Monday, January 10, 2011

Tucson 9/11 Truth Movement Targeted Congresswoman Giffords

Now I am not saying that this was the reason he committed this atrocity, but they certainly have more a connection to the incident than Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman. Hat tip to Alien Entity on JREF.


176 Comments:

At 10 January, 2011 20:27, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Giffords was the first Jewish Congress Woman elected in Arizona. 9/11 Truth targeting her makes total sense.

That guy at the end who said he continue to push for impeachment of Bush AFTER he'd left office is typical of the bafoonery of the troofers.

 
At 10 January, 2011 21:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

There is no time limit on impeachment and since it establishes the precedent for future presidents as to what is acceptable and what it unacceptable behavior, and strips the pension of the impeached offender, it makes perfect sense.

 
At 10 January, 2011 21:42, Blogger James B. said...

That is idiotic. You can't impeach someone who doesn't actually hold any office, it is meaningless. That would like be like the State Bar of Alabama voting to disbar you for being a moron. Yeah, they could probably do it, the case would certainly be easy to prove, but what would it accomplish?

 
At 10 January, 2011 21:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

There is no time limit on impeachment. They can be impeached after they have left office. Doing so will establish the precedent of what is an impeachable offense, and strip the offender of his pension and limit future qualification to serve in public office.

 
At 10 January, 2011 21:55, OpenID jrebori682 said...

Actually, impeachment will not strip a President of his pension.

Conviction by the Senate will.

Bill Clinton was impeached and has his pension.

Read the damned manual, the US Constitution

 
At 10 January, 2011 22:00, Blogger James B. said...

You think Bush is a traitor and was behind the murder of thousands of people, and you think stripping him of his pension is somehow an appropriate punishment?

My God you people are stupid. If you can't even take your own cause seriously, why should we?

 
At 10 January, 2011 22:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

No, stripping him of his pension is just gravy. Establishing the precedent that presidents who trample the US constitution and ignore international law will be impeached and turned over to the Int'l Criminal Court for prosecution as war criminals is the point.

 
At 10 January, 2011 22:16, Blogger James B. said...

Yeah, I am sure that someone who is from Texas, where they execute people every 5 minutes is absolutely terrified over the thought of some Dutch bureaucrat saying really mean things about him.

 
At 10 January, 2011 22:19, Blogger Ian G. said...

Brian, my Uncle Steve and I decided to kick you out of the National Society of Professional Engineers tonight. Take that!

 
At 11 January, 2011 06:37, Blogger ConsDemo said...

No, stripping him of his pension is just gravy.

Sorry but this thread isn't about fantasy crimes that you imagine former President Bush committed but rather a real crime committed by a member of your movement.

Actually, you should be happy, the 9/11 truth movement actually made a difference. How many more people would like you to see dead?

 
At 11 January, 2011 09:06, OpenID jrebori682 said...

Impeachment does not strip a president of his pension.

Bill Clinton still has his.

But to know that snug.bug would have had to read and understand the Constitution.

 
At 11 January, 2011 09:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

CD, Bush didn't commit fantasy crimes. He committed real crimes against the US constitution and international law such as ordering illegal wiretaps, ordering torture, and ordering wars of aggression.

jreb, I understand the Constitition just fine. Clinton didn't lose his pension because he was not convicted. You're just playing word games.

 
At 11 January, 2011 10:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

In the video at 0:48 that's Gabe Zimmerman, who was killed.

It's a tough job being a congressional staffer because most people go into it out of idealism and then they have to deliver nonsense to the constituents that they know is bogus.

I've attended all of the town hall meetings of my local Congresswoman in the last few years. It can be quite instructive to see two meetings in one day, see the same bullshit scripted right down to the "let's put the cards on the table" and "I'm going to be completely frank with you" gestures. The tactics are transparent and the staffers can't miss them.

Ask the Rep what she her position is on public option, and she'll launch into a long discussion of health care and how important it is and what a challenge it is for working people and all she's done to fight for it all these years--and after ten minutes of this few people will notice that when she stops talking she still didn't answer the question. But the staffers know, and the decent ones are totally disgusted.

 
At 11 January, 2011 10:29, Blogger Pat said...

Brian, I see you've added mind-reading to your already formidable skill set.

 
At 11 January, 2011 10:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

And the pragmatic ones probably rationalize it all through party loyal, saying "well, whatever it takes so that pack of lunatics in the other side don't take over and ruin the country!"

 
At 11 January, 2011 10:36, Blogger Ian G. said...

He committed real crimes against the US constitution and international law such as ordering illegal wiretaps, ordering torture, and ordering wars of aggression.

So if he committed real crimes (and I agree with you on that), why do you spend all your time obsessing over fantasy crimes of his?

Saying that Bush is a criminal for torturing people is a serious, legitimate claim. Saying Bush is a criminal for destroying the WTC with magic spray-on thermite is nonsense.

Anyway....

 
At 11 January, 2011 10:41, Blogger Ian G. said...

It's a tough job being a congressional staffer because most people go into it out of idealism and then they have to deliver nonsense to the constituents that they know is bogus.

Says the failed janitor. Does anyone else get the idea that Brian is from an extremely affluent background and yet fucked up every advantage he had and that's why he's so bitter at the world?

I've attended all of the town hall meetings of my local Congresswoman in the last few years.

Of course you have. You have nothing else to do with your life and your an obsessed lunatic. I'd just be careful about stalking her after the Giffords shooting. The FBI might come knock at your door, which apparently didn't happen after you stalked Carol Brouillet.

Ask the Rep what she her position is on public option, and she'll launch into a long discussion of health care and how important it is and what a challenge it is for working people and all she's done to fight for it all these years--and after ten minutes of this few people will notice that when she stops talking she still didn't answer the question. But the staffers know, and the decent ones are totally disgusted.

Brian, you know there's this thing Congress does called "voting" in which you can check to see if your Congresswoman supports or opposes certain policy options. You can use the magic of Google to find out if she indeed supported the public option.

 
At 11 January, 2011 10:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

I never said Bush destroyed the WTC through spray-on thermite. I don't claim to know what happened at the WTC and you shouldn't either. We need new investigations.

But the arguments you guys raise about thermite--that it's too difficult to install, that it can't cut vertically, that it doesn't have enough energy, that somebody would have seen it, that only Keebler elves or attack baboons could have installed it--have all been debunked.

 
At 11 January, 2011 10:44, Blogger Ian G. said...

And the pragmatic ones probably rationalize it all through party loyal, saying "well, whatever it takes so that pack of lunatics in the other side don't take over and ruin the country!"

Uh yeah, pretty much. That's how politics works, Brian. Would I prefer Obama be more in line with the way I think things should be done? Sure. But even if he hasn't been all I wanted, I prefer him to what the GOP has to offer. That's how the republic works.

If you want to live in a country where people of your own mental state run things, you're always free to emigrate to Turkmenistan or Burma or North Korea.

 
At 11 January, 2011 10:47, Blogger Ian G. said...

I never said Bush destroyed the WTC through spray-on thermite.

So all the babbling about spray-on thermite is just a exercise in making yourself look like a deranged lunatic?

I don't claim to know what happened at the WTC and you shouldn't either.

I know what happened. You would too if you learned to read.

We need new investigations.

False.

But the arguments you guys raise about thermite--that it's too difficult to install, that it can't cut vertically, that it doesn't have enough energy, that somebody would have seen it, that only Keebler elves or attack baboons could have installed it--have all been debunked.

HA HA HA HA HA!!! Brian, it's so cute when you try to pretend you've won an argument.

 
At 11 January, 2011 11:16, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

But the arguments you guys raise about thermite--that it's too difficult to install, that it can't cut vertically, that it doesn't have enough energy, that somebody would have seen it, that only Keebler elves or attack baboons could have installed it--have all been debunked.

That's funny Brian, as I recall none of the Hindenburg's steel was melted by the thermite paint that coated it's skin.

Imagine that an airship from the 1930's can destroy your delusions.

 
At 11 January, 2011 12:03, OpenID jrebori682 said...

jreb, I understand the Constitition just fine. Clinton didn't lose his pension because he was not convicted. You're just playing word games.

