• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Double-think

its sad when the best arguments you can come up with are to accuse people of lying about a degree. the degree is real, talk to Dr Peter Eccles , my tutor
 
pdoherty76 said:
its sad when the best arguments you can come up with are to accuse people of lying about a degree. the degree is real, talk to Dr Peter Eccles , my tutor
Click to expand...

I'm not accussing you or anything. The best arguments are the ones you've continually failed to address, instead falling back on the "it's just my opinion" cop-out because you have nothing beyond conjecture.

I was remarking on the rather humorous idea of using Alex Jones as a confirmation source. That's sort of like hiring Ghandi as your tactical advisor for a war, or getting Pol Pot to back up your theories on human rights.

Doesn't lend much credibility.

Personally, I don't care if you have a degree or not...except that if you do, I'd like to know which college, so I don't mistakenly send any of my children to a place that would allow someone to graduate that gets as many things wrong as you do.
 
popeholden i didnt ignore ur post, i was dealing with the degree-denier cretin

im not claiming pnac and the chessboard fiasco are hard evidence, they are circumstantial but also reason to investigate
 
because they show a mindset in which this could take place. all previous investigations have had conflicts of interest
 
T.A.M. said:
Have you read the PNAC paper you are quoting from. I havent, but I have read the 4-5 pages before and after the "Pearl Harbour" quote. If you were to do so, you would realize that the context of that quote is vitally important. They are referring to the creation/production/bringing to fruition of NEW INTELLIGENT DEFENSE WEAPONRY and SYSTEMS, when they refer to needing a "new Pearl Harbour" to make this change (to more intelligent defense systems) acceptable to the public. The Aghanistan and Iraq wars have not done that one Iota. they have brought about the use of regular defense/offese weaponry. It has not lead to any change to new defense systems. It is not what they wanted, or what they were talking about in the paper.

Read it...go ahead...

TAM
Click to expand...

In case you missed it PD, while defending your credentials, which I believe to be valid.

TAM
 
pdoherty76 said:
the public cant dissent because the =y are then called traitors and terrorist symathisers. Fetzer on o'reilly was a typical example. O' reilly called on the fbi to investigate him.

Where is ur evidence that i, or anyone like me, supports terrorism.

My country and indeed my city of manchester was bombed for years by the IRA. Do you think i support that?
Click to expand...

O'Reilly is a political pundit. The only "power" he has is the people he can influence while yelling from his soapbox. Though a part of mainstream media, O'Reilly is really in a similar position to A. Jones.

If you want to get a real idea of the discussion going on, and not just the political lapdog yapping, watch C-SPAN, or PBS; or listen to NPR, CBC, or BBC.

And consider this; how is O'Reilly calling Fetzer a "traitor" any different from A. Jones calling people such as Mark Roberts "shills" or "traitors"? It's rhetoric. It's designed to stir up emotion in the support base of the person making the comment. It is not, however, on par with what happened with McCarthy.
 
pdoherty76 said:
"the power of nightmares" documentary is very compelling. it isnt made by internet hacks, its made by the BBC
Click to expand...

What do you think of the (fairly) recent documentaries made by Peter Taylor regarding AQ?

As far as I can recall, 'the power of nightmares' spent the first two episodes explaining how the neocons and AQ both developed, and then spent the final episode claiming AQ didn't exist.

Peter Taylor is a very respected journalist. He seems to believe AQ exist. Do you?
 
pdoherty76 said:
because they show a mindset in which this could take place. all previous investigations have had conflicts of interest
Click to expand...

they show a mindset in which the practical idea that the American people support military action and spending more when there is an attack made on the American people. this is a truth, and it is verifiable by looking at history.

it does not indicate, in any sense, that these men would CAUSE an attack on america.
 
I've noticed that a lot of you CTs seem to be under the impression that our society has been on a steady, linear slide away from liberty.

In reality, there's always been tension between individual liberty and collective restriction in every society, and in the US it's been vibrating back and forth across a fairly narrow bandwidth since 1776. The overall trend has been towards greater individual liberty. I find it odd that this is not obvious to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom