Building High-Performance Muscle™
Politics and World Issues
 
Pat Robertson: Legalize Pot
 

orion
Level 5

Join date: Jun 2005
Location: Austria
Posts: 24421

ZEB wrote:
Storey,

If you could stick to the truth you could appreciate what the man has done with his life.


By implementing programs that provide hunger relief, medical aid, disaster relief, clean water, microenterprise and sommunity development, OBI has helped more than 202.7 million people in more than 105 countries and all 50 states as well as distributed goods valued at more than $1.4 billion.


..delivered and given away more than 164 million pounds of food
provided more than 109 million meals to the needy
driven more than 4.4 million miles
provided 9.7 million pounds of relief and disaster relief supplies assistance.



http://www.ministrywatch.com/...ernational.aspx

Why don't you just chalk this up to experience and walk away a better man?


Dunno, the flimsiest of research shows that you are wrong.

But then, maybe believing in things without evidence is like a muscle, if you do it long enough you can believe in anything.

Jesus, this Robertson guy is a special kind of asswipe, then again, there is a certain charm in a priest/conmen.

Over here we have so few of those....

  Report
 

lanchefan1
Level 3

Join date: Feb 2003
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1185

ZEB wrote:



http://www.ministrywatch.com/...ernational.aspx

Why don't you just chalk this up to experience and walk away a better man?


Hey Zeb dead link?

  Report
 

storey420
Level 4

Join date: Dec 2003
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 1112

ZEB wrote:
storey420 wrote:
You really do lack reading comprehension. I have no hate for the man and other than it being so plainly obvious and you being so obtuse I have no idea why I'm spending time digging up the direct links to prove to you. It's not like you will budge from your pre-formed, everything is roses view of him. But you do know he signed a legal document with Taylor right? I'm not paying for your access, you do it

http://allafrica.com/...0502221382.html

Liberian Observer. He signed the document to get rights from Taylor under "Mineral Development Agreement between the Republic of Liberia and Freedom Gold Limited". Then he petitioned US government to send US troops to protect these interests (fairly he did disclose he had business interests). Business interests with? You guessed it Charles Taylor. Want to read up on this charming christian?

http://www.time.com/...1910365,00.html



Your first piece of "evidence" had absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue at hand. And keep in mind the onus is on you to actually prove your point. Not for me to buy access to websites and do your research for you. You made me laugh with that thanks :)

Your second piece of "evidence" talks extensively about Charles Taylor and that's it. No link with Robertson. Okay Taylor is a bad guy (yawn)...again.

If you want to keep playing you better (for the 4th time) produce some actual proof. I'm losing interest in this fascination you have of linking Robertson with multiple felonies.

In a way you almost remind me of the typical liberal who assumes that everyone in the world agrees with their inane premise for example that George Bush was stupid. Well, I disagree with that one too.

Anyway, no the world doesn't believe that Pat Robertson is a felon. Many atheists and agnostics (and a few others) too perhaps believe this fable however. And why do they believe this without proof? Because they WANT it to be true as he represents the opposite of what they are. When the typical guy disagrees with someone at this level he must be baaaaaaad.

This is classic.

I demand that you stop being average and start thinking.

Okay...I'm asking that you do that, for your own good man.


The first link is to the direct article in the newspaper from the country in question with an actual picture of the contract with Robertson's mining company and Charles Taylor, it shows the direct link between the two, to which you said there was no evidence. You also have his letter to Colin Powell, CBN broadcasts, yada, yada.. the list goes on.

I'M actually done with you, I have supplied proof, over and over again to which you're reply is "nah uh, show me real proof". You haven't even had the dignity to fess up that yes in deed he was found in the wrong by a government (VA) office and THEY asked for prosecution.

You're really being obtuse on this one. I said I don't hate anyone, you continue to paint me as a christian hating lefty or something and even use the word hate.

I said he's done plenty of good things I ACKNOWLEDGE this, why can't you at least acknowledge that Pat has done some QUESTIONABLE things. Didn't say he was a felon, but yes I do think he used his political influence to avoid further investigation/prosecution on those old charges.
There is plenty of evidence (of Pat Robertson on CBN) showing support for those two warlords, its not some hidden internet hater secret, the writing is on the wall with those. Yeah they're old and sure he may have seen the light from shady associations in earlier years but IT HAPPENED.

I'm done with you on this thread, you are so obtuse to the facts presented that it is becoming really boring.

  Report
 

storey420
Level 4

Join date: Dec 2003
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 1112

thunderbolt23 wrote:
storey420 wrote:

I'm surprised someone as usually level headed as you can't see the plain as day nature of what I am posting, with a source from the paper directly, with the allegations coming from an office of Virginia government. And for the record I rarely smoke marijuana if at all any more, too much on my plate.


Oh, I haven't even read the posts re: Robertson. I know next to nothing about that, I was just amking a joke.


Oh, fair enough :)

  Report
 

storey420
Level 4

Join date: Dec 2003
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 1112

ZEB wrote:
Storey,

If you could stick to the truth you could appreciate what the man has done with his life.


By implementing programs that provide hunger relief, medical aid, disaster relief, clean water, microenterprise and sommunity development, OBI has helped more than 202.7 million people in more than 105 countries and all 50 states as well as distributed goods valued at more than $1.4 billion.


..delivered and given away more than 164 million pounds of food
provided more than 109 million meals to the needy
driven more than 4.4 million miles
provided 9.7 million pounds of relief and disaster relief supplies assistance.



http://www.ministrywatch.com/...ernational.aspx

Why don't you just chalk this up to experience and walk away a better man?


If you could recognize the complete truth you would see another side of this man. Why don't you just actually read the direct sources I've posted and walk away a more enlightened man?

  Report
 

ZEB
Level

Join date: Sep 2003
Location:
Posts: 19363

storey420 wrote:

The first link is to the direct article in the newspaper from the country in question with an actual picture of the contract with Robertson's mining company and Charles Taylor


He's doing business in a country where a real bad guy was in charge? Is that the only piece of evidence you can dig up to tarnish Robertson? Ha ha...we trade with China buddy. Do I have to go on? Do you know where this one is going? If the Mayor of a City is on the take do you avoid doing business in that City? Does it mean that YOU are on the take because the Mayor is? Oh come on Storey...(eye roll).

I'M actually done with you, I have supplied proof, over and over again to which you're reply is "nah uh, show me real proof".


It's obvious that you have no idea what "standard of proof" means. You offer up bits and pieces of weak evidence from anti Christian web sites and call it proof. And then you become frustrated with me when I don't accept it.

And now you think he's a bad guy because he does business in a country run by a dictator. Sheesh Storey.....WEAK!


You haven't even had the dignity to fess up that yes in deed he was found in the wrong by a government (VA) office and THEY asked for prosecution.


He paid a fine for taking a deduction that he shouldn't have taken. What does that mean? Do you know how many times that happens to people who are actually successful? Donald Trump, Ted Turner and probably a host of other wealthy successful people do battle with the IRS every year. None of them go to jail as these are mundane matters. They want a deduction where perhaps the IRS does not feel it appropriate. But sometimes they win so they keep trying. You are acting all nutty over this?

You're really being obtuse on this one.


I feel that you are the closed minded one here. You have a preconceived notion of what Pat Robertson is and facts mean nothing to you.


I said I don't hate anyone, you continue to paint me as a christian hating lefty or something and even use the word hate.


Give me a really good reason why you would carry this on for 8 or 9 posts if you didn't hate Robertson? And why is it that you hate Robertson? Hmmm...let me think. Is it because he's wealthy and you're not? Possibly. Or could it be because he is an outspoken high profile Christian? There must be a reason why you are so vigorously pursuing this nonsense.

I said he's done plenty of good things I ACKNOWLEDGE this, why can't you at least acknowledge that Pat has done some QUESTIONABLE things.


It could be because fighting with the IRS over a tax deduction and doing business in a country where the leader is a bad guy does not make YOU a bad guy. This is all you have on Robertson and it just isn't enough. In fact, its' NOTHING. If his name was Trump or Turner you wouldn't even bat an eye lid at this crap. But he's "Pat Robertson" and you just flat out don't like him!

Didn't say he was a felon, but yes I do think he used his political influence to avoid further investigation/prosecution on those old charges.


You can also think that it rains bubble gum on Saturday afternoon, but that doesn't make it true. You've not shown even one iota of proof which demonstrates this and you want me to believe it. In essence what you're saying with a wink and a nod is "come on we all know Robertson is corrupt." And I am saying to you HE IS NOT as you've not even come close to proving your hypothesis. And you call ME close minded? LOL

I'm done with you on this thread, you are so obtuse to the facts presented that it is becoming really boring.


Allow me to correct you, it has not become "boring" for you as much as it has become "frustrating." You have this notion in your head and I admit I don't know how it got there (I assume Christian hating but I could be wrong, but I doubt it). And you want me to buy into your false notion without a shred of proof. You frantically google Robertson trying desperately to dig up some sort of corruption story and you get nothing. So you piece together a couple of stories which at their worst mean nothing. And now you're left with your own false beliefs and no way to prove them -- Yeah I don't blame you for feeling frustrated. But what you should be doing is challenging your own beliefs about the man. That's what a fair person would do.

And the next time you want to tarnish a man's reputation you better come up with proof!

As a side note I battled with the "birther" folks as well who are just as convinced that Obama was not born in the US as you are that Robertson is a bad guy. And at this point, I'm sorry to say, I have no alternative than to lump you in that group.

  Report
 

ZEB
Level

Join date: Sep 2003
Location:
Posts: 19363

lanchefan1 wrote:
ZEB wrote:



http://www.ministrywatch.com/...ernational.aspx

Why don't you just chalk this up to experience and walk away a better man?


Hey Zeb dead link?



Give this one a try my friend

http://www.ministrywatch.com/...ernational.aspx

  Report
 

lanchefan1
Level 3

Join date: Feb 2003
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1185

ZEB wrote:
lanchefan1 wrote:
ZEB wrote:



http://www.ministrywatch.com/...ernational.aspx

Why don't you just chalk this up to experience and walk away a better man?


Hey Zeb dead link?



Give this one a try my friend

http://www.ministrywatch.com/...ernational.aspx


Yep that one worked, thanks.

Interesting read on the first page about ministries to avoid.

  Report
 

storey420
Level 4

Join date: Dec 2003
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 1112

Now you're really just embarrassing yourself ZEB. I'll tell you what I'll respond in full if you agree to actually read the links posted. He did more than just "do business in his country" if you had read the links you would understand this. Also with the "took a deduction he shouldn't have" --ahh wrong again and again if you actually took the time to read the Free Lance Star newspaper article it clearly says that Robertson himself said he reimbursed the charity for USING THE PLANES FOR THE MINING VENTURE!

"You offer up bits and pieces of weak evidence from anti Christian web sites and call it proof. And then you become frustrated with me when I don't accept it. " --Really ZEB? So now google, the Virginian Pilot, the Free Lance Star, ABC News, etc. are all just anti-christian web sites, got it. Great counterpoint. Seriously you're embarrassing yourself.

Attention pot, this is kettle. "I feel that you are the closed minded one here. You have a preconceived notion of what Pat Robertson is and facts mean nothing to you. "

Oh and going on for more then 7 posts about a person = you hate them. Good to know. I will limit my posts in future threads lest I be judged.

  Report
 

Gambit_Lost
Level 3

Join date: Jul 2006
Location: Japan
Posts: 3924

Well, I think this thread may have moved on from the original intent, but my 2 cents...

A lot of the dislike for MJ comes from a lack of experience/exposure. Not all of it, mind you. Just as someone could study the effects of beer/cigs and decide it's not for them, some read about MJ and just not use it. That said, the more vitriolic "hate" often seems to come from ignorance.

Where I grew up, most everyone smoked or "had smoked" in the past. Parents, teachers, priests, friends, friend's parents, there were a lot of smokers. I'm sure there were a lot of non-smokers as well, but to a 12 year old, it sure seemed like everyone. By the time we were 16, many (most) of the kids in my school had tried it. By college, that number jumped to "almost all." Perhaps it is a regional thing. When I was living elsewhere in the US I knew people who told me they had never tried it but "certainly would, it's just never available." Where I grew up, it was available before we could get beer.

Now I'm old. Some of those who smoked when I was a child are now doctors, lawyers, businesspeople, and other professionals. I know a few who ended up with some trouble with the law, but those generally had a plethora of problems regardless of their exposure to MJ. Actually, thinking about them now, I think all of them did. Of those who "used to" smoke, some still do. They are older now and quieter about it. I don't recall seeing any of them with tie-dye tapestries anymore. Some are professionals with good jobs and salaries. Some have blue collar jobs. None of those I was close to have gotten into any serious trouble. But I don't think MJ affected who became what or when.

The idea that MJ is somehow "worse" than beer or whiskey is silly to me because of what I've seen and experienced.

