I've quieted Freepers!

I didn't think it was possible, but I did. I have a high-school alumni group I moderate, and thought I'd stir the political pot a little bit. I know the area where I went to school was highly Republican and that it would be easy to do. Right now there's only one guy left who still tries to argue with me, but he has been reduced to posting debunked chain letters to the group. Here's some of the stuff I had to argue against:

____________________________________________________________


Yes, my RP education made me smart enough to NOT vote
for Mr. Kerry.
I want to keep everything I have worked for and I
don't want the government forcing me to spread my
wealth around.

My response:
I also benefitted from the Bush tax cuts. Unfortunately, in my state (which is controlled by Republicans), I still have to pay higher property taxes, a higher sales tax, and an increase in user fees because of unfunded mandates from this administration and the fact that our state constitution says we can't have budget deficits like the federal government. Add to that higher gas prices, higher insurance prices, and higher energy prices, and there's no way I'm keeping more of my wealth than I was four years ago. Either way, we're still forced to spread our wealth around and we can't keep everything we worked for.

Although you could be voting for the Libertarian candidate, Michael Badnarik (you did not say you were voting for Bush, only that you weren't voting for Kerry). I'd buy that the Libertarians would allow us to keep more of our wealth, since they think the government should only spend money on defense and not much else.

___________________________________________________________

Yes, a lot of republicans make an "assload" of money -
mostly because they've worked for it.
Yes, we need some major tax law changes. Something
like a national sales tax or flat tax.
Don't like the war in Iraq? It's OK, the Muslims don't
like you either and are determined to kill you.
Check your constitution . This country was founded on
a basic belief in God and a right to worship in
whatever way you choose. "One nation under God...In
God we trust" Ring a bell? Maybe you should burn your
money. Or maybe, you should just share it with all of
your friends. That would be more "fair" wouldn't it?
Many of you so called "Liberals" are only voting for
Kerry because you don't like Bush. I don't like
everything about George either, but I sure as hell
don't want Kerry in office. My RP (government)
teachers taught me better than that.

My response:
The problem with a national sales tax or flat tax is that they are regressive taxes. If the tax rate is set at 10% for everyone with no deductions for example, this is going to hit the lower income citizens the hardest. Many of the poor pay less than 10% of their income in taxes, because they need that extra money just to survive. A national sales tax, in addition to ensuring that the poor will have to shoulder a larger burden of taxes, will also cause major damage to economy. If the way to get out of paying taxes is to not buy anything, people are going to stop spending - and we know what happens after that.

No, I don't like the war in Iraq. I don't believe the war in Iraq has anything to do with the war on terror. It's well known that the Bush administration had designs on Iraq well before 9/11, and even tried to find a way to link it to them after the attacks so they could go in there instead of to Afghanistan. Was Saddam a bad man, and did he do bad things to his people? Of course. I can point to you to a few other countries with leaders that mistreat their people, but for some reason that's not always enough to commit our troops - just in Iraq.

Nobody is denying the right of people to worship in any manner they choose. The government should not fund religion, and religion should not control the government.

Kerry has a plan for America, and I like many of his ideas. What has Bush done in the last four years, except divide this country, ruin our economy, destroy our alliances, and start a war he has no idea how he's going to finish?
_______________________________________________________

R M, I totally agree with you. My ancestors, the
Seperatist Pilgrims tried "socialism" and it failed so
badly that they trashed the idea and allowed everyone
to keep the fruits of their labor. That worked so well
that they began to flourish. They did so well that
that is why the people of Europe started mass
migrations to the new world.

The only thing the liberals spreading the wealth
around (higher taxes for "welfare") will do is ensure
our economic destruction ... the same thing happened
to the Soviet Union.

Yes we need more jobs ... tell John Kerry to get his
billionare wife to bring her Heinz Companies to the
U.S. so Americans can work.

Bush is a millionare ... so is Kerry

Bush has a questionable military record ... so does
Kerry according to many who served with him

Bush wants more money for the military ... Kerry vetos
money for defence

Bush has proven himself a leader ... Kerry flip flops
too much to be a leader

My response:
Nobody is proposing the idea of turning all property over to the government. That's not liberalism.

