The reality, Warfish, is that are far, far more people that think Obama is not a US citizen than there are people who think 9/11 was an inside job.
It's not even close.
You are such a joke.
Tell me more. Don't leave out some stuff about "fairness" too.It's not even close.
The +1 from the sites leading FOX hater conveniently ignoring 3 full hours of calls on a liberal radio station only makes you two even funnier in your laughably biased sillyness.
By all means, don't let (L) me get in the way of your (D) talking points. Personally, I can do with less of you dedicated (D) truthers as well as the dedicated (R) birthers.
Maybe that is why only that portion of his post was highlighted?
How many elected democrats are 9/11 truthers and how many elected republicans are birthers?
The narrative is that the democratic party has shifted further to the left. One, that is not true; if anything the party since Clinton has moved to the center as a whole. Two, no mention of how far to the right the republicans have shifted by those same people?
And you keep denying that a meaninful portion of your beloved party thinks G.W. Bush and Cheney were behind 9/11 in order to start a War for Oil and Profit (tm).And keep on comparing one guy you listened to on a radio show that was a '9/11 truther' to elected Kansas republicans trying to remove the current President from the ballot of their state because of a debunked conspiracy theory.
I love "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" style questions.How many elected democrats are 9/11 truthers and how many elected republicans are birthers?
Again, seeing IntelligentFOXHATERfan say the (D) havn't moved left is a perfect example of how uitterly laughable you folks are in your blatant dishonesty. Then again, I guess when your aim is totalitarian collectivism, anything thats not outright Stalinism seems moderate by comparison.
I'll restate my original position, **** truthers, **** birthers, **** (D), **** (R).
You. All. Suck.
But you brought up one radio talk show host as your evidence. You didn't say "all these callers were calling in and agreeing". Regardless, I'll just have to take your word for it.
Then when I ask you how many elected democrats are 9/11 truthers and how many elected GOP'ers are birthers, you say this:
My point is, which of the two conspiracy theories have become mainstream enough to see their adherents get elected to Congress?
"is a perfect example of how uitterly laughable you folks are in your blatant dishonesty"
followed directly by
"Then again, I guess when your aim is totalitarian collectivism, anything thats not outright Stalinism seems moderate by comparison."
And for the record, I'm a Democrat even though they suck. We have a two party system, and I vote for who I believe to be the lesser of two evils.
I don't just sit around and b*tch about how "everybody is wrong except for me". I accept that in a Republic, one cannot ever find a candidate that they fully agree with on every issue across the board - I've made my peace with that.
But I can observe that birtherism has had a greater political impact than 9/11 truthers. And my proof is the number of birthers in Congress as opposed to the number of 9/11 truthers in Congress over the past decade. That leads me to believe that birtherism does not equal 9/11 trutherism in a thread about birthers trying to pass a law to remove the sitting President from the ballot in his re-election year.
First, I don't know the views of "all elected Democrats".
Second, comments of this nature by "elected democrats" do not get the same media coverage as birtherism by Republicans.
Third, I'm not going to waste my time searching the web for something, much less some local represenative in a state I don't live in, to make you feel better/worse about being a member of a party who thinks Bush was behind 9/11.
With that said, this would be a good start: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi...Bush_knew.html
Or this: http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=us
Or perhaps the comments of Cynthia McKinney (D) regarding trutherism. All found in ` 10 secnds of google, all (I'm sure) to be denied or denounced by you as "fringe" or "lies" or the like.
As stated, both have a meaningful foothold on either "side" from my perspective as a non-pariticpant of either "side".My point is, which of the two conspiracy theories have become mainstream enough to see their adherents get elected to Congress?
I should also add (stealth edit) that (D) is generally alot better at not sounding off liek total morons on what they really believe than (R) is, and generally (IMO) are fare more experienced at covering their views with langauge. Hence "collectivism" becomes "fairness", for example.
Lol all you like Safety, there is no doubt in my mind that if you and IJF were offered a choice of teh current status quo, or a Euro-style Social Welfare/Socialist State run by a Dictator with reduced or limited personal freedom and liberty, that both of you would choose the Dictator-led Socialists. I see you and you as a strong supporter of collectivism > liberty/responsabillity, and central power > enumerated limited powers."Then again, I guess when your aim is totalitarian collectivism, anything thats not outright Stalinism seems moderate by comparison."