Pointing out that your claim that impeachment "strips the pension of the impeached president" is factually, demonstrably wrong is hardly a word game. Had you claimed that conviction stripped the pension you would have been right.

Words have meaning, even more so in a legal setting. Such sloppy thinking may explain why so much of the rest of your arguments is consistently disproven here.

 
At 11 January, 2011 12:27, OpenID jrebori682 said...

jreb, I understand the Constitition just fine. Clinton didn't lose his pension because he was not convicted. You're just playing word games.

Pointing out that your claim that impeachment "strips the pension of the impeached offender" is factually and demonstrably wrong is not word games. It is pointing out facts.

Words have meaning, even more so in a legal setting. Sloppy use of them reveals sloppy thinking. Sloppy thinking may explain why so many of your claims are so easily disproven here.

 
At 11 January, 2011 13:18, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

I don't claim to know what happened at the WTC and you shouldn't either.

So because you are ignorant and assume everyone else is as ignorant as you we need a new investigation?

If you didn't understand aerodynamics do we need to investigate airplanes?

Brian the rest of use understand full well how fire can weaken steel, how gravity can cause a building to collapse, the fact you have the mind of a child is of little importance to us, except you want to spend MY tax dollars on an investigation the will say the same thing we are telling you now. Too much money was spent already on you in school so you could become nothing more that a janitor.

The fact you think your argument from personal ignorance is somehow legitimate shows what a fool you are. Why not try and come up with some real facts, or at least a logical argument.

 
At 11 January, 2011 13:31, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"Says the failed janitor. Does anyone else get the idea that Brian is from an extremely affluent background and yet fucked up every advantage he had and that's why he's so bitter at the world?"

Well yeah, if it were not for mom and dad taking care of their poor retarded man/child, Brian would be out on the street and not have a computer to play hero truther with.

 
At 11 January, 2011 13:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

DK I understand enough about lift and drag that I don't need to ask any questions about aircraft, though I'm still somewhat flabbergasted that an Israeli F-16 was able to fly and land after one wing was sheared off in a collision.

I understand just fine that fire can weaken steel and I understand the gravity can bring weakened buildings down. That is childish stuff, as is Dr. Bazant's model of the top block and the bottom block.

What you're not recognizing is that fire can not weaken steel in the perfectly uniform and symmetrical manner necessary to bring the building straight down. Nor can it weaken steel such that it behaves in violation of Newton's First Law or Newton's Third Law or the First Law of Thermodynamics. You're also not recognizing that NIST has no physical evidence to support their claim of weakened steel.

We don't know what caused the molten steel that was testified to by many people, including Leslie Robertson.

I'm not arguing from personal ignorance. I'm arguing from my knowledge of what the report did not cover--items not of personal ignorance but universal ignorance. Nobody knows what we all should know (unless NIST already did tests and pretended that they didn't, because they didn't like the results).

Where do you get the idea that I'm a failed janitor?

 
At 11 January, 2011 13:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, if you believe the WTC fires were supported by massive amounts of hydrogen, you certainly have one of the more creative conspiracy theories out there. Of course the WTC was built more robustly than an airplane, and the steel of the Hindenberg survived the fire.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/investigations/hindenburg/hindenburg10.jpg

But don't let facts get in your way! Have a ball!

 
At 11 January, 2011 13:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

jreb, OK, so he only loses the pension if he's impeached in office. There was nothing sloppy about the thinking. The information was current at the time I learned it in 2007, and became out of date in 2011. Let's all focus on the least important issue, because after all, the whole point is to prove me wrong in some trivial point, right? THAT is sloppy thinking.

 
At 11 January, 2011 14:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

Out of date in 2009. My bad.

 
At 11 January, 2011 14:35, Blogger Ian G. said...

I understand just fine that fire can weaken steel and I understand the gravity can bring weakened buildings down. That is childish stuff, as is Dr. Bazant's model of the top block and the bottom block.

You can say you understand, but apparently you don't.

What you're not recognizing is that fire can not weaken steel in the perfectly uniform and symmetrical manner necessary to bring the building straight down.

See what I mean?

Nor can it weaken steel such that it behaves in violation of Newton's First Law or Newton's Third Law or the First Law of Thermodynamics. You're also not recognizing that NIST has no physical evidence to support their claim of weakened steel.

See what I mean?

I'm not arguing from personal ignorance.

False. You're an ignoramus and a failed janitor.

 
At 11 January, 2011 14:37, Blogger Ian G. said...

WAQo, if you believe the WTC fires were supported by massive amounts of hydrogen, you certainly have one of the more creative conspiracy theories out there. Of course the WTC was built more robustly than an airplane, and the steel of the Hindenberg survived the fire.

More of Brian Good's pointless babbling analogies. Also, the Hindenburg was not an airplane, petgoat. Learn to Google.

jreb, OK, so he only loses the pension if he's impeached in office. There was nothing sloppy about the thinking. The information was current at the time I learned it in 2007, and became out of date in 2011. Let's all focus on the least important issue, because after all, the whole point is to prove me wrong in some trivial point, right? THAT is sloppy thinking.

Brian, nobody has to prove you wrong. Everything you type is just as self-discrediting as we'd expect from a liar failed janitor lunatic sex stalker.

 
At 11 January, 2011 14:39, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Check the videos again, fuck face, they didn't come straight down.

WTC2's upper half pitched forward (with is how it took out the fucking Merriot).

WTC1 came down quckly but left a huge spire of steel which collapsed seperately.

It all happened in one event, but not in the uniform fashon you think that it did.

Oh, and thank you for underscoring mu bafoonery point in my original post.

 
At 11 January, 2011 14:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you can only be convincing to a nine-year old mind. You might want to look into what Marx and Engels and Trotsky had to say about the dangers of recruiting amongst the lumpenproletariat.

 
At 11 January, 2011 14:42, Blogger Alex said...

"DK I understand enough about lift and drag that I don't need to ask any questions about aircraft, though I'm still somewhat flabbergasted that an Israeli F-16 was able to fly and land after one wing was sheared off in a collision."

I'm somewhat flabbergasted that even a person as dimwitted as you could confuse an F-15 for an F-16.

 
At 11 January, 2011 14:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

Mywon,

WTC2 pitched to the E and S. Pray tell, how did that take out the Marriot to the W? You are reawwy a twit.

NIST says it happened in a uniform event. Top block and lower block. You can't get more nursery school physics than that--it's pre-Newton's 3rd Law.

I certainly can't underscore yo bafunnery half as good as you do, Mywun.

 
At 11 January, 2011 14:44, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, you can only be convincing to a nine-year old mind.

My, such squealing! Man, I enjoy smacking down the lunatic sex stalker liar failed janitor who has been banned by the truth movement!

You might want to look into what Marx and Engels and Trotsky had to say about the dangers of recruiting amongst the lumpenproletariat.

I have. Knowing what they said helps me bitch slap you every day.

Now please don't bury this post in your squealing spam, petgoat.

 
At 11 January, 2011 14:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

Alex, well then I no longer need to be baffled, do I?

 
At 11 January, 2011 14:48, Blogger Ian G. said...

WTC2 pitched to the E and S. Pray tell, how did that take out the Marriot to the W? You are reawwy a twit.

Gravity made the tower fall, petgoat. Learn to Google.

NIST says it happened in a uniform event. Top block and lower block. You can't get more nursery school physics than that--it's pre-Newton's 3rd Law.

Nobody cares, petgoat.

 
At 11 January, 2011 14:50, Blogger Alex said...

"Alex, well then I no longer need to be baffled, do I?"

If you understood anything about the lift characteristics of an F-15, no, you wouldn't be. See, this is why you fail in life - you always fuck up the details.

 
At 11 January, 2011 15:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

Alex, lots of people have succeeded in life without understanding the lift characteristics of an F-15. I have noticed that often people possessing arcane knowledge (GutterBall, for a glittery example) over-value that knowledge. I have noticed that irrational people often overgeneralize from particulars, too.

 
At 11 January, 2011 15:03, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Establishing the precedent that presidents who trample the US constitution and ignore international law will be impeached and turned over to the Int'l Criminal Court for prosecution as war criminals is the point."

You do realize, do you not, that you are quite insane?

 
At 11 January, 2011 15:04, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"jreb, I understand the Constitition just fine."