Teresa has no involvement at all in the management or operations of the H.J. Heinz Company, and she doesn't own anything close to a controlling interest in the company. She actually owns less than 4% of the company now. And the type of outsourcing Heinz does is not the same as other businesses. Heinz sells food products to other countries, so of course it would need to have some of its jobs overseas. Would you rather have ketchup made and prepared here or in some other country and then shipped over here. Also, more than half of Heinz's sales come from foreign markets, so there should be an overseas presence in this case. This is much different then shipping your jobs overseas for cheap labor, then shipping the finished products back to America.

Kerry's record is not all that questionable. Those that question his record (such as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth) have been exposed for what they are. It's amazing that people still take them seriously after their assertions have been proven to be untrue.

To close, here's a few of Bush's flip-flops - AND HE DID THESE IN LESS THAN FOUR YEARS!
Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it.

Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.

Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.

Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.

Bush is against nation building; then he's for it.

Bush is against deficits; then he's for them.

Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.

Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.

Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.

Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't.

Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he cuts benefits

Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.

Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island.

Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting funding.

Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will

Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then say's he shouldn't have.

Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote

Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors. Bush later admits it was his advance team.

Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. Bush after meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it.
________________________________________________________


Clinton was about "change" and now Kerry has "plan"

Kerry has a "plan". That is all we hear from his pie hole...I have a "plan". What is the blueprint for these so-called plans, or how will these "plans" will be supported/funded? I can tell you this, to support/fund his "plans" will cost us all big bucks in the form of taxes!!

I lost any and all respect for the Democrats when Clinton was in office and disgraced this county with his whore-mongering. (Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, & Monica Lewinsky). He is just as responsible for 9/11 and missing the signs by tying us all up in his hearings! What a perfect opportunity to lay the foundation for terror attacks when our country was distracted. Had he been running this country from the oval office instead of his zipper, the signs would have been heeded. This coming from someone whose entire family are Democrats!! My cousin is a Senator in AZ. (D); my uncle works for the Democratic party and Senator Tom Dashell; and my mother donated mucho $$$ to the Democratic party to the point of having a personal written invitation to Clinton's inauguration.

I was in the Army, as was my husband. My daughter served in the Navy and, my son is currently in the Army Reserves (under "stop loss"), slated for Iraq. No, my husband and I did not believe weapons of mass destruction would ever be found and did not support going into Iraq after Hussein, but a command decision was made and now that we are there, we cannot leave. Nonetheless, we have not had any further attacks in our military barracks, embassies, ships at sea, etc., since going to Iraq. That in itself says something.

A flat tax would effect everyone the same. 10%, whether from a $100 or $100,000 has the same value and impact of deduction.

Finally, our jobs are overseas, thanks to non other than Clinton and his passing of NAFTA!!

Okay, this would be me stepping down from my soapbox now... :-)


My response:
Bush was about "changing the tone". Ha!

Here's how his plans will be funded.
By rolling back the tax cuts for Americans making over $200,000 a year.
By ending subsidies for banks providing student loans and let the free market set rates.
He'll reduce Medicare overpayments to HMOs.
He'll speed up the transition to digital television and auction off the spectrum that is freed up.
High-income farmers will see their subsidies cut too.
The Office of Thrift Supervision will be eliminated, as will major statistical agencies in favor of one Statistics USA.
Trade promotion agencies will be eliminated.
The Commerce Department's NTIA and TA will be merged.
The topheavy bureaucracy at federal agencies will be cut and streamlined.
Goverment contractors will be reduced
The Federal travel budget will be frozen
The GAO's recommendations on the management of the government's car fleet will be implemented
A new line-item veto authority will be asked of Congress, which Kerry will use to eliminate pork barrel spending
If Congress can't control spending, Kerry will implement across the board spending cuts for everything except defense and education, ensuring they don't grow faster than inflation.
Kerry will push for an enforceable PAYGO rule.
There is $65 billion paid in corporate subsidies a year. The Kerry-McCain Corporate Welfare Commission will eliminate as much of it as possible.
As far Clinton goes, as a president he was the best I've seen in my lifetime. Say what you will about his personal life, but the fact is he was a tremendous success as a president.

It wasn't Clinton that tied America up with hearings, it was the Republican-controlled Congress that was responsible for that. I doubt very much that Clinton went around asking Congress to please give him more hearings and to put more of his private life on display. If you're saying 9/11 happened because of the Clinton hearings, you should be blaming Newt Gingrich, Bob Barr, Ken Starr and company.

It's been demonstrated that Clinton was very focused on terrorism during his time in office, especially after the first World Trade Center attacks. (Will you blame those on Clinton, or on Bush Sr., since Clinton was in his first year when that happened...) This was the issue that concerned him the most when he left and what he had hoped to impress on the incoming Bush administration was of dire importance. The planned millenium attacks were foiled because of his proactive policies. Bush unfortunately thought like Clinton at the beginning of his term that terrorism wasn't that big of a threat. 9/11 was such a disastrous event that no president from this point forward will ever again minimize the importance of fighting terrorism.

Kerry will not cut and run from Iraq, and he's said that many times. Powell got it right when he said that if we break it, we own it. We can't leave that country until it is stable.

My point about the flat tax is that it hurts the poor. If someone is barely scraping by now without having to pay taxes because of their income, taking away 10% of their income would be disastrous for them. And if the flat tax is too low, and just about everyone (except the poor) sees a rate reduction, I can't see how we can fund the government.

As far as NAFTA goes, I did not agree with Clinton on that. That was one of his less liberal ideas. ;)
__________________________________________________________________


Ya know, that's what's so great about this country. We
are still FREE to voice our opinion about politics,
religion or whatever the subject may be.

Vote for whomever you want because that is your duty
to your country and fellow citizens. My only fear is
that a lot of people are voting for Kerry simply
because they are Bush haters and that only makes you
part of the problem, not the cure.

You may not like the war in Iraq, but after 9-11 what
should we have done? Go to the UN and ask for help?
Make idle threats? The only way, at time, to handle a
bully is to punch him in the nose.War is not popular.
As a member of the class of 75, I grew up during Viet
Nam. I knew people who died there - for my freedom. I
know people who have been sent to Iraq - to protect my
freedom.

We've all seen the bumper stickers that say freedom
isn't free. We're going to pay for freedom one way or
another. Kerry wants to put programs in place to make
our country safer. Who do you think will pay for those
programs? Hard working Americans like you and me.

Think about how blessed you are to be living in this
country. I don't care if you make minimum wage or a
million a year. You have the one thing that millions
of people do not have. You have oportunity. Stop for a
moment and be thankful for what you do have. How about
that computer you're using to read this? How many
people in the world don't even know what a computer
is? What about that roof over your head? It may be a
small apartment a mobile home or a five-bedroom house,
but be grateful for what you have - even that job you
might not like.

The government doesn't OWE us anything.If you are less
fortunate than your neighbor, don't whine about it and
ask the government for help - otherise known as
welfare. Get off your lazy ass and work! Do whatever
it takes to survive and get ahead.

John F. Kennedy said it best. "Ask not what your
country can do for you, but what you can do for your
country."

By the way... Muskegon - a great place to be...from.

My reponse:
I don't think that people have to like a candidate to vote for them. If the motivation to vote is to stop the other guy from winning, it's just another way of voicing your opinion.

After 9/11 I completely supported the action in Afghanistan. I remember wondering why it was taking so long to get started. The UN did help us in Afghanistan and the world had rallied behind us to help us fight this new war on terror.

When the focus started to shift to Iraq, I immediately began to get suspicious. If Osama had went into Iraq for refuge and Saddam Hussein was planning on financing further attacks on Americans, I would have completely supported the war there. They didn't sell me on the rationale for going to war, and I hadn't seen any real proof Iraq was a threat. When we went there without anything resembling the coalition we had with Bush's father, I thought that was another mistake. I also thought it was pretty silly to think the Iraqis would welcome us with open arms for getting rid of Saddam Hussein. I don't think any patriot of any country can stand to see foreign soldiers set up bases on their soil. Imagine we lived in a different world and Iraq had liberated us and started to set up military bases on our soil - would you be happy about it? I have no doubts that the soldiers who fight for us do so gladly and with the intentions of defending our freedoms and making the world safer for Americans. I worry that some people (not necessarily Bush) may be taking advantage of our soldiers' patriotism to serve their own interests instead of our country's.

I do not doubt that Kerry's plans to defend us will cost us. But he has a way to pay for his programs, including defense, which I went over some in a previous post.

I think people sometimes try to confuse liberalism with communism by saying we want to take all of the money away from the rich, give it all to the poor, etc. The thing that saddens me is that we live in the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world, yet we still have people here who live in some of the worst conditions imaginable. There are people here who are truly without hope.

I disagree with your statement that the government does not owe us anything. The government gets its power from the consent of the governed. It's a contract of sorts, saying you can have this of ours (money), if you provide A, B, and C. A safety net for Americans is one of the things that is provided to us, and one of the benefits of living in this country. If you fall on hard times (if the system is working right, which it does not always), at least you will be able to meet your basic needs. Unfortunately there are some of those that abuse the system, but at least the system is there.

I'll leave you with a quote from Jesus Christ from the Gospel of Matthew.

"Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you took care of Me; I was in prison and you visited Me.’ “Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You something to drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or without clothes and clothe You? When did we see You sick, or in prison, and visit You?’ “And the King will answer them, ‘I assure you: Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of Mine, you did for Me.’"
__________________________________________________________


Too bad the liberal media won't report what is REALLY
happening in Iraq. Listen to the stories of the
soldiers who have been there for the truth.

International help?? I guess we should ask countries
like France for help, huh? We already tried getting
international help.

I had my cat neutered, now he's French.

My response:
The idea of a "liberal media" is a farce. It's actually swung so far to the right, I can't stand to watch any of the news channels anymore. And we all know where radio is on the political spectrum.

It's interesting that you say "Listen to the stories of the soldiers who have been there for the truth". Check out Operation Truth at www.optruth.org. It's a non-profit, non-partisan site where soldiers who have served in Iraq can post their stories about their experiences. They all love their country, but won't hesitate to tell the truth about Iraq.

Yes we should ask other countries for help. This administration asked for help after it thumbed its nose at them and everyone else by withdrawing from treaties and saying, in effect, "With the USSR gone, we're the biggest and baddest around and we'll do as we please." There's no spirit anymore of international cooperation, why should France and others want to help us with Bush as president? If we have a leader who shows other nations some measure of respect, they'd be more willing to help us. Right now their thinking we're getting what we deserved in Iraq.


__________________________________________________________

To vote for a man simply because you don't want the
other man to win is rediculous. What if the other mans
was a complete idiot? Vote for the best person for the
job - period.

My response:
Well that's not what Anybody But Bush is about. I think most people who are Anybody But Bush would agree that the candidate they vote for would have to be viable, meaning they would still have to survive the primaries. When the ten Democrats were running for the Democratic nomination, the Anybody But Bush crowd would have voted for any single one of the Democrats running over Bush. Even though Lieberman was my least favorite of the bunch, I still liked him more than I liked Bush.

It's not that I'm so partisan I'd never vote for a Republican over a Democrat either. If Zell Miller was running against John McCain, I'd vote for McCain.
_________________________________________________________

If you don't think the media is leaning very strongly
to the liberal side, then you don't pay attention to
the news.

My response:
The only people who really think the media is too liberal belong to the following groups:

1. Rush Limaugh listeners
2. Sean Hannity listeners
3. Fox News viewers

If this media were truly liberal, Bush would have been destroyed by it a long time ago.
__________________________________________________________


After that the chain letters started, which I happily prove wrong for them.

Kill them with the truth.:thumbsup:

And you didn't rise to the bait at all. Good for you. You come across rational and composed; he comes across increasingly defeated and desparate.

Awesome stuff. This guy is a textbook freeper, too.

Note how he was the first one to bring up Clinton. They ALWAYS bring up Clinton. When people attack Bush, they bring up Clinton and say "...See???" It just boggles my mind how Bush appears so much better than Clinton in their eyes.

I truly believe we should have an online debate between Freepers and Du'ers.

Host it on a neutral site, they pick 3 top debaters, we pick 3. It lasts 3 hours.

I think a lot of good will come of it. As long as the people are professional and well spoken as you were/are.

Excellent post.

.

Notice how much of the Cons arguments are simply regurgitated talking points and propaganda straight from the RNC/VRWC.

It reminds me of the old saying, who are you going to believe, me or your own lying eyes.

I heard a caller on a radio talk show last night say that:
Bush has never lied about anything.
All Kerry does is lie.
Bush is protecting us.
Kerry will not defend America.
Bush will end abortion.
Kerry will take his guns.
and finally
The media is liberal.

Now even though the facts contradict everything this guy believes, the steady drumbeat of "media liberals" like Heil Hannity, El Rushbo, O'Liely and the rest of the Con Propaganda machine tells him otherwise. They count on his intellectual laziness to accept what they spew on its face.

I guess America needs its ass kicked even further to figure out that Conservative starts with Con.

You handled it well. :D

still remains largely hidden, even to many who can see that the Iraq war was bogus from the get-go. Of course, because of the 911 attacks, it's more understandable why the reasons for the Afghanistan war are not disected to the same extent as the reasons given for the Iraq war.

My post on the topic from another thread (with minor editorial changes):

The Afghanistan/Taliban threat was also likely created (or at least used) in order to justify the US going in and taking away from Bridas (an Argentinian Energy company) the rights to build a pipeline through Afghanistan to run Caspian Sea resources out to the coast where it could be sent to market under US control.

The Taliban had formulated an agreement with Bridas in competition with the US coporation Unocal (who had also been courting the Taliban for rights to build a trans Afghanistan pipeline) to allow Bridas to build and run the pipeline.


In 1997, Taliban officials traveled twice to Washington, D.C. and Buenos Aires to be wined and dined by Unocal and Bridas. No agreements were signed.

It appeared to Unocal that the Taliban was balking. In addition to royalties, the Taliban demanded funding for infrastructure projects, including roads and power plants. The Taliban also announced plans to revive the Afghan National Oil Company, which had been abolished by the Soviet regime in the late 1970s.

Osama bin Laden (who issued his fatwa against the West in 1998) advised the Taliban to sign with Bridas. In addition to offering the Taliban a higher bid, Bridas proposed an open pipeline accessible to warlords and local users. Unocal's pipeline was closed—for export purposes only. Bridas' plan also did not require outside financing, while Unocal's required a loan from the western financial institutions (the World Bank), which in turn would leave Afghanistan vulnerable to demands from western governments.

Bridas' approach to business was more to the Taliban's liking. Where Bulgheroni and Bridas' engineers would take the time to "sip tea with Afghan tribesmen," Unocal's American executives issued top-down edicts from corporate headquarters and the US Embassy (including a demand to open talks with the CIA-backed Northern Alliance).

www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHI203A.html

Bush administration and Taliban officials met several times in Washington, Berlin and Islamabad. Each time, the Taliban refused Bush's conditions.

The last meeting took place in August 2001. Central Asian affairs representative Christina Rocca and a coterie of State Department officials voiced disgust and issued a threat to the Taliban ambassador: "Accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs." Bush promptly informed Pakistan and India that the US would launch a military mission against Afghanistan before the end of October.

Weeks later, under questionable circumstances, jetliners would crash into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania, killing some 2,000 Americans. The ensuing war on Afghanistan, and the "war on terrorism," would claim the lives of more than 5,000 Afghans, scatter (but not destroy) the Taliban and send Osama bin Laden and his Al-Queda network into hiding.

Bush's brutal "carpet of bombs" had done what years of Clinton administration jockeying had failed to do: topple a recalcitrant, uncooperative regime with nationalistic tendencies, and clear the key square of the Chessboard.

www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHI203Bp.html


In 2001 common sense, expert opinion and extensive research convinced me and other Central Asia watchers that the United States didn't have much interest in saving Buddha statues or Afghan women when it went to war against the Taliban. After we turned down their offer to extradite Osama, it became obvious that we weren't interested in capturing the alleged mastermind of 9/11 either. Logic and evidence indicated that the Bush Administration's focused on Afghanistan to make it secure for a pipeline to carry oil and natural gas from the landlocked Caspian Sea.

Here's the story in a nutshell. The former Soviet republics surrounding the Caspian Sea--particularly Kazakhstan--have the potential to become the biggest oil-producing nations on earth. "By 2050," reports the Asia Times, "the Persian Gulf/Caspian Sea will account for more than 80 percent of world oil and natural gas production. Together, the Persian Gulf and the Caspian may have something like 800 billion barrels of oil and an energy equivalent amount in natural gas. Compare this figure with oil reserves in the Americas and in Europe: less than 160 billion barrels. And they will be exhausted before 2030." Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan want to build a pipeline to carry their oil and gas out to deep-sea ports. The shortest possible route would go through Iran, which the U.S. has declared part of an Axis of Evil. Second shortest is via Afghanistan, a dangerous proposition that the Clinton and Bush Administrations have nonetheless encouraged during and after Taliban rule. Top Bushies last met with Taliban officials in July 2001, two months before 9/11. Negotiations broke down over transit fees, but top-level discussions between the U.S., Turkmenistan and Pakistan resumed in October, while American bombs were still raining on Kabul. That led people like me to speculate that the invasion--which made little effort to catch Osama--was a transparent excuse to gain control over newly emerging energy resources.

Yet here we are two years later, some war supporters point out, and still no pipeline.

Well, not exactly.

www.uexpress.com/tedrall/?uc_full_date=20040106

(Note that there appears to be growing concensus that the actual amount of hydrocarbon resources in the Caspian Sea Basin appears to have been initially overestimated and are now thought to be considerably lower than the amounts listed above. See Much Ado about Nothing -- Whither the Caspian Riches? for more details. /jc)

www.uexpress.com/tedrall/?uc_full_date=20040106

I, and a growing number of others, (e.g. 911 Truth Statement) believe that at the very least the Bush administration knew that the 9/11 attacks were coming and allowed them to go ahead or were perhaps more deeply involved in the planning for the new "Pearl Harbor" which the neo-con PNAC group (the membership list of which reads like a who's who of the Bush administration.See www.newamericancentury.org ) said would be required to stir up the US population to support the PNAC agenda - an agenda which requires sending troops into the hotbeds of the Middle East and Central Asia to establish miltary bases and assert control over regional resources while ostensibly fighting the war on terror. Luckily for the PNACers the regions whith the greatest numbers of terrorists are coincidentally the regions which have the best known and most easily available remaining resources of oil and gas on the planet at a time when there is growing public awareness the there could very well be problems with the world oil supply peaking within the next 5 to 15 years and then going into a permanent decline (google Peak Oil for details).

Mike Ruppert in his recently released book Crossing the Rubicon, The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil."apparently does a good job of laying out and documenting some of the connections just touched on in this post.

This is a detective story that gets to the innermost core of the 9/11 attacks. It places 9/11 at the center of a desperate new America, created by specific, named individuals in preparation for Peak Oil: an economic crisis like nothing the world has ever seen.

The attacks of September 11th, 2001 were accomplished through an amazing orchestration of logistics and personnel. Crossing the Rubicon discovers and identifies the key suspects and persons of interest - finding some of them in the highest echelons of American government - by showing how they acted in concert to guarantee that the attacks occurred and produced the desired result.

ISBN #0-86571-540-8

www.fromthewilderness.com

From Ruppert's speech at the Commonwealth Club of California, Aug 31 2004

FOR ME, THE PIVOTAL EVIDENCE ABSOLUTELY DEMONSTRATING
DIRECT GOVERNMENT COMPLICITY IN, AND MANAGEMENT OF, THE
ATTACKS WAS FOUND IN A NUMBER OF UNDISPUTED, YET VIRTUALLY
UNADDRESSED WARGAMES THAT I WILL SHOW WERE BEING
CONDUCTED, COORDINATED AND/OR CONTROLLED BY VICE PRESIDENT
DICK CHENEY OR HIS IMMEDIATE STAFF ON THE MORNING OF
SEPTEMBER 11TH. THE NAMES OF THOSE WARGAMES ARE KNOWN TO
INCLUDE: VIGILANT GUARDIAN, VIGILANT WARRIOR, NORTHERN
GUARDIAN, NORTHERN VIGILANCE, AND TRIPOD II. ALL HAVE BEEN
REPORTED ON BY MAJOR PRESS ORGANIZATIONS RELYING ON
UNDISPUTED QUOTES FROM PARTICIPATING MILITARY PERSONNEL.
THEY HAVE ALSO BEEN CONFIRMED BY NORAD PRESS RELEASES. ALL,
EXCEPT FOR NORTHERN VIGILANCE AND TRIPOD II HAD TO DO WITH
HIJACKED AIRLINERS INSIDE THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES,
SPECIFICALLY WITHIN THE NORTHEAST AIR DEFENSE SECTOR WHERE
ALL FOUR 9/11 HIJACKINGS OCCURRED.

