4um: The thread that's changed its focus from the original title. Carry on ;)

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Resistance
See other Resistance Articles
Title: The thread that's changed its focus from the original title. Carry on ;)
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 21, 2009
Author: m e
Post Date: 2009-03-21 08:19:06 by Itistoolate
Keywords: None
Views: 11544
Comments: 2261

Officer Jack McLamb's shows:
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030209.mp3
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030309.mp3
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030409.mp3
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030509.mp3
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 426.
#4. To: Itistoolate (#0)
It could just be that Goldi has gone away for the weekend and doesn't know the site is down,or that there has been an equipment failure of some sort and they are working on getting it fixed.
Or it could just be that she got tired of putting up with all the crap,and just pulled the plug. I doubt the last one,though. I think she would post a notice if she were going to do this.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-21 9:21:48 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#8. To: sneakypete (#4)
Or it could just be that she got tired of putting up with all the crap,and just pulled the plug.

Crap????

Like the resident Jews whining and sniveling to her all the time about the horrible anti semites?????
I dont think so. Ass kissing goys make me and this forum sick.

Cynicom posted on 2009-03-21 10:00:21 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#22. To: Cynicom (#8)
Crap????
Like the resident Jews whining and sniveling to her all the time about the horrible anti semites?????

I guess it's all in the viewpoint. I see more Jew haters calling her names than I see Jews sniveling about anti-Semites.
BTW,I was called a anti-Semite there the day before the site went down,and it wasn't the first time. I see no evidence of the Jews and Israeli-Firsters there having any more influence with her than anybody else. In fact,she even banned Margueritte a couple of years ago under another of her screen names.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-21 11:28:30 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#25. To: sneakypete (#22)
I guess it's all in the viewpoint. I see more Jew haters calling her names than I see Jews sniveling about anti-Semites.

Perhaps there is a thought...
You also like magician, Marge and the others see nothing but Jew haters.
If you look at LP, that is nearly all you see, people that see anti semitism under their bed, in the closet and are afraid to deal with it.
No one on LP has ever raised the specter of anti goyism, have you ever wondered about that Pete????
I can go on LP and demand we nuke the Arab world, and not ONE WORD of disapproval, from anyone, not one.

Cynicom posted on 2009-03-21 11:51:06 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#28. To: Cynicom (#25)
I can go on LP and demand we nuke the Arab world, and not ONE WORD of disapproval, from anyone, not one.

Missed this one.
I can't speak for anyone else,but you would hear protest there from me.
What you seem to be missing is most of the people there (and everywhere else) that cheer the suggestion we nuke the A-Rabs aren't Jewish. Most are Christians,if in name only. They are people who bought into the whole terrorism thing at face value,and they are scared.
BTW,I think that unless the NWO does take over we will eventually end up nuking several Muslim countries. It is inevitable that sooner or later some fundie Muslim group or another is going to get their hands on a nuke or a bio weapon,and use it to attack a major US city. Once that happens,all bets are off. Even I will be cheering to see the mushroom clouds over Arabia.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-21 12:03:12 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#33. To: sneakypete (#28)
I think that unless the NWO does take over we will eventually end up nuking several Muslim countries. It is inevitable that sooner or later some fundie Muslim group or another is going to get their hands on a nuke or a bio weapon,and use it to attack a major US city.

Maybe that's why I thought you to be the enemy. Do you still buy the lie that fundie muzzies hit us on 9/11 without Bush's help?

Critter posted on 2009-03-21 14:31:12 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#76. To: Critter (#33)
Do you still buy the lie that fundie muzzies hit us on 9/11 without Bush's help?

It pained me to believe it so without reservation, but the complicity by purposeful neglect indicts the globalist Bush Administration puppetmeisters is obvious IMO.
Oh...And, no, I don't believe Bush himself was capable of masterminding a lemonade stand.

Liberator posted on 2009-03-21 20:32:36 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#78. To: F16Fighter (#76)
complicity by purposeful neglect

Ahhhh,but purposeful neglect is NOT the same thing as "being behind it".
I don't think they made any real effort to stop any potential attack,but that's not the same thing as saying they planned or encouraged one.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-21 20:38:48 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#85. To: sneakypete (#78)
Ahhhh,but purposeful neglect is NOT the same thing as "being behind it".
I don't think they made any real effort to stop any potential attack,but that's not the same thing as saying they planned or encouraged one.

