Hey Deb the MILF, the words of Noam Chomsky

It is true. In the last two months, Deb has started about fifteen such threads in the Sandbox. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

She started a number of Sandbox threads, to be sure, but as I recall none of them had anything to do with Chomsky. Besides, even if they did, don't you think JD should have voiced his dissent at that time and in those threads rather than resurrect the topic after a period of time elapsed and open up a new attack thread in here?

...Your dislike of JD has you defending a fool. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Horseshit.

Come on, IB. Surely you know better than that. In no manner can anything I posted be reasonably construed as a "defense" of Chomsky. When Deb posted all those Chomsky video threads a couple of months ago, a number of us (including me) noted what an uber-hypocrite and fraud the guy is. In fact, JD tossed enough vitriol her way at the time that there's no way she could have failed to get the message (if she was ever going to).

By his own admission, Barleycorn has a habit of starting a large number of redundant threads, many of them silly and wholly unwarranted (like this one). And he has a penchant for slinging shit left and right, often without stopping to think through what he's about to post.

I'm surprised you don't consider him an abject embarrassment to the conservative side of the debate.

I wouldn't hold IBIdiot to such lofty ideals...

You go, COG! I hope you and Deb can get together soon. The two of you can discuss the "truth" about how 9/11 was an inside job and the Killing Fields and the Nazi holocaust never happened! Originally Posted by lustylad

Why are you lying about me LL? When have I claimed 911 was an inside job? I have said we don't know the whole story, which just happens to echo many the thoughts of many members of the 911 Commission, including the Chair. People who have read the missing pages of the report say that information changes everything. So how am I being out of line wanting to know more? The way this tragedy has been used to restrict freedom, I think we should all want to know.

Also, I am in the company of thousands of engineers and architects when I ask for a better explanation of how three steel structured buildings managed to collapse into their own footprint due to fire. That has not happened to any other steel structured building before or since. One building was not even hit by a plane. The NIST report is bullshit. Let's have an independent investigation. What's wrong with that?

And seriously, please post a link to where I ever claimed that the Holocaust or the Killing Fields were fake. You won't be able to, because you're lying.

Very disappointing, LL. Very disappointing.

Why are you lying about me LL?

Very disappointing, LL. Very disappointing. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Point of order. Can you find another abbreviation? How about "Lad"?

There are some on here challenged with "reading comprehension"!

Point of order. Can you find another abbreviation? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Perhaps he should have called you (both) II, Interchangeable Idiot's?

With many disasters, man made or not, ignorance of facts has always bred conspiracy theories.

Many people simply cannot believe, what is more times than not, the obvious.

With many disasters, man made or not, ignorance of facts has always bred conspiracy theories.

Many people simply cannot believe, what is more times than not, the obvious. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Right you are. Some people are unwilling to enjoy their lives as well.

She started a number of Sandbox threads, to be sure, but as I recall none of them had anything to do with Chomsky. Besides, even if they did, don't you think JD should have voiced his dissent at that time and in those threads rather than resurrect the topic after a period of time elapsed and open up a new attack thread in here?

Horseshit.

Come on, IB. Surely you know better than that. In no manner can anything I posted be reasonably construed as a "defense" of Chomsky. When Deb posted all those Chomsky video threads a couple of months ago, a number of us (including me) noted what an uber-hypocrite and fraud the guy is. In fact, JD tossed enough vitriol her way at the time that there's no way she could have failed to get the message (if she was ever going to).

By his own admission, Barleycorn has a habit of starting a large number of redundant threads, many of them silly and wholly unwarranted (like this one). And he has a penchant for slinging shit left and right, often without stopping to think through what he's about to post.

I'm surprised you don't consider him an abject embarrassment to the conservative side of the debate. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Deb is the 'fool' to which I refer. She actually believes what Chomsky says. Chomsky is actually quite brilliant in his original field of study: linguistics. We are in total agreement when you say that Chomsky is an uber-hypocrite and fraud; especially when he ventures into politics and history.

Deb is the 'fool' to which I refer. She actually believes what Chomsky says. Chomsky is actually quite brilliant in his original field of study: linguistics. We are in total agreement when you say that Chomsky is an uber-hypocrite and fraud; especially when he ventures into politics and history.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

One can hardly disagree with the assessment that it's foolish to laud Chomsky, since it would be necessary to search far and wide to find a well-known "intellectual" who is more of an uber-hypocrite and a fraud. The fact that he seems to have so many acolytes is a pretty sad state of affairs indeed.

But since when is objecting to the behavior of some annoying, boorish jackwagon like Barleycorn tantamount to endorsing the views of someone he lambastes? How can that be construed as "defending" anyone?

