Bloomberg , Left, continue to get it wrong. by AURaptor

nice wtc7 jab, but yes, many times, actually, i also caught this one in real time, but wasn't sharp enough to see, but frem is right, the pakistani credit claim was a set up. my reaction was the same as the nypd "oh, these guys take credit for everything" but I should have known better. I remember a few years back when I was dumber, someone killed a bunch of israeli girls in gaza, and hamas was quoted as saying "this is a great day for islam" yeah, they've probably said that 1000 times, but they undoubtedly did not say it specifically in response to the killing. It's creative journalism.

So, Rap, I gave you no conspiracy theory, except that the british election is rigged, but that's not exactly a conspiracy theory, more of an objective statistic reality. here's a conspiracy theory for you, proposed by frem, very plausible and pretty simple to execute. If i say "hey, I read this somewhere online" then I can go create a website, and post it, edit wikipedia, and then post comments on the NYT, etc., and then quote myself, saying "hey look, i'm right" and then I can claim to be someone else when I post it and say "hey look, auraptor said this"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 6, 2010 5:06 AM

*hums AC/DC - Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap*

And now you realize the true purpose of those longish play-to-type (Evil Overlord) villainous monologues, evil gloating and occasional world of cardboard speeches.

A method of conveying information on a tactical level without ever being bloody obvious about it.

Honestly, though, I stole that concept from Severus Snape - if you actually LISTEN to him, buried in all that snark is a hell of a lot of damned useful, appropriate and badly needed advice which could be delivered in no other fashion without exposing his true intent, advice which the moron he's offering it to either ignores, or is blinded to by his own prejudices.

But that blindness also makes a useful cover in and of itself, as well.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 6, 2010 5:17 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
In other words, you got nothin', Rappy. It's okay; you can admit it.

No, he really can't. Those synapses were burned out by an extreme case of self-delusion years ago.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 6, 2010 7:35 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

Chris, was your link a joke? It didn’t come through for me

That link was as real as Rappy's understanding of our Constitution.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 6, 2010 7:41 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

This is really weird. I KNOW I heard that the man on the video was determined NOT to be the bomber after the fact, but now I can't find anything about it, on the internet at least.

Obviously he's not, but I can't remember where I heard that, dammit. If they're contending he WAS the same guy, that's absurd.

I still don't buy the conspiracy thing...nobody yet has explained how it would benefit Obama to have created such a ploy or to have enhanced it. Now if it were Dumbya, I'd believe it; it enhanced the bullshit that he was "protecting" us, but the news about this one has been that if the guy wasn't so inept, he'd have gotten away with it, proof from the right that Obama isn't keeping us safe. So what did the administration have to gain? Maybe playing up the Pakistan involvement I could believe, partly because so many are convinced only a Muslim would attack us (wrong) and it enhanced the story, but what reason would the administration have for creating the whole thing?

There has to be a reason behind a conspiracy; this one seems not to fit.

We all here (with a few glaring exceptions) are rather anti-establishment (I assume because Firefly brought us together!), so it's easy for us to distrust the government. But couldn't that distrust get to the point where we're more willing to believe in conspiracies by the government rather than the simple answer? Just wondering.

Chris: Gotcha. I thought maybe that was the case, and you're right.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 6, 2010 7:47 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

See, on the one hand, Rappy wants Bloomberg to STFU, and not come out and talk to the press and tell them what we don't know yet, or what the facts at the moment seem to indicate. But on the other hand, if a politician DOESN'T go on camera, Rappy will accuse him of foot-dragging and stalling.

Bloomberg's comments ON THE DAY THEY WERE MADE reflected the reality of the investigation AT THAT TIME. Yes, other things then came to light. For one, they actually apprehended the guy through good follow-up law enforcement and despite some glitches in the system that ALMOST allowed him to flee, but didn't.

And the reason those new facts have come to light? They treated the guy like a citizen, like a human being, and DIDN'T just start in with the torture, and he's still singing like a bird.

