TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- truth.
Pages (5): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »

quote:

Originally posted by R!CH wow where do i start??? why don't you first explain to me your fuzzy logic for how you arrived at the conclusion that companies like halliburton are losing money as a result of inflation when from the end of 2002 (the mobilization leading up to the iraq invasion) to 2006 (prior to the string of congressional investigations into the company) their stock value blew up 600% while the dollar inflated by less than 0.3 against the euro? then we can move on to your lack of political and historical context in trying to explain how defense works in the united states.

^^^I already said that I'm not happy about Halliburton. I never said that they weren't making money. But liberals always like to simplify the war in Iraq as being all about Halliburton, when it's just NOT! (and what are you talking about "0.3" percent? The Euro as of today is 1.48419 to the dollar)

Do you really think that should a Democrat get in office, the war in Iraq is going to end? It's still about that oil. And like I said before, that crosses ALL party lines when it comes to foreign policy as it relates to oil. Democrats like to use the war as a political bargaining chip with voters, but they're not dumb; They know which side of the bread their toast is buttered. In the end, they're not going to pull us out of Iraq any sooner than any Republican would...you watch and see! And Democrats have been some of the BIGGEST war mongers of the past century! (LBJ, Kennedy, etc...while people like Nixon got us OUT of Vietnam, something most liberals CONVENIENTLY over-look). To act like they're the "party of peace" is to blatantly close your eyes to history and the facts!

As for my "knowledge" of military history and defense in the U.S. from WW2 on-ward, I'm quite sure I'm much better versed in it than you think I am. What do you know about NORAD and the defense system we had in place to counter nuclear strikes? Do you think in the case of nuclear war, there is time to spool up production for defense? No, of course there isn't. It's all over in a matter of minutes! Thus we needed to be prepared for war 24/7, unlike our isolationist doctrine of the past dictated.

Nuclear wars aside, the most recent war in Iraq is a prime example of the new military doctrine for hitting hard and fast, severing the command and control structure where it lives, and ending the war before it ever really has a chance to begin!

I ca rumba, dude! This shit is basic stuff to anyone who's studied military history even just a little bit. It's no great secret. Read up on it for yourself.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco ^^^Like I said; Can't debate, just surfs the web for inflammatory rhetoric videos and pictures to post. E-O-M!

i read part of your argument, it's the same thing... you're defending U.S. interests... you're defending death for money... you say oil is the only answer to an energy crisis...

how can i argue with a closed mind that only sees dollar signs... i can't change the way you think... sadly... all you care about is power/money/oppressive control.

it's ok... let's keep playing WORLD POLICE... we're just going to keep getting attacked... sad but true...


perhaps some day you will lose family in a lost "war"... perhaps someday you will know how it feels to feel death... it's not worth any amount of money...

perhaps some day...

quote:

Originally posted by Junior Chavez i read part of your argument

Would you prefer I use videos and pictures to debate? Will that make it easier for you?

quote:

Originally posted by Junior Chavez ...it's the same thing... you're defending U.S. interests... you're defending death for money... you say oil is the only answer to an energy crisis... how can i argue with a closed mind that only sees dollar signs... i can't change the way you think... sadly... all you care about is power/money/oppressive control...

Mmm hmm...yup. You got me pegged alright! I'm a greedy, war-mongering money lover! And what are you, oh-hypocritical consumer of oil? You can't even admit your role as the driving force behind this grand atrocity called "supply and demand". And why? Because you and I know there's nothing you can do about stopping your need for it! Do you think we're the only country or people in the world who fights over oil? Are you kidding me? It's going on constantly around the globe. Just be glad that people like Al Queda aren't controlling the world oil supply. I think they'd have nuked the entire western hemisphere by now if they did.

You don't know your history of supply, demand and mankind/human nature. Control of goods is nothing new. But the money to pay for these wars and the impetus to fight them is driven by the consumers, not the other way around.

The way world population is increasing, and given how plentiful and relatively cheap oil still is when compared to alternative sources of energy, the need for oil isn't going to diminish due to simple supply and demand.

So your pie-in-the-sky idealism of a socialist "green" society is nothing more than a throw-back to the mis-guided and ill-informed hippie movement of the 1960's. It died for a reason.

it's excessive... but you wouldn't understand temperance...

We should spend money on solutions rather than $750,000,000,000 on defense. There is no real threat out there... we are simply there to make an EXCESSIVE amount of money... we already have enough... however, you nor anyone can give a real answer...

