Strange coincidence.

• Can something be done to keep one person from slamming the board - Help admin!
  • Look I offered to leave and gt asked me to stay. Make up your minds. nm - sm
    • Unreal, totally unreal - gt
    • When did she do that, sm/MT/etc/E-I-E-I-O? - American Woman
      • Haha! American Woman rocks. - Zauber
        • LOL! - American Woman
        • American Woman is most likely gt and Observor. - /
          • Luckily, your foul tricks won't work this time. Begone, NeoCon. - Zauber
            • You bet they're busted. - American Woman
            • Not a slam, just a clarification. I post under sm here. sm - sm
      • sm is not me. And I offered to leave too. It's on the board. SM - MT
        • No way to know now, is there? - Zauber
        • Yeah, okay, Sybil. Whatever you say. (yawn) - American Woman
          • I won't be nasty. sm - sm
            • Strange coincidence. - Zauber
            • Give it up, sm, I did. Come on over to the C board. :) NM - MT
              • Heard that before. - Zauber
                • Yeah, whatever Dixie Dew. nm - sm
  • reported it - a poster
    • Thanks. Was going to mention there's a special "monitor" board for reports. - Gadfly

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Isn't anyone noticing that the person who is out promoting Rev Wright to get out to talk is one of Hillary's biggest supporters.  This is not a coincidence.  This is what I call Smear!  I'm just disgusted with the whole "game".

(The link to the Hannity & Colmes interview referred to is http://www.911podcasts.com/files/video/FetzerHannityColmes200606222.wmv).  I would definitely recommend watching this. 

There are a lot of *coincidences* here, it would seem. 

Regardless of your position on this topic, you cannot help but admit that a major coincidence (at the very least) took place on the morning of June 23, 2006.

It all began on the evening of June 22, 2006, when Hannity & Colmes (on the FOX/RNC Channel) had a guest on by the name of Dr. James H. Fetzer (see endnote). Fetzer is a member of 9/11 Scholars for Truth. Due to some unexpected initial confusion on the part of the hosts regarding their chosen attack theme (they got their facts FOXED, as Fetzer said), Fetzer was given a rare opportunity to answer an open-ended question -- almost without interruption. As the lawyers all say, Never ask a witness any question to which you do not already know the answer.

Colmes asked Fetzer something to the effect, So can you give us one piece of evidence that would tend to point toward 9/11 being an inside job by the Bush Administration?

While Ollie North (who was guest hosting for Hannity) was apparently still lost in confusion, Fetzer had a rare opportunity to speak a few full sentences without hostile, obnoxious interruptions. He said (and I'm paraphrasing here again), I point you to Secretary of Transportation Norman Minetta's testimony before the 9/11 Commission. Minetta said he had encountered Vice President Cheney in a bunker in Washington, DC, at 9:20 AM, on the day of the attacks [forty-three minutes earlier than Cheney said he had arrived]. Every few seconds a young man would come into the room and say, 'Sir, it's 50 miles out. Sir, it's 40 miles out. Sir, it's 30 miles out,' and so on. Finally the young man asked the Vice President, 'Sir, do the orders still stand?' Cheney replied gruffly, 'Of course, the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?'

Fetzer went on to explain that only later did Minetta learn that the young man was referring to Flight 77 approaching Washington, DC, and the orders the young man was referring to were obviously orders NOT to shoot the plane down. That's why the young man had finally asked if the orders still stood, to which Cheney replied that they did. Shortly thereafter, Flight 77 (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) struck the Pentagon.

Obviously, the producers of the Hannity & Colmes Propaganda Hour had not anticipated such a damning bit of irrefutable evidence to escape over their airwaves to their glassy-eyed, drool-chinned audience.

Here's the Real Kicker... The very next morning, less than twelve hours after his 9/11 testimony had been unexpectedly exposed to the FOX faithful, Norman Minetta resigned as Secretary of Transportation.

What an unbelievably amazing coincidence of timing!

Just for the sake of argument, let's say Minetta's timing was truly nothing more than a coincidence. If so, then he couldn't have picked a worse time to announce it (unless it was his relatively subtle way of sending a message to the masses). Or, if he was forced to resign by Bush/Cheney (for whatever reason), they couldn't have picked a more self-incriminating time to make it happen.

There has been barely a peep about Minetta's resignation in the mainstream media. I saw the same, generic, non-informational, totally uncurious five-second clip about it several times, but there has been absolutely no speculation as to why he did it (although his recent back surgery is implied to be the main reason). That's incredibly unusual behavior for our babbling heads, isn't it? Other high-level resignations in the last few months from the Bush Administration were the subject of endless babble among the MSM elite.

A Final Thought I can only imagine the sudden conflicting thoughts of at least five out of every one hundred Fox viewers who had heard Fetzer mention Minetta's damning testimony just a few hours before Minetta resigned. What must they have been thinking for a short time before their self-hypnosis kicked back in?

Click here to download the clip of the four-minute interview (in Windows Media Format). An AVI version is here.

[Note: James H. Fetzer (FM) Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, a former Marine Corps officer, author or editor of more than 20 books, and co-chair of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.]
Source:  http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=consp_911&Number=284742411#Post294752412

He received a Christmas card when he was recovering in the VA Hospital.  The card said it hoped he died.  A picture of the car and the article are on the conservative board.  Lots of GIs got spit on coming home during Vietnam.  I don't call that strange. I call it abominable and unforgivable.

