And honestly, what problem with law enforcement do the chickenhawks have? I guess I view Al Qaeda like an organized crime syndicate, not a foreign government. Maybe Dems should run ads saying Repubs are weak on crime?

As I was checking the topics, I noticed that my original post came across as far more aggressive than I had intended. Worse, I appeared to be targeting -you-, rather than the more general "group of folks who are followers of these claims". You've always given me the impression that you're a fairly reasonable sort, and I'd really rather not be a jerk in your general direction, if you know what I mean.

In reply to this comment by EndAll:
>> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^vaporlock:
He never even gave a fact throughout the whole video... You can tell by the buzz words he is just another Right Wing hack. I'm sure the treaty sucks, but a "World Communist Government". Come on. There are hardly any Communist governments as it is now. Where are all the Commies supposed to come from I wonder.

-I- think they'll probably come from the same place as the rest of this delusion...from the asses of the right-wing loons.
I mean, are you serious? You actually want me to take a political analysis by Chuck Norris, of a completely outrageous conspiracy theory, and treat it as somehow meaningful? That'd be like getting my political analysis from Ted Nugent...and just as likely to happen. Although, I will admit that at least Norris is no chickenhawk. That doesn't seem to have prevented a few screws from coming loose, however. Maybe it's all those blows to the head.


I didn't ask you to do anything, let alone pick out ONE article linked in the description that I copypasted to serve as the collective punching bag for this here sift. Do you have anything to actually say about the content of the video?

>> ^EndAll:
>> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^vaporlock:
He never even gave a fact throughout the whole video... You can tell by the buzz words he is just another Right Wing hack. I'm sure the treaty sucks, but a "World Communist Government". Come on. There are hardly any Communist governments as it is now. Where are all the Commies supposed to come from I wonder.

-I- think they'll probably come from the same place as the rest of this delusion...from the asses of the right-wing loons.
I mean, are you serious? You actually want me to take a political analysis by Chuck Norris, of a completely outrageous conspiracy theory, and treat it as somehow meaningful? That'd be like getting my political analysis from Ted Nugent...and just as likely to happen. Although, I will admit that at least Norris is no chickenhawk. That doesn't seem to have prevented a few screws from coming loose, however. Maybe it's all those blows to the head.

I didn't ask you to do anything, let alone pick out ONE article linked in the description that I copypasted to serve as the collective punching bag for this here sift. Do you have anything to actually say about the content of the video?


Sorry, it -was- rather buried in my flabbergastation... But I think "... of a completely outrageous conspiracy theory..." pretty well sums it up.

By definition, treaties don't "cede US sovereignty"...since we (well, the Senate) have to both approve them, and then pass any supporting legislation needed.

On a side note, I have a really hard time understanding why some people (almost always right-wingers) seem to feel that -any- cooperation with other countries is somehow a bad thing.

>> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^vaporlock:
He never even gave a fact throughout the whole video... You can tell by the buzz words he is just another Right Wing hack. I'm sure the treaty sucks, but a "World Communist Government". Come on. There are hardly any Communist governments as it is now. Where are all the Commies supposed to come from I wonder.

-I- think they'll probably come from the same place as the rest of this delusion...from the asses of the right-wing loons.
I mean, are you serious? You actually want me to take a political analysis by Chuck Norris, of a completely outrageous conspiracy theory, and treat it as somehow meaningful? That'd be like getting my political analysis from Ted Nugent...and just as likely to happen. Although, I will admit that at least Norris is no chickenhawk. That doesn't seem to have prevented a few screws from coming loose, however. Maybe it's all those blows to the head.


I didn't ask you to do anything, let alone pick out ONE article linked in the description that I copypasted to serve as the collective punching bag for this here sift. Do you have anything to actually say about the content of the video?

>> ^vaporlock:
He never even gave a fact throughout the whole video... You can tell by the buzz words he is just another Right Wing hack. I'm sure the treaty sucks, but a "World Communist Government". Come on. There are hardly any Communist governments as it is now. Where are all the Commies supposed to come from I wonder.


-I- think they'll probably come from the same place as the rest of this delusion...from the asses of the right-wing loons.

