Political Crossfire Forums

psholtz · Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 23468 Location: California

JDHURF wrote: Do you not even have any evidence of this extraordinary claim you are making?
None that would convince you.

Quote: Why in the world should I begin believing that our government planned for years, and effectively orchestrated the highest level violent connivance of modern history simply because you get your rocks off spewing forth conspiracy theories you picked up from Goebellian propaganda internet sites.
Because your government has spent years planning and effectively orchestrating thousands of other extremely violent terrorist attacks around the planet, both upon its own citizens and abroad.

Killing Hope

Quote: It’s pathological because you are making the most extreme statements that are clearly contradictory to reality and doing so without the least bit of evidentiary abutment, it’s dishonest to a pathological extent.
Even if that were true -- which its not -- how would that be pathological?

Quote: psholtz wrote: It's a statement taken straight out of Logic 101..
Admit it, you have enjoyed absolutely no level of higher education.
I've done graduate work at Stanford..

In logic, no less.. :lol:

Quote: psholtz wrote: If we are given "p" (you are not a murdering Satan worshipper), then from this we *cannot* necessarily conclude "q" (Bush is not a murdering Satan worshipper).
Sure but we also cannot be given “p” Bush preemptively invaded Iraq – and any other variety of criticisms easily made regarding Bush – and conclude “q” Bush is a Satan worshiper. You present a hysterical non-sequitur. It actually made me laugh out loud the first time I read it.
That is correct, sir..

But if we are given that "p" (Bush dresses up in black Druid robes") and "q" (Bush bashes little babies heads in and eats their brains out of their skulls) and "q" (Bush is a member of the Satanic society Skull&Bones at Yale), then given these three conditions, we could logically infer that p & q & r => "s" (Bush is a Satanist).

Not that hard, is it? :-D

NAB · Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:28 pm Post subject:

psholtz wrote: NAB wrote: psholtz wrote: NAB wrote: psholtz wrote: NAB wrote: Since you believe that Satanists are ruling the earth, does that make you one?
I'm not a Satan-worshipper, nor do I rule the earth.

Quote: We are all creatures with varying weaknesses and failings.
Those who Rule do so precisely b/c they know and exploit your weaknesses and failings.

This has always been true, and always will be true.

The only thing worse than underestimating your enemy is overestimating them.
This Enemy cannot be overestimated.

No matter how bad you think things are, in truth they are always worse.

You thought the US national debt commitment was $8.3 trillion? Ooops... try more like $49 trillion. Oops.. is the Wall Street Journal about to report on tihs lil discrepency? Guess we better pull the ol' MK-Ultra switch and go shoot up a couple schools. That'll divert everyone's attention for a week or two.

And on and on and on and on.

It's *always* worse than you suspect.

Just one word of advice.
You believe that I'm seeking your advice concerning something?

Quote: If you go looking for an all-knowing, all-encompassing enemy capable of the things you claim, then you will find it. Whether it actually exists or not.
The Enemy is not all-knowing, nor is the Enemy all-encompassing.

The Enemy is -- like all evil -- actually quite weak.

The only reason the Enemy thrives and prospers in the current world is b/c the people (esp the American people) are even weaker.

The "advice" term was merely a turn of a phrase and not meant in the literal sense, but the smarmy response is appreciated. :wink:

As to the rest...I guess everyone needs a hobby.

psholtz · Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 23468 Location: California

NAB wrote: As to the rest...I guess everyone needs a hobby.
True... :lol:

Mighty Oak · Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 3:12 am Post subject:

psholtz wrote: NAB wrote: As to the rest...I guess everyone needs a hobby.
True... :lol: I think it's time to say pholtz has a clue.anybody else with me?

Patriot911 · Joined: 03 Feb 2005 Posts: 6907 Location: Denver, CO

Mighty Oak wrote: psholtz wrote: NAB wrote: As to the rest...I guess everyone needs a hobby.
True... :lol: I think it's time to say pholtz has a clue.anybody else with me?

