Gorman's statement that he's coming in:
He's 'coming in'.... I feel safer already.
Of course, Vasquez's follow up is probably even more apropos:
Pende*o j***off.

ETA: Just realized that my Spanish sucks and I really have no idea what "pendejo" means, so I apologize if I've inadvertantly breached Rule 8.

ETA Part II: My English is pretty solid though, and upon review I'm fairly certain that the second word of that phrase was a violation. Edited.
 
Last edited:
pende*o is a relatively mild curse word, akin to english a@@hole, but probably still a violation. ;)
 
Sir Night,

I have one question, how much do you pay the guy to follow you around banging coconuts so they sound like horses hooves?

I always wondered if that was a good gig or not.
 
Sir Knight -

Let me posit this theory for you to ponder: The Bush Administration came into office with Saddam/Iraq squarely in its sights - perhaps for the reasons you've put forth, perhaps not. Terrorism and specifically al Quaeda, while certainly a concern, was not high on their agenda. As such 9-11 blindsided them - no conspiracy, no inside job, just good old fashioned Gov'tl FUBAR and misplaced priorities.

However, being the good PR folks they are, Bush then went after the culprits in Afghanistan almost immediately (what choice did he have really?) - however in short order they re-focused the "war on terror" to include their original target all along - Saddam/Iraq (not enough high value targets in Afghanistan - kinda hard to bomb a place back to the stone age that's pretty much already there) - leading us to where we are now: No closer to Bin Laden, token nods to changes to airport security, border security, port security, chemical and nuclear plant security - a 9/11 commission that stopped short of holding anyone responsible for missing the clues leading up to 9/11, 1000's of lives and billions of dollars into Iraq - saddled with torture in Iraqi prisons, Gitmo, the Patriot Act, and illegal wiretapping, etc etc etc.

In other words, is it possible that Bush hijacked 9-11 for his own purposes, giving us the outcome you observe now without having actually caused it to occur?

Does this theory not also fit the facts without a huge conspiracy?

I'm not necessarily saying this is the way it went down, but I'm pointing out that there are many possible alternative explainations that don't involve rediculous claims of mass-murder and controlled demo and no planes and no hijackers and pods and holograms and the rest of it.

-Joytown
 
I'm sneaking into Sir Knights house and leaving the following rant pretyped on his screen to see if he'll hit the "submit reply" button.

Hello,

See the real problem here is the word SUSPECTED. No proof has to be found. So if someone accuses you of being a terrorist then you have no civil rights. I met Atta, supposedly the mastermine behind 9/11, does that make me a terrorist. Wow I was in his vicinity for 10 minutes and oh boy I actually talked to him on the phone once and met with him. Had to do with an ad I had selling something. Ok boys, this guy gets no civil rights any more ..poof gone. I'm wearing a pink satin teddy with white lace trim because it makes me feel beautiful and sexy. And you think we are living in a free society? I have no criminal record, never done anything wrong besides a speeding ticket. What happened to innocent till proven guilty? No, now we have guilty by accusation, guilty until proven innocent. It's so hard to find decent slinky lingerie in mens size 44 these days. And if they are wrong just like the President was on the WMD, well you might get an apology but don't hold your breath, and due to the WAR on Terrorism these mistakes are expected to happen and you will NOT be able to sue them over it. Wearing lace trim kinda sucks though becauae your chest hairs get tangled in it and you turn into human velcro when you try to take it off. Oh you live is GONE, things have changed but you CANNOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT because we are at WAR. Don't know about you but I think my civil rights are MORE important when we are at war NOT less. What, because we are at war we become a MILITARY STATE? The Supreme Court doesn't agree and neither do I.

Wake up, smell the rotten fish, and it isn't in Denmark this time.

Sir Michael
 
Last edited:
CBC Radio Servers Overloaded by Live Feed of 911 Conspiracy Show.

Well. Not true actually. Or maybe they just kept the knowldege from us?

The schedual for Friday, August 18, 2006, at 8:30 a.m. (EDT) for the CBC Radio show "The Current" says:
"Conspiracy theories still swirl about the events of September 11th. This morning, The Current looks at what those theories say about U-S politics and culture."

The Current is non-Woo and is usually pretty good. It is not a phone-in show and has researchers who actually try and find the truth (whatever that may be).

The show's website is <ht tp:/ /ww w.cbc. ca/the current/ > (without the spaces, of course).

It is available via the i'net and on Sirius (the satellite radio service -- I don't know about availability on the star).

The promo I heard implied that some of the "Scholars for Truth" would be interviewed.

Gord


If any of you missed it the 911 Conspiracy segment of The Current, it is now available on line at:
<h ttp://w ww.cbc.ca/the current/20 06/200 608/200 60818.ht ml> (without the spaces)
Note that, "Due to various rights issues some segments may be edited for internet use" and this includes the clips from Loose Change that appeared in the show.

To listen click on: Listen to The Current: Part 1 in this page.

The description of the piece is as follows:

Conspiracy Theories

We started this segment with a survivor stumbling through the haze of gypsum dust that used to be one of the World Trade Center towers. Nearly five years after September 11th, 2001, many Americans are still searching for clarity in the chaos of that day.

Not since the assassination of President John F. Kennedy has a story attracted so many different conspiracies about who was really behind the event. And over the years, 9/11 theories have become internet staples, inspiring groups such as the Scholars for 9/11 Truth---a group of U.S. academics who are trying to address questions they say were unanswered by the 9/11 Commission Report. We aired a part of their debate over whether the World Trade Center was brought down by a controlled demolition planted by the U.S. government.

A recent poll found that over a third of Americans believe that the U.S. government either sat back or assisted in the 9/11 attacks. Its reason: to spark a war in the Middle East. Here to help us put these new theories into a larger historical context, we're joined by Mark Fenster. He's written about conspiracy culture in the U.S., and he's a law professor at the University of Florida. He joined us from Gainsville, Florida.

Mark Fenster is the author of the book Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture.



The show is really about conspiracy theories per se but uses the 911 CT as the prime example. It is worth listening to for that reason (IMHO). Fenster says of the 911 truth scholars, " I don't happen to find them creditable" because they are not the right sort of experts. He explains how CTs are difficult to argue with because they switch topics. He uses the sulfur issue as an example.
 
Welcome Sir Knight,

Wow, I should have joined this board sooner. Everyweek it is another new fun character added.

The names change, but the actions never do.

Claim secret knowledge

Refuse to provde proof of claims

demand claims be accepted on face value

gets mad when we do not agree

displays persecution complex

Still there's just enough variation to keep me looking. Some of the best fition is being written by the CT's.
 
Well not like you think. Anyway, I know the bible quite well also, and it states, "neither cast your pearls before swine lest they trample them under their feet and turn again and rend you." so you might say I am testing the waters, making sure I separate the men from the swine, you figure out who is who. LOL

I am wise and not stupid, knowledgeable and not ignorant but if you would put yourself in my position for even one minute and ask yourself what would you do if what I was inferring was correct. What exactly would ou do? Think about that REALLY think about that. I do every day.

I just put myself in your position and I suddenly see the brillance of your plan.

You are "hiding in plain sight". A high tech version of "The Purloined Letter".

My hat and the top of my head are off to you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom