Skip to main content

Originally Posted by Contendah:

Whether Jesuits or demonic miscreants from some other order, the perpetrators of the Inquisition were Catholics and their actions were hideously d*amnable.

You'll get no argument from me over how horrible the inquisition was, but anyone laying the blame on a group of people who didn't come around for a few more centuries (even if they did coexist for a time) is astoundingly ignorant at best.  It's like blaming modern-era Republicans and Democrats for the slavery that existed prior to the civil war.

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

You're the one that lied about what Cheney said. You posted:

----------------------------

 Cheney bemoaned the fact that there was no will among the American people to implement this plan, and he specifically stated, "We need a Pearl Harbor type event to galvanize the American people".

 

You can disbelieve if you want to. You can even make jokes about lizard men, flying saucers, and Bigfoot. But what you can't legitimately deny is that the report from The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) exists and that **** Cheney was involved. 

 

Here it is:


"New Pearl Harbor"

Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor" (51).[14]

 

Though not arguing that Bush administration PNAC members were complicit in those attacks, other social critics such as commentator Manuel Valenzuela and journalist Mark Danner,[41][42][43] investigative journalist John Pilger, in New Statesman,[44] and former editor of The San Francisco Chronicle Bernard Weiner, in CounterPunch,[45] all argue that PNAC members used the events of 9/11 as the "Pearl Harbor" that they needed––that is, as an "opportunity" to "capitalize on" (in Pilger's words), in order to enact long-desired plans.

 

 

Signatories to Statement of Principles

 

 

 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...New_American_Century

 

 

Here is the actual publication:

 

Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century

V. CREATING TOMORROW’S DOMINANT FORCE

p. 51

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

 

 http://newamericancentury.org/...AmericasDefenses.pdf

also:

http://www.webcitation.org/5e3est5lT


 

Last edited by The Propagandist
Originally Posted by interventor1212:

The actual statement was:

 

Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"

 

http://www.webcitation.org/5e3est5lT

 

Cheney was NOT one of the participants that produced the report.  A list may be seen on the last page.  

 

I didn't hear him objecting when the opportunity was handed the neo-cons, either. Instead, they picked it up and ran with it -- just as they said they planned to do if it ever happened. Cheney had already signed on "in principle."

You can disbelieve if you want to. You can even make jokes about lizard men, flying saucers, and Bigfoot. But what you can't legitimately deny is that the report from The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) exists and that **** Cheney was involved. 

------------------------------------------------

Where have I mentioned "lizard men, flying saucers and bigfoot"? You're as bad as extra for twisting what people post. It's no joke when people like you and extra do that. Some gullible people might actually believe the lies. Cheney DID NOT MAKE THE STATEMENT EXTRA SAID HE MADE. He lied when he said he did. I haven't "denied" anything. Extra is the one that said bilderberg was a huge secret, I posted proof it wasn't. Go to the web site and look at the list of DEMOCRATS there.

It was me who brought up the lizards.  A good conspiracy theory must always have lizards.

 

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"

 

That is not asking for a 'Pearl Harbor' but stating that a catastrophic event would cause a more rapid transformation.

 

Compare that to Paul Krugman's brilliant statement of aliens invading:

PAUL KRUGMAN, NEW YORK TIMES: This is hard to get people to do, much better, obviously, to build bridges and roads and healthcare clinics and schools. But my proposed, I actually have a serious proposal which is that we have to get a bunch of scientists to tell us that we're facing a threatened alien invasion, and in order to be prepared for that alien invasion we have to do things like build high-speed rail. And the, once we've recovered, we can say, “Look, there were no aliens.”

 
Alien lizards anyone?
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

You can disbelieve if you want to. You can even make jokes about lizard men, flying saucers, and Bigfoot. But what you can't legitimately deny is that the report from The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) exists and that **** Cheney was involved. 

------------------------------------------------

Where have I mentioned "lizard men, flying saucers and bigfoot"? You're as bad as extra for twisting what people post. It's no joke when people like you and extra do that. Some gullible people might actually believe the lies. Cheney DID NOT MAKE THE STATEMENT EXTRA SAID HE MADE. He lied when he said he did. I haven't "denied" anything. Extra is the one that said bilderberg was a huge secret, I posted proof it wasn't. Go to the web site and look at the list of DEMOCRATS there.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 Once again, the document was written by PNAC, D!ck Cheney is a member of PNAC, not pnly that, he is one of the leaders. You take a long leap to expect that the leader of the group who wrote the document didn't know or agree with it's content.

 

 On bilderburg, since you are only about 12 yeaRS old or so, I can remember 30 or 40 years ago when it was denied. To mention it 20 yeaRS ago made you a kook.

 

  Welcome to the kooks.