Nope. Psholtz has been exposed in numerous lies and refuses to back up the vast majority of his claims. The claims he does back up turn out to be misleading at best and outright gross exaggerations at worst. If that is what you consider "having a clue", well, then I feel sorry for you. It explains a lot about your gullibility though..... :lol:

NAB · Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 10:50 am Post subject:

Mighty Oak wrote: psholtz wrote: NAB wrote: As to the rest...I guess everyone needs a hobby.
True... :lol: I think it's time to say pholtz has a clue.anybody else with me?

He's more than free to believe what he wants, just don't confuse his intractable stance with having a lock on the "truth". I'm always wary of anyone who never wavers from their stance, especially when dealing with random people on the net. :wink:

psholtz · Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 23468 Location: California

NAB wrote: I'm always wary of anyone who never wavers from their stance
Why should this make you weary?

Are you more comfortable dealing w/ the modern flip-flop politician?

NAB · Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:27 pm Post subject:

psholtz wrote: NAB wrote: I'm always wary of anyone who never wavers from their stance
Why should this make you weary?

Are you more comfortable dealing w/ the modern flip-flop politician?

It was wary, but weary is starting to become a big player in this thread as well. :roll:

Sorry partner, not biting on the flip flop thing. The two-party system isn't my cup o tea, nor are hard-headed people who think they have a lock on the truth. Try it out on someone who enjoys hyperbole. :wink:

psholtz · Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 23468 Location: California

NAB wrote: psholtz wrote: NAB wrote: I'm always wary of anyone who never wavers from their stance
Why should this make you weary?

Are you more comfortable dealing w/ the modern flip-flop politician?

It was wary, but weary is starting to become a big player in this thread as well.
Yes, my typo ... my apologies.. :-D

English is such a peculiar language.. like the word "one".. I mean, when you stop to think about it, how in the *bleep* does that word come off being pronounced as "one" .. which is to say, "won"?? Where's the W?

Baffling.

Quote: Sorry partner, not biting on the flip flop thing.
You're the one who brought it up.

You're the one who said you're wary of someone who stands for his beliefs and fights for what he believes in.

So if flip-flops ain't your thing, do you prefer people who waffle instead?

NAB · Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 3:15 pm Post subject:

psholtz wrote: You're the one who said you're wary of someone who stands for his beliefs and fights for what he believes in.

No I didn't say that. I said I'm wary of one who never wavers in their stance, especially coming from random people on the net. The internet has a way of bringing out the demogogue in people, and their pride very rarely allows them to admit they may not be correct on a subject. Especially when their whole net "personality" is built upon a particular premise. There's a big difference between that and someone standing up and fighting for their beliefs. In my experience the two very rarely have much to do with one another.

Btw, just a bit of "advice" :wink: when replying to one of my posts. You can drop the implied Demo/Repub slant. I'm for neither, so you're just wasting your breath..er..typing in trying to bait me on it. That type of worm just doesn't appeal to me. :wink:

cap'n queasy · Joined: 15 May 2004 Posts: 34968

Quote: Especially when their whole net "personality" is built upon a particular premise.

Hit the nail on the head.

psholtz · Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 23468 Location: California

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Especially when their whole net "personality" is built upon a particular premise.

Hit the nail on the head.
You think anyone w/ a (successful) public persona is any different?

Of course its all an act.. that's how you get your point across and win over the masses..

What do you think the Reagan administration was? :lol:

psholtz · Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 23468 Location: California

NAB wrote: psholtz wrote: You're the one who said you're wary of someone who stands for his beliefs and fights for what he believes in.

No I didn't say that. I said I'm wary of one who never wavers in their stance
That's what I said...

Why do you fear someone who never wavers in his stance?

There was a time when such a character trait would have been courage or fortitude, and yet you seem to be afraid of it..

why?

Quote: Especially when their whole net "personality" is built upon a particular premise. There's a big difference between that and someone standing up and fighting for their beliefs. In my experience the two very rarely have much to do with one another.
Once again... for about the 400th time on this thread.. you're superimposing your own weaknesses onto others and then trying to try make logical judgment calls based upon this.. something which we've already shown is impossible. Just because we have "p" (You might shoot your mouth off w/o actually having the courage to stand up and fight for your rights), that does not necessarily (logically) impy "q" (that I might shoot my mouth off w/o actually having the courage to stand up and fight for my rights).

