Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
It's always hard to know what a person means by "truther". Marr May 2012 #1
I can't argue with that RZM May 2012 #3
American intelligence was warning the white house. denbot May 2012 #7
The Chimp and Darth simply didn't give a shit. hifiguy May 2012 #53
re: Bush had some sort of prior knowledge Electric Monk May 2012 #8
Post removed Post removed May 2012 #11
Wow, you're a judgmental little DUer, aren't you? Skip Intro May 2012 #14
We'd both agree that 9/11 is a pretty serious issue, right? RZM May 2012 #19
Which side won? EOTE May 2012 #47
When I think of "truthers" I think of those trying to argue no plane hit the Pentagon or Electric Monk May 2012 #18
Your 'point' is a logical fallacy called "appealing to the consequences of a belief" Electric Monk May 2012 #20
Let's not get objective fact in the way of bashing people who think rationally. EOTE May 2012 #48
This message was self-deleted by its author Electric Monk May 2012 #10
Fail. Hissyspit May 2012 #41
So your argument is that the Bush administration was incredibly negligent... EOTE May 2012 #44
Not necessarily-- that's my point. Marr May 2012 #50
You might want to check out David Ray Griffin's "The New Pearl Harbor." coalition_unwilling May 2012 #100
You don't have to hire someone to steal your car.. denbot May 2012 #4
Exactly. EOTE May 2012 #45
No they are not. Bonobo May 2012 #2
If you want to argue failure, you better bring the argument RZM May 2012 #5
Your argument doesn't even demand a counter argument Bonobo May 2012 #13
I made the argument in the OP RZM May 2012 #15
I just disagree that that is the motivation. Bonobo May 2012 #23
However, one could indeed use fish and banana's of examples of foods that are long and thin LanternWaste May 2012 #75
No, you didn't make any argument at all. EOTE May 2012 #46
So does Obama know the truth of 9/11, in your estimation? jberryhill May 2012 #26
Beats me. nt Bonobo May 2012 #29
He seems to have a definite opinion jberryhill May 2012 #52
I wouldn't confuse that message with what he really knows or doesn't know. Bonobo May 2012 #65
There is a huge difference... jberryhill May 2012 #67
So you do at least agree that he does not tell all he knows -in principle. Bonobo May 2012 #69
"Does that mean I think that a missile hit the towers or that it was MIHOP?" jberryhill May 2012 #70
I agree with your thinking generally on the broad issue of thinking patterns. nt Bonobo May 2012 #72
So... not taking Dick Cheney at his word is the same as imagining Obama wasn't born in the U.S.? villager May 2012 #6
Nobody's arguing Dick Cheney is a saint RZM May 2012 #8
Your high opinion of Dick Cheney, and giving him the benefit of the doubt villager May 2012 #28
Your post proves his point. eom boppers May 2012 #61
?? villager May 2012 #74
Here you go: boppers May 2012 #83
Well, if you're ascribing more genteel motives to Cheney, Bush, et al villager May 2012 #85
I imagine we should apply healthy skepticism to all of our views LanternWaste May 2012 #77
Well said. Nor are these skepticisms all equivalent, yes? villager May 2012 #79
No, as soon as being skeptical about a "side" is not equal, intellectual honesty ends. boppers May 2012 #84
While I am skeptical of "both" parties, their actions manifest differently villager May 2012 #86
Anything glib, witty, or that fits on bumper-sticker, is almost surely a crock. boppers May 2012 #89
Well put. The OP is exactly that, and you have acutely discerned its weakness. villager May 2012 #90
Game, Set, Match. boppers May 2012 #91
Yes --if you're referring to the overly-simplistic nature of the OP and its false equivalency villager May 2012 #92
Two opposing bumper stickers does not create wisdom. boppers May 2012 #94
Exactly! So in specific contrast to the OP, it's wise to be skeptical of "official explanations..." villager May 2012 #98
I'm not entirely sure about his perpetrating or allowing an attack treestar May 2012 #87
bullshit. Skip Intro May 2012 #12
Why is that? n/t RZM May 2012 #16
Because I don't like pompass asses who think their opinions Skip Intro May 2012 #17
Except this isn't 'opinion' RZM May 2012 #22
Well, he ignored all the credible evidence given to him that an attack was likely. EOTE May 2012 #60
You think there is some truth to the "9/11 was an inside job" theory? UnrepentantLiberal May 2012 #30
It's a defensive peculiarity of the human mind. boppers May 2012 #21
Wow, we actually agree on something. UnrepentantLiberal May 2012 #34
Not all ducks are "plants". boppers May 2012 #35
+1 Exactly. nt zappaman May 2012 #55
No sale. Old and In the Way May 2012 #24
Is that sarcasm? UnrepentantLiberal May 2012 #31
Obama is covering up both jberryhill May 2012 #25
Is that sarcasm? UnrepentantLiberal May 2012 #32
Yes jberryhill May 2012 #51
I disagree. I don't believe the official 9/11 story. MrSlayer May 2012 #27
Is that sarcasm? UnrepentantLiberal May 2012 #33
Is that? MrSlayer May 2012 #62
Yep--that's what the hard right wants everybody to believe librechik May 2012 #63
Bush would need plausible deniability. MrSlayer May 2012 #68
why does he always look so guilty then? librechik May 2012 #81
It's easier to buy the story. MrSlayer May 2012 #82
The illogic of this comparison is breathtaking. Prometheus Bound May 2012 #36
No, they're not. MadHound May 2012 #37
Is that sarcasm? UnrepentantLiberal May 2012 #38
Are you spamming? MadHound May 2012 #39
You must know this subject isn't allowed in GD. UnrepentantLiberal May 2012 #40
None of the "three" collapsed "precisely into their own footprint", any more than the BC is fake. boppers May 2012 #73
No they didn't collapse into their own footprints. JohnyCanuck May 2012 #93
"7 or 8 seconds" destroys all credibility in your post. boppers May 2012 #95
The word 'all' in your post title Mc Mike May 2012 #96
Somewhat agree with your title. Mc Mike May 2012 #42
Not sa much. helderheid May 2012 #43
Brilliant! whatchamacallit May 2012 #49
Did ya look into BushCo's heart? That is the argued difference between negligence and treason TheKentuckian May 2012 #54
Two sidss of the crazy coin... SidDithers May 2012 #56
looking through your replies, it's pretty evident that you don't know fuckall.. frylock May 2012 #57
Some people love to entertain themselves with the idea of vast conspiracy treestar May 2012 #58
Not even close Cali_Democrat May 2012 #59
Obama's dad did not have an advance report titled "Mrs. Obama Determined to Give Birth in Kenya". KamaAina May 2012 #64
Spit-take! Yeah, that just about sums it up. EOTE May 2012 #76
BS--birthers are a deliberate campaign distraction invented by the right. librechik May 2012 #88
Not Really Amster Dan May 2012 #66
Ah, yes. Of course they are. Cerridwen May 2012 #71
But can a birther be a truther and vice versa? yellowcanine May 2012 #78
First of all, is "illegitimate" a real verb or are you just kree-a-tuv? trolling4dollaz May 2012 #80
that's some really interesting false equivalence... ibegurpard May 2012 #97
Philip Berg. Nuff said. nt hack89 May 2012 #99
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Truthers and birthers are...»Reply #56