This is isn't 30 or 40 years ago, and that is not what you posted. YOU posted that it was just now being "dragged into the light", and people were denying it NOW. Plus you are ignoring the fact that democrats are members, You can twist and turn, but like all your other stories this doesn't hold together. Now you didn't say cheney was a member or whatever, you stated over and over again that he had said "we need a pearl harbor." Since it was never said, you can't honestly claim he said it. Twist and squirm all you want, you have zero credibility.

Originally Posted by The Propagandist:
Originally Posted by interventor1212:

The actual statement was:

 

Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"

 

http://www.webcitation.org/5e3est5lT

 

Cheney was NOT one of the participants that produced the report.  A list may be seen on the last page.  

 

I didn't hear him objecting when the opportunity was handed the neo-cons, either. Instead, they picked it up and ran with it -- just as they said they planned to do if it ever happened. Cheney had already signed on "in principle."

Cheney never made the statement attributed to him, nor wrote any of the report.  Just another worn propaganda trick attempting guilt by association.  McCarthy would be proud.

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

You can disbelieve if you want to. You can even make jokes about lizard men, flying saucers, and Bigfoot. But what you can't legitimately deny is that the report from The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) exists and that **** Cheney was involved. 

------------------------------------------------

Where have I mentioned "lizard men, flying saucers and bigfoot"? You're as bad as extra for twisting what people post. It's no joke when people like you and extra do that. Some gullible people might actually believe the lies. Cheney DID NOT MAKE THE STATEMENT EXTRA SAID HE MADE. He lied when he said he did. I haven't "denied" anything. Extra is the one that said bilderberg was a huge secret, I posted proof it wasn't. Go to the web site and look at the list of DEMOCRATS there.

 

Why do you think that statement was directed to you? My, my, everything has to be about you -- always thinking you are at the center of things -- when you aren't even involved at all! Your situational  unawareness and shallow thinking amazes me.

Originally Posted by interventor1212:
Originally Posted by The Propagandist:
Originally Posted by interventor1212:

The actual statement was:

 

Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"

 

http://www.webcitation.org/5e3est5lT

 

Cheney was NOT one of the participants that produced the report.  A list may be seen on the last page.  

 

I didn't hear him objecting when the opportunity was handed the neo-cons, either. Instead, they picked it up and ran with it -- just as they said they planned to do if it ever happened. Cheney had already signed on "in principle."

Cheney never made the statement attributed to him, nor wrote any of the report.  Just another worn propaganda trick attempting guilt by association.  McCarthy would be proud.

 

 

Laying off the Goebbels for a while? Now that was what was getting worn.


If Cheney didn't agree with such, and didn't want to be associated with it, why didn't he do the honorable thing and resign? Logical answer is that he did agree with it.


Guilt by association is called "accessory" -- a well-recognized principle in law.

Originally Posted by The Propagandist:


If Cheney didn't agree with such, and didn't want to be associated with it, why didn't he do the honorable thing and resign? Logical answer is that he did agree with it.


Guilt by association is called "accessory" -- a well-recognized principle in law.

So by that logic, Obama actually was guilty of terrorists acts by being associated with Bill Ayers?

Or is he a communist because he idolized  Frank Marshall Davis, a member of the Communist Party USA?

Originally Posted by The Propagandist:
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

You can disbelieve if you want to. You can even make jokes about lizard men, flying saucers, and Bigfoot. But what you can't legitimately deny is that the report from The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) exists and that **** Cheney was involved. 

------------------------------------------------

Where have I mentioned "lizard men, flying saucers and bigfoot"? You're as bad as extra for twisting what people post. It's no joke when people like you and extra do that. Some gullible people might actually believe the lies. Cheney DID NOT MAKE THE STATEMENT EXTRA SAID HE MADE. He lied when he said he did. I haven't "denied" anything. Extra is the one that said bilderberg was a huge secret, I posted proof it wasn't. Go to the web site and look at the list of DEMOCRATS there.

 

Why do you think that statement was directed to you? My, my, everything has to be about you -- always thinking you are at the center of things -- when you aren't even involved at all! Your situational  unawareness and shallow thinking amazes me.

 

------------------

You're kidding right? Amazing! You want to look at your post? You replied to ME. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hall of Famer
 
1 day ago
 
 

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

You're the one that lied about what Cheney said. You posted:

----------------------------

 Cheney bemoaned the fact that there was no will among the American people to implement this plan, and he specifically stated, "We need a Pearl Harbor type event to galvanize the American people".

 

You can disbelieve if you want to. You can even make jokes about lizard men, flying saucers, and Bigfoot. But what you can't legitimately deny is that the report from The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) exists and that **** Cheney was involved. 

 

Here it is:



------------------------------


So slick, exactly who WERE you talking to if not me? 

