Poll: Left or right?

TurboChickenMan

TurboChickenMan

CAGiversary!
Feedback
3 (100%)
In case this has been posted already, I'm including a few conclusions of mine (and justifications for them) in addition to the poll.

I just read the Obama birth certificate thread, and it frighteningly confirms what I've known for a long time - that the left inherently dismisses and actively hates all opinions held by the right, and all "fringe" opinions.

Let it be known that I am by default neutral on all topics. I do not glom onto any position because it makes me feel good. My opinions are shaped by three things:

1. Ongoing observation of the world around me

2. Hard evidence

3. Comparisons between all recollections & interpretations of history

My conclusions toward the left's behavior stems from my own interactions with them, and what I've seen them do over a long period of time. Every single time I've tried to have an online discussion of a right-wing (Ron Paul) or fringe (alternate 9/11 theories) topic, multiple "lefties" have, no matter the calmness/mildness of my presentation, responded in high numbers, in one or more of the following ways:

1. With a strong sense of superiority

2. Dismissal without disproval

3. Cherry-picking and/or twisting my words

4. Mild to severe hatred, depending on the topic

5. Snide remarks, often combined with stereotyping

6. tl;dr

Anytime that I've tried to point out their own behavior to them, they flat-out ignore me, and anytime I've gone down to their level, they ramp up their snippiness and claim that I'm the only pissant in the thread.

My hope is that by making these statements at the very beginning of the discussion, and by pointing out that...

1. I am not sterotyping - all of this comes from first & second-hand experience

2. I am remaining calm, and will no longer stoop down to their level, no matter what the response

...they will be more obligated to make a direct response than usual.

Now, I would like to bring up three thoughts of mine on specific and relevant topics:

1. Obama's birth certificate

The official digital copy has had modifications made to it.* Whether they were for legibility or forgery of content doesn't matter to me right now. What I'm currently curious about is why Obama, who is the head of a government elected by the people, for the people, didn't gladly show it to those who asked for it as soon as they asked for it, and why, knowing that the absolute original is the only hard evidence in this matter, a digital transfer fully representative of it has not been created.

2. 9/11

This site takes material straight from the official report, and uses known facts to show that it's deceptive on many important points. Many other "truth" sites & videos that I've seen use primarily original research & circumstantial evidence. Please note that I do not agree with any of the statements made on that site beyond the 9/11 technical data.

3. Ron Paul

I consider this speech of his, which was made on the floor of the House, to be his high point. In the main Ron Paul thread here, every attempt I made to get people to watch or read it was unsuccessful. Is there any chance that that could change this time around?

*EDIT - I want to make it clear that I do not necessarily approve of any of the other content on that site, only the specific article that I linked to.

EDIT 2 - BTW, I won't be voting on my own poll.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
lolrus.gif
 
I, for one, support driving on the left!!!!

Thank you for letting me make my opinion known!!!!!!!

EDIT: Insufficient exclamation marks!(!!!!)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So far:

[quote name='TurboChickenMan']2. Dismissal without disproval

5. Snide remarks, often combined with stereotyping[/QUOTE]

Now, here's the part where I point out how silly you're behaving, then you either give some kind of excuse like "you don't deserve any attention", insult me more, or just ignore this post completely.

And if you're still reading this, please note that I am not insulting any of you personally, just your behavior as a group.
 
Awrighty. You want a serious answer? I'll assume you're not a troll for the purposes of this response.

You come across as an arrogant little shit who just discovered [Ayn Rand/Ron Paul/God/veganism/atheism/My Little Pony] and now feels like the one enlightened soul in a sea of (put antonym of "enlightened" here) people. It fucking drips from your every god damn word, and I don't think it's what you're trying to get across, which is really important, but oh my fucking god it's smothering me fuckin ghelp gfuck fuckfucjfucujck look at me I'm so unique 'm a libertarian here's a fucking buckshot round of talking points and links across the internets bet you haven't seen that before RARGH!

Is this "dismissal without disproval"? fuck me, maybe it is. But before you dismiss it, you who claim to be "by default neutral on all topics", and who takes great pains to point out that you don't form opinions without careful and meticulous observation of the evidence, I ask you to carefully and meticulously look at this piece of evidence: you come across as a giant, condescending-as-all-hell, tool.

