Rep. McKinney Introduces Bill to Impeach Bush

Firestreak said:
Here, just read this and ask if you wanna get behind this person.

http://www.slate.com/?id=2064530
Click to expand...


Wow. It doesn't get more dumb and biased than that.

..."the fantasy that President Bush had advance knowledge of the Sept. 11 attacks"?

What a fucking dumbass. That's a 100% proven fact. It's been proven over and over and over and over again by every fucking mainstream media out there in some form. Two of the 9/11 commisioners admitted it on national TV. It was mentioned in his fucking presidential briefing that al-qaeda were in the US and planning to hijack planes in order to execute a terror attack. There were hundreds of warnings from foreign nations. Condolezza Rice was forced to admit it on national TV. There was a major MSNBC coverage of it to get the facts to the dumbasses who thought/think 9/11 was Clintons fault. The list goes on and on and on.

Jesus.. I'm so tired of these brainwashed idiots who watch too much Faux news and think Saddam and Bigfoot were behind 9/11.
 
Bustaballs said:
Wow. It doesn't get more dumb and biased than that.

..."the fantasy that President Bush had advance knowledge of the Sept. 11 attacks"?

What a fucking dumbass. That's a 100% proven fact. It's been proven over and over and over and over again by every fucking mainstream media out there in some form. Two of the 9/11 commisioners admitted it on national TV. It was mentioned in his fucking presidential briefing that al-qaeda were in the US and planning to hijack planes in order to execute a terror attack. There were hundreds of warnings from foreign nations. Condolezza Rice was forced to admit it on national TV. There was a major MSNBC coverage of it to get the facts to the dumbasses who thought/think 9/11 was Clintons fault. The list goes on and on and on.

Jesus.. I'm so tired of these brainwashed idiots who watch too much Faux news and think Saddam and Bigfoot were behind 9/11.
Click to expand...

Lol, I rest my case. Good night Bustanut.
 
Firestreak said:
Lol, I rest my case. Good night Bustanut.
Click to expand...

What case? You havn't really said anything or supported anything you've claimed.
If want to start dualalog you're going to bring more than a saracatic comments.
 
I have no intention of starting another dialogue with commander bananas about the "9/11 conspiracy," especially if he's going to say it's 100% proven. Past that point I can't even read the rest of his post because it's such a tremendous waste of time.
 
In other words I've wasted my time trying to reason with him logically before and everytime he grows stupider like some sort of strange alien fungus that grows when you kick it. If you think I need to justify him for the 101st time by engaging in the same argument with him and watch him throw down links for 911truth.org or whatever the fuck else, you can screw yourself.

I don't have to be willing to argue with a person to know they're wrong. Just like I wouldn't feel inclined to argue with you that JFK was shot by one man alone, that the Holocaust really happened and that the earth is flat.

I believe these things because they're true, because they're not widely believed theories but facts.
 
Elpon said:
What case? You havn't really said anything or supported anything you've claimed.
If want to start dualalog you're going to bring more than a saracatic comments.
Click to expand...

Just to back up my claims:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZUD4MG7kw44 (A rep at the US House shows media coverage of previous knowledge)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tw03bKE4QF8 (Condolezza Rice failing to hide the August 6th briefing)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=76X0Yh0jUe4 (MSNBC coverage of 9/11 warnings)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=HXV73jFtTVk (Part of 9/11 Press for Truth. Includes footage from many mainstream media tv shows and popular newspapers along with some brief commets from some women who's husbands died in the WTC. It's about 3 minutes.)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf (THE FAMOUS AUGUST 6th PRESIDENTIAL BRIEFING from CNN)

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/10/politics/10terror.html?ex=1265691600&en=72bd8d71c9dc962c&ei=5090& (NEW YORK TIMES
9/11 Report Cites Many Warnings About Hijackings)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13203-2005Feb10.html (WASHINGTON POST Report Says FAA Got 52 Warnings Before 9/11)

Those were just warnings coming close to the attacks. It doesn't include the many warnings that came years before. (Clinton years)

911truth.com you say?

I can toss out mainstream media coverage on the REAL FACTS all day. This site:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

has 100% mainstream media links (and plain references) to sources to everything you need to know about 9/11. The video in my sig is also 100% undeniable facts about 9/11.

