Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: chaos on May 21, 2016, 03:23:57 PM
-
And 8 of them are from 240 about Trump.
Unhealthy obsession I say.
-
And 8 of them are from 240 about Trump.
Unhealthy obsession I say.
Nary a republican chiming in to tell us why I'm wrong, or why Trump is such a mature, non-impulsive leader for the country.
-
Nary a republican chiming in to tell us why I'm wrong, or why Trump is such a mature, non-impulsive leader for the country.
Obviously you're far from a neutral source. It's plain to see where your loyalties are.
-
240 is the Greatest Conservative Warrior the Internets has ever known.
-
Obviously you're far from a neutral source. It's plain to see where your loyalties are.
i have criticized the clintons for a decade on getbig. hilary belongs in prison.
i want to see a 3rd party swoop in and be a better choice than either of these 2 matching democrats. Trump is a democrat. In july 2015, he said we should let the illegals stay after all, then quickly changed his position.
honestly, you can give me ANY Trump position, and I will find a quote where he once said the opposite. Even recently in many cases. The dude is a democrat that hates obama, and hates illegals. It's that simple.
-
i have criticized the clintons for a decade on getbig. hilary belongs in prison.
i want to see a 3rd party swoop in and be a better choice than either of these 2 matching democrats. Trump is a democrat. In july 2015, he said we should let the illegals stay after all, then quickly changed his position.
honestly, you can give me ANY Trump position, and I will find a quote where he once said the opposite. Even recently in many cases. The dude is a democrat that hates obama, and hates illegals. It's that simple.
Are you saying you couldn't do the same for Killary or any other politician? Politicians constantly flip flop, yet multiple times a day, you start a thread about Trumps every move.
It's weird how you avoid every Killary move, statement or who/what she's attacking.
-
Are you saying you couldn't do the same for Killary or any other politician? Politicians constantly flip flop, yet multiple times a day, you start a thread about Trumps every move.
It's weird how you avoid every Killary move, statement or who/what she's attacking.
I call for hilary to go to prison. Not sure how I could be more non-supportive. I've said from minute #1 that both her and obama need indicted for Benghazi, and I've said all along that her email felony was an intentional means of hiding her shady ass communications.
Hilary hasn't flipflopped like trump - she's moved from left to mid-left on student loans, little bernie issues... trump had both sides on guns, abortion, wars, min wage, taxes, and a dozen other issues. He's the definition of flip flop.
I call for prison time for her... not sure how that's avoiding attacking her lol.
-
I call for hilary to go to prison. Not sure how I could be more non-supportive. I've said from minute #1 that both her and obama need indicted for Benghazi, and I've said all along that her email felony was an intentional means of hiding her shady ass communications.
Hilary hasn't flipflopped like trump - she's moved from left to mid-left on student loans, little bernie issues... trump had both sides on guns, abortion, wars, min wage, taxes, and a dozen other issues. He's the definition of flip flop.
I call for prison time for her... not sure how that's avoiding attacking her lol.
So call for prison time for Trump so you'll stop posting every time he makes a statement.
And get used to calling him president Trump.
-
So call for prison time for Trump so you'll stop posting every time he makes a statement.
And get used to calling him president Trump.
LOL @ anyone celebrating a Trump win.
He'll negotiate with NKorea, but will have a hard time talking to David Cameron from UK. Oh man, the nation is in trouble.
-
LOL @ anyone celebrating a Trump win.
He'll negotiate with NKorea, but will have a hard time talking to David Cameron from UK. Oh man, the nation is in trouble.
I'll send you an invite. 8)
-
And 8 of them are from 240 about Trump.
Unhealthy obsession I say.
Not unhealthy because he switched to Trump from Palin, showing that he has the ability to let go and move on. ;D
-
Not unhealthy because he switched to Trump from Palin, showing that he has the ability to let go and move on. ;D
LOL at ozmo. You're the "I believe all 911 CTers are crazy, but I also believe many people knew ahead of time and I support a new 911 investigation".
Just come out of the CTer closet. You can't have it both ways lol! Either deepthroat the official story, or say it's shit. You middle-grounders crack me up.
-
LOL at ozmo. You're the "I believe all 911 CTers are crazy, but I also believe many people knew ahead of time and I support a new 911 investigation".
Just come out of the CTer closet. You can't have it both ways lol! Either deepthroat the official story, or say it's shit. You middle-grounders crack me up.