Again, I think this is all entirely unintentional - I don't think you actually are a giant tool, I've never met you, and first impressions aren't always for the best - but oh shit another wave of fucking subtext is coming at me I gotta run.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I either give you some kind of excuse like "you don't deserve any attention" (turn to page 63), insult me more, or just ignore this post completely (Turn to page 89).

Choose your own adventure.
 
And keep in mind that Crotch posted that from the middle of nowhere by using copper wire strung between the newly replanted trees.

So appreciate it. :)
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Is this "dismissal without disproval"? fuck me, maybe it is. But before you dismiss it, you who claim to be "by default neutral on all topics", and who takes great pains to point out that you don't form opinions without careful and meticulous observation of the evidence, I ask you to carefully and meticulously look at this piece of evidence: you come across as a giant, condescending-as-all-hell, tool.[/QUOTE]

You've done nothing but help prove my point, which is that lefties don't actually debate anything - they ignore, scream, twist, and dismiss.

I wonder when someone is actually going to try and disprove my claims instead of just saying that I'm a troll who doesn't deserve any attention over and over...
 
Prove to me that Obama was not born in Hawaii. I have a long form birth certificate that proves that he was born in Hawaii. Prove to me that he was born somewhere else.

Prove to me that 9/11 was an inside job. Show me absolute proof, not circumstantial evidence. I saw 2 planes hit the WTC. Show me that my eyes are lying to me and it was something else entirely.
 
Horsecocks, I'm actually responding...

[quote name='TurboChickenMan']You've done nothing but help prove my point, which is that lefties don't actually debate anything - they ignore, scream, twist, and dismiss.

I wonder when someone is actually going to try and disprove my claims instead of just saying that I'm a troll who doesn't deserve any attention over and over...[/QUOTE]
First off, way to assess my political alignment by carefully weighing the evidence, observing the world around you, and comparing the whatever the fuck words you used in point three of the OP were.

Brother, I'm not ragging on you because of political differences. I'm getting my bold-faced type on because you walked in, yelled "My opinions are based on facts and logic, yours are based on emotion! Debate me on X and Y and Z!" and got all huffy when people (right, left, center, whatthefuckever) decided to start making fun of you instead.

Calm your tits for a second and think: if you want an actual discussion or debate or whatthefuckever, how should you go about it? Should you walk in to one of the many threads we already have on the birth certificate, 9/11, Ron Paul, or the political demographics of this forum and start talking? Or should you create a thread that basically says, "I'm smarter than all y'all. Now let's ta- hey, stop making fun of me. Stop. Stop it!"?

Given that you chose the latter of the above options, you've got none but yourself to blame for the fact that everyone here (IRHari being the lone, heroic exception) is making fun of you.

Now, that's not to say that going the other route won't get you made fun of plenty. Even if the things you're talking about aren't skull-fuckingly dumb. Politics are politics, internets are internets, and haters are haters. But just... just try it, for Christ's sake.

Well, not now. Kinda poisoned that fucking well.

But going forward. In the future, bro.

And try to pick a better topic than "Ron Paul is a fuckin' boss." Not a lot of us give a cunt-suck.
 
I'm exclusive to neither. I like having a mind of my own. Some things I am liberal about (gay marriage and marijuana should be legal IMO). Some things I am conservative about (the ridiculous spending in the government and re-examination of entitlements). Nancy Pelosi is a jackass and Donald Trump is a jackass. I have voted democrat locally and wrote in Ron Paul for the presidency. I don't care what party you affiliate with. As Rufus and Chaka Khan said, "Tell me something good."

Jackass birthers and jackass 9/11 conspiracy people can go drop deuces on each others front lawns for all I care.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Prove to me that Obama was not born in Hawaii. I have a long form birth certificate that proves that he was born in Hawaii. Prove to me that he was born somewhere else.[/QUOTE]

His birth certificate is, as far as I am aware, the only thing that can prove where he was born. There are doubts as to whether the only publically available copy is an accurate representation of the original, so neither side can claim victory yet. Please re-read the first post to see what points of the matter I'm currently interested in.

[quote name='IRHari']Prove to me that 9/11 was an inside job. Show me absolute proof, not circumstantial evidence. I saw 2 planes hit the WTC. Show me that my eyes are lying to me and it was something else entirely.[/QUOTE]

I already posted a link that contains such absolute proof, but if you don't feel like reading it yourself, I'll summarize part of it.

