But is he comfortable knowing that you aren't a shill? He thinks you're a CIA plant. You think he would take your "credentials" at face value? He's one of the most paranoid, distrustful people on the planet. I mean those credentials can all be faked, right? Especially for a CIA plant. Don't you see the irony here? You've made this huge habit of calling folks a shill at the drop of a hat and with no evidence whatsoever and now someone accuses YOU of being a CIA plant. That's HILARIOUS!!
Sticks and stones....blah, blah, blah...doesn't bother me as much as it apparently bothers you guys. Truth hurts I guess.
Well, the idea I have been proposing is that you don't have to work for the CIA to be a shill. Look at the way we are taught in school. Be honest and realistic. James Loewen wrote a terrific book about the way eager young American minds are taught US history. Our nation is not above using propaganda, nor are our people immune of its effects. When an image of something, like in this context, 'America', is painted as this God send beacon of rainbows that does nothing wrong, is just in every sense of the word, and never starts conflict but gets involved in "suddenly", well; unless those people get some sort of enlightment elsewhere, they're being seriously misled about the US and its storied history. That's a natural born shill. They are indoctrinated by extremely sanitized Pro-whatever-country propaganda from early childhood until they are grown.
So you have evidence of this active propaganda campaign the government is engaging in to produce these "natural born shills"? Of course, your entire premise is bull(*)(*)(*)(*) from start to finish. I know our government has done bad things in the past and is perfectly capable of doing bad things now. I have told you this time and time again. It is your inability to understand and / or believe that I follow the evidence that I believe makes you lie your ass off about why I and others believe the official story. You can't grasp the fact the evidence points overwhelmingly towards Al Qaeda including confessions and that the truther theories have zero evidence the government or anyone else is faking 9/11 so you have to make (*)(*)(*)(*) up to reconcile why people continue to blame the terrorists. It is either that or you are a terrorist sympathizer trying to deflect blame to the government, but you don't strike me as anywhere near that stupid.
When was the last time *you* picked up a US History textbook that is used in high schools across the United States? My fiancee is a history teacher, so she brings her work home, and I get to see for myself what Loewen had to say in his book. You simply cannot deny *all* of these allegations because they're too uncomfortable for you to bare, Patriot. Us Americans, just like everyone else that has education for young ones, teach an extremely slanted view of national history. Again, quit being a denialist. It takes just a modicum of common sense to realize what is happening. It helps if you can be unbiased.
You know, your blatant lying and bull(*)(*)(*)(*) is starting to get on my nerves. Why do you sit there and BLATANTLY lie about my position? You condescendingly sit there and pretend I think the US can do no wrong despite the fact I have acknowledged the exact opposite numerous times INCLUDING THE POST YOU ARE REPLYING TO! So what the (*)(*)(*)(*), Jango. Seriously. When are you going to stop the bull(*)(*)(*)(*)? Do you honestly think people don't notice you being so blatantly dishonest? Tell me. What allegation have I denied? I denied 9/11 was done by our government. You have failed and failed miserably to produce a single shred of evidence that proves it was anyone other than 19 members of Al Qaeda. What does Loewen say? Does he pretend 9/11 was caused by our government? It wouldn't surprise me all that much, but even he wouldn't have evidence because it simply does not exist. If it did, it sure wouldn't be you to be the first one to bring it to light. So what is it going to be, Jango? Are you going to stop with the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) or keep on lying?