At no point can I recall you choosing the route of personal freedom over "the greater good" in our policy disagreements. Not once.
Last edited by Warfish; 09-18-2012 at 08:00 AM.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...primary-votersAccording to PPP's survey, 51 percent of likely 2012 GOP primary voters believe that President Obama was born in another country (which would make him ineligible for the presidency). Another 21 percent say they are "not sure" if the president was born in the United States. Or to put it another way, 72 percent of the people who will be choosing the next Republican presidential nominee are either birthers or birther-curious.A mere 28 percent of the GOP primary electorate responded, correctly, that the president is a natural-born American citizen.
72 % > 51 %
And as for the truther, he lost in the Democratic primary 86% to 13% in the last election cycle.
Somehow I doubt you want me to bring up the number of birthers who won their primary and general election for the GOP. It would take too long to find all of them.
Not to mention, how many of the GOP Presidential candidates were birthers or birther-curious (LOL).
How many Democratic Presidential candidates were 9/11 truthers?
Not once have I said the drug war is a failure and legalization needs to happen?
You're not showing me proper "fairness".Hmm... meaningful foothold... sounds a lot like a meaningless phrase.
Again Safety, seeing you defend/hide the trutherism in your party is alot like seeing Chiefs defend/hide the issues that make Romney so fail.
You both serve your party first and foremost IMO. Which means ignoring or minimizing the "bad" and instead attacking the "other side" for their bad.
Sadly, for you, that doesn't take away the impression of listening to two hours of liberal callers calling in and making definitive statements about their trutherism. Every one of which was a (D). And that was on 9/11/2012. I also have plenty of memories of liberal callers and radio hosts comments from years ago through today as well.
See, unlike you (or Chiefs), I'm not in it for a party, so I'm more than happy to ALSO denounce the lame birthers too. See, thats called integrity and consistency, something I never expect from a party-shill.
Angela Merkel... dictator?
But see, I don't defend 9/11 truthers - they're batsh*t insane. And I don't "hide" their existence.
I simply pointed out there are not (and were not) politically represented in Congress in any way comprable to the way birthers were/are represented in Congress. I also don't recall the (D) presidential primaries of '04 and '08 being filled with truthers.
I'll have to take your word for what you heard on talk radio on 9/11/2012.
I can't speak for Chiefs, but I do respect him enough to believe that he's not "in it for party" and nor am I. We both hold beliefs, and he likely, just as I do, votes for the candidate/party that better represents our respective beliefs. Often we choose to defend the people we personally voted for, especially against the bullsh*t that's thrown against them daily on this site.
Now I understand you don't operate that way. You'd rather call me a Stalinist - because you're not a party shill!
Party shills being shilly, shocker.I can't speak for Chiefs, but I do respect him enough to believe that he's not "in it for party" and nor am I.
If either of your parties told you **** was rainbow colored and smelled like roses, you'd be here posting up threads with 14 website links and articles proclaiming the "unquestionable scientific fact" of ranbow rose **** and 21 links denouncing all "raninbow rose **** deniers".
I call you a collectivist/socialist and general supporter and proponent of Government power and authority over the individual because you are.Now I understand you don't operate that way. You'd rather call me a Stalinist - because you're not a party shill!
I guess once you have the party talking point memo of the day, what else do you really need, eh? It IS fun to watch you repeat certan words and phrases to the letter as they're spurged on talk radio the exact same day on the exact same topics.....but you wouldn't know anything about that. Gosh no.
Always is more like it. Being against drug laws while being for limits on soda size and universal sinlge-source state healthcare doesn't exactly win you over any freedom and liberty credentials...Sometimes.
You also invoke Stalin to my beliefs - one of the most evil men in the history of the world. That alone speaks enough to your integrity.
Right, because you're version of totalitarian state collectivism will avoid all the pitfalls and problems of previous versions, right?
I.e. Utopia is a cool place, why don't I join you there?