The official report claims that the twin towers collapsed from a combination of impact damage & fire (your conclusion). The site shows that the official report's description of the building's structure omits or distorts known features that would have prevented such a situation from occuring, most notably replacing the core's steel beams with service corridors, and the steel between the floors with trusses.

Crotch, I'll respond to you later - the Canadian election results are on ATM.
 
[quote name='TurboChickenMan'] There are doubts as to whether the only publically available copy is an accurate representation of the original[/QUOTE]

No.
 
[quote name='TurboChickenMan']Crotch, I'll respond to you later - the Canadian election results are on ATM.[/QUOTE]
You're gon' be waitin' a while for the full results, although the winning party is usually determined before they hit Manitoba.

I figure the NDP'll do better than last year, but won't make the great strides a lot of people are predicting. They always do better in the polls leading up to the elections than they do in the elections themselves. Probably gonna be another Conservative minority.

But, hey, I'm from Saskatchewan. "Bitter" is our natural state around election time.

EDIT: Hmm. Eating a little crow as I tune in to the ol' CBC. Tories Conservatives doing damn well for themselves. Poor Iggy. First-past-the-post is such a shitshow system.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='TurboChickenMan']so neither side can claim victory yet[/QUOTE]

If you say dumb shit, people will treat you like a dumb shit. That doesn't make you a martyr, it makes you a dumb shit - no matter how much you've tried to put together the rules of the game so you never actually have to dare confront that what you believe is phenomenally stupid.

Go re-read your OP. You regard everything anyone who disagrees with you as worthy of doubt and scorn, and never extend the same courtesy to yourself.
 
[quote name='TurboChickenMan']I just read the Obama birth certificate thread, and it frighteningly confirms what I've known for a long time - that the left inherently dismisses and actively hates all opinions held by the right, and all "fringe" opinions.[/QUOTE]There's a big difference between saying
'maybe we shouldn't tax the rich'

and '9/11 may have been an inside job' or 'obama faked his birth certificate'.
 
[quote name='TurboChickenMan']His birth certificate is, as far as I am aware, the only thing that can prove where he was born. There are doubts as to whether the only publically available copy is an accurate representation of the original, so neither side can claim victory yet. Please re-read the first post to see what points of the matter I'm currently interested in.



I already posted a link that contains such absolute proof, but if you don't feel like reading it yourself, I'll summarize part of it.

The official report claims that the twin towers collapsed from a combination of impact damage & fire (your conclusion). The site shows that the official report's description of the building's structure omits or distorts known features that would have prevented such a situation from occuring, most notably replacing the core's steel beams with service corridors, and the steel between the floors with trusses.

Crotch, I'll respond to you later - the Canadian election results are on ATM.[/QUOTE]

As an olive branch.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/birt...s-that-her-husband-delivered-president-obama/
 
This thread is now my liveblog for the Canadian election.

Looks like it'll be a thin majority for the Conservatives (right wing) with the NDP (left-most mainstream party) making up the official opposition (largest opposition party) for the first time ever. The former official opposition, the Liberals (center-left) and the Bloc Quebecois (Quebec-only party) have been all-but-cannibalized by the NDP. No results in yet for the riding of the leader of the Green Party, which has never won a seat.
 
[quote name='TurboChickenMan']I already posted a link that contains such absolute proof, but if you don't feel like reading it yourself, I'll summarize part of it.[/QUOTE]


Your website link is hardly credible. Aside from looking like it was made by a ten year old using GeoCities back in the day, holes and discrepancies quickly appear in many of the articles. The one that bothered me fairly quickly:


EVIDENCE: BOTH OF THE TOWERS FELL IN ABOUT 10 SECONDS.

PROOF:

All that one needs to know, to be able to conclusively prove that the Twin Towers were demolished, is that the towers fell in roughly 10 seconds, that is, that they fell at about the same rate that an object falls through air.

Anyone with a little common sense will realize that the top of a building does not pass through the concrete and steel that comprises the lower portion of the building at the same rate that it falls through air. This just doesn't happen, unless, of course, the lower part of the building has lost its structural integrity (and this is usually due to the detonation of a multitude of small explosive charges as seen in controlled demolitions).

The fact that the towers collapsed in about 10 seconds is a statement that the upper portion of each of the towers passed through the lower portion at about the same rate that it would have fallen through air. The fact that the towers fell this quickly (essentially at the rate of free-fall) is conclusive evidence that they were deliberately demolished.

