"Like Someone to Blame," the mind REELS at the utter manure that you post. (I would use another term, but I wouldn't want to offend your sensibilities by posting something offensive or controversial.)
After I call you on the possibility that you BELIEVE the accusation that Republicans want to kill the elderly, starve children, and destroy the environment, you evade, evade, EVADE: you bring up every OTHER possible topic, refuse to respond on any other timetable but your own (I'm still waiting), and let KingPin do your explaining for you.
I even crystalized the subject into one simple question, "WERE YOU BEING SARCASTIC?" and you apparently refuse to answer even that.
I quote KingPin:
KingPin said:
He never accused the republicans of plotting mass murder.
Anybody who does is clearly ridiculous and not worth getting upset over, because they're clearly irrational.
Your take on KingPin's post?
Like someone to blame said:
Kingpin said it perfectly. I have nothing further to add. The debate will NOT BE ON BUBBA'S terms....
My advice to you...reread Kingpin's earlier statement. Repeat. Read it again. Repeat. Maybe you'll eventually see the light.
So, I suppose (and I must suppose, since you give no straight answers) that you were not serious about the suggestion that Republicans want to harm young and old alike, that you don't actually believe that "many examples exist of Republican efforts to destroy the environment, starve kids, and hurt the elderly..."
Yet you have no qualms whatsoever in suggesting that President Bush either planned or knowingly allowed the deaths of 3,000 Americans for the sake of oil.
I wonder if KingPin will defend you on THIS.
There are actually some amusing moments in your hateful post. The assertion that the American media is conservative:
Like someone to blame said:
I have found that you get much more credible information regarding U.S. foreign affairs and military strategy from news organizations based in Europe, specifically the French and British press corps. They tend to have reliable sources (though not always) and that investigative itch severely lacking in our (The U.S.'s) conservatively biased media of today.
It is simply nonsense to suggest that CNN and the New York Times are "conservatively biased," and its evidence of either dementia on your part or a liberalism so thorough that you deem the French press and their hatred of America to be unbiased.
(A book that suggests the Pentagon itself plotted 9/11 is still on the French bestsellers' list, but does that prove some sort of "investigative itch"? No; as far as I am aware, it offers no credible evidence for its galling claim - just anti-American, anti-Semitic propaganda.)
This
does explain how you believe National Review represents the "extreme right:" you probably believe the New Republic represents moderate conservatives.
The idea would be laughable, if your conclusions weren't so galling.
You then, to the surprise of absolutely no one who's been paying attention, exonerate Clinton from any responsibility whatsoever:
I do know this much: to allege that 9/11 was somehow the fault of the Clinton administration (as z edge, I believe, asserted) is simply inaccurate. Yes, I know you despise Mr. Clinton but to blame his administration for 9/11 is politics, plain and simple. I kindly remind you that regardless if 9/11 was a terrorist attack or a government conspiracy...it happened on Bush's watch-while HE was in charge. That's not me playing politics...it's just me calling a spade a spade.
I can ultimately speak only for myself, but I believe that the assertion of conservatives here - z edge, me, and others - is that Clinton DIDN'T cause 9/11, but his weak foreign policy encouraged the terrorists by allowing them to become more bold.
If we must "call a spade a spade" and look at what happened on a President's watch, I will remind you of the terrorists attacks that occured during Clinton's tenure: a failed bombing of the World Trade Center (which was supposed to do far more damage than it did), coordinated attacks on U.S. embassies, an attack on a U.S. military base in Saudi Arabia, and the attack on the
U.S.S. Cole.
Certainly, I know of no conservative here or in the mainstream conservative movement that would suggest ANYTHING about Clinton analogous to what you're suggesting about Bush: that he either planned a large-scale terrorist attack or allowed it to happen for political, economic, or personal gain. Even when we consider the military response that was conveniently timed the same week Clinton gave his deposition, we do not and WOULD not suggest such a horrendous thing as you suggest without MOUNTAINS of evidence.
All WE are merely asserting is that his actions (or inactions, in this case) led the terrorists to become more bold, just as the terrible arrangements in Europe following World War I led to the Great Depression, the rise of fascism, and World War II. NOBODY who concluded WWI wanted any of that to happen, but it did as an unintended consequence.
But let us turn now to your accusation about Bush.
Predictable, you don't point to any evidence: I believe none exists, because the conspiracy theory is utterly baseless.
You also don't make any hard and fast claims, like "Bush DEFINITELY knew something and could have prevented 9/11." It's certainly a great way to cover your hindquarters, a way to back out of this and claim that you never actually accused Bush of anything.
But you do.
Your opinion is crystal clear.
Like someone to blame said:
...at the very least those 9/11 timelines make me go "hmmmm". In other words...it gets one to thinking about the alternative....i.e. what DID WE REALLY KNOW and was this administration somehow aware of this impending event?
...
While indeed an awful thought, it shouldn't be THAT hard to fathom a scenario in which the U.S. goverment had either knowledge of or a POSSIBLE involvement in 9/11.
...
So I don't believe that it is entirely unreasonable to suggest that 9/11 COULD, I stress COULD, have had U.S. knowledge/involvement if you believe, as some do, that this whole "war" on Afghanistan/terrorism is actually about one thing and one thing only: OIL!
...
Look, I want to think that 9/11 was the awful, despicable, heinous, cold-blooded TERRORIST act that our government makes it out to be. But who really knows except for God.
...
I honestly don't know what I believe about what happened on 9/11...was it really the act of a sick sick man or was this all about big oil and money, an "ends justifies the means" event like we almost had back during the Cuban Missile Crisis? Only God and the perpetrators really know but I do think it is slightly naive to think that the U.S. couldn't SOMEHOW have been possibly involved...unless you just blindly trust our government in all things.
"Look, I want to think that 9/11 was the awful, despicable, heinous, cold-blooded TERRORIST act that our government makes it out to be."
You "want" to think the government had no involvement, but you don't.
You think Bush either caused 9/11 or allowed it to happen, probably because of oil. You don't even try to offer any proof, and you're not even couragous enough to do anything more but cast doubt ("only God really knows") and ask vague, accusing questions ("what did we REALLY know?"), but it does appear that it's what you believe. It is what you
want to believe.
At the very least, you obviously think Bush is CAPABLE of causing 9/11 or allowing it to happen.
You have said that I have a hateful, delusional mind for thinking that you are capable of accusing Republicans of contemplating and desiring mass murder. Do I really? (You DON'T?)
I have and still claim that you believe Republicans want to kill the elderly, starve children, and destroy the environment. How am I wrong? Isn't this further proof?
(And I again ask, WERE YOU BEING SARCASTIC?)
KingPin, you have said, "clearly from his posts, he doesn't think 'REPUBLICANS ARE GUILTY OF ATTEMPTED MASS MURDER'," and you said I was sounding like a "drama queen" for suggesting otherwise. Do you STILL think I'm clearly wrong?
Are you willing to defend THIS statement?
Moderators, I think this sort of post is so offensive that it should either not be allowed, or the guy should be compelled to produce hard, indisputable evidence to back it up. Do you agree or not? How long must we wait for answer?
Bubba