Gray area there, Pete.
I've made the case with respect to 9/11 as analogous to leaving the store door wide open and unguarded - along with an open cash register - then claiming no responsibility for the thievery.

Liberator posted on 2009-03-21 20:47:23 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#127. To: F16Fighter, sneakypete (#85)
I don't think they made any real effort to stop any potential attack,but that's not the same thing as saying they planned or encouraged one.
I've made the case with respect to 9/11 as analogous to leaving the store door wide open and unguarded -

If you both are going to say the WTC 1, 2 and 7 came down because of fire then you're both either very ignorant or trolls. There is too much evidence to the contrary to believe otherwise.
Once you believe that the collapses were helped by explosives, then you have to believe that the Bush administration was complicit.
And even if you can't see the physical impossibility of collapse by fire, you have to be able to see that no plane is going to fly into DC air space unidentified and unintercepted, without inside top level complicity.
So which is it? Ignorance? Or shilliness?

Critter posted on 2009-03-21 23:53:09 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#137. To: Critter (#127)
And even if you can't see the physical impossibility of collapse by fire, you have to be able to see that no plane is going to fly into DC air space unidentified and unintercepted, without inside top level complicity.

wonderfully succinct

christine posted on 2009-03-22 0:06:41 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#149. To: christine (#137)
And even if you can't see the physical impossibility of collapse by fire, you have to be able to see that no plane is going to fly into DC air space unidentified and unintercepted, without inside top level complicity.

Before 911,
a Logistics employee I am good friends with, for Fed Ex told me about a system of vectored red lights that DC had in place to warn of any unauthorized aircraft from even getting near the capitol, and if the craft did not turn around, anti aircraft weapons were at the ready.
He flys a lot Alot.
I believe him.
However I have never broached the subject of the 911 attacks - for reasons of just getting along. I think he has got to go along with the ruse.

tom007 posted on 2009-03-22 0:15:44 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#163. To: tom007 (#149)
What is more likely? Our domestic air defense systems were hopelessly unprepared, or our government set it up, then perfectly executed the plan? Shit during the Clinton admin, a plane hit the white house, on accident.
Our government is incompetent, that much is clear.
It can't even torture people in Iraq in secret, do you think they can pull off a 9-11 without anyone knowing? Probably not.
Our foreign policy caused 9-11, and silly conspiracy theories take away from learning the real truth. Playing chess with other nations has fucking consequences.

Rhino369 posted on 2009-03-22 0:27:33 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#196. To: Rhino369 (#163)
silly conspiracy theories take away from learning the real truth

Not only that,but those same conspiracy theories are LOVED by the government because it allows them to dismiss any questions about their conduct as being linked to "those insane conspiracy freaks".
Instead of helping the cause of freedom,all they are doing in hurting it and helping the government.
AND....it does no good at all to argue with them because they are obsessed with every little detail,and have reams of false "Facts" to back up their arguments. What makes it so hard to argue against any conspiracy theory is that the best ones are all believable because there is a basis in fact to all of them.
For example *I* am the one that started the conspiracy theory Hillary Clinton being behind the crash of JFK Jr's airplane and his death. I started this rumor on FR and used the fact that he had been talking about running for the same Senate seat ("his" family Senate seat) that she was running for,and this is the reason she had a had the airplane rigged to crash. Within a hour this was accepted as the gospel,and I was being called a DNC shill for saying it was made up,and a liar for saying I was the one who made it up. DESPITE the fact that the proof I was the one who made it up was right there on that very thread!
Everybody jumped on the one little fact about the Senate seat,and that was all they needed or wanted to hear.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-22 1:08:19 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#223. To: sneakypete (#196)
Not only that,but those same conspiracy theories are LOVED by the government because it allows them to dismiss any questions about their conduct as being linked to "those insane conspiracy freaks".
Instead of helping the cause of freedom,all they are doing in hurting it and helping the government.
AND....it does no good at all to argue with them because they are obsessed with every little detail,and have reams of false "Facts" to back up their arguments. What makes it so hard to argue against any conspiracy theory is that the best ones are all believable because there is a basis in fact to all of them.