By the way, Al Qaeda - who are always so keen to attach their name to ANY terrorist attack - have said that this guy sure as hell wasn't trained at one of THEIR facilities. Whoever taught him, we owe them a debt of thanks, because they didn't teach this doofus how to make bombs; they taught him how to NOT make bombs. We should always be so lucky...

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 6, 2010 7:55 AM

Quote:

I still don't buy the conspiracy thing...nobody yet has explained how it would benefit Obama to have created such a ploy or to have enhanced it. Now if it were Dumbya, I'd believe it; it enhanced the bullshit that he was "protecting" us, but the news about this one has been that if the guy wasn't so inept, he'd have gotten away with it, proof from the right that Obama isn't keeping us safe.

Without saying I believe it or not, and certainly I mean no offense to you, Niki, but the reason you don't see the upside for Obama's administration in this is because you have partisan blinders on, when it comes to this issue, anyway. And I really DON'T mean to offend you by saying that; I tend to wear 'em, too.

But think for a moment about WHO benefits from this kind of thing, whether it succeeds or not, and about WHAT they want. You've noted that you could see Bush wanting something like this, so he could use it to his political/power advantage. Why would you imagine that the aims and goals are that drastically different just because Obama's is the leash hand now?

Whoever is in power, no matter from which side, they want that POWER, and they want more of it. Any attack that gets us all up in arms and panicked is an opportunity to sell us all another Patriot Act and to sell our own liberty and security down the river just a little bit more.

I know you don't like to think that about Obama and the Democrats, but they're politicians first and foremost, and they put party affiliations after personal political power, and the put the people last on their list.

Sorry if that sounds jaded and cynical, but it's pretty much the core truth of it.

If Obama's people aren't behind this - and as I said before, I'm not saying whether I think they are or aren't, because it doesn't make any real difference at the end of the day - they'll damn sure jump in fast to take advantage of it and push an agenda. That's not a judgment on Obama or his administration; it's a fact. Bush did it, too, and often far more effectively.

I don't generally buy into complex conspiracies, but I *DO* know that there are people waiting with contingency plans already thought out, just in case things go sideways.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 6, 2010 8:15 AM

MINCINGBEAST

I'm with Niki.

I'm all for despising the establishment, but when you despise it so much that you'll discard simple explanations in favor of elaborate and senseless ones, the establishment starts to seem pretty reasonable. Far be it from me to challenge a conspirational world view---such things are probably immune to reason and rhetoric. They feel right, so they must be right, right?

Also, I am part of the conspiracy. Jews did WTC, man never walked on the moon, etc...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 6, 2010 9:14 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I'm not blind, Mike, and I took no offense. I'm quite willing to see any administration do nefarious deeds in service of their motives. I'll grant you that if it gives them power to take more power, that could be a good motive. But:

The country is in such a fervor over terrorism, I don't think they NEED more excuse; and

Right NOW at least, it's making him look ineffective, the Repubs are having a ball with it, and THEY're the ones taking the chance to put forth more trampling of the Constitution and civil rights because of it.

Given the above, it still doesn't make sense to me, tho' you've got a valid point. I just don't think it would be necessary, and it was SO poorly done, it doesn't do much to enhance Obama as "keeping us safe". Inept as our government is, it would only take one thing wrong to keep the bomb from going off; to have it such an obviously stupid attempt seems pretty inept, even for the government.

I'm still with Mincing; there's too much on the side of it being so obviously stupid, too little on the side of Obama gaining more power (why not have someone in authority find it, wouldn't that enhance his image?), and the Repubs are reaping the rewards more than anyone right now.

But I DO think he was trained at a camp; Al Qaeda distancing themselves from it makes all kinds of sense to me, they wouldn't want to look that stupid and I'm pretty sure there are "camps" set up by ignoramuses, which would be the easiest to get into for an American citizen. After all, immitation is the best form of flattery...

I don't think Al Qaeda would trust him--especially as he IS singing like a bird, and they'd have known he was a whacko who'd give them up first chance. Also, they want us SCARED, and having some idjit who can't even build a bomb both hurts their ego and makes their camps look bumbling, neither of which contributes to us fearing them.

Haven't seen anything yet that convinces me; not that I couldn't be convinced, believe me! But not without some kind of reasonable motive and some explanation of why they did it so stupidly...the REAL Al Qaeda isn't that maladroit!

