Thursday, December 27, 2007

Fascist Apologist Kristol Attacks Ron Paul

Neo-conservative and liberty-hater Kristol claims it's Ron Paul who hates liberty and America when it is HE who studies and practices blatant and provable anti-American ideologies!

by Lee Rogers
December 24, 2007

The fascist establishment that runs this country is getting increasingly frightened of the growing popularity of the Ron Paul presidential campaign. Today, Fox News brought on fascist and establishment hack Bill Kristol to attack Dr. Paul using baseless and intellectually bankrupt arguments. Kristol also resorted to name calling, even referring to Dr. Paul as a "crank", "anti-American" and a "crackpot". Kristol appeared openly nervous during the attack segment as he promoted the pro-Nazi and collectivist ideologies of the corporate warfare and welfare state.

Strangely enough, Fox News which uses the slogan "Fair and Balanced", allowed Kristol to spew his attacks unopposed. If Fox News had any sort of credibility, they would have invited on one of Dr. Paul's supporters, a free market thinker, a libertarian or any number of people to counter Kristol. Of course, Fox News has no credibility and they are simply a propaganda network for the military industrial complex so clearly this would be a bit too much to ask.



Kristol attacked Dr. Paul on the statements he made on Meet the Press this past Sunday in which Dr. Paul made the point that we could have gotten rid of slavery in other ways without a Civil War. To this, Kristol responded calling Dr. Paul a "crackpot" for merely suggesting that 600,000 people didn't need to die. Kristol then claimed that Dr. Paul didn't care much about liberty because of his opposition to the Vietnam War and claimed that there is currently a lack of liberty in Vietnam. This is odd considering that Vietnam has become a booming free market economy without the military industrial complex waging war in their nation. In addition, why is Kristol concerned about lost liberty in Vietnam as we continue to lose liberty here in the United States? The ever present police state, surveillance society and the passage of anti-freedom laws like the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act is proof of this. If Kristol were really concerned about liberty and freedom, he should be focused in on the loss of liberty and freedom here first before being concerned with the situation in Vietnam.

Kristol then called Dr. Paul "anti-American" and a "crank" because he doesn't support the empire building policies of the past hundred years. Kristol even referred to the phony war on terrorism and used this to claim that Dr. Paul was against liberty. Considering that the phony terror war is being used to destroy liberty and freedoms here in the United States, it seems quite clear that Kristol is the one who is against these concepts.

Kristol is nothing more than a propagandist and hack for the military industrial complex. He makes the assertion that those who are anti-war and non-interventionists are either to the far left and far right of the phony political paradigm. The fact of the matter is, the supreme law of the land is still the Constitution which provides appropriate checks and balances to ensure that a declaration of war is used only as a last resort in defense of liberty. The Constitution is largely based off of a doctrine of non-interventionism and frowns on unnecessary wars being waged.

The individuals that sell themselves as moderates on the establishment media are actually the extremists. In actuality, Kristol is the anti-American, not Dr. Paul. Kristol and the establishment are scared to death that Dr. Paul's campaign is succeeding and his appearance on Fox News was a pathetic attempt to make people believe that he can't win.


Commentary
by Larry Simons

If it’s one thing that truly pisses me off, it’s a blatant lying bastard. Bill Kristol is the un-American piece of shit. I could write a book on how un-American this asshole is, but in the interest of time I will just touch a few points. Kristol is the son of the founder of Neo-conservatism, Irving Kristol. When you really study neo-conservatism, you will discover just how anti-American it is. Big government, big spending and constantly being involved in wars are just 3 of the main pillars of Neo-conservatism……all unconstitutional.

In the segment, Kristol says that Ron Paul has hated the American policies of the last 100 years. Yeah, the UNCONSTITUTIONAL ones----which are MOST of them! Kristol is a big piece of shit and he is truly one of the very small group of people that I would label blatantly and profoundly anti-American. His teacher Leo Strauss taught that Americans do not deserve freedom because they abuse it, therefore, it is the duty of the elitists to come in and create panic in the people so that they would gladly hand over their freedom for whatever protection they would be given.

In 2004, documentary filmmaker Adam Curtis did a 3-part documentary called “The Power of Nightmares”, which examined the comparison between the Neo-conservative movement and the radical Islamic movement. It also points out that the threat of terror groups like “al Qaeda” is a big myth but is used by Neo-conservatives to unite the people following earlier failures………..the EXACT same thing people like Alex Jones constantly warns us about.