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco ^^^I already said that I'm not happy about Halliburton. I never said that they weren't making money. But liberals always like to simplify the war in Iraq as being all about Halliburton, when it's just NOT! (and what are you talking about "0.3" percent? The Euro as of today is 1.48419 to the dollar) Do you really think that should a Democrat get in office, the war in Iraq is going to end? It's still about that oil. And like I said before, that crosses ALL party lines when it comes to foreign policy as it relates to oil. Democrats like to use the war as a political bargaining chip with voters, but they're not dumb; They know which side of the bread their toast is buttered. In the end, they're not going to pull us out of Iraq any sooner than any Republican would...you watch and see! And Democrats have been some of the BIGGEST war mongers of the past century! (LBJ, Kennedy, etc...while people like Nixon got us OUT of Vietnam, something most liberals CONVENIENTLY over-look). To act like they're the "party of peace" is to blatantly close your eyes to history and the facts! As for my "knowledge" of military history and defense in the U.S. from WW2 on-ward, I'm quite sure I'm much better versed in it than you think I am. What do you know about NORAD and the defense system we had in place to counter nuclear strikes? Do you think in the case of nuclear war, there is time to spool up production for defense? No, of course there isn't. It's all over in a matter of minutes! Thus we needed to be prepared for war 24/7, unlike our isolationist doctrine of the past dictated. Nuclear wars aside, the most recent war in Iraq is a prime example of the new military doctrine for hitting hard and fast, severing the command and control structure where it lives, and ending the war before it ever really has a chance to begin! I ca rumba, dude! This shit is basic stuff to anyone who's studied military history even just a little bit. It's no great secret. Read up on it for yourself.

jesus listen to yourself, why don't you stay focused on what's being discussed here instead of running off on my-team-versus-your-team tangents. typical of someone like you to break every viewpoint down to liberal-this democrat-that. i haven't even given you an indication of my political stance and here you are talking at me about democrats and liberals. ok?

what am i talking about 0.3? i'm talking about the period between 2002-2006 as indicated in the same sentence you read that number from. reading comprehension.

do i think a democrat will end our involvement in iraq's civil war? i don't know, maybe? it really depends on who becomes the president not what party. politics is too often viewed in this country as a team sport; over-simplified into black and white terms so that everything becomes easily digestable for people who need it fed to them in small chunks. it becomes easy to identify these people when you're talking about an issue and all you hear is terms like liberal and democrat being spat back at you.

in regards to your 'military knowledge' i'm almost certain i didn't underestimate you. you think name-dropping an acronym like norad proves anything? the flashpoint for policy change in this nation began well before norad and well before post-ww2. it was even articulated by eisenhower twice in my first post. so here's another hint:

" We have 50 per cent of the world's wealth, but only 6.3 per cent of its population. In this situation, our real job in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which permit us to maintain this position of disparity. To do so, we have to dispense with all sentimentality ... we should cease to talk about vague and unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratisation ... [we] must deal in straight power concepts ... [and not be] hampered by idealistic slogans about altruism and world-benefaction. "

quote:

Originally posted by Junior Chavez it's excessive... but you wouldn't never understand temperance...

It's not excessive.

Let me paint you a picture of the world as not only how I believe you'd like to see it, but how it will actually then be, should it turn out the way you'd like to see it, as well;

A.) We pull out of Iraq, and we never again defend our world oil interests. We become isolationist's in a global economy (don't know how we'd manage to do that frankly, but I guess we're going to try).

B.) Other world powers move in to take control of said world oil supplies. Some of these powers (like North Korea or Iran) are strident anti-American.

C.) Over time, our economy grows very weak as supply and demand drives oil prices even higher within the U.S. Money to pay for infrastructure diminishes. Our standard of living takes a HUGE nose-dive. Money for National Defense diminishes along with it, thus leaving our economic interests throughout the world vulnerable to attack, as well as our own country...all thus further weakening us.

D.) The Pandora's box for world wars and instability now open and in the hands of our enemies, when some other world power is strong enough, they either drive us out of business altogether by strangling our oil tap even more, or they attack us out-right...OR; We die on the vine economically, and sink in to the sunset, financially ruined, a piss-poor second-rate country, our prosperity and our future, bleak.

Either way, we're going to war as a result of this policy you advocate, or you're advocating that you want to see us living at a MUCH lower standard than we are now...possibly even a permanent state of total depression.

