Friday, February 03, 2012

The Truthers Have Their Candidate!

Roseanne Barr announces that she's running for president on the ticket of the rotting husk of the Green Party.
Scott McLarty, national media coordinator for the party, said Barr and Jill Stein, the other candidate that met the qualifications, are committed to ending the influence of corporate money on politics and elections and served as active participants in the Occupy Wall Street movement.
It will be interesting to see what the Troof Action folks feel about this. On the one hand, Roseanne's obviously something of a national joke. On the other, she did endorse Jon Gold's fatuous "The Facts Speak for Themselves." As a reminder, Roseanne is also very much opposed to "the rich". Which doesn't include her; she's just a working class stiff. See, Roseanne's idea of rich is people who are worth a lot more than her paltry $80 million.

47 Comments:

At 03 February, 2012 15:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 03 February, 2012 15:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

The Green Party platform includes this language:

"The Green Party calls for a complete, thorough, impartial and independent investigation of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, including the role of the administration of George W. Bush, various U.S. based corporations and interests, and other nations and third parties. "

 
At 03 February, 2012 17:26, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

...and they wonder why nobody takes them seriously...

 
At 03 February, 2012 17:43, Blogger Ian said...

"The Green Party calls for a complete, thorough, impartial and independent investigation of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, including the role of the administration of George W. Bush, various U.S. based corporations and interests, and other nations and third parties. "

Which is why they're a total joke.

It's actually offensive to me that this group of crackpots uses the term "greens", which used to mean environmentalists.

The Nature Conservancy is an organization dedicated to preserving the environment, and thus should be considered "greens". The Green Party is a bunch of far-left conspiracy loons.

 
At 04 February, 2012 09:55, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

The same Roseann Barr that sang the National Anthem and destroyed it?

Oh shit, there goes America.

 
At 04 February, 2012 10:12, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

Green Party, Tea Party, Nazi Party.....

I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

 
At 04 February, 2012 14:03, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Green Party, Tea Party, Nazi Party.....

I'm beginning to see a pattern here."

No Ralph Nader - No George W Bush.

Thank's a lot, Green Party. I wonder if that part would be in their "investigation".

Wait...conspiracy?

 
At 04 February, 2012 14:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

It's not Nader's fault that the Supreme Court stopped the vote count and handed the election to the candidate who got fewer votes.

 
At 04 February, 2012 17:56, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Nader had 97,000 votes in Florida. Bush won by 537 votes (depending on who's counting).

Even if only half of Nader's votes went to Gore it would have sealed his victory.

Simple math, dude.

 
At 04 February, 2012 18:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

You get different results depending on whether you count all the votes or not.

When they counted all the votes, they found that Gore had more.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12623-2001Nov11.html

 
At 04 February, 2012 20:44, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Not playing this game with you.

Bottom line: No Nader, no Bush.

 
At 05 February, 2012 15:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

You're not going to play all right. You've already lost.

 
At 06 February, 2012 11:08, Blogger Ian said...

You should let him have it, MGF. Remember, he's an unemployed janitor who lives on disability with his parents and has been kicked out of the truth movement. Just as you'd probably let a mentally disabled person beat you at chess every so often to give them a lift, you should let Brian declare victory here.

I mean, it's not like he's ever going to get the widows questions answered, or "meatball on a fork" published, or a new investigation into the trivialities that "baffle" him.

 
At 06 February, 2012 11:52, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

I bet Brian would vote for Ron Paul because Paul promised to investigate 9/11 when he becomes president.

Well, we know that canidates promise this and that, but they never really promise to do much when elected.

Ron Paul - Suckering Truthers for Votes & Making False Promises.

 
At 06 February, 2012 17:49, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"You're not going to play all right. You've already lost."

No. Al Gore lost, thanks to the Constitution.

 
At 06 February, 2012 17:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, Al Gore got more legal votes than Bush did--both nationally and in Florida.

The news was just about to be released in early September 2001, and the National Lawyers Guild was just about to start a campaign to impeach the Supreme Court Justices who stopped the counting of votes, when 9/11 made Bush a War President and shot his approval ratings to 90%. What luck for Bush!

The Constitution provided that Congress could refuse to seat the electors from Florida because of their crooked election, but the none of the Senators had enough guts to stand up for democracy.

 
At 06 February, 2012 19:03, Blogger Ian said...

The news was just about to be released in early September 2001, and the National Lawyers Guild was just about to start a campaign to impeach the Supreme Court Justices who stopped the counting of votes, when 9/11 made Bush a War President and shot his approval ratings to 90%. What luck for Bush!

Brian, you said that these people were going to campaign to impeach Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and O'Connor. How does Bush's approval rating affect this? Also, doesn't the abandonment suggest that either a) they were cowards, or b) they had a weak case?

Also, was it the court's conservative wing who sent the magic thermite elves to destroy the towers, or Bush? You need to get your story straight.

 
At 06 February, 2012 19:06, Blogger Ian said...

On a more serious note, you can see where Brian's trutherdom comes from. It's simply an axe to grind against Bush, nothing more, nothing less. It's no different than birther nonsense, except it's the extremist crackpots on the other side raging incoherently against a different president in order to try to make him look illegitimate.

Brian, Bush has been out of office for over 3 years (which, incidentally, is how long you've been posting dumbspam here). Isn't it time to move on?

 
At 06 February, 2012 21:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you don't move on from stolen elections and war crimes. You put the criminals in jail. Imagine if every defense attorney could just tell the jury "Even if my client were guilty, the crime is in the past and we should all just move on."

 
At 07 February, 2012 05:48, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you don't move on from stolen elections and war crimes. You put the criminals in jail. Imagine if every defense attorney could just tell the jury "Even if my client were guilty, the crime is in the past and we should all just move on.

I agree we shouldn't move on from war crimes, but you're babbling about a Supreme Court decision, not waterboarding. Like I said, the Bush administration is history. Isn't it time to stop obsessing over the 2000 election?

Of course, you're still obsessed with Carol Brouillet, so you'll never let go of the 2000 election.

 
At 07 February, 2012 10:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy, who trashed the integrity of the Supreme Court by making a decision for blatant political purposes, are still in office.

 
At 07 February, 2012 10:55, Blogger Ian said...

Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy, who trashed the integrity of the Supreme Court by making a decision for blatant political purposes, are still in office.

So why hasn't this group been impeached like you said they should have been? How did 9/11 change the evidence against them?

Brian, please try to make sense occasionally. I know you're a paranoid far-left burnout, but you need to keep your conspiracy theories separate. Otherwise, you're just a mirror image of the guy who thinks that Obama was planted here by gay Marxist Muslim saboteurs who want to take your cars away to solve global warming.

 
At 07 February, 2012 11:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

9/11 didn't change the evidence one bit. 9/11 changed the political will, Suddenly it was considered treasonous to question the legitimacy of the War President. Thus the news media held back on reporting the results from the NORC ballot count, and when they did finally report it 2 months later they put misleading headlines on the story and buried the real news (that Gore got more legal votes) at the bottom of the article and made it seem like it didn't matter.

 
At 07 February, 2012 11:52, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

Suddenly it was considered treasonous to question the legitimacy of the War President.

And you'd know all about being a treasonous little prick because you hate this country so much that you want to destroy it from within because everyone always points and laughs at you for being an imbicile. Am I right?

made it seem like it didn't matter.

MIHOPing fool!

 
At 07 February, 2012 13:50, Blogger Ian said...

9/11 didn't change the evidence one bit. 9/11 changed the political will, Suddenly it was considered treasonous to question the legitimacy of the War President.

Brian, you were talking about Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas. They weren't president on 9/11.

Thus the news media held back on reporting the results from the NORC ballot count, and when they did finally report it 2 months later they put misleading headlines on the story and buried the real news (that Gore got more legal votes) at the bottom of the article and made it seem like it didn't matter.

I'll ask again: why didn't they pursue the impeachment of the 5 supreme court justices? They're either cowards, or the facts are against them. There's no other option.

 
At 07 February, 2012 15:46, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

This is whacko comedy gold.

Who took the Florida vote to the Courts in the first place?

Yeah, I thought so.

 
At 07 February, 2012 19:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, challenging the Supremes' Bush v. Gore decision would be challenging the president they installed in office. You're just playing dumb to try to deceive Truthless.

MGF, Bush was the plaintiff in Bush v. Gore.

 
At 07 February, 2012 21:15, Blogger Ian said...

So why did they stop the proceedings? You still won't answer that, and you know how Laurie Van Auken feels about unanswered questions.

Speaking of Ms. Van Auken, she must be living high on all the insurance money, and she got to become famous. Pretty convenient that her husband showed up for work that day....

 
At 08 February, 2012 08:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, challenging the Supremes' Bush v. Gore decision would be challenging the president they installed in office. You're just playing dumb to try to deceive Truthless.

Why do you assume that fame is desirable?

 
At 08 February, 2012 09:06, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, challenging the Supremes' Bush v. Gore decision would be challenging the president they installed in office. You're just playing dumb to try to deceive Truthless.

Brian, repeating the same dumbspam is not answering my question. My question is, why have they not pursued impeachment against the aforementioned justices?

Why do you assume that fame is desirable?

Don't ask me. Ask the media whores who proclaim themselves to be representative of the families of 9/11 victims.

 
At 08 February, 2012 10:12, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

You're just playing dumb to try to deceive Truthless.

Since when did Ian ever "decieve" me? Um, NEVER!