Just ribbing you brother. :)
However, the distinction is clear:
Truthers: Believe the WTC's were pre-wired with explosives, a few think nuked, and a missile hit the pentagon is based on flawed logic, baseless speculation, absence of evidence, false premises, rhetoric, etc.
Other's that support a 9/11 investigation suspect prior knowledge and deliberate decision to do nothing based on baseless speculation and absence of evidence which i freely admit. ;)
-
Other's that support a 9/11 investigation suspect prior knowledge and deliberate decision to do nothing based on baseless speculation and absence of evidence which i freely admit. ;)
Prior knowledge by those whose legal duty it is to protect us? Pretty close to compliance.
Are you chalking it up to incompetence, or do you think people knew and just stepped aside for whatever reason?
The moment it becomes a matter of LIHOP, let it happen on purpose, then you are a conspiracy theorist, my friend :) Sorry, but you are. If US officials had prior knowledge and stepped aside, then they were complicit in the attacks. Particularly those whose job was to stop those threats.
Oz, we've debated for a decade, and it's very clear you believe something stinks about 911. That makes you a 911 truther. Maybe you truly believe that one heat distorted support beam on a far corner of WTC7 led to a symmetrical collapse - totally cool if you believe that - but if you believe anyone in the USA knew and let it happen, then that's a conspiracy, and thus, you be a truther. Maybe you're not a "MIHOP" truther, but you're still a truther.
I see you mocking these truthers on the 911 thread, calling them names because they believe compliance went further than you believe it did. But if you belive a single American knew and didn't act - govt official or whoever - then you're a truther too, baby ;)
-
Prior knowledge by those whose legal duty it is to protect us? Pretty close to compliance.
Are you chalking it up to incompetence, or do you think people knew and just stepped aside for whatever reason?
Don't know.
The moment it becomes a matter of LIHOP, let it happen on purpose, then you are a conspiracy theorist, my friend :) Sorry, but you are. If US officials had prior knowledge and stepped aside, then they were complicit in the attacks. Particularly those whose job was to stop those threats.
I suspect it. But freely admit my suspicions are baseless.
Oz, we've debated for a decade, and it's very clear you believe something stinks about 911. That makes you a 911 truther.
Not at all. There is a big difference which i laid out for you.
Maybe you truly believe that one heat distorted support beam on a far corner of WTC7 led to a symmetrical collapse - totally cool if you believe that
? what the hell is that? lol
- but if you believe anyone in the USA knew and let it happen, then that's a conspiracy, and thus, you be a truther. Maybe you're not a "MIHOP" truther, but you're still a truther.
Truthers generally believe the U.S. government committed the acts of terrorism against itself. I don't believe that nor does the evidence or facts indicate so.
I see you mocking these truthers on the 911 thread, calling them names because they believe compliance went further than you believe it did. But if you belive a single American knew and didn't act - govt official or whoever - then you're a truther too, baby ;)
I am totally mocking these truthers and ridiculing them and making fun of them. I am also laughing my ass off watching them run and squirm and lash out when backed into corner. What's also entertaining is reading the failed arguments and flawed logic used to validate their paranoia.
And just as you are failing to acknowledge the distinction between what i suspect and what they believe, they too fail to acknowledge many distinctions in general regarding the events of 9/11 and especially how their argument fail time and time again.
But the difference is clear. Truther, the generally accepted definition as one being that thinks that hundreds if not thousands in the US government committed this act is not me.
Or since you you seem hell bent on including me in this group as if that will change the ridiculed reality that is a truther, then here's an analogy:
I am related to a truther like I am related to a mentally disabled half-wit 3rd cousin by adoption then marriage who won't shut up about Queen Elizabeth's reptilian ancestry.
-
I suspect it. But freely admit my suspicions are baseless.
Nope. You suspect some in the US stepped aside to let it happen. Other 911 truthers suspect far more nefarious things. But you both suspect the official story isn't true because others were complicit in allowing or assisting the attacks.
You're equating reptilian shit with a different shade of 911 trutherism, while telling us you suspect "some" of what they say (aware but let it happen) is true. So you only believe ONE chapter out of the 10 or 15 that other 911 truthers believe in. That's cool - many are divided in that camp, but they all agree the official story is a lie and the 19 had assistance/enabling here. Just like you do ;)
You don't get to use names like "disgusting fat bastard" to describe people who enjoy 31 Flavors, because you only eat vanilla ice cream. You don't get to call them crazy for thinking WTC7 was a planned demolition, while at the same time thinking it's perfectly sane that some in our govt/military would "step aside" or "just stay quiet" about impending knowledge of a mas murder of US citizens.