Here is a film showing Kristol being heckled and booed in Texas last year.
I’m quite sure FOX “News” will NEVER show videos like THIS:



This is the 3 part film “The Power of Nightmares”

Part 1: Baby It’s Cold Outside



Part 2: The Phantom Victory



Part 3: The Shadows in the Cave

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

What class those truthers display yet again making idiots of themselves. You could write a book eh Larry, lmao. Yeah right Larry, and it would be right up there with Hemmingway's works I bet. Let me guess... here's what you'd say: "Bush, Clinton and O'Reilly are pieces of shit. If you don't believe giant lasers from the White House took down the World Trade Center your an ignorant un-American sheep." Pathetic "truthers" will you ever open your eyes to the realtruth?

Real Truth Online said...

good job once again refuting anything I say. You call me nuts--yet you keep COMING TO MY SITE----why is that?? Im still waiting on you to refute the questions I asked like 3 weeks ago. I KNEW youd run away like a scared sissy---but I didnt think youd make it so obvious! LOL If you defend a piece of shit like Bill Kristol----then you are about as un American as they come. Youre a STALKER because you keep coming to my site---and a COWARD for not saying who you are. People who bash the truth usually ARE cowards.

Anonymous said...

Hey Larry, jas here. How you doing man. Just wanted to say hi and Merry Christmas truth boy! 9 more years of comment moderation, hope you're with me!

Real Truth Online said...

Hey jas--Coward----so, when will you refute anything I say? I'm sure you're the same one who posts 90% of the posts in here under 10-15 different monikers. You're a TRUE coward and must be an embarrassment to your family--if not them then yourself. How does someone like you get through life or live with yourself, knowing that you are a complete fraud and coward??

Anonymous said...

"Coward, fraud and embarassment" to my family? For what, not believing something you can't prove? Like I said Larry, if you gave me some actual "facts" instead of questions and ridiculous theories then maybe people would believe you but alas, you don't have any facts, just questions and insults. Now that's how you win people over, lol.

Real Truth Online said...

i posted MANY facts like 2 days after you said "post facts"---remember my top 10 smoking guns post? Of course you do----you never replied to it you fucking COWARD. Im not asking you to BELIEVE me--im asking you to DEBATE me------BIG difference. If Im so nutty and all I have is "theories" then it would be EASY to debunk them RIGHT??? But you dont even do that! I can prove ALOT. The part that must eat you alive is that you cant DISPROVE anything i say. If you CAN---then DO IT-----DISPROVE it! What your pea brain cant comprehend is that we dont have to have EVERY aspect right---we only have to be right about ONE thing----------you have to be right on EVERY aspect, or your story crumbles. If we are right about ONE thing and wrong on 50 things----then a cover-up still exists. You're too pussy to even debate it. I just posted 7 questions like 2 weeks ago----i was told (Im sure by you) that you would answer ANY question I asked-----funny---I asked 7 questions and I even said "just answer ONE" and you ran away like a scared little girl. Just answer THIS question Jas-------"Why didnt the Secret Service get Bush out of that school?"---simple question---whats your answer? CHICKEN

Anonymous said...

Hmmm that sounds like a question to me. Can't prove anything with a question can you Larry? For example how about that picture they have of the Loch Ness monster. Can you prove to me that wasn't a prehistoric dinosaur? Didn't think so. If it's just a theory then you should be able to disprove it right, isn't that the rationale you use for your QUESTIONS? You're just the same as all the right-wing warmongering neocon hypocrites you so despise.

Jut for the sake of making you happy though, how about incompetence as an answer to your QUESTION? How about the possibility that they thought Bush was under no real threat as we we're attacked by hijacked planes not nuclear missiles. Besides if Bush was in on this massive elaborate conspiracy don't you think they would have planned to scuttle Bush out of that school asap just for appearance sake? (Bet you a million dollars you can't answer that can you)?

God this is too easy. I'm sure you'll call me ignorant and un-American now or as usual won't even post my response because you are just like Bill O'Reilly in that you can't handle anyone disagreeing with you, besides you've invested too much in "truther" t-shirts to go back now lol. Too easy making you look like a fool. Try me again maybe I'll debunk your next mythical question.

Anonymous said...

And this explanation comes from one of your fellow "truthers" lol... This example does not absolutely prove, as a universal rule, that whenever high officials who should be acting like they’re in obvious danger don’t act like they’re in danger, this necessarily and always means that they must be lying about the nature of the danger. However, when high officials who should be acting like they’re in obvious danger don’t act like they’re in danger, this is indeed good grounds for suspicion about the nature of the danger.
There might have been legitimate reasons for the Secret Service not to move Bush out of the Booker School immediately, but to wait until they had a better idea of what was going on. Maybe they weren’t sure where to take him, for instance. How did they know that the attackers might not be relying on Bush being moved? Perhaps there was a truck bomb waiting for Bush to be moved to the airport. Maybe there was an ambush planned there. What if Air Force One was the target? The Security Service staff at the school with Bush did not have an overview of what was going on, and as Bush was in an area that was secure on the ground, at least, then surely it’s reasonable to take time to consider where Bush should go next. And take guidance from someone who was in the loop, back at the White House.

You see questions are not facts Larry they can't prove anything... just like 9/11 conspiracy morons. God you're so much like Bill O'Reilly its disgusting.

Anonymous said...

It is typical of many authors and wannbe authors or hacks like Larry Simons on the subject of 9-11 to use hyperbolic expressions a great deal (where you read an innuendo followed by a hyperbolic assertion of irrefutable guilt, and then another and another and so on...this form of debate is usually evidence for a weak argument in that the hyperbolic assertion is intended to strengthen the innuendo, but in most cases I find this constant resort to hyperbole to be very unconvincing and it has the opposite effect to what was intended).

Now in the case of many of the classic 'truisms' regarding 9-11 there are alternative explanations available for most of the points raised by the authors, and these do not constitute the type of irrefutable proof they are then trying to suggest can be inferred from such things.

A good example of this is the 'truism' which states that there was a NORAD stand down ordered on 9-11.

Real Truth Online said...

let me point out that your 1:33 post is DEFINATELY copy and paste from someone else. There's no way YOU wrote that. Ok let me shoot your points down one by one. First of all, Bush's visit to the school was PUBLIC knowledge---it wasnt a private event. it was PUBLIC knowledge--meaning that if the hijackers were so smart that they could figure out how to fool our intelligence and defense systems--then they could EASILY know where Bush was at. What better way to hurt America then to kill its President? All They had to do was send a plane crashing through the school. Besides---since you make the point that it was a "plane attack" and not missiles brings up two very interesting points: We are in the nuclear age--not the age of Paul Revere when delivering a message or coming to a country took weeks or months. Missiles can be sent over here from overseas in about 45 minutes----all the more reason for the Secret Service or Bush to react. My God--even Nazi Sean Hannity agrees with me on this point--and thats SCARY! HE even said Bush should have got up and did something! If a missile can reach us in 45 minutes---how did the Secret Service know a missile was NOT coming? The job of the Secret Service isnt to say "ahhh, the Prez doesnt seem to be in danger---so we're not doing anything!"----its their job to assume the WORST CASE SCENARIO----and if we are being attacked by planes----a worse case scenario would be something like MISSILES (being in the NUCLEAR age and all). My 2nd point is: Since you make the point about being attacked by planes----how does this explain when Air Force One took off from Sarasota---why wasnt it accompanied by fighter jets? Thats FACT, NOT conspiracy. There was NO PLANES protecting Air Force One when it left Sarasota.

To answer your question about 'why didnt they hurry off for appearance sake'? This can only be explained by the fact that they KNEW they were in no danger. Cheney even ADMITTED it on Meet the Press on 9-16-01 when he said to Tim Russert "the FAA had open lines with the Secret Service..." and then he stopped himself----obviously because he was saying something that he wasnt supposed to say. Here's why that is important: The very first hijacking was reported at 8:20am----Bush arrived at the school roughly around 8:55--9:00---now if Cheney is correct about the FAA having a DIRECT LINE with the Secret Service--this means that the Secret Service KNEW about the hijacking for FORTY fucking minutes before Bush entered the school! Do you know how long it takes for a fighter jet to be in the air to shoot down a plane or at least to intercept one? Roughly 15 minutes! There should have been a fighter jet on that first hijacked plane at roughly 8:35---but that never happened. The Secret Service KNEW EXACTLY what was going on. This goes WAY beyond incompetence. That brings up another stupid point of yours---if it was incompetence, there was ALOT of it! And if there was, WHY WAS NO ONE FIRED OR EVEN DEMOTED? NO ONE was fired, NO ONE was demoted, NO ONE was suspended! In fact, most got commendations and awards!

