wacko, got to upvote for "who's your daddy"

Great post, although I don't think Thurston or Obama need to feel humiliated or embarrassed for having to defend against this kind of bullshit. The only shame to be found is on the heads of Trump and any of the other birther wackos who spout this nonsense.

>> ^honkeytonk73:

>> ^residue:
suddenly: anti-theism
I don't see any previous comments that would have prompted your inane "response"
>> ^honkeytonk73:
We obviously must thank Jesus/God that it didn't impale the driver. Because Jesus/God certainly has a magical hand in the prevention, not instigation of accidents.


If I had said this, would you have also been as agitated and bothered to post a response? Probably not.
"We obviously must thank Zeus that it didn't impale the driver. Because Zeus certainly has a magical hand in the prevention, not instigation of accidents."


woaaha, man, you got him good! you totally sniffed him out as a religious wacko!!! hahaahah...but seriously man we don't need to bring zeus into this. not cool.

oh, and btw, Harvard Square is always filled with some random crazy wackos. Not too surprised about the ass-wiggling guy, so I'd find that to be "normal" given the area that he was taken notice of.

So you're claiming a monopoly on reasonable explanations? If the explanations would stand to reason, then why does it take FOIA lawsuits to obtain video? Why is any information about the building collapses withheld at all? I'm not a supporter of many alternative theories, but I know that the first version of history never survives.
>> ^MaxWilder:

It's just these wacko conspiracy theorists that seem to be making up their own facts and ignoring perfectly reasonable explanations that piss me off.

I can't believe there are still people bringing this crap up.

1. The towers were designed to withstand impacts by jet planes and to withstand fires. But they didn't account for the fact that a jet impact would strip much of the insulation on the steel girders. So the impact plus the prolonged fire was what did them in.
2. The towers were all designed to collapse downward in case of catastrophic failure. That is a design priority for skyscrapers, and has been for decades.
3. WTC7 was seriously damaged by the collapse of WTC1, which also started fires across a number of floors. The damage to the water system caused by the collapse of the larger towers allowed the fires to burn out of control for almost seven hours.

The structural damage to WTC7 plus the uncontrolled fires caused a progressive collapse. That means that several internal collapses occurred before there simply wasn't enough structure left to hold up the building. You can see the penultimate collapse right there in the videos, when one of the penthouse structures goes down into the building. It is likely that several internal collapses happened before we see that.

I'm not saying people should forget about what happened. I'm not even saying we should stop trying to figure out exactly what happened. It's just these wacko conspiracy theorists that seem to be making up their own facts and ignoring perfectly reasonable explanations that piss me off.

Two of the tallest structures ever built by man collapsed amidst dozens of other massive structures. It's amazing they didn't take more with them.

Every church has their wackos; safe bet on the latter.>> ^EMPIRE:

>> ^KnivesOut:
I have no love for wacky, made-up religions, but...
Is her insanity a symptom of the Mormonism, or is her belief in Mormonism just another symptom of her insanity?
Causation or correlation?

The correct answer is: Yes.

The Right is full of wackos with outrageous demands like 'low taxation' and 'smaller, acountable government'. Why, I even heard ONE guy talk about 'States' Rights'? STATES' RIGHTS! Isn't that what HITLER was after?

My original AWESOME observation stands. While liberals depend on Lady Luck and poor bomb-building skills at the muslim ITT to protect Americans from terrorists, the rest of us do what must be done. If the protest kook was just standing there with a sign and got tackled, I'd agree it was too much. I wouldn't expect to quickly hand Alan Dis-grayson a revolver made of chocolate and not be tackled.


The outcome of these comments is as follows: I on the Right am right, you on the left are insane. As usual.

Wow, just wow. This guy is a F'ing wacko.

Interesting though, now we know where QM and WP get all their rhetoric from.

I actually agree, business and government certainly isn't exempt from hypocrisy and targeted ridicule. As historian Howard Zinn stated "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

More on topic with this thread..

