10:30pm Sunday Night President's Having a Press Conference?

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Is that the best you can do? If you cannot dispute what is presented with facts, mock it!!!

It's much easier to belittle an idea that goes against your belief than it is to examine the actual facts, isn't it?

Or, in your case, it's easier to not dispute the absolute lack of evidence that we've all been presented.

What's next? Are you going to tell me the Federal Income Tax is actually legal?

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Is that the best you can do? If you cannot dispute what is presented with facts, mock it!!!

It's much easier to belittle an idea that goes against your belief than it is to examine the actual facts, isn't it?

Or, in your case, it's easier to not dispute the absolute lack of evidence that we've all been presented.

What's next? Are you going to tell me the Federal Income Tax is actually legal?

I'd be equally as interested in trying to seriously join a conversation where you condescendingly told everyone that it's pretty much common knowledge that R Heat Lightning is a unicorn, and that there's tons of evidence that is out there (while not showing us any of it), and that she was withdrawn from the Oaks because it was found out (which is a statement somewhere on par with your specious Bhutto statement).

There will be evidence. And my guess is very soon. So I'm hoping you enjoy the time up until then. And my next guess is that you'll still carry on with this line of argument, and you'll be DT's resident "Deather," because your distrust of the government will not allow you to accept any evidence that contradicts your wild theory.

Looking forward to it!

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I'd be equally as interested in trying to seriously join a conversation where you condescendingly told everyone that it's pretty much common knowledge that R Heat Lightning is a unicorn, and that there's tons of evidence that is out there (while not showing us any of it), and that she was withdrawn from the Oaks because it was found out (which is a statement somewhere on par with your specious Bhutto statement).

There will be evidence. And my guess is very soon. So I'm hoping you enjoy the time up until then. And my next guess is that you'll still carry on with this line of argument, and you'll be DT's resident "Deather," because your distrust of the government will not allow you to accept any evidence that contradicts your wild theory.

Looking forward to it!

I could have sworn all I said about R Heat Lightning was that she'd have no shot in the Derby, and maybe that she isn't as good as people think. But, okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.

Did I say a single thing about her being withdrawn from the Oaks, other than that I felt she was going to burn a lot of money? Somehow, you are crediting me with a statement I never made, that is on par with my Bhutto comment???

You are just making stuff up.

And it looks like you, among others, have a blind trust in the government that will not allow you to accept any evidence that contradicts the theory that he was just killed.

Have you even given this any honest consideration, or are you just dismissing what I say because the implications are ugly?

[Indian Charlie]

One other thing Hossy and Spence. If I were to provide said links, what would come of it?

You'd dismiss them just as easily as you dismiss the Bhutto interview, or better yet, just as easily as you accept the 'official' version of things.

Judging by the lack of an honest attempt to refute what I'm saying, I have no reason to post more evidence that counters your belief.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Judging by the lack of an honest attempt to refute what I'm saying, I have no reason to post more evidence that counters your belief.

You haven't provided any evidence. Zero.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

One other thing Hossy and Spence. If I were to provide said links, what would come of it?

You'd dismiss them just as easily as you dismiss the Bhutto interview, or better yet, just as easily as you accept the 'official' version of things.

Judging by the lack of an honest attempt to refute what I'm saying, I have no reason to post more evidence that counters your belief.

let me guess... Hitler didnt kill himself and he lived happily ever after in Argentina?

what evidence did Bhutto provide other than a few words in an interview, and what makes her words more believable than the US military?

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

let me guess... Hitler didnt kill himself and he lived happily ever after in Argentina?

what evidence did Bhutto provide other than a few words in an interview, and what makes her words more believable than the US military?

I have no ideas on Hitler being in Argentina. As far as I know, he died in Berlin.

The Vatican did facilitate the escape of many high level Nazis to South America (as well as countless no-namers) however.

I'm sure you will find that preposterous.

Let me throw back at you your question. What makes the US military, proven liars, more believable than Bhutto? Why would Bhutto even make something like this up, in the context of how that conversation went?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

I have no ideas on Hitler being in Argentina. As far as I know, he died in Berlin.

The Vatican did facilitate the escape of many high level Nazis to South America (as well as countless no-namers) however.

I'm sure you will find that preposterous.

Let me throw back at you your question. What makes the US military, proven liars, more believable than Bhutto? Why would Bhutto even make something like this up, in the context of how that conversation went?

Nothing the Vatican does would surprise me.

I'm not buying the Bhutto thing. Maybe she mixed up her words. Didnt she imply that the guy who killed bin Laden was the same individual who decapitaded Daniel Pearl? Was he some secret double agent or something? Maybe she meant to say Omar Sheikh is the same guy who killed Daniel Pearl... wasnt she worried about being killed herself?

And how could it be possible that Omar Sheikh killed Osama bin Laden in 2007 when he was in prison since 2002 for beheading Pearl and has not been released from prison?

And Bhutto's killing doesnt make me believer her statement any more than I would if she was alive. She was a marked woman in those parts.

So yeah if your evidence is the Bhutto interview, I'm way more inclined to think she misspoke than take her words as fact.

Osama was killed in Pakistan on 5-2-11 1am Paki time by US bullets. When the government releases pictures and/or video, are you going to say they are photoshopped?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

You'd dismiss them just as easily as you dismiss the Bhutto interview, or better yet, just as easily as you accept the 'official' version of things.

Bhutto's David Frost interview, where she said bin Laden had been killed, was November 2, 2007.

Yet on November 8, 2007 Bhutto was placed under house arrest, and she told a radio station at that time, "And I was just telling one of the policemen, I said 'should you be here after us? Should not you be looking for Osama bin Laden?' And he said, 'I'm sorry, ma'am, this is our job. We're just doing what we are told.'"

So it appears Bhutto was confused as to whether bin Laden is alive or dead. She says one thing, then immediately says another later in the week.

It's ridiculous to take her at her word one day as truth, but ignore her words 6 days later as a lie. As she was apparently the only person in the world to have that information about bin Laden, and to have verified it since, with voice recognition of bin Laden talking occurring subsequently, I choose to call that claim a pile of nonsense.

I believe in my government! Monster trucks, mountain dew and bald eagles. F.U.C.K ya don't need proof derp de dur

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

I could have sworn all I said about R Heat Lightning was that she'd have no shot in the Derby, and maybe that she isn't as good as people think. But, okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.

Did I say a single thing about her being withdrawn from the Oaks, other than that I felt she was going to burn a lot of money? Somehow, you are crediting me with a statement I never made, that is on par with my Bhutto comment???

You are just making stuff up.

And it looks like you, among others, have a blind trust in the government that will not allow you to accept any evidence that contradicts the theory that he was just killed.

Have you even given this any honest consideration, or are you just dismissing what I say because the implications are ugly?

Of course I'm making stuff up. I never said that you said any of that about R Heat Lightning. Point was, it would be a ridiculous conversation to try to have seriously, so I came up with a wild idea that would be nearly impossible to believe. It would be the same thing. Someone claiming something wild is "common knowledge," and stating that there is tons of evidence (while providing none) to back up a theory that is clearly more far-fetched than the official version of events.

R Heat Lightning is a unicorn vs. she has a bad knee = Common knowledge that Osama has been dead for years vs. he was killed this weekend.

I'm dismissing what you say because you're just saying it, saying it's common knowledge, saying there's evidence, like anyone who doesn't see how simple that is to understand is some kind of fool. While there is not (yet) evidence of Osama being killed this weekend, there will be.

I just find it more than a little ridiculous that you're acting as though believing this official version of (unfounded, taking someone's word for it for the time being) events is somehow stupid, or the result of everyone just being too f*cking dumb to consider it "because the implications are ugly," when they should totes just be believing your (unfounded, taking someone's word for it for the time being -- er, "time being = years" since you claimed this happened years ago, and nobody's Scooby-Doo'ed to the bottom of it yet, miraculously enough!) version of events.

Yes, one of those sounds completely crazy, for peon idiots who have blind faith in their government, and one of those sounds completely reasonable and rational.

You win, I guess.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Have you even given this any honest consideration, or are you just dismissing what I say because the implications are ugly?

Their dismissing it, because they know you're a lune, and your an apologist for a great deal of the planet's Islamic thuggery. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that you are not happy that the biggest enemy of this Gov't just got owned solely by members of this Gov't. You're not alone, I've heard that

1)"he was dead already,"

2) that "he isn't dead, "

3) "Quadaffi got bombed, and we wanted the focus off that."

4) "It's close to 10 years since 9/11"

When people don't like something, they do these things. It's shifting, distracting, distorting etc. Your effort is a version of #1. We don't have to give you any more evidence than the photos of him being dead. If you want to prove he was in deep freeze for 2 years, do it. It's on you (not us.) Your version is the one that needs a lot more evidence(not the version we've heard so far.) So far, a large part of your "evidence" is simply stating that there is not enough evidence for the version you don't like. This is not evidence supporting your version. This is simply your chosen way of manipulating a situation. You've always done these things.... Won't stop.