You on the other hand, have been trying to decieve me since the day I got here.

BTW Brian, I know you really hate me and all and I like the publicity and propaganda you give to me. I just want to know that you're doing a great job at it. Thanks!

 
At 08 February, 2012 14:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

Truthless Wacko, Skidmark deceives you pretty much any time you believe it. Haven't you figured that out yet?

 
At 08 February, 2012 15:40, Blogger Ian said...

So, as expected, Brian refuses to answer my question, just as he refuses to debate Willie Rodriguez.

No wonder the widows aren't asking him for help in getting their questions answered. They'll have better luck if they turn to serious researchers with the courage to stand up for what's right. You know, people like Craig Ranke and Kevin Barrett.

 
At 09 February, 2012 00:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

The Green Party platform includes this language:

"The Green Party calls for a complete, thorough, impartial and independent investigation of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, including the role of the administration of George W. Bush, various U.S. based corporations and interests, and other nations and third parties. "

 
At 09 February, 2012 06:02, Blogger Ian said...

The Green Party platform includes this language:

"The Green Party calls for a complete, thorough, impartial and independent investigation of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, including the role of the administration of George W. Bush, various U.S. based corporations and interests, and other nations and third parties. "


You already posted this, Brian. Learn to read your own posts.

Also, it's nonsense like the above that make it clear why nobody takes the Green Party seriously. I wonder if Cantor Fitzgerald was one of those "U.S. based corporations"?

 
At 09 February, 2012 09:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

Skidmark, if you think Cantor Fitzgerald benefited from the 9/11 attacks I'd like to see your evidence for that.

 
At 09 February, 2012 10:00, Blogger Ian said...

Skidmark, if you think Cantor Fitzgerald benefited from the 9/11 attacks I'd like to see your evidence for that.

Hey, I'm not the one claiming that any companies benefited from 9/11, your idiotic Green Party is "just asking questions" about that. Learn to read your own posts.

 
At 09 February, 2012 15:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

So your logic is "Cantor Fitzgerald didn't benefit from the attacks and therefore no corporation benefited from the attacks"?

You can not possibly be as dumb as you pretend to be.

 
At 09 February, 2012 16:01, Blogger Ian said...

So your logic is "Cantor Fitzgerald didn't benefit from the attacks and therefore no corporation benefited from the attacks"?

Brian, stop pretending you understand logic.

I am asking you, or the loons in the Green Party, to tell me which companies benefited from 9/11.

I know you have the intelligence of a failed janitor who believes in magic thermite elves, but this shouldn't be too hard even for you to figure out.

 
At 09 February, 2012 22:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

Skidmark, it's obvious what companies benefited from 9/11. Just look at all the contractors for the DoD and DHS for starters.

 
At 09 February, 2012 23:33, Blogger Silent Eyes said...

Terrific quality publish. I adore simply how much inforamtion one can have from your world wide web. And with regards to producing money and running a blog, you have some good content on right here.
Online Dating

 
At 10 February, 2012 05:33, Blogger Ian said...

Skidmark, it's obvious what companies benefited from 9/11. Just look at all the contractors for the DoD and DHS for starters.

So why do we need to investigate this if it's obvious?

Also, are you saying these companies were responsible for 9/11?

Also, are you saying that Cantor Fitzgerald didn't hold any stocks or bonds in these companies? If they did, they clearly benefited from 9/11 too.

I know you're a failed janitor who lives with his parents and couldn't possibly understand these things, but next time, at least ask someone who knows what he's talking about.

 
At 10 February, 2012 08:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

You have no argument; you are simply being contrary. How does your garden grow?

 
At 10 February, 2012 08:54, Blogger Ian said...

You have no argument; you are simply being contrary. How does your garden grow?

I don't need to make an argument. You're the one that says the official story of 9/11 is wrong, and that magic thermite elves destroyed the towers on order from Dick Cheney. Prove it.

 
At 10 February, 2012 09:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 10 February, 2012 09:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't say anything about any elves or about Dick Cheney.

The fact that you have to put your foot on the scale when you're characterizing the issue shows you have no argument.

If you were a defense attorney you would be arguing "The prosecution has shown no evidence that my client returned from the 22nd century to kill the decedent with a 15th-century broadsword". You're just an unfunny clown.

 
At 10 February, 2012 09:51, Blogger Ian said...

I didn't say anything about any elves or about Dick Cheney.

False.

The fact that you have to put your foot on the scale when you're characterizing the issue shows you have no argument.

I told you, I don't need an argument. You're the one babbling about magic thermite elves and controlled demolition. Prove it.

If you were a defense attorney you would be arguing "The prosecution has shown no evidence that my client returned from the 22nd century to kill the decedent with a 15th-century broadsword". You're just an unfunny clown.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Brian, what do you know about what defense attorneys do? You're an unemployed janitor.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home