I mean, are you serious? You actually want me to take a political analysis by Chuck Norris, of a completely outrageous conspiracy theory, and treat it as somehow meaningful? That'd be like getting my political analysis from Ted Nugent...and just as likely to happen. Although, I will admit that at least Norris is no chickenhawk. That doesn't seem to have prevented a few screws from coming loose, however. Maybe it's all those blows to the head.

A few highlights from the master list:

* Chickenhawk—an older gay man who sexually pursues younger males, i.e. "twinks"/"chickens" or underage boys.

* Manther—Male version of a cougar.

* Puma—a woman in her thirties who dates a younger man (i.e. 20-somethings), often considered to be "cougars-in-training". It also means Cougars whose age disparity is less than 8 years.[10][19]

* Silver fox—A term denoting an attractive older male who is pursued by (generally much) younger women.

* Troll—a man, often a less-attractive older one, who cruises for sex.[20]

* Saber tooth—a woman usually in her fifties dating a man 20+ years her junior, often considered a cougar past her prime.

* Pterodactyl—a cougar well past her prime, often with leathery skin, boney hands and narrow facial features.

* Cougar—a woman over 40[10] who sexually pursues younger men, typically more than eight years her junior.[11] The term appears to have been coined by Canadian website Cougardate.com[12] and has been used in TV series, advertising and film. The 2007 film Cougar Club was dedicated to the subject and in Spring 2009 TV Land aired a reality show called The Cougar. A new show is Cougar Town.

You clearly didn't read my post. The site I listed discredits the video. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't hold it past Dick Cheney to knowingly allow this to happen. The flight hit the pentagon almost an hour after the flights hit the towers. Protocol is to scramble and shoot down any civilian flight off its flight path and that isn't responding to hails, particularly if it is headed towards a high valued military target. For Dick Cheney that should be an easy call. If it wasn't, I seriously question whether he was qualified to be in that position.
At the very least, the south side of the building should have been evacuated as the target was moving in, not after.
I agree the question you pulled out is bullshit, but questions about exactly what orders were given to whom, when, are not unreasonable questions. These are even more relevant if what we'd like to understand how to avoid this sort of thing in the future.
I'm not willfully ignorant as you imply. I won't entertain fantastic stories about fly overs, or detonation squads. I just wouldn't hold it past these particular assholes to allow something like this to happen. They didn't need to do anything active, just don't give the order to fire.
In my mind... the "truthers" are getting paid/encouraged/coverage in order to keep the heat off the real question of was the negligence criminal or plain vanilla incompetence?
FDNY and all that... but the chickenhawk, neocons can go to hell. The fact of the matter is we've spent more money investigating Bill Clinton's blow job than we have the largest attack on our soil since Pearl Harbor, accusations of human rights abuses, and unconstitutional expansions of executive power by the previous administration.
I ask you sir...
srsly?

I did read your post and yes, it does discredit the video, but it brings up other questions just as absurd.

The protocol was never been to shoot down any civilian aircraft that deviates from flight plans and doesn't respond to hails. That is absolutely false and you know it. That policy may have been tightened and changed since these events, but before 9/11 there is no way that the government would shoot down a commercial airliner for those reasons. The simple fact is that no one knew what was going on and where these planes were headed until it was too late.

Like I said before, things were absolutely chaotic that day and people were trying to use their best judgment based on what information they had, which was minimal at best. Watch any of the excellent Discovery Channel or National Geographic Channel documentaries about that day and you'll see how little people had to go on. It is easy to look with hindsight and second guess what people should have done, but in the moment, things are not that simple.

Dick Cheney had no say regarding shooting down anything, so I'm not sure why you are going after him, aside from your obvious anger. Belief in conspiracy theories are so dangerous because they essentially become like a religion: people believe what they believe because they believe it and nothing can persuade them otherwise once they have decided to believe. Even a "moderate" conspiracy theorist like yourself must realize that you have no real evidence to back up your claims, especially claims that the government was complicit, passively or otherwise.

