Creepy

[PhantomWolf]

Okay, so it suspicious that the media and others would be blaming 9/11 on Osama within minutes iof the second plane hitting, but it is also suspicous that Sent. Edwards wouldn't commit himself to a statement of who might have been involved less than 12 hours after the attacks? How does this work? Why should he have closed the issue of the possiblity of it being domestic terrorism if they didn't know who was responsible at that time. Sure they may have had suspecions along with everyone else, but a good investigation doesn't lock itself into one target at the start because then you get tunnel vision and miss things that you shouldn't. I'd be far, far, far more suspicious if he'd stated unequivically that they were positive that it was OBL and couldn't have been anyone else. 12 hours after the attacks they had not even begun to scratch the surface of the investigation and declaring that they knew who was behind it then, even if they were 90% sure, would have been the totally wrong way to conduct the investigation.

 

[Dog Town]

Nixon started his political rise, to power, in the 60's! That was the point!

 

[PhantomWolf]

Nixon started his political rise, to power, in the 60's! That was the point!

Well since he was Eisenhower's VP from 1952-1960, he actually started his rise in the 50's, not the 60's. In fact since he lost to Kennedy in 1960 and then to Johnson in 1964, you could say that the 60's was rather depressing for Nixon. While a few of the illegalities did start as early as 1969, most of the Watergate activities occured in the 1970's, and really (other than cancelling the Apollo programme) he wasn't a bad president in those first few years.

 

[Dog Town]

Well since he was Eisenhower's VP from 1952-1960, he actually started his rise in the 50's, not the 60's. In fact since he lost to Kennedy in 1960 and then to Johnson in 1964, you could say that the 60's was rather depressing for Nixon. While a few of the illegalities did start as early as 1969, most of the Watergate activities occured in the 1970's, and really (other than cancelling the Apollo programme) he wasn't a bad president in those first few years.

Fair enough. I stand by the rest of my earlier post, however. Would the Apollo( three?) explosion on lift off count, as depressing?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Fair enough. I stand by the rest of my earlier post, however.

Fair enough, the rest of the post was good, it just that Nixon shouldn't have been in the list as a depressing 60's things.

Would the Apollo( three?) explosion on lift off count, as depressing?

I think you mean the Apollo 1 fire. It wasn't during liftoff, it was during the plugs out testing, and yeah it could certainly be added. For the Record, no NASA manned rockets had exploded on Lift off until the 1985 Challanger Shuttle disaster.

 

[Blackwell]

"The Truth Movement and Debunkers, respectively, may never have proof of anything."
Oldschool

Oh, Ed help us. He's quoting himself.

Blackwell finds this disturbing.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Beechnut after this playground response I'd imagine my pet fish knew about as much as you did. Just kick back enjoy the ride and the Federal Paycheck you receive every month. Wouldn't want to actually stand up against the Nazi tactics of our current military, you might end up like Tillman. . . .

Godwin's Law^WP; you just lost the debate (as if you weren't losing it anyway). Further, as stated by several others, your comments are utterly loathesome, and beneath contempt.

 

[OldSchool]

Notice the majority of responses missed the guts of my more serious post. Noticed I've managed too upset military personal which always makes me smile. Even though this is just a forum and not a place too publish and article, the focus remains upon "Grammar", instead of the important details listed concerning our CIA. This is an area I spent a long time on during College, and if you wish too ignore the facts, isn't any skin off my teeth. I'll be concerned with Grammar when the name of the forum is changed too include Published in the title. Unlike most the people who do post on this site, I actually understand all professional forms of literary criticism. Here's a test to all the grammar critics.

What form of Literary Criticism should be used too explain Zeitgeist and "Who killed John O'neil?

This isn't a hard question. By including "Who Killed John O'neil actually made the answer obvious. Any college student who's actually taken up to 200 level writing or English courses could answer the question. Whether or not you agree with the messages each of the movies sent isn't important. The literary style used is exceptional.


Anyway I'm in a good mood tonight. Got a phone call from this fox in a Mini skirt I gave my phone number on the bus. Have too love it when they're under 100 lbs even if it isn't healthy.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Isn't any part of the statement which is false. Beyond the JREF forum the post would be considered humorous truth.

Still sticking by your inane Nazi comparison, eh? Disgusting.

Aside from the new membership agreement, your opinion of my above average writing skills doesn't really make much difference. I have a feeling my College Professors had slightly more insight into the aspects of good writing ability.

Oh?

As for my writing skills I'm not really concerned what anybody, especially on this forum, thinks. My profs loved me enough too [sic] where I never got anything accept [sic] an A on every paper and ever [sic] written test I took in College [sic]. As I only write part time because writing doesn't pay the bills, I'll remember too return and gloat once I'm officially published.