You do realize, do you not, that you are quite insane?

 
At 11 January, 2011 15:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 11 January, 2011 15:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

LL, you do realize, don't you, that your argument is that of an 8-year-old girl?

Which is not to say that your average SLC colleague won't find it compelling.

 
At 11 January, 2011 15:23, Blogger Alex said...

"Alex, lots of people have succeeded in life without understanding the lift characteristics of an F-15."

I see your reading comprehension is still atrocious, borat. It gives me some mild satisfaction to know that no matter how much things may have changed in the last 5 years, you're still the drooling moron you always were. It's nice to have a constant in life.

 
At 11 January, 2011 15:51, Blogger paul w said...

"I'm arguing from my knowledge of what the report did not cover--items not of personal ignorance but universal ignorance. Nobody knows what we all should know (unless NIST already did tests and pretended that they didn't, because they didn't like the results)."

Brian, I know I had a late night, but could you please re-post that in English?

 
At 11 January, 2011 16:29, OpenID jrebori682 said...

jreb, OK, so he only loses the pension if he's impeached in office. There was nothing sloppy about the thinking. The information was current at the time I learned it in 2007, and became out of date in 2011. Let's all focus on the least important issue, because after all, the whole point is to prove me wrong in some trivial point, right? THAT is sloppy thinking.

You really don't understand this at all, do you?

He only loses the pension if, following impeachment, he is convicted by the US Senate. Clinton was impeached in office, the Senate, acting as a jury during a trial presided over by teh US Chief Justice, found him not quilty. Therefore he kept his pension It is NOT impeachment that removes the pension, it is conviction.

Impeacnment is not removal from office. 2 US Presidents have been impeached, no US President has ever been removed from office.

That would be clear to even a cursory review of the Constitution. Article 1, section 3 if you can't find it yourself.

The simple fact is you can't get as plain an item as the difference between impeachment and removal from office clear, even after it has been explained to you. Why should any support be given to your thoughts when a simple reading exercise defeats you?

 
At 11 January, 2011 16:41, OpenID jrebori682 said...

jreb, OK, so he only loses the pension if he's impeached in office. There was nothing sloppy about the thinking. The information was current at the time I learned it in 2007, and became out of date in 2011. Let's all focus on the least important issue, because after all, the whole point is to prove me wrong in some trivial point, right? THAT is sloppy thinking.


Nice how you prove in your first sentence that you did not understand the simple point I was making. Your still false claim that impeachment removes a pension is wrong, was wrong, and was never right no matter when you think you uncovered it. It simply proves your sloppy thinking and word use that invalidates your arguments over and over.

Impeachment does not remove a President from office. 2 US Presidents have been impeached, neither was removed from office. Both finishing their terms.

I know it's a long confusing document so I'll point it out to you, Article 1, Section 3.

Impeachment is the equivalent of indictment, it doesn't carry any more punishment that having to face a trial.

Why would anyone listen to your claims when a simple reading exercise defeats you so badly?

 
At 11 January, 2011 16:46, OpenID jrebori682 said...

jreb, OK, so he only loses the pension if he's impeached in office. There was nothing sloppy about the thinking. The information was current at the time I learned it in 2007, and became out of date in 2011.

So claiming there is no sloppy thinking, you continue the sloppy thinking.

Presidents are not removed from office by impeachment. 2 US presidents were impeached, both went on to complete their terms in office.

Article 1, Section 3 explains it.

Why should anyone put any faith in any claim you make when so simple a reading exercise defeats you?

 
At 11 January, 2011 16:59, Blogger Triterope said...

Presidents are not removed from office by impeachment. 2 US presidents were impeached, both went on to complete their terms in office.

One of whom, of course, was Bill Clinton... whose post-presidential career, public perception, and bank account hardly seem to be suffering.

Brian wants to impeach Dubya and garnishee his pension. Unbelievable.

 
At 11 January, 2011 17:24, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Hey Bwian, check the fourth picture down:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2008/041008_hit_piece.htm

Guess what hit the Marriot? I even picked a nut-job website so you'll feel at home.

Neither building fell straight down. As that Newton law you keep spouting off about took effect the affect was that the steel began to push away from the building, which is why half way down it pulmes out like a mushroom.

Try to be consistant, dipshit.

 
At 11 January, 2011 21:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

Impeachment is the trial process. Conviction results in removal from office. You're still playing with words.

Yes, I want Bush's pension stripped. But trial for war crimes in the Int'l Criminal Court would be a good second best.

Mywon, I know WTC2 rubble creamed the Marriot. If I remember right, Engine 65 was buried under the rubble.

I shouldn't have to remind you that your claim was not that the Marriot was damaged by the WTC, but that it was was damaged because the WTC pitched forward.

The building fell symmetrically, floor by floor by floor. By the time you get half way down, the structure's inability to resist the action made the vertical component of the reaction trivial.
It's in the early stages of collapse that the Third Law limits collapse.

 
At 11 January, 2011 21:23, Blogger Ian G. said...

Yes, I want Bush's pension stripped. But trial for war crimes in the Int'l Criminal Court would be a good second best.

So in Brian's deranged world, it's more important that the scion of a zillionaire family lose his pension than face prosecution for war crimes.

You really are completely insane, Brian. Jesus, you fuck everything up.

The building fell symmetrically, floor by floor by floor. By the time you get half way down, the structure's inability to resist the action made the vertical component of the reaction trivial.
It's in the early stages of collapse that the Third Law limits collapse.


Can someone translated this from Insane into English?

 
At 11 January, 2011 21:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

Don't worry Ian, maybe when you get to third grade you can understand stuff like that.

 
At 11 January, 2011 22:06, OpenID jrebori682 said...

Impeachment is the trial process. Conviction results in removal from office. You're still playing with words.

Wrong again. Impeachment is not the trial process, that occurs after impeachment. Impeachment equates to indictment.

Had you read the document, you would have seen that the House impeachs, the Senate tries. They are therefore, both in time and jurisdiction, different things.

You again prove you can not do basic reading research of a straight forward document.

So far we have proven you did not know what you were talking about, you could not do the research to prove your error even when it was pointed out to you, and finally that you refuse to see or admit your error despite it being spelled out for you.

You have proven fairly solidly that you are totally incompetant to make a logical honest argument.

 
At 11 January, 2011 22:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

And if not, they can hold you back a year. There's no point in you frustrating yourself. Everyone develops at his own pace, and if you seem maybe a bit slow now that doesn't mean you won't catch up later and go on to have a rich, productive life!

 
At 11 January, 2011 22:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

jreb, none of your procedural quibbles have anything to do with the point--the validity of and practicability of impeachment after the guilty party has left office, and the need to do so to establish Bush's offenses as impeachable ones.

 
At 11 January, 2011 22:28, OpenID jrebori682 said...

jreb, none of your procedural quibbles have anything to do with the point--the validity of and practicability of impeachment after the guilty party has left office, and the need to do so to establish Bush's offenses as impeachable ones

No, it has nothing to do with that point.

The point it has to do with is your inability to read a simple document and understand it. That failure and your response to it basically puts paid to any claim you want to make of honesty or simple comprehensive ability.

An honest person would have admitted their error without having to be beaten into submission over it. A person capable of simple reading and comprehension would have realized what they got wrong and not repeated the error after having it pointed out to them.

Basically, you shot your credibility to hell and gone.

 
At 11 January, 2011 22:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

No, basically I declined to get drawn into a debate of irrelevant esoterica--and yes, I declined to read the document because there's no need. I do not claim to be an expert on impeachment. But I know enough to know that impeachment can take place after the criminal leaves office--and you have not refuted that point. Instead you are attacking the messenger on trivial irrelevancies.

 
At 11 January, 2011 22:49, OpenID jrebori682 said...

No, you repeatedly attempted to claim you were right, and continued to make the same wrong claim even after it had been shown to you.

Your admission you didn't even bother to read the couple of paragraphs that would explain it to you further demonstrates you have no interest in truth or facts, but only in defending a position despite it being shown, repeatedly, to be wrong.

As I said, you have proven you have neither credibility, an interest in truth, nor concern for facts

Congratualtions, you proved Ian wrong, you are indeed a truther.

 
At 11 January, 2011 23:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

Jreb, the procedure has nothing to do with the point.