Mmmmmm, sounds fun! Sign me up!

so extreme lol. we cannot cut if off completely... and i never said pull out completely of the region... i said it's EXCESSIVE...


again...

quote:

Originally posted by Junior Chavez you wouldn't understand temperance...

quote:

Originally posted by R!CH jesus listen to yourself, why don't you stay focused on what's being discussed here instead of running off on my-team-versus-your-team tangents. typical of someone like you to break every viewpoint down to liberal-this democrat-that. i haven't even given you an indication of my political stance and here you are talking at me about democrats and liberals. ok? what am i talking about 0.3? i'm talking about the period between 2002-2006 as indicated in the same sentence you read that number from. reading comprehension. do i think a democrat will end our involvement in iraq's civil war? i don't know, maybe? it really depends on who becomes the president not what party. politics is too often viewed in this country as a team sport; over-simplified into black and white terms so that everything becomes easily digestable for people who need it fed to them in small chunks. it becomes easy to identify these people when you're talking about an issue and all you hear is terms like liberal and democrat being spat back at you. in regards to your 'military knowledge' i'm almost certain i didn't underestimate you. you think name-dropping an acronym like norad proves anything? the flashpoint for policy change in this nation began well before norad and well before post-ww2. it was even articulated by eisenhower twice in my first post. so here's another hint: " We have 50 per cent of the world's wealth, but only 6.3 per cent of its population. In this situation, our real job in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which permit us to maintain this position of disparity. To do so, we have to dispense with all sentimentality ... we should cease to talk about vague and unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratisation ... [we] must deal in straight power concepts ... [and not be] hampered by idealistic slogans about altruism and world-benefaction. " - George Kennan, U.S. State Department Policy Planning, Study #23, 1948 nuclear wars aside? wait, what??? you are all over the place man. i think you need to re-examine your "knowledge" of military history with a heavy heavy dose of geopolitics because right now it sounds like you don't even have enough pieces of the puzzle to make out the picture.

Well now you're just making my own argument for me! Thanks! Yes, what do you think countries have a military for? Ultimately, it's to defend their economic interests. Is this a crime? Hardly. It's been going on since the inception of human history...and it's common sense.

Today, we do NOT represent anything like having 50% of the world wealth. Your quote is dated AND mis-leading.

And as for 0.3 percent increase in the value of the Euro between 2002 and 2006, I challenge you to show me the chart that says that! It was going up steadily since 2003, and was quite high by 2006...much higher than "0.3"!

And I'm not on either of the major "teams" FYI. I happen to be a registered Libertarian. The hypocrisy of both the major parties is just as vexing to me as it is to you (as well as some issues I have with my own party).

As for military spending and defense doctrine, I'm addressing again what this whole thread is about; Creating wars simply to satisfy national defense corporate proftis...or did your "reading comphrension skills" desert you?

quote:

Originally posted by Junior Chavez so extreme lol. we cannot cut if off completely... and i never said pull out completely of the region... i said it's EXCESSIVE... again...

So you'd have us weaken ourselves in the belief that what; Our enemies just want a hug and they won't harm us if we all play nice together?

Read up on history my friend. The world does not, and never will, work that way. Become weak, and you get attacked. It's as simple as that. Leave the flower-child stuff in the past, where it belongs...

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco It's not excessive. Let me paint you a picture of the world as not only how I believe you'd like to see it, but how it will actually then be, should it turn out the way you'd like to see it, as well; A.) We pull out of Iraq, and we never again defend our world oil interests. We become isolationist's in a global economy (don't know how we'd manage to do that frankly, but I guess we're going to try). B.) Other world powers move in to take control of said world oil supplies. Some of these powers (like North Korea or Iran) are strident anti-American. C.) Over time, our economy grows very weak as supply and demand drives oil prices even higher within the U.S. Money to pay for infrastructure and diminishes. Our standard of living takes a HUGE nose-dive. Money for National Defense diminishes along with it, thus leaving our economic interests throughout the world vulnerable to attack, as well as our own country...all thus further weakening us. D.) The Pandora's box for world wars and instability now open and in the hands of our enemies, when some other world power is strong enough, they either drive us out of business altogether by strangling our oil tap even more, or they attack us out-right...OR; We die on the vine economically, and sink in to the sunset, financially ruined, a piss-poor second-rate country, our prosperity and our future, bleak. Either way, we're going to war as a result of this policy you advocate, or you're advocating that you want to see us living at a MUCH lower standard than we are now...possibly even a permanent state total depression. Mmmmmm, sounds fun! Sign me up!

