First it's I haven't presented any facts then it's my facts aren't factual.
It's ok Scott, " We " know about your blindspot.
Just admit you are wrong and back down from your stupid theory. Your only "proof" is that you think the Pentagon should have been protected and because it wasn't someone in the White House must have acted to defeat the defenses. And the other is that Bush benefited from 9-11. Do you have anything else 'cause that's a load of crap.
Just admit you are wrong and back down from your stupid theory. Your only "proof" is that you think the Pentagon should have been protected and because it wasn't someone in the White House must have acted to defeat the defenses. And the other is that Bush benefited from 9-11. Do you have anything else 'cause that's a load of crap.
Why should I back down to a blow hard who can't see anything but 20 degrees in front of him.
The whole thing was a cluster f#%*& on the US side so no it's not the only evidence. Besides you lost your credibility when first you suggested I hadn't presented any facts. Then the facts I ( hadn't according to you ) suggested were wrong. I call that reaching. What's next? Are you going to start picking at my spelling and grammar?
Admit it! You're a blind Bush supporter who doesn't want to see his president tarnished even if it was the truth.
Besides I'm just suggesting a few possibilities about a situation that seems odd.
You're defense is a load of crap.
You'd be more convicing if you stuck your fingers in your ears and jumped up and down yelling nonsense.
" So far those searches have come up empty-handed and the CIA's first chief weapons hunter has said he no longer believes Iraq had weapons just before the invasion. "
Why should I back down to a blow hard who can't see anything but 20 degrees in front of him.
The whole thing was a cluster f#%*& on the US side so no it's not the only evidence. Besides you lost your credibility when first you suggested I hadn't presented any facts. Then the facts I ( hadn't according to you ) suggested were wrong. I call that reaching. What's next? Are you going to start picking at my spelling and grammar?
Admit it! You're a blind Bush supporter who doesn't want to see his president tarnished even if it was the truth.
Besides I'm just suggesting a few possibilities about a situation that seems odd.
You're defense is a load of crap.
You'd be more convicing if you stuck your fingers in your ears and jumped up and down yelling nonsense.
You have no point to make. I've addressed your facts and yet you think I ignored them. Unless you have more to offer I think it's you who are blind. You start with your conclusion, "Bush allowed 9-11 to happen for his own gain" and then find circumstantial evidence to back it up. When confronted with some sound reasoning to refute it you put you?re hands over your ears and yell like a 4 year old. Bring more to the table to SFTU.
You have no point to make. I've addressed your facts and yet you think I ignored them. Unless you have more to offer I think it's you who are blind. You start with your conclusion, "Bush allowed 9-11 to happen for his own gain" and then find circumstantial evidence to back it up. When confronted with some sound reasoning to refute it you put you?re hands over your ears and yell like a 4 year old. Bring more to the table to SFTU.
LOL! What sound reasoning was that?
Do you know how dumb it looks to repeat my discription of you?
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
I already addressed your "facts" and this is the best response you have?
Were you even aware that the Pentagon was in the flight path for national airport?
You haven't told us how Bush benefits from all this.
But I'm the one with the problem?
Yes I knew the pentigon was on the flight path.
Myself and others have gone over the benifits to Bush. Don't play dumb. By the way there is no " us " it's just mostly you.
Look it's pointless to talk to you because it's all been gone over before.
Any facts that I present will be instantly dismissed ( and by the way that's not a good debate tactic ).
Fortunately none of what you say here and your denial will keep Bush's ball of yarn from unraveling.
I do think the mods should take note of the name calling however.
Originally posted by Scott
They are dismissed because they are shown not to be factual.
First it's I haven't presented any facts then it's my facts aren't factual.
It's ok Scott, " We " know about your blindspot.
the entire episode and video interviews are also available online at the same link
Originally posted by jimmac
First it's I haven't presented any facts then it's my facts aren't factual.
It's ok Scott, " We " know about your blindspot.
Just admit you are wrong and back down from your stupid theory. Your only "proof" is that you think the Pentagon should have been protected and because it wasn't someone in the White House must have acted to defeat the defenses. And the other is that Bush benefited from 9-11. Do you have anything else 'cause that's a load of crap.
Originally posted by Scott
Just admit you are wrong and back down from your stupid theory. Your only "proof" is that you think the Pentagon should have been protected and because it wasn't someone in the White House must have acted to defeat the defenses. And the other is that Bush benefited from 9-11. Do you have anything else 'cause that's a load of crap.
Why should I back down to a blow hard who can't see anything but 20 degrees in front of him.
The whole thing was a cluster f#%*& on the US side so no it's not the only evidence. Besides you lost your credibility when first you suggested I hadn't presented any facts. Then the facts I ( hadn't according to you ) suggested were wrong. I call that reaching. What's next? Are you going to start picking at my spelling and grammar?
Admit it! You're a blind Bush supporter who doesn't want to see his president tarnished even if it was the truth.
Besides I'm just suggesting a few possibilities about a situation that seems odd.
You're defense is a load of crap.
You'd be more convicing if you stuck your fingers in your ears and jumped up and down yelling nonsense.
Originally posted by curiousuburb
The commission would probably want to watch tonight's episode of Frontline, "The Man Who Knew"
the entire episode and video interviews are also available online at the same link
Slightly off topic but since the Bush supporters like to bring this up along with 911 :
http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/book....ap/index.html
And of course on that same topic :
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/....ap/index.html
The telling part :
-----------------------------------------------------------
" So far those searches have come up empty-handed and the CIA's first chief weapons hunter has said he no longer believes Iraq had weapons just before the invasion. "
-----------------------------------------------------------
Just another log on the fire.
Originally posted by jimmac
Why should I back down to a blow hard who can't see anything but 20 degrees in front of him.
The whole thing was a cluster f#%*& on the US side so no it's not the only evidence. Besides you lost your credibility when first you suggested I hadn't presented any facts. Then the facts I ( hadn't according to you ) suggested were wrong. I call that reaching. What's next? Are you going to start picking at my spelling and grammar?
Admit it! You're a blind Bush supporter who doesn't want to see his president tarnished even if it was the truth.
Besides I'm just suggesting a few possibilities about a situation that seems odd.
You're defense is a load of crap.
You'd be more convicing if you stuck your fingers in your ears and jumped up and down yelling nonsense.
You have no point to make. I've addressed your facts and yet you think I ignored them. Unless you have more to offer I think it's you who are blind. You start with your conclusion, "Bush allowed 9-11 to happen for his own gain" and then find circumstantial evidence to back it up. When confronted with some sound reasoning to refute it you put you?re hands over your ears and yell like a 4 year old. Bring more to the table to SFTU.
Originally posted by curiousuburb
Jon Stewart's clip on Dr. Rice's commission appearance
LOL...classic.
Originally posted by Scott
You have no point to make. I've addressed your facts and yet you think I ignored them. Unless you have more to offer I think it's you who are blind. You start with your conclusion, "Bush allowed 9-11 to happen for his own gain" and then find circumstantial evidence to back it up. When confronted with some sound reasoning to refute it you put you?re hands over your ears and yell like a 4 year old. Bring more to the table to SFTU.
LOL! What sound reasoning was that?
Do you know how dumb it looks to repeat my discription of you?