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 6, 2010 10:43 AM

Bah, most "conspiracies" are really naught more than a snowball of opportunism, CYA and office politics, who says anyone actually important would have to be involved - all it'd take would be one partisan asshole in the localized federal dept overseeing that area to keep a lid on it in hopes of having a reason to exist, when finally folk are starting to question our need for such so-called-protectors which always seem to wind up more dangerous to us than the supposed bad guys.

Think about it, if you were a typical right wing asshole, and hypocritical would-be jackboot of the stripe drawn to dept of homesec, and angry at "appeasement" (i.e. not nuking the middle east off the planet) wouldn't it be tempting to go "oops" and let a bomber wannabe slip through to "justify" your almost-religious belief that it's ALL the fault of "them damned ay-rab mooslim terrerists" ?

And that's all it would take, compounded by a little office politics here, a little CYA there, side order of opportunism on the side...

That's always been where folks get it wrong, they go lookin for the big show, and there's really nothing of the sort as people don't conspire outside their own social circle as a general rule.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 6, 2010 12:11 PM

Mince,

Bombings don't happen without a conspiracy behind them. Think about it.

This bombing didn't happen because there was a oron behind it, if there was anyone.

I agree with Frem on this one, except I'm not convinced this is a bombing. They may have found that there was, in fact, no bomb, and so they let the guy go. If so, you can see where that, by itself, would be a very anticlimatic story for TPTB.

Yes, there's definitely an element of this non-story that hates Pakistan. People have said, but but but, this Pakistani guy is *weird*. Sure, on the other hand, being weird isn't a crime. But maybe that, and his spontaneous long trips to Pakistan, are why he was on the terrorist watchlist.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 6, 2010 1:14 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
In other words, you got nothin', Rappy. It's okay; you can admit it.

On what ever the hell McCain said ? Hell no, I got nottin'.

I think I said as much.

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 6, 2010 1:27 PM

Quote:

Right NOW at least, it's making him look ineffective, the Repubs are having a ball with it, and THEY're the ones taking the chance to put forth more trampling of the Constitution and civil rights because of it.

Given the above, it still doesn't make sense to me, tho' you've got a valid point. I just don't think it would be necessary, and it was SO poorly done, it doesn't do much to enhance Obama as "keeping us safe". Inept as our government is, it would only take one thing wrong to keep the bomb from going off; to have it such an obviously stupid attempt seems pretty inept, even for the government.

I'm still with Mincing; there's too much on the side of it being so obviously stupid, too little on the side of Obama gaining more power (why not have someone in authority find it, wouldn't that enhance his image?), and the Repubs are reaping the rewards more than anyone right now.

I think you're starting to see the light bleeding around the edges of what I'm getting at, but you're not quite there. The funny thing is, BOTH sides realize that one or the other of them will always be in power (neither of them give independents, tea parties, or ANY third party an real credence), and BOTH sides seem always to be clamoring for more power, either *now* when they're in power, or *later*, when they're sure they WILL BE in power.

So you have Obama maybe NOT doing this or being behind it, yet you still have the right lining up and shouting loudly that WE THE CITIZENS should NOT have such things as universal constitutional "rights" (Lieberman actually did refer to them repeatedly in his comments as the "privileges" of citizenship, plainly evidencing his view that we as citizens really don't have any RIGHTS, only the privileges they deign to grace us with). When they're willing to hand over that much power, do you think the administration will turn them down? Bush sure as hell didn't when the idiots lined up to sign us all away with the Patriot Act.

You're still thinking in the "Red-v-Blue" idiom, instead of the "them-vs-US (as in U.S.) mindset. Some things are partisan, but the power grabs are generally ploys of the powerful-vs-the not powerful, the rich-vs-the poor, and the elected-vs-the unelected.

You just watch. Instead of Obama coming out and flat saying "You're f**king CRAZY!" to these fuckers, he'll listen, and he'll take them up on it if they're offering to ditch the Constitution to hand him more power. And in handing him that power, they'll be moving him sharply to the right; of course, they'll also still be calling him a leftist and a socialist while they do it...

