...because the goddamn liberal media sure as wouldn't have let me know about this !!!!!
Here's the email I was forwarded today:
I swear I'm use to getting a lot of crying eagles and ty right wing jokes over the past couple of years but...Do You Remember 1987......
I had forgotten all of this. Do you remember when the senators were giving Ollie North such a bad time? This brings it all into perspective doesn't it? Have a great day.
Do you remember 1987......
Thought you might be interested in this forgotten bit of information.........
It was 1987!
At a lecture the other day they were playing an old news video of Lt.Col. Oliver North testifying at the Iran-Contra
hearings during the Reagan
Administration.
There was Ollie in front of God and country getting
the third degree, but what he said was stunning!
He was being drilled by a
senator, 'Did you not recently spend close to
$60,000 for a home security
system?'
Ollie replied, 'yes, I did, Sir.'
The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the
audience, 'Isn't that just a little
excessive?'
'No, sir,' continued Ollie.
'No? And why not?' the
senator asked.
'Because the lives of my family and I were threatened, sir.'
'Threatened? By whom?' the senator questioned.
'By a terrorist, sir' Ollie answered.
'Terrorist? What terrorist could
possibly scare you that much?'
'His name is Osama bin Laden, sir' Ollie replied.
At this point the senator tried to repeat the name, but
couldn't pronounce it, which most people back then
probably couldn't. A couple
of people laughed at the attempt. Then the senator
continued. Why are you so
afraid of this man?' the senator asked.
'Because, sir, he is the most
evil person alive that I know of', Ollie answered.
'And what do you recommend we do about him?' asked the
senator.
'Well, sir, if it was up to me, I would recommend that an
assassin team be formed to
eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth.'
The senator disagreed with this approach, and that was all that
was shown of the clip.
By the way, that senator was
Al Gore!
Also:
Terrorist pilot Mohammad Atta blew up a bus in Israel
in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993,
Israel had to agree to release
so-called 'political prisoners.'
However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands. The American President at the time, Bill Clinton,
and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher,
'insisted' that all prisoners be
released.
Thus Mohammad Atta was freed and eventually thanked
us by
flying an airplane into Tower One of the
World Trade
Center . This was reported
by many of the American TV networks at the time
that the terrorists were first
identified.
It was censored in the US from all
later reports.
If you agree that the American public should be made
aware of this fact, pass this on.
Do Not Break - it is 8 years strong.
This is why I always say I love YOU....
This has not been broken since 9/11/01,
please
keep it going...
This has been kept alive and moving since 9/11. In memory
of
all those who perished this morning; the
passengers and the pilots on the
United Air and AA flights, the workers in the World
Trade Center and the
Pentagon, and all the innocent bystanders. Our
prayers go out to the friends and
families of the deceased.
Send this to at least 10 people to show your support
PLEASE DON'T BREAK IT
!!!!!!
...dayum.
Following Ollie North's advice re: OBL would have been a good idea, but it wouldn't have made up for funding the Contras and Iranian missiles with drug money.
As for releasing Atta, Israel shouldn't have knuckled under to us. Ultimately, that's on them, even though we had a role in it.
It's bull , debunked by North himself...
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/war...out-bin-laden/
Atta too?
Well, the security system was only $16,000 and not paid for by North.
I wondered why I never heard any of this before. Nice catch, El Nono.
Google is your friend...
yep. I wasn't sure if Pixel was being straight or not. It's amazing how often people just throw stuff on the wall and hope it sticks.
Well, my assumption is just that.
Seeing what sticks. I did the same think placing Atta in the other thread. Dammit. You should have let it go. At least I didn't come right out and dispel the $60,000/ Bin Laden/Gore thing. I made people go to the YOUTUBE.
I probably should have formatted it with the alternating red and blue 48 point font and the pictures of the twin towers burning as it appeared in the original.
Last edited by PixelPusher; 12-02-2009 at 01:24 AM.
I remember the early days of the internet, late 80's. It was all text, no graphic. People used to generate misleading stuff for fun, then when they came across someone repeating the bogus stuff, attack them for stupidity.
I wonder how many falsehood circulating for conservatives are started by liberals?
Seems not to be the case here. You can't blame everything embarrassing on agents provocateurs.
Eh, I fell in the trap. Put it down to your credibility with me, plus a smidge of denseness on my part.
Well played, Sir!
I suppose it's a worthy question, but isn't it easy enough to see idiocy coming from within the conservative movement? I look at that poll that had Palin first and Huckabee second for potential presidential noms and I have to shake my head...
Where's the intellectual conservative presence that used to dominate the political discussion? And how are Palin, Huck, Romney, et al equal to that legacy?
Didn't you fall for the Palin-was-for-the-economic-stimulus-bill-before-she-was-against it that WC was trying to hide too?Eh, I fell in the trap. Put it down to your credibility with me, plus a smidge of denseness on my part.
Well played, Sir!
I don't recall replying to that. Did I?
They aren't fiscal conservatives, they are social conservatives, just like Dubya. You see....using God, Guns, and Glory as a campaign slogan has its draw-backs too...the GOP would love to go back to its 'conservative roots' but you've got Palin and Huckabee out-polling the only real fiscal conservative, Romney.....even McCain felt so under pressure from these socially conservative groups in the GOP that he chose a candidate that ultimately hurt his chances at the Presidency....the GOP can't shake these social conservative groups lose because they are partially being egged on by Fundamentalist groups like Family first, wing-nut talk-radio and FAUX News...Where's the intellectual conservative presence that used to dominate the political discussion? And how are Palin, Huck, Romney, et al equal to that legacy?
I wouldn't be like me to be taken in by WC, but I guess it's possible that happened. We all have our weak moments. Anyone who posts often will eventually screw up. I've made embarrassing mistakes before and will again.
Your point, Dan?
No point....just not like you...
Not saying you're wrong, but what makes you think so?
Well, he's not a social conservative...aka Palin and Huckabee...plus he does have sort of a track record from Massachusetts..not that every policy he followed was Reaganesque, but almost....
WikiRomney was sworn in as the 70th governor of Massachusetts on January 2, 2003. Upon entering office, Romney faced a projected $3 billion deficit, but a previously enacted $1.3 billion capital gains tax increase and $500 million in unanticipated federal grants decreased the deficit to $1.2 billion.[50] Through a combination of spending cuts, increased fees, and removal of corporate tax loopholes, by 2006 the state had a $700 million surplus and was able to cut taxes.[51][52]
Romney supported raising various fees by more than $300 million, including those for driver's licenses, marriage licenses, and gun licenses.[52] Romney increased the state gasoline fee by 2 cents per gallon, generating about $60 million per year in additional revenue.[53] Romney also closed tax loopholes that brought in another $181 million from businesses over the next two years.[53] The state legislature, with Romney's support, also cut spending by $1.6 billion, including $700 million in reductions in state aid to cities and towns.[54] The cuts also included a $140 million reduction in state funding for higher education, which led state-run colleges and universities to increase tuition by 63%.[53] Romney sought additional cuts in his last year as Massachusetts governor by vetoing nearly 250 items in the state budget. All of those vetoes were overturned by the legislature.[55]
The combined state and local fee burden in Massachusetts increased during Romney's governorship but still was below the national average.[53] According to the Tax Foundation, that per capita burden was 9.8% in 2002 (below the national average of 10.3%), and 10.5% in 2006 (below the national average of 10.8%).[56]
The irony is that the "conservative" movement doesn't actually care to understand the Goldwater/Reagan schema... they're just names to be dropped to remind soft-brained twits of a mythical time when everything was grand. For them.
Well...they say 'conservatives' just not 'social conservatives'....
...everyone supports a 'conservative' after all, don't they?
Only in Texas, nationally, social conservatives are just another niche group
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