I agree which is why it pains me to see you buy the conspiracy theory about Obama being born in Kenya. How much legit criticism is being wasted on that silly theory?

For example *I* am the one that started the conspiracy theory Hillary Clinton being behind the crash of JFK Jr's airplane and his death. I started this rumor on FR and used the fact that he had been talking about running for the same Senate seat ("his" family Senate seat) that she was running for,and this is the reason she had a had the airplane rigged to crash. Within a hour this was accepted as the gospel,and I was being called a DNC shill for saying it was made up,and a liar for saying I was the one who made it up. DESPITE the fact that the proof I was the one who made it up was right there on that very thread!

I can believe it. The same thing happens on FR to this day. On the birth conspiracy, a person will merely guess about something, and then a day later its gospel until proven false. Its interesting to see how conspiracy theories form.

Rhino369 posted on 2009-03-22 1:35:51 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#240. To: Rhino369 (#223)
.....it pains me to see you buy the conspiracy theory about Obama being born in Kenya.

I don't think he was born in Kenya,and have never said I did.
I think he was born in Hawaii,but we won't know this for a fact until he releases the vault copy of his birth certificate,will we?
What I DO believe because it is an established FACT is that he was adopted by his step father and became an Indonesian citizen. Part of this process was rejecting his American citizenship. Despite what the Barry-Bots claim,his mother had the legal right to denounce his US citizeship.
I also know he travled to Pakistan as a Indonesian citizen as an adult,and his name was Barry Soetoro at the time. I also know there has been no explanation whatsoever about how or when he changed his name and obtained US citizenship again.
For all we know,he still had Indonesian citizenship.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-22 1:53:01 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#253. To: sneakypete (#240)
What I DO believe because it is an established FACT is that he was adopted by his step father and became an Indonesian citizen. Part of this process was rejecting his American citizenship. Despite what the Barry-Bots claim,his mother had the legal right to denounce his US citizeship.

Its not debatable, a mother cannot denounce US Citizenship. It is also not established he was adopted.
travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html

I also know he travled to Pakistan as a Indonesian citizen as an adult,and his name was Barry Soetoro at the time. I also know there has been no explanation whatsoever about how or when he changed his name and obtained US citizenship again.

How do you know he traveled as an Indonesian citizen? How do you know what his name was?

Rhino369 posted on 2009-03-22 2:02:33 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#268. To: Rhino369 (#253)
Its not debatable, a mother cannot denounce US Citizenship. It is also not established he was adopted.
travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html

That wasn't the law when he was 7 years old.
How do you know he traveled as an Indonesian citizen?
Because Americans weren't allowed to travel to Pakistan then as tourists.
How do you know what his name was?
Because that is his name on the roster of the elementary school he went to in Indonesia.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-22 2:15:09 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#274. To: sneakypete (#268)

That wasn't the law when he was 7 years old.

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) The parents cannot remove a child's citizenship.

Because Americans weren't allowed to travel to Pakistan then as tourists.

Not true, it was just strong discouraged.

Because that is his name on the roster of the elementary school he went to in Indonesia.

Yes, school documentation from 1970's Indonesia is obviously much more official than Hawaiian certificates of live birth. The school would have put down whatever he was registered as by his step father.

Rhino369 posted on 2009-03-22 2:32:07 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#347. To: Rhino369 (#274)
Yes, school documentation from 1970's Indonesia is obviously much more official than Hawaiian certificates of live birth.

Your hero, the Obamasiah, has not produced a "Certificate of Live Birth" but a CERTIFICATION. There is a difference.
The State of Hawaii, statute 338, allows foreign born children of Hawaiian residents to get a Hawaiian birth certificate. Mr. Obama has never presented any corroborating evidence that he was actually born in Hawaii. His paternal grandmother in Kenya and the ambassador of Kenya made statements that he was born in Kenya.

The image that Mr. Obama has posted on the Internet was not a valid birth certificate, but rather a limited value document, called Short Version Certification of Live Birth. The Certification of Live Birth does not name a hospital, name a doctor, have any signatures or a seal of the Hawaiian Health Department on the front of the document. This document is usually given to parties that don't have a proper hospital birth certificate and it is given based on a statement of one relative only. Even the state of Hawaii doesn't give full credit to these documents.