To impeach, according to Webster, means 1 a) to accuse, b) to charge with crime, c) to remove from office.

It was used many times in the c) sense in news articles and it is in no way ignorant to use the term loosely when the distinction between the indictment and the conviction is not germane.

 
At 12 January, 2011 05:08, Blogger Triterope said...

Yes, I want Bush's pension stripped. But trial for war crimes in the Int'l Criminal Court would be a good second best.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.

Thanks, Brian, that's the best laugh I've had in weeks.

 
At 12 January, 2011 06:26, Blogger Ian G. said...

And if not, they can hold you back a year. There's no point in you frustrating yourself. Everyone develops at his own pace, and if you seem maybe a bit slow now that doesn't mean you won't catch up later and go on to have a rich, productive life!

Poor Brian. Life's tough when you're a failed janitor who spends all day babbling about Willie Rodriguez and calling people "girls" on the internet.

No, basically I declined to get drawn into a debate of irrelevant esoterica--and yes, I declined to read the document because there's no need.

You don't know how to read, Brian. You've demonstrated that many times when talking about the NIST report.

But I know enough to know that impeachment can take place after the criminal leaves office--and you have not refuted that point. Instead you are attacking the messenger on trivial irrelevancies.

And here's where Brian digs his heels in rather than conceded error, which is usually where Brian is his most hilarious, like when babbling about smoldering carpets or pyroclastic flows.

To impeach, according to Webster, means 1 a) to accuse, b) to charge with crime, c) to remove from office.

It was used many times in the c) sense in news articles and it is in no way ignorant to use the term loosely when the distinction between the indictment and the conviction is not germane.


False. Brian, you are a liar and an ignoramus.

 
At 12 January, 2011 07:53, OpenID jrebori682 said...

It was used many times in the c) sense in news articles and it is in no way ignorant to use the term loosely when the distinction between the indictment and the conviction is not germane.

Amazing, you still don't get it.

The error did not destroy your credibility. It is indeed a common error. One easily corrected by a simple acknowledgement and restatement of the premise you used it in. We aren't writing professional papers here, a simple mistatement that is caught and corrected promptly hardly damages a person's arguments. What has proven you to be intellectually dishonest and/or lacking in reasoning skills is your reaction to having the error pointed out.

Instead of correcting yourself, instead of looking at the evidence of your error presented, you dug in and insisted you were right.

Your actions, not your error, prove you to be intellectually dishonest or unable to construct a logical argument, or both.

 
At 12 January, 2011 07:59, OpenID jrebori682 said...

It was used many times in the c) sense in news articles and it is in no way ignorant to use the term loosely when the distinction between the indictment and the conviction is not germane.

Amazingly you still don't get it.

We aren't writing professional papers here. We can all make a simple mistake such as you did. If the error is caught and corrected promptly, it does no harm to the person who erred. We are human, and this is usually a first draft we are reading.

Where you failed is in your actions.

When your error was pointed out, by your own admission, you didn't look at the evidence to make sure you were right, you didn't correct it, you dug your heels in and insisted you were right.

Your actions, not your error, prove you to be intellectually dishonest and/or logically incompetant. Your actions prove you to be intellectually dishonest, unable to form a logical argument, or both.

 
At 12 January, 2011 08:17, Blogger Ian G. said...

When your error was pointed out, by your own admission, you didn't look at the evidence to make sure you were right, you didn't correct it, you dug your heels in and insisted you were right.

That's all he ever does. Brian has never, ever conceded the slightest of errors. He's a genius and we're all a bunch of giggling girls for pointing out when he's wrong.

Of course, the rest of the world agrees with us, which is why Brian is incapable of having any normal relationships with other human beings. Normal people, even if they're not the brightest light in the harbor, have friends, families, and jobs.

 
At 12 January, 2011 09:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

jreb, it wasn't a mistake. When you came on the scene claiming baldly "Impeachment does not strip a president of his pension" your misleading statement was technically true only if you define impeachment narrowly as the indictment stage of the proceedings.

When you define it broadly as the entire process of removing someone from office, which newspapers often do, and which was the sense in which I was using the word, your statement was not only false--it was deceptive because it implies that conviction and removal from office does not strip the president's pension. Clearly you are not motivated by a desire for clarity and truth, but by a desire to embarrass me--probably because you were offended by my suggestion that Congress is inhabited largely by corrupt and disgusting political hacks and their staffers know it.

 
At 12 January, 2011 10:06, OpenID jrebori682 said...

Sorry, you were calling for a legal action, the stripping of a President's pension. Therefore it is misleading or ignorant to not use the legal definition of words. You were talking of a narrow legel issue, you are bound to the narrow legal meanings. That you didn't know the right meanings is undestandable, refusing to learn isn't.

You use sloppy thinking, I find that offensive.

You refuse to admit a proven error on your part, I find that dishonest.

You refuse to admit when you hae been shown repeatedly that you have your facts wrong, I find that typiccal of truthers.

Your continued claims that you haven't done what everyone reading this thread can see you did just reinforces that you are a dishonest debater.

And your opinion of politicians is completely irrelevant to your own honesty.

 
At 12 January, 2011 10:16, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, if you believe the WTC fires were supported by massive amounts of hydrogen, you certainly have one of the more creative conspiracy theories out there. Of course the WTC was built more robustly than an airplane, and the steel of the Hindenberg survived the fire.

Brian,

I'm not as stupid as you to compare the WTCs' to the Hindenburg.

You believe that sprayed on thermite brought down the Towers' & melted the steel, but none of the metal components on the Hindenburg was melted by it's thermite coated skin. Hmmm why do you suppose that it's skin didn't cause the metal to melt?

You say that the steel survived the fire, well no shit Sherlock, the fire only lasted 34 seconds when the hydrogen filled bladders ignited until all the hydrogen was gone.

 
At 12 January, 2011 10:17, OpenID jrebori682 said...

You were talking of a stripping a President of his pension. That is a legal issue, you are bound therefore to use the narrow legal meanings of words. It is not deceptive to use words properly, no amount of you spinning will change that.

You used the word incorrectly, in a common error. Making that error is not fatal to an argument. Refusing to admit the error, and modify the claim, is fatal. It shows a lack of concern for truth.

Your continued claims to not have done what anyone who has read this thread can clearly see you did only reinforces that you are dishonest, and uninterested in facts and truth.

Your opinion and mine of politicians in office at the moment is irrelevant to your own dishonesty.

 
At 12 January, 2011 11:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, don't tell me what I believe. You're not even competent to articulate what YOU believe.

Are you still lying about being FDNY, or did you give that up?

 
At 12 January, 2011 11:53, Blogger Ian G. said...

WAQo, don't tell me what I believe. You're not even competent to articulate what YOU believe.

You believe the Bush administration was responsible for 9/11. You've been babbling about it for years. You believe this because you think it will redeem the abysmal failure that has been your life.

Also, I wouldn't term what WAQ thinks about 9/11 "beliefs". They're simply common knowledge based on indisputable facts. Stating that al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11 and that the towers collapsed because of the impact of 767s and subsequent fires is no more a "belief" than it's a "belief" that the earth is round.

 
At 12 January, 2011 12:05, OpenID jrebori682 said...

snug, despite your spin, it is neither deceptive, nor misleading to use words in their proper sense when making an argument about a legal issue.

Had you simply made the error, and when corrected admitted the error and restated your argument, you wouldn't be exposed now as intellectually dishonest or unskilled.

Continuing to deny what anyone who has read the thread can plainly see, that you refuse to admit or even read the evidence offered concerning your error, simply reinforces that fact.

Your or my opinion of politicians currently in office has no relevancy to your own dishonesty.

 
At 12 January, 2011 15:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, the Bush administration was responsible for 9/11. They ignored warnings from Hart and Rudman, Richard Clarke, 13 foreign countries, three FBI offices, and the CIA.

reb, It is deceptive to use words in their narrow technical sense to deny a fact that is true in the broader sense. The impeachment process when carried to completion does strip an offender of his pension. That was the point, and you chose to quibble about the word because you could not refute the substantive issue.

It was not an error to use "impeachment" to mean the process by which corrupt officials are removed from office. That is the way it is most commonly used in newspapers.

 
At 12 January, 2011 15:26, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"snug.bug said...
No, basically I declined to get drawn into a debate of irrelevant esoterica"

You do know, do you not, that you are quite insane?

 
At 12 January, 2011 15:29, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Everybody ignored Richard Clarke. They still ignore him today when he points out that Terry Nichols had bomb training in the Philippines at the same place that Ramzi Yousef.

So if we are listening to Mr. Clarke then the OKC bombing has a link to Al Qaeda. Do you want to go down that road, Brain? I'm game.

Then again Richard Clarke was the guy who sent Task Force Ranger to Somalia in 1993 without asking the DoD if it was a good idea. He then blamed THEM for the 10/3/93 raid even though it was his office that was putting unrealistic pressure on them to capture their target.

The US government ignored middle eastern terror going all the way back to Sirhan Sirhan That means that LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton were all negligent on terror.

I would also point out that whenever the government tried to get serious about terror the ACLU and various ethnic political action groups stepped forward with lawsuits. AFTER 9/11 when the government created the DHS and passed the Patriot Act the troofer-types went apeshit.

How many warnings have crossed the news wire since 9/11? How many times were those warning called "False Flag" maneuvers?

All of them...by peoplelike you, Brian.

 
At 12 January, 2011 15:29, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Your actions, not your error, prove you to be intellectually dishonest and/or logically incompetant. Your actions prove you to be intellectually dishonest, unable to form a logical argument, or both."

Try this:

Your actions prove that you are insane.

 
At 12 January, 2011 15:30, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"your misleading statement was technically true only if you define impeachment narrowly as the indictment stage of the proceedings."

Impeachment is the indictment stage of the proceedings.

 
At 12 January, 2011 15:31, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"When you define it broadly as the entire process of removing someone from office"

...you are wrong.

 
At 12 January, 2011 15:37, OpenID jrebori682 said...

reb, It is deceptive to use words in their narrow technical sense to deny a fact that is true in the broader sense. The impeachment process when carried to completion does strip an offender of his pension.


False, the impeachment process when followed to it's conclusion results in a trial in the US Senate. Your continuing to claiming otherwise simply proves a refusal to be honest. Why am I not shocked a truther has no regard fo truth?

It was not an error to use "impeachment" to mean the process by which corrupt officials are removed from office. That is the way it is most commonly used in newspapers.

Wrong twice. Once in believing the meaning of the legal term impeachment is the removal from office, and again to think newspapers are the arbiters of the English language on a legal issue.

 
At 12 January, 2011 15:50, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, the Bush administration was responsible for 9/11. They ignored warnings from Hart and Rudman, Richard Clarke, 13 foreign countries, three FBI offices, and the CIA.

Um....no. The guys who flew the planes into the towers were responsible for 9/11, as were those who aided and abetted their actions.

The Bush administration, through carelessness or incompetence, may have made 9/11 easier to accomplish, but that doesn't make them responsible. If you want to hit them politically for it, fine. But I don't think you're going to get criminal charges on them over 9/11.

Plus, as you've previously pointed out, there are serious charges one could go after the Bush administration with, but you, being a liar and lunatic, would prefer to go after imaginary crimes. And you wonder why nobody, even leftists who despise Bush, take truthers seriously.

 
At 12 January, 2011 16:54, Blogger Triterope said...

It was not an error to use "impeachment" to mean the process by which corrupt officials are removed from office. That is the way it is most commonly used in newspapers.

Brian, was your head plugged in during the 1990s? Kenneth Starr, Whitewater, Bill Clinton, any of that ring a bell? It's not like impeachment vs. removal from office is an obscure, long-forgotten distinction.

 
At 12 January, 2011 17:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

M Greg, do you or do you not deny that Terry Nichols trained in the same village where Ramsi Yousef had been? It's not just Clarke, it's Peter Lance as well.

9/11 happened on Bush's watch because he ignored dire warnings--and ignored them after the 1993 bomb, the Cole, the LAX Milennial bomber, and the embassies. Clarke had a plan to go after al Qaeda. Bush ignored it. They didn't need the Patriot Act to prevent 9/11. All they needed was to track the known al Qaeda in the USA, and notice when they bought 10 airline tickets for 9/11.

jreb, OK, thanks for clarifying that the way WaPo or the NYT uses "impeachment" is out of bounds. Gosh I sure do apologize for using them as a model.

Ian, the Bush Administration aided the actions of the hijackers by ignoring warnings of what they were about to do.

TR, quibbling about the word "impeachment" is like coming down on someone for using the word "motorist" when everyone knows that you can't drive a motor and you have to call them an "automobilist".

 
At 12 January, 2011 17:41, OpenID jrebori682 said...

It isn't that you misused the word, it is your repeated refusal to correct a proven mistake.

It is clear why you remain a truther even at theis late date. You are unable to adjust your thinking to the proven facts, you want them to adjust to your thinking.

By the way, it isn't like using motorist to refer to a person driving an automobile. It is like using motorist to refer to a pedestrian. Impeachment is not removal from office. Your denial of obvious facts will not alter that. It merely demonstrates that you have no intellectual honesty.

 
At 12 January, 2011 17:48, Blogger Triterope said...

TR, quibbling about the word "impeachment" is like coming down on someone for using the word "motorist" when everyone knows that you can't drive a motor and you have to call them an "automobilist".

No. That is not correct.

 
At 12 January, 2011 18:03, Blogger Ian G. said...

9/11 happened on Bush's watch because he ignored dire warnings--and ignored them after the 1993 bomb, the Cole, the LAX Milennial bomber, and the embassies. Clarke had a plan to go after al Qaeda. Bush ignored it. They didn't need the Patriot Act to prevent 9/11. All they needed was to track the known al Qaeda in the USA, and notice when they bought 10 airline tickets for 9/11.

Hey Brian, if al Qaeda was responsible, as you seem to think based on this, why all the babbling about smoldering carpets and spray-on thermite?

Ian, the Bush Administration aided the actions of the hijackers by ignoring warnings of what they were about to do.

Depends on how you define "aided". I don't believe there was any conscious decision to help al Qaeda. If you have evidence that the Bush administration let it happen deliberately, please present it.

 
At 12 January, 2011 18:24, Blogger 911TNLZ said...

" James B. said...

That is idiotic. You can't impeach someone who doesn't actually hold any office, it is meaningless. That would like be like the State Bar of Alabama voting to disbar you for being a moron. Yeah, they could probably do it, the case would certainly be easy to prove, but what would it accomplish?"

LOL. He never admits he was wrong. Got something in common with Aldo Marquis there:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDNeiaAaD6I

 
At 12 January, 2011 18:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

Impeachment is removal from office, Webster's says so. I didn't refuse to admit that you had a point--based on your narrow construction of the word. What I refused to concede is the fact that it's not relevant, and that your attempt to finesse away the point that impeachment strips pensions is dishonest.

Ian, I know the concept of needing believable government investigations escapes you. "Whatever, man" is good enough for you.

The evidence that the Bush Administration aided the al Qaeda attacks are that they ignored warnings forecasting them, and that NORAD failed to intercept any of the hijacked airliners.

 
At 12 January, 2011 18:44, OpenID jrebori682 said...

When you make legal claims like "impeachment strips pensions" you are bound to use the legal meaning of the words. That definition is not in newspapers or Webster's. It is in the US Constitution, the document you admitted refusing to look it up in.

You remain wrong, not so surprising from a truther.

P.S. since it seems to have escaped you, I've taken no position on an impeachment of President Bush, I'm pointing out the stereotypical truther aversion to facts and honesty you have been displaying.

 
At 12 January, 2011 20:13, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, I know the concept of needing believable government investigations escapes you. "Whatever, man" is good enough for you.

We had them, petgoat. The government has better things to do than address the concerns of a failed janitor who doesn't accept what the investigations said because he is an ignorant lunatic.

The evidence that the Bush Administration aided the al Qaeda attacks are that they ignored warnings forecasting them, and that NORAD failed to intercept any of the hijacked airliners.

Right, like I said, no evidence that they deliberately aided al Qaeda.

You can't possibly be this stupid, can you? Oh wait, you're the one pretending that you're not petgoat, that you didn't stalk Carol Brouillet, and that you weren't thrown out of the truth movement. Yes, you really are that stupid.