Learning to dissociate yourself and your personality from (a) me; (b) Mohammend Atta; (c) President Bush; and (d) any other public persona who may cross your stream of consciousness will work wonders for your state of mind.. :tu: :-D

Quote: That type of worm just doesn't appeal to me.
Nor do worms offer much appeal to me.. :-D

Finally, we find agreement! :lol:

NAB · Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:55 pm Post subject:

psholtz wrote: NAB wrote: psholtz wrote: You're the one who said you're wary of someone who stands for his beliefs and fights for what he believes in.

No I didn't say that. I said I'm wary of one who never wavers in their stance
That's what I said...

Why do you fear someone who never wavers in his stance?

There was a time when such a character trait would have been courage or fortitude, and yet you seem to be afraid of it..

why?

Quote: Especially when their whole net "personality" is built upon a particular premise. There's a big difference between that and someone standing up and fighting for their beliefs. In my experience the two very rarely have much to do with one another.
Once again... for about the 400th time on this thread.. you're superimposing your own weaknesses onto others and then trying to try make logical judgment calls based upon this.. something which we've already shown is impossible. Just because we have "p" (You might shoot your mouth off w/o actually having the courage to stand up and fight for your rights), that does not necessarily (logically) impy "q" (that I might shoot my mouth off w/o actually having the courage to stand up and fight for my rights).

Learning to dissociate yourself and your personality from (a) me; (b) Mohammend Atta; (c) President Bush; and (d) any other public persona who may cross your stream of consciousness will work wonders for your state of mind.. :tu: :-D

Quote: That type of worm just doesn't appeal to me.
Nor do worms offer much appeal to me.. :-D

Finally, we find agreement! :lol:

Frankly I'm not afraid of anyone who is willing to stick to their guns when said stance isn't based on specious dot connecting and some downright leaps of faith based on wishful thinking. There's a lot of that going on this this forum in particular. I'm also not superimposing my own "weaknesses" on anyone, merely a lot of real world experience with a wide range of people from different backgrounds/races/ and countries. I've found more commonality in people than not, and I also have come to understand the limitations people have. These limitations don't seem to be considered in many of the theories you claim as fact imho. Therein lies a disconnect that bears some consideration that you seem more than "willing" to disregard out of hand.

Just understand that while I disagree with a lot of what you post, I have no problem with you posting it. I'm all for the cards being layed out and the truth being known, but sometimes the card that gets turned over happens to be the joker.

psholtz · Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 23468 Location: California

NAB wrote: I'm also not superimposing my own "weaknesses" on anyone, merely a lot of real world experience with a wide range of people from different backgrounds/races/ and countries.
Sure..

You've had a lot of real world experience w/ a wide range of people -- all of whom (based upon what you say) are quite weak.

That's all I'm saying..

Just b/c the "standard" response from Joe Pack is to cower down and roll over like a slave jellyfish in the face of tyranny, that doesn't mean that *all* people in the world act like that..

NAB · Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 8:25 pm Post subject:

psholtz wrote: NAB wrote: I'm also not superimposing my own "weaknesses" on anyone, merely a lot of real world experience with a wide range of people from different backgrounds/races/ and countries.
Sure..

You've had a lot of real world experience w/ a wide range of people -- all of whom (based upon what you say) are quite weak.

That's all I'm saying..

Just b/c the "standard" response from Joe Pack is to cower down and roll over like a slave jellyfish in the face of tyranny, that doesn't mean that *all* people in the world act like that..