To not move the President out of that school was the result of one things and one thing only-----ORDERS not to. Because in a normal situation the Secret Service asks no questions--they dont ask the President permission to do it. You may be asking "well, what is the purpose of not moving the President away?"---simple---if the world saw the Secret service react right away and DO something---then they would have never entered the school since I told you they had to know about the hijacking at 8:20 (ACCORDING TO CHENEY---NOT me)--so if they would have reacted when they HAD to have known----9-11 either would have been stopped altogether OR there would have been CLEAR evidence that it SHOULD have been stopped due to the quick reaction time. So, the only way 9-11 could be carried out is to "act" incompetent and "act" like they didnt know what to do. Ignorance and incompetence is the ONLY way to explain away inaction.

Theres been times in my life when I had NO excuse to NOT carry out a certain job----and the ONLY way I could "get out of it" is to play dumb. You should know about this all too well Jas----this is the very reason you avoid my questions and debate----you disguise yourself as "other" posters in order to "play dumb" when you know EXACTLY what youre doing----intentionally ignoring me. The Secret Services job is to REACT IMMEDIATELY and protect the President----NOT to sit around and say "well, we need more facts so we know the situation better". If they wait, the President can die. They are to REACT---PERIOD.

I think its quite interesting that you make the point "if Bush was in on some elaborate hoax then why didnt they move him out just for appearence sake?"----but it's people like YOU that PROVE that they didnt have to do that in order to be believed and have their story accepted! Maybe they were thinking "we dont have to move the President away fast- we will fool alot of people out there into believing that we really dont have to react and cause more panic by doing our job and getting the President to safety"------Congratulations Jas----you're one of the people they fooled!

I didnt start believing the conspiracy until 2004. On 9-11 I was like everyone else---thinking this was a real attack done by "extremists"----so I was (in 2001) where you still are today....FOOLED-----and even I went to my daughters school to pick her up!! I remember thinking I was overreacting by wanting to go get her. When I got there-----EVERY PARENT was picking up their child! There was probably only ONE school in the nation where parents weren't coming to get their kids------Booker Elementary!

oh and Jas---answer this: How did Bush see the FIRST plane hit the FIRST tower on 9-11 on TV? It wasnt filmed by ANY news outlet NOR was it played on ANY TV station ON 9-11. Bush made a speech in Dec. 2001 where he tells a kid that he was in the school and he saw the FIRST plane hit the FIRST tower. This cannot be passed off as an error. You cant say "well, he meant the 2nd one"----No, no, no---because he SPECIFICALLY said "when i saw it I was thinking 'what a bad pilot--it must have been a horrible accident'----if he meant the SECOND plane, he would have known (like we all did) that after the 2nd plane hit it wasnt an accident--it was an attack---but he didnt SAY this. He said he saw the FIRST plane hit the FIRST tower IN THE SCHOOL on 9-11 and he said it was an 'accident'. The footage of the FIRST plane hitting was filmed by the Naudet brothers who was filing a documentary on firefighters and that footage was not aired until the NEXT DAY!! Now----whats your answer to this? Oh and by the way---you can YouTube the clip of him saying this----its on video.

Anonymous said...

First off you just dodge dodge dodge and then respond by asking MORE QUESTIONS. When am I gonna get some "REAL TRUTH" Larry? I will refute you like its done in higher education systems unlike your twisted GED interpretation of logical debate.


1)

You say: "if the hijackers were so smart that they could figure out how to fool our intelligence and defense systems--then they could EASILY know where Bush was at."

I say: That's a mighty assumption you're taking yet again, assuming such things you really know nothing about. They seemed bent on destroying buildings in the attack not assasination. Even if they knew where he was that day they wouldn't have had time to practice their route. They had designed targets and were more than likely not able to deviate on such an important part of their mission.

2)

You say: "even Nazi Sean Hannity agrees with me on this point! HE said Bush should have got up and did something! If a missile can reach us in 45 minutes---how did the Secret Service know a missile was NOT coming?"

I say: Again this proves nothing Larry. No sense beating a dead horse.

3)

You say: When Air Force One took off from Sarasota---why wasnt it accompanied by fighter jets? Thats FACT, NOT conspiracy. There was NO PLANES protecting Air Force One when it left Sarasota."