Interesting, dangerous times ahead. Things are going to get very, very weird, and very, very ugly, I'm afraid.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 6, 2010 3:23 PM

Couple thoughts. Again, I would like a twitter stream. Oh, and Rap could trim some whitespace, or blackspace as it is here.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 6, 2010 3:39 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Interesting, dangerous times ahead. Things are going to get very, very weird, and very, very ugly, I'm afraid.

Regretably agree here.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 7, 2010 1:47 AM

Interesting note, and a bit of a fumble on behalf of the powers that be.

They admitted this Faisal guy was on "a list" since 1999 - at first they stated the no-fly list, which of course did not exist in 1999, and this then required the admission that they were (illegally) keeping "a list" of that sort long BEFORE 9-11.

Oops.

I doubt anyone is gonna be prosecuted for it, no more than the FBI's illegal construction and use of Carnivore/Omnivore, since they made all that shit retroactively legal, Constitutional issues notwithstanding or ignored...

But the admission itself is very telling, isn't it ?

Remember folks, it ain't the crime - it's the coverup.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 7, 2010 2:59 AM

Mike. Centralization of power is not a right concept any more than white supremacy or anything that the left just doesn't like and so calls right. Right wing ideals are sometimes things I disagree with, but they're things that people on the right generally support. I don't hear a lot of banter in favor of big govt. on the right. I do see politicians like Bush enact it in things like homeland security, the war, the debt, etc. but you notice that he had to lie his ass off to the constituency first.

Frem, so the no fly list predates 2001. I guess that's to be expected.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 7, 2010 7:38 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I don't see the "Red-Blue" thing as much as I see the "us-them" thing, it's just that a) I'm not willing to give "them" credence for conspiracies as often as others, and b)I figure we have to WORK with them in one way or another, so I accept some things.

I don't see Obama letting this go; the uproar has already begun, even on the RIGHT. There's no unholy terrorist attack to scare people SO much that they're willing to give this up--unless there is one, I don't see it getting a shred of uptake. Already seeing ALMOST everyone come crashing down on Lieberman; unless I see that change, I'm not worried. Let's see how AZ goes, that'll give us some indication. Betcha it doesn't pass the Constitutionality test.

I don't think the American people are QUITE the sheeple so many others do. There are some things we won't tolerate, and I think this "no civil rights" thing is one of them. JMHO.

As to whether it's a conspiracy or not, I stand by my previous belief. Occam's Razor.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 7, 2010 9:51 AM

MINCINGBEAST

Occams Razor, Nikki? I hate Occam, but exactly.

I use "conspiracy" as a term of art, not to describe evil doers with a common mens rea, but rather a world view that expects to find far reaching and sinister explanations for everything, when simpler explanations are discarded as too pat. Perhaps I'm naïve, or paranoid, but conspirational thinking is the superstition of the 21st century.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 7, 2010 11:38 AM

Mince

My viewpoint comes as a student of history.

History is a history of conspiracy theories. Conspirators conspire, and something happens as a result that is out of the ordinary. If nothing out of the ordinary happens, then it does not get recorded in history. Yes, sure, some of those conspiracies end in a holocaust, but others lead to a revolution that someone will celebrate at their independence.

I prefer to trace these ideas as single points of information, rather than what I call "grand theories" which attempt to explain that everything ultiamtely comes from one source. They're irrational in no small part because they assume that only one actor has the brains and the ill will to commit them, but also because they attempt to understand from the outset exactly what did happen and why.

If you take 9-11 point by point, I find it far more satisfying to arrive at a particular piece of information that you can be fairly sure of, while placing no demands on the facts that they should lead you immediately to a conclusion.

Despite the emotional and illogical response that it generates, I use 9-11 as an example because all sides ultimate seek a conspiracy theory (It's a theory, about a conspiracy) including when the powers that be discuss the details of their version of events in terms of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, they are still speculating...