>> ^IronDwarf:
The answer to nearly all of those questions would be something to the effect of that day was utterly chaotic and the US was grossly unprepared for an attack of that kind. Other questions like "Why did Flight 77 hit a part of the building opposite from the high command and mostly empty and under renovation, with majority of victims being civilian accountants?" don't even make sense to ask after the fact. The things that happened that day happened because the people flying those planes made it happen that way.
I'm sorry, but anyone who actually buys into any of this conspiracy bullshit is not looking at all of the material available and is either purposefully or unknowingly keeping themselves ignorant. I know these videos can be persuasive, but they are not giving you all the information; they are picking and choosing what fits their particular theory. For example, I felt like I knew for a certainty what had happened on November 22, 1963 after watching Oliver Stone's "JFK", but after reading more about it I realized the theory was complete shit, no matter how well made and persuasive the movie was.


You clearly didn't read my post. The site I listed discredits the video. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't hold it past Dick Cheney to knowingly allow this to happen. The flight hit the pentagon almost an hour after the flights hit the towers. Protocol is to scramble and shoot down any civilian flight off its flight path and that isn't responding to hails, particularly if it is headed towards a high valued military target. For Dick Cheney that should be an easy call. If it wasn't, I seriously question whether he was qualified to be in that position.

At the very least, the south side of the building should have been evacuated as the target was moving in, not after.

I agree the question you pulled out is bullshit, but questions about exactly what orders were given to whom, when, are not unreasonable questions. These are even more relevant if what we'd like to understand how to avoid this sort of thing in the future.

I'm not willfully ignorant as you imply. I won't entertain fantastic stories about fly overs, or detonation squads. I just wouldn't hold it past these particular assholes to allow something like this to happen. They didn't need to do anything active, just don't give the order to fire.

In my mind... the "truthers" are getting paid/encouraged/coverage in order to keep the heat off the real question of was the negligence criminal or plain vanilla incompetence?

FDNY and all that... but the chickenhawk, neocons can go to hell. The fact of the matter is we've spent more money investigating Bill Clinton's blow job than we have the largest attack on our soil since Pearl Harbor, accusations of human rights abuses, and unconstitutional expansions of executive power by the previous administration.

I ask you sir...
srsly?

Fox New - A roost for chickenhawks

ya beat me to it RASCH!
the debate if torture is a political right or wrong,or if its its even justified
is IRRELEVANT.
let me say that again for those who got their intellect from a cracker jack box.
the debate on whether torture is righteous,or a political ideology is IRRELEVANT.
RASCH is correct.according to article 3 of the geneva convention,and CIA,NSA and fbi legal guidelines,waterboarding is considered TORTURE,therefore it is against the LAW.not just international law,but national.
dont like the law?then CHANGE it.
but bybee,addington and woo did not do that did they?
they created retro-active legislation that RETROACTIVELY gave immunity to those who were the architects of the iraq war.
if the bush administration was so righteous in the iraq war and its prosecution,why would they have senior white house legal counsel create laws to grant immunity..retroactively?
answer=because the prosecution of the "war on terror" was an illegal war,using illegal "interrogation techniques".
in the aftermath of world war 2,three japanese interrogators were executed.
their crime?...waterboarding.
which court prosecuted these japanese interrogators?....american.
there IS NO ARGUMENT....waterboarding is against the LAW..period.
so for those who feel they can turn this into a political diatribe are just being weak-minded,or even worse...tools for an establishment who left their ideologies a long time ago.
while bansheex may be corrct that in the past it was the democracts who were the chickenhawks,it is BESIDE THE POINT,and has no relevance to the current argument.
and QM's argument is just one big red herring,and avoids the real point in order to push his "i hate libs" polemic.
this IS NOT A POLITICAL TALKING POINT.this is about the honor of the USA and how we,as a nation,are all equal UNDER THE LAW.
jesse ventura put it perfectly,and i agree,i dont care if it was a repub,or a dem that knew about this,and either by action OR inaction allowed this perversion to go on.ALL of them should be held accountable.
this new development with the additional abu ghraib pictures NOT being revealed has me fuming.it smacks of political hubris.my guess is that some
prominent politicians will be exposed as having known about these abuses and let it slide for political expediency.i find this VERY distasteful.
no-one should be above the law.
and waterboarding is torture,it was developed for the sole purpose of producing a "false confession" and did nothing to gather or obtain pertinent information,but did a great job in making our country seem the hypocrite and made or soldiers far less safe.
and QM..please read up on the legalities please.the "national flag" defense was a construct by the bybee/addington crew to do exactly what you did here..
defend torture,and was corrected in 2006.that argument can no longer be used.
somebody else mentioned "citizen rights"..yeah..ok...
go check out MCA of 2006,patriot act 1& 2,victory act 1& 2.
all they have to do is deem you an "enemy combatant" and your whisked away to "secret rendition" club med.there was a post here a few weeks ago about a 16 yr old who was brought in under the patriot act,he lost all rights as a citizen.no habeas corpus,no rights of redress,the state does not have to produce evidence under the vague banner of "national security".
this whole things stinks to high heaven,reeking of political malfeasance and abuse.the worst thing is how it indirectly puts our soldiers in a much worse situation than before.and for what?...nothing,absolutely nothing.
i didnt serve my country to watch a bunch of gray haired chicken hawk pussies,who didnt have the balls to sign up when called, but now are all trash talking tough guys,who put MY kids in danger.
bunch of panty-waist,pussy fags.
im done...there is no argument.
against the law..period.
either change the law,or shut the fuck up.
better yet,put your money where your mouth is,and go sign up for the army.
lets see you trash talk then.
fucking pussies.
/rant OFF
thanks for tuning in to:enoch's cathartic rant.