 
At 12 January, 2011 20:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Ian,

The goat molester is a lonely, attention starved little man-child with no life, family, education or future.

To call him pathetic is a compliment.

 
At 12 January, 2011 21:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

We have not had had credible, honest, complete investigations Ian.

You can claim that we have only by lying egregiously.

 
At 12 January, 2011 21:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

Impeachment causes loss of pension:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/clinton/clin900.htm

 
At 12 January, 2011 21:48, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Well goat molester, now that you've managed to drag another thread completely off-topic, I suppose you can pat yourself on the back and congratulate yourself for another job well done.

Hurry goat molester there are three new posts you have yet to completely derail--you percy pants felcher.

 
At 12 January, 2011 22:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't dwag it off topic. Mywon Gwegowy Fawwis dwagged it off topic with an ignowant wemawk about impeachment in the first post in the thwead.

Then jreb comes in with his stupid hair on the ass of a mite on a flea in a rat's ear about impeachment being limited to indictment.

I didn't drag it anywhere. What evidence do you have that I molest goats?

 
At 13 January, 2011 06:01, Blogger Ian G. said...

We have not had had credible, honest, complete investigations Ian.

We've had one. Also, this is completely moot since we will never have another investigation. Did you hear that, Brian? WE WILL NEVER HAVE ANOTHER INVESTIGATION! Your "widows" will have to sob themselves to sleep every night. HA HA HA HA HA!!!

You can claim that we have only by lying egregiously.

False. You're an obsessed lunatic, Brian.

Impeachment causes loss of pension:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/clinton/clin900.htm


Nobody cares.

 
At 13 January, 2011 08:58, OpenID jrebori682 said...

Impeachment causes loss of pension:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/clinton/clin900.htm


Unlike your refusal to read the Constitution, I go and read presented evidence.

The first paragraph proves my case, and disproves yours

"If the impeachment case against President Clinton led to conviction in a Senate trial, Clinton would lose far more than his job."

The conviction removes the pension, not the impeachment.

You simply are unable to admit you made a mistake, aren't you? You'll lie and misrepresent facts to try to hide it. Pathetic.

 
At 13 January, 2011 09:05, OpenID jrebori682 said...

Then jreb comes in with his stupid hair on the ass of a mite on a flea in a rat's ear about impeachment being limited to indictment.

So actually getting your facts correct is to you a "stupid hair on the ass of a mite on a flea in a rat's ear".

Certainly explains how you can still be a truther all these years later.

 
At 13 January, 2011 09:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

jreb, what you seem to be missing is the fact that the process of removing someone from office is called impeachment.

When someone is removed from office by that process, they lose their pension. That's what I said, and that's what you tried to cover up.

 
At 13 January, 2011 09:54, Blogger Ian G. said...

jreb, what you seem to be missing is the fact that the process of removing someone from office is called impeachment.

Nobody cares. You are a liar who babbles about phony "widows" all day.

 
At 13 January, 2011 10:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, it's you that babbles. Do you deny that Kristen Breitweiser, Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg and Patty Casazza are widows? What, in your view, makes them phony? Don't you think it's kind of ugly of you to bash the victims of 9/11?

 
At 13 January, 2011 10:15, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, it's you that babbles. Do you deny that Kristen Breitweiser, Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg and Patty Casazza are widows? What, in your view, makes them phony? Don't you think it's kind of ugly of you to bash the victims of 9/11?

Well, let's start with the basics: what if the WTC towers never existed? If they didn't exist, how could their husbands die in the towers?

Certainly, one could reason that these woman were in on the 9/11 plot and used it to murder their husbands so they could receive payouts from the government and insurance companies while also becoming media stars.

And you, Brian, fool that you are, fell for it hook, line and sinker.

 
At 13 January, 2011 10:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Goat molester--you ignorant slut.

A widow--you deranged liar--is not a "victim." A widow--by definition--is a survivor.

 
At 13 January, 2011 11:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, it's not reasoning to suppose that the widows were "in on the plot" or that the towers didn't exist. It's evidence-free speculation.

GutterBall, I'm quite confident that your widow would not be a victim. If my spouse had died in the towers, I would consider myself a victim. If somebody steals my car, am I not a crime victim? If somebody poisons my dog, am I not a crime victim? If somebody kills my wife, I am still a crime victim.

 
At 13 January, 2011 11:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

There is no contradiction between victimhood and survivorship. A victim is someone who has suffered an injury.

 
At 13 January, 2011 11:21, OpenID jrebori682 said...

The word impeachment has a specific legal meaning as defined in the law, that law being the US Constitution, which you admitted refusing to read to check the meaning. That you want to use, nonlegal meanings of a word in a legal context simply proves you are not interested in truth. Near as I can tell, that makes you a stereotypical truther.

Last thing truthers care about is accuracy and truth.

 
At 13 January, 2011 11:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

Since newspapers use the word in the manner in which I use it, you are obviously just litigating over semantics. And in doing so you made the very deceptive and untrue claim that impeachment does not strip pensions. You are just trying to play gotcha, and you're not very good at it.

 
At 13 January, 2011 11:35, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, it's not reasoning to suppose that the widows were "in on the plot" or that the towers didn't exist. It's evidence-free speculation.

Brian, can you name a single independent engineer who believes the towers existed? All I'm asking for is for you to present some evidence that the towers existed.

Remember, Fetzer, et. al. suggested that holograms could have been used to fake the airplanes. It's reasonable to conclude that the towers were faked in such as way as well. We need to investigate why these "widows" are pretending their husbands died in buildings that did not exist.

 
At 13 January, 2011 11:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, maybe an 8-year-old girl would think that's cute.

 
At 13 January, 2011 11:50, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, maybe an 8-year-old girl would think that's cute.

Brian, I don't know who you think you're fooling when you try to dodge my questions by burying them in squealing spam.

 
At 13 January, 2011 12:30, OpenID jrebori682 said...

I'm sorry, are you under the very odd delusion that in a legal matter, such as impeachment, newspapers trump the US Constitution?

See, all you had to do was say, oh right, well I meant if he is convicted after impeachment, and all this would have been moot. But you don't have the honestly to admit a minor error. You lie and spin to try to force facts to fit your theory.

You are the quintessential truther. Uninterested in honesty and truth, only your own false beliefs.

 
At 13 January, 2011 12:36, OpenID jrebori682 said...

And in case you missed it, your own source, the USAToday, one of those authoritative newspapers, pointed out it was the conviction, not the impeachment that removes the pension.

You are wrong, you remain wrong, and you simply aren't honest enough to admit it.


Itisn't the fact of impeachment vs. conviction that matters here. It is your unwillingness to be honest.

 
At 13 January, 2011 12:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

My beliefs were not false. That's just the point. My beliefs that impeachment strips pensions and that it can be done after a person has left office are true.

 
At 13 January, 2011 13:13, Blogger Ian G. said...

My beliefs were not false. That's just the point. My beliefs that impeachment strips pensions and that it can be done after a person has left office are true.

Brian, have I ever told you how bad of a liar you are?

 
At 13 January, 2011 13:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

Maybe I suppose it's natural for someone seeking evidence that I'm lying to conclude in frustration, that I'm bad at it, because telling the truth is a sure bet way to fail at lying.

 
At 13 January, 2011 13:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

I'm also really bad at robbing liquor stores, in case you haven't noticed. Too lazy.

 
At 13 January, 2011 13:35, Blogger Ian G. said...

Maybe I suppose it's natural for someone seeking evidence that I'm lying to conclude in frustration, that I'm bad at it, because telling the truth is a sure bet way to fail at lying.

I forgot that I'm dealing with such an abysmal intellect as Brian here, so I'll spell it out: you're a terrible liar because when you lie, it's obvious that you're lying. I mean, everyone on earth knows you stalked Carol Brouillet. It takes a 5 second Google search to figure this out, and yet you still deny it.

That's what I mean about you being a terrible liar. You lie and lie and lie and every lie is obviously a lie.

Maybe I should start referring to you as a failed liar and a failed truther just as you're a failed janitor?

Also, do you plan on naming an independent engineer who believes the WTC towers existed?

 
At 13 January, 2011 13:54, OpenID jrebori682 said...

