Split Thread Barbra Streisand, Sean Penn, truthers?

[Orphia Nay]

Babs is a LIHOP. In her world, the Bush administration's "failure to heed the warnings" can only mean that Bush let 911 happen on purpose.

No, her quotes are saying Bush let 9/11 happen out of incompetence.

You're putting words in her mouth by saying she says Bush let 9/11 happen on purpose.

It's a moot point what she thinks. We can only prove what was said. She has not come out as a truther like her husband.

 

[willhaven]

It's called ideological bias.

And you reek of it.

It wouldn't be the first time.

 

[Walter Ego]

Babs is a LIHOP. In her world, the Bush administration's "failure to heed the warnings" can only mean that Bush let 911 happen on purpose.

Penn has never distanced himself from the Troofers. Whatever he says about 911, they love it. They also consider his film to be as revealing about 911 as the Loose Change video.

But, hey, 61% Of Democrats Are/Were 9/11 Truthers so it's statistically probable that Babs and Penn would be truthers. Right?

 

[Cicero]

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.

But they don't call him a truther.

 

[Cicero]

No, her quotes are saying Bush let 9/11 happen out of incompetence.

You're putting words in her mouth by saying she says Bush let 9/11 happen on purpose.

It's a moot point what she thinks. We can only prove what was said. She has not come out as a truther like her husband.

What makes her husband a truther? The fact that he recommended a truther website on TV? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[Cicero]

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

Let's use the standards of JREF debunkers of the 911 Truth Movement.

Who else but 911 conspiracy folks would suggest there is something suspicious in Bush 43's brother, Marvin Bush's association with Securacom/ Stratesec, a company that handled security for three businesses that were central to the 911 plot?

How do you debunk the "rapid fire" approach without sounding like a jerk?

http://www.internationalskeptics.co...p?p=5189931&highlight=Marvin+Bush#post5189931


Who else but 911 conspiracy folks try to sell as fact that on September 13. when private aviation was still locked down, 140 Saudis, including two dozen relatives of Osama bin Laden, were evacuated without any FBI investigations?

9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

http://www.internationalskeptics.co...s+evacuated+formal+interrogation.#post4381675

 

[funk de fino]

But they don't call him a truther.

I love the way you are using truther logic to say someone is a truther and at the same time calling all people who think the US govt failed in their duty that day LIHOPers.

Utterly ridiculous and support free posts.

 

[funk de fino]

Let's use the standards of JREF debunkers of the 911 Truth Movement.

Who else but 911 conspiracy folks would suggest there is something suspicious in Bush 43's brother, Marvin Bush's association with Securacom/ Stratesec, a company that handled security for three businesses that were central to the 911 plot?

How do you debunk the "rapid fire" approach without sounding like a jerk?

http://www.internationalskeptics.co...p?p=5189931&highlight=Marvin+Bush#post5189931


Who else but 911 conspiracy folks try to sell as fact that on September 13. when private aviation was still locked down, 140 Saudis, including two dozen relatives of Osama bin Laden, were evacuated without any FBI investigations?

9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

http://www.internationalskeptics.co...s+evacuated+formal+interrogation.#post4381675

And what have those threads go to do with anything?

 

[funk de fino]

What makes her husband a truther? The fact that he recommended a truther website on TV? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Yet again your post has nothing to do with the post you quoted.

My missus believes in God and the afterlife. I am an atheist. Do you have a point at all?

 

[Cicero]

And what have those threads go to do with anything?

Just as Babs' hubby recommends a truther website, which is good enough by even JREF standards to brand him a troother, Babs recommends a book that espouses the go to truther examples of Marvin Bush and flight of 140 Saudis after 9/11 as evidence of Bush 43's responsibilty for 911.

To put it in a perspective that even you could appreciate., it means that either you or your missus is lying about their faith, or lack thereof. But in the case of Mr. & Mrs. Streisand, they both follow the cult of The Truth Movement whether it by the path of books or the path of websites.

 

[alienentity]

Just as Babs' hubby recommends a truther website, which is good enough by even JREF standards to brand him a troother, Babs recommends a book that espouses the go to truther examples of Marvin Bush and flight of 140 Saudis after 9/11 as evidence of Bush 43's responsibilty for 911.