how about option

e) we devise an energy policy for the first time in 7 years. one that weens this nation off foreign oil dependency and thus the need to control foreign oil supplies or be held hostage by them. we germinate a culture of energy efficiency and conservation with as much effort as we have for fear and vigilence. we reopen the debate for nuclear power on the floor of congress and instead of continuing to build gas and coal-fired power plants we switch our national energy grid to mostly nuclear power, which will eventually phase out to renewable sources of energy after we pass a bill that funds research into making solar and wind power more economically viable. the united states is the richest nation in wind and solar resources fyi. we incentivize the redevelopment of the electric car, which was a success before it was terminated by oil interests, and develop infrastructure to support it so that we can recharge our cars at home rather than filling up with gasoline. then as the 3rd largest oil-producing nation in the world, we can be self-sufficient in our petroleum needs without having to pander to oppressive regimes like the saudi royal family. we wouldn't have to construct and maintain massive military outposts in the region to ensure a stable follow of oil for our wasteful habits. why is it that fuel economy standards in CHINA of all places are higher than those in the united states? are you telling me that america, the richest, most educated, most technologically endowed nation in the world is incapable of taking a step in the right direction like the rest of the developed world has? maybe we need to think about passing real laws instead of those that make h2 hummers, which are exempt from fuel standards in america, a write-off for any person with a business license.

agreed... as i said before instead of spending $750,000,000,000 on defense... just a Fraction of that money would provide solutions so that we are not dependent...

quote:

Originally posted by R!CH how about option e) we devise an energy policy for the first time in 7 years. one that weens this nation off foreign oil dependency and thus the need to control foreign oil supplies or be held hostage by them. we germinate a culture of energy efficiency and conservation with as much effort as we have for fear and vigilence. we reopen the debate for nuclear power on the floor of congress and instead of continuing to build gas and coal-fired power plants we switch our national energy grid to mostly nuclear power, which will eventually phase out to renewable sources of energy after we pass a bill that funds research into making solar and wind power more economically viable. the united states is the richest nation in wind and solar resources fyi. we incentivize the redevelopment of the electric car, which was a success before it was terminated by oil interests, and develop infrastructure to support it so that we can recharge our cars at home rather than filling up with gasoline. then as the 3rd largest oil-producing nation in the world, we can be self-sufficient in our petroleum needs without having to pander to oppressive regimes like the saudi royal family. we wouldn't have to construct and maintain massive military outposts in the region to ensure a stable follow of oil for our wasteful habits. why is it that fuel economy standards in CHINA of all places are higher than those in the united states? are you telling me that america, the richest, most educated, most technologically endowed nation in the world is incapable of taking a step in the right direction like the rest of the developed world has? maybe we need to think about passing real laws instead of those that make h2 hummers, which are exempt from fuel standards in america, a write-off for any person with a business license.

^^^Supply and Demand. It's the same thing that drives people who have the money to pay the excessively high prices for bottle service at the clubs; Because they can!

I agree that we need more nuclear power! I'd like to see more natural fuel sources being used, like solar, wind and hydrogen and/or natural gas. But Americans have the money to afford their gas guzzling cars, along with the power and convenience that comes with driving them, versus driving electric cars with their sever limitations.

We're no different here. Give any other country in the world a shot at this kind of wealth, and you'd see the same thing happening.

The world population and demand for oil is growing WAY too fast to ever be satisfied by alternative fuel sources. No, oil is here to stay, for as long as it lasts. If the alternative sources of fuel were economically viable and competitive, "supply and demand" would have seen to it already that they became a factor...but they're not, and they haven't, and there's no point in getting all bent out of shape about something that is a pipe-dream at this point in time.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Well now you're just making my own argument for me! Thanks! Yes, what do you think countries have a military for? Ultimately, it's to defend their economic interests. Is this a crime? Hardly. It's been going on since the inception of human history...and it's common sense. Today, we do NOT represent anything like having 50% of the world wealth. Your quote is dated AND mis-leading. And as for 0.3 percent increase in the value of the Euro between 2002 and 2006, I challenge you to show me the chart that says that! It was going up steadily since 2003, and was quite high by 2006...much higher than "0.3"! And I'm not on either of the major "teams" FYI. I happen to be a registered Libertarian. The hypocrisy of both the major parties is just as vexing to me as it is to you (as well as some issues I have with my own party). As for military spending and defense doctrine, I'm addressing again what this whole thread is about; Creating wars simply to satisfy national defense corporate proftis...or did your "reading comphrension skills" desert you?

