Gramsci wrote:Umm. I'm still trying to figure out why you keep ranting on about about Chomsky. I said American intervention in Latin America is hardly news to most people.

You either can't read or you just love to lie. Here's what you quoted from me:

clocker bob wrote:Chomsky doesn't deny the manipulation of Central American and South American governments by US intelligence operatives. Why he doesn't label these operations as conspiracies, I don't know.

Where do you see the words 'American intervention' in my quote? I specifically used the words ' manipulation of Central American and South American governments by US intelligence operatives' to distinguish these actions from above-board military interventions.

Now, I'll give you one more chance to admit that you either deliberately or inadvertently misinterpeted my words. Or you can continue to lie.

I read the loose change thread. I watched loose change. it is replete with conjecture and manipulated information.

watched the loose change - popular mechanics debates. it is replete Avery & Co. making me want to vomit with their blindness and immaturity.

- They never talked to experts in the field re: structural investigations.
- Their rhetoric is laden with words like "evil" and "lies" which are the ULTIMATE blanket statements lacking a shred of evidence. A priori, top-down conjecture, driving their "skepticism" into any corner it can find.
- They clearly ignore existing evidence to the contrary of their top-down beliefs!

for the billionth time, I have never claimed that the "911truth" movement was predicated on Loose Change. This was a Clocker-Bob fabrication. Guess what: dylan avery and his cronies appear to do the same thing. They fabricate and manipulate information to fit their preexisting story. They accuse popular mechanics of yellow journalism when their own "journalism" is beyond yellow. They raise some interesting questions, but wrap it in such a mess of shitty conjecture and empty accusations that it's such a shit storm to try to find a reasonable conclusion among any of it. It's near impossible.

There are no conclusions. It's just an ongoing series of "what-ifs." These kids!

Bob, i know you believe in better conspiracy theories. Ok, then. Show me one that has reached a meaningful conclusion. I will be interested to see this. Please don't ignore this request; you do seem to have a tendency to cherry-pick information (a standard critique put towards many conspiracy theorists).

I cherry-pick information as well; everyone on a message board does... but I'm not the one making huge claims about massive conspiracies.

But I am beyond convinced that Avery and co are wrong, despite the noblest of intentions, with a few shrewdly placed inquireis on the "we don't know" track thrown into the mix. Their research is spotty and inconclusive. Their "experts" are unqualified, they do not communicate with true engineers and they ignore credible reports, eschewing them for ambiguous, doubt-inducing eyewitness reports (i.e. witness claims such as "I heard a bomb go off" -- news flash: explosion sounds do not indicate "bomb." They mean "explosion.")

They accuse people who support more credible evidence as "liars." They say things like "if you do the research" when they ignore mountains of research that has been done by sources that do not fit their a priori story.

They are children with the noblest of intentions, lacking the skills needed to form a credible backing for their claims.

As for 911truth, maybe i'll look into that. I expect to find more of the same. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I am skeptical. We shall see. So far, in my experience, I see that conspiracy theorists such as Avery and Bob have trouble accepting that another group is skeptical of their massive a priori claims. Thus the discussions end up being some fractured fake dialectic, in my opinion, and rarely go anywhere.

Ok, I'm starting to like my "waste of time" opinion more and more.

clocker bob wrote:

Gramsci wrote:Umm. I'm still trying to figure out why you keep ranting on about about Chomsky. I said American intervention in Latin America is hardly news to most people.

You either can't read or you just love to lie. Here's what you quoted from me:

clocker bob wrote:Chomsky doesn't deny the manipulation of Central American and South American governments by US intelligence operatives. Why he doesn't label these operations as conspiracies, I don't know.

Where do you see the words 'American intervention' in my quote? I specifically used the words ' manipulation of Central American and South American governments by US intelligence operatives' to distinguish these actions from above-board military interventions.

Now, I'll give you one more chance to admit that you either deliberately or inadvertently misinterpeted my words. Or you can continue to lie.

Sorry, I'm still trying to figure out why the hell you have turned my comment that US meddling in Lat-Am is hardly in the realm of a conspiracy theory into an argument that seems to have something to do with Chomsky?

