Republican candidate for Governor of Texas suggests the US govt flew planes into the WTC on 9/11

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

simple answer. Democrats in denial that their plan has fallen apart, their annoited leader is neither annointed, nor a leader and all the ideas they had have been tossed down the garbage disposal by greedy Democrats never happy to advance a cause for the country but only interested in themselves...now they find whatever rocks they can find to throw at whatever Republican they can find.

It doesn't matter. Democrats will ose in November. There will not be a Democrat governor in Texas. The redistricting in Texas will be handled by a Republican governor and a Republican legislature. It may not be THIS Republican that wins the governor race, but it will be A Republican that does.

While I am thrilled beyond words that the Democrats are STILL in denial (I guess Virginia, New Jersey and Masschussets is not enough to "learn 'em") At some point they need to realize that the ONLY way they will have any prospects of viability in the short term future (given that party political power swings every few years anyway) is to admt their F-ups and get the bums out that need to get out and get good people in there.

So rather than discuss the actual topic, that a political candidate for Texas Governor who suggests on air that the US government could have been responsible for 9/11 (which isn't terribly far removed in delusion from the folks who suggest that the Holocaust is some conspiratorial fantasy) you would rather ignore that altogether so you can jeer at the Democrats?

Are you that thin-skinned that you can't tolerate any criticism of any political figure, just because they have an R after their name?

Perhaps one day you'll realize that partisan theatrics are of rather less importance than actually scrutinizing the people running for office.

List your most important PRINCIPALS! Do you HAVE ANY?

Can you say anything that has meaningful relevance to the topic?

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

So rather than discuss the actual topic, that a political candidate for Texas Governor who suggests on air that the US government could have been responsible for 9/11 (which isn't terribly far removed in delusion from the folks who suggest that the Holocaust is some conspiratorial fantasy) you would rather ignore that altogether so you can jeer at the Democrats?

Are you that thin-skinned that you can't tolerate any criticism of any political figure, just because they have an R after their name?

Perhaps one day you'll realize that partisan theatrics are of rather less importance than actually scrutinizing the people running for office.

Can you say anything that has meaningful relevance to the topic?

Just what I thought you have NONE!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Marc, I do have one question for you: Do actual thoughts pass through your head before the words come out?

Its a yes or no question Marc. Which is it?

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Marc, I do have one question for you: Do actual thoughts pass through your head before the words come out?

Its a yes or no question Marc. Which is it?

Maybe! Understand?

[alienlovechild 75]

So rather than discuss the actual topic, that a political candidate for Texas Governor who suggests on air that the US government could have been responsible for 9/11 (which isn't terribly far removed in delusion from the folks who suggest that the Holocaust is some conspiratorial fantasy) you would rather ignore that altogether so you can jeer at the Democrats?

Why not? You ignore anything that doesn't fit into your preconceived ideas. Case in point- I gave you a great counterexample of a major national Democrat who repeated 9/11 conspiracies and it didn't even faze you from your talking points.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

When [Glenn Beck] asked Medina, on his radio program, about rumors she was a "truther," that she believed the government was involved in 9/11, he probably expected her to dismiss in entirely. Instead, she said this:

I don't have all of the evidence there, Glenn. ... I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard. There's some very good arguments and I think the American people have not seen all the evidence there, so I've not taken a position on that.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/politicaljunkie/2..._medina_ge.html

ENEfvrAS_K8

That was so last week!

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Why not? You ignore anything that doesn't fit into your preconceived ideas. Case in point- I gave you a great counterexample of a major national Democrat who repeated 9/11 conspiracies and it didn't even faze you from your talking points.

Alien, I got a question for ya. What is it that drives you to debate ignorance?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Alien, I got a question for ya. What is it that drives you to debate ignorance?

Stupid is as stupid does. Want a chocolate?

[Danno 1,228]

You've never heard of Howard Dean before? He's the head of the DNC and was an early contender to be president in 2004. His stupidity trumps the somebody I've never heard of. No matter, something like 40% of Democrats thought Bush planned the attack or thought maybe he did.

"Dean said on Monday that President Bush is withholding documents related to 9/11 because they may show he knew what was coming.

"The most interesting theory that I've heard so far – which is nothing more than a theory, it can't be proved – is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis," Dean told a caller to Washington, D.C's "Diane Rehm Show," according to a transcript obtained by Opinion Journal.com.

"Now, who knows what the real situation is?" the presidential conspiracy theorist cautioned. He then added, "But the trouble is, by suppressing that kind of information, you lead to those kinds of theories, whether they have any truth to them or not."

Dean warned that the more theories like his "get repeated," the more people tend to believe them. "So I think the president is taking a great risk by suppressing the key information that should go to the Kean commission" investigating the 9/11 attacks."

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/200.../2/203631.shtml

YOu beat me to it again!

Next thing you know.... AJ will be warning people not to vote for some GOPer because they (unlike the LEFT) believed in Global Warming at one time.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Stupid is as stupid does. Want a chocolate?

NICE!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why not? You ignore anything that doesn't fit into your preconceived ideas. Case in point- I gave you a great counterexample of a major national Democrat who repeated 9/11 conspiracies and it didn't even faze you from your talking points.

What talking points have I used Dave?

I'm simply asking why noone can simply denounce a political candidate for endorsing an opinion that the US government orchestrated one of the worst atrocities in the country's history.

There are plenty of bad politicians, I don't dispute that. That isn't the point.

What I am (reasonably) wondering here is why noone, you included, can bring yourself to denounce this political candidate, and why you have to turn it into some childish game of "Nyah nyah". Do you need to bring Howard Dean into the conversation in order to discuss the comments this individual has made?