Interesting footnote: While it is popular to believe that the official story is immutable religious dogma, ergo, it must be true because that's what Richard Clarke said with only 24 hours to construct the entire threory, include who did it, how and why (Track back to leading immediately to a conclusion which explains every detail of who, how and why...) Actually, supporters of the idea are still tracking down details, conceding some points, constructing evidence. I personally happen to think they're wrong, not that I don't believe OBL would do such a thing, I just have found it unconvincing that he could pull it off. I'm not ruling it out, but I'm not leaping to a conclusion.

So. for a 9-11 conspiracy theory I would say that these are fairly solid points of information:

1. WTC building 7 was demolished by explosives. (I'm fairly certain of this) It's likely that this extends to the twin towers. Unlike standard conspiracy theorists, it doesn't prove anything to me. It says that terrorists, whomever they were, used bombs. It's not that unusual for terrorists to use bombs.

2. The planes, once captured, were put on autopilot. I'm less sure about this one, but it goes far to explaining the flight paths and the responses. In military experiments, more than 50% of all people who willingly sign up for a suicide mission will actually chicken out. It's unlike that we would not see this behavior on 9-11. If they were put on autopilot, it explains the point: The hijackers were unaware that they were on a suicide mission. This also proves nothing. Terrorists used autopilot.

Anyway, this is more the way my logic works. The information doesn't take sides, so I will not discover it if I do.

Oh, and the part about the suicide missions is important: I've found that most theories can actually be disproven most easily by just the natural path of human behavior. If you find yourself thinking "I wouldn't do that," you will find when you think about it more, that it's likely no one would do that. For instance, it's popular to believe that muslims and jews think and act differently. I've known a large number of each, and I haven't found it to be the case.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 7, 2010 11:55 AM

ANTIMASON

ill tell you something that wanted to make me scream! i watched Bloomberg in front of reporters, sometime within the first 24 hrs, say something to the effect of (if radical muslims were responsible, it was because) 'America is a land of freedom of choice, and expression, and many cultures essentially dislike us for that'. its absurd! they are still clinging to the notion that Muslims hate us because of the US constitution and bill of rights. it has nothing at all to do with the fact that for atleast the last 60-70 years we've been covertly manipulating and overthrowing naturally elected governments in the Middle east- sometimes supporting and propping up dictators? that just simply cannot have anything to do with it...?

so yeah..we're screwed. we've got weak minded sociopaths running our government

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 7, 2010 1:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
ill tell you something that wanted to make me scream! i watched Bloomberg in front of reporters, sometime within the first 24 hrs, say something to the effect of (if radical muslims were responsible, it was because) 'America is a land of freedom of choice, and expression, and many cultures essentially dislike us for that'. its absurd! they are still clinging to the notion that Muslims hate us because of the US constitution and bill of rights. it has nothing at all to do with the fact that for atleast the last 60-70 years we've been covertly manipulating and overthrowing naturally elected governments in the Middle east- sometimes supporting and propping up dictators? that just simply cannot have anything to do with it...?

so yeah..we're screwed. we've got weak minded sociopaths running our government

Yup. "They hate us for our freedoms" - so if we take away all those nasty freedoms, they magically won't hate us anymore! There's a pathway to peace; all you have to do is give up any of these ridiculously jejune ideas of things like 'liberty' or 'freedom', and all will be well.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 7, 2010 1:23 PM

MINCINGBEAST

Dear DT, didn't mean to suggest that you are a superstitious peasant, though I would like to think of myself as Dr. Frankenstein. For obvious reasons.

I think my problem is that I employ "conspiracy theory" as a sort of invective, redolent of tinfoil hats. This does not do justice to your narrative of the world, which while absolutely opposed to mine, is not tinfoil crazy. I shall reserve "conspiracy theory" for PN.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 8, 2010 9:47 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
....a world view that expects to find far reaching and sinister explanations for everything, when simpler explanations are discarded as too pat. Perhaps I'm naïve, or paranoid, but conspirational thinking is the superstition of the 21st century.

Well said, and my position exactly!

I don't discount that there are conspiracies, far from it...but when they get too far fetched, or only work to support someone's pre-existing beliefs, I can't help but think...

and

and stuff like that...

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 10, 2010 5:56 PM

ANTIMASON

Quote:
Niki2-

Well said, and my position exactly!

