Split Thread Barbra Streisand, Sean Penn, truthers?

No proclamations of inside job yet then? Just bring a statement to that effect and I will believe you.

Cicero said:
Sure it is my opinion, but more to the point, it is the opinion of the troothers who include her comments on their websites and call her one of their own.
Click to expand...

This is hilarious. You are now admitting to the same thought processes as some of the most idiotic nuggets on the planet.
 
Cicero said:
Both "accusations" produce the same conclusion; Bush 43 is responsible for those who died on 911.
Click to expand...

Thinking some of those people died on 911 because Bush was incompetent means you're a truther?

You realise how idiotic your argument is now don't you?
 
Cicero said:
If you don't believe Babs' own comments make her a LIHOPer, why would seeing the original source change your opinion? The fact you can't find her own website doesn't say much for your search skills.
Click to expand...
You do realize the link you posted to her website is a 404, right?

http://www.barbrastreisand.com/us/statements.html
Page not found
The requested page could not be found.
Click to expand...

Just saying it doesn't seem to be available where you think it is.
 
LIHOPer = "one who believes Bush didn't act out of incompetence, indifference, or malevolence", Cicero?

Really?
 
Last edited:
Cicero - I did a phrase search, which should turn up the original source. It doesn't.
So, I ask again, can anyone provide an original source for the Babs quotes? Yes or no?

Revelation: according to Cicero's definition, I've discovered that I'm a 9/11 Truther, and a LIHOPer at that. Who knew? **** me....:jaw-dropp
 
Cicero said:
It is self-serving on your part to want to separate those who blame Bush 43 for being responsible for 911 because he refused to stop the plot out of indifference from those who blame Bush because he refused to stop the plot out of malevolence. Both "accusations" produce the same conclusion; Bush 43 is responsible for those who died on 911.
Click to expand...

You're making a great cheerleader for the truthers here. There are very few truthers who actually believe anything even as sane as LIHOP; some say they do, but scratch the surface and they usually start ranting about thermite, Global Hawks and NORAD stand-downs. Back in reality, though, the claim that the Bush administration could have done more to prevent the 9/11 attacks is almost irrefutable. The claim that they should have done more is sane, but highly debatable. The claim that they chose not to do more is completely unsupported by plausible evidence, and elevates their involvement from culpable negligence to outright complicity. It's either dishonest or absurdly silly to suggest that there is effectively no difference between the latter two accusations.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
You're making a great cheerleader for the truthers here. There are very few truthers who actually believe anything even as sane as LIHOP; some say they do, but scratch the surface and they usually start ranting about thermite, Global Hawks and NORAD stand-downs. Back in reality, though, the claim that the Bush administration could have done more to prevent the 9/11 attacks is almost irrefutable. The claim that they should have done more is sane, but highly debatable. The claim that they chose not to do more is completely unsupported by plausible evidence, and elevates their involvement from culpable negligence to outright complicity. It's either dishonest or absurdly silly to suggest that there is effectively no difference between the latter two accusations.

Dave
Click to expand...

You finally grasped what Babs is saying about Bush 43.
 
funk de fino said:
No proclamations of inside job yet then? Just bring a statement to that effect and I will believe you.



This is hilarious. You are now admitting to the same thought processes as some of the most idiotic nuggets on the planet.
Click to expand...

I admit that the Truth Movement considers Babs and Penn truthers and provides examples of their trootherism. Are you denying they call them truthers?
 
Cicero, you've become ridiculous. Applying your logic, I'm now a LIHOP truther.

Nobody is denying that truthers are talking out of their rear ends. If they think Babs and Penn are truthers, who cares? They're usually wrong, aren't they?

You also made a really unsupportable and absurd caracature of criticisms as 'Bush 43 is responsible for those who died on 911'
That's bullcrap. It exposes you as a cheap polemicist. The frickin' hijackers are responsible for the 9/11 attacks and for the deaths, fool.
 
Last edited:
alienentity said:
Cicero, you've become ridiculous. Applying your logic, I'm now a LIHOP truther.
Click to expand...

Are you? What is your 911 spin?

Nobody is denying that truthers are talking out of their rear ends. If they think Babs and Penn are truthers, who cares? They're usually wrong, aren't they?
Click to expand...

Wrong about everything except about recognizing fellow troothers.

You also made a really unsupportable and absurd caracature of criticisms as 'Bush 43 is responsible for those who died on 911'That's bullcrap. It exposes you as a cheap polemicist. The frickin' hijackers are responsible for the 9/11 attacks and for the deaths, fool.
Click to expand...

If you believe Bush 43 is responsible for those who died on 911 then you are a troother?
 
Cicero said:
Are you? What is your 911 spin?



Wrong about everything except about recognizing fellow troothers.



If you believe Bush 43 is responsible for those who died on 911 then you are a troother?
Click to expand...
No. As Commander-in-Chief, Bush was clearly responsible for the protection of people inside the U.S. on 9/11. He failed to protect them.