Seems to me that the only reason you are doing it is because the person in question is allied to the Republican party, and you can't accept any criticism in that direction without getting defensive.

Would you vote for a candidate who implies that the US caused 9/11? Do you need Howard Dean in order to answer that question?

What's the deal, Dave?

Edited February 19, 2010 by Gene Hunt

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

YOu beat me to it again!

Next thing you know.... AJ will be warning people not to vote for some GOPer because they (unlike the LEFT) believed in Global Warming at one time.

AJ didn't give any opinion on the article - he just posted it.

Why are you (any of you) unable to address the topic without getting defensive?

Why is it important to you to defend this political candidate? Do you endorse the ideas they are promoting?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

So rather than discuss the actual topic, that a political candidate for Texas Governor who suggests on air that the US government could have been responsible for 9/11 (which isn't terribly far removed in delusion from the folks who suggest that the Holocaust is some conspiratorial fantasy) you would rather ignore that altogether so you can jeer at the Democrats?

Are you that thin-skinned that you can't tolerate any criticism of any political figure, just because they have an R after their name?

Perhaps one day you'll realize that partisan theatrics are of rather less importance than actually scrutinizing the people running for office.

Can you say anything that has meaningful relevance to the topic?

Gene, I think it is well known that I consider Republicans the OTHER white meat...just a different breed of pig feeding off my trough. I think it is also well known that most of the 9/11 whack jobs are Democrats, including Micheal Moore who more or less started this BS with his film and the Democrats gave an honorable box seat to at their convention. It seems disingenuous that a Democrat would play the 9/11 whacko card when they have all the 9/11 whackos on their team. Just sayin'.

I really do not care if you criticize someone so whacked out as to believe this tripe. In fact doing so benefits your opponent (something the Democrats often do) by exposing her BS before the primary and getting tossed the heck out so a "good Republican" can stand for the general election. Now if the Democrats had an ounce of brains (I know...) They would be out campaigning for this woman to get her to be the Republican candidate in the fall general election.

If Democrats had an ounce of brains (there I go again...) they would be looking at their own party and saying "What the Heck!!!!!!!!" I am glad they aren't, don't get me wrong. I am glad that every step they take is a mis-step. I am glad they have the selector switch set for "auto" and are firing at their feet...please...do not stop.

By all means, continue to seek out internet articles criticising Republicans and never look at what the real problems of the Democrat party are.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

So rather than discuss the actual topic, that a political candidate for Texas Governor who suggests on air that the US government could have been responsible for 9/11 (which isn't terribly far removed in delusion from the folks who suggest that the Holocaust is some conspiratorial fantasy) you would rather ignore that altogether so you can jeer at the Democrats?

Are you that thin-skinned that you can't tolerate any criticism of any political figure, just because they have an R after their name?

Perhaps one day you'll realize that partisan theatrics are of rather less importance than actually scrutinizing the people running for office.

Can you say anything that has meaningful relevance to the topic?

So to be clear...

If this woman believes this she is a whacko and I encourage ALL Republicans to vote for someone else in the Republican primary. The election is the Republicans to lose, only being completely stupid could mess it up. Toss this woman.

Next year the Govenor of Texas will appoint the commission to re-district the state and the legislature will control who is on that committee. It is important that they not be Democrats with an Obama ring in their nose. I ask my fellow Texans (Born in Texas...always a Texan) to put up a good candidate for Governor. Do not accept stupid BS from someone just because they have an ® after their name. Lets leave that to the Democrats.

What talking points have I used Dave?

I'm simply asking why noone can simply denounce a political candidate for endorsing an opinion that the US government orchestrated one of the worst atrocities in the country's history.

There are plenty of bad politicians, I don't dispute that. That isn't the point.

What I am (reasonably) wondering here is why noone, you included, can bring yourself to denounce this political candidate, and why you have to turn it into some childish game of "Nyah nyah". Do you need to bring Howard Dean into the conversation in order to discuss the comments this individual has made?

Seems to me that the only reason you are doing it is because the person in question is allied to the Republican party, and you can't accept any criticism in that direction without getting defensive.

Would you vote for a candidate who implies that the US caused 9/11? Do you need Howard Dean in order to answer that question?

What's the deal, Dave?

I will be anxious to read your opinion of Micheal Moore. Can you give us that?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Gene, I think it is well known that I consider Republicans the OTHER white meat...just a different breed of pig feeding off my trough. I think it is also well known that most of the 9/11 whack jobs are Democrats, including Micheal Moore who more or less started this BS with his film and the Democrats gave an honorable box seat to at their convention. It seems disingenuous that a Democrat would play the 9/11 whacko card when they have all the 9/11 whackos on their team. Just sayin'.

I really do not care if you criticize someone so whacked out as to believe this tripe. In fact doing so benefits your opponent (something the Democrats often do) by exposing her BS before the primary and getting tossed the heck out so a "good Republican" can stand for the general election. Now if the Democrats had an ounce of brains (I know...) They would be out campaigning for this woman to get her to be the Republican candidate in the fall general election.

If Democrats had an ounce of brains (there I go again...) they would be looking at their own party and saying "What the Heck!!!!!!!!" I am glad they aren't, don't get me wrong. I am glad that every step they take is a mis-step. I am glad they have the selector switch set for "auto" and are firing at their feet...please...do not stop.

By all means, continue to seek out internet articles criticising Republicans and never look at what the real problems of the Democrat party are.

It's "well-known" that you're equally suspicious of both parties? Forgive me, but I don't live to read your posts, and you just aren't that important for anyone to take this view of yours as well-known, especially when that sentiment is entirely absent from your posts in this thread.

I really don't care, Gary - but its blatant bait and switch. Don't try and make out that it isn't, when it obviously is.