  Report
 

ZEB
Level

Join date: Sep 2003
Location:
Posts: 19363

storey420 wrote:
Now you're really just embarrassing yourself ZEB.


You have it wrong, you embarrass yourself when you believe someone to be one way and cannot back it up with proof when pushed. And the fact that you're still at it after saying you were going to stop says volumes about the hate you have for the man.

I'll tell you what I'll respond in full if you agree to actually read the links posted. He did more than just "do business in his country" if you had read the links you would understand this.


What makes you think that I want you to respond? You've responded 9 or 10 times now and have not been able to prove your case. You need to get on an anti Christian web site and throw this crap at them, they'll eat it up like so much popcorn. I've read your links and they offer no proof that Robertson is corrupt as you say he is.

Also with the "took a deduction he shouldn't have" --ahh wrong again and again if you actually took the time to read the Free Lance Star newspaper article it clearly says that Robertson himself said he reimbursed the charity for USING THE PLANES FOR THE MINING VENTURE!


That is exactly what you do when you are not allowed a deduction that you've taken. You reach in your pocket take out your own money and pay the tax man....(eye roll). I'd like to know what you do for a living. It's obvious that you don't even have a basic fundamental understanding of how our tax system works.

google, the Virginian Pilot, the Free Lance Star, ABC News, etc. are all just anti-christian web sites, got it. Great counterpoint. Seriously you're embarrassing yourself.


You've just embarrassed your self by name dropping potential links. Why don't you post something from one of those links that proves Robertson is corrupt? I'll tell you why, because you've tried posting a few of them and they say nothing. Now you want to look like you know what you're talking about by simply mentioning their names. P A T H E T I C. Let this go before it consumes you man.

Oh and going on for more then 7 posts about a person = you hate them. Good to know. I will limit my posts in future threads lest I be judged.


It's not JUST the number of posts. I've had debates that have lasted 30 and 40 pages. Like your view on Robertson you are only seeing what you want to see, not the truth. The truth is you are focused on this one man. A real person that you've tried to discredit with very feeble attempts. What bothers you is that there are people who do not accept your weak evidence as proof that Robertson is corrupt. And now you either have to change your mind about the man, or convince others that Robertson what you say he is.

The bottom line is that this is a message board where you've run up against opinions that vary from your own misdirected belief. My suggestion for you is to find someone who agrees with you in your real life and talk about how bad Robertson is with them. But be careful what you say to others in the outside world without being able to back it up. Because you sound like a very hateful person when you do.

When we began this nonsense I simple felt you were misdirected. But with every new post I see that you have an agenda, a deep hatred for a man that you know nothing about. So keep it between you and someone who actually buys into the same fable. The two of you can have an "I hate Robertson party." Just think of the fun you'll have not having to prove anything!

  Report
 

storey420
Level 4

Join date: Dec 2003
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 1112

Gambit_Lost wrote:
Well, I think this thread may have moved on from the original intent, but my 2 cents...

A lot of the dislike for MJ comes from a lack of experience/exposure. Not all of it, mind you. Just as someone could study the effects of beer/cigs and decide it's not for them, some read about MJ and just not use it. That said, the more vitriolic "hate" often seems to come from ignorance.

Where I grew up, most everyone smoked or "had smoked" in the past. Parents, teachers, priests, friends, friend's parents, there were a lot of smokers. I'm sure there were a lot of non-smokers as well, but to a 12 year old, it sure seemed like everyone. By the time we were 16, many (most) of the kids in my school had tried it. By college, that number jumped to "almost all." Perhaps it is a regional thing. When I was living elsewhere in the US I knew people who told me they had never tried it but "certainly would, it's just never available." Where I grew up, it was available before we could get beer.

Now I'm old. Some of those who smoked when I was a child are now doctors, lawyers, businesspeople, and other professionals. I know a few who ended up with some trouble with the law, but those generally had a plethora of problems regardless of their exposure to MJ. Actually, thinking about them now, I think all of them did. Of those who "used to" smoke, some still do. They are older now and quieter about it. I don't recall seeing any of them with tie-dye tapestries anymore. Some are professionals with good jobs and salaries. Some have blue collar jobs. None of those I was close to have gotten into any serious trouble. But I don't think MJ affected who became what or when.

The idea that MJ is somehow "worse" than beer or whiskey is silly to me because of what I've seen and experienced.