The only mention of Chomsky I've made here is in response to you pulling him our of thin air and then using my refusal to be drawn into this tangent as some kind of admission of dishonesty on my behalf...

Bob, you're a nut.

...Chomsky isn't on TV very often... is that what you want me to say?

Gramsci wrote:The only mention of Chomsky I've made here is in response to you pulling him our of thin air and then using my refusal to be drawn into this tangent as some kind of admission of dishonesty on my behalf...

You can't stop lying. Every time you lie, I will repost your original post so more people see that you lie.

clocker bob wrote:Chomsky doesn't deny the manipulation of Central American and South American governments by US intelligence operatives. Why he doesn't label these operations as conspiracies, I don't know.

gramsci wrote:That would probably be because this all happened on TV in the bright light of day... i.e. it wasn't a "theory".

earwicker wrote:Gramsci, suggesting the whole CIA secret operations in South and Central America etc happened in the cold light of day on TV (at the time) is just silly (though I suspect you know that and just piped in on here to get a rise out of some folks in which case you have succeeded remarkably).

earwicker wrote:Gramsci you as good as said that what Chomsky has written about re Central and Southern America was on TV at the time for all to see.

That just isn't true.
Sure the fact that there were wars /social conflicts/revolutions taking place in the South and Central Americas was in the mainstream press but the involvement of the American intelligence services was not revealed until later.

If the dealings of the Iran Contra affair were all conducted on tv there wouldn't have been the need for such a big expensive court case when it all got unearthed would there?

clocker bob wrote:If Chomsky is writing about US intelligence operatives interfering in the affairs of Latin American governments, then the people who need to hear that message are the citizens of the United States, because it's their government sponsoring the dirty tricks, and it's the citizens' responsibility to correct them through the American political system. Therefore, the fact that the information about US policy was not on American television screens means that there was a conspiracy to conceal the US meddling from the American television viewer. Now, for the fifth time, tell me if the information contained in Chomsky's books was on display on American television screens, as you claimed previously, you fatuous asswipe.

gio wrote:I read the loose change thread.

See you over there.

clocker bob wrote:Chomsky doesn't deny the manipulation of Central American and South American governments by US intelligence operatives. Why he doesn't label these operations as conspiracies, I don't know.

gramsci wrote:That would probably be because this all happened on TV in the bright light of day... i.e. it wasn't a "theory".

The necessary sentence deconstruction for the lying Gramsci:

In Bob's quote ( selected by Gramsci ), Bob asks why Noam Chomsky does not label the manipulation of Latin American governments by the CIA ( not the direct military actions ) as conspiracies, because the policy decisions to meddle with the LA governments were made in secrecy and the actual meddling was carried out in secrecy. Bob's question has been established- here it is, compacted: Is it correct to view the manipulation of LA governments by the CIA ( as documented by Noam Chomsky ) as a conspiracy?

Then we move on to the first word of Gramsci's reply: That. That, in this context, is defined as "Noam Chomsky's descriptions of CIA interference in Latin America". There is no way for That to be in reference to overt US military action in Central America, because, as anyone can see, Bob made no mention of overt US military action in Central America. Moving on to sixth word of Gramsci's reply: This. This, in this context, is in reference to Noam Chomsky's descriptions of CIA interference in Latin America. There is no way for This to represent overt US military action in CA, because Bob made no mention of overt US military action in CA.

Then we move on to seventh through tenth words of Gramsci's reply: "all happened on TV". In that phrase, the word 'all' correlates with the the words 'that and 'this'- now we have a group of words all in reference to the same portion of Noam Chomsky's books- his descriptions of CIA meddling in Latin America.

Now we return to Gramsci deliberately lying about and misinterpreting his own words:
Gramsci claiming that Bob was referring to overt US military action in CA, and Gramsci claiming that he really meant foreign TV broadcast into the US ( in the early 1980's??):

Gee whizz America used it's power to affect the political situation in South American countries! Who would have thought!

The shock!
The surprise!

Give me a break, the rest of the world gets the BBC etc.

