Truther Candidates Completely Rejected By US Voters

[CHF]

So this is where the TM's at these days, huh?

Their latest piece of evidence is Obama claiming (supposedly) that he doesn't think the US government is responsible for 9/11.

Ummmm....HI? THAT DOESN'T HELP YOU.

 

[jj]

It wasn't a parody site, it was the real thing.

Your sarcasm meter is broken...

It SHOULD be a parody site.

 

[DGM]

Obama in the letter (fake or not) claims he believes that some people "should be held accountable for the unacceptable mistakes it made in the run-up to that terrible day."

The problem here is most of the people responsible for what happened are no longer in office (or never were elected officials). 9/11 happened because of US POLICIES that have been in effect for a long time, some since the early 60's. Should we criticize the (now gone) flight attendants for not suggesting that the passengers and crew fight back? How about Jimmy Carter (If I recall) for Implementing a separation policy between the CIA and the FBI? How about Bill Clinton for not getting Bin laden (supposedly) when he had the chance and cutting back the FAA budget that could have payed for radar that may have found the planes in time? How about the US policies that don't allow "racial profiling" that may have stopped the hijackers from getting on the planes?

Are you starting to understand the complexity of the problems? Personally I like the free society I live in and can except the risks that it could bring. I think looking for a "scapegoat" as you seem to advocate and not fixing the flawed system (that has countless people involved) is a pointless waste of time ( the 9/11 commission agrees with me on this).

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

You were the one who thought protecting the US and attacking the US were one in the same that some people should be held accountable for.

Wow. No. Just... no. He was stating that Al-Qaeda is responsible for attacking the U.S. and the government could arguably be responsible for failing to protect the U.S. from said attack.

Your failure to correctly parse his original statement may be partially his fault (ambiguous sentence structure, or whatever), but after he had clarified that statement for you, further adherence to your original, failed understanding of his statement is not a tenable position.

 

[1337m4n]

Here, let's see if I can settle this.

HI, which do you think best describes your personal beliefs of 9/11?

1) MIHOP
2) LIHOP
3) LIHOI
4) The government is completely innocent
5) I don't know; I need to do more research
6) I don't know, but I'm not going to bother doing more research
7) I'm going to keep jumping from one option to another every time I am presented with inconvenient evidence.

 

[JihadJane]

Truther Candidates Completely Rejected By US Voters

At least they had some candidates. Where were the debunker candidates?

 

[Sparky]

At least they had some candidates. Where were the debunker candidates?

All of the rest of them.

 

[dtugg]

At least they had some candidates. Where were the debunker candidates?

John McCain wrote the forward to Popular Mechanics' book, Debunking 9/11 Myths. He only had around 58 million more votes than Cynthia McKinney.

 

[JihadJane]

John McCain wrote the forward to Popular Mechanics' book, Debunking 9/11 Myths. He only had around 58 million more votes than Cynthia McKinney.

More fool 58 million voters! Was McCain an explicit debunker candidate (show me otherwise as I barely folowed the whole ludicrous circus*)? I doubt there were many who voted for him because of his 911 propaganda activities or that didn't vote for the excellent Cynthia McKinney because she expressed support for 911 skepticism.

*I have only seen one clip of McCain. He was ranting on about good and evil(US good, terrorists evil). He appeared to be completely insane or, at least, pretending to be so.

 

[dtugg]

More fool 58 million voters! Was McCain an explicit debunker candidate (show me otherwise as I barely folowed the whole ludicrous circus*)? I doubt there were many who voted for him because of his 911 propaganda activities or that didn't vote for the excellent Cynthia McKinney because she expressed support for 911 skepticism.

*I have only seen one clip of McCain. He was ranting on about good and evil(US good, terrorists evil). He appeared to be completely insane or, at least, pretending to be so.

Of course McCain didn't run on a debunking platform. That would be stupid. Obviously, he thinks that 9/11 conspiracies are debunked though and he got way more votes than somebody who advocates da twoof.

Please explain why anybody would run on a debunking platform. I mean, the "official story" is already the status quo so it makes zero sense to me why any candidate who beleives it would waste any time arguing the issue.

 

[JihadJane]

Of course McCain didn't run on a debunking platform. That would be stupid. Obviously, he thinks that 9/11 conspiracies are debunked though and he got way more votes than somebody who advocates da twoof.

Please explain why anybody would run on a debunking platform. I mean, the "official story" is already the status quo so it makes zero sense to me why any candidate who beleives it would waste any time arguing the issue.

Indeed. The implication of my post ("At least they had some candidates. Where were the debunker candidates?") is that the premise of this thread is ludicrous. There are all sorts of important issues (such as the rampant criminality of Wall Street and US-led collapse of the world's financial system) which had no candidate representing them. That doesn't reflect on the urgency of the issues.

The evidence suggests the US election was won by rousing but vacuous speeches and by not being Bush or a Bush clone.

ETA: It's clever the way you pretend to have a speech impediment. I assume you are pretending and apologise if you are not.

 

[dtugg]

Indeed. The implication of my post ("At least they had some candidates. Where were the debunker candidates?") is that the premise of this thread is ludicrous. There are all sorts of important issues (such as the rampant criminality of Wall Street and US-led collapse of the world's financial system) which had no candidate representing them. That doesn't reflect on the urgency of the issues.

The evidence suggests the US election was won by rousing but vacuous speeches and by not being Bush or a Bush clone.

ETA: It's clever the way you pretend to have a speech impediment. I assume you are pretending and apologise if you are not.

Fair enough.