My simple point was that if someone quits spamming the Political Forum with silly nonsense, and hasn't even posted here lately, there's no point in resurrecting a 2-month-old discussion for the purpose of starting a vitriolically gratuitous attack thread.

She started a number of Sandbox threads, to be sure, but as I recall none of them had anything to do with Chomsky. Besides, even if they did, don't you think JD should have voiced his dissent at that time and in those threads rather than resurrect the topic after a period of time elapsed and open up a new attack thread in here?



Horseshit.

Come on, IB. Surely you know better than that. In no manner can anything I posted be reasonably construed as a "defense" of Chomsky. When Deb posted all those Chomsky video threads a couple of months ago, a number of us (including me) noted what an uber-hypocrite and fraud the guy is. In fact, JD tossed enough vitriol her way at the time that there's no way she could have failed to get the message (if she was ever going to).

By his own admission, Barleycorn has a habit of starting a large number of redundant threads, many of them silly and wholly unwarranted (like this one). And he has a penchant for slinging shit left and right, often without stopping to think through what he's about to post.

I'm surprised you don't consider him an abject embarrassment to the conservative side of the debate. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I read your self indictment Midnight Humper. You incorrectly said that Deb did NOT post anything about Noam Chomsky and then you compounded it by saying that I did NOT react to her postings (the first problem is that if she didn't than how could I?). The truth is that a great many of her pastings did have a Chomsky thread in them and I DID call her out for her naivete and outright ignorance. I will not suger coat for you MH. You are an idiot and quite a liar. You don't have a very good brand of logic as I demonstrated above. I don't know who you really are but you need therapy.

I have never admitted (another lie by you) to starting "unwarranted" threads. In fact, I said just the opposite. My threads generally talk about a similar topic but coming at it from a different point of view. Of course, great thinkers and all that, some of my threads are posted at nearly the same time that someone else posts a very similar thread.

Still, you are a demonstrated liar and a confirmed idiot. (this is another one of those things that someone will change one word and think they are creative)

JD making fun of someone posting repetitive threads is like Reagan making fun of folks selling Arms to Iran...

I read your self indictment Midnight Humper. You incorrectly said that Deb did NOT post anything about Noam Chomsky and then you compounded it by saying that I did NOT react to her postings (the first problem is that if she didn't than how could I?). The truth is that a great many of her pastings did have a Chomsky thread in them and I DID call her out for her naivete and outright ignorance. I will not suger coat for you MH. You are an idiot and quite a liar. You don't have a very good brand of logic as I demonstrated above. I don't know who you really are but you need therapy.

I have never admitted (another lie by you) to starting "unwarranted" threads. In fact, I said just the opposite. My threads generally talk about a similar topic but coming at it from a different point of view. Of course, great thinkers and all that, some of my threads are posted at nearly the same time that someone else posts a very similar thread.

Still, you are a demonstrated liar and a confirmed idiot. (this is another one of those things that someone will change one word and think they are creative) Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Go fuck yourself, you obnoxious, dim-witted buffoon.

Not only are you as dumb as a stack of bricks; you're one of the biggest assholes in this forum. Quite a charming combination!

Now go put on a dunce cap and sit in the corner for an hour, ignoramus. That should give you a chance to ponder what I actually said -- not what you think I said, wish I said, or think you can credibly claim to others that I said.

Why are you lying about me LL? When have I claimed 911 was an inside job? I have said we don't know the whole story, which just happens to echo many the thoughts of many members of the 911 Commission, including the Chair. People who have read the missing pages of the report say that information changes everything. So how am I being out of line wanting to know more? The way this tragedy has been used to restrict freedom, I think we should all want to know.

Also, I am in the company of thousands of engineers and architects when I ask for a better explanation of how three steel structured buildings managed to collapse into their own footprint due to fire. That has not happened to any other steel structured building before or since. One building was not even hit by a plane. The NIST report is bullshit. Let's have an independent investigation. What's wrong with that?

And seriously, please post a link to where I ever claimed that the Holocaust or the Killing Fields were fake. You won't be able to, because you're lying.

Very disappointing, LL. Very disappointing. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

COG trying to walk back his 9/11 conspiracy theory! Priceless. ..

And they call ME a Dipshit!

Ok, WPF. I expect you to lie about me, because you pretty much lie about everything. I have complained of not knowing the full 911 story. It is a FACT that we don't have the full story. Ask Tom Kean, or other members of the official 911 Commission. They will say the same thing. Have I EVER claimed the US government was behind it? NO!

Jackie is right. Ignorance of facts fuels conspiracy theories. The government can fix that by being transparent and honest. Release the balance of the report. That would be a good start.

My opinion is, and it is an opinion, not a theory, that if we ever find out what really happened, we will discover we attacked the wrong Middle Eastern country.