To put it in a perspective that even you could appreciate., it means that either you or your missus is lying about their faith, or lack thereof. But in the case of Mr. & Mrs. Streisand, they both follow the cult of The Truth Movement whether it by the path of books or the path of websites.

You're getting much closer to direct evidence if indeed Ms. Streisand is recommending that book.
But your direct quotations, as well as the posts I've read from her, are not LIHOP theories.

If you really want to show her as a MIHOP or LIHOP, you'll have to show a direct statement from her to that effect. Just because she recommends a book doesn't mean she endorses everything in the book.

I suspect this is really a futile exercise, as you would have had such a quote already. Just a hunch.

 

[Cicero]

You're getting much closer to direct evidence if indeed Ms. Streisand is recommending that book.
But your direct quotations, as well as the posts I've read from her, are not LIHOP theories.

If you really want to show her as a MIHOP or LIHOP, you'll have to show a direct statement from her to that effect. Just because she recommends a book doesn't mean she endorses everything in the book.

I suspect this is really a futile exercise, as you would have had such a quote already. Just a hunch.

If your hunches tell you to stay away from Vegas, listen to them. Otherwise, don't trust them.

Just because her hubby recommends a troother website doesn't mean he endorses everything on the website. How do we know if he is a MIHOPer/LIHOPer or just a fellow traveler of The Truth Movement? Or maybe when he recommends the website he is secretly doing a public service exposing the website as a source for 911 moonbats?

You are setting up a separate set of standards for Babs apart from the JREF skeptics standard for a run of the mill troother.

 

[funk de fino]

Just as Babs' hubby recommends a truther website, which is good enough by even JREF standards to brand him a troother, Babs recommends a book that espouses the go to truther examples of Marvin Bush and flight of 140 Saudis after 9/11 as evidence of Bush 43's responsibilty for 911.

Bring the quotes from her page that show she believes inside job please?

To put it in a perspective that even you could appreciate., it means that either you or your missus is lying about their faith, or lack thereof. But in the case of Mr. & Mrs. Streisand, they both follow the cult of The Truth Movement whether it by the path of books or the path of websites.

This is nonsensical.

 

[Cicero]

Bring the quotes from her page that show she believes inside job please?

Where is the quote from Mrs. Streisand where he says 911 is an inside job? Yet he is considered a troother by JREF skeptics.

This is nonsensical.

Your completely invalid analogy about you and your misses being analogous to Babs and James is what's nonsensical.

 

[funk de fino]

Where is the quote from Mrs. Streisand where he says 911 is an inside job? Yet he is considered a troother by JREF skeptics.

So what. I am not accusing him of anything. That would be you.

Your completely invalid analogy about you and your misses being analogous to Babs and James is what's nonsensical.

No, its not, and you cannot explain why without posting nonsense. Husbands and wives do not have to believe the same things. Guilt by association is all you have. Pleae bring any statement from her that indicates inside job and I will believe you. Until then you have made an unsupported claim and you are acting like a truther.

Pick anyone of these and show me it means inside job

1. BUSH IGNORED THE ADVICE OF THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION REGARDING THE URGENT THREAT OF AL QAEDA.