Let that sink in, oz. YOU have the CT that elected/military officials allowed brown muslims to murder thousands of NYers. Let that sink in. That's pretty freakin' nuts, isn't it? But comparatively "less" nuts, so you feel you have the moral high ground to shit on those who believe other things about demolished WTC7.
I've seen you debate this topic on getbig for a decade, brother. I know what you believe - and it ain't the official story ;)
-
Nope. You suspect some in the US stepped aside to let it happen. But you both suspect the official story isn't true because others were complicit in allowing or assisting the attacks.
I suspect that freely admitting there is no factual basis for my suspicions
Other 911 truthers suspect far more nefarious things.
Truthers suspect an inside job based on what they think is factual but is in reality bogus, retarded, dumb shit.
Another distinction.
You're equating reptilian shit with a different shade of 911 trutherism, while telling us you suspect "some" of what they say (aware but let it happen) is true. So you only believe ONE chapter out of the 10 or 15 that other 911 truthers believe in. That's cool - many are divided in that camp, but they all agree the official story is a lie and the 19 had assistance/enabling here. Just like you do ;)
Not at all refer to the above distinction.
You don't get to use names like "disgusting fat bastard" to describe people who enjoy 31 Flavors, because you only eat vanilla ice cream.
hehehe
You don't get to call them crazy for thinking WTC7 was a planned demolition,
Yes I do because they cite things like "against the laws of physics, foot print, free fall etc. while ignoring credible science and evidence, eye witnesses and absence of supporting evidence.
again...refer to the above distinction.
while at the same time thinking it's perfectly sane that some in our govt/military would "step aside" or "just stay quiet" about impending knowledge of a mas murder of US citizens.
What would be insane for me is to argue my suspicion, spam the board with amateur youtube vids produced on final cut or premiere pro, be intellectually dishonest, use false premises, loaded questions, flawed logic etc.
again...refer to the above distinction.
Let that sink in, oz. YOU have the CT that elected/military officials allowed brown muslims to murder thousands of NYers.
Brown? that's a bit dramatic of you. :D
Let that sink in. That's pretty freakin' nuts, isn't it? But comparatively "less" nuts, so you feel you have the moral high ground to shit on those who believe other things about demolished WTC7.
I've seen you debate this topic on getbig for a decade, brother. I know what you believe - and it ain't the official story ;)
If the official story was encapsulated in one sentence or 1 issue then your charge might stick, but its not. Its a very big report isn't? that says many things about the many parts of the 9/11 tragedy doesn't it?
again...another distinction.
-
I suspect that freely admitting there is no factual basis for my suspicions
SO it's okay when YOU do it... but when others do it, they're batshite crazy lunatics, right?
Because it's reasonable and cool to suspect the US govt/military stepped aside so Americans could be murdered by the thousands -
BUT it's insane to think these same people would allow explosives to be used?
Like... it's normal to think your own govt allowed planes to hit buildings, but lunacy to believe they'd let bombs be used?
Dude, you're trying to create a distinction to justify your own positions here. Just varying degrees of the same belief ;)
-
SO it's okay when YOU do it... but when others do it, they're batshite crazy lunatics, right?
Because it's reasonable and cool to suspect the US govt/military stepped aside so Americans could be murdered by the thousands -
BUT it's insane to think these same people would allow explosives to be used?
Like... it's normal to think your own govt allowed planes to hit buildings, but lunacy to believe they'd let bombs be used?
Dude, you're trying to create a distinction to justify your own positions here. Just varying degrees of the same belief ;)
Ignoring distinctions again.
Its reasonable for me to say i believe US govt/military stepped aside but freely admit i don't have any thing tangible to back it up.
Its bat shit retarded to say it was an inside job and try and back it up with rubbish (pretend i pasted all the flawed logic, false premise etc. here)
If someone says to me, "you are wrong about US govt/military stepping aside" I can't really say much.
If someone says I believe 9/11 was an inside job, but don't have credible evidence or arguments that supports my belief, there's nothing to ridicule.
I am not trying to justify anything, your attempt to clump me in the same category as a foil hatter is however laughable.
-
i believe US govt/military stepped aside
Let's stop there. OBVIOUSLY, none of us has anything "tangible" to back up any CT, from LIHOP to MIHOP, etc. It's ALL just speculative theories we're discussing. Your "some in govt let it happen" is just as much of a theory as "controlled demolition" - it's just that, a theory, with no proof.