To meet the standards of LIHOP, one has to believe not only that 9-11 was a result of Bush's inaction, but also that this inaction was deliberate, with the intent of causing harm, not the result of indifference or incompetence.
It's incontrovertible evidence for Streisand's belief in the second part that you seem to be having trouble supplying.
It may well be that she believes it. but the statements by her I've read in this thread seem like standard Bush-bashing.
 
Where's the original statement from Streisand? So far it's MIA.

So is any statement from her that Bush is responsible for the 9/11 deaths.

Anyone found a linky for such statements?
 
Cicero said:
johnny karate brands anyone who even asks "questions about 911" as a "CTer." Babs doesn't even employ some "smoke screen" hiding her true motives and yet her 911 bilge somehow excuses her from the LIHOPer label.
Click to expand...

You seem to have some personal investment in "proving" Streisand and Penn are truthers or in "proving" lefty entertainment celebrities are truthers... or maybe you just have too much free time on your hands.

I can guarantee you out here in the real world most sane adults don't care much about the political views of movie stars or look to celebrities for guidance on social or political issues.

Or are you just peeved by the low quality of celebrities the right wing attracts in this country?
 
Hmmm, so Babs wrote on her website that the Republicans were trying to spin the Bush admins failures, which is what she is really angry about:

'Before September 11th, Bush and his advisors did not pay enough attention to the possibility of a large-scale terrorist attack. Bush's National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice has said she could have never predicted such an attack, despite warnings of the French, Israeli and American intelligence communities. On August 6th, 2001, the CIA sent Bush a memo warning of possible al Qaeda plane hijackings. So why was there no increase in airport security, including reinforced bullet-proofed cockpits? At the time of the presidential transition, Clinton's National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, made it very clear to Ms. Rice that her greatest concern should be Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda terrorism network. If that terrorism threat had remained a high level of priority in all levels of government, could these attacks have been prevented? We may never be able to answer that question. The purpose is not to assign blame but simply to point out that Republican leaders have not proved themselves to be more effective protectors of Homeland Security, as they would have the American people believe. '
http://www.barbrastreisand.com/es/statement/lies-are-finally-catching

There's Barbra's central point: to point out the spin of Republican leaders, as they pretended they were doing such a great job on National Security. She correctly points out the failures of the Bush admin to deal adequately with threats.

Nowhere can you find any indication that Ms. Streisand is accusing the Bush admin of deliberately allowing the attacks - therefore she is not outlining LIHOP at all.

the OP fails, decisively. This is simply not a case of LIHOP thinking, anymore than my own criticism of Bush is.
 
From:
http://www.barbrastreisand.com/us/statement/man-you-think-will-keep-you-safe

'Is This The Man You Think Will Keep You Safe?'
Includes 15 points of criticism.
Barbra's conclusion:
'IF BUSH HAD DONE ANY OF THESE THINGS, WE WOULD BE A SAFER MORE SECURE COUNTRY TODAY AND POSSIBLY COULD HAVE PREVENTED THE TRAGEDY OF 9/11. IS THIS THE MAN YOU THINK WILL KEEP YOU SAFE?...'

This is not LIHOP. She is questioning Bush's record at responding to advice, and expresses the opinion that the tragedy of 9/11 'possibly' could have been prevented.

Nowhere does she indicate that Bush and co deliberately allowed the 9/11 attacks.
She states the fact that Bush and co failed to prevent the attacks, but we all know that this is true, don't we? Duh.
That don't make you no truther, bubba.

The OP fails.

ETA: if you're going to quote mine, then at least provide links to the material:cool: , or source it properly so that it can be checked for context. I've provided links for all those quotes, read them in full.
 
Last edited:
Cicero said:
johnny karate brands anyone who even asks "questions about 911" as a "CTer." Babs doesn't even employ some "smoke screen" hiding her true motives and yet her 911 bilge somehow excuses her from the LIHOPer label.
Click to expand...

You need to pay closer attention to what's happening. I never defended Penn or Streisand, nor claimed they aren't Truthers.

I merely pointed out that you hadn't made the case for them being Truthers based on your own standards of evidence established in the thread from which this one was split.

Apparently, you require a notarized statement of intent when a conservative says he intends to greet census workers with a shotgun to establish whether or not he intends them harm. Brandishing a weapon, of course, not being quite sufficient.

However, if a liberal criticizes the Bush administration for their failure to prevent 9/11, well then, that person is obviously a Truther. The fact that they never claimed to be a Truther, nor associated themselves with the Truth Movement, is irrelevant.

It's called ideological bias.

And you reek of it.
 
Last edited:
Cicero said:
I admit that the Truth Movement considers Babs and Penn truthers and provides examples of their trootherism. Are you denying they call them truthers?
Click to expand...

How can they provide examples yet you have failed? You are not even up to their standards.

They can call them all they want. They also call Larry Silverstein a murderer, doesnt mean he is.

This is the worst fail ever from you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom