Palin-McCain!
This SNL debate parody is totally hilarious:
This article, on the spoiled egomaniac John Sidney McCain III, is not so funny. Although Rolling Stone actually seems to go easier on McCain than they could have, such as with the 1967 USS Forrestal tragedy that led to Navy 134 (167?) deaths-- and the POW story.
What is striking is how much McCain's background and personality is like GWBush's, on many different levels-- except McCain has a worse temperament, didn't have as bad a drinking problem and never "found Jesus".
I suspect right now, McCain is angry about lots of things-- he's losing to Obama (maybe being sabotaged or asked to take a fall), the media is turning against him, Palin is getting so much more attention than him and Palin is a laughing-stock among most people.
This article, on the spoiled egomaniac John Sidney McCain III, is not so funny. Although Rolling Stone actually seems to go easier on McCain than they could have, such as with the 1967 USS Forrestal tragedy that led to Navy 134 (167?) deaths-- and the POW story.
What is striking is how much McCain's background and personality is like GWBush's, on many different levels-- except McCain has a worse temperament, didn't have as bad a drinking problem and never "found Jesus".
I suspect right now, McCain is angry about lots of things-- he's losing to Obama (maybe being sabotaged or asked to take a fall), the media is turning against him, Palin is getting so much more attention than him and Palin is a laughing-stock among most people.
posted by spooked at 10:39 AM
10 Comments:
Was the Rolling Stone article hinting at the deeper truth when it said,
"His parents cured him of this habit [holding his breath till he passed out] in a way only a CIA interrogator could appreciate: by dropping their blue-faced boy in a bathtub of ice-cold water."
It ties in with this breakthrough article:
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2008/10/ultimate-truths-part-x-slaves-and-sex.html
The waterboarding treatment was one of many used on the slaves and sex slaves run by the intel agencies.
anonymous physicist is a whacko...aliens? sex slaves? civilizations on the moon? whacko...
You mean you don't believe that the U.S. Government signed a treaty with
ALIENS waaay back there in 1954?
You also know, I presume, that some of her/his more exotic claims can't even be mentioned because spooked will delete them. HE (i.e. ap) can mention them, but WE can't. Something about the giggle factor, I guess.
Talk about whacko:
Here is a guy who says that he both saw and heard two events that were miles apart and in rapid succession, and has had 45 years plus two months to explain how this could possibly be.
It appears to be impossible except for those who partook in those evil deeds that day, Nov. 22, 1963.
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2008/07/remastermind-needs-to-reveal-his.html
It only involves murder, high treason, and conspiracy.
There appears to be only 2 possibilities. He is whacko or a traitor/murderer.
The clock is ticking...
9:39 doth protest too much.
ha ha!
THERE. Right uP THERE, is a typical example of the kind of BS that is all too common around here.
Note that as in ALL of his/her
articles (sic), s/he asserts that the evidence they have seen proves
whatever theory is being proffered in a given article (sic) and s/he does cite sources for said evidence.
However, the evidence offered is not convincing, and s/he never states why s/he believes s/he believes the offered sources are authentic.
It therefore always remains a very open question why accounts presented by her/him should be treated as certain fact.
Lastly, the 10:17 PM comment, like all others s/he posts on the matters covered therein are TOTAL and COMPLETE LIES. NOT a bit of truth is found there.
S/HE posted FALSE allegations about someone whom s/he apparantly believes is an active poster here, but who in fact, has ZERO first or even second hand knowledge of what is being asserted.
That kind of smear tactic is what happens whenever someone sets out to intentionally slander another
person with false charges, and
claiming good faith is legally insufficient as a defense
for slander in every jurisdiction of this country.
8:40 PM telling it like it is.
Straight ahead, bro.
The only one slandering anyone here is you, "Early."
You've called A.P. a crack addict, a British agent, insane and many, many other things. All wihtout any evidence of course.
That's not counting the libelous things you've called Spooked.
Everything you post is a lie, everyone here knows it.
Get lost, and all problems are solved. Scram.
Why does the anonymous ap ignore
legitimate and very reasonable questions about her/his claims?
What is the purpose of saying childish things like "get lost, and all problems are solved"?
Sounds like something a dictator would say. "Once I get rid of my detractors, all my problems will cease".
Note that as in ALL of his/her
articles (sic), s/he asserts that the evidence they have seen proves
whatever theory is being proffered in a given article (sic) and s/he does cite sources for said evidence.
However, the evidence offered is not convincing, and s/he never states why s/he believes s/he believes the offered sources are authentic.
It therefore always remains a very open question why accounts presented by her/him should be treated as certain fact.
"Nickname"--
We get it already! You don't like AP or his writing!
Now stop boring us with your complaints! It's my site and I will publish-- or delete-- what I please.
Post a Comment
<< Home