This. Know plenty of highly functional, professional, educated people that occasionally indulge in MJ still. The broad painted picture of everyone that uses it as wearing birkenstocks with socks and living in their parents basement is funny and true in many instances but not the overall truth.

  Report
 

UtahLama
Level 10

Join date: Oct 2002
Location: Utah, USA
Posts: 6625

Gambit_Lost wrote:

The idea that MJ is somehow "worse" than beer or whiskey is silly to me because of what I've seen and experienced.


This is one of the points that makes the most sense in my mind.


  Report
 

thunderbolt23
Level

Join date: Mar 2003
Location:
Posts: 8162

Gambit_Lost wrote:

The idea that MJ is somehow "worse" than beer or whiskey is silly to me because of what I've seen and experienced.


Then why won't insurers write you a life insurance policy if you indulge in this other, not-"worse" substance, but they will if you indulge in whiskey or beer?

  Report
 

UtahLama
Level 10

Join date: Oct 2002
Location: Utah, USA
Posts: 6625

thunderbolt23 wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:

The idea that MJ is somehow "worse" than beer or whiskey is silly to me because of what I've seen and experienced.


Then why won't insurers write you a life insurance policy if you indulge in this other, not-"worse" substance, but they will if you indulge in whiskey or beer?


Fantastic question...also, why do Supreme Court justices disagree with each other?

They are using the same info to make decisions, yet they disagree often.

Some people say that THC is less harming to your body than alcohol, yet some people think it's worse.

I would say that insurance companies are similar animals.

  Report
 

thunderbolt23
Level

Join date: Mar 2003
Location:
Posts: 8162

UtahLama wrote:

Fantastic question...also, why do Supreme Court justices disagree with each other?


Well, no. It's not even close.

Some people say that THC is less harming to your body than alcohol, yet some people think it's worse.

I would say that insurance companies are similar animals.


Something just doesn't add up. Proponents keep saying over and over that there's no difference between marijuana and alcoholic beverages, but one very intensely interested group of people who price out such things say these people are wrong.

I've yet to see a credible explanation for this divergence of "opinion".

  Report
 

Neuromancer
Level

Join date: Nov 2002
Location: South Africa
Posts: 1727

thunderbolt23 wrote:
UtahLama wrote:

Fantastic question...also, why do Supreme Court justices disagree with each other?


Well, no. It's not even close.

Some people say that THC is less harming to your body than alcohol, yet some people think it's worse.

I would say that insurance companies are similar animals.


Something just doesn't add up. Proponents keep saying over and over that there's no difference between marijuana and alcoholic beverages, but one very intensely interested group of people who price out such things say these people are wrong.

I've yet to see a credible explanation for this divergence of "opinion".


I haven't read the whole thread ,so may just be repeating what has been said before, but would the explanation for that be that one substance is primarily illegal, but the other isn't, hence insurers would certainly weigh it differently when ascertaining the risk profile of users of the illegal substance?

  Report
 

pittbulll
Level 3

Join date: May 2005
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 10224

UtahLama wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:

The idea that MJ is somehow "worse" than beer or whiskey is silly to me because of what I've seen and experienced.


Then why won't insurers write you a life insurance policy if you indulge in this other, not-"worse" substance, but they will if you indulge in whiskey or beer?


Fantastic question...also, why do Supreme Court justices disagree with each other?

They are using the same info to make decisions, yet they disagree often.

Some people say that THC is less harming to your body than alcohol, yet some people think it's worse.

I would say that insurance companies are similar animals.



I think the point should be fact not opinion . Facts clearly state there is a small risk involved in marijuana legalization . The smoke would be the biggest risk IMO

  Report
 

thunderbolt23
Level

Join date: Mar 2003
Location:
Posts: 8162

Neuromancer wrote:

I haven't read the whole thread ,so may just be repeating what has been said before, but would the explanation for that be that one substance is primarily illegal, but the other isn't, hence insurers would certainly weigh it differently when ascertaining the risk profile of users of the illegal substance?


No. That was addressed in the thread several pages back.

  Report
 

boomdat
Level

Join date: Feb 2011
Location:
Posts: 10

ZEB wrote:
In a way you almost remind me of the typical liberal who assumes that everyone in the world agrees with their inane premise for example that George Bush was stupid. Well, I disagree with that one too.


  Report
 

Gambit_Lost
Level 3

Join date: Jul 2006
Location: Japan
Posts: 3924

thunderbolt23 wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:

The idea that MJ is somehow "worse" than beer or whiskey is silly to me because of what I've seen and experienced.