James Deffenbach posted on 2009-03-22 14:02:39 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#387. To: James Deffenbach (#347)
Want to have some fun?

The Obama File
Check out the Natural Born file. Facinating stuff. It get's really juicy about half way down the page.
And for a real knee slapper, check out THE CAMAPAIGN.
It would sound partisan, if the stuff weren't actually true. (And sourced). Once you read through it, you have to ask, will the real Obama please stand up.
THE WIFE file
Michelle Obama's Makeover for America

"The powerful clay work shows Michelle Obama in the style of an African Queen, wearing large hooped earrings and an "afro pick" comb in her Egyptian- influenced hairstyle.
An American flag is tattooed across her naked chest and the comb is decorated with pearls, the traditional garb of a First Lady, and an American Eagle.
The work, by controversial sculptor Daniel Edwards, is clearly a nod to both Mrs. Obama's ethnic roots and her position at the heart of American culture and politics.
As her husband, Barack Obama, battles to win the next U. S. presidential elections, she has come under intense media spotlight, and has been likened to former First Lady Jackie Kennedy.
However, Edwards said: "The goal is to create a look for Michelle Obama that eliminates excessive comparisons to Jackie Kennedy."
The bust, entitled "Michelle Obama's Makeover for America" goes on display at the Leo Kesting Gallery in New York on October 1
Makeover for America -- no thanks -- you can keep your makeover -- and comparison to Jackie O -- not on her worst day -- that bust is just scary.
The sculptor has managed to capture that dismissive, elitist look though."

nooz posted on 2009-03-22 14:55:03 ET (1 image) Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#395. To: nooz (#387)
She's a hag, a shrill harpy and a harridan.
"...Michelle Obama told a Milwaukee rally, "What we have learned over the past year is that hope is making a comeback. And let me tell you something – for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment."....
From the article: Michelle Obama: Angry black harridan.

James Deffenbach posted on 2009-03-22 14:59:40 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#419. To: James Deffenbach (#395)
She's a hag, a shrill harpy and a harridan.
Michelle Obama: Angry black harridan.

That was excellent. Thanks for the link. And a brand new word for my vocabulary.

www.theobamafile.com/ObamaWife. htm

" "Michelle Obama set out Monday on a listening tour through the federal bureaucracy, stopping first at the US Department of Education (DOE) to thank employees for their service and rally them for the tough work ahead.
"There's a lot of work to do and we're going to need you," Mrs. Obama said. "The children of this country are counting on all of us."
In thanking the workers, she told the DOE staff members, "I am a product of your work."
Michelle conveniently overlooked the fact that the DOE was created by the Department of Education Organization Act (Public Law 96-88), and was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on October 17, 1979. The DOE began operating on May 4, 1980, when Michelle was entering her senior year of high school.
Her hypocritical speech, espousing the importance of the public schools system, also brought focus to the fact that her own children have NEVER attended a public school. They recently started attending the exclusive Sidwell Friends private school in the capital that costs almost $30,000 each a year, and before that the girls both attended the private University of Chicago Laboratory Schools, where their mother was on the board."

Now I wonder if she draws a paycheck for being the First Lady.

nooz posted on 2009-03-22 15:12:55 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#426. To: nooz (#419)
That was excellent. Thanks for the link. And a brand new word for my vocabulary.
Now I wonder if she draws a paycheck for being the First Lady.

You are most welcome, glad you liked it.
I have always thought that "First Lady" was pure bs--why would any man call someone else's wife "the first lady"? Some ah member of the press fawning over one of them for a story must have come up with that idiocy.

James Deffenbach posted on 2009-03-22 15:17:15 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
Replies to Comment # 426.
#452. To: James Deffenbach (#426) (Edited)
I have always thought that "First Lady" was pure bs--why would any man call someone else's wife "the first lady"? Some ah member of the press fawning over one of them for a story must have come up with that idiocy.

Well I had to find out:

"First spouse or friend or what??
I think it sort of proves your point.
What happens if Queen Latifah becomes President someday? Hillary would have a cow.
edited.

nooz posted on 2009-03-22 15:33:44 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
End Trace Mode for Comment # 426.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

Freedom4um