|
Insulting people is usually an indication that you have a problem with them. Of course, this is a cultural thing, and I'm open to the possibility that you come from a culture where insults do not imply that there exists intolerance or incompatibility. However, this possibility seems small to me.
It's also possible that you do not consider "fuck you" to be an insult. But that interpretation would not be very flattering for you, so I do not consider it seriously.
It would seem to be that you do actually have a problem with what you call "close-minded people," and considering the associated OP, you call those who do not consider the possibility of the so-called terrorist attacks on the USA originating from the US government "close-minded."
You offer circumstantial evidence, which isn't evidence. It is not fair to insult people for not being swayed by non-evidence.
|
i feel that somebody in this thread gives a flying fuck about my opinion
meh, i've been over this in other threads, read lots of shit, run around the conspiracy sites, run around the debunkings, run around the debunkings of the debunkings and all sorts of other random shit and my conclusion is that any intelligent conspiracy theorist must be extremely misguided
also if you don't give a shit you can have a great big fuck you cause i don't give one either
|
On August 04 2008 18:36 EmeraldSparks wrote:
i feel that somebody in this thread gives a flying fuck about my opinion
meh, i've been over this in other threads, read lots of shit, run around the conspiracy sites, run around the debunkings, run around the debunkings of the debunkings and all sorts of other random shit and my conclusion is that any intelligent conspiracy theorist must be extremely misguided
also if you don't give a shit you can have a great big fuck you cause i don't give one either
LEARN TO FUCKING READ
since you aren't going to understand what I mean - I will elaborate.
MY POST WAS ADDRESSED TO CLOSEMINDED PEOPLE.
if you consider yourself closeminded, and you are purposely that way, then yes, FUCK YOU
those kinds of people are assholes. they cause problems for everyone around them with their purposeful ignorance. the fact that most people don't understand that doesn't change that it is the truth
|
I'm not really sure what your point is. It doesn't change anything... a lone scientist with a grudge against the government (whose mental health might not be all that great to begin) using something he probably works with every day (or can get easy access to at any rate). It hardly points to some massive government conspiracy. It'd be like claiming an explosion at a chemical plant was a conspiracy after an employee who worked at another site sneaked some cyanide out of his lab that and poisoned someone.
|
hey travis
with all due respect
if people are misunderstanding you, it's because you miscommunicated, not because they're dumb. maybe consider editing the OP to make your intentions clear?
|
On August 04 2008 06:29 Chill wrote:
The government can't keep the president getting his cock sucked a secret; you think they could keep genocide a secret?
"The government" is hardly a unified collective - there are oblivious elements within it as well as colluding elements. The power of the colluders is amplified by the number of completely oblivious bench warmers who are content to do as little as possible and coast on the privilege of a good salary and a position from which to engage in petty backscratching. It's not "the government" keeping certain things secret, but guilty elements within that government.
You also presume that Clinton getting his cock sucked was meant to be a secret. The Lewinski incident was essentially like Watergate - a deliberate public scandal to distract from far more dire transgressions. Nixon (and the army of culpable people behind him!) had the denoument of the Vietnam war to hide from, and all of the highly illegal things that were done then. Watergate proved an effective distraction that caused Nixon, ultimately, no real harm. He was leaving office anyway and otherwise escaped any sort of punishment under the law. Everyone paid a lot less attention to what was being swept under the carpet about Vietnam, however.
With Clinton it was the fiasco in the Balkans. He, along with the Germans, had been funding the Kosovo Liberation Army (aka - more Islamic terrorists) and inciting them to violence in Serbia. The CIA and German BND worked together to arm and train the KLA - the terrorists were even wearing old East-German uniforms! When the Lewinski thing went down they were busy trying to blame Milosevic for the "Genocide" at Srebenicia and desperately trying to take attention away from the fact that it happened AFTER the NATO forces started carpet bombing the Serbs. Should the latter have made it to the news, it would have been apparent that the killing at Srebenicia was a reaction to the aggression of NATO (and the war that had been started by the KLA provocateurs) rather than the publicly claimed situation that the NATO bombing was a RESPONSE to the genocide. How it could be a response to something that happened after it is beyond me, but with everyone's attention on his cock it seems that nobody bothered to pay attention.
So one must be careful when making statements like this. Ask yourself what assumptions you are making and suddenly things aren't nearly as cut and dry as a hard-hitting one-liner may make it initially seem to be.
|
You also presume that Clinton getting his cock sucked was meant to be a secret. The Lewinski incident was essentially like Watergate - a deliberate public scandal to distract from far more dire transgressions. Nixon (and the army of culpable people behind him!) had the denoument of the Vietnam war to hide from, and all of the highly illegal things that were done then. Watergate proved an effective distraction that caused Nixon, ultimately, no real harm. He was leaving office anyway and otherwise escaped any sort of punishment under the law. Everyone paid a lot less attention to what was being swept under the carpet about Vietnam, however.
Well sir I think you make a good point but...
BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH
put on your tin foil hat and do a dance!
seriously I hope you die from 1st degree burns because of acid.
|
OH HAI GUYS! My name is travis, and I'm going to use this blog to up my post count! So this is how I'm going to do it:
1. Make a provocative post. One that includes little facts, and almost no independent or original thought, in fact, I think I'll post a couple videos instead. Then I'll end the post with
On August 04 2008 06:01 travis wrote:
I can't help but keep making posts about this stuff. It blows my mind how people can just shut theirselves off to new possibility. WAAAAAAAKE UUUUP
(Note the liberal use of CAPS and bold to further provoke people to reply)
2. Now just wait for people to reply!
3. Now it's time to reply to those replies! My goal is to up my post count, and since I actually have no substance behind my posts or ideas anyway, I'll provide 1 sentence replies to everyone and quadruple-post.