I'm the one that believes in the REAL FACTS.
 
Firestreak said:
In other words I've wasted my time trying to reason with him logically before and everytime he grows stupider like some sort of strange alien fungus that grows when you kick it. If you think I need to justify him for the 101st time by engaging in the same argument with him and watch him throw down links for 911truth.org or whatever the fuck else, you can screw yourself.

I don't have to be willing to argue with a person to know they're wrong. Just like I wouldn't feel inclined to argue with you that JFK was shot by one man alone, that the Holocaust really happened and that the earth is flat.

I believe these things because they're true, because they're not widely believed theories but facts.
Click to expand...

So you realize that the argument will go no where, but you keep posting in these topics anyway? I just think that you talk big but provide nothing to back it up. You say you believe in the "truth" but what is the source of this "truth", what shaped this "truth". Last time I check, one can't use "your gut" as legitimate source.
 
Elpon said:
So you realize that the argument will go no where, but you keep posting in these topics anyway? I just think that you talk big but provide nothing to back it up. You say you believe in the "truth" but what is the source of this "truth", what shaped this "truth". Last time I check, one can't use "your gut" as legitimate source.
Click to expand...

There's about a billion things I believe to be true and I'm not going to argue against the ones that the other side has no real case. You don't warrant a serious response from me because you don't matter.
 
The "real facts" are that the government knew that Al-Qaeda was planning an attack on the US.

That's not exactly news. They'd known that since Clinton was in office. They knew that terrorists might attempt to hijack airliners. They'd known that since Carter was in office.

The novel concept here is that prior knowledge of a possible attack doesn't mean you're going to be ready for it when it happens. I could, for example, tell you that the next time I see you I'm going to punch you in the throat. Pretty serious threat, right? You'd have to take some sort of measures to protect yourself, you'd think. Of course, you don't really know what I look like, or whether or not I'd be wearing a disguise, or most importantly when I'm planning this throat-punching.

What it boils down to is that nobody was expecting anyone to use airliners as a weapon. The "famous" briefing lists a variety of possible attack methods, actually discounts the possiblity of hijacking at one point, and states that 70 full field investigations were underway at the time of its writing.

The fact that the government knew that Al-Qaeda wanted to hit the US isn't news. It's common sense. What I take issue with is the claim that the government knew the precise order of events on 9/11, and especially the asinine claims that the entire incident was, in fact, engineered by the government.
 
I don't understand why Bustaballs bothers to post links or rant paragraphs. I don't read them. My mind was made up what happened on 9/11 when I watched it live on the news as it happened. Anything you say is pointless to me. I'm not saying to be mean, but so you don't waste your time putting in effort to try and convince me. if George Bush came out and said he planned the attacks, I still wouldn't believe it, because it makes no sense.
 
I jumped off the lolwagon at "brainwashed". Jihadist4lif lolol!
 
Firestreak said:
There's about a billion things I believe to be true and I'm not going to argue against the ones that the other side has no real case. You don't warrant a serious response from me because you don't matter.
Click to expand...
Ah yes I don't matter, because I'm the only one telling you to do the one thing you can't do. Have some balls and back up what you claim to be "truth".
 
Raesvelg said:
The "real facts" are that the government knew that Al-Qaeda was planning an attack on the US.

That's not exactly news. They'd known that since Clinton was in office. They knew that terrorists might attempt to hijack airliners. They'd known that since Carter was in office.

The novel concept here is that prior knowledge of a possible attack doesn't mean you're going to be ready for it when it happens. I could, for example, tell you that the next time I see you I'm going to punch you in the throat. Pretty serious threat, right? You'd have to take some sort of measures to protect yourself, you'd think. Of course, you don't really know what I look like, or whether or not I'd be wearing a disguise, or most importantly when I'm planning this throat-punching.

What it boils down to is that nobody was expecting anyone to use airliners as a weapon. The "famous" briefing lists a variety of possible attack methods, actually discounts the possiblity of hijacking at one point, and states that 70 full field investigations were underway at the time of its writing.

The fact that the government knew that Al-Qaeda wanted to hit the US isn't news. It's common sense. What I take issue with is the claim that the government knew the precise order of events on 9/11, and especially the asinine claims that the entire incident was, in fact, engineered by the government.
Click to expand...


