Taking back the debate?

Doug is good at putting up headlines, and they get refuted pretty thoroughly and shown to be empty pap, BUT it's much like the game NeoCons love to pull on the real public debate, the headline remains.

And every reply proving the headline wrong actually brings it to the consciousness again. They often don't argue by logic or facts, it's bluster and repetition, and we're helping them do it. Just like when we say 'partial birth abortion' even though there is no such medical procedure.

So maybe it's time to counter-headline: Halliburton allegations TRUE; Nobody can beat the Republicans at bigotry; etc...

What do you think?

Well, dung69 is pretty good at playing ticks with words but it would be best to just ignore him since he thrives on the attention. Must have been a real treat for him to watch Al pacino in Angels IN America though...

>Doug is good at putting up headlines, . . .

Thank you - such a nice compliment. You're really good at using emoticons.

> and they get refuted

>pretty thoroughly and shown to be empty pap, . . .

How can you possibly think you're in any position objectively to judge this? You're one of the most partisan liberals here, so in a debate between the any conservative and any liberal, you will AUTOMATICALLY conclude that the conservative position is "refuted pretty thoroughly and shown to be empty pap." That you think this says nothing about the actual discussions here. Why do you announce this conclusion as though it's meaningful or significant in any way?

>And every reply proving the headline wrong actually brings it

>to the consciousness again. They often don't argue by logic

>or facts, it's bluster and repetition, and we're helping them

>do it.

I defy you to identify a single issue discussed in this forum in which I - or, for that matter, any of the other conservatives here - have relied on "bluster and repetition" without there being substance presented in support of the argument. I virtually never start a thread here without its being based upon some article in some major newspaper. By contrast, I can point to endless numbers of threads where liberals here (including, at times, you) do nothing but spew out the latest anti-Bush buzzphrases.

The fact that you disagree with a particular point of view doesn't entitle you to mischaracterize how those views are advocated and to pretend that you're the only one who presents "substance" in support of your views.

Just like when we say 'partial birth abortion' even

>though there is no such medical procedure.

You're absolutely right - the correct way to describe this procedure is to say that the baby is deliberately delivered and, before it is permitted to live fully outside the womb, its skull is collapsed in order to kill it.

It's amazing how liberals always come back to this issue - as though the fate of the Republic and our liberties somehow depends on preserving the right of women to conceive babies and then slaughter them on a whim.

>So maybe it's time to counter-headline: Halliburton

>allegations TRUE; Nobody can beat the Republicans at bigotry;

>etc...

>

>What do you think?

Knock yourself out. Last I checked, there are no Hooboy rules preventing you from starting threads any time the mood strikes.

the NY Times is pap?

>the NY Times is pap?[/font color]

Not pap, but hardly beyond reproach.

http://english.pravda.ru/columnists/2002/05/22/29125.html

>I defy you to identify a single issue discussed in this forum

>in which I - or, for that matter, any of the other

>conservatives here - have relied on "bluster and repetition"

>without there being substance presented in support of the

>argument. I virtually never start a thread here without its

>being based upon some article in some major newspaper. By

>contrast, I can point to endless numbers of threads where

>liberals here (including, at times, you) do nothing but spew

>out the latest anti-Bush buzzphrases.

It's practically your MO... Find a (single) quote from somebody not in a position to give a meaningful quote (Halliburton accusations false...), or a quote pointless because of what it leaves out (no abuse found of Gitmo prisoners... for one scheduled, *guided* Red Cross tour... you know, that kind of 'inspection' wasn't good enough for the search for WMDs, it certainly wasn't a Red Cross inspection at all). Once you've got your quote you base a thread on it, even though it's usually shaky and/or widely contradicted by most other stories on the topic. Top it with a headline that proclaims the opposite of the truth and you're all set. I'd accuse you of being Karl Rove in real life but I'm trying to cut back on personal insults and attacks.

I can see this because I'm a "partisan liberal"? I'm not the one desperately trying to justify and defend my views, as you seemed to be trying to do in the wondrous "Democrats are anti-gay bigots" thread.

>The fact that you disagree with a particular point of view

>doesn't entitle you to mischaracterize how those views are

>advocated and to pretend that you're the only one who presents

>"substance" in support of your views.

Hehe, that's exactly what I'm saying!.

>>Just like when we say 'partial birth abortion' even

>>though there is no such medical procedure.

>

>You're absolutely right - the correct way to describe this

>procedure is to say that the baby is deliberately delivered

>and, before it is permitted to live fully outside the womb,

>its skull is collapsed in order to kill it.

>

>It's amazing how liberals always come back to this issue - as

>though the fate of the Republic and our liberties somehow

>depends on preserving the right of women to conceive babies

>and then slaughter them on a whim.

My $100 bet still stands! You know, the one you went silent on: find me one doctor willing to do one of your late-term 'partial birth abortions' when it's not medically necessary (on a whim, to continue using your words) and you'll have my $100 as soon as I confirm it with the doctor and his license with his state. Hell, find me one doctor willing to do such a thing in a non-emergency setting and I'll never bring it up again! If I'm right how can you possibly justify all the crap that's been spewed on this from the right? How can you justify the refusal to put in a medically necessary clause? It's just the typical BS and bluster way of fighting reproductive rights. Though the far religious right's terror campaign has been more effective from a practical standpoint: most women don't live within several hundred miles of a place they could even get an abortion if they needed one, but some types of terrorism are acceptable I guess...

>It's practically your MO... Find a (single) quote from

>somebody not in a position to give a meaningful quote

>(Halliburton accusations false...), or a quote pointless

>because of what it leaves out (no abuse found of Gitmo

>prisoners... for one scheduled, *guided* Red Cross tour... you

>know, that kind of 'inspection' wasn't good enough for the

>search for WMDs, it certainly wasn't a Red Cross inspection at

>all). Once you've got your quote you base a thread on it,

>even though it's usually shaky and/or widely contradicted by

>most other stories on the topic.

Oh, you're absolutely right. Like the thread entitled "Democrats are anti-gay bigots," being based on something as flimsy as a New York Times poll published on its first page detailing that half of all Democrats think it should be a crime for gay people to have sex. How could I ever have made a statement like "Democrats are anti-gay bigots" when all I had was THAT to based it on?

And here are some very recent headlines of threads posted here within the last week alone - I'm really wondering why these didn't prompt the same condemnation from you:

Republicans Hate Gays

Halliburton Socks it to U.S Taxpayers

Republican Senator Strom Thurmond Rapist and Racist RIP

We finally got our Frankenstein

What is the US Military Afraid Of?

Bush supports the troops . . . yeah, sure he does

It wouldn't be that these strong advocacy "headlines" were OK with you because they expressed liberal dogma, would it?

All these words you're writing here amount to only one simple sentiment: "I'm a die-hard, ideologically driven liberal who thinks that any view that deviates from die-hard liberalism is bad and wrong."

Why do you think that's a point worth making?

>My $100 bet still stands! You know, the one you went silent

>on: find me one doctor willing to do one of your late-term

>'partial birth abortions' when it's not medically necessary

>(on a whim, to continue using your words) and you'll have my

>$100 as soon as I confirm it with the doctor and his license

>with his state. Hell, find me one doctor willing to do such a

>thing in a non-emergency setting and I'll never bring it up

>again!

I will get information on this for you, but in the meantime, answer this please:

It's clear that you favor allowing partial birth abortions when it's medically necessary. Do you favor banning them when it's NOT medically necessary? In other words, if a bill were introduced banning these procedures EXCEPT when medically necessray, would you be in favor or opposed to that bill?

How is it liberal dogma that Halliburton deliberately and knowingly overcharged for gas?

Is it liberal dogma to refer to Saddam as Frankenstein? Or would it be preferable to refer to him as the Man Who Tried to Kill My Daddy? Never thought I'd see you get your panties in a twist for liberals calling Saddam Frankenstein. Is he a relative?

>How is it liberal dogma that Halliburton deliberately and

>knowingly overcharged for gas?

>

>Is it liberal dogma to refer to Saddam as Frankenstein? Or

>would it be preferable to refer to him as the Man Who Tried to

>Kill My Daddy? Never thought I'd see you get your panties in

>a twist for liberals calling Saddam Frankenstein. Is he a

>relative?

I know this will shock everyone, but you missed the point completely.

I wasn't complaining about these headlines. I was asking James why it is - in light of his complaints about my advocacy "headlines" -- why my headlines bother him, but the others ones I listed, which are as much advocacy as mine are but from a liberal perspective, don't bother him.

Get it now?

>It's clear that you favor allowing partial birth abortions

>when it's medically necessary. Do you favor banning them when

>it's NOT medically necessary? In other words, if a bill were

>introduced banning these procedures EXCEPT when medically

>necessray, would you be in favor or opposed to that bill?

Start by showing they ever even happen! Especially in a non-emergency situation.

Frankly, and this probably goes beyond my 'die hard ideological liberalism', I think it's obvious the world is badly overpopulated and that parenting is in the shitter. So I'm the one person that stands up and says "I'm Pro-Abortion!". If parents don't think they can handle raising a child at this point in life then they shouldn't. They should have been smarter about it in the first place, but low and behold, it's die-hard conservatives that are also dead set against effective teaching of birth control!

It's downright bizarre, you guys insist these children be born then spend the other 50% of your time attacking the 'welfare mothers' and cutting any social programs that could help these children grow into productive members of society!

>>It's clear that you favor allowing partial birth abortions

>>when it's medically necessary. Do you favor banning them

>when

>>it's NOT medically necessary? In other words, if a bill

>were

>>introduced banning these procedures EXCEPT when medically

>>necessray, would you be in favor or opposed to that bill?

>

>Start by showing they ever even happen! Especially in a

>non-emergency situation.

Can't you answer the question?

>Frankly, and this probably goes beyond my 'die hard

>ideological liberalism', I think it's obvious the world is

>badly overpopulated and that parenting is in the shitter. So

>I'm the one person that stands up and says "I'm

>Pro-Abortion!". If parents don't think they can handle

>raising a child at this point in life then they shouldn't.

Oh, exactly- but why confine the baby killings to the womb? If the parents have the baby and then, say, a few months later or a year later after the baby is out of the womb, they feel like it's too much trouble to raise it, why not just bash its skull in or feed it some poison? No big deal - it's just a baby. After all, we have to solve the overpopulation problem.

>They should have been smarter about it in the first place, but . . .

Always a "but" when it comes to statements that suggest that maybe individuals should have responsibility for their actions.

>low and behold, it's die-hard conservatives that are also dead

>set against effective teaching of birth control!

No, this is false. You're confusing "conservatives" with "religious conservatives," which are two fundamentally different concepts. I am vigorously in favor of birth control. But if adults don't use it because they're too lazy or stupid, I just don't think they should be allowed to slaughter the babies they conceive. Imagine that.

>It's downright bizarre, you guys insist these children be born

>then spend the other 50% of your time attacking the 'welfare

>mothers' and cutting any social programs that could help these

>children grow into productive members of society!

Did it ever occur to you that the reason why "we" - which, by the way, includes Bill Clinton - favor welfare reform is precisely beacuse welfare destroys the lives of children whose families go on it?

It is sickening how patronizing you are - that you want people to be dependent on your handouts because then you feel better about yourself, and the more dependent they get, the better you feel. And then you have the temerity to accuse those of us who want to break that cycle of dependency of being insensitive to the poor, when you and your comrades have done more to devestate generations of poor people with all of your addictive, fatal handouts.

Trying to make the case for retroactive abortion?

>Can't you answer the question?

One, you don't think it's relevant that this procedure you're foaming at the mouth about may not even be happening? Or are you trying to move away from addressing that? Two, I think I did answer it pretty clearly:

>>Frankly, and this probably goes beyond my 'die hard

>>ideological liberalism', I think it's obvious the world is

>>badly overpopulated and that parenting is in the shitter.

>>So I'm the one person that stands up and says "I'm

>>Pro-Abortion!". If parents don't think they can handle

>>raising a child at this point in life then they shouldn't.

>

>Oh, exactly- but why confine the baby killings to the womb?

>If the parents have the baby and then, say, a few months later

>or a year later after the baby is out of the womb, they feel

>like it's too much trouble to raise it, why not just bash its

>skull in or feed it some poison? No big deal - it's just a

>baby. After all, we have to solve the overpopulation

>problem.

Sounds good. Or they could do the adoption thing, whichever is more convenient.

>>They should have been smarter about it in the first place,

>>but . . .

>

>Always a "but" when it comes to statements that suggest that

>maybe individuals should have responsibility for their

>actions.

You don't think its relevant many teenagers don't get any instruction on likelihood of pregnancy/STDs because of agitating from a good-sized chunk of your party?

>>low and behold, it's die-hard conservatives that are also

>>dead set against effective teaching of birth control!

>

>No, this is false. You're confusing "conservatives" with

>"religious conservatives," which are two fundamentally

>different concepts. I am vigorously in favor of birth

>control. But if adults don't use it because they're too lazy

>or stupid, I just don't think they should be allowed to

>slaughter the babies they conceive. Imagine that.

Again you try and dismiss the evil your party perpetrates and justify your affiliation. This zealotry has just about become a keystone of the Republicans, but that's OK with you because for going along with it you get a tax cut?

>Did it ever occur to you that the reason why "we" - which, by

>the way, includes Bill Clinton - favor welfare reform is

>precisely beacuse welfare destroys the lives of children whose

>families go on it?

>

>It is sickening how patronizing you are - that you want people

>to be dependent on your handouts because then you feel better

>about yourself, and the more dependent they get, the better

>you feel. And then you have the temerity to accuse those of

>us who want to break that cycle of dependency of being

>insensitive to the poor, when you and your comrades have done

>more to devestate generations of poor people with all of your

>addictive, fatal handouts.

Bill Clinton was one of the first appeasement Democrats, hopefully that's just about behind us. But only a fool would say there's no fraud or waste in welfare, or that there's no need to clean it up. You may even have something with insisting government aid be worked for as much as practical. But even those programs are being cut by mystery heartless bastards (who apparently don't belong to your fluffy bunny party) that would use the 'welfare mother/crack whore' image to tar the whole and cut all programs (even the 'work for and grow out of kind'), which is especially hypocritical as the other hand of this same mystery party encourages population growth at the same time it fights raises in minimum wage and mandatory benefits or government medical coverage.

They're awfully concerned about the life of a zygote/fetus but once it's actually a child your party could care less for seeing decent medical care and education opportunities equal in quality to their own kids'.

I'm the one that's patronizing? You restated my position into cold blooded murder of a viable, self sustaining human life, but I'm the one that's patronizing?

James, you owe me $ and silence

>My $100 bet still stands! You know, the one you went silent

>on: find me one doctor willing to do one of your late-term

>'partial birth abortions' when it's not medically necessary

>(on a whim, to continue using your words) and you'll have my

>$100 as soon as I confirm it with the doctor and his license

>with his state. Hell, find me one doctor willing to do such a

>thing in a non-emergency setting and I'll never bring it up

>again!

Pay up, bitch. From your favorite magazine:

http://thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031222&s=ayrey

RE: Newspaper headlines

The genesis of this thread only goes to show that one shouldn't place to much faith in newspaper headlines. "News" has been manipulated in favor of one ideology or another from time immemorial.

"The Truth" has also been a subject of constant debate.

One need only review history, "jingoism", "yellow journalism" and the Spanish-American War to understand why so many find current affairs very suspect. There's no reason on Earth to assume that american journalists are non-partisan. Nor is there any reason to assume that journalists of other nations have cornered the market on Reality.

(Although I must admit that the writer from Pravda

in the link quoted above SEEMS to have great respect for the american governmental system, and great hope that it can still succeed. I find that very moving.)

One should, in my opinion, always beware the screaming headlines. They are only the sirens of calamity, and knee-jerk reaction.

Trix

RE: Newspaper headlines

Although I must admit that the writer from Pravda

>in the link quoted above SEEMS to have great respect for the

>american governmental system, and great hope that it can still

>succeed.

This is an AWESOME post by you, Trixie - revealing so much insight. The core of the liberal political platform now is that the truth about America can be found most candidly in Pravda, and in particular, Pravda articles which allege that the Bush Administration knew in advance about the 9/11 attacks, and deliberately allowed them to occur becasue they thought those attacks would help them implement their secret military goals of empire-building and world domination.

In other words, the Bush Administration deliberately caused the death of thousands of our citizens and untold devestation to the American economy - they allowed airplanes to be hijacked and flown into office buildings and into the Pentagon (while Rumsfeld was in the building) - all in order to unleash their evil, secret scheme of military conquest and funneling money to their favorite corporations. And the New York Times knows this too, but is a co-conspirator in this scheme and is deliberately helping the Administration conceal this from the American public by pretending that Bush wasn't involved in the attacks.

That's a real campaign winner. I could never before understand why people talk about liberal ideologues as though they are anti-American, paranoid, insane lunatics. But your admiration for this Pravda article, and the posting of it by your comrade as though it contains the unvarinshed Truth (unaccompanied by any evidence - but who needs evidence when smearing Bush?), clears that up quite powerfully, and for that, I thank you.

At least you admit that Pravda is your newspaper of choice, and that, to you, Republicans are the equivalent of Al Qaeda and Bush is the equivalent of bin Laden. What terrorist attack on America do you think Bush is planning next? Do you think he might release a dirty bomb in New York soon?

RE: Newspaper headlines

"it contains the unvarinshed Truth "

Doug, we used to have a truth teller here, but, in his absence we will have to rely on either you or Pravda. Sad, isn't it?

I get that you are as good as Fox News at "The Spin"

RE: Newspaper headlines

>This is an AWESOME post by you, Trixie - revealing so much

>insight. The core of the liberal political platform now is

>that the truth about America can be found most candidly in

>Pravda

Doug, you ignorant slut.

Your wilful dishonesty here is why we revile you and your kind. You are not so stupid as to miss my (and I take the liberty to say Miss Trix's) point that it is a sad day when Pravda has to be the ironic voice of conscience for American ideals.

RE: Newspaper headlines

>Your wilful dishonesty here is why we revile you and your

>kind. You are not so stupid as to miss my (and I take the

>liberty to say Miss Trix's) point that it is a sad day when

>Pravda has to be the ironic voice of conscience for American

>ideals.

No, imbecile - your "point" was clear. It's precisely the point at which I expressed revulsion -- that the baseless, malicious, psycopathic accusations against the Bush Administration published in this Pravda article pass in certain deranged circles as constituting an "ironic voice of conscience for American ideals."

That you can see this despicable article -- which accused the Bush Administration of knowing in advance about 9/11 and purposely letting it happen, with the deliberate and ongoing assistance of the New York Times - in this laudatory way reveals a deep and disturbing psychosis.

Did you also feel that all those articles speculating about how Hillary Clinton had Vince Foster murdered and how Bill Clinton ordered the deaths of untold numbers of Whitewater witnesses constituted an "ironic voice of conscience for American ideals."

RE: Newspaper headlines

>>This is an AWESOME post by you, Trixie - revealing so much

>>insight. The core of the liberal political platform now is

>>that the truth about America can be found most candidly in

>>Pravda

>

>Doug, you ignorant slut.

>

>Your wilful dishonesty here is why we revile you and your

>kind. You are not so stupid as to miss my (and I take the

>liberty to say Miss Trix's) point that it is a sad day when

>Pravda has to be the ironic voice of conscience for American

>ideals.

<<As the Times- opposition to such an inquiry demonstrates, no section of the political or media establishment, the ?liberals¦ and Democrats no less than the Republican right, can be entrusted with such a task. The exposure of the political conspiracy at the heart of September 11 is indissolubly bound up with the independent political mobilization of the working class in defense of its democratic rights.

Barry Grey

World Socialist Website

you did not read the same article i read if you think it is the voice of conscience for american ideals. refresh my memory as to when american ideals had anything to do with socialism.

please reread the last paragraph just above "barry grey, world socialist website" that i pasted above. he is inditing a far larger group than right wing republicans in a vast conspiracy. i'll retype that one line in capital letters.

"AS THE TIMES OPPOSITION TO SUCH AN INQUIRY DEMONSTRATES, NO SECTION OF THE POLITICAL OR MEDIA ESTABLISHMENT, THE LIBERALS AND DEMOCRATS NO LESS THAN THE REPUBLICAN RIGHT, CAN BE ENTRUSTED WITH SUCH A TASK."

you have to be a one hundred percent socialist, as opposed to just a democrat, to see anything vaguely enlightening about american ideals in that pravda article.

>

RE: Newspaper headlines

>Although I must admit that the writer from Pravda

>>in the link quoted above SEEMS to have great respect for the

>>american governmental system, and great hope that it can

>still

>>succeed.

>

Doug69, I do apologize for being late! I had a run in my stocking, don't you know...

>This is an AWESOME post by you, Trixie - revealing so much

>insight.

... Well thank you Sweetie!

The core of the liberal political platform now is

>that the truth about America can be found most candidly in

>Pravda, and in particular, Pravda articles which allege that

>the Bush Administration knew in advance about the 9/11

>attacks, and deliberately allowed them to occur becasue they

>thought those attacks would help them implement their secret

>military goals of empire-building and world domination.

