Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: makattak on May 11, 2009, 03:15:29 PM
-
http://www.infowars.com/former-top-rated-nra-senator-to-introduce-gun-ban-this-week/
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
May 11, 2009Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat and member of the so-called Blue Dog Coalition, plans to introduce an assault weapons ban this week. Gillibrand, the junior senator from New York, was at one time highly rated by the NRA for her advocacy of the Second Amendment.
Newsday claims Gillibrand has “undergone a transformation” over the last three months and has moved away from “her House record that won the NRA’s top rating while remaining a supporter of Second Amendment rights to gun ownership.” Since her Senate appointment, she has “passed just about every test on guns set by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy,” who reintroduced a bill closing the so-called gun-show loophole at a news conference last week.
It appears likely Ms. Gillibrand was a gun-grabber all along and used the Second Amendment as an election ploy. Polls indicate a large percentage of voters strongly support the Second Amendment.
McCarthy’s bill, H.R. 6676, would utilize the National Instant Criminal Background Check System for background checks on all gun store employees and dealers. In addition to H.R. 6676, three other bills have been offered including laws that would make it illegal for known or suspected terrorists to buy guns.
As reported by Infowars last week, the House is currently working on H.R. 2159, The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, sponsored by Rep. Peter King of New York. The bill would “increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist.”
Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, told WorldNetDaily the bill will likely be used in junction with the DHS “Rightwing Extremism” report that characterizes advocates of the Second Amendment and others as terrorists. “By those standards, I’m one of [DHS Secretary] Janet Napolitano’s terrorists,” Pratt said. “This bill would enable the attorney general to put all of the people who voted against Obama on no-gun lists, because according to the DHS, they’re all potential terrorists.”
Senator Gillibrand is working closely with gun-grabbing organizations, including New Yorkers Against Gun Violence and the Brady Campaign, according to Matt Canter, Gillibrand’s spokesman. New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly and others are working with Gillibrand on “anti-trafficking legislation to stop the flow of illegal guns,” Canter told Newsday.
The Obama administration recently attempted to link the right to own firearms to drug cartel violence in Mexico. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other administration officials have said 90 percent of the weapons used to commit crimes in Mexico come from the United States. In fact, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S. Statistics reveal that most of the guns flowing into Mexico come from the black market, Russian crime organizations, South America, Asia, Guatemala, and the Mexican Army.
Soon after his shoo-in confirmation, Attorney General Eric Holder revived the assault weapons ban debate. Responding to a reporter’s question on weapons’ regulations, Holder said, “Well, as President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons. I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum.” Holder did not provide details on when legislation would be presented to Congress.
Democrats are reluctant to make additional attacks against the Second Amendment. In 1994, the issue was instrumental in handing over control of Congress to the Republicans. Earlier this year, the Democratic-led Senate dealt a body blow to the gun control movement, when 22 Senate Democrats, led by Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., joined 40 Republicans to shelve firearms restrictions in the nation’s capital.
Democrats fearful of backlash have told the Obama administration they would “actively oppose” any renewal of the assault weapons ban. Democrat senators Jon Tester and Max Baucus warned they would “strongly oppose any legislation that will infringe upon the rights of individual gun owners.”
Democrats, however, are biding their time. Veteran gun-grabber Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, author of the 1994 assault weapons ban, told CBS’ “60 Minutes” on April 12 that she has no intention of reintroducing the assault weapons ban at this time. “I’ll pick the time and the place, no question about it,” she said, that is to say when the opportunistic introduction of such legislation is politically expedient and will not damage her party.
Government propaganda and exploitation of recent high profile “gun violence” stories by the corporate media have not turned the public against the Second Amendment. “Recent polls show shrinking support for new gun control measures and strong public sentiment for enforcing existing laws instead. So strong is the shift in public opinion that a proposed assault-weapons ban — once backed by three in four Americans — now rates barely one in two,” reports the Houston Chronicle.