I say: So what? Again this proves nothing. You really think this administ6ration is that competent Larry. These guys are a bunch of boobs. Sometimes you give them way to much credit but the point is your QUESTION AGAIN PROVES NOTHING, SIMPLY SPECULATION.

4) There's so many holes in your second paragraph I don't know where to begin LOL.

You say: Cheney even ADMITTED it on Meet the Press on 9-16-01 when he said to Tim Russert "the FAA had open lines with the Secret Service..." and then he stopped himself----obviously because he was saying something that he wasnt supposed to say."

I say: Are you kidding me? I love how you just throw the word "obviously" out there Mr. Larry "I don't even own a car" Simons. Now you can read Cheney's thoughts huh. Amazing. You are a superhero.

5)

You say: "if it was incompetence, there was ALOT of it! And if there was, WHY WAS NO ONE FIRED OR EVEN DEMOTED? NO ONE was fired, NO ONE was demoted, NO ONE was suspended! In fact, most got commendations and awards!"

I say: Do you live in a cave? No one involved in this administration gets demoted or suspended unless they buck Cheney, Bush, Rummy and the lot of 'em. They take care of their own Larry because they're all getting rich off you and me Larry. Wake up dude. Scooter Libby knows this, believe me.

6)

You say: "The Secret Services job is to REACT IMMEDIATELY and protect the President----NOT to sit around and say "well, we need more facts so we know the situation better". If they wait, the President can die. They are to REACT---PERIOD."

I say: Staying put is "reacting" too Larry. Maybe they made a decision they thought they were safer than to beat a retreat to another location. Its just another question you have that you spin into another jack and the beanstalk bit. YOUR QUESTION AGAIN PROVES NOTHING, SIMPLY SPECULATION.

7)

You say: "I think its quite interesting that you make the point "if Bush was in on some elaborate hoax then why didnt they move him out just for appearence sake?"----but it's people like YOU that PROVE that they didnt have to do that in order to be believed and have their story accepted! Maybe they were thinking "we dont have to move the President away fast- we will fool alot of people out there into believing that we really dont have to react and cause more panic by doing our job and getting the President to safety"

I say: What Larry are you assuming yet again? No way. Get out of town. You work at McDonalds part- time and you knew what they were thinking. Man you are smart. And just because I don't believe your massive conspiracy theory based on your imagination I am an "ignorant sheep." You're the fool little man. Stop wasting money on pathetic "truther" t-shirts and believing everything you hear on the internet.

Oh and note I didn't have to belittle you constantly with my responses. Sure I threw a jab in there every now and then (because you deserve it) but people who win arguements don't have to resort to telling their opponet "go kill yourself." Yes those are your words Hemmingway, lol.

Don't post this or your one imaginary friend might not believe you anymore.

Real Truth Online said...

I will refute 1 by 1 AGAIN:

in your #1---you answer my "assumptions" by MORE assumptions by you! LOL--hilarious! You KNOW they wouldnt have had time to assassinate? You KNOW they wouldnt have time to practice a route? Alot of ASSUMING, huh? lol

2--you TOTALLY dodged that one with your famous "it proves nothing" bullshit. How can I make ANY point if everytime I make it you'll reply with "proves nothing man"------IDIOT!

3- totally dodged that one too by simply stating "proves nothing"----oh ok---youre right. It proves NOTHING that the Presidents' plane was NOT protected with aircraft from an AIRCRAFT attack?? Are you like 5 years old? it is NOT speculation that AFO was NOT protected--its fact. Its called reading, look into it.

4- Good job TOTALLY ignoring the MAIN point of this one! My main point was NOT that Cheney "wasnt supposed to say this" but it was that he DID admit that the FAA and Secret Service has direct lines to each other and that the Secret Service would have known the first plane was hijacked at 8:20----but you chose to IGNORE that ENTIRE part of my point and JUST focus on me saying that "Cheney wasnt supposed to say that"-----nice spin, dickhead. Ever gonna address my MAIN point of the Secret Service and FAA having direct lines with each other? Nope, Im sure u wont.

5- Once again, you misinterpret. Im not talking about JUST people in Bush's cabinet you ass. Im talking about people at NORAD, the FAA, the military---every agency involved in how badly things went that day---but again, you chose to cherry pick that one too! God this is EASY!