4. Profit!
HERE'S ANOTHER CONSPIRACY THEORY FOR YOU GUYS: travis doesn't actually believe any of this! he is only trying to up his post count! :D
|
On August 05 2008 04:01 ahrara_ wrote:
hey travis
with all due respect
if people are misunderstanding you, it's because you miscommunicated, not because they're dumb. maybe consider editing the OP to make your intentions clear?
I do my best to say exactly what I mean. It is not my fault that others make assumptions and inferences.
My intentions don't need to be made clear. I know my intentions, that is what is important. My intentions have nothing to do with the result.
People tend to see whatever they want to see.
|
On August 05 2008 04:27 Mooga wrote:OH HAI GUYS! My name is travis, and I'm going to use this blog to up my post count! So this is how I'm going to do it: 1. Make a provocative post. One that includes little facts, and almost no independent or original thought, in fact, I think I'll post a couple videos instead. Then I'll end the post with Show nested quote +On August 04 2008 06:01 travis wrote:
I can't help but keep making posts about this stuff. It blows my mind how people can just shut theirselves off to new possibility. WAAAAAAAKE UUUUP (Note the liberal use of CAPS and bold to further provoke people to reply) 2. Now just wait for people to reply! 3. Now it's time to reply to those replies! My goal is to up my post count, and since I actually have no substance behind my posts or ideas anyway, I'll provide 1 sentence replies to everyone and quadruple-post. 4. Profit! HERE'S ANOTHER CONSPIRACY THEORY FOR YOU GUYS: travis doesn't actually believe any of this! he is only trying to up his post count! :D
rofl! the moon ladning didnt happen pearl hardbor was planned by the US
|
On August 05 2008 04:14 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +You also presume that Clinton getting his cock sucked was meant to be a secret. The Lewinski incident was essentially like Watergate - a deliberate public scandal to distract from far more dire transgressions. Nixon (and the army of culpable people behind him!) had the denoument of the Vietnam war to hide from, and all of the highly illegal things that were done then. Watergate proved an effective distraction that caused Nixon, ultimately, no real harm. He was leaving office anyway and otherwise escaped any sort of punishment under the law. Everyone paid a lot less attention to what was being swept under the carpet about Vietnam, however. Well sir I think you make a good point but... BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH put on your tin foil hat and do a dance! seriously I hope you die from 1st degree burns because of acid.
Laugh if you like. I invite you to read the works of academic historians, however - their version of history tends to be substantially more researched and generally much more critical than what popular culture has assimilated from the evening news. I assure you that what I've said is not nearly as ludicrous as you seem to believe.
|
FACT: Larry Silverstein ordered the demolishion of World Trade Center 7
Video Evidence
FACT: For a building of it's size it would take approximately 2 weeks to set up a controlled demolishion
For me this was the smoking gun, I don't think I have to tell anyone what the above video imply.. the 9/11 comission conveniently ignored mentioning WTC7 alltogether because it doesn't fit in to thier official storyline. Silverstein is Jewish, DO NOT tell me he was in cooperation with Al-Qaeda, more likely Mossad had a hand in this.
|
i watched the video and i have to say, are you fucking retarded? pull can also mean you know... pulling out? as in the firefighters pulling out? now i know conspiracy theorists like to reach but this is like reaching to the fucking moon. i will be reasonable if you can present reasonable evidence, but that was dumb as hell.
|
The 9/11 conspiracy theory takes a couple insignificant details that don't make sense, and twist it into a giant whore of a conspiracy.
If the government wanted to blow up WTC, they wouldn't have flown a passenger plane into it. Also there is absolutely no science to support that the plane couldn't have caused WTC to collapse.
|
On August 06 2008 02:59 ahrara_ wrote:
i watched the video and i have to say, are you fucking retarded? pull can also mean you know... pulling out? as in the firefighters pulling out? now i know conspiracy theorists like to reach but this is like reaching to the fucking moon. i will be reasonable if you can present reasonable evidence, but that was dumb as hell. 'Pull out' would be semantically correct if he was talking about firefighters, 'pull it' is obviously referring to an object, to add to that there were no firefighters in or around WTC7 after the initial evacuation according to FEMA, NIST & Popular Mechanics
WHAT NOW?
|
lol
i don't think you get it
anyway you're free to think what you want
|
On August 06 2008 04:25 ahrara_ wrote:
lol
i don't think you get it
anyway you're free to think what you want
this is such a pathetic answer. he directly challenges you and this is how you reply.
|
So we spend time arguing whether or not the government did something wrong, eh?
We already have more than enough evidence that the Bush administration was either criminally negligent or criminally stupid. Why are you spending your time arguing whether or not a particular instance of failure was negligence or malice?
|
On August 06 2008 07:53 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2008 04:25 ahrara_ wrote:
lol
i don't think you get it
anyway you're free to think what you want this is such a pathetic answer. he directly challenges you and this is how you reply.
it's ridiculous that anybody would consider one word that could've easily have been misspoken as a "smoking gun". even i have to admit you posted credible evidence and argumentation. but because one guy said "pull it" instead of "pull out" doesn't mean jack.
|
i think you are not being open minded to close minded ppl
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