And speech impediment? You have to explain how you inferred that. Even if I am a poor writer, which may be the case, I do not see how you can say that.

ETA: I guess you were referring to "da twoof." Obviously this remark is meant to mock morons who believe that 9/11 was an inside job. You were trying to be cute, and failed epically. If this is not the case please explain.

 

[JihadJane]

Fair enough.

And speech impediment? You have to explain how you inferred that. Even if I am a poor writer, which may be the case, I do not see how you can say that.

ETA: I guess you were referring to "da twoof." Obviously this remark is meant to mock morons who believe that 9/11 was an inside job. You were trying to be cute, and failed epically. If this is not the case please explain.

No, I'm not trying to be cute, so I'll explain. It amuses me when those who claim to be confident that their position is based on scientific thinking need to use baby language/pretend speech impediments to reinforce their rock solid arguments...

I find it bizarre and often wonder what it says about about debunker psychology. Why do you feel the need to resort to such playground antics?

 

[dtugg]

No, I'm not trying to be cute, so I'll explain. It amuses me when those who claim to be confident that their position is based on scientific thinking need to use baby language/pretend speech impediments to reinforce their rock solid arguments...

I find it bizarre and often wonder what it says about about debunker psychology. Why do you feel the need to resort to such playground antics?

Mocking twoofers by bastardizing "the truth" into "da twoof" is nothing but comic relief. And yes, I do enjoy mocking idiots that are also terrorist apologists. Since there claims have been proven wrong, they serve no other purpose than entertainment.

Also, I might add that twoof, is a combination of truth and woo. Woo, refers to ideas that are irrational and based on extremely flimsy (or no) evidence. Just like pretty much any idea any twoofer has had ever concerning 9/11.

 

[JihadJane]

Mocking twoofers by bastardizing "the truth" into "da twoof" is nothing but comic relief. And yes, I do enjoy mocking idiots that are also terrorist apologists. Since there claims have been proven wrong, they serve no other purpose than entertainment.

Also, I might add that twoof, is a combination of truth and woo. Woo, refers to ideas that are irrational and based on extremely flimsy (or no) evidence. Just like pretty much any idea any twoofer has had ever concerning 9/11.

Yes, I understand it makes you feel good, so, probably, does masturbation, but baby language simply makes you look childish, especially to those who come to forums like this for the first time.

You've explained the "woo" bit. Where does the "f" bit come from? "Troof" is another common variant. Which words is this combination of?

I'm interested to know how you equate being skeptical of the USG's 911 narrative with being a terrorist apologist. Do you regard twoofer candidate Cynthia McKinney as a terrorist apologist? If so, please pwovide some evidence. Thanks.

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

Here, let's see if I can settle this.

HI, which do you think best describes your personal beliefs of 9/11?

1) MIHOP
2) LIHOP
3) LIHOI
4) The government is completely innocent
5) I don't know; I need to do more research
6) I don't know, but I'm not going to bother doing more research
7) I'm going to keep jumping from one option to another every time I am presented with inconvenient evidence.

Why would my personal beliefs be your personal beliefs? That's your list not mine. I believe there needs to be a real investigation with real accountability.

 

[mrbaracuda]

LoL, "debunker candidate", "debunking platform". Man.

 

[TexasJack]

I doubt there were many who voted for him because of his 911 propaganda activities or that didn't vote for the excellent Cynthia McKinney because she expressed support for 911 skepticism.

Yes, you're right, there were other reasons to stay away from fruitcake McKinney like claiming 5000 prisoners were executed during Katrina and slugging security guards. Excellent?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76841

 

[dtugg]

Yes, I understand it makes you feel good, so, probably, does masturbation, but baby language simply makes you look childish, especially to those who come to forums like this for the first time.

You've explained the "woo" bit. Where does the "f" bit come from? "Troof" is another common variant. Which words is this combination of?

I'm interested to know how you equate being skeptical of the USG's 911 narrative with being a terrorist apologist. Do you regard twoofer candidate Cynthia McKinney as a terrorist apologist? If so, please pwovide some evidence. Thanks.

I couldn't care less if you find the use of word twoof and its variants childish. I didn't make it up but I do find it funny.

And yes, twoofers, Cynthia McKinney included, are terrorist apologists. It is pretty simple. They try to shift blame of those really responsible for the 9/11 attacks, Islamic terrorists, to some imaginary conspiracy. Therefore they apologize for the actions of terrorists. It may not be intentional, but every single twoofer in the history of da twoof is guilty of being a terrorist apologist. That is why they deserve all they ridicule they get. I usually don't make fun of morons, but twoofers are a special kind of moron.

ETA:

On reflection, apologists might not be the right word. I suppose that would imply that they acknowledge the terrorists really did but are justifying the why. I guess I use that term for a for lack of a better one. The spirit of what I said still stands. Twoofers try to take the blame from those who were really responsible. That makes them despicable and deserving of all the scorn and ridicule in the world. The fact that they are morons also is a bonus.

 

[mrbaracuda]

I couldn't care less if you find the use of word twoof and its variants childish. I didn't make it up but I do find it funny.

And yes, twoofers, Cynthia McKinney included, are terrorist apologists. It is pretty simple. They try to shift blame of those really responsible for the 9/11 attacks, Islamic terrorists, to some imaginary conspiracy. Therefore they apologize for the actions of terrorists. It may not be intentional, but every single twoofer in the history of da twoof is guilty of being a terrorist apologist. That is why they deserve all they ridicule they get. I usually don't make fun of morons, but twoofers are a special kind of moron.

I guess Barrett is the worst of them all with his "Truth Jihad" BS.