An April poll by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal found that support for curbing the sale of assault weapons and semiautomatic rifles has dropped from 75 percent in 1991 to 53 percent today.
I’m so glad that we have all these blue dog democrats we can always rely on…
Oh, wait, that’s one of them now. Guess we can only rely on them until they get into the national spotlight.
Related: http://www.newsday.com/news/local/politics/ny-usguns0712738461may06,0,977427.story
Edit: Also, no support from anywhere other than Alex Jones >.< yet. Will update with more reliable source as available.
-
Also, might I note what happens in the Democratic party when a Senator is faced with a threat from her left?
SHE MOVES TO THE LEFT.
What happens in the Republican party when a Senator is faced with a threat from the right? He moves to the Democratic party.
Yeah... it's the horrid Republicans that won't stand for any dissension in the ranks.
Also, I will point out that how "loyal" the liberal Republican are compared to the conservative Democrats.
-
If this occurs, there will be a lot of crow that deserves to be eaten on various gun boards. More than a few saw her as a strong ally for RKBA, and disparaged anyone who dared suggest she'd be coopted.
Ah, well. I don't expect a hint of contrition from any of these individuals. They'll probably claim it is a clever ploy on her part, to earn points from the left with legislation she knows will fail.
-
What do you do? On one side you have a democrat who was pro-2nd by her actions and on the other side you have 2nd Amendment lukewarm (or hostile) republicans. Who do you trust?
Chris
-
If this occurs, there will be a lot of crow that deserves to be eaten on various gun boards. More than a few saw her as a strong ally for RKBA, and disparaged anyone who dared suggest she'd be coopted.
Ah, well. I don't expect a hint of contrition from any of these individuals. They'll probably claim it is a clever ploy on her part, to earn points from the left with legislation she knows will fail.
I still remember people saying that about Bush. /facepalm
What do you do? On one side you have a democrat who was pro-2nd by her actions and on the other side you have 2nd Amendment lukewarm (or hostile) republicans. Who do you trust?
Chris
Yeah, it's a bad situation all around. Purging the 'pubbies of the big spenders and anti-freedom types seems like a good place to start.
-
McCarthy’s bill, H.R. 6676, would utilize the National Instant Criminal Background Check System for background checks on all gun store employees and dealers. In addition to H.R. 6676, three other bills have been offered including laws that would make it illegal for known or suspected terrorists to buy guns.
As reported by Infowars last week, the House is currently working on H.R. 2159, The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, sponsored by Rep. Peter King of New York. The bill would “increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist.”
Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, told WorldNetDaily the bill will likely be used in junction with the DHS “Rightwing Extremism” report that characterizes advocates of the Second Amendment and others as terrorists. “By those standards, I’m one of [DHS Secretary] Janet Napolitano’s terrorists,” Pratt said. “This bill would enable the attorney general to put all of the people who voted against Obama on no-gun lists, because according to the DHS, they’re all potential terrorists.”
Aside from the DHS/Terrorist tenuous link... this is a good bill.
Bill 6676 means you have to undergo NICS to work in a gun shop. Duh. If you have to go through NICS for purchase, seems you should have to go through NICS to sell as well.
As far as Larry Pratt and the suspected terrorister mumbo-jumbo... I welcome the dotguv to try that crap with any red blooded American and deny a NICS check as that basis. Watch their lovely law get set up in flames by SCOTUS, setting yet another 2A precedent in our favor. I'll contribute to that court campaign.
They're gonna kill themselves in the courts and do 75% of our work for us. These Constitutional Amendment things are pretty cool like that.
So... what moonbattery are we howling at with righteous indignation here? This is not an AWB or gunshow loophole bill, or anything like that.
-
I guess the main question is will the no-gun list end up like the no-fly list?
-
I need more than "infowars" links!
She may very well be flipflopping, I do not know.
I do know however that I do not trust infowars to tell me if it is hot or cold out.