You're moving the argument from "I believe in a lesser version of inside job" into the very sketchy "proof vs supposition vs theories".
I cannot blame you, cause I kinda nailed ya with my position, and there wasn't much for you to argue. You want to make it so tilfoil hatter doesn't equal you. But it does. It absolutely does. I've read your 911 beliefs and arguments for a decade, man, and I"ve read and watched so many things over the years. I have the tarpley books, the 911 omission, etc. I have a freakin history degree too lol, false flags are very common in history, and you know that.
I know you man. You're freakin scared shitless to be a nutter, who can be labeled a truther, a wingnut, a tinfil hatter. So you, and many like you, fall into this ambigious category with "well, maybe a few hundred govt or military people did know, and LET it happen, but that's not the same." Sorry, but it is. They're co-conspirators if their job is to stop attacks and they know, and they allow one. They're just as bad as the 19 idiots with "boxcutters".... and their role on that day was just as important.
You want to agree we've been lied to. You openly agree foreknowledge and LIHOP on govt/mil officials parts. But then you have insulting names for people who believe it goes beyond that. You don't believe in santa, but you are mocking those who don't believe in the easter bunny, bro ;)
-
Let's stop there. OBVIOUSLY, none of us has anything "tangible" to back up any CT,
Not true, CTs have been exposed before. and (what i bolded) is why i don't usually insult you and typically read your theories and predictions with an open mind; for lots of other reasons too. (however, truthers act as if they do, which makes them targets for ridicule IMO)
Your "some in govt let it happen" is just as much of a theory as "controlled demolition" - it's just that, a theory, with no proof.
First nearly sensible thing you have said all day. ;D
You're moving the argument from "I believe in a lesser version of inside job"
Wrong. Its not a greater or lesser version. Its 2 different things. (distinctions) A lesser 9/11 truther CT would be Rumsfeld let the plane hit the pentagon when he could have ordered it shot down but the WTC !-2 were demolished. Or everything happened as reported but flight 93 was shot down.
into the very sketchy "proof vs supposition vs theories".
Wrong again. (paste here all the things i said about CT'er arguments)
I cannot blame you, cause I kinda nailed ya with my position, and there wasn't much for you to argue.
Not much is needed to argue. A classic truther is whacked. (go back to my distinctions, they won't go away no matter how much you want them to)
You want to make it so tilfoil hatter doesn't equal you.
It doesn't because of the distinctions i bought up. (paste here all the things i said about CT'er arguments)
But it does. It absolutely does.
doesn't matter how many times you say it. The distinctions still exist.
I've read your 911 beliefs and arguments for a decade, man, and I"ve read and watched so many things over the years. I have the tarpley books, the 911 omission, etc. I have a freakin history degree too lol, false flags are very common in history, and you know that.
You are suggesting a logical fallacy, that because false flag operations have existed in the past that 9/11 could exist. It only will exist if there is evidence that backs up that loony grand conspiracy theory and there is none.
I know you man. You're freakin scared shitless to be a nutter, who can be labeled a truther, a wingnut, a tinfil hatter.
ROTFLMAO
The only people who could make that mistake are CT'ers trying to bring some credibility to there side by making me one of them. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAH
So you, and many like you, fall into this ambigious category with "well, maybe a few hundred govt or military people did know, and LET it happen, but that's not the same."
And its not the same as (paste here all the things i said about CT'er arguments)
Sorry, but it is.
Sorry you can't tell the difference between: (paste here all the things i said about CT'er arguments and what i said about my suspicions)
They're co-conspirators if their job is to stop attacks and they know, and they allow one. They're just as bad as the 19 idiots with "boxcutters".... and their role on that day was just as important.
Idiots huh? Would say on the level of 19 goat Shepard or would say over half who attended college, 1 or more on a scholarship, a few with degrees?
You want to agree we've been lied to.
It has nothing to do with what i want. Its what is or what isn't NOT (paste here all the things i said about CT'er arguments)
You openly agree foreknowledge and LIHOP on govt/mil officials parts.
Wrong i openly suspect with the understanding that i have nothing to back it up with.
But then you have insulting names for people who believe it goes beyond that.