No, your beliefs are wrong, as even your own "evidence" of a USAToday article shows.

It is in fact your inability to adjust your erroneous beliefs in the light of repeatedly presented proof to the contrary that is the point.

You are proving that you are not interested in facts and truth, only in propping up your solidly disproven claims.

 
At 13 January, 2011 14:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

The USA Today article says "If the impeachment case against President Clinton led to conviction in a Senate trial, Clinton would lose far more than his job. Under a 1958 law, Clinton would lose his $151,800 annual pension."

I didn't drag the Constitution into it. You did. I said impeachment means loss of pension. It does.

 
At 13 January, 2011 14:41, Blogger Ian G. said...

The USA Today article says "If the impeachment case against President Clinton led to conviction in a Senate trial, Clinton would lose far more than his job. Under a 1958 law, Clinton would lose his $151,800 annual pension."

Directly contradicts this:

I said impeachment means loss of pension. It does.

Brian, can you stop babbling about impeachment and talk about something you're more of an expert on? For example, I counted the number of unanswered questions from your "widows" and found only 248. You said there were 273. What gives?

 
At 13 January, 2011 15:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

It says impeachment, which means removal of an offender from offices, would result in loss of pension. That's what I said, and that is true.

reb's claim, based on semantical lawyering, that impeachment would not result in loss of pension was deceptive and untrue.

 
At 13 January, 2011 16:03, OpenID jrebori682 said...

You lie.

It clearly states that the conviction, not the impeachment leads to the removal from office.

Are you not only dishonest but illiterate?

I dragged in the US Constitution because on issues of law and the Federal government, it is the ruling authority. Not the editors of USAToday.

 
At 13 January, 2011 16:49, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Guys, the goat molester will never admit that he's wrong.

After all, he's a psychopath.

You may as well argue with a wall.

 
At 13 January, 2011 17:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

jreb, the newspaper definition of impeachment covers the entire process of removal from office. Your attempt to lawyer the semantics was motivated simply by the wish to embarrass me, and you failed.

I'll admit when I'm wrong--but only when I'm wrong.

 
At 13 January, 2011 17:40, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 13 January, 2011 17:43, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat molester bald-faced lies, "...I'll admit when I'm wrong--but only when I'm wrong."

No, you do nothing of the sort.

You dig your heels in and lie, spin, obfuscate and misdirect with abandon. You're an habitual liar--a psychopath to be precise--who would make Satan blush.

 
At 13 January, 2011 18:20, OpenID jrebori682 said...

jreb, the newspaper definition of impeachment covers the entire process of removal from office.

However newspapers are the judges of neither the legal meaning of words nor the results of legal processes, so it doesn't make their use of the word correct. Try using better references for what things mean.

Your attempt to lawyer the semantics was motivated simply by the wish to embarrass me, and you failed.

My motive was to crrect a simple error on your part. When you lied and refused to admit yoru error repeatedly, it became to poke enough to let you expose yourself as intellectually dishonest. You did that superbly.

I'll admit when I'm wrong--but only when I'm wrong.

You are wrong, you have been proven wrong even by your own "evidence" and yet you still refuse to admit it.

You are a liar.

 
At 13 January, 2011 23:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

Look at yourself, jreb, saying the newspapers are wrong.

 
At 14 January, 2011 06:30, OpenID jrebori682 said...

A) I didn't say that newpapers are wrong, I said they don't have the final say on the meaning of words.

B) They are frequently wrong. It is why Phil Graham, one time owner of the Washington Post, called them the "first rough draft of history" and not the "final draft of history", and the reason all newspapers routinely print retractions and corrections of earlier stories.

I mean, you didn't actually think newspapers have the final say in anything past their ad and newstand prices, did you?

Certainly even a truther is too smart to think that.

 
At 14 January, 2011 09:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

The fact remains that what I said, that impeachment strips pensions, is the truth. And you in your lawyerly hair splitting denied that truth. It's a good thing you're not a doctor--you could hurt somebody!

 
At 14 January, 2011 10:20, Blogger Triterope said...

This is the quintessential Brian Good thread.

1. He starts from a laughably stupid position (the former president should be impeached);

2. He makes it even stupider (by suggesting that the loss of a presidential pension would somehow punish the incredibly wealthy Bush clan);

3. He makes it even stupider than that (by calling an international trial for war crimes "a good second best" to stripping GWB's $10 million net worth of a $200,000 pension);

4. He his told that his own stupid argument, even if it wasn't stupid, is still wrong (impeachment does not strip pension);

5. He desperately Googles for something he thinks will support his point (the USA Today article);

6. He is told his own link doesn't support his point (which it doesn't);

7. He is shown what definitively addresses the issue (the Constitution, though the Former Presidents Act would have been a better answer, IMO);

8. He tries to buttress his point by inventing a new kind of proof called a "newspaper definition"
(There's no such thing, and if there were, it wouldn't be used in place of a confirmable fact);

9. While all this is going on, he continually betrays his ignorance about a distinction that pretty much every American understands (impeachment vs. removal from office);

10. He fails to acknowledge myriad other problems with his original stupid point (Bill Clinton appears not to have suffered in any way from being impeached).

11. He continues to flatly assert his correctness no matter how many times he is shown to be wrong.

Sure, he hasn't mentioned Willie Rodriguez or Kevin Barrett or called anybody "girls" or dragged out his tired list of questions. But when it comes to Brian Good's... shall we say, "unique" thought process, this thread hits all the notes.

 
At 14 January, 2011 11:20, Blogger Triterope said...

The fact remains that what I said, that impeachment strips pensions, is the truth.

No, it is not. The law itself says so.

the newspaper definition of impeachment

There is no such thing as a "newspaper definition."

 
At 14 January, 2011 11:22, OpenID jrebori682 said...

You are still lying.

The fact is that impeachment does not strip pensions, as has been repeatedly shown, even by your own evidence.

What has been shown to be a fact is you were wrong, refused to look at the presented evidence of your error and continue to lie about it.

You are a fine example of the truther movement.

Thank you for demonstrating so resoundingly the uselessness of another investigation. You clearly would simply refuse to accept it's findings just as you refuse to accept the clear evidence of your errors here.

 
At 14 January, 2011 11:29, OpenID jrebori682 said...

the newspaper definition of impeachment

This might be the root of your problem.

In about the 4th grade my whole class was taken to the library for lectures on basic research. Among other things, we learned that dictionaries carry definitions, not newspapers. Later in life, high school I believe, I learned that dictionaries are also not automatically correct in matters of law, and that it is the law itelf that provides those definitions.

 
At 14 January, 2011 12:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

I was not rendering a legal opinion, I was simply reporting a fact. Successful impeachment, that is, the successful removal of a miscreant from office through the impeachment process, strips the miscreant of his pension. Your invocation of the constitution as your legal text is irrelevant, because the basis for loss of pension is a 1958 law, not the constitution.

A Senate reference resource tells us: "A President who is removed from office by impeachment forfeits his pension and related benefits."

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/98-249.pdf

 
At 14 January, 2011 13:23, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Sweet Jeezus! Now the slimy goat molester is braying about "hair splitting."

What hypocrisy.

 
At 14 January, 2011 13:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

It is not just hairsplitting--it is deceptive sophistry to claim that impeachment does not strip the perp of his pension.

 
At 14 January, 2011 13:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

Also, I have never molested a slimy goat. I don't think I've ever even seen a slimy goat.

 
At 14 January, 2011 14:14, Blogger Triterope said...

"A President who is removed from office by impeachment forfeits his pension and related benefits."

There, Brian, I highlighted the important words for you.

 
At 14 January, 2011 14:50, OpenID jrebori682 said...

As shown repeatedly, impeachment does not remove from office, that is accomplished by conviction in a trial by the US Senate.

And I'm utterly astonished to have to point out to any US citizen that the US Constitution is the ultimate law of the land and no other US law, by definition, supercedes it.

If a 1958 law says impeachment removes the pension (it doesn't say that, by the way) the Constitution would still trump it.

Are you simply unable to get it right?

 
At 14 January, 2011 14:52, Blogger Ian G. said...

It is not just hairsplitting--it is deceptive sophistry to claim that impeachment does not strip the perp of his pension.