Originally Posted by The Propagandist:
Originally Posted by interventor1212:
Originally Posted by The Propagandist:
Originally Posted by interventor1212:

The actual statement was:

 

Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"

 

http://www.webcitation.org/5e3est5lT

 

Cheney was NOT one of the participants that produced the report.  A list may be seen on the last page.  

 

I didn't hear him objecting when the opportunity was handed the neo-cons, either. Instead, they picked it up and ran with it -- just as they said they planned to do if it ever happened. Cheney had already signed on "in principle."

Cheney never made the statement attributed to him, nor wrote any of the report.  Just another worn propaganda trick attempting guilt by association.  McCarthy would be proud.

 

 

Laying off the Goebbels for a while? Now that was what was getting worn.


If Cheney didn't agree with such, and didn't want to be associated with it, why didn't he do the honorable thing and resign? Logical answer is that he did agree with it.


Guilt by association is called "accessory" -- a well-recognized principle in law.

I'll continue the Goebbels when you use his methods. Otherwise, your commitment to state collectivism and xenophobic beliefs are pretty much on track.  As there was nothing of harm perpetrated, there's no guilt.  Unless, one is a truther,  -- a conspiracy belief that makes birthers look sane.  

Originally Posted by interventor1212:
Originally Posted by The Propagandist:
Originally Posted by interventor1212:
Originally Posted by The Propagandist:
Originally Posted by interventor1212:

The actual statement was:

 

Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"

 

http://www.webcitation.org/5e3est5lT

 

Cheney was NOT one of the participants that produced the report.  A list may be seen on the last page.  

 

I didn't hear him objecting when the opportunity was handed the neo-cons, either. Instead, they picked it up and ran with it -- just as they said they planned to do if it ever happened. Cheney had already signed on "in principle."

Cheney never made the statement attributed to him, nor wrote any of the report.  Just another worn propaganda trick attempting guilt by association.  McCarthy would be proud.

 

 

Laying off the Goebbels for a while? Now that was what was getting worn.


If Cheney didn't agree with such, and didn't want to be associated with it, why didn't he do the honorable thing and resign? Logical answer is that he did agree with it.


Guilt by association is called "accessory" -- a well-recognized principle in law.

I'll continue the Goebbels when you use his methods. Otherwise, your commitment to state collectivism and xenophobic beliefs are pretty much on track.  As there was nothing of harm perpetrated, there's no guilt.  Unless, one is a truther,  -- a conspiracy belief that makes birthers look sane.  

 

Goebbels wasn't the original, only an imitator of forms of propaganda. You use him merely because he conjures up images of evil in a way that Plato or Machiavelli don't.

 

There is nothing of harm perpetrated by being or having been a member of the Communist Party. That is legal in the United States, as is any political party, so long as you don't advocate the forcible overthrow of legally-constituted government.

 

So how can McCarthy attempt "guilt by association" if neither illegality or harm is present?

Yet much harm was perpetrated against untold numbers of innocents by McCarthy who had never come near the Communist Party. 

Originally Posted by Bestworking:
Hall of Famer
 
1 day ago
 
 

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

You're the one that lied about what Cheney said. You posted:

----------------------------

 Cheney bemoaned the fact that there was no will among the American people to implement this plan, and he specifically stated, "We need a Pearl Harbor type event to galvanize the American people".

 

You can disbelieve if you want to. You can even make jokes about lizard men, flying saucers, and Bigfoot. But what you can't legitimately deny is that the report from The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) exists and that **** Cheney was involved. 

 

Here it is:



------------------------------


So slick, exactly who WERE you talking to if not me? 

 

I must have confused you with someone else. My apologies.

Originally Posted by The Propagandist:
Originally Posted by interventor1212:
Originally Posted by The Propagandist:
Originally Posted by interventor1212:
Originally Posted by The Propagandist:
Originally Posted by interventor1212:

The actual statement was:

 

Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"

 

http://www.webcitation.org/5e3est5lT

 

Cheney was NOT one of the participants that produced the report.  A list may be seen on the last page.  

 

I didn't hear him objecting when the opportunity was handed the neo-cons, either. Instead, they picked it up and ran with it -- just as they said they planned to do if it ever happened. Cheney had already signed on "in principle."

Cheney never made the statement attributed to him, nor wrote any of the report.  Just another worn propaganda trick attempting guilt by association.  McCarthy would be proud.

 

 

Laying off the Goebbels for a while? Now that was what was getting worn.


If Cheney didn't agree with such, and didn't want to be associated with it, why didn't he do the honorable thing and resign? Logical answer is that he did agree with it.


Guilt by association is called "accessory" -- a well-recognized principle in law.