More than half the governments [sic] original suspects who were supposedly on the plain [sic] and thought too [sic] be dead have been found alive and well. There was another man who had his passport stolen. There [sic] entire investigation into the day of 911 [sic] was a joke. I'm not doubting if somebody was brought into a court of law and tried for 911 [sic] he'd be found guilty especially if he was from the middle east [sic]. Provide a perfect constitutional court setting and allow Assama [sic] too [sic] buy them a top notch lawyer, Isn't [sic] anyway [sic] there could be a conviction.

Phantom [sic] i'm [sic] going too [sic] take your word for it. Considering the information I'd Ple [sic] [sic] Bargin [sic] [sic].

Once again I could [sic] care less of [sic] your opinion. It matters much more what my Profs [sic] thought as they are professionals in there [sic] fields. The audience I'm writing for isn't exactly a close [sic] minded [sic] group. You'd be surprised [sic] the majority [sic] meaning the average American [sic] is going too love my stuff. Knowing what too [sic] write too [sic] attract the majority of readers is the key too [sic] success when writing.

Just a sampling.

Your college professors should be sued for malpractice.

 

[332nd]

Notice the majority of responses missed the guts of my more serious post. Noticed I've managed too upset military personal which always makes me smile.

But you haven't managed to take down the NWO and that makes us smile.

Even though this is just a forum and not a place too publish and article, the focus remains upon "Grammar", instead of the important details listed concerning our CIA. This is an area I spent a long time on during College, and if you wish too ignore the facts, isn't any skin off my teeth. I'll be concerned with Grammar when the name of the forum is changed too include Published in the title. Unlike most the people who do post on this site, I actually understand all professional forms of literary criticism. Here's a test to all the grammar critics.

It's nice that you understand it but the funny part is that you can't DO it.

What form of Literary Criticism should be used too explain Zeitgeist and "Who Framed John O'neil?

This isn't a hard question. By including "Who Framed John O'neil actually made the answer obvious. Any college student who's actually taken up to 200 level writing or English courses could answer the question. Whether or not you agree with the messages each of the movies sent isn't important. The literary style used is exceptional.

What acting method should be used when performing Classical Greek theatre? 100 level acting students would know.

Anyway I'm in a good mood tonight. Got a phone call from this fox in a Mini skirt I gave my phone number on the bus. Have too love it when they're under 100 lbs even if it isn't healthy.

All jokes aside, If you are at all serious check her ID.

 

[Miss Anthrope]

I have split the lengthy derail over to History. Please keep it on topic!

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Miss Anthrope

 

[funk de fino]

Similar to Dianne Feinstein. CIA's is responsible for reporting too curtain members of congress. Once again reports to congress are only made when its required for maintaining national security. Reports to congress are withheld, in the same breath, for maintaining nation security.

Eh?

Explain or its Stundie time

Also your assertions about CIA agents breaking the law and having to report to no-one is bollox

Everyone reports to someone

Somone being a CIA agent is different than a politician being reported to by the CIA. You really are a dishonest poster arent you?

 

[stateofgrace]

Noticed I've managed too upset military personal which always makes me smile.

Upset? Upsetting is when you step in dog crap. I find that upsetting.

Seeing pitiful remarks on an internet forum from a sad deluded middle aged man who is trying desperately to relive his youth is not upsetting, it is to be pitied.

 

[chillzero]

Enough of the personal issues please. Keep this thread on topic, and do not personalise the discussion further or more mod action will follow.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero

 

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

EDIT: Sorry mods. Taking out my analysis of OldSchools self-described "above average" writing

 

[Lurker]

I'd suggest you go to a government documents section of a library, and read everything declassified during the Reagan administration.

All right. And how did you come to the conclusion that CIA operatives could break any US law they wanted with impunity?

Lurker

 

[tsig]

Notice the majority of responses missed the guts of my more serious post. Noticed I've managed too upset military personal which always makes me smile. Even though this is just a forum and not a place too publish and article, the focus remains upon "Grammar", instead of the important details listed concerning our CIA. This is an area I spent a long time on during College, and if you wish too ignore the facts, isn't any skin off my teeth. I'll be concerned with Grammar when the name of the forum is changed too include Published in the title. Unlike most the people who do post on this site, I actually understand all professional forms of literary criticism. Here's a test to all the grammar critics.

What form of Literary Criticism should be used too explain Zeitgeist and "Who killed John O'neil?

This isn't a hard question. By including "Who Killed John O'neil actually made the answer obvious. Any college student who's actually taken up to 200 level writing or English courses could answer the question. Whether or not you agree with the messages each of the movies sent isn't important. The literary style used is exceptional.


Anyway I'm in a good mood tonight. Got a phone call from this fox in a Mini skirt I gave my phone number on the bus. Have too love it when they're under 100 lbs even if it isn't healthy.

delete

 

[OldSchool]

Eh?