I don't discount that there are conspiracies, far from it...but when they get too far fetched, or only work to support someone's pre-existing beliefs, I can't help but think...

i believe in conspiracies. by definition a conspiracy is:

1.a planning and acting together secretly, esp. for an unlawful or harmful purpose, such as murder or treason
2.the plan agreed on; plot
3.the group taking part in such a plan
4.a combining or working together: the conspiracy of events

in this context, worldwide there are conspiracies abound..

by definition, the existence of the federal reserve is a conspiracy. we have no idea what they are up to, behind closed doors. as of right now, congress is unable to audit them... and yet they have the ability to create money, with little-to-no accountability. if as many believe 'money is the root of many evils', then its natural to be suspicious of a clandestine group of bankers who control the money systems of the world. technically, thats a conspiracy

i believe in the NWO conspiracy. i believe its a 'conspiracy', because for the longest time this goal for the nations of the world was being devised and crafted in secret. only recently have these people been more forthright about the aim of certain policy directives

but realistically, we're talking abouta a conspiracy of ideas. we have many people in high places who just have faulty, misguided, detrimental views of society, and how it should function.. of which many individuals have conspired to implement(ie world government/globalism)! they may be well intentioned, but its not a misnomer if theyve conspired to do so(that theyre wrong is another story).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 10, 2010 6:27 PM

Quote:

but realistically, we're talking abouta a conspiracy of ideas. we have many people in high places who just have faulty, misguided, detrimental views of society, and how it should function.. of which many individuals have conspired to implement(ie world government/globalism)! they may be well intentioned, but its not a misnomer if theyve conspired to do so(that theyre wrong is another story).

They're called the Republican party.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 11, 2010 6:23 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Gawd, Mike, when I re-read it, you're RIGHT! Who'd-a thunk it?

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 12, 2010 1:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

in fact, it was muslim man, from Connecticut, a registered democrat.... it was a left winger's worst night mare.... an actual islamic terrorist, the very ones who attacked us before, who said they'd attack us again...but who the left refuses to acknowledge even exists!

( the moron who changed the original subject title of this isn't man enough to even show where i'm wrong )

I don't know who changed the title, but you've already been shown to be dead wrong in your above claims.

I note for the record that you're not man enough to admit it, though. Or are you? Will you admit that you were dead wrong on this, that you pulled it out of your ass, or passed along false information that you tried to claim as fact?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 12, 2010 2:57 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
Will you admit that you were dead wrong on this, that you pulled it out of your ass, or passed along false information that you tried to claim as fact?

Never, never in a million years. Oh, wait, he might ADMIT it, but say later information proved it wrong...you know, like WMD in Iraq...

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 13, 2010 11:08 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Wait... MORE arrests ? So, not a lone, white guy, upset over having a black President and for ObamaCare, and now not even an lone Pakistani national, upset at losing his job and having his house foreclosed on, but acting in connection with OTHER Pakistani nationals ????

WHAT ????

Quote:

AG: Apparent money tie in Times Square arrests

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Eric Holder says the men taken into custody in connection with the Times Square bombing attempt apparently provided money to would-be bomber Faisal Shahzad.

Holder made the comment Thursday at a news conference.

Asked for details about the three men picked up Thursday morning, Holder said "we believe" there is evidence that they were providing Shahzad with funds.

Holder said "one of the things we are going to be trying to determine" is whether the men knew they were supplying funds for an act of terrorism.

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/ag-apparent-money-tie-526267.html

How upset is Contessa ?? I bet she needs some "comforting" right about now..

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 13, 2010 11:25 AM

If I can tie Blackwater to attacks in Iraq, will you label them a terrorist conspiracy? Or is the nut who blows up the car just a lone nut?

Or, to put it another way, was Faisal an EMPLOYEE of Al Qaeda in Pakistan, or was he a CONTRACTOR? And if he's a contractor, is the person who hired him 100% responsible for his actions?

If he were an American soldier (like the Fort Hood shooter is), would he be a lone nut, or would the Army be a terrorist cell?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 13, 2010 12:12 PM