I'll continue the Goebbels when you use his methods. Otherwise, your commitment to state collectivism and xenophobic beliefs are pretty much on track.  As there was nothing of harm perpetrated, there's no guilt.  Unless, one is a truther,  -- a conspiracy belief that makes birthers look sane.  

 

Goebbels wasn't the original, only an imitator of forms of propaganda. You use him merely because he conjures up images of evil in a way that Plato or Machiavelli don't.

 

There is nothing of harm perpetrated by being or having been a member of the Communist Party. That is legal in the United States, as is any political party, so long as you don't advocate the forcible overthrow of legally-constituted government.

 

So how can McCarthy attempt "guilt by association" if neither illegality or harm is present?

Yet much harm was perpetrated against untold numbers of innocents by McCarthy who had never come near the Communist Party. 

 

Deflection, as usual, one of the Proper Propagandist's little methods.  Propie attempted to associate Cheney with a statement that Chaney did not make. In addition, he tries to associate the think tank with 9/11 simply because of one statement.  Truthers, like Propie, tend to do this.  

 

As to McCarthy, his worst crime was to accuse persons usually only parlor pinks, while the real red agents went about their work.  Most of the cleansing of red agents was done quietly by the FBI and UK intell. 

Originally Posted by interventor1212:
 

Deflection, as usual, one of the Proper Propagandist's little methods.  Propie attempted to associate Cheney with a statement that Chaney did not make. In addition, he tries to associate the think tank with 9/11 simply because of one statement.  Truthers, like Propie, tend to do this.  

 

As to McCarthy, his worst crime was to accuse persons usually only parlor pinks, while the real red agents went about their work.  Most of the cleansing of red agents was done quietly by the FBI and UK intell. 

 

You have a habit of flinging associations hoping one of them will stick. So let me shoot down your newest of sticky association attempts.

 

Truthers, of which I am not one, say that the administration was responsible for causing 9/11; that without their involvement it wouldn't have happened; and that however the alleged hijackers were involved that they were put into action by those in the administration.

 

I don't say that. 

 

What I say is that an organization that Cheney was signatory of the Statement of Principles of the Project for the New American Century (PANC); PANC produced a report Rebuilding American Defenses that said "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor;" the report was developed in accordance with the Principles that Cheney signed on to and he never disagreed or repudiated the report; and that when that "new Pearl Harbor" event happened, they saw their chance, grabbed it, and ran with it. 


In other words, Cheney was in full agreement with the report.

 

McKinley had his U.S.S. Maine in Havana Harbor; Lincoln had his Fort Sumter; and Polk had his Rio Grande-Nueces River controversy about the border of Texas. None of them caused those events to happen, but when they did happen, they were ready with a preconceived plan. However, the response and resulting consequences of their actions were out of all proportion with the triggering event. 

Propie's own words:


Truthers, of which I am not one, say that the administration was responsible for causing 9/11; that without their involvement it wouldn't have happened; and that however the alleged hijackers were involved that they were put into action by those in the administration.

 

I don't say that. 

 

What I say is that an organization that Cheney was signatory of the Statement of Principles of the Project for the New American Century (PANC); PANC produced a report Rebuilding American Defenses that said "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor;" the report was developed in accordance with the Principles that Cheney signed on to and he never disagreed or repudiated the report; and that when that "new Pearl Harbor" event happened, they saw their chance, grabbed it, and ran with it. 

 

In other words, Cheney was in full agreement with the report.

 

Our Proper Propagandist claims not to be a truther.  Perhaps!  I suggest he review his posts over the years, as his comments tend towards their views.

 

In true propagandist fashion, Propie takes one partial statement, less than a full sentence, within a long report and attempts to indict Cheney and the Bush Administration.  Like I stated, McCarthy would be proud.  It weak tea and he knows it.  At least, he didn’t imply that Cheney actually made the statement.   

 

Propie, again:

McKinley had his U.S.S. Maine in Havana Harbor; Lincoln had his Fort Sumter; and Polk had his Rio Grande-Nueces River controversy about the border of Texas. None of them caused those events to happen, but when they did happen, they were ready with a preconceived plan. However, the response and resulting consequences of their actions were out of all proportion with the triggering event. 

 

The Maine Incident was the final straw.  Spain’s establishment of concentration camps in Cuba was the main reason for intervention.  As to the other two, add the actual Pearl Harbor attack, the US Navy acted upon war plans made a decade before.  So, include FDR. I question why a plan would not be in the files.  DoD gets dinged for not having a plan. 

 

Originally Posted by geddon 97:

I couldn`t believe you could get nuttier...Then you do. Oh by the way did you know that the Bilderburgs are eating babies at their retreat?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 Geddon, that dark cloud that seems to be over you constantly can be easily  be dispelled by removing your head from your posterior regions.

 

Add Reply


Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×