The best part about Brian is his inability to ever, EVER concede error. He just digs his heels in and babbles away pointlessly. It's hilarious.

Anyway, Brian, you're a liar and lunatic who doesn't know the meaning of "impeachment".

 
At 14 January, 2011 15:55, Blogger paul w said...

Brian, you're getting your ass whipped, again...in every forum you are in.
I was going to add, 'seek professional help', but I think these forums are it.
Where do I send the invoice?

 
At 14 January, 2011 17:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

paulie, the day I let you tell me when I'm getting my ass whipped, I might as well just swim out to sea.

 
At 14 January, 2011 20:33, Blogger paul w said...

Well, I'm standing here on the beach, and I can juuuuuust see you.
Must be getting pretty deep out there.

 
At 14 January, 2011 20:34, Blogger paul w said...

Brian, please don't call me paulie.
Far too informal, thank you.

 
At 15 January, 2011 00:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

paulie, if you can see me I'm not swimming out to sea.

 
At 15 January, 2011 07:48, Blogger Ian G. said...

Poor Brian, not only is he being pwn3d for being a liar and sex stalker, but he's an obsessed lunatic and can't stop babbling, and thus he keeps digging the hole bigger and bigger.

Brian, have you looked into the possibility that your "widows" were in on the 9/11 conspiracy yet?

 
At 15 January, 2011 12:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I don't waste my time on evidence-free conspiracy theories. You go right ahead.

 
At 15 January, 2011 15:08, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, I don't waste my time on evidence-free conspiracy theories.

So you've given up on the "truth" nonsense? Good!

 
At 15 January, 2011 16:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

I can always count on you for an evidence-free assertion and/or a logic-free conclusion.

 
At 16 January, 2011 07:40, Blogger Ian G. said...

I can always count on you for an evidence-free assertion and/or a logic-free conclusion.

Squeal, squeal, squeal!

Poor Brian, he knows he has no evidence against the theory that the widows were in on the murder of their husbands, and he's desperately trying to hide it.

 
At 16 January, 2011 10:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, the evidence against it is the fact that you have no evidence for it.

You may be dazzling yourself with that you believe to be your cleverness, but you're not dazzling anybody else.

 
At 16 January, 2011 11:20, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, the evidence against it is the fact that you have no evidence for it.

Um, so what? You have no evidence of thermite, explosives, small fires, molten steel, free-fall speed, or superheated dust, but yet you babble about it endlessly, expecting us to take you seriously.

If we're playing by the "truther" rules of evidence, in which some babbling liar of a failed janitor can use the senile musings of a former physics professor as evidence, then you have to take seriously my evidence that the widows were in on it.

 
At 16 January, 2011 13:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, there is evidence of thermite, explosives, small fires, molten steel, free-fall speed, and superheated dust.

I'm not going to repeat the litany for you again.

I asked you to provide photos backing up your claim that there were massive fires at the time the molten metal poured out of WTC2. You never provided them. I suspect that when you looked into it, you found that the photographic evidence shows that the "massive fires" were over within ten minutes as the jet fuel burned off.

 
At 16 January, 2011 17:16, Blogger paul w said...

"I suspect that when you looked into it, you found that the photographic evidence shows that the "massive fires" were over within ten minutes as the jet fuel burned off."

Stop the bullshit, Brian.

I provided you with a link that showed many photos of the massive fires that engulfed many floors of the towers.

You refused to look, complaining that your internet service was crap.

In other words, you did exactly what all truthers do: ask for proof, then find some excuse to ignore it.

Why? Because your self-belief is so tightly wrapped up in the fantasy world of
trutherism that any criticism, no matter how minor, has to be avoided at all costs.

Why? Because truthers like you see themselves as highly intelligent, heroic men superior to the average person (the sheeple), who are fighting evil doers who want to rule the world

In other words, supermen.

Yes, it's a comic-book worldview, something to give your lives meaning, and it's all due to a massive inferiority complex.

The problem is that ANY suggestion that proves, or even hints, you are not the people you think you are, is such a powerful threat that avoidance is the only alternative.

We all do it, to a certain degree, but as the saying goes, some more than others...

In this case, you, and the other truthers, are the 'others', Brian.

Now, fuck off.

 
At 16 January, 2011 17:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

You provided a link that didn't work.
Sorry, that's not my fault.

 
At 16 January, 2011 18:04, Blogger paul w said...

See what I mean?

The link worked; not only do I always test them before posting, you also replied that you couldn't access it because internet connection was too slow, not that it didn't work.

Lying, and avoiding; typical truther.

Your ass kicked again, Brian.

 
At 16 January, 2011 18:08, Blogger paul w said...

"Not my fault"

Another truther personality trait; it's the fault of everyone else.

Lazy pricks.

 
At 16 January, 2011 18:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

It didn't work. It did not provide the necessary information.

 
At 16 January, 2011 18:42, Blogger Triterope said...

You provided a link that didn't work. Sorry, that's not my fault.

Worked fine for me.

 
At 16 January, 2011 19:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

Didn't work for me.

I get kind of tired of the "the evidence is all in this impossible place" argument.

 
At 16 January, 2011 20:04, Blogger paul w said...

Brian, how can it be an 'impossible place' if both Triterope and myself could access it?

 
At 16 January, 2011 20:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

It was impossible for me. Some huge photo dump. Why not use photobucket like normal people do?

 
At 16 January, 2011 20:15, Blogger paul w said...

Thought you said the link didn't work?

 
At 16 January, 2011 20:41, Blogger paul w said...

Try these;

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1fires1.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtcfires13.html

 
At 16 January, 2011 21:24, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, there is evidence of thermite, explosives, small fires, molten steel, free-fall speed, and superheated dust.

Yes, and there's evidence that the "widows" were in on the conspiracy and thus murdered their husbands.

I'm not going to repeat the litany for you again.

We already know it, petgoat. Repeating your nonsense for the billionth time doesn't make it any less nonsensical, or make you any less of a babbling liar.

I asked you to provide photos backing up your claim that there were massive fires at the time the molten metal poured out of WTC2.

And I asked you to provide evidence that the towers existed.

I suspect that when you looked into it, you found that the photographic evidence shows that the "massive fires" were over within ten minutes as the jet fuel burned off.

I suspect that when you looked into it, you found that the towers were actually holographic fakes and thus no "widows" husbands could have died in them.

 
At 16 January, 2011 21:26, Blogger Ian G. said...

I get kind of tired of the "the evidence is all in this impossible place" argument.

Nobody cares what you're tired of. You're a liar and lunatic who is babbling about the need for a new investigation that will never happen.

 
At 16 January, 2011 21:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

Massive fires, paulie? Thanks for proving my point!

As anyone who's ever tried to get a campfire going in the rain knows, lots of smoke does not mean lots of fire.

 
At 16 January, 2011 21:52, Blogger Ian G. said...

Massive fires, paulie? Thanks for proving my point!

You have no point, petgoat. You're just a desperate liar babbling about nothing.

As anyone who's ever tried to get a campfire going in the rain knows, lots of smoke does not mean lots of fire.

Because we all know how the WTC was just a bundle of sticks, 767s are just matches, and of course there was heavy rain on 9/11...

Seek professional help.

 
At 16 January, 2011 21:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, as the Weidlinger report shows, the fires were damped by dust.

 
At 16 January, 2011 22:24, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, as the Weidlinger report shows, the fires were damped by dust.

That's nice, Brian.

 
At 16 January, 2011 23:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

Nice for me, not for you.

 
At 17 January, 2011 00:49, Blogger paul w said...

So, according to our residential dysfunctional nutter, multiple fires raging over many floors of a 110 story building...is like a campfire in the rain.

Also, does it surprise anyone here that if Brian had to make a campfire in the rain, it would be nothing but smoke?

I bet; nope.

Also, did anyone expect an answer any more intelligent and mature than that?

I bet; nope.

 
At 17 January, 2011 01:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

Paul, the pictures you cited showed a lot of smoke and little flame. Surely you didn't expect that I'd miss that?

 
At 17 January, 2011 01:36, Blogger paul w said...

I expected exactly what I got; an idiotic comment from a dysfunctional man.

 
At 08 March, 2011 06:54, Blogger Jay said...

Demand More from your country.

9/11 media

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home