Cindy Sheehan: Also In the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy
Denounced by none other than Comrade Dylan himself.
Update: Okay, if you don't like the VRWC, can we say that Cindy's supporting the Bush Administration's version of the Truth by her silence on the crucial issues of 9-11?
posted by Pat @ 9:05 PM
26 comments
26 Comments:
It's a group of people who realize they have been brainwashed into a bullshit paradigm since birth and are finally waking up... if they ever figure out the reality of the situation...oh boy, look out above.
Actually, there are folks on both left and right (the very extreme ends) who are antiestablishment. The extreme left wants the pure communism, where we all work as one and there's no leaders; the extreme right wants a type of anarchism where each person is self-sufficient.
They're don't transcend the spectrum (which is really more of a circle), they just fall at the ends.
One of the posters said she does it for the attention.
It's scary that I actually agree with this nuts on occasion.
these*
Um, where does Dylan say or suggest she's "also in the vast right-wing conspiracy"?
Roger, I think all of the "right-wingers" in the Truther movement are either a) Libertarians or b) general crackpots or c) both the above.
Now, I will admit that the folks pushing the Mena airport stuff and the Clinton death list were right wingers with the exception of some fringe wackos on the left.
And Pat and James B, care to take the challenge of explaining the missing 757 tail section at the Pentagon?
Um, where does Dylan say or suggest she's "also in the vast right-wing conspiracy"?
How ignorant are you? Hillary Clinton once said there was a vast right-wing conspiracy (as in a Republican system of control in politics/media). What pat and james are doing is mocking that phrase.
a) Libertarians
Hey, we're not all truthers.
And Pat and James B, care to take the challenge of explaining the missing 757 tail section at the Pentagon?
Christ on a cracker, pal, it's a non-point. Get that through your thick skull.
So they are distorting what Dylan said. Isn't exposing distortions one of the reasons this blog got started?
Murdervillage, you are already a fool.
Killtown, it's pretty simple. You're focusing the attention on the wrong area of the Pentagon.
The building was struck lower and to the left of where you claim the hole is. Once you adjust for this and look around for some photos you won't wonder what happened to that tail fin.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Shawn, you are right. I may feel that all Truther "right-wingers" are libertarian or general crackpots, but I certainly do not argue that all libertarians are Truthers. Crackpots maybe.
(That is--all crackpots may be Truthers, not all libertarians are crackpots--sheesh, this generalizing stuff is tough!)
Pat said...Killtown, it's pretty simple. You're focusing the attention on the wrong area of the Pentagon.
The building was struck lower and to the left of where you claim the hole is. Once you adjust for this and look around for some photos you won't wonder what happened to that tail fin.
My claim? You mean the GOVT'S claim. You saying their scale is wrong? If you're saying it hit lower, that would mean the fuselage would hit the ground before the building and go under those two unbroken widows hanging on the 2nd story next to the 2nd story hole.
Like, hey man, PMS!
I mean Peace Mother Sheehan, like, could you see her now in like, Loose Change 66? She can talk about the pods and stuff, if they are still in there, and how those french guys, the Naudet Brothers, and stuff teamed up to get me and Jason, and we could get her to wear a shirt that says 9/11 was a pull it job.
Can you see that? I mean, I'm just asking questions.
Maybe Dylan Avery fails to realize that his joke of a film has no credible sources or facts behind it?
Who's the leader of the cult that's made for you and me?
Avery
Avery
Oh you s-o-b!
But Daddy... I want a golden goose NOW!
Libertarians are for the most part centrist. At least the ones I know are. We generaly beleive in as little government interference as possible, next to no taxes, and maximum liberty. Those are the basics. All the ones I know are however also strongly in favour of social charity - we just don't think it should be organized and controlled by the government.
On the "Right" are Republicans who want to drive this country into catastrophic fiscal ruin with giveaways to the wealthiest and to corporations just because . . . well, just because.
Put down the Bong lady. There's a reason why the economy generaly runs better under Republican leadership. This whole "republicans-are-eeeeevil!" nonsense is getting rather old.
There's no ideological underpinning; its just Republicans competing with each other to be the most irresponsible.
Congratulations, you just accurately described the CT movement!
Or maybe the MSM?
Probably both.
Joan, does it take effort to be as dumb as you?
Libertarians are for the most part centrist.
Technically speaking, we libertarians are reactionary, which places us firmly in the right-wing.
(Reactionary because those of us who are Americans want the old America.)
I guess that depends on how you draw the lines. I deffinitely wouldn't say "firmly right wing", but I definitely tend to lean more to the right than to the left.
Even more so after a few beers :p
You CAN'T be serious. Unemployment and inflation figures are almost always lower under republicans. How is that only better for the rich? I'm thinking the socialist dogma might be swaying your opinions a bit :)
You CAN'T be serious. Unemployment and inflation figures are almost always lower under republicans. How is that only better for the rich? I'm thinking the socialist dogma might be swaying your opinions a bit :)
Apart from the 9/11 conspiracy denouncing, he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.
Granted there were a lot of good things about old America, particularly in the pre-Capitalist era.
Do you know anything of American history? There was no "pre-capitalist" America. And if you didn't have your head shoved so far up your ass you'd know that instead of being the great equalizer, socialism causes more poverty and economic stagnation.
why can't you take into context the history of the Soviet Union, which was at its inception suffered from many disadvantages that didn't exist in places like England or the United States?
It also didn't have any of the advantages. American and England never had massive gulag systems for political dissidents. You weren't shot for speaking out against the head of state. You weren't tortured because you happened to know somebody who knew somebody. The United States, even at her worst, was a joke compared to the Soviet Union.
And what I mean by "old America" is pre-New Deal (which you probably liked, as it was socialist) America - limited government, free markets, rule of law, respect for contracts and individual rights.
Post a Comment
<< Home