Posted on 05/27/2002 11:47:41 AM PDT by OKCSubmariner
In addition to shills, I supposse blind loyalists who do not really want to search for the truth becasue they might have their bubble burst and learn of their misplaced loyalties might also like to use the word "conspiracies".
BTW, my grown children live in Texas. My father was a Texan (relatives fought in the Alamo). And I love Oklahoma. The United States Forever!
Now, if I were prone to conspiracies I think I could build a humdinger about you. What do ya think. Are you "Carol’s" SHILL on Free Republic?
Wow. I'll never think of "Zork" the same way again.
And BlueDogDemo and I do not agree on many things these days.
And the poster of reply #82 will learn that his veiled intimidation attempt in reply #82 will fail.
How far down in Lower Manhattan were you that morning, anyway? Just curious.
Just searching for the "truth", friend just searching for the "truth". It seems you name pops up a lot on the net. Like I said. It has all the makings of a great conspiracy and shill identification. Everything I have seen has at least as much factual basis as what you are posting about.
On which planet? The BBC is under ironfisted control of hardcore left-wingers, and has been for decades. The Boston Globe is owned and operated by The New York Times, and had always been strongly leftist even before the Times bought them. Both organizations regularly slant articles to make conservatives look bad and liberals look good.
"The Boston Globe is owned and operated by The New York Times and had always been strongly leftist even before the Times bought them..."
Is the author of reply #88 also going to try and claim that the New York Times is unreliable on all their stories too?
The BBC, the Boston Globe and the New York TImes all reported on the murder of Richard Pearle. And guess what, all three news outlets were correct.
The protestations of the author of reply #88 about the BBC, the Globe and the NYTImes are weak and do not work. He sounds like he is in denial and having touble facing reality on this one.
You really get SNIPPY when the world does not stand in awe of your brilliance and analytical powers don't you? I have asked you twice now, is it your contention that George W Bush has committed impeachable or even criminal offences in regard to 911? Either you have stones to lay it out in public or you are nothing more than a gossiping old woman.
"...is it your contention George W Bush has committed impeachable or even criminal offences in regard to 911? "
Answer- I do not know yet, maybe Congress Intelligence hearings can find out. They are asking questions about what Bush knew , when he knew it and what he did about it.
It may turn out that Bush used bad judgement and made bad decisions. Even brilliant men who run for President and even win make big mistakes. Question about Bush though is also what were his motives if he did make a mistake? I would like to find out more to decide whether or not I will vote for him again if he should ever run.
THe question about impeachable offenses with respect to Congress and Bush would be irrelevant because COngress would not even remove Clinton from office when he should have been removed.
Poster of reply #90 went on to write:
"Either you have stones to lay it out in public or you are nothing more than a gossiping old woman."
It seems to me that the poster of reply #90 gets frustrated when he does not get the results he wants. And he still does not seem to understand that good questions can be raised be informed citizens on FreeRepublic and even by COngress Intell hearings without the COngressmen and the citizens being thought of as "gossiping old women." When the poster of reply #90 failed with his conspiracies label, he then resulted to the futile "gossiping old women" label.
FBI agents Coleen Rowley and Ken Willaims are not "gossiping old women" either and they got the attention of Congress by raising good questions didn't they?!
On ALL stories? No. On many many stories? Absolutely. There's a web site called Smartertimes.com devoted to chronicaling their liberal biases and nonstop embarrassing errors. Simply put, they are not gospel, they have a known bias against the GOP and George W. Bush, and cannot be trusted when they print stories on the GOP or Bush without listing sources.
I highly suggest you check out one of the many web sites out there that offer remedial courses in logical fallacies, because you're making them in this thread by the truckload.
That remains to be seen doesn't it? BTW why can’t you just post to the one you are talking too? Are you afraid of something?
A few very short blocks away -- close enough to be covered with glass from secondary explosions inside the North tower, shortly after it was hit. Close enough to have had to out-run that infamous debris cloud.
Wow, that's CLOSE. My old apartment was around Astor Place, about 1 1/2 to 2 miles up. I'll always wonder if any of the debris cloud made it that far north...
What's really kind of funny is people who live significantly farther from the site than I do, bitching about the "air quality" lomg after it ceased to be a problem.
No they are not, especially when they are intelligence sources. Do you really expect some CIA guy who's talking to a reporter to be quoted? Have you ever heard of "Deep Throat?"
And no, I don't mean the movie.
page=65">insert title or the word here< /a>
Don't put a space between the less than sign and the slash mark . I had to do that to get the end anchor sign to show up.
Think of your link having 4 parts with no spaces, except one between the a and the h in a href=:
1. Begin anchor < a href=>
2. URL in quotation marks followed by > "http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/690278/posts?page=65">
3. Title (or word/words that will appear underlined, such as here)
4. End anchor < /a>
Note that "begin anchor" is < a href=> not, < a herf>. It tells the computer to anchor the hypertext reference in the text.
Happy linking :)
How about sources that do? They're not acceptable either, if they are critical, right sinkspur?
Excerpt from Coleen Rowley's Memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller ------
"The fact is that key FBIHQ personnel whose jobs it was to assist and coordinate with field division agents on terrorism investigations and the obtaining and use of FISA searches (and who theoretically were privy to many more sources of intelligence information than field division agents), continued to, almost inexplicably,5 throw up roadblocks and undermine Minneapolis' by-now desperate efforts to obtain a FISA search warrant, long after the French intelligence service provided its information and probable cause became clear. HQ personnel brought up almost ridiculous questions in their apparent efforts to undermine the probable cause.6 In all of their conversations and correspondence, HQ personnel never disclosed to the Minneapolis agents that the Phoenix Division had, only approximately three weeks earlier, warned of Al Qaeda operatives in flight schools seeking flight training for terrorist purposes!
Nor did FBIHQ personnel do much to disseminate the information about Moussaoui to other appropriate intelligence/law enforcement authorities."
See, sinkspur, the Bile is rising in many people who can't accept the corruption anymore. And you and several others expect us to just shut up and be good little sheep. Ain't gonna happen!
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.