Gramsci ranting ad hominems cuz he knows he is in the vice grip of python Bob:

Why do you have to stoop to putting words in someone's mouth to build an argument. Seriously Bob, if one follows your argument above it looks like boarderline lunacy. You are aware you started the Chomsky line there and that you built everything you are getting heated up about in the above sentences in your head, without a single prompt from me? If you can't see that... well, I really think getting some help would be best.

More ad hominems and more deliberate distortion of his own reply by Gramsci. Here he says that he can't be wrong for claiming that the US media covered all this, because its not his fault that the US media is bad, so therefore, Gramsci can't be faulted for making erroneous claims about it ( amazing obfuscation right there from the G man ):

No it is not what I wrote, it is what you put in my mouth. As always you switch to a Gringo-centred world view, "America, america, america", you're like a broken record. Why should we give a fuck if Americans have a shitty media. I knew America was behaving like asshats in Latin America through watching mainstream news in New Zealand, BBC, TVNZ as a teenager.

Then Earwicker pointed Gramsci's lies out to him, and G man freaked out some more with more lies:

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

The fuck I said any such thing... try reading my posts instead of reading Bob's nonsense.

Bob said that America's behaviour in Latin America was some kind of secret. Bullshit.

Then he pipes up with Chomsky and now you're assuming I started some kind of debate about Chomsky's writing.

Weird.

Here's his worst lie yet- a complete misrepresentation of his original reply. Boldface is the biggest lie:

Umm. I'm still trying to figure out why you keep ranting on about about Chomsky. I said American intervention in Latin America is hardly news to most people and your only defence is that Chomsky wasn't on TV so people didn't know it was happening? ( Compare that to what he actually wrote -CB) Then proceed to attack me for not stepping into your retarded world. You're using the Chewbacca Defence.

Here Gramsci claims that I 'pulled Chomsky out of thin air', when Chomsky was the central focus of my quote- the quote that Gramsci himself replied to, to answer my charge that Chomsky described conspiracies in his books. So Gramsci can't even keep the new lies from lying about old lies- now he lies that Chomsky was never a part of this discussion, when first, he lied that Chomsky's theories were on American television. Whew... that is some rabbit hole shit there, G man!:

Sorry, I'm still trying to figure out why the hell you have turned my comment that US meddling in Lat-Am is hardly in the realm of a conspiracy theory into an argument that seems to have something to do with Chomsky?

The only mention of Chomsky I've made here is in response to you pulling him our of thin air and then using my refusal to be drawn into this tangent as some kind of admission of dishonesty on my behalf...

Go back to being a atheist comic book hero:

While you were at home writing that heroic piece of claptrap. - Which just to annoy you I'm not going to read - I was out walking along a canal with my girlfriend.

But if it will make you feel better:

Chomsky isn't on TV all that much.

Seriously Bobihna, get your head out your ass and do something real to help people instead of adding to the background static of and already cluttered internet. I didn't lie, I've refused to be drawn into your craziness. Which you would like to use as some kind of admission on my behalf... so, again:

Noam's televisual appearances on the topic of Latin America and Gringolandia are lacking, and as a result the entire American public have missed out on the only believable source of information on this topic in the whole world...

Are you aware that while you try and convince a bunch of Slint fans that the American government is up to no good - which I'm sure is a total shock to everyone here - there are people in your neighbourhood that are really helping people, volunteering for community projects, organising outreach programmes for people, pressuring their local politicians to do good things - for a change -...

Bedroom radical, Champaign Socialist, coward.

Transmission Ends.

Gramsci wrote:Which just to annoy you I'm not going to read .

That's fine. Anyone who does read it will be reminded of what a small person you are, a small liar whose ego is so fragile, he can't cop to a single mistake, even when it's blatant. No wonder you can't find God, you sniveling baby- you're such a pompous fraud, you think that if there is a God, he should come and find you.

clocker bob wrote:Gramsci ranting ad hominems cuz he knows he is in the vice grip of python Bob

This is a hilarious caption.

Antero wrote:

clocker bob wrote:Gramsci ranting ad hominems cuz he knows he is in the vice grip of python Bob

This is a hilarious caption.