-
Gillibrand had no comment Wednesday on legislation that hasn't been introduced, said her spokesman Matt Canter.
infowars cited this link
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/politics/ny-usguns0712738461may06%2c0%2c977427.story
and flat out lied! the legislation hasn't been introduced, and Gillibrand isn't set to introduce, McCarthy is!
infowars nutjobbers are not friends of the gun rights movement, they're such a huge lying pita that I suspect they're hired by the Bradybunch to make us look bad.
-
The "no comment on yet to be filed legislation" must be standard for blue dogs. Webb basically said the same thing when asked if he'd support a new AWB.
-
Newsday claims Gillibrand has “undergone a transformation” over the last three months and has moved away from “her House record that won the NRA’s top rating while remaining a supporter of Second Amendment rights to gun ownership.” Since her Senate appointment, she has “passed just about every test on guns set by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy,” who reintroduced a bill closing the so-called gun-show loophole at a news conference last week.
Maybe someone ought to introduce her to that Spitzer individual.
-
Maybe someone should change the title of the thread, since it seems to be incorrect.
-
Maybe someone should change the title of the thread, since it seems to be incorrect.
Quite right. So changed.
-
infowars cited this link
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/politics/ny-usguns0712738461may06%2c0%2c977427.story
and flat out lied! the legislation hasn't been introduced, and Gillibrand isn't set to introduce, McCarthy is!
infowars nutjobbers are not friends of the gun rights movement, they're such a huge lying pita that I suspect they're hired by the Bradybunch to make us look bad.
Wow, you know NOTHING about InfoWars and Alex Jones. Alex has been saying for years that the plan is to eventually grab our guns. He is so far removed from the Brady Bunch it's silly to even put them in the same sentence. Quit attacking people who are on your side, it's not constructive.
-
Wow, you know NOTHING about InfoWars and Alex Jones. Alex has been saying for years that the plan is to eventually grab our guns. He is so far removed from the Brady Bunch it's silly to even put them in the same sentence. Quit attacking people who are on your side, it's not constructive.
geojap, infowars are not on my side, they are flat out bonkers, & liars.
I even proved it, they said Gillibrand INTRODUCED IT, that was a flat out bald faced lie.
911 was not an inside job, people who believe it ARE REALLY STUPID!
911 truthers are either really crazy or really stupid
infowars.com is right about twice a day, & so is a broken clock, the rest of the day they're wrong.
I stand by what I said earlier, I suspect that they are on some kind of mission to make us regular paranoid right wing extremist look bad ;/ ;/ ;/ =D =D =D =D =D :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel:
-
Alex Jones fails to properly vet his sources and thus contributes to massive overreaction by credulous gun owners.
That makes us look foolish to the vital pool of undecided folks, who usually agree with us when we present our arguments rationally.
It also distracts credulous gun owners from the more serious subtle threats to our rights by playing up, with chicken-little nonsense, the non-issue vanity legislation presented to reliably die in committee by the usual subjects year after year after year.
-
Alex Jones fails to properly vet his sources and thus contributes to massive overreaction by credulous gun owners.
That makes us look foolish to the vital pool of undecided folks, who usually agree with us when we present our arguments rationally.
It also distracts credulous gun owners from the more serious subtle threats to our rights by playing up, with chicken-little nonsense, the non-issue vanity legislation presented to reliably die in committee by the usual subjects year after year after year.
That's what I would have said if I was half as articulate as you are, thanks!
-
geojap, infowars are not on my side, they are flat out bonkers, & liars.
I even proved it, they said Gillibrand INTRODUCED IT, that was a flat out bald faced lie.
911 was not an inside job, people who believe it ARE REALLY STUPID!
911 truthers are either really crazy or really stupid
infowars.com is right about twice a day, & so is a broken clock, the rest of the day they're wrong.
I stand by what I said earlier, I suspect that they are on some kind of mission to make us regular paranoid right wing extremist look bad
No, they are not. You are attacking them but not backing up what you say, That is disingenuous and has no supporting evidence. You are asking me to believe you based on faith, or else just on your character.