Believing that there is nothing wrong with the towers collapsing so quickly, is roughly analogous to believing that people pass through closed doors as quickly as they pass through open doors.

The fact that they fell at such a rate means that they encountered essentially no resistance from the supposedly undamaged parts of the structure. That is, no resistance was encountered from any of the immensely strong parts of the structure that had held the building up for the last 30 years. From this one can conclude that the lower undamaged parts were actually very damaged (probably by the detonation of a multitude of small explosive charges as is usual in a controlled demolition).
Click to expand...


An object in free fall from the top of the highest tower would take around 9.2 seconds to hit the ground. When the article says "about 10 seconds", did someone actually measure the exact time? I doubt it. "About 10 seconds" could mean 14 seconds.

Would the structure collapsing on itself cause a slow down in comparison to an object in free fall? Of course; however, to use the person through an open/closed door analogy is stupid. If you really wanted to use that analogy, you might as well assume the person is 500 pounds of solid muscle and is running through the door frame like a Kenyan Olympian. Does the person move through the door more slowly than the open door frame? Yes. By a significant amount of time? No.

Yes, the buildings were built to withstand the weight of the structure, but they weren't built to withstand the force of the upper floors of the structure collapsing onto the lower portion in the way that they did. The towers were undoubtedly built to withstand higher forces than reasonably possible, but do you think they really accounted for the added weight of an airliner? An airliner that also made severe structural damage causing the upper portions to start collapsing? Once the tower started coming down the force of the falling mass would just hit remaining stable supports break them fairly easily.

This poorly thought out "proof" is quite ridiculous. You could get a C- in high school physics and still say "hey, wait a minute" after reading this bullshit.

But hey, recklessly wielding science to prove crazy theories is always fun. If you like reading this website, maybe you should read up on alternative geologic theories like the expanding earth. :roll:
 
Three major things.

1: More nails in Quebec separatism's coffin. They have been bloodied of late, and while people have mistakenly called them dead before, they are going under defibrilation right now.

2: For the first time since... '04, I think, we will have a majority government. With five major federal parties, minority goverments are dangerous balancing acts. Other parties don't like your budget? Brings the government down and we get a mothafuckin' election. And for the first time since Brian Mulroney (think: Reagan), we have a Conservative PM winning a majority. I can talk more about them later.

3: We may see a merger between the NDP and the Liberals. Frankly, I think it's a long time coming. As much as I like having the choice of all these parties, our system just is not built for it. First-past-the-post and >2 candidates just doesn't fucking work. Under the current system, if the NDP and Liberals were one, they would form a strong majority - but they aren't, and instead, the Conservatives will make up the government.

EDIT: Also, 4: Guaranteed no election for 4 years.

Also also, Green Party leader is currently leading in her riding.

Also also also, my riding is too close to call between the Conservatives and the NDP. Saskatchewan's always been funny like that. Conservative bastion, yet the birthplace of the NDP and the modern Canadian medical system.
 
From what I understand the conservative party in Canada is still pretty liberal compared our own, that true?
 
In brief: yes. They're about equivalent to the Democrats - or at least, have been lately.

They're a decently big-tent party, and hold a pretty solid range from centre to far-right. I'd peg Stephen Harper himself as both rather right-wing economically and hawkish militarily, though this has been tempered ever since he became PM by political necessity - can't go too far right with a minority or you'll just collapse the government and alienate the public. With a majority... well, we'll see how she goes. I try to be an optimist.

EDIT: Haha. Looks like Conrad Black (one of the biggest media moguls in Canada/convicted criminal/British lord) agrees with me - we gon' see some party mergers in the future. We'll see, Lord Black, 'cause my predictions have been a little off of late.

EDIT2: Conservatives up 5% in Ontario. Gain twenty fucking seats. Holy horse cocks.

EDIT3: Speech from the Liberal leader, Michael Ignatieff. Currently trailing in his own riding.

EDIT4: Ugh. CBC's translator's French is apparently almost as bad as mine. Ignatieff has not resigned, but it seems very likely that he will soon. Says he'll stay on as long as the party wants him, and not a day longer.

The riding I grew up in has gone to the Conservatives (I thought it would be NDP), and the one I am currently living in is dead even between the two (I thought it would go Conservative easier). If the Conservatives take this one, that will leave the Liberal stronghold of Wascana as the only non-Conservative riding in the province.

