Bill Clinton Puts Yet Another Smack Down on Truthers

Originally posted by Conundrum04
Yeah, yeah, absolutely nobody was involved in our government on 9/11 just like nobody in our government was/is selling off our nuclear secrets to other countries.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

Why would you believe anything posted in that article you linked, after all, here is a quote straight from it:

She approached The Sunday Times last month after reading about an Al-Qaeda terrorist who had revealed his role in training some of the 9/11 hijackers while he was in Turkey.

Oh, I guess she is in on the whole thing too, and though she is spilling the beans on the other stuff she is still keeping quiet on the big story she could break open…

reply to post by CaptainObvious

My thinking about Bill Clinton (and Hillary also) is still evolving. I can't make my mind up about these people. I've seen the Clinton Chronicles video and other videos associated with it and I have no doubt that the allegations contained in those videos are true. This makes Clinton a co-conspirator in some serious crimes and derelictions of duty while in office, both in Arkansas and Washington.

The Clinton Chronicles video, however makes it clear that Clinton himself was not interested in money for himself. His main interest was in political power. He is alleged to have channeled large amounts of money to political backers. In so doing he was able to build a support system that would go to any lengths to keep him in office and suppress any kind of investigation, criminal or ethical that might threaten him.

Having done that he then went on to lead America to an era of great prosperity, relative peace, and as you have pointed out, abundant voter satisfaction, to the point where he could easily have won a third term in office, if the constitution allowed.

Now I'm thinking, much as I hate crooks, that what Clinton did on the road to power is what one has to do in a country like America, dominated as it is by corporate interests.

Maybe the formula a populist like Clinton has to follow is, shove money down the throats of your backers to get the freedom to wheel and deal the way you want to in the arena of the larger issues. This is a troubling puzzle for me.

Well, Bill just went up a notch or two in my eyes. I'm still not voting for his wife though.

PS. You guys are nuts!

Originally posted by gottago
reply to post by defcon5

 

Yeah, we're all in it for the money!

Wanna buy some Inside Job (tm) WTC micronized building contents? Comes in a snowdome with a scale replica of the twin towers burning.. Or how about a WTC 7 basement-molten-steel-slag paperweight? Engraved with a replica of prof. Steven Jones' signature?

Send me a U2U!

I noticed Eric Hufscmidt deleted the "Trade center Jumper earrings" off of his website. You think you are being curt with these comments, when in actuallity there are examples of this type of behavior comming from the "movement"

9/11 Truth is like Amway...sans the cleaning products.

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
PS. You guys are nuts!

Speaking for myself, I share your view. Personally I think everyone is a little nuts.

The definition of sanity is a little like Alan Turing's definition of artificial intelligence. He said that a machine could be considered to be thinking, if you could have an extended interchange with it and not be aware that you were interracting with a machine.

Similarly sanity seems to be a matter of consensus. I guess I'm lucky. Most of the people I deal with think I'm sane.

reply to post by ipsedixit


Ipse... great post... starred.

I am not voting for his skank wife (unless she gets the Dem nod. )

reply to post by CaptainObvious

10-4.

It's starting to look like Obama is going to make the political world a whole lot simpler for Democrats. The Clinton era might be over, unless he chooses her as a running mate, but I can't see that happening. I think he would have a terrible time trying to overpower the Clinton machine, if he were to gain office.

reply to post by Taxi-Driver


If that nerve saw Eric Hufschmidt is all you can come up with to debunk--and with the feeblist line of attack, btw--I mean really, do you honestly think they're getting rich off those dvd's, or just trying to scrape by to fight the fight they've chosen?--then well I'll leave it at that.

And while you're at it, why don't you go over to the White House website and check out the gift gallery--I suppose by your logic the whole executive branch is set up just to sell presidential replica pens and baseball caps?

BTW thanks bsbray, you beat me to the punch re: NIST

I find the tact of most "truthers" to be absolutely appalling. Even if I did believe in this conspiracy theory I would find a better way of getting my opinion heard, rather than rant and shout obscenities at as many press conferences I could.

Just because one thinks they know the truth or they know better than someone else it doesnt give them the right to put in their anti-ignorance earplugs and throw tantrums whenever they please.

dorean

reply to post by defcon5

So the Timeonline is not a reputable source now?

Yeah keep denying the truth there buddy. People in are government are scared s***less because of her. She has the upmost crediblity.



But hey, I don't blame you for denying the truth. The truth is for the strong.

Originally posted by gottago
reply to post by Taxi-Driver

 

If that nerve saw Eric Hufschmidt is all you can come up with to debunk--

No, not even close, but the example does fit right into your little tirade.

and with the feeblist line of attack, btw--I mean really, do you honestly think they're getting rich off those dvd's, or just trying to scrape by to fight the fight they've chosen?--then well I'll leave it at that.

Some have made a tidy pile of cash from their "InSiZDDze JorB" banter. Some, not so much.. David Ray Griffin...How much does he charge for an "appearance?" 5k-10k? a pop. + conspirational book sales, Alex Jones? I don't exactly see him digging ditches to make ends meet...he just puts out another cash cow DVD for the naive to consume..as a bonus he gives it free advertizing on-air.. Louder than Words? self-reportedly "sold" 100,000 copies of Loosechange (earlier editions).. If they only had a $2.00 net profit that would equate to $66K each..not bad for some just out of highschool dudes..beats working the window at Jack in the Box...Oh and there is Eric Hufschmidt with his tasteless ear-ring sales..and a book, and video.

So gottago-- how much money have you invested in this "movement?"

And while you're at it, why don't you go over to the White House website and check out the gift gallery--I suppose by your logic the whole executive branch is set up just to sell presidential replica pens and baseball caps?

I *might* be wrong but the White House and its inhabitants have been around a wee bit longer than the Truth profiteers, and they change all the time. Hell, so have the Balimore Ravens. Neither of those institutions are accusing Americans of mass murder on 9/11 though.

reply to post by dorean


+1

There is a distinct lack of civility within that community- it's as if "what we have to say is so much more important than anything else, that we have to say it whenever we want, no matter how inappropriate the timing. If we say it louder and more rudely than our detractors, that especially adds weight to our message."

Oh and make sure to insult the intelligence of those listening to your rants as that will most certainly sway them to your way of thinking.

[edit on 8-1-2008 by BlueRaja]

Originally posted by Conundrum04
So the Timeonline is not a reputable source now?

Yeah keep denying the truth there buddy. People in are government are scared s***less because of her. She has the upmost

See this is exactly the type of stuff that I don’t like about the truth movement, right here…

In retail they call this a “bait and switch”, she is saying that there was information sold to terrorist groups by rouge agents (which was unrelated to 911), not that the administration was involved in 911. Quite the contrary, she is stating that terrorists were in fact behind 911, and not the government, as the truth movement claims. You cannot show me an orange to prove that apples exist. If you think that people selling national secrets is some new event, unprecedented in history, then you need to study history a little more. The fact that it happened once again does not show government involvement in 911.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
There is a distinct lack of civility within that community- it's as if "what we have to say is so much more important than anything else, that we have to say it whenever we want, no matter how inappropriate the timing. If we say it louder and more rudely than our detractors, that especially adds weight to our message."

Actually, people who act this way come off as being immature and uneducated folks, who for the first time in their lives think they know something that the rest of us don‘t; when in fact they are just showing their ignorance by repeating the untruths of their ring leaders moneymaking scams

Allright Billo.
You said,
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
BS, yes you did.
No denial possible.

similarly , when you say,
"An inside job? How dare you. How dare you. It was not an inside job,"
we, the awake people, know that the opposite MUST be true!
Ha.
Yes, it WAS and IS an INSIDE JOB.
And guess what, it WILL be proved, it is ALREADY true.
So, once again, you will be recognised as the LIAR that you are!
Dont you learn anything from history?
Your own history?

EDIT: So dont get cute with us, calling us 'nuts' or 'crazy'......its not even funny.

[edit on 9-1-2008 by vladmir]

9/11 was an inside job and Bill Clinton has no credibility.
Watch this video and it will all be very clear.
This will clear it up

I just wonder whether Bill has thought about it once or twice. Clearly he isnt foolish, and would be much more in tune as to what has developed. But obviously, hes not going to say that it was an inside job, as his opinion would stoop down to the levels or us mortals. Cant blame Bill for calling the guy nuts, its the best way to save face.

[edit on 9-1-2008 by 3_Libras]

Originally posted by vladmir

when you say,
"An inside job? How dare you. How dare you. It was not an inside job,"
we, the awake people, know that the opposite MUST be true!
Ha.
Yes, it WAS and IS an INSIDE JOB.
And guess what, it WILL be proved, it is ALREADY true.
So, once again, you will be recognised as the LIAR that you are!
Dont you learn anything from history?
Your own history?


[edit on 9-1-2008 by vladmir]

So your evidence that it must be true is that Bill Clinton said it wasn't, because the truth is always the opposite from what he's saying? I don't personally care for Bill and Hillary. I think they're dirtbags, but....I don't assume that every word coming out of their mouths is a lie.

It's true he lied about his affair with Monica- to avoid embarassing himself.
Could you please explain how embarassing Bush would be something that he'd want to avoid doing, if he knew that it was an Inside Job.

reply to post by 3_Libras


I find it interesting to see how folks presume to know what Bill Clinton's real opinions are. It's awfully convenient to just say, well I know he really agrees with me, but he's just saying the opposite to avoid embarassing Bush.

Originally posted by Beefcake
Watch this video and it will all be very clear.
This will clear it up

Why do those that believe in this conspiracy consistently feel the need to link us to some person’s video stating their opinion and inaccuracies? Is it because that media form is both flashy, convincing, and provides no chance for rebuttal? It’s the same way with how truthers work when you run into them on the street, they yell, scream, and pitch fits that would make a two year old embarrassed. The reason is that their arguments do not hold up to any real scrutiny, and once something is in video form on Youtube, and is debunked, it still exists in its original form to try and convince the next person who may not know any better. The tactics are obvious…
Win through quantity, repetition, and persistence not through quality, truthfulness, or accuracy.

If I took a brick of crap, paint it white, then I shoot a fancy video of it on Youtube stating that it is really white gold, the real truth is that its still a brick of crap painted white.