I do not get.

Me need new insult, yes.

That it will all come down to us.

I certainly hope that's true because we hate Hillary AND McCain.

First reaction is if these issues, which have been posted on O's website ever since he launched his campaign, are of such sudden concern to the cons and femocons, why did they not get addressed during the RNC?  Do you not see the high-jack strategy as the cons try to talk out of both sides of their mouths and reinvent themselves as the new age liberals?  How is this different than the now exposed folly of the compassionate conservative Bush/Cheney ploy?   

Small business.  Either you can't read, you think that we can't or your spin cycle is stuck in high gear.  Go here:  http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#small-business.  Plans to give tax relief for small businesses and startups, eliminate capital gains taxes on them and provide a $500 new making work pay tax credit (one of many) for workers.  For all those IC MTs out there, this is aimed at reducing the burden of double taxation in the current structure where small businesses pay both employer AND employee side of payroll tax.  Obama will INVEST $250 million per year in support of entrepreneurship, by creating national network of public-private business incubators to facilitate start-up creation.  Your $250,000/yr figure applied to tax cuts on INDIVIDUALS who earn in excess of that amount.  Therefore, your offshore, job loss, and massive flight to lower income argument does not hold water on this point.  Please cite the right-wing rag you have taken this $6 billion dollar additional tax on small business claim.  I'm not finding that in O's plan.  The tax breaks to the "lower brackets" (losing their homes, can't decide whether to get medicine or food this month, and if they are lucky, can gas their tank once a month) is addressed below.    

On the plight of the struggling rich.  Define rich, please.  From the bottom, INDIVIDUAL incomes in excess of $250,000/yr might look about right.  From the top, $5 million a year maybe (one of McC's not-so-funny jokes, some would wonder).  The 90% of the federal tax bill claim must be a typo.    Go here for 2008 info: http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/04/the_rich_and_their_taxes.html. Our top 1% of filers pay 40% or tax burden.  An accurate argument would include these facts as well.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth.  In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth.  Let's say that one more time.  Top 1% gets 38%, bottom 40% get less than 1%.  Since they are not earning a living wage, probably that is why they cannot afford to pay tax.  Got the picture?

There is only one reason our long suffering corporations are taking their business overseas.  Greed.  They do not want to pay their share and they get tax incentives currently for outsourcing.  Do not take us down the path of needing to address sweat shop working conditions, 7-day work weeks, $2/day wages in developing countries where US labor laws do not apply.  Greed is not a universal American value.    

There you go again.  Please try to keep this discussion in the context of McCain plans and how they are different than Bush plans.  You are spinning way out in right field without a paddle on that ridiculous statement about keeping people in lower brackets.  What in the world make you think this kind of ignorance is going to help JM/SP win the election. 

Preying on discontent, fear and division was a blatent and nauseating subtext for the RNC this entire week.  I do agree with inspecting history, and the history that is under the microscope now is Bush/Cheney and JM voting history.  Do you really want to bring up govt "borrowing."  Again, Bush is the record setter in this regard and while we are talkin' W, don't forget the Bush slash and burn policies toward our seniors.  Here's a link for you to a rather exhaustive analysis on 12 reason privatizing social security is a bad idea.  http://www.socsec.org/publications.asp?pubid=503.  You can get back to me on that one with your rebuttal.  My question would be putting WHICH people before WHICH party? 

Survey Americans on which party they associate election fraud with in the past, say, 30 years or so and tell me what you come up with.  So you forgot to mention what JM's plan is on this one.   Again, just saying no to personal attacks and steering you back on course.  JM's plan for lobbying and earmarks is what exactly.  I see O has one. 

JM hate war?  LMAO.  So what was all that military service orgie this week all about?   The entire McCain family for generations have shown to us just how much they hate war.  Where is his war prevention strategy?  Did I miss the part where he sang Give Peace a Chance?  Sam, really, do you care nothing about your own credibility or that of your candidates?  Am laughing too hard to comment further on this. 

Here's a link for you to serve as a primer on the Patriot Act controversy.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act#Controversy.  Will not address the attempts you are making to minimize the unconstitutional aspect of this legislation.  I would like an explanation as to how RNC protestors engaging in destruction of private property, vandalism, resisting arrest, disturbing the peace and such have suddenly been charged with terrorism?  The we have not been attacked yet defense does not make me feel warm and fuzzy about standing legislation that violates the constitution 9 ways to Sunday.  Far mongering does not a justification make.  O's plan demonstrates ways to tackle terrorism that do not involve trashing the constitution. 

There are many issues swirling around the separation of church and state.  Christian theocracy will be kept in the marginal fringes where they belong.  Religious principles will not be incorporated into laws that seek to remove a woman's right to control her own body.  Freedom from religion is also at stake here as are hate crime definitions that provide protection for Moslems in the US.  That is the freedom the cons overlook every time. 

The link to this video is somehow automatically rerouted to a different one so every time I cut and paste it, it goes to the other video. 

If you search for "I invented the Internet Obama" that is the correct video that I was trying to share.