Then why won't insurers write you a life insurance policy if you indulge in this other, not-"worse" substance, but they will if you indulge in whiskey or beer?


I honestly haven't looked into it. I don't know. I would speculate that it is "because they can" though. Where I grew up most insurance companies did everything they could to not pay out. As my old man is wont to point out, the first question they will ask when contacted is "do you have any other insurance." If there is any way to get them "off the hook" for a payout, they generally will take it.

Asking, "have you ever used this substance --that many use that and many will lie about--that will allow us to then take your money and potentially not pay out in the end?" Doesn't seem that special to me. It seems like normal "broken-wrist as pre-existing condition" type of thinking.

I skimmed over what you wrote earlier. You seem to have arguments for why it is not actuarial-izable. If, by chance, some company WAS able to factor it in, I assume you would then give up this argument?

Do you work in the field? If you have a source for this information, I wouldn't mind reading over it.

As I wrote above, it is simply my experience that I am sharing. I cannot answer the motives of another. Have a nice day.

  Report
 

thunderbolt23
Level

Join date: Mar 2003
Location:
Posts: 8162

Gambit_Lost wrote:

I honestly haven't looked into it. I don't know. I would speculate that it is "because they can" though. Where I grew up most insurance companies did everything they could to not pay out. As my old man is wont to point out, the first question they will ask when contacted is "do you have any other insurance." If there is any way to get them "off the hook" for a payout, they generally will take it.


This misses the point completely - if an insurer is refusing to pay out, it means that they have first written a policy and have been accepting (and investing) your premiums.

Insurers won't even write life insurance policies on users - in other words, they will not even happily take a user's money and then fight about a claim later.

I skimmed over what you wrote earlier. You seem to have arguments for why it is not actuarial-izable. If, by chance, some company WAS able to factor it in, I assume you would then give up this argument?


You have it backwards - they have "actuarial-ized" it, they have figured it in, and they simply won't do it. That's the entire point - everyone says "it's the same as drinking beer, dude", but clearly a group of people who would put money on that statement (and be happy to, because it means more profits for them) won't put money on that statement.

There's a reason. They aren't the same.

  Report
 

ZEB
Level

Join date: Sep 2003
Location:
Posts: 19363

boomdat,

I had the opportunity to speak directly to President Bush (43) and I assure you he was one of the brightest men I've ever spoken with. His problem was not intelligence, it was twofold, first he was a poor communicator and secondly the mainstream liberal media dogged him for every little error. Of course they won't do that with Obama.

In addition to this Bush had a higher SAT score than John Kerry. And I don't believe that they've even allowed the public to see the chosen one's IQ score. But that's okay there will be no outcry from the liberal media. Nor will you see Obama's mistakes paraded around on the evening news. He just never makes a mistake isn't that something? Of course living with your teleprompter helps.

Also, save your Bush clips for another thread you are very far off topic.

  Report
 

boomdat
Level

Join date: Feb 2011
Location:
Posts: 10

ZEB wrote:

True i'm sorry for the video, its a bad example and off topic. I know Bush is an intelligent person. He made so many mistakes in speech that one gets the overwhelming impression otherwise.
On the other hand, blaming Bush's stigma on the mainstream "liberal media" is... misguided at best. But that is off topic as well. Whoops.

  Report
 

SexMachine
Level

Join date: Mar 2011
Location:
Posts: 5207

boomdat wrote:

On the other hand, blaming Bush's stigma on the mainstream "liberal media" is... misguided at best.


Yes, it wasn't just the media. There were also 520 something "non-profit" organisations overseen by some creepy megalomaniac who took down half a dozen governments around the world, collapsed half a dozen economies in predatory short selling of their currencies, bragged about it, said he is determined to take down America next, writes books about "world government" leadership that read more like a resume - Soros said bringing down Bush was "life or death" for him. Seven days after 9/11 Soros was urging European countries not to join with the U.S. in invading Afghanistan. Soros, his 520 something organisations run by handpicked sixties radicals, together with Hillaryland and much of the Democratic Party tried to bring down a wartime president.

Then there were the Islamic fundamentalists and their fifth columnists - CAIR and so on. And of course, more than half of all illegal immigrants in the U.S. arrived after 9/11. Truthers and all sorts of whackjobs creeping out from under their rocks. That was what Bush was up against.

  Report