Again i have insulting things to say about them because (paste here all the things i said about CT'er arguments)
You don't believe in santa, but you are mocking those who don't believe in the easter bunny, bro ;)
In your analogy here the people who believe in the Easter bunny are saying (paste here all the things i said about CT'er arguments) and i am saying (paste everything i said about my suspicions here)
LOL
-
"Wrong. Its not a greater or lesser version. Its 2 different things. (distinctions) A lesser 9/11 truther CT would be Rumsfeld let the plane hit the pentagon when he could have ordered it shot down but the WTC !-2 were demolished. Or everything happened as reported but flight 93 was shot down."
Ozmo, both your version (the govt/military stepped aside so 3000 Americans coudl be killed" and the other version "the govt wired buildings to blow" are part of the same theory that the US govt was complicit in the attacks in some way.
We're just talking about the levels of involvement here. You're a 911 truther - you seek an investigation because you think some people sworn to protect us allowed us to happen. You're trying to exclude yourself from the tinfoil label because they believe some details you do not. There's just as much space between "buildings were wired to explode" and the argument of "nukes/missiles/fakes planes were used". Just as much space, man.
Ozmo, getbigger, you are a 911 truther, and you have been for a decade. You just shit on those who believe the govt was involved in more aspects than you suspect. Their suspicions of cooperation/complicity are different from yours. But they both exist ;)
Just own it. The world mocks those of us who don't see three controlled demolitions that day, but I don't attack you for that. If you see an asymmetrical pancake collapse with appropriate resistance from bending steel fires - that's cool - I am not going to argue that with you. But you're a truther, whether you have the courage to classify it as that or not.
-
"Wrong. Its not a greater or lesser version. Its 2 different things. (distinctions) A lesser 9/11 truther CT would be Rumsfeld let the plane hit the pentagon when he could have ordered it shot down but the WTC !-2 were demolished. Or everything happened as reported but flight 93 was shot down."
Ozmo, both your version (the govt/military stepped aside so 3000 Americans coudl be killed" and the other version "the govt wired buildings to blow" are part of the same theory that the US govt was complicit in the attacks in some way.
We're just talking about the levels of involvement here. You're a 911 truther - you seek an investigation because you think some people sworn to protect us allowed us to happen. You're trying to exclude yourself from the tinfoil label because they believe some details you do not. There's just as much space between "buildings were wired to explode" and the argument of "nukes/missiles/fakes planes were used". Just as much space, man.
Ozmo, getbigger, you are a 911 truther, and you have been for a decade. You just shit on those who believe the govt was involved in more aspects than you suspect. Their suspicions of cooperation/complicity are different from yours. But they both exist ;)
Just own it. The world mocks those of us who don't see three controlled demolitions that day, but I don't attack you for that. If you see an asymmetrical pancake collapse with appropriate resistance from bending steel fires - that's cool - I am not going to argue that with you. But you're a truther, whether you have the courage to classify it as that or not.
I do shit on people who believe the WTC's were demolished and a missile hit the pentagon. I believe they would have been a great addition to the movie "Idiocracy". I think in many ways they define a whole new level of stupid. They will do anything to make sense of what they already believe including taking a already stupid position, like trying trying to equate a person who thinks there may have been prior knowledge with a loony tune who thinks the WTC's were nuked.
And again we are not talking levels of involvement (which i outlined exactly) here. That's another distinction you missed which is very common in Truthers.
-
I do shit on people who believe the WTC's were demolished and a missile hit the pentagon. I believe they would have been a great addition to the movie "Idiocracy". I think in many ways they define a whole new level of stupid. They will do anything to make sense of what they already believe including taking a already stupid position, like trying trying to equate a person who thinks there may have been prior knowledge with a loony tune who thinks the WTC's were nuked.
And again we are not talking levels of involvement (which i outlined exactly) here. That's another distinction you missed which is very common in Truthers.
Yeah. Insults with names. I get it. You believe in santa but you're calling them names - over and over - because they believe in the easter bunny.
Calling names is what "the news" does when pre-mocking a story about 911 or birtherism or whatever. Maybe you can equate it to the holocaust and bring up 'space aliens' and 'tilfoil hatters'.
Only difference is... what you are doing is WORSE because you believe elements of the govt WERE complicit in the events that day... but you want to MOCK those who claim it, because they just happen to believe in greater lvl of involvement.
It's hilarious - you're obvious terrified of being called a 911 truther. So you're playing the fence ;)
-
Yeah. Insults with names. I get it. You believe in santa but you're calling them names - over and over - because they believe in the easter bunny.