you're a libertarian? lol oh man, that's the best laugh of the day... that is contradicted by first paragraph of your post. a libertarian would never say that

and the quote i posted wasn't to argue that we still have 50% of the world's wealth. if that's the message you extracted from the quote, then i'm afraid you're beyond hope.

as far as inflation rates, you're really reducing to the ridiculous at this point, but here's the data for usd to euro exchange...

September 2002
0.98063 USD (20 days average)
April 2006
1.22733 USD (20 days average)

i think it's become clear at this point that you really have no clue what you're talking about. libertarian, lol....

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco ^^^Supply and Demand. It's the same thing that drives people who have the money to pay the excessively high prices for bottle service at the clubs; Because they can! I agree that we need more nuclear power! I'd like to see more natural fuel sources being used, like solar, wind and hydrogen and/or natural gas. But Americans have the money to afford their gas guzzling cars, along with the power and convenience that comes with driving them, versus driving electric cars with their sever limitations. We're no different here. Give any other country in the world a shot at this kind of wealth, and you'd see the same thing happening. The world population and demand for oil is growing WAY too fast to ever be satisfied by alternative fuel sources. No, oil is here to stay, for as long as it lasts. If the alternative sources of fuel were economically viable and competitive, "supply and demand" would have seen to it already that they became a factor...but they're not, and they haven't, and there's no point in getting all bent out of shape about something that is a pipe-dream at this point in time.

everything about this post is wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by R!CH you're a libertarian? lol oh man, that's the best laugh of the day... that is contradicted by first paragraph of your post. a libertarian would never say that

If you would READ my posts and pay attention, you'd see clearly where I said that I have issues with some of the doctrine of my own party...and obviously, national defense is one of those issues!

quote:

Originally posted by R!CH and the quote i posted wasn't to argue that we still have 50% of the world's wealth. if that's the message you extracted from the quote, then i'm afraid you're beyond hope.

Mmmm...so what is your point exactly for pulling that quote deep out of context, and out of history's ass?

quote:

Originally posted by R!CH as far as inflation rates, you're really reducing to the ridiculous at this point, but here's the data for usd to euro exchange... September 2002 0.98063 USD (20 days average) April 2006 1.22733 USD (20 days average)

The average annul inflation rate between 2002 and 2006 was about 3%. Multiply that by 4 years (X4) and you get a decrease in the value of the dollar of roughly 12.5%...so how does that translate in to an increase in the value of the Euro by double that amount? There's more at play here than simple dollar supply; There's world faith in the dollar, national banks investment in the dollar, etc. The printing of money has been the driving force behind it's steady decline though, make no mistake about that.


EDIT: And why are you ignoring the current value of the Euro, which has gone up DOUBLE what it was between the 2002-2006 period in only the past year+?

And of course, the Euro has been affected by it's own inflation as well, I'm sure...thus it's relevance to the current value of the dollar is even more diminished.

quote:

Originally posted by R!CH i think it's become clear at this point that you really have no clue what you're talking about. libertarian, lol....

Sure, cut and run if you have to! I understand! It's not easy to lose arguments! Especially when they're weak ones!

Bye now!

So after 4 pages of spirited debate, have we come to a conclusion??

Not sure why this thread is in the west coast forum. Aren't these political arguments usually in some sort of quarentine so they don't infect the rest of us??

^^^^
it's always healthy to stimulate the mind with more information especially when you see each person's position. and of course one can always draw his or her own conclusion

after reading everyone's point, i think everybody agrees that the Iraq war isn't a war on 'terror' but to terrorize the region to acquire it's oil. unlike what the Bush administration was selling to everybody. now where are those freaking WMDs?!?!

quote:

Originally posted by R!CH zeitgeist: http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

ZEITGEIST!!!!!!!!!!!

Good film, opened my eyes a bit into this shit.

ok enough of an interlude during the debate.

How about them Chargers?

my favorite conspiracy article:









http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse...gi?u=911_morons

O-M-G!!!!

Rich, you have GOT to be kidding me!!???