You're kidding, right? You're either playing dumb or are far more ignorant than I ever gave you credit for. Let's go over it since you couldn't figure it out from what I wrote before. Try to pay attention. You accuse me of denying all allegations against the US because they are "too uncomfortable for me to bear (not bare). Where have I denied any allegations? I have outright admitted the US has done bad things in the past and here you are pretending I haven't. Is that not lying? You accuse me of being a denialist. Where have I denied the US has done bad things? I can show you numerous places where I have admitted the government does bad, that I don't trust the government, and that the government needs to be watched. How is that being a denialist? There is no question on this one. You blatantly lied, especially since I claimed the US has done bad things in the post right before you lied. Now, if you want to talk about a denialist, look in the mirror. I show you evidence and you repeatedly turn your nose up at it. Can you refute the evidence? No. You don't even try. Some of it you pretend is planted, yet you can't present anything other than paranoid delusions to back up that claim. A good definition of your denialism can be seen over in the evidence thread. You asked for evidence Al Qaeda was involved. I gave you tons. You looked at two pieces of evidence and ignored the rest. When I pointed out specifics that cannot be denied, you ignored them and focused on the two pieces claiming they had to be plants because in your opinion the story behind the evidence was just too wild for you to comprehend so it MUST be fake. Is that not the defintion of a denialist? You claim I don't have enough common sense to realize what is happening. Really? I am not the one posting ignorant bull(*)(*)(*)(*) they can't support with evidence or anything other than paranoid delusions, opinions of other nuts and lies. I have posted time and time again what common sense would dictate happened, yet you believe the opposite. For instance, which makes more common sense? That 19 hijackers would attack the US, succeed in 75% of the attacks because they attacked us in a new and heretofore unprecidented manner? Or the government staging the attacks through the numerous and conflicting truther theories that nobody can defend, there is no evidence to back up, and that the government that can't get anything right has somehow managed to completely suppress the worlds largest single conspiracy involving thousands to tens of thousands of people depending on which nutjob theory you want to claim is true today? You claim I don't have enough common sense, yet you were the one who was "up in the air" about Israeli art students were tossing mannequins of ballistic gelatin out of the towers instead of people jumping. It takes a complete and utter lack of common sense to even think that might be true even for a second! In order for that claim to be true, one would have to believe that not one of the "bodies" tossed out of the towers was ever examined prior to the collapse. Common sense would have told you that it would be impossible for nobody to look at the bodies close enough to realize they weren't real. Do you think the fire department was just leaving numerous bodies lying around splattered and hampering the rescue efforts? Of course they wouldn't just leave them. You don't have the credibility to pretend you have more common sense than I do. You then claim it helps if I can be unbiased, thus claiming I am biased. I have told you time and time again that I follow the evidence. This, by definition, is the only way to be completely unbiased because the truth is the truth. I don't let either side color my judgement, and I have clearly stated numerous times including to you directly that if evidence were to surface that clearly implicates the government or any other person that I would be at the front of the line demanding their head. I have asked you and every other truther for one shred of real evidence. Not ONE of you, yourself included, has been able to present real evidence 9/11 was carried out by anyone other than the 19 Al Qaeda members. To believe a theory that has no evidence to support it while purposefully ignoring evidence because it does not support your bias is, again by definition, a MAJOR bias. There are all your lies from that one post. Do you see them now or are you going to let your bias blind you again while your common sense takes another vacation?
I agree Jango is arguing dishonestly. But part of the problem is people like him caught up in conspiracy thinking make the mistake of thinking of the US government as a monolith that acts in perfect unison all the time without fail. It's not. It's a collection of institutions, that are supposed to act like checks and balances; sometimes the do, sometimes they don't. And each bureau or institution is prone to corruption to about the degree they are regulated. Add lobbyists and corporate contractors into the mix corruption on some level is inevitable, though the worst excesses can be held in check by citizen oversight. It's when oversight and regulation isn't supported that overt corruption flies out of control. The irony is the solution> aforementioned regulation and citizen oversight is also part of "the government". This is the mistake conspiracy based thinking makes, misleading people to mislabel the problem(the government), then they throw the baby out with the bathwater. Or maybe they simply not realize that citizen oversight and regulation is ALSO part of the government. So is the forest service. And the department of education. And the EPA. Are they ALL in on it? To Jango: it would be helpful if instead of criticizing "the government" or even "the US government", that you specify which branches and institutions you think have acted badly on or around 9/11 and present relevant evidence from there. One more thing: What you're describing sounds less like "common sense", and more like "faith." Just saying.
You can assume what I think or feel, that's fine, but to say I am arguing dishonest is being ridiculous. My post, #179, was my view, which is based of my reading and studying of Loewen's text and supplemental US History highschool textbooks, on natural shills. I wasn't addressing anyone in particular, so Patriot's self-response in posts #181 was unnecessary. I continued to argue my point, which had a lot of extraneous nonsense piled atop of it. Now, Patriot, if you'd actually like to address my words rather than me, we can continue this discussion of shills. And, do you have any evidence to counter the claims I have made? Or that thereof Loewen?
What is the point? You claim you weren't "addressing anyone in particular" yet the post was addressed TO ME and DIRECTLY addressed me. So you are both a liar and extremely dishonest. You blatantly lied, and just like a truther, run from the fact you lied.
Not when you waste virtual ink bemoaning how misunderstood you are, but are reluctant to communicate clearly enough to be understood. It's up to you: play victim or engage in adult conversation.