The problem is the mass media these days is so preoccupied by issues that have little effect on the well being of the nation or the well being of society at large. Example. Such book burnings. They focus on one wacko Florida preacher. When he doesn't burn the Koran.. they portray a massive sigh of relief and a victory for civilization. Meanwhile.. on youtube.. hundreds or thousands of books are burned and videos are posted. Not even a whimper on the airwaves. Go figure.


>> ^quantumushroom:

I enjoyed reading your reply, Tonk. Well said.
I admit, I do bash religion, but there is just too much hypocrisy, inconsistency, and lack of reason in it to leave it alone.

In that statement you can also replace "religion" with "government", "the legal system", "organized sports" or "business".

>> ^blankfist:

Who cares if some goofy pastor wants to burn a book? Look, you can go online and find countless of examples of Islamic extremists burning flags and bibles and whatever else. It's stupid to burn a book, but it's even stupider and petty to let it bother you.
But if you burned an Amazing Fantasy #15 we'd have to talk about that.


Agreed. Christians shouldn't care if you burn the Bible. The Bible teaches we are not to worship anything man made depicting anything on earth OR in heaven (this is the 2nd commandment). The words of the Bible are sacred. But the physical copy of the Bible is a mere book made by man. It is not a religious icon.

This pastor should be allowed to burn whatever he wants. It is free speech. It bothers me that Obama stepped in the middle of this. The guy seems like a wacko anyways. He can't even spell Quran correctly.

Who cares about burning the Quran... the equally weirdo Muslims that can't tolerate criticisms of their religion. Remember the death threats for the artist depicting the prophet Mohamed in cartoons? Why is it necessary for the US State dept. to issue a travel warning over this incident? If Islam is such a religion of peace then why is it necessary? Why the many death threats against an artist? Oh wait...

^tsquire1:
I take this as a prime example of the degradation of human spirit and will. We could be so beautiful, but the systematic alienation and oppression of our species by our species leads to shit like this. Its not that she is just 'a wacko', but there should be no McDonalds, no broken home she is a part of, and no substitution for soul by McNuggets. We have to understand that actions and situations like this are INHERENT given the relationships we have to each other as well as the means of production for our society
Underneath the paving stones, the beach!


Yeah.

Or maybe she's just a crazy bitch.

I take this as a prime example of the degradation of human spirit and will. We could be so beautiful, but the systematic alienation and oppression of our species by our species leads to shit like this. Its not that she is just 'a wacko', but there should be no McDonalds, no broken home she is a part of, and no substitution for soul by McNuggets. We have to understand that actions and situations like this are INHERENT given the relationships we have to each other as well as the means of production for our society

Underneath the paving stones, the beach!

A very interesting sift. Kind of hate-filled, but then again being no fan of religion myself, I would extend the same annoyance to building ANYTHING religious near ground zero...

His point about the perception of the mosque in Islamic countries is pretty interesting though. While it may be seen (by a minority) as a show of tolerance, there is no doubt in my mind that it will send a very different message to radical Muslims. They certainly won't differentiate between the intent from a perspective of claiming a second victory over the US. I wonder if there is already any commentary by the wackos on it?

>> ^marinara:

netrunner says ron paul's a hypocrite b/c he opposes the senate bill in general.
i think he might be a wacko libertarian, but a hypocrite?


@marinara, let's make it simple:

Ron Paul on TV wants people to think he's in cahoots with Alan Grayson to shape the bill with a bipartisan amendment.

Ron Paul in e-mail wants people screaming "Kill the bill" at Senators.

If he cares about getting the Audit the Fed thing done, one way to do that is to cut a deal with Democrats, and take the good with the bad. If what he really cares about is stopping evil socialist Democrats, he shouldn't appear in a segment with one and pretend it's a bipartisan love fest. Instead, he should make his position clear.

Add in that this Audit the Fed thing is a signature issue of his, and he doesn't even mention that he'd rather kill this bill than pass Audit the Fed as part of it.

I find the whole thing hypocritical.