2. BUSH IGNORED THE HART-RUDMAN COMMISSION TERRORISM REPORT, WHICH OUTLINED A RANGE OF U.S. SECURITY REQUIREMENTS AND STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES.
3. BUSH FAILED TO GET OVER 100,000 HOURS OF VALUABLE TERRORISM-RELATED TAPINGS TRANSLATED BY LINGUISTS AT THE F.B.I, A FULL 3 YEARS AFTER 9/11. IN FACT, JOHN ASHCROFT REFUSED TO ENDORSE FBI REQUESTS FOR $58 MILLION FOR NEW COUNTERTERRORISM FIELD AGENTS, TRANSLATORS AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYSTS.
4. BUSH HELD NO FACE TO FACE MEETINGS WITH HIS TERRORISM CHIEF RICHARD CLARK AND NEITHER DID DICK CHENEY WHO WAS HEAD OF THE TERRORISM TASK FORCE.
5. BUSH CONTINUED HIS VACATION ON THE DAY HE RECEIVED A BRIEFING ABOUT THE IMPENDING ATTACK ON AMERICA.
6. KNOWING ABOUT THE IMPENDING HIJACKINGS, BUSH DID NOTHING TO BEEF UP AIRLINE SECURITY.
7. BUSH'S ATTORNEY GENERAL, JOHN ASHCROFT, TOLD THE ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE F.B.I. TO NOT TELL HIM ANYTHING MORE ABOUT TERRORISM.
8. BUSH WAS INACTIVE AND INDECISIVE FOR A FULL 7 MINUTES THE MORNING OF 9/11 WHEN INFORMED OF THE ATTACK ON THE WORLD TRADE CENTER. IF BUSH HAD ACTED QUICKLY AND INTELLIGENTLY PERHAPS HE COULD HAVE GIVEN AN ORDER TO SHOOT DOWN THE PLANE HEADED TOWARD THE PENTAGON AND SAVED THE LIVES OF THOSE WHO WERE KILLED.
9. BUSH INVADED IRAQ WITH THE RATIONALE OF IMAGINARY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND IGNORED THE REAL THREAT IN AFGHANNISTAN. NOW WE HAVE A TERRORIST BREEDING GROUND IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND OSAMA BIN LADEN AND ABU MUSSAB AL-ZARQAWI, A RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORIST, RUNNING FREE.
10. BUSH IGNORED THE ADVICE OF THE GENERALS IN THE MILITARY WHO PROVED TO BE RIGHT.
11. BUSH OPPOSED THE CREATION OF A DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY.
12. BUSH OPPOSED THE CREATION OF THE 9/11 COMMISSION.
13. MORE THAN 3 YEARS LATER, OUR BORDERS, PORTS, AND NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS ARE STILL NOT SECURE.
14.BUSH SUPPRESSED THE RELEASE OF A CIA REPORT THAT LAYS BLAME UPON HIGH-LEVEL PEOPLE IN HIS ADMINISTRATION FOR NOT DOING THEIR JOBS IN A SATISFACTORY MANNER BEFORE 9/11.
15. BUSH FAILED TO SECURE NEARLY 400 TONS OF KNOWN, DEADLY EXPLOSIVES IN IRAQ, AND NOW THEY MAY FALL INTO THE WRONG HANDS TO BE USED TO BLOW UP AIRPLANES, LEVEL BUILDINGS AND DETONATE NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

Like some she has let her irrational political views impinge on her beliefs. You should know that MO.

 

[Cicero]

So what. I am not accusing him of anything. That would be you.

It is hardly an 'accusation." It isn't illegal (or immoral?) to be a troother. If you do not consider Mr. Streisand to be a troother, as JREF skeptics in this thread already admit, then your opinion on whether his wife is or isn't one will never be satisfied as the proof is of the same variety.

No, its not, and you cannot explain why without posting nonsense. Husbands and wives do not have to believe the same things. Guilt by association is all you have. Pleae bring any statement from her that indicates inside job and I will believe you. Until then you have made an unsupported claim and you are acting like a truther.

Pick anyone of these and show me it means inside job

It is not guilt by association as Babs herself has demonstrated the same behavior as her husband in recommending a source that has troother arguments.

Like some she has let her irrational political views impinge on her beliefs. You should know that MO.

So has Mr. Streisand, yet he is accepted by JREF skeptics as a troother, not because of his "irrational political views," but because he recommended a troother website.

Since you cannot be persuaded with the same evidence that persuaded others to realize Mr. Streisand's trootherism, you might as well recuse yourself.

 

[funk de fino]

It is hardly an 'accusation." It isn't illegal (or immoral?) to be a troother. If you do not consider Mr. Streisand to be a troother, as JREF skeptics in this thread already admit, then your opinion on whether his wife is or isn't one will never be satisfied as the proof is of the same variety.

You called him a truther if you have something that shows he is then bring it. I have neither said he was or was not a truther. You are deflecting your failure to prove Babs is an inside jobber.

It is not guilt by association as Babs herself has demonstrated the same behavior as her husband in recommending a source that has troother arguments.

You still have nothing. It's guilt by association and your posts prove that.

So has Mr. Streisand, yet he is accepted by JREF skeptics as a troother, not because of his "irrational political views," but because he recommended a troother website.