I'm not saying the government engineered the attacks is a proven fact. There's just a lot of evidence to support the claim so it shouldn't be fully ignored. It's the main reason why the 9/11 truth movement is so strong and so widespread. We want a real independant investigation to determine this for us.

I'd like to say that it's good that you at least understand the government knew about the planned attacks at the minimum even if you don't understand that they knew more specific details (like using aircraft as weapons).

As far as the govenment knowing about using planes as weapons, along with other details, let me show you if you're interested since you are actually questioning me rather than insulting me this time.

This is a link to the point in the video that begins showing the Bush Administration's denial of having knowledge of any specific information of the attacks followed by proof of just the opposite from some old news coverage. If that isn't good enough, I can grab a ton of sources to back that up. Just ask for them via PM because I'm not going to continue this offtopic convo. Do the same with any other info you'd like to know. I'll do my best to give mainstream only sources.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5589099104255077250&q=9/11+press+for+truth#0h30m51s
 
Bustaballs said:
I'll do my best to give mainstream only sources.
Click to expand...

I'll interject once more, I guess. Mainstream sources are often the source of your "brainwashing" that you confuse others to have. People assume since they are mainstream sources they must be giving us everything or even the truth... assume. Assume... As much digging as you do to find all of this "information" how come you haven't uncovered some information edited from these "mainstream" sources before the information is aired or printed? I'll tell you why. Just like music that isn't mainstream it's hard to find the goods without proper digging. Digging requires effort so to some people it may seem not worth it. Do some digging my friend. I could link you to something that would blow your mind but if your so hung up on mainstream media being the be all end all and so hell bent on finding "government consipracies" it's no good. Another reason I will not link it is because it's not that hard to find therefore, I think you've seen it and for some reason couldn't stomach the thoughts. I wont tell you there is no Santa Claus but I will tell you, when you're ready to know... the information is out there.
 
Strid said:
I'll interject once more, I guess. Mainstream sources are often the source of your "brainwashing" that you confuse others to have. People assume since they are mainstream sources they must be giving us everything or even the truth... assume. Assume... As much digging as you do to find all of this "information" how come you haven't uncovered some information edited from these "mainstream" sources before the information is aired or printed? I'll tell you why. Just like music that isn't mainstream it's hard to find the goods without proper digging. Digging requires effort so to some people it may seem not worth it. Do some digging my friend. I could link you to something that would blow your mind but if your so hung up on mainstream media being the be all end all and so hell bent on finding "government consipracies" it's no good. Another reason I will not link it is because it's not that hard to find therefore, I think you've seen it and for some reason couldn't stomach the thoughts. I wont tell you there is no Santa Claus but I will tell you, when you're ready to know... the information is out there.
Click to expand...

I assure you, I understand that just as much as you do, if not more but most people tend to dissagree. The main reason I do that is because if I don't use mainstream sources, everyone accuses my sources of not being legit. I have many underground sources for things as well. They are my origins but they base their info on facts which come from experts, witnesses, mainstream sources, etc.

I can give underground sources that are 100% fact as well (a lot easier actually) but just haven't been discussed in the mainstream news (or at least not properly).



Ok Ok. Back to Bush impeachment topic.
 
Strid said:
Just like freedom wasn't free, safety sometimes creates necessary "breaches", if you will, of our normal way of life. Sure hippies hate it, but us normal down to earth people would rather be safe, in the long run, than so concerned with our rights for the short term to make a "statement".
Click to expand...

Once you start giving up rights, it's very hard to get them back. That's why I don't think "safety" is a good reason to start tossing freedom over the side. It's very seldom a "short term" thing.
 
Halifirien said:
Once you start giving up rights, it's very hard to get them back. That's why I don't think "safety" is a good reason to start tossing freedom over the side. It's very seldom a "short term" thing.
Click to expand...


=) I like you. I like this guy too:




Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

-Benjamin Franklin
 
zomg, cartoon netword had it right... in Southpark - where it really was a conspiracy, that wasn't the conspiracy - to inspire fear and awe in a government that can formulate scandal as easily as it can pass a bill to encroach on our rights. Yes.... I agree -.-;;;

/sarcasmoff. Bush may be a dumbass, but he isn't a cold blooded killer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top