EDIT5: Ignatieff's telling some story about planting trees with his family. He said he "planted four or five".

What a fucking pussy.

EDIT6: Haha. My buddy was running for the Greens here in Saskatchewan. He got 2.7% of the vote in his riding.

EDIT7: Bloc Quebecois leader steps down. Green Party has its first seat ever, with its leader's victory.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Man, the Bloc got annihilated. Only 2 seats ATM.

Very surprising close race in Winnipeg ATM. A historically NDP riding is neck & neck (about 70 votes) with the Conservatives.

Regarding the tower fall speed, I'll look around for an exact figure, and if I can't find one, I'll time it myself. But the fact that all official info about the collapse is based on a very faulty description of the structure doesn't bode well for even a number that ends up a bit above free-fall...
 
I knew the "Barry Soetoro" reference OP made a few months back was a birther tribute.

Seriously, dude, even if Obama were born outside of the country he'd be a citizen.
 
^ I'm not really that pissed off about him potentially not being a natural-born citizen, I'm more pissed off about the dang PRESIDENT hiding something about himself.

People seem to give more scrutiny to their choice of cable TV packages than who they vote for.

BTW, I'm not ignoring anyone. I'm just simply too spent after the crazy Canadian election results to go over all replies right now.
 
Michael Ignatieff has stepped down as the leader of the Liberals.

Y'know, I kinda liked Ignatieff. He had about as much charisma as a strained metaphor for something uncharismatic, but still, he'd have been a competent PM.
 
No, Harper is more like Gore. Ignatieff is.. a jam sandwich that's been sitting around for a couple hours too long so the bread is all soggy from the jam. It's not so much that Ignatieff has no charisma, it's more that he has anti-charisma.
 
Ok, I timed the best video of the collapse that I could find. Although it's tricky to tell when the collapse ends because of the dust cloud, my best guess is between 17 and 19 seconds, which is about two times free-fall speed.

However, I don't doubt that the collapse was slowed to some degree by the materials in the building. Even a perfect controlled demolition could not possibly thin out all of that steel & concrete to a degree that near-free-fall speeds would be achieved.

In any case, there is plenty more solid evidence of a controlled demolition available, most notably the existence of solid girders where the official report claims there are only trusses. The "truss theory" is what the official report uses to prove that fire caused the buildings to collapse (they HAD to prove that fire did it, as the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a plane similar in weight and size to what ended up hitting them). Nerdcities/Guardian is the ONLY 9/11 truth site I have ever read that talks about this.

BTW, I expect my points (and the points found on that site) to be fought using evidence rather than insults.
 
Neither, I'm a centrist. I think everything can be decided by using common sense, not idealistic beliefs. This is not a church we are running here, it is a country. I hate this bipartisan system, I'd actually be libertarian if it were realistic. Not that it matters, our vote doesn't mean anything. There is no democracy, everyone on the damn ballot was approved by the large corporations who sponsored their campaigns. We also don't vote for the lobbyists nor do we have a say on anything they do.
 
People seem to preface things when they know what they're about to say makes them look like a "insert label here".
 
I'm for a pragmatic approach to governance that takes into account common sense and individual responsibility. On social issues that tends to ally myself with the "left." On fiscal issues, that tends to ally myself to the "right." Bascially, the government should play as little role in everyday life as much as possible.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']First off, way to assess my political alignment by carefully weighing the evidence, observing the world around you, and comparing the whatever the fuck words you used in point three of the OP were.[/QUOTE]

I'm assuming you're on the left because I've never seen a right-winger behave in such a cruel fashion, while on the other hand it's quite common for a leftist. I came to that conclusion using the exact methods you claim I'm not using.

[quote name='The Crotch']Brother, I'm not ragging on you because of political differences. I'm getting my bold-faced type on because you walked in, yelled "My opinions are based on facts and logic, yours are based on emotion! Debate me on X and Y and Z!" and got all huffy when people (right, left, center, whatthefuckever) decided to start making fun of you instead.[/QUOTE]

I've never claimed that emotion had anything to do with it. Young left-wingers are formed from a combination of an extreme left-wing college culture & peer pressure. You've been absolutely convinced that the left is the end-all/be-all by your overwhelming surroundings, and you in turn gobble up all that it has offer without any scrutiny.

I didn't choose a position (the old right) until I personally analyzed BOTH sides.

