Posted on 10/07/2006 3:56:30 AM PDT by Man50D
Wrong, as usual. As you may or may not remember far enough back, I didn't want to believe it... but remembering the Xlinton escapades...and knowing that where there's smoke there's often fire... I concluded that the smoke certainly warranted Congressional investigation...and appropriate oversight.
It's the CONSTITUTIONAL thing to do. But of course, you know neither our history or Constitution...just like some occupants of the Executive Branch apparently.
Despite their ignorance, I never expected the Executive Branch to deploy a full spread of stalls and point-blank refusals to lawful information requests. The failure to comply anywhere close to fully with the FOIA requests dramatically increases legitimate public concern for the veracity of disavowals that were issued. Disavowals which have now evidently been debunked.
There was sufficient corroboration within even the "sanitized" and "select" documents released supporting the Corsi/Schlafly speculations.
One can only surmise that the withheld documents are even more explicitly (and politically embarassingly) frank in their admissions.
So go fly your black helicopter out of here...and don't let your tinfoil hat get caught in the rotor-blades.
The fact of the matter is, you do not know what is in the released documents . . . feel free to react that I am "Wrong, as usual," when I point out that you are acting as though you know.
"One can only surmise that the withheld documents are even more explicitly (and politically embarassingly) frank in their admissions." No, one cannot. Your inability to see the range of possibilities is what brings forth the comments about black helicopters and tinfoil.
Nope.
You are simply devoid of facts altoghether on these kinds of calumnies you decry against conservatives. Indeed you are Wrong as usual. Only more so than usual. And, not out of "acting", as do you. Perhaps you are unaware that I have already read the following FOIA responses obtained by Judicial Watch at their website. I commend it to you. I found it illuminating, and find I am sympathetic to Corsi's preliminary reviews thereof.
Section I - SPP Contact Lists and Organization Charts
Section II - SPP Regulatory Cooperation Symposium
Section III - SPP Meeting with Commerce Secretary Gutierrez, March 15, 2006.
Section IV - Launch of the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC), May 26, 2006.
Section V - Final Recommendations of the U.S. Section of the NACC.
Section VI - Launch of the NACC with SPP Ministers, June 15, 2006.
Section VII - NACC Documents
Section VIII - Prof. Robert A. Pastor’s Seminar on Building a North American Community, September 21, 2005.
At 9:09am, you commiserated with Kimberly GG about how your perceived opponents “won’t actually spend any time to acknowledge the FOIA responses.” You observed that they “just feint, dance, feint, dance and back up” calling them a “Stall operation,” and “thugs.”
At 9:33am, (and in response to my suggestion that it’s impossible to “acknowledge” something one hasn’t seen, and that you are acting as though you’ve seen something others have not), you propounded that you:
“never expected the Executive Branch to deploy a full spread of stalls and point-blank refusals to lawful information requests. The failure to comply anywhere close to fully with the FOIA requests dramatically increases legitimate public concern for the veracity of disavowals that were issued. Disavowals which have now evidently been debunked.”When I observed a second time that you are acting as though you know what is in the documents while others do not, at 11:48am, for the first time you admit that you are speaking of documents that Judicial Watch received as a result of a FOIA request. I thought that the government was refusing those requests, but let’s not digress.
All morning I thought that you were referring to Jerome Corsi’s FOIA request, of which nothing is known. No matter, apparently you couldn’t be bothered to be more specific. Lost upon you is the notion that maybe this “thug dancer stall-operation” is thugging, and dancing, and stalling, BECAUSE THEY DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
All morning, you were in possession (defined as “having access to”) the documents you accused others of avoiding, yet you didn’t lift a finger to provide them. Absence of evidence, of course, being central to your argument that something is being hidden.
Let me repeat, for effect: you held the documents close to your vest, yet you argued that something sinister is afoot because they are not being acknowledged.
So here we are, afternoon in the Midwest. We now know that somewhere in the Judicial Watch documents is evidence of some amorphous “disavowals” that “have now evidently been debunked.” Care to point them out?
I must admit, asking folks on your side to cite to particulars when you present a document most often is a request ignored (witness texastoo’s hurried evacuation of this thread when asked about his DOT memo), but I’ll continue trying. Personally, I think that making a point and then moving backwards isn’t very effective, but if that’s the route you choose, be my guest. Let’s see some of that evidence (this morning: suppressed/this afternoon: released) that you claim is being avoided.
I'm pinging some others to this comment, thinking that they might see something I've missed, or can find a better way to explain to you that you're being transparent.
Don't you know? It's not the NAU that's the conspiracy. It's the NAU conspiracy theorists that are working for the government.
It was all laid down in a documentary this past Wednesday.
On South Park, no doubt.
Yep. It's a government conspiracy, alright.
I didn't notice, but now that you mention it, the conspirators did tend to have very circular heads.
I love when they did that. They first spam the thread with an interminably long post.
Then they say, "How can you argue with THAT?" If you try to focus on one point, they either leave the thread (to start a new one, has it started yet this weekend?) or try to redirect to another issue.
Only the government could think of a fiendish plan such as that.
That's Paul's M.O., he thinks quantity makes up for low quality.
1. Spam the thread.
2. Refuse to elaborate.
3. Change the subject.
4. Complain of "thread-crapping."
The Commerce Dept refused to hand over about some 80% of the requested documents. So its clearly not a digression. And the documentary non-performance should not have been news to you, if you had bothered reading anything, which you haven't been doing...as evidenced by your attempted "summary" of my contributions proves. Thus proving my point about you guys feinting without actually acknowledging the documents.
You are thugs.
As for your pathetic last gasping argument you then demand proof from me, when you still haven't read anything (still further confirming my point):
...somewhere in the Judicial Watch documents is evidence of some amorphous “disavowals” that “have now evidently been debunked.” Care to point them out?Care to read Robert A. Pastor's contribution to the S.P.P.? It's there right in black and white. His CFR Task Force "Toward a North American Community" which discusses how to evade and undermine U.S. sovereignty and defacto implement the North American Union has been incorporated into the SPP agenda. Surprise. A smoking gun right under your nose. It's hardly the only one, but it is likely dispositive.
Especially since it is Robert Paster's disengenuous talking points issued in the recent disavowals sniffing at the supposed "myths" against of the SPP...on behalf of the Commerce Dept.
Gee, how did they...and he... get there???
Of course, you will call it all a coincidence...
Your tag line tends to confirm it. So much for your lame sarcasm.
Ah, I see. It's not your failure to cite to a passage that supports a particular fact, but my failure to read everything you've posted and find it myself. Have you ever considered asking someone's help in making your arguments for you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.