"Zietgeist" is one of those lunatic conspiracy theory videos about 9-11
....NO WONDER there is no reasoning with you!!!!

Dude, you have serious problems. I can't believe I wasted my time debating with a conspiracy theory nut-ball on the internet!

For those that don't know what I'm talking about; Rich believes that the 9-11 attacks were solely the work of the U.S. Government. That's right people! There were bombs planted in the World Trade Center that were set off after the planes hit in order to make it collapse (not because two huge airliners couldn't do it all on their own! No, has to be another reason, right!? ), and that the terrorist were working for the CIA, a "missle" (not a plane) hit the Pentagon, and there was a BIG cover-up, blah, blah, etc, etc...it's lunatic psycho-babble of the highest order.













ok, ok. I can't take it anymore! I'm going to tell you something Rich. I'll tell you the "TRUTH";

I've been watching you man!!! I'm from the CIA!

That's why I started partying years ago. I was laying the groundwork as being just another face in the crowd, so that I could get closer to you without you getting suspicious (because I know how suspicious you are). I established friends in the scene who would vouch for me as being "legitimate", so that when I started posting, you'd not suspect who I was and I could draw you out and get you to post the things that you do. We've been documenting every post Rich! Both here, and in other forums! We'll have all the evidence we need to put you away forever as a subversive! The arrest warrant has just signed this morning bro.

Keep an eye out for the black-ops helicopters! Today is the day you always feared! We HAVE to silence you! You know too much! You went on internet, did some "research", and now; YOU KNOW TOO MUCH!!!

quote:

Originally posted by naeblis my favorite conspiracy article: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse...gi?u=911_morons

LOL! Love it.

And this quote from that site is pretty funny;

"Since Dylan's arguing that the government has no problem killing 3,000 innocent people, this raises the question: if his documentary is true...then why wouldn't the government kill Avery and his friends as well...you can bet your ass that the government wouldn't let a couple of pecker-neck chumps with a couple of Macs and too much time on their hands jeopardise their entire operation by letting this stupid video float around on the Internet".



Wurd.

If someone brings up "Loose Change" and tries to defend its message I'm gonna lose it

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco O-M-G!!!! Rich, you have GOT to be kidding me!!??? "Zietgeist" is one of those lunatic conspiracy theory videos about 9-11 ....NO WONDER there is no reasoning with you!!!! Dude, you have serious problems. I can't believe I wasted my time debating with a conspiracy theory nut-ball on the internet! For those that don't know what I'm talking about; Rich believes that the 9-11 attacks were solely the work of the U.S. Government. That's right people! There were bombs planted in the World Trade Center that were set off after the planes hit in order to make it collapse (not because two huge airliners couldn't do it all on their own! No, has to be another reason, right!? ), and that the terrorist were working for the CIA, a "missle" (not a plane) hit the Pentagon, and there was a BIG cover-up, blah, blah, etc, etc...it's lunatic psycho-babble of the highest order. ok, ok. I can't take it anymore! I'm going to tell you something Rich. I'll tell you the "TRUTH"; I've been watching you man!!! I'm from the CIA! That's why I started partying years ago. I was laying the groundwork as being just another face in the crowd, so that I could get closer to you without you getting suspicious (because I know how suspicious you are). I established friends in the scene who would vouch for me as being "legitimate", so that when I started posting, you'd not suspect who I was and I could draw you out and get you to post the things that you do. We've been documenting every post Rich! Both here, and in other forums! We'll have all the evidence we need to put you away forever as a subversive! The arrest warrant has just signed this morning bro. Keep an eye out for the black-ops helicopters! Today is the day you always feared! We HAVE to silence you! You know too much! You went on internet, did some "research", and now; YOU KNOW TOO MUCH!!!

you sound like a total douchebag so i'll waste as little time with you as possible... explain to me why building 7 collapsed. explain to me the molten steel found at the base of both towers or why they collapsed at free-fall speed. please try your hardest to stay on topic and try to put as few words in my mouth as possible this time. you seem to have enough problems speaking for yourself.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco "Zietgeist" is one of those lunatic conspiracy theory videos about 9-11

Actually, it covers religion, 9/11 and federal reserve/monetary policy.

Only the religion and monetary policy parts are worth watching imo, the 9/11 bit is full of inaccuracies. (Which isn't to say the others aren't, but, are a bit more factual)

:grabs popcorn:

these are always classic.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.