I dont care what other JREF skeptics think. I have asked you for proof. You have failed. Again with the deflection to Mr Streisand.

Since you cannot be persuaded with the same evidence that persuaded others to realize Mr. Streisand's trootherism, you might as well recuse yourself.

Remember the thread this was split from? You post looks exceedingly hypocritical now. You are floundering. It should be a piece of cake to bring the evidence.

 

[funk de fino]

care to try this time?

1. BUSH IGNORED THE ADVICE OF THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION REGARDING THE URGENT THREAT OF AL QAEDA.
2. BUSH IGNORED THE HART-RUDMAN COMMISSION TERRORISM REPORT, WHICH OUTLINED A RANGE OF U.S. SECURITY REQUIREMENTS AND STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES.
3. BUSH FAILED TO GET OVER 100,000 HOURS OF VALUABLE TERRORISM-RELATED TAPINGS TRANSLATED BY LINGUISTS AT THE F.B.I, A FULL 3 YEARS AFTER 9/11. IN FACT, JOHN ASHCROFT REFUSED TO ENDORSE FBI REQUESTS FOR $58 MILLION FOR NEW COUNTERTERRORISM FIELD AGENTS, TRANSLATORS AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYSTS.
4. BUSH HELD NO FACE TO FACE MEETINGS WITH HIS TERRORISM CHIEF RICHARD CLARK AND NEITHER DID DICK CHENEY WHO WAS HEAD OF THE TERRORISM TASK FORCE.
5. BUSH CONTINUED HIS VACATION ON THE DAY HE RECEIVED A BRIEFING ABOUT THE IMPENDING ATTACK ON AMERICA.
6. KNOWING ABOUT THE IMPENDING HIJACKINGS, BUSH DID NOTHING TO BEEF UP AIRLINE SECURITY.
7. BUSH'S ATTORNEY GENERAL, JOHN ASHCROFT, TOLD THE ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE F.B.I. TO NOT TELL HIM ANYTHING MORE ABOUT TERRORISM.
8. BUSH WAS INACTIVE AND INDECISIVE FOR A FULL 7 MINUTES THE MORNING OF 9/11 WHEN INFORMED OF THE ATTACK ON THE WORLD TRADE CENTER. IF BUSH HAD ACTED QUICKLY AND INTELLIGENTLY PERHAPS HE COULD HAVE GIVEN AN ORDER TO SHOOT DOWN THE PLANE HEADED TOWARD THE PENTAGON AND SAVED THE LIVES OF THOSE WHO WERE KILLED.
9. BUSH INVADED IRAQ WITH THE RATIONALE OF IMAGINARY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND IGNORED THE REAL THREAT IN AFGHANNISTAN. NOW WE HAVE A TERRORIST BREEDING GROUND IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND OSAMA BIN LADEN AND ABU MUSSAB AL-ZARQAWI, A RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORIST, RUNNING FREE.
10. BUSH IGNORED THE ADVICE OF THE GENERALS IN THE MILITARY WHO PROVED TO BE RIGHT.
11. BUSH OPPOSED THE CREATION OF A DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY.
12. BUSH OPPOSED THE CREATION OF THE 9/11 COMMISSION.
13. MORE THAN 3 YEARS LATER, OUR BORDERS, PORTS, AND NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS ARE STILL NOT SECURE.
14.BUSH SUPPRESSED THE RELEASE OF A CIA REPORT THAT LAYS BLAME UPON HIGH-LEVEL PEOPLE IN HIS ADMINISTRATION FOR NOT DOING THEIR JOBS IN A SATISFACTORY MANNER BEFORE 9/11.
15. BUSH FAILED TO SECURE NEARLY 400 TONS OF KNOWN, DEADLY EXPLOSIVES IN IRAQ, AND NOW THEY MAY FALL INTO THE WRONG HANDS TO BE USED TO BLOW UP AIRPLANES, LEVEL BUILDINGS AND DETONATE NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

 

[Macgyver1968]

I'm very disappointed that Babs is a truther...so disgusted that will no longer buy any of her albums and dress up as her during those drag queen contests.

 

[Alan]

LIHOPer = "one who believes Bush didn't act out of incompetence, indifference, or malevolence", Cicero?

Really?

Please address that, Cicero.