Explain or its Stundie time

Also your assertions about CIA agents breaking the law and having to report to no-one is bollox

Everyone reports to someone

Somone being a CIA agent is different than a politician being reported to by the CIA. You really are a dishonest poster arent you?

Read the CIA's charter once. You'll find i'm exactly correct with my interpretation.

Members of congress who recieve reports from the CIA are members of the CIA. This is actually included within there charter for a very important reason. The members of congress who recieve such reports also have the luxury of withholding information. Intelligence information is at there discretion. Once again, Intelligence may be kept secret if the individual agent feels its necassary for national securty. This ladder of secrecy applies within the institution itself too. An agent may keep information from there boss unless he deems it vital to national security to actually tell him. This continues through all levels of the institution including members of congress who recieve reports. They can keep this information secret even from other members of congress. The information may only be disclosed if a member of congress feels as though it is in the best interest of national security too release the information. The chain of power within the CIA is very elaborate. The chain of power goes beyond "Don't Ask Don't Tell". Even if asked by the President of the United states any member of the CIA, including members of congress, may decline to release information.

If you have any specific questions I can answer them. I'v got the CIA's charter memorized. Once again my study of the CIA didn't begin because of some wild Conspiracy. I was hoping too someday become a member. Careful what you wish for i'm glad mine didn't come true.

 

[funk de fino]

Read the CIA's charter once. You'll find i'm exactly correct with my interpretation.

Members of congress who recieve reports from the CIA are members of the CIA. This is actually included within there charter for a very important reason. The members of congress who recieve such reports also have the luxury of withholding information. Intelligence information is at there discretion. Once again, Intelligence may be kept secret if the individual agent feels its necassary for national securty. This ladder of secrecy applies within the institution itself too. An agent may keep information from there boss unless he deems it vital to national security to actually tell him. This continues through all levels of the institution including members of congress who recieve reports. They can keep this information secret even from other members of congress. The information may only be disclosed if a member of congress feels as though it is in the best interest of national security too release the information. The chain of power within the CIA is very elaborate. The chain of power goes beyond "Don't Ask Don't Tell". Even if asked by the President of the United states any member of the CIA, including members of congress, may decline to release information.

If you have any specific questions I can answer them. I'v got the CIA's charter memorized. Once again my study of the CIA didn't begin because of some wild Conspiracy. I was hoping too someday become a member. Careful what you wish for i'm glad mine didn't come true.

post a link to the charter where it tells you that a politician who gets reports from the CIA is a CIA Agent (your exact claim)

Once again reports to congress are only made when its required for maintaining national security. Reports to congress are withheld, in the same breath, for maintaining nation security.

This is a contradiction

They only make them when it maintains national security but they withold them to maintain national security?

You have still not shown us how CIA agents can break any law without reporting to ayone?

If you are going to exagerrate then at least have backup for your claims, not speculation

 

[Darth Rotor]

Read the CIA's charter once. You'll find i'm exactly correct with my interpretation.

Members of congress who recieve reports from the CIA are members of the CIA.

Please cite the paragraph in the CIA's charter that states where a member of Congress is a member of an Agency, CIA, that is run by, and subordinate to, the Executive Branch of the Government. Does the CIA therefore have to keep the Congressman on its rolls, pay said Congressman, and manage said Congressman's career?

Also, please cite the applicable public law, from the US Code, that covers this relationship between the CIA and the various Senate and House committees to whom the CIA reports.

If you can do that, I will consider believing your statement. If you cannot, and I suggest that you can't, I'll ask you to first research the US Constitution and tell me what the three branches of the US Government are. From there, show me which article subordinates members of the Legislative Branch to the Executive Branch.

This ladder of secrecy applies within the institution itself too. An agent may keep information from there boss unless he deems it vital to national security to actually tell him. This continues through all levels of the institution including members of congress who recieve reports. They can keep this information secret even from other members of congress. The information may only be disclosed if a member of congress feels as though it is in the best interest of national security too release the information. The chain of power within the CIA is very elaborate. The chain of power goes beyond "Don't Ask Don't Tell". Even if asked by the President of the United states any member of the CIA, including members of congress, may decline to release information.

"Don't Ask Don't Tell" is not the rubric, "Need to Know" is the rubric. You are confusing the military policy on homosexuality with "Need to Know" rules on access and dissemination of classified material.

The highest clearance I ever held was TS/SCI. I had to know EEFI, and restrictions on "Need to Know" in order to correctly protect classified material I was exposed to.

If you have any specific questions I can answer them. I've got the CIA's charter memorized. Once again my study of the CIA didn't begin because of some wild Conspiracy. I was hoping too someday become a member.

Who was Wild Bill Donovan?

I hope the CIA's talent pool is never polluted with your presence. They need smart people.

DR