Please provide me with evidence that Alex Jones is full of crap. Remember that he backs up all of his news stories with government or corporate documents. It's hard to argue against their own documents where TPTB discuss their plans for us.
Please tell me where he's full of *expletive deleted*it. Please.
-
Alex Jones fails to properly vet his sources and thus contributes to massive overreaction by credulous gun owners.
That makes us look foolish to the vital pool of undecided folks, who usually agree with us when we present our arguments rationally.
It also distracts credulous gun owners from the more serious subtle threats to our rights by playing up, with chicken-little nonsense, the non-issue vanity legislation presented to reliably die in committee by the usual subjects year after year after year.
Alex annotates every single one of his assertions in an online bibliography. Please provide one example where you can prove he has been disingenuous or not quoted a verified source. Some sources like Lindsay Williams I will not accept, however, all the Nobel Prize winners and state/national legislators are experts and authorities because of their positions. If you don't trust what they say just because they have been on the ALex Jones show, then you have issues.
-
I even proved it, they said Gillibrand INTRODUCED IT, that was a flat out bald faced lie.
No they didn't, they said that they heard she was going to introduce it. You didn't read it correctly, did you? Please respond to my question that you misread the article to confirm your mistake.
-
Alex annotates every single one of his assertions in an online bibliography. Please provide one example where you can prove he has been disingenuous or not quoted a verified source. Some sources like Lindsay Williams I will not accept, however, all the Nobel Prize winners and state/national legislators are experts and authorities because of their positions. If you don't trust what they say just because they have been on the ALex Jones show, then you have issues.
Citing a source means pretty much nothing. If I post a LiveJournal "article" claiming to have proof Obama is a card carrying Communist who faps to pictures of Mao, citing that just proves you are credulous. Also.....
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat and member of the so-called Blue Dog Coalition, plans to introduce an assault weapons ban this week.
The sauce sez:
But McCarthy said that next week she plans to introduce an assault weapons ban - legislation that is anathema to the NRA and that could pose a problem for Gillibrand.
Totally different, a "bald faced lie" as it were.
No they didn't, they said that they heard she was going to introduce it. You didn't read it correctly, did you? Please respond to my question that you misread the article to confirm your mistake.
1. You are incorrect, so perhaps you should confirm things a bit more before berating others. 2. Stop being a dick. Even if you weren't provably, embarrassingly wrong here there's no call to act in the way you are.
-
Citing a source means pretty much nothing. If I post a LiveJournal "article" claiming to have proof Obama is a card carrying Communist who faps to pictures of Mao, citing that just proves you are credulous.
Like I said, his guests are often Nobel prize winners, and state/national lawmakers. He also has former administration officials from both parties. You are conveniently ignoring what I said. If you want lists of them with interviews, I can get them for you.
You ignored my question. Why is he full of *expletive deleted*it? Please tell me what he said and why it is full of crap. Otherwise, you have libeled him. Please back up what you have said.
-
The thing you need to realize Balog, is that you are libeling someone who is progressing the Liberty Movement, who is a human being and obviously not perfect. You are actually attacking someone who is for open carry and interpreting the second amendment at face value.
You need to step back and re-evaluate. This guy is on your side. If you continue to attack, it shows how farked this country has become and we are doomed to fail because our citizens are too ignorant to know how to stand together and fight together when we have common interests. Don't be "that guy" who is that self-destructive.
-
Like I said, his guests are often Nobel prize winners, and state/national lawmakers. He also has former administration officials from both parties. You are conveniently ignoring what I said. If you want lists of them with interviews, I can get them for you.
You ignored my question. Why is he full of *expletive deleted*it? Please tell me what he said and why it is full of crap. Otherwise, you have libeled him. Please back up what you have said.
Ummm, because the article in question cites a shady source, then utterly misrepresents it? Did you actually read my earlier post? Oh, and you are aware that appeal to authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority) is a logical fallacy?