[quote name='The Crotch']Calm your tits for a second and think: if you want an actual discussion or debate or whatthefuckever, how should you go about it? Should you walk in to one of the many threads we already have on the birth certificate, 9/11, Ron Paul, or the political demographics of this forum and start talking? Or should you create a thread that basically says, "I'm smarter than all y'all. Now let's ta- hey, stop making fun of me. Stop. Stop it!"?[/QUOTE]

This thread of mine has four parts. The discussion of leftist behavior is the main part, and the other three are off to the side. The amount of space I gave each one in the first post reflects this. I doubt there's an existing thread on my main topic knowing that the left doesn't like talking about its behavior.

[quote name='The Crotch']Now, that's not to say that going the other route won't get you made fun of plenty. Even if the things you're talking about aren't skull-fuckingly dumb.[/QUOTE]

More dismissal without disproval. How can anyone possibly assume that they're automatically right just simply by ignoring the opposition?

I know exactly what you and the others will do next - continue to discuss ME rather than the POINTS I'm making. I assume this because the current ratio of the former to the latter is 4-2 (with the rest either making jokes or choosing the third poll option).

And maybe some cherry-picking and/or tl;dr, given the long, multi-part structure of this post... -_-
 
[quote name='TurboChickenMan']I'm assuming you're on the left because I've never seen a right-winger behave in such a cruel fashion, while on the other hand it's quite common for a leftist. I came to that conclusion using the exact methods you claim I'm not using.



I've never claimed that emotion had anything to do with it. Young left-wingers are formed from a combination of an extreme left-wing college culture & peer pressure. You've been absolutely convinced that the left is the end-all/be-all by your overwhelming surroundings, and you in turn gobble up all that it has offer without any scrutiny.

I didn't choose a position (the old right) until I personally analyzed BOTH sides.



This thread of mine has four parts. The discussion of leftist behavior is the main part, and the other three are off to the side. The amount of space I gave each one in the first post reflects this. I doubt there's an existing thread on my main topic knowing that the left doesn't like talking about its behavior.



More dismissal without disproval. How can anyone possibly assume that they're automatically right just simply by ignoring the opposition?

I know exactly what you and the others will do next - continue to discuss ME rather than the POINTS I'm making. I assume this because the current ratio of the former to the latter is 4-2 (with the rest either making jokes or choosing the third poll option).

And maybe some cherry-picking and/or tl;dr, given the long, multi-part structure of this post... -_-[/QUOTE]

Wow. Just.... wow. I mean there is a kettle, and you a pot. and just... wow. Can you be any more condescending? I mean, not I am not going down this hole I wish you luck on what ever you do.
 
I see that y'all are attempting to discredit me by acting in exactly the way that I claim you act. Insults (I have not insulted anyone personally in this thread), and dismissal (has anyone here actually submitted hard evidence to try & disprove anything that I've said?).

I respectfully request that you explain what is wrong with my rules for proper debate.
 
[quote name='TurboChickenMan']I see that y'all are attempting to discredit me by acting in exactly the way that I claim you act. Insults (I have not insulted anyone personally in this thread), and dismissal (has anyone here actually submitted hard evidence to try & disprove anything that I've said?).

I disrespectfully request that you explain what is wrong with my rules for proper debate.[/QUOTE]
Fixed.
 
TurboChickenMan really hit the nail on the head, and this thread is proof of that.

Obama was asked to show his birth certificate long ago, and only now he decides it's a good idea -- showing a clearly digitally altered form. Does TurboChickenMan believe Obama is hiding something? Not necessarily. But he is skeptical, as any reasonable person would. And yet, when the subject is brought in front of leftists, it's treated with a barrage of foul behavior.

And if you think of the events that lead up to the election of Obama, the technical facts about the twin towers collapsing does raise interesting possibilities of the incident being done from the inside. TurboChickenMan clearly stated he wasn't siding with any argument, but he merely presented the facts that, in all rationality, seem to present a plausible case where two structures fell for reasons beyond mere collisions with 747 commercial airliners.

Not one post here has given him the respect his debates deserve, and it's no surprise considering who he's asking. TurboChickenMan has analyzed deeply where he stands on subjects that every man should be putting more thought into -- so naturally, he ended up in a more right leaning view on things. Whereas leftists, hopped up on the angst left from college days, accept everything that was taught to them at face value.

It is almost pathetic, but I will not result to insults and put myself on that level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top