Doesn't even come close to the numbers who believe The Evil George Bush was behind it.

Did those people get to go on every single cable news network every single night to talk about their conspiracy?

It was something like 70% of Americans believed he had a direct role (along with Al Qaeda) in 2002.

 

But it's no longer 2002.

Did those people get to go on every single cable news network every single night to talk about their conspiracy?

 

There were main stream documentaries, articles, shows on National Geographic/History etc...

But it's no longer 2002.

 

Chet used the past tense

There were main stream documentaries, articles, shows on National Geographic/History etc...

 

The tag line may have been "What really happened?!?!"!!!!"""

 

But the documentaries all went into some amount of detail as to why the troothers were stupid.

The tag line may have been "What really happened?!?!"!!!!"""

 

But the documentaries all went into some amount of detail as to why the troothers were stupid.

^^

Chet used the past tense

 

He did, but also used the present as well

 

The tag line may have been "What really happened?!?!"!!!!"""

 

But the documentaries all went into some amount of detail as to why the troothers were stupid.

 

And the people on the news channels who invite them on (which is up to and the right of each news network) don't bash or criticize them? (I ask b/c I don't pay attention when they are brought on any program).

 

I know I saw a program on Nat Geo or History i forget that followed the film makers of on eof the bigger 9/11 conspiracy documentaries. Like they always do,they brought on the skeptics but they portray both views without much slant. They let each side give the arguments.

He did, but also used the present as well

 

 

 

And the people on the news channels who invite them on (which is up to and the right of each news network) don't bash or criticize them? (I ask b/c I don't pay attention when they are brought on any program).

 

I know I saw a program on Nat Geo or History i forget that followed the film makers of on eof the bigger 9/11 conspiracy documentaries. Like they always do,they brought on the skeptics but they portray both views without much slant. They let each side give the arguments.

Birthers are brought on, and generally given the opportunity to explain their point of view, but it's usually quickly apparent that they are full of s*** and they end up getting mocked/shouted down because the host gets frustrated. Orly Taitz herself is probably the perfect example. Then she has the nerve to claim bias in the liberal mainstream media because she is insane and didn't actually answer any of their questions, lol.

We did not have serious congressional representatives advancing the conspiracy theories of 9/11 or JFK, etc. How many Republicans have winked a "no comment" when confronted in order to keep from dissuading the minions, or worse introduced legislation in the spirit of the birther movement?

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.911truth.org/osamas/mckinney.html#interview

 

 

 

In fact, Mrs. Clinton was the first high-profile Democrat to shatter the bipartisan unity that swept the nation after the 9/11 attacks.

 

On May 16, 2002, she took to the Senate floor waving a copy - ironically - of that day's New York Post, with its front-page headline "Bush Knew," a story about the then just-discovered pre-9/11 presidential daily briefing warning of coming terrorist attacks.

 

"I am simply here today on the floor of this hallowed chamber to seek answers to the questions being asked by my constituents," Hillary explained. "Questions raised by one of our newspapers in New York with the headline 'Bush Knew.'

 

"The president knew what? My constituents would like to know the answer to that and many other questions. ... As for the president, he may not be in a position at this time to respond to all of those concerns, but he is in a position to answer some of them, including the question of why we know today, May 16, about the warning he received. Why did we not know this on April 16 or March 16 or February or January 16 or August 16 of last year?"

 

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/200...31/130028.shtml

 

 

Maybe the first two are not "serious congressmen/women" as you put it, but the current Secretary of State.

She demanded to know what the pre-9/11 presidential briefing was concerned with. How is that conspiratorial? That's a legitimate question.

She demanded to know what the pre-9/11 presidential briefing was concerned with. How is that conspiratorial? That's a legitimate question.

 

It falls in the line of 'when did you stop beating your wife?' if those quotes aren't horribly removed from context. Similar to the *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge* Republicans are giving birthers right now.

I've said it a million times, she's more than happy to be an attention whore and throw her children out there when it is for her own gain.

I've said it a million times, she's more than happy to be an attention whore and throw her children out there when it is for her own gain.

 

 

Maybe you could post this cartoon in every topic forum in Soxtalk. No palin derangement in here.

Maybe you could post this cartoon in every topic forum in Soxtalk. No palin derangement in here.

Maybe you could post this cartoon in every topic forum in Soxtalk. No palin derangement in here.

 

Shhhhh

 

Maybe if they keep bringing her up, she'll go away!

That doesnt bother me nearly as much as the number of people who believe someone other than Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11

 

Doesn't even come close to the numbers who believe The Evil George Bush was behind it.

 

You were the one who said you were bothered by those who believe someone other Al Qeda was responsible. I am too. 70% of Americans thought it was Saddam in '02 (40% believed the same in '07 per Newsweek poll), and you asserted that those numbers don't come near those who believe George Bush was behind it, that means a lot. I was just underscoring your point of the vast number of people who believe someone besides Al qaeda was responsible.

this constant obsession with Sarah Palin and some birth certificate conspiracy has got to be unhealthy. for both the far right and far left.

 

no one else cares about this stuff.

Edited August 5, 200916 yr by mr_genius

this constant obsession with Sarah Palin and some birth certificate conspiracy has got to be unhealthy. for both the far right and far left.

 

no one else cares about this stuff.

 

They don't have a catchy media nickname... maybe Palinistas?

They don't have a catchy media nickname... maybe Palinistas?

 

Could this thread follow her all the way to the White House in 2012?

Could this thread follow her all the way to the White House in 2012?

I think that either the Secret Service or the military will stop that angry mob before it gets there.

I hijacked this thread a few days ago, it's not about Palin anymore.

Could this thread follow her all the way to the White House in 2012?

 

Quiet Palinista!

 

Hmm, I think I like it.

I hijacked this thread a few days ago, it's not about Palin anymore.

 

It's ALWAYS about Palin. At least in her mind.

I hijacked this thread a few days ago, it's not about Palin anymore.

 

Exactly, the Palin phenomenon is so much bigger than one person and is universal. You can participate by thread jacking! See how open Palin 2012 is?! It is an amazing paradox, it's not just about Palin, but it's all in her name! It's cosmic man. A beautiful thing.