^ "Ah ha ha ha hee hee ho ho....and I thought MY jokes were bad".


QM = chickenhawk fear-monger

Attacking the messenger won't save you from the obvious: the Emperor wears no clothes, honor or dignity.

QM = chickenhawk fear-monger

WOW QM,
that last comment was a barrage of incoherent nonsense.
having no basis with actual fact,just conjecture and poorly applied logic.
and for the record...
you made netrunners point for him.

it is obvious from your posts that you are passionate..
about what i have NO idea!
thats not quite accurate,
you seem to be in favor of small government,and fiscal responsibility.
that is an inherent republican viewpoint.
nothing wrong with that,
but who was the last TRUE republican?
Barry goldwater,now THAT man was a true republican.
no republican since has shown the discipline for fiscal responsibility,
nor have they helped make government smaller.
quite the opposite in fact.
nixon,reagan and bush (bush 1 didnt do half bad..comparatively)all tripled the deficit,expanded government and de-regulated such institutions as the financial industry,which let loose the dogs of unhindered greed and gave us the debacle we are in now.
the republicans have also become the party of chickenhawks.
its like we live in bizzaro world!
for 200 years it was the DEMOCRATS who were chickenhawks..not the REPUBLICANS.
the last ten years the republican party has been more neo-conservative,than conservative.
dont let that title fool you.
neo-conservative has NOTHING to do with "conservative",it was originally called "neo-liberalism".
the republican party was hi-jacked by this band of imperialists.
you should be mad as hell QM.
the party who purports to stand for the values which you hold dear,
have not done so in over 30 years.
why you defend a party who no longer represents your philosophy,and hasnt for a generation,boggles the imagination.
history is your friend QM.
i suggest you look into it,instead of throwing out tired polemics fed to you by an establishment who left you behind a very long time ago.

one final note.
just because i have listed a brief history of republican misrepresentation,
does NOT automatically mean i am a democrat.
that is the weakest,media-induced polemic of all.
it lacks imagination,character and any sense of critical thinking.
what i have posted is fact...period.
a fact you should look into before you start throwing out expletives at people defending a political party that has abandoned your philosophy.
stop defending them,
and instead..start holding their feet to the flames and make them accountable for the principles they promised,
or..which i found quite refreshing this past election cycle.
vote them out.
because i read your posts QM,
and you are a paradox.
you rightly admonish the media for manipulation,
yet you listen and regurgitate their narratives..
only when it fits your premise it seems.
nobody here is your enemy QM,
your party is.

What shocked me was how much the last administration wanted to hide this sad but honourable practice by suppressing the news of casualties. Damned chickenhawk Bushie fools.

^ They sold themselves off to the highest bidder, and put up a chickenhawk who believes God tells him what to do.