Additionally, I've seen his 9/11 troof "documentary" and found it utterly laughable. The proof of his lack of credibility is his body of work.
Speaking of conveniently ignoring things, perhaps you'd like to reply to the fact that you attacked a poster here with a blatantly false accusation. Or is the fact that your earlier assertion is entirely without merit (and was proven so after about 1.5 minutes of reading and following links) not worth taking into consideration? Libel is a-ok when leveled against a random forum poster?
The thing you need to realize Balog, is that you are libeling someone who is progressing the Liberty Movement, who is a human being and obviously not perfect. You are actually attacking someone who is for open carry and interpreting the second amendment at face value.
You need to step back and re-evaluate. This guy is on your side. If you continue to attack, it shows how farked this country has become and we are doomed to fail because our citizens are too ignorant to know how to stand together and fight together when we have common interests. Don't be "that guy" who is that self-destructive.
A lot of vile racists are ardent 2nd supporters too. Shall I welcome them with open arms? Wild eyed, intellectually bereft conspiracy theorists being hailed as reliable sources is far more destructive to our cause than being "that guy." I don't want Alex Jones at my side as a 2nd Amendment supporter any more than I want Fred Phelps at my side as a Christian.
-
In this post, Balog learns the difference between the "Quote" and "Modify" buttons. /facepalm
-
Like I said, his guests are often Nobel prize winners, and state/national lawmakers
Oh my gosh! I had no idea Al Gore was an Alex Jones guest! :rolleyes:
Geojap, forget it, it isn't worth trying to change your mind, I knew a guy just like you.
He really believes he is a friend to the cause of freedom/2nd Amendment but his infowars nonsense
just marked him as a lunatic, I do not know if anyone has told you, but crazy people often believe they are sane.
"infowars" people are either insane, incredibly naive, or really incredibly stupid.
Except for Alex Jones, he is just a huckster.
Good luck geo, you're gonna need it.
-
I have one for you.
infowars trumpeted HR 45 as a serious threat by simply reprinting a GOA (another depressingly frquent bastion of unreason and chicken-little-ism) press release on the subject.
There was NO follow-up journalism I can find on the site noting this was vanity legislation that had been repeatedly introduced over almost a decade by one or another of the usual subjects and just as regularly left to die in committee without co-sponsors.
This idiotic non-issue, promulgated by Pratt, Jones and the rest of those whos' ad revenue and donations depend on scaring the credulous (who fail to do their own research and just believe what they read from their chosen "authorities") inflamed the gun blogs and forii for weeks, distracting gun owners from more subtle threats such as the Inter-American Arms Treaty and the UN Convention on Small Arms.
If just once infowars did real research and/or admitted that they were wrong once that becomes clear they might gain a bit of credibility form people who can and do think for themselves.
-
Oh my gosh! I had no idea Al Gore was an Alex Jones guest! :rolleyes:
Geojap, forget it, it isn't worth trying to change your mind, I knew a guy just like you.
He really believes he is a friend to the cause of freedom/2nd Amendment but his infowars nonsense
just marked him as a lunatic, I do not know if anyone has told you, but crazy people often believe they are sane.
"infowars" people are either insane, incredibly naive, or really incredibly stupid.
Except for Alex Jones, he is just a huckster.
Good luck geo, you're gonna need it.
I'm going to say this one more time. YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT IT AT ALL. You never listen, you don't know who is on his shows and you have NO IDEA WHAT HE SAYS. YOU ARE IGNORANT and talking out of your rear-end here. You are spouting off about him when you literally know NOTHING about what he actually says. He HATES Al Gore. The Nobel prize winner was Josef Stiglitz who was VP of the World Bank and talked about how corporations rape small countries under globalism.
