barndog wrote:

hogrot wrote:who are you, the thought police? i'll say what i want and you'll either deal with it or not read it.

You may have misinterpreted my comment,, hogrot. It was not my intent to direct that towards you - I meant it in more towards Chertoff who should be more responsible due to his position in government. For him to express a "hunch" is irresponsible without factual evidence.

Of course everyone has the right to think and discuss whatever they like. But if someone says, "Cheney's colleagues are planning the next 9/11, and I have massive evidence," and they don't present said evidence, that's retarded, in my view.

It's good to be skeptical of authority and government. However, it doesn't seem productive to me to worry too much about hypothetical or made up fears.

Speaking of claiming evidence that maybe didn't really exist, here's a quote from Cheney before we invaded Iraq:

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Turns out there was a doubt. I remember Rumsfeld saying that he knew where the WMD were. He was making up fake evidence too. I think that many in the Bush Admin. may have truly believed that Hussein had WMD. But no matter how sincere they may have been, it doesn't make the existence of WMD true.

It's fine to theorize and hypothesize, but when it comes to making claims of fact, we must all be skeptical and rely on evidence. If we're concerned between distinguishing between fact and fiction.

I think that there were some (the very top people) in the Bush administration that knew the evidence was faked and the rest of the drones were just admiring the Emperor's real fancy new clothes.

Admire the new clothes or get fired. Basically.

newberry wrote:"Cheney's colleagues are planning the next 9/11, and I have massive evidence," and they don't present said evidence, that's retarded, in my view.

point taken but let's be realistic. by not taking a stance one way or the other i AM saying that it is PLAUSIBLE. not a FACT. i'm retarded? or the belief is retarded? whichever. fine. agree to disagree but don't poke at opinions in an open forum unless you're vested with evidence to the contrary.

it is my belief that Dick Cheney is a pedophile satanist. no i do not have "massive evidence" to support this claim. you are piecing together two uncollaborated posts to prove a point which does not exist. but it is my belief that Dick Cheney is a money and power hungry animal who will do anything he can to achieve his goals, and I fear for my and your life and freedoms what those goals might be. because he is well enough invested (indisputable fact) in the military industrial complex to profit off of war. and (it is MY BELIEF that) he does not care whether you, me or any of us live or die.

is this thing on?

point taken but let's be realistic. by not taking a stance one way or the other i AM saying that it is PLAUSIBLE. not a FACT. i'm retarded? or the belief is retarded? whichever. fine. agree to disagree but don't poke at opinions in an open forum unless you're vested with evidence to the contrary.

No, I never said you were retarded. My criticism is for the apparently bogus signed letter which was linked to.

agree to disagree but don't poke at opinions in an open forum unless you're vested with evidence to the contrary.

When someone makes an extraordinary claim (that they have massive evidence that Cheney's pals are planning the next 9/11, for example) they should provide their evidence, if they don't want to be seen as retarded. I can't prove their wrong--it's usually impossible to prove a negative.

Is it wrong of me to ask to see their massive armadillo pantload of evidence?

Christopher wrote:

scott wrote:Personally, I have no proof of anything this administration is doing or has done. I have no proof that Bush is even alive. I've never met him, nor have any of my most immediate and trustworthy friends. So for all I know, he's some exceptionally good CGI.

What an incredibly bizarre viewpoint, to not take such things as probability or plausibility into account.

Every time I look away from my feet, they might turn into canoes.

Well, that's a funny thing about FACTS. I think almost nobody understands what that word means. So when the discussion turns to "facts", what you quoted me as saying is something I will call a fact. I cannot possibly know what this administration is actually up to, I have no idea what the CIA is doing (I don't even know who's been running it since Tennet left), I have no idea what Bush and Cheney's relationship is like, I have no idea whether this administration plans to stay in Iraq for 30 years, etc etc ad nauseum.

None of us here know shit about what this administration is doing in secret, which is where tons of the important shit happens.

If you start talking about what's possible (more or less everything) and what's plausible (subjective, and tells more about you as a person than it actually says about what is or is not likely) then you've left the realm of fact and entered into the purely subjective.

You can use science to try and assess probability. You can make statements about what the facts are, though they will be sorta meaningless. You can share your opinion. But if you think you have any idea how 9/11 was planned, and where, and by whom, and what sort of similar (or more relevant) attacks are being planned now, and by whom, and where and how, etc, then you are kidding yourself.

There are no facts *available* as far as what the US intelligence and war folks are up to. All we can do is look for little pieces of info where we find them and see if we can put together a guess.

My guess is, they're fucking jerks and they're planning shitty stuff that will serve their own interests above those of the US and the world.

I'm on your page scott. The facts are nearly nonexistent, if by facts we mean any type of first-person documentation or evidence. That's the nature of the security levels that protect these officials. We can only guess at the specific nature of their offenses against nature and mankind, based on the [i]hints[/] we get from leaks, news sources etc. Basically it's like playing chess, there's no PROOF of what the opponent's next move is going to be, or of their plans from the beginning. We only know that their agenda is to ruin, oh, just about everything.

btw, as far as *probability*, I think it's extremely unprobable, though certainly possible, the Bush is just cgi.

I have no proof, but I believe he is most likely a douchebag from Texas. I believe he was the son of a rich oil jerk who was head of CIA before he was president. His whole life was lived outside of the normal real world, inside the walls of a compound full of top-tier black soul world manipulator douchebaggery.

I think he's always been protected, and had a life that none of us can pretend to know about. most of us probably couldn't begin to imagine what it's like to grow up as the son of a man who's got so much control of the landscape of global reality. Head of CIA?!?!?!



But yeah, I think he most likely exists, is a guy, a former or maybe current drunk and drug addict, a Christian in the most conventional sense, a pompous ass, and he's more or less a spoiled fearless little rich bitch. He's daddy's little girl. I don't know what if anything it would change if he were CGI rather than a real guy. Either way, there's people other than him making the important decisions.

Yes, it's fair to speculate about what Cheney & Co. might be doing. If the letter said, "we wonder if Cheney is planning another 9/11" I wouldn't have a problem with it. It's good to ask questions and hypothesize. That's how you start. It's unsubstantiated claims I have a problem with. Now maybe they will provide their massive evidence, and if they do, I'll gladly look at it.

MF Nightmen wrote:This may also explain why people are selling Travis Bean Standard's for $6500. I would say watch the Beans people. The Bean will reveal all.


I NEED TO LEARN HOW TO IMBED LINKS SO STEVE DOESN'T HAVE TO DO IT FOR ME

I'll part with my TB 500 for $10,000, actually make it $15,000.

Anyone interested?

It's mint and a rare version.

When I was a boy, I pooped once and it rolled down and out the leg of my pants.

Does that count as shit going down?
______
-Shaft