Calling names is what "the news" does when pre-mocking a story about 911 or birtherism or whatever. Maybe you can equate it to the holocaust and bring up 'space aliens' and 'tilfoil hatters'.
Only difference is... what you are doing is WORSE because you believe elements of the govt WERE complicit in the events that day... but you want to MOCK those who claim it, because they just happen to believe in greater lvl of involvement.
It's hilarious - you're obvious terrified of being called a 911 truther. So you're playing the fence ;)
why would i be terrified of being called a truther? I am just telling and showing you that you are incorrect.
-
why would i be terrified of being called a truther? I am just telling and showing you that you are incorrect.
Why do you use such rude terms when talking about those who believe explosives were used? Why call them names?
YOU believe the govt let planes be used to kill americans.
THEY believe the govt let bombs be used too.
You want to separate yourself from them, you are mad enough to call them names. Why?
-
Why do you use such rude terms when talking about those who believe explosives were used? Why call them names?
I call it as i see it. They are idiots. A part of the most stupid people on earth.
YOU believe the govt let planes be used to kill americans.
No i suspect it and have no means of proof.
THEY believe the govt let bombs be used too.
what makes them idiots is what they believes is proof.
Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Or are you just bored?
:D
-
I call it as i see it. They are idiots. A part of the most stupid people on earth.
You're LIHOP. They're MIHOP. We're talking about degrees of separation.
ANd the sad part is - you've spent so much time debating that damn single heat-warped support beam from the outer edge of a lower floor of WTC7... you know what that not working means lol... scares the shit out of you. Absolute fear haha.
you're a MIHOPer who publicly bashes them ;)
-
You're LIHOP. They're MIHOP. We're talking about degrees of separation.
we are talking about 2 completely different things about the same event.
ANd the sad part is - you've spent so much time debating that damn single heat-warped support beam from the outer edge of a lower floor of WTC7... you know what that not working means lol... scares the shit out of you. Absolute fear haha.
Wrong again.
you're a MIHOPer who publicly bashes them ;)
MIHOP? what is that again?
-
MIHOP? what is that again?
LOL you've been debating 911 for a decade and don't know what MIHOP is? Come on brah!
-
LOL you've been debating 911 for a decade and don't know what MIHOP is? Come on brah!
You are forcing me to look it up?
-
You are forcing me to look it up?
made is happen on purpose = MIHOP
let it happen on purpose = LIHOP.
You're a LIHOPPER. Which is cousin to MIHOP. You're both CTers that fault the govt/believe they're lying, about 911.
You have to admit the bullshit lies they told BUT you're not ready to accept they'd blow up buildings full of people (only that they'd let planes crash into them).
Question.... oz....
Is it jut the evidence that makes you think no demolitions were used, OR is it your personal belief that "there's no way our own govt would do that to us"?
-
made is happen on purpose = MIHOP
let it happen on purpose = LIHOP.
You're a LIHOPPER. Which is cousin to MIHOP. You're both CTers that fault the govt/believe they're lying, about 911.
You have to admit the bullshit lies they told BUT you're not ready to accept they'd blow up buildings full of people (only that they'd let planes crash into them).
Question.... oz....
Is it jut the evidence that makes you think no demolitions were used, OR is it your personal belief that "there's no way our own govt would do that to us"?
We have been GB friends for 10 years, what do you think?
:)
-
We have been GB friends for 10 years, what do you think?
:)
lol all kidding aside, I dont actually know your position here. You do believe some in the govt would let it happen?
-
So it went ftom 240s obsession with every move Trump makes to 240s obsession with 9/11...lol
-
So it went ftom 240s obsession with every move Trump makes to 240s obsession with 9/11...lol
LOL yeah, that was 2005 that I debated that shit every day. I ignore these threads these days. Everyone believes what they believe.
Ozmo was using really mean names to describe people who think the govt was involved with explosives, while at the same time sharing his belief that he thinks the govt allowed the terrorists to use the planes as weapons. Ya know, only some govt-sanctioned mass-murder is acceptable.
-
lol all kidding aside, I dont actually know your position here. You do believe some in the govt would let it happen?
lol, Evidence and logic, as much as i can.
-
LOL yeah, that was 2005 that I debated that shit every day. I ignore these threads these days. Everyone believes what they believe.
Ozmo was using really mean names to describe people who think the govt was involved with explosives, while at the same time sharing his belief that he thinks the govt allowed the terrorists to use the planes as weapons. Ya know, only some govt-sanctioned mass-murder is acceptable.
Sir spin-a-lot lol