Today on his show, Alex had the director of the new documentary "Reclaiming the Blade", which discusses the important of the sword throughout history. They discussed the importance of having an armed militia citizenry and how that specifically applied to the Second Amendment and why it was so important. Check it out here: http://www.reclaimingtheblade.com/
How dare you presume that I might not support the Second Amendment. How dare you presume that you can pass any judgment on me without knowing me at all. You sir, are a patronizing, ignorant blow hard. You pass judgment on those you know nothing about. Your contributions are not even positive, they leave a negative black hole in the discussion. This thread is worse off after you have participated.
I encourage everyone to actually listen to what Alex says and read the news stories and government documents he discusses. Make up your own mind then after you have checked him out. One good documentary to get you started is called "Endgame". It's all over the internet on video sites. He also has a bibliography with all his sources for the documentary, so you can check him out. Just google: "Endgame bibliography".
-
How dare you ignore the fact that the article in question is a complete, utter, and bald faced lie. Perhaps you'd care to address that fact?
-
How dare you ignore the fact that the article in question is a complete, utter, and bald faced lie. Perhaps you'd care to address that fact?
Gonna agree with Balog on this one.
From infowars:
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat and member of the so-called Blue Dog Coalition, plans to introduce an assault weapons ban this week.
From the source infowars quoted:
But McCarthy said that next week she plans to introduce an assault weapons ban - legislation that is anathema to the NRA and that could pose a problem for Gillibrand.
There seems to be a contradiction here.
And remember, gunsmith has a very good point. It's not just what you believe in, but how you contribute to that belief. Does it help the cause you are fighting for if Charles Manson comes out on your side? No, it hurts your cause, because people think that Manson is crazy. You can be for Alex Jones and his 9/11 conspiracy theory all you want, just remember that people WILL judge you based on that decision, and people WILL take you less seriously. Not saying I agree with it, but that's life.
Also, whenever there is a plausible explanation for a conspiracy theory, it wasn't a conspiracy.
And frankly, GeoJAP, stop being a jerk. It really makes people just not listen. If you cannot present your argument in a constructive way, then maybe you should think about letting others fight your battles. Relax, nobody is attacking YOU, they merely do not believe your source, because frankly, it's been shown (hell I just showed it AGAIN) that in at least 1 case, infowars was WRONG.
-
And frankly, GeoJAP, stop being a jerk. It really makes people just not listen. If you cannot present your argument in a constructive way, then maybe you should think about letting others fight your battles. Relax, nobody is attacking YOU, they merely do not believe your source, because frankly, it's been shown (hell I just showed it AGAIN) that in at least 1 case, infowars was WRONG.
But, but, but, they have experts and sources and everything! How dare you question them! You traitor to the cause! ;/
-
because the article in question cites a shady source...
How about all these other sources he provides, which are THE government documents themselves?
MIAC report: http://www.infowars.com/secret-state-police-report-ron-paul-bob-barr-chuck-baldwin-libertarians-are-terrorists/
Army War College Report recommends re-focusing US Army to potentially act against domestic US civilians: http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/Pubs/Display.Cfm?pubID=890
DHS report labels veterans as possible extremists/terrorists: http://www.infowars.com/homeland-security-report-upsets-veterans/
DHS report labels people who discuss Constitution as "extremists": http://www.infowars.com/dhs-extremist-lexicon-emerges/
Did you actually read my earlier post? Oh, and you are aware that appeal to authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority) is a logical fallacy?
Conversely, establishing authority is a primary technique in debate.
Additionally, I've seen his 9/11 troof "documentary" and found it utterly laughable. The proof of his lack of credibility is his body of work.
Evidently many scientists don't agree with you. Two independent scientists found thermite material in the dust in NYC from 9/11. There were explosives used.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Scientists_find_active_superthermite_in_WTC_0404.html
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
Are those sources good enough? Check them out.
-
And remember, gunsmith has a very good point. It's not just what you believe in, but how you contribute to that belief. Does it help the cause you are fighting for if Charles Manson comes out on your side? No, it hurts your cause, because people think that Manson is crazy. You can be for Alex Jones and his 9/11 conspiracy theory all you want, just remember that people WILL judge you based on that decision, and people WILL take you less seriously.
