RE: Ridge: Bush officials sought to raise terror alert before '04 vote
August 24, 2009 at 3:06 pm
You don't seem to realize that your ideas are not worth arguing against, they're crap. Also, considering what you said to Adrian in the kittenshare thread, it's even more clear how you simply believe what you want and don't consider, or care to read, any viewpoints that differ from your preconceptions. But just to humor you, I'll refute your post without presenting facts to the contrary, because I don't need to.
Calling the bailouts a crime and "more deceitful" is where you're placing assertions. That is not fact and it's a generalized statement that doesn't begin to consider the complexity of the bailouts. Simply stating they both had bailouts, generalizing them and labeling them as a crime without any evidence to suport your silly assertion, means this point is meaningless.
Here's another assertion. Back it up with proof. Name names, prove these people have associations you claim they do without just saying it. Prove anything illegal was done.
Assumes we agree 9/11 was a conspiracy, which is a premise we don't agree with. Furthermore, no attack had happened, no new war has happened with Barrack, so suggesting that it might happen does nothing for your argument. You're speculating, that's no evidence. That's also a Post Hoc argument.
"It seems strange" Is the key word. You show you're speculating without substantial facts to support, and how many times do we have to tell you that finding something "interesting" or "strange" is evidence for SHIT. Unless you have evidence to support that these two events have ANYTHING to do with each other that then prove they're working for the same "shadow government" you're blowing smoke.
Prove it. You've posted assertions, not backed up, not shown to be linked to each other and the cause you claim these things have.
In other words, you're blowing smoke. Come back when you can actually back up the bullshit you spew.
(August 22, 2009 at 7:15 am)Pippy Wrote: Bush had a bailout. It was a crime.
Barry had a bailout, it was bigger and more deceitful.
Calling the bailouts a crime and "more deceitful" is where you're placing assertions. That is not fact and it's a generalized statement that doesn't begin to consider the complexity of the bailouts. Simply stating they both had bailouts, generalizing them and labeling them as a crime without any evidence to suport your silly assertion, means this point is meaningless.
(August 22, 2009 at 7:15 am)Pippy Wrote: Bush named an administration of CEO and Execs. Illegal.
Barry named a cabinet of Israeli war criminals and Trilateral/PNAC thugs. Illegal and worrisome.
Here's another assertion. Back it up with proof. Name names, prove these people have associations you claim they do without just saying it. Prove anything illegal was done.
(August 22, 2009 at 7:15 am)Pippy Wrote: Bush had slumping public opinion, but then came the "attack" and the "war".
Barry is a rock star, but his polls are also slipping. When comes the false flag "attack" and the new "war"?
Assumes we agree 9/11 was a conspiracy, which is a premise we don't agree with. Furthermore, no attack had happened, no new war has happened with Barrack, so suggesting that it might happen does nothing for your argument. You're speculating, that's no evidence. That's also a Post Hoc argument.
(August 22, 2009 at 7:15 am)Pippy Wrote: The last thing Bush did before leaving was seal presidential records and re-write the laws about presidential (and vice residential) accountability and privacy. He in fact changed almost the entirety of the executive branch, well... Cheney did, he was the real president...
The first thing Barry did was seal his records from Occidental College, spending about $1,000,000 to do so. It seems strange that his first priority was to cover his tracks... And markedly similar to the last president.
"It seems strange" Is the key word. You show you're speculating without substantial facts to support, and how many times do we have to tell you that finding something "interesting" or "strange" is evidence for SHIT. Unless you have evidence to support that these two events have ANYTHING to do with each other that then prove they're working for the same "shadow government" you're blowing smoke.
(August 22, 2009 at 7:15 am)Pippy Wrote: There is someone higher up than both these egomaniacs. Someone picked Bush, and made him win. Someone also picked Barry, groomed him to near perfection, and put him in power too. The people that really run america, call it the (dum-dum-dum) shadow government are still in charge. Nothing has changed. That is why I say they are one and the same. And if nothing changes, whomever they pick for the next president will also be one of "them".
Prove it. You've posted assertions, not backed up, not shown to be linked to each other and the cause you claim these things have.
In other words, you're blowing smoke. Come back when you can actually back up the bullshit you spew.
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin
::Blogs:: Boston Atheism Examiner - Boston Atheists Blog | :
odcast:: Boston Atheists Report
::Blogs:: Boston Atheism Examiner - Boston Atheists Blog | :