Maybe I should have been a bit more specific then. I wasn't referring to just Joe Six Pack. I would number some of these people I've met to fall under such categories as past and current US presidents, former/current presidents/Mayors/Governors in the US and other countries, former CIA/FBI employees (one is a direct family member), a past head of the Phillipino Intelligence Agency, numerous CEO's of large corporations, a former head of the DIA, and potentially some family members of some of those vaunted "Elite" familes that I went to school with. I've also had the opportunity to travel to over 40 different countries, so maybe I'll toss in their versions of Joe Six Pack for good measure. I do get around. :wink:

I'm not even going to mention some people in the entertainment industry that I met in a previous life in the advertising world, since I don't think they would count for much on the "human" scale, and are rife with actual weakness. :lol:

JDHURF · Joined: 01 Jul 2006 Posts: 3601 Location: Tulsa, OK

psholtz wrote: None that would convince you.
That is even less of a response than I had anticipated.
psholtz wrote: Because your government has spent years planning and effectively orchestrating thousands of other extremely violent terrorist attacks around the planet, both upon its own citizens and abroad.
I was asking for the evidence that Usama, as portrayed in the Usama tapes, was not actually Usama, but, nice convoluted tangent. Furthermore the fact that our government has intervened militarily in places best left alone and in a manner which it shouldn’t have is clearly not evidence that 9/11 was a conspiracy, you are presenting a most hysterical non-sequitur.
psholtz wrote: Even if that were true -- which its not -- how would that be pathological?
Because the dishonesty inherent in your tirades of Goebellian conspiracy propaganda reach the level of pathology. Ever heard of a pathological liar? That is someone who lies because they are pathological, you might just be a pathological conspiracy theorist. However I am now almost certain that you have created a hoax account in order to make the conspiracy theorists look as outrageous and silly as they really are.
psholtz wrote: I've done graduate work at Stanford..
In logic, no less..
I find that terribly hard to believe.
psholtz wrote: That is correct, sir..
But if we are given that "p" (Bush dresses up in black Druid robes") and "q" (Bush bashes little babies heads in and eats their brains out of their skulls) and "q" (Bush is a member of the Satanic society Skull&Bones at Yale), then given these three conditions, we could logically infer that p & q & r => "s" (Bush is a Satanist).
Not that hard, is it?
:lol: isn’t creating fake, hoax accounts against the forum policy here? Not that I care, I find biting satire vastly amusing.

Admit it, this is just a gag…you can PM me if you wish. I can keep secrets too. :wink:

psholtz · Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 23468 Location: California

NAB wrote: Maybe I should have been a bit more specific then. I wasn't referring to just Joe Six Pack. I would number some of these people I've met to fall under such categories as past and current US presidents, former/current presidents/Mayors/Governors in the US and other countries, former CIA/FBI employees (one is a direct family member), a past head of the Phillipino Intelligence Agency, numerous CEO's of large corporations, a former head of the DIA, and potentially some family members of some of those vaunted "Elite" familes that I went to school with.
That is what I'm telling you..

Presidents, Senators, mayors, CIA/FBI, etc, are some of the weakest, most pathetic and most utterly cowardly creature-things that have ever masqueraded in human form on this planet. What do you think it takes to murder for oil and $$, steal from widows and orphans, rape, pillage and torture, lie to the American public w/ every breath you take, etc, etc, etc..

You think this is how a strong, courageous, honorable man acts?

No, of course its not.

Only the most cowardly, most pathetic, most slavish man-beasts behave such animal-like (<- bad analogy, since even animals are not this vile and vicious and murderous), disgraceful manner.

NAB · Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 8:42 pm Post subject:

psholtz wrote: NAB wrote: Maybe I should have been a bit more specific then. I wasn't referring to just Joe Six Pack. I would number some of these people I've met to fall under such categories as past and current US presidents, former/current presidents/Mayors/Governors in the US and other countries, former CIA/FBI employees (one is a direct family member), a past head of the Phillipino Intelligence Agency, numerous CEO's of large corporations, a former head of the DIA, and potentially some family members of some of those vaunted "Elite" familes that I went to school with.
That is what I'm telling you..

Presidents, Senators, mayors, CIA/FBI, etc, are some of the weakest, most pathetic and most utterly cowardly creature-things that have ever masqueraded in human form on this planet. What do you think it takes to murder for oil and $$, steal from widows and orphans, rape, pillage and torture, lie to the American public w/ every breath you take, etc, etc, etc..

You think this is how a strong, courageous, honorable man acts?

No, of course its not.

Only the most cowardly, most pathetic, most slavish man-beasts behave such animal-like (<- