How the Bailout Bill Was Passed-- Representatives Threatened with Martial Law
Typical fear-mongering bullshit:
Though you might wonder how far the PTB were willing to go-- martial law is not so much out of the question, is it, anymore?
More on this here.
Though you might wonder how far the PTB were willing to go-- martial law is not so much out of the question, is it, anymore?
posted by spooked at 10:06 AM
32 Comments:
martial law is coming.
in violation of the constitution, an entire brigade of troops are to be deployed in america - "helping out at home".
100's of 1000's of plastic coffins are being stored in georgia near the atlanta airport, a major military hub.
LEGO-like stackable prison cells are being built and stored for a rainy day!
Goldman Sachs Bribed Senate To Pass Bailout Bill
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ek7zc0lJxbM
GOLDMAN SACHS CONTRIBUTIONS:
Obama, Barack (D-IL) $691,930
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) $468,200
Romney, Mitt (R) $229,675
McCain, John (R-AZ) $208,395
Himes, Jim (D-CT) $114,748
Giuliani, Rudolph W (R) $111,750
etc.
Get lost, Early/Bill.
Spooked,
How do you decide which posts people can comment on and which they can't?
Do you write all of them or do some people pay you to post their writings, with the proviso that no dissenting comments will be allowed?
In other words, are you contractually
bound to delete all comments which
can be construed as less than laudatory about articles which contain a byline (assuming that you don't post here under a nom de plume)?
No one pays me anything for blogging.
AP has asked that his major articles be posted without comments.
And I delete comments that mock AP, or me.
It's that simple.
The comment policy here.
You don't practice what you preach, because if you did, you wouldn't have deleted the comments you did.
Or, do you want us to believe that
any comments which YOU decide (Decider) aren't sufficiently positive about the articles submitted by a certain controversial poster aka "ap", are forbidden?
You mean to say that his/her "major" articles are not allowed to commented on?
No objective person would agree that the comments you deleted today "mock" either you or him/her.
I'm surprised that you don't allow
robust feedback on your blog. Especially, considering how far out of the mainstream some of that person's "articles" appear.
That's all the more reason why I'd think you'd welcome critical feedback.
You realize that your interpretation of your written policy is so elastic it could stretch all the way back to the Soviet era, right? That's unfortunate. I thought that you consider yourself a progressive thinker and that makes it all that much more disconcerting.
4:51-- saying that the author of the sex crimes piece is "on crack", and that the piece is "a crock" is not constructive feedback, and you know it. Don't act so innocent.
i think that the person whose comment you deleted must be on crack because his comment amounted nothing more than a crock.
even if the author of the sex slave post was on crack
(not likely), it does not change the story of cathy o'brien nor erase the actual newspaper headline regarding the bush sr. franklin child sex ring (and bush sr's quote) nor does it change the many other coincidental tie-ins that the post reveals.
the author of the deleted comment would rather shoot the messenger than investigate further - a sure sign of someone under the influence of a crock of crack.
No, "ap". You're wrong again. Your
article (sic) is nothing more than a rambling argument without any factual evidence to back up your
disjointed, guilt-by-association nonsense.
Give us facts, not rambling, dissociated unrealistic theories.
No, Early/Bill is not likely on crack. And obviously he knows A.P. is not either, yet he continues to libel him here.
Rather 9:25, 4:51 and the deleted foul comments are from just the kind of intel perp, A.P. wrote about.
When we find the regime's intel perp posted here going ballistic in regards to a particle article, they foolishly
PROVE
that the article in question is both
1. accurate and
2. of great concern to his masters.
Counter this by posting it far and wide.
And let us all thank Anonymous Physicist for writing the article, and Spooked for posting it.
Good on ya, mates.
Correction please:
"particle article" should be
"particular article".
Give us facts, not rambling, dissociated unrealistic theories.
...@9:25
Read the books and the newspaper headlines etc. and then dispute them...or not.
There is more evidence to support A.P.'s post than there is against it.
Great point 11:35!
So I went back and counted.
A.P. cites 7 books, 12 articles, 1 video, and 2 photos as references.
It sure looks like a thoroughly corroborated yet breakthrough article. So all that the troll here can do is desperatly scream the opposite.
It must be that the intel agencies do not like that A.P. has revealed the extent to which they (the intel agencies) are conducting kidnap, torture, rape and murder of the children of American citizens.
And at the same time they turn some of these children eventually into couriers/sex slaves to maintain the World in a state of Perennial War.
Citing books, articles, and videos doesn't prove anything.
You have a long history of making statements that you say prove something but the only proof you offer to back up your assertions is the name of a book.
Then, whenever it's pointed out that logically your theory/argument/claim
makes no sense, you act like a teenage girl whose feelings have been hurt. What happens next is always predictable. You:
* Immediately label anyone who challenges your theory as an "intel perp" for the Evil Gestapo
Regime.
* Tell them to prove a negative.
* Write anonymous comments that support your position, while simultaneously accusing anyone who disagrees as an "intel perp" - and in the same comment congratulating
spooked because he is smart enough
to side with you and not those who disagree with your nonsense.
All of the above is true and you cannot prove me wrong. All you can do is hurl more "intel perp" charges and reiterate that you were right all along because you cited the title of a book as proof.
10:35am/Early/Bill-- conspiracy evidence is of course highly subject to interpretation. AP has written a coherent piece on an important topic, drawing on many different sources.
The easiest thing to do is call a conspiracy theory crazy. What's much harder to is to deny that all the evidence is wrong or has been misinterpreted.
Are you denying the Franklin sex ring, the GWB cult story-- or the story of Cathy OBrien? Or just the Oswald stuff? What exactly is wrong with what AP wrote?
Or do you just dislike everything AP writes-- or worse?
It's much simpler than that.
He works for the intel Gestapo--those that
"(the intel agencies) are conducting kidnap, torture, rape and murder of the children of American citizens.
And at the same time they turn some of these children eventually into couriers/sex slaves to maintain the World in a state of Perennial War."
He
IS
this same evil--while laughably feigning self-righteousness.
spooked, did you write this about him or did he write a self-confession about a conspiracy in which he has first-hand knowledge?
"He works for the intel Gestapo--those that
"(the intel agencies) are conducting kidnap, torture, rape and murder of the children of American citizens.
And at the same time they turn some of these children eventually into couriers/sex slaves to maintain the World in a state of Perennial War."
He
IS
this same evil--while laughably feigning self-righteousness."
Wow, "ap" person. You're a brilliant thinker. Almost as clever as William "Flew-Over-The-Cuckoo's-Nest" Cooper.
You really should post on sites where more than five people will be able to see and appreciate your
prodigiously active imagination.
Spookster -
You are a hypocrite. You let the girly man mock others and get away with it, but if anyone dares to make a comment about him (sic), you delete it.
Is she really THAT delicate and fragile? Or do you also post using the username "ap"? Some of us have long wondered about THAT
conspiracy.
Conspiracy?
You mean like this one?
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2008/07/remastermind-needs-to-reveal-his.html
And if there are only 5 people here, ancient Gestapo boy,
WHY THE HELL ARE YOU POSTED HERE?
Help, Spooky Tooth -
"ap" is mocking
a poster and you need to act consistently with your policy of not allowing "ap" or anyone else to mock another poster.
And don't try to weasel out by saying you don't know that "ap" is the mocker.
Where's the evidence for these claims?
"Are you denying the Franklin sex ring, the GWB cult story-- or the story of Cathy OBrien? Or just the Oswald stuff? What exactly is wrong with what AP wrote?"
Larry Flynt is trustworthy. If any of those wild conspiracy theories had any credence, he'd have jumped all over them a long time ago. AND, he wouldn't have
claimed they're true simply because someone wrote an article somewhere about them. Flynt would provide PROOF to back up HIS claims.
As noted above,
"A.P. cites 7 books, 12 articles, 1 video, and 2 photos as references."
Most of these references are meticulously researched and documented.
DeCamp's book on the Franklin Cover-up--of the sex slave ring that led all the way to GHW Bush and the White House--is one example whereby that Nebraska Senator, attorney, and former highly decorated Infantry Captain had his documented book's claims backed up by his winning several lawsuits.
When the intel perp posted here does not cite any specifics, it means he knows everything in A.P.'s article is true, and so just puts out poppycock.
Of course, our intel poster here has made the mistake at least once of accusing A.P. of a specific lie.
Recall that in desperately blasting A.P.'s article on the American Gestapo regime's Assassination of Rev. Martin Luther King, our ancient intel boy called A.P. a liar.
So A.P. posted the King's family own website where they included the actual transcript of the trial whereby the judge and jury found that the U.S. Govt assassinated Rev. King.
Likewise here our intel boy is again calling A.P. a liar, as well as calling John DeCamp a liar and Cathy O'Brien a lair.
What would attoney John DeCamp say?
How about some specifics intel boy?
4:15 poster:
Are u an intelligence services asset?
If not, then how do you know who is?
It's reckless and undermines your credibility (which isn't exactly
what most people would consider to be
trustworthy).
If you really are an intelligence services asset would you admit it?
Aren't you the person who said the Agency turned on you and caused you
to suffer from medical-related
trauma?
P.S. what do you think of Larry Flynt? personally, I believe he's
an informant for the FBI and the CIA.
Talk about cedibility.
First our ancient intel boy says
"Larry Flynt is trustworthy."
Then he says Flint is
"an informant for the FBI and the CIA."
Only Flint and the intel agencies know if he is or not. It's not worth anyone's time to get into Flint at this point.
Your job now was posted above:
You must now get into specifics about A.P.'s article. Cite just where you are calling A.P. a liar, as well as calling John DeCamp a liar and Cathy O'Brien a liar.
Specifics NOW!
Stop your stupid diversionary attempts with FLint or whatever.
Specifics NOW!
Hey ap, I'LL be happy to assess any evidence you have and either say that I agree with it or that I disagree with it...or your interpretation of it.
But, I don't have time to read a whole book in order to try and find
whatever is in it that you are claiming proves your theories.
So, kindly provide any quotes that you feel support your contentions.
Don't worry. I'M not here on behalf of any intelligence agency. I'm here on behalf of myself and the quest for truth.
I won't belittle you just because I think you're wrong (if that is what the evidence convinces me of).
How about it. Post your supporting evidence and let everybody here see it. I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't have the time to plow thru a book or two or three.
Thanks.
""Immediately label anyone who challenges your theory as an "intel perp" for the Evil Gestapo
Regime.""
@10:35.
you did not "challenge his theory" - you simply dismissed and mocked it out of hand.
There were numerous questions here waiting to be answered:
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2008/07/remastermind-needs-to-reveal-his.html
S/he/it chickened out! What a surprise. Sarah would be proud.
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2008/07/remastermind-needs-to-reveal-his.html
Talk about chickening out.
You've had
FORTY FIVE YEARS and TWO MONTHS
now to come clean about the conspiracy you partook in.
Not to mention that this foul intel troll actually is now admitting that he denounced A.P.'s article--and A.P., libelling him as being "on crack"--without any checking of the books, articles videos or photos it contained.
And without citing a single specific fault with A.P.'s article.
And instead this absurd perp/troll is laughably trying to get A.P. to do something he (the troll) needs to do...
Cite some specific objections to the article. And disprove A.P.'s findings or conclusions.
Larry Flynt is credible. The self-described "foul intel troll"
is not.
Flynt is way too smart to think people can be fooled by simply citing the name of a book as proof of something.
Flynt knows that you have to give sources for evidence and reasons for why you think that the sources and evidence are credible.
The "foul intel troll" does none of that and therefore her/his articles are not convincing to people who know how to think and reason.
Post a Comment
<< Home