ACCORDING TO A CLEAR RECORD SOME OF THESE EXERCISES
INVOLVED COMMERCIAL AIRLINE HIJACKINGS. IN SOME CASES FALSE
BLIPS WERE DELIBERATELY INSERTED ONTO FAA AND MILITARY RADAR
SCREENS AND THEY WERE PRESENT DURING (AT LEAST) THE FIRST
ATTACKS. THIS EFFECTIVELY PARALYZED FIGHTER RESPONSE
BECAUSE, WITH ONLY EIGHT FIGHTERS AVAILABLE IN THE REGION,

THERE WERE AS MANY AS 22 POSSIBLE HIJACKINGS TAKING PLACE.
OTHER EXERCISES, SPECIFICALLY NORTHERN VIGILANCE HAD PULLED
SIGNIFICANT FIGHTER RESOURCES AWAY FROM THE NORTHEAST U.S.
– JUST BEFORE 9/11 – INTO NORTHERN CANADA AND ALASKA. IN
ADDITION, A CLOSE READING OF KEY NEWS STORIES PUBLISHED IN THE
SPRING OF 2004 REVEALED FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT SOME OF THESE
DRILLS WERE “LIVE-FLY” EXERCISES WHERE ACTUAL AIRCRAFT, LIKELY
FLOWN BY REMOTE CONTROL – WERE SIMULATING THE BEHAVIOR OF
HIJACKED AIRLINERS IN REAL LIFE. ALL OF THIS AS THE REAL ATTACKS
BEGAN. THE FACT THAT THESE EXERCISES HAD NEVER BEEN
SYSTEMATICALLY AND THOROUGHLY EXPLORED IN THE MAINSTREAM
PRESS, OR PUBLICLY BY CONGRESS, OR AT LEAST PUBLICLY IN ANY
DETAIL BY THE SO-CALLED INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION MADE ME
THINK THAT THEY MIGHT BE THE HOLY GRAIL OF 9/11.
THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT THEY TURNED OUT TO BE.

ONLY ONE WARGAME EXERCISE, VIGILANT GUARDIAN, WAS MENTIONED
IN A FOOTNOTE TO THE KEAN COMMISSION REPORT AND THEN IT WAS
DELIBERATELY MISLABELED AS AN EXERCISE INTENDED TO INTERCEPT
RUSSIAN BOMBERS INSTEAD OF A HIJACK EXERCISE IN THE
NORTHEAST SECTOR. EVEN THEN, A DELIBERATE LIE WAS TOLD TO
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AS NORAD COMMANDER RALPH EBERHART
TESTIFIED TO THE COMMISSION THAT THE EXERCISE ACTUALLY
EXPEDITED US AIR FORCE RESPONSE DURING THE ATTACKS.
WHEN MICHAEL KANE, A BRILLIANT YOUNG NEW YORK ACTIVIST AND
BUDDING INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER APPROACHED GENERAL
EBERHART ON AN FTW ASSIGNMENT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE
COMMISSION’S LAST PUBLIC HEARING AND ASKED FOR INFORMATION THE OTHER EXERCISES, EBERHART’S ONLY RESPONSE WAS, “NO
COMMENT.”

www.fromthewilderness.com/PDF/Commonwealth.pdf

i'm greedy, i'm selfish, i'm ignorant, i'm prejudiced, i won't pay for anything, but i want everything, might makes right, god only loves me,...etc... great job, but you gotta' admit they are such an easy target. keep at it!

When I did this same thing, all of a sudden the old, "Well, all politicians are crooked" crap started issuing forth from RW loon.

Guess that is just their way of saying they have nothing of real value to add to the discussion and that you have bested them in an argument.

Loans.

I can't imagine how that would ever be beneficial to people who will be paying those inevitably increasing interest rates.

:wtf:

You were very effective and good !