Also, whenever there is a plausible explanation for a conspiracy theory, it wasn't a conspiracy.
Point taken, thanks. Physics, what do you think about this report?
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Scientists_find_active_superthermite_in_WTC_0404.html
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
-
But, but, but, they have experts and sources and everything! How dare you question them! You traitor to the cause! ;/
What I was heatedly saying above is that you should just check out some of the sources. It appears obvious to me that you haven't, and therefore don't know what you're talking about.
It's like someone looking at the ground saying, "The sky is green." Someone else says, "What? Have you even seen it? It's right there! Look at it! It's blue! It's right there!"
-
Care to answer the question about the article in question, and the fact that it's a complete fabrication?
Why are you citing things about the extremist reports when that's not we are discussing? No one is saying every single thing Infowars says is a complete lie; just that much of it is. But I suppose addressing that would upset your little applecart, wouldn't it?
/gasp Two whole scientists?!?! ZOMG, it must be true!!!!!!!!11!!one!!! :rolleyes:
The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it.
-
What I was heatedly saying above is that you should just check out some of the sources. It appears obvious to me that you haven't, and therefore don't know what you're talking about.
It's like someone looking at the ground saying, "The sky is green." Someone else says, "What? Have you even seen it? It's right there! Look at it! It's blue! It's right there!"
Have you looked at the source of the article we're talking about? The one that infowars blatantly lies about? Or do you just prefer to insult people and ignore their arguments while citing sources that have no bearing on the point being argued?
-
Dick Cheney is from
Wyoming!!!!
Last summer it was hot in Wyoming!!!
This past winter it was cold in Wyoming!!
This proves that climate change in Wyoming is all Dick Cheney's fault!!!
Also people in Wyoming sometimes use explosives during mining operations thus it proves without a shadow of a doubt....
DICK CHENEY IMPLODED BUILDING SEVEN!!!
-
You guys are being complete idiots now. When presented with good sources, you act like fools. Give me a break.
-
You guys are being complete idiots now. When presented with good sources, you act like fools. Give me a break.
If those sources had any relationship to the topic at hand they might be better received.
By the way, are you ever going to address the fact that the article this thread is about is a blatant lie?
-
You sir, are a patronizing, ignorant blow hard.
=D :lol:
Why, thanks! I'll have you know in addition to those fine qualities I have many other attributes, such as my humility...I'm very proud of my humility! =D =D =D :lol: :lol: :lol: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel:
-
I am well aware of Dr. Stephen Jones' work on 9-11. That is the only thing that is believable in this whole conspiracy theory stuff.
Keep in mind that the process he uses cannot specify what specific chemicals are, only the atomic makeup. Yes he sees the same signature as military grade thermate, but that is not conclusive evidence with energy dispersive x-ray analysis (edx for short). I use this same technique in my scanning electron microscope. Great for certain things, but it is not EELS, that is for sure.
I have seen all those documentaries, and I remain unconvinced.
-
If those sources had any relationship to the topic at hand they might be better received.
We were discussing Alex Jones and his sources. It applies.
By the way, are you ever going to address the fact that the article this thread is about is a blatant lie?
Yes, the articles' title on Infowars and Newsday don't jive with each other at all.
-
If by "title" you mean "entire article" we can agree.
And again, no one has said Alex Jones et all have never ever said anything true. We are merely pointing out the frequent lies, half-truths, distortions, and misrepresentations. As such, pointing out that he occasionally cites "reputable" sources has no bearing.
-
Oh, and just in case you missed it this is the "Armed Polite Society" not the "Be An ahole To Anyone Who Dares Call Alex Jones On His Bullshit Society." Unless you are looking for an intimate night for two at Hotel Banschwerk I'd suggest you tone the wild eyed rhetoric, personal attacks, and general ass-hattery down a few notches.