Oh my gosh. All I did was state my view on shills. Patriot is the one that attacked me. Nowhere in post #179 did I mention Patriot. But in post #181, Patriot attacks me, my idea, and an author and book he's never read because it looks like he assumed I was talking about him in post #179 that he quoted in the post. In post #182, I defend my position, and insult back. Post #183, no offense, is a Phil Jayhan candidate, you present a straw man argument. Post #184, I ask a question. Post #185, you respond with your norm.
They always get all hopped up when you use the word shill. It seems to really p*** them off for some reason. I was even told in no uncertain terms awhile back by a Mod to stop using the word shill. I wasn't calling anybody in particular a shill, but didn't matter. The use of the word "shill" was the problem. Seriously.....what's that all about? That the same "paranoia" truthers are continually pelted with by...certain folks?
I think you're beginning to see the dance I saw for years. You'll get tired of it too, and not take it so personally. It's what they do, and they don't like that word "shill". Maybe hits too close to home??
Wrong yet again. I attacked what you posted. I pointed out it was bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and why. I explained myself very clearly. You took it upon yourself to continue lying and then up the ante a bit. Now you're (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing like a little schoolgirl because you got caught. Man up You talk about shills. Your retarded definition of shills is anyone who believes 19 Al Qaeda hijackers were behind 9/11 instead of the big bad government. Why SHOULDN'T I respond that absolute bull(*)(*)(*)(*)? Did you respond to my reasonings? No. Do you have evidence to back up your bull(*)(*)(*)(*)? No. So all you can do is lie and whine. I asked you to present your evidence. You ran. Don't blame me you can't defend your ideas. You didn't defend anything. You immediately started lying your ass off. I proved that. You couldn't refute it, so you lied about it some more and pretended nothing happened instead of growing a pair and manning up to your mistakes. Again, not my fault.
You are arguing from a point of ignorance though, Patriot. You have not read 'Lies my teacher told me'. You have not done so. You cannot summarily dismiss my claims, or the claims of the author of the book when you haven't even read the book. I mean, you can, but you look like a fool in doing so. http://www.amazon.com/Lies-My-Teach...09206&sr=8-1&keywords=lies+my+teacher+told+me Again, show me where I addressed you in post #179. Also, where did I mention al Qaeda in that post? Furthermore, can you refute that post?
This is an excellent book. I've read it and in fact own it. However I don't see what is has to do with this thread/sub forum. It certainly is NOT going to support "9/11 was an Inside Job"; it predates the 9/11 attacks. The most it could do is confirm yes there can be corruption and bias in government agencies. But that has been acknowledged in this thread so I don't understand what point you're trying to make with this book.
Argh. Read post #179, please. Notice I didn't mention anyone or talk about 9/11. I talked about what Mr. Loewen discusses and expanded his idea to define shills.
Argh. Read post #179, please. Notice I didn't mention anyone or talk about 9/11. I talked about what Mr. Loewen discusses and expanded his idea to define shills.
I don't need to read the book. You already discussed the theme. It is your conclusion you draw from the book that everyone who doesn't agree with your anti-American views is a "natural born shill". What is a shill? Someone who knowingly helps out a person or organization without explaining the relationship with that person or organization. In this case, shill is used as someone who supports the government position, which also implies that the shill knows of the 9/11 conspiracy and is helping the government in its effort to cover up the crime. You did not have to address me directly in post #179. You made a claim. I addressed the claim. You ARE aware this is a public forum, right? That if you post a claim, others are not only free to but are encouraged to address your claim? And, as I have been falsely accused time and time again of being a shill, you trying to pretend you know the origin of shills in this context most certainly includes me in your claim, does it not? The accusations of being a shill have been rampant in this section of the forum, so the meaning behind shill and who has been defined as a shill is also not in question. You did not mention Al Qaeda. You don't have to. This is a 9/11 forum, thus your posts are going to be taken in the context of 9/11. You are a known supporter of 9/11 conspiracy theories even when you have been presented with evidence your theories are wrong. Since there are only two major factions here, those who believe Al Qaeda was behind 9/11 and those who believe the government was behind 9/11. I clarified who it was you were talking about in that post. You pretending to be all offended by me mentioning Al Qaeda as though I am accusing you of bringing up Al Qaeda is nothing but a red herring. I've already refuted your post #179. You failed and failed miserably at addressing that refutation. You got all butthurt everyone didn't bow down to your author and your (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up conclusions. Not my problem.