...Wow! Are you suggesting that my passing thoughts are in fact the "core of the liberal political platform"? I'm honored, and had no idea I held such influence!

>In other words, the Bush Administration deliberately caused

>the death of thousands of our citizens and untold devestation

>to the American economy - they allowed airplanes to be

>hijacked and flown into office buildings and into the Pentagon

>(while Rumsfeld was in the building) - all in order to unleash

>their evil, secret scheme of military conquest and funneling

>money to their favorite corporations.

... I didn't really see the Pravda article as saying that at all. I interpreted it as saying that the Bush administration had fair warning that something was up, and chose to ignore the warning, or at least do nothing about it. Whether their willful "ignorance" of said warning was of malicious intent or not, I could not say. That's one of those "Truths" that may never be known, as those who actually know are not likely to be forthcoming.

And the New York Times

>knows this too, but is a co-conspirator in this scheme and is

>deliberately helping the Administration conceal this from the

>American public by pretending that Bush wasn't involved in the

>attacks.

>

>That's a real campaign winner. I could never before

>understand why people talk about liberal ideologues as though

>they are anti-American, paranoid, insane lunatics. But your

>admiration for this Pravda article, and the posting of it by

>your comrade as though it contains the unvarinshed Truth

>(unaccompanied by any evidence - but who needs evidence when

>smearing Bush?), clears that up quite powerfully, and for

>that, I thank you.

...Really, Doug69, "Comrade"???!!! Isn't that rather old hat? I thought people stopped using the word "comrade" snidely and insinuatingly with the end of the McCarthy Era.

>At least you admit that Pravda is your newspaper of choice,

>and that, to you, Republicans are the equivalent of Al Qaeda

>and Bush is the equivalent of bin Laden.

.. Doug69, this whole sentence is beneath you. I count to you to at least stick to actual wording,

even if it is taken out of context. You've always dissected people's sentences rather cleanly, if maliciously, and for that I can respect you. It's a classic high-school debate team maneuver. But to put such vulgar words in my mouth, it's really inappropriate, and a weak argument to boot. What terrorist

>attack on America do you think Bush is planning next? Do you

>think he might release a dirty bomb in New York soon?

...I certainly do not think Bush is planning any terrorist attacks on America. The author of the Pravda article did not suggest that, either. What was suggested is that Bush may have ignored certain warnings, either out of shear stupidity, or out of political maneuvering. Again, I ask you to look into the Spanish-American War for classic examples of our governent "allowing" things to happen.

Trix

RE: Newspaper headlines

> What

>terrorist

>>attack on America do you think Bush is planning next? Do

>you

>>think he might release a dirty bomb in New York soon?

>...I certainly do not think Bush is planning any terrorist

>attacks on America. The author of the Pravda article did not

>suggest that, either. What was suggested is that Bush may

>have ignored certain warnings, either out of shear stupidity,

>or out of political maneuvering. Again, I ask you to look

>into the Spanish-American War for classic examples of our

>governent "allowing" things to happen.

>Trix

For the government's ability to manufacture pretext, see also incidents like the Gulf of Tonkin.

RE: Newspaper headlines

>For the government's ability to manufacture pretext, see also

>incidents like the Gulf of Tonkin.

"The U.S. Government (under Democratic Administrations) once lied before about war (35 years ago). Therefore, we are justified in asserting that Government officials are lying any time they talk about war, even when we have no evidence that they are lying. The fact that the Government lied before means that they always lie."

Brilliant. Isn't it time to proclaim a public health crisis on the ground that large portions of the population are mentally stuck in the 1960s, have never left it, and refuse to leave? Hey, AdamSmith, what does Abbie Hoffman have to say about all of this?

RE: Newspaper headlines

>... I didn't really see the Pravda article as saying that at

>all. I interpreted it as saying that the Bush administration

>had fair warning that something was up, and chose to ignore

>the warning, or at least do nothing about it.

Is there any evidence of this at all? Are you aware of any evidence that the Bush Administration had "fair warning" sufficient to enable them to stop the 9/11 attacks if they wanted to (and, as we all know, they didn't want to; they wanted the attacks to happen to advance their political agenda).

If you don't have any evidence of this, aren't you and your friends at Pravada engaged in nothing more noble than malicious rumor-mongering and smear campaigns?

RE: Newspaper headlines

> Hey, AdamSmith, what does Abbie Hoffman have to say

>about all of this?

How about "Steal This Election"?