6- You condemn ME for ASSUMING but all you do is ASSUME in #6! YOUR words: "Maybe they made a decision they thought they were safer than to beat a retreat to another location"---maybe??? Hmmmmm---and THATS not speculation? Doing nothing is REACTING? Doing NOTHING is usually a reaction to NOTHING happening! Please Jas, lay off the drugs----you really make this too easy. I guess the Secret Service should have just stood there when Reagan was shot----that would have been a REACTION---right Jas? LOL

7- Good job IGNORING this one with insults and personal attacks--and you call THIS debating?? Saying I work at McDonalds and i buy truther T-shirts? THATS debating? Its called IGNORING. All you did in EVERY response was IGNORE, SPIN, PERSONALLY ATTACK, INSULT and ASSUME. Thats IT! I refuted every single "refute" of yours. You really make this SO easy. Cant you at LEAST make it a tad harder??? LOL

Real Truth Online said...

Hey Jas----why dont you ACCEPT my offer to debate me PUBLICALLY? Are you afraid? Ive made this request like 6 times now---only to be IGNORED every single time. Bok, bok,bok, bok, bok,bok!! CHICKEN! I will bring nothing--no books, no articles, no DVD's----and you can bring everything you want---I will STILL win!

Real Truth Online said...

oh, and uh...ass-----I see you totally left out Bush admitting he saw the first plane hit the tower on TV when he couldnt have seen it. I know, i know---you "missed" mentioning that even though it was a HUGE paragraph right at the end. I guess that was a little hard to refute. Why didnt you say something incredibly stupid like you did with the other "refutes"? LOL. Seriously, Jas---im quite interested to hear YOUR version of how Bush saw the first plane hit on TV when it wasnt aired until the next day.

Anonymous said...

Hmm, do you think Bush lies about things Larry? I sure do. So I guess in your whole 2+2=497 jump to conclusions crazy ass form of scientific method that we can conclude beyond a shadow of a doubting thomas that if he lied about seeing the first plane hit the tower he must be in on the most massive conspiracy in our nation's history. Makes sense to me lol. Bush is full of shit Larry. Even you should know that but it doesn't make him responsible for the attacks on 9/11.

You say I'm guilty of speculation and assumption in my last post and I agree 100%! That's the point I'm trying to get you to see about your entire conspiracy theory. Its so full of holes and your jumping wildly to conclusions you fail to see the light. There will always be questions as to what happened that day. Even your heroes from Loose Change continue to back off their original theories and make 15 versions of Loose Change because they were so often proved wrong in their initial supposed "facts." You're the sheep for believing what a few kids with a bong and movie software created over a weekend in their cheetos infested dorm room. Even your other heroes Olberman, Maher and Dr. Paul don't give your theory a shred of creedence. How can you vote for Ron Paul when he doesn't associate himself with the "Truth" movement? And dude, give up your hope of him being president because even he admits he hasn't got a snowball's chance.

I repeat it is typical of many authors and wannabe authors or hacks like Larry Simons on the subject of 9-11 to use hyperbolic expressions a great deal (where you read an innuendo followed by a hyperbolic assertion of irrefutable guilt, and then another and another and so on...this form of debate is clear evidence for a weak argument.

Oh and Larry I won't debate you in public because of your mental illness and stalker-like behavior including threats to others and your obsession with trying to find out who everyone is online. You are clearly socially unstable and its also apparent you live out your life online which doesn't bode well for your potential for establishing meaningful relationships in the real world. Then there's your legal history available in the court database system which are available online. I won't divulge the information as that would be unethical on my part but I've seen you threaten to do such things to people in online forums which are much worse. Even my wife knows your are mentally ill and potentially dangerous. Sorry the only time you'll see me in public is if you hand me a coke at the drive thru. Anyway, I'm out... see you in a couple months, feel free to repond but I won't bother to read it until I come back in March if I read it at all. I've seen it all already and you have yet to give me any real truth. YOUR QUESTIONS AGAIN PROVE NOTHING, SIMPLY SPECULATION AND WILD OFF-THE-WALL ASSUMPTIONS AS USUAL. Shame, as I've always hated this administration and what its done to this country. I've been calling for them to boot this guy out of power since 2002. Except for 9/11 I agree with the majority of what is on your site. Of course you could do a better job of actually debating people intelligently without resorting to insults and threats every other sentence. And it is laughable you call Herald Mail Nazi Germany for deleting your foul language and insulting comments when you do the same on your own site by not allowing free spech on your forums. See you in early March... sunny and warm where I'm going, care to take a guess?

Real Truth Online said...

God--where do I begin? You say "Bush lies"---of course he does! This is a different kind of lie, and you know it. Bush lies all the time--but they are lies to either hide an ugly truth or to protect him in some way. The lie in Dec 2001 when he talked about seeing the first plane hit was a different kind. This was a lie that resulted from not being able to keep track of covering up the lies of 9-11. It's usually called a Fruedian slip. Consciously repressed but unconsciously released. But, Im sure you knew all along thats EXACTLY what I was saying, you just chose to ignore it and dismissed it as "Bush lying"---which is TOTAL spin!

Good job once again attacking the message of the 9-11 cover-up by attacking the truth movement by attacking them personally by saying they live in Cheerio-infested dorms and they hit bongs. Well, wrong --they made the movie in a HOUSE. So, you even get small facts wrong!

You say I have a mental illness and Im a stalker---yet YOU come to MY site and CONTINUALLY harrass ME! Do I come to YOUR site? When youre smart enough to have one, I might visit it once and laugh my head off for 30 minutes straight, but then Ill logoff and never return. You CONTINUALLY come here----that has stalker written all over it!

A court database? Funny, I recently WORKED at a couthouse!! They do very THOROUGH checks--so now youre saying courthouses hire dangerous people? There you go, hating America again---by suggesting that our security is still weak like it was on 9-11. Funny, Im the one who holds the position that America is very strong and very competent and would NEVER fail like it did on 9-11 unless things were controlled by a svery small group of Black-Ops evildoers and you CONSISTENTLY say America's defense, military and intelligence agencies FAILED---and you call ME un-American? Unreal.

Good job chickening out of a debate by saying it's because im "dangerous"----not only does that show how chicken you are by not wanting to face me (even if you DID think I was dangerous---what? that still scares you??) but it shows your complete hypocrisy---you are scared to debate, but yet you continually come here to my site---hiding behind your keyboard like a scared little girl.

I am NOT chicken---i went to NYC last year in the face of adversity----knowing the chance of arrest was possible. Even now today there are bills being signed like HR 1955 that pretty much say bloggers who post things like the things I post (which is constitutional and non-violent by the way) could be labeled "homegrown terrorists" --why? For simply showing dissent against the government---which is my RIGHT to do under the first amendment. Does this stop me? NO, because Im not a big PUSSY like you! Your personal attacks are getting old and tiresome. Its ok if you call me an asshole for the things I say, but when you namecall as a way out of NOT answering my questions, that shows you have the mentality of a flea and it just makes my case stronger--giving my claims credence and showing everyone who is the REAL chicken. Oh, and by the way---Ive said this many times--but again, u choose to IGNORE it----Ron Paul would KILL his campaign if he admitted anything about a 9-11 cover-up--he talks to Alex Jones all the time, so I know he believes in false-flag terror. Olbermann and Maher are paid off members of the media. I think Olbermann is the closest journalist to the truth on MSM----but hes still MSM, which makes him automatically bought-off. Careers can END if you admit this stuff, but I think you KNOW that--you just make a weak attempt at making the point that a cover-up must not be true if even THESE people dont say it is----very WEAK argument---and if that's all you got to debate me----you lost the debate before it began. See you loser---when you come back to MY site---the site you cannot stay away from! LOL

Real Truth Online said...

by the way Jas--jst curious----are you even CAPABLE of debating without personally attacking, spinning, ignoring, insulting or assuming? Can you ever just answer one of my questions DIRECTLY without doing ANY of the above?

Im sure you cant---because the mentioned things above is all you have! If you dont have FACTS, the above mentioned is all thats left. LOL

Real Truth Online said...

and your attacks on Ron Paul just show how much you HATE the Constitution---because Ron Paul is the closest thing we have to a founding father. This clearly shows you would have hated Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Adams or Hamilton---and how much you DO hate America. The founding fathers would not be in this war (Iraq) or ANY war overseas unless it DIRECTLY threatened the safety of this country----but you go ahead and keep voting for your little Neo-con buddies in both parties---and keep getting more of the same.

Anonymous said...

hey mcfly err i mean mcjas, do you understand while your argueing your side your proving realtruth right? can you comprehend that your making tour side look uneducated? be better not bitter, get smarter and join realtruth and then you'll be on the winning side.