Antero knows his marching orders well. I know them, too.

Marching Orders for The Defenders Of The Cabal

Rule #1- Support the 9/11 Myth. Your mantra is: "It was the Muslims and only the Muslims." "It was the Muslims and only the Muslims." If a defender of the cabal comes across a person or persons arguing against the mantra, attack the messenger. Do not allow yourself to be lured into defending the myth of 9/11 itself. This gives credence to the substance of the attack. Either attack the messenger or flee the argument.

Rule #2- Support the mythical history of central banking. Your mantra is: "The history of banking is ethnicity and religion neutral." "The history of banking is ethnicity and religion neutral." If a defender of the cabal comes across a person or persons arguing against the mantra, attack the messenger. Do not allow yourself to be lured into defending the mythical history of central banking. Either attack the messenger or flee the argument.

Antero's history in the thread on the US Federal Reserve:

Bob posted this synopsis of the origins of the US Federal Reserve and the bankers who organized it at Jekyll Island in a secret meeting:

They represented some of the richest and most powerful men in the world - the Morgans, Rockefellers, Rothschilds of Europe (who dominated all European banking by the mid-1800s and became and still may be the wealthiest and most powerful family of all) and others of great influence and power. Included was a US senator, a high ranking Treasury official, the president of the largest bank in the country at the time, a leading Wall Street figure and the man who would later become the first chairman of the Federal Reserve System. It was quite an assemblage, and they came to accomplish one thing. They wanted to change the ideology and course of American business that up to then was based on marketplace competition and replace it with monopoly. They also knew what Baron M.A. Rothschild understood when he once said: "Give me control over a nation's currency and I care not who makes its laws." They knew the wisdom of what's stated in Proverbs 22:7 as well: "The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender."

This history is either accurate or not. A normal person would attempt to attack this on substance, but a Defender Of Cabal like Antero would never attempt to dismantle this history ( for good reason- open examination of the history of banking is not permitted by the cabal ). Instead, antero followed my post with this:

antero wrote:What really bothers me about this thread is how much more courteous, engaged, and sane Bob was in April.

That's how a good little puppet behaves. You'll get a cookie for that, antero.

I responded with this:

clocker bob wrote: What bothers me is why you can't use this thread as it is intended, to educate yourself about the federal reserve, but hey, I know from the AIPAC thread that banking is a topic that you won't dare go near, Antero.

Antero attempts to say that a simple history of bankers holding a meeting is too mystifying for his grad school brain to get his head around. He'd be real eager to examine the history of banking, but since he's not a student of global economic policy ( huh??), he'll have to beg off:

antero wrote:Actually, I did read it for information. I didn't comment on the content because I don't feel qualified to discuss global economic policy - I haven't studied it at all.

But what I am saying, though, is that you seem to have been capable of sustaining a rational and coherant conversation back in April.

I'd suggest introspection.

Or, like, therapy.

More great attacks on the messenger, just like Antero's behavior in this thread on conspiracy theories. He's a good little boy.

I responded:

clocker bob wrote: And I still am today. You're just lying to take the focus of what you don't want to discuss ( 9/11, Federal Reserve ) and shift it to something that lets you feel all wise and smug: my posting behavior.

Look, I'll prove it to you. Let's have a rational conversation about the Federal Reserve. No understanding of global economic policy necessary ( good for me, too, since I'm still learning about it also ). I'll start.

Hey Antero, do you think the origins of the US Federal Reserve can be described as conspiratorial? If not, please state why. If so, please offer an opinion about whether the history of the Federal Reserve is deliberately obscured by the mainstream media.

Next question:

Hey Antero, old pal- do you think the Federal Reserve puts the interests of the American public first, or do you think it's a private cartel designed to enrich a select few?

Okay, now the ball's in your court. Use the thread as intended, or resume your personal attacks on me.

Guess who has never been seen in that thread again? Antero, of course. You get to stay in service to the cabal for another day, young man. Antero, you think you can have a position on conspiracy theories without having a position on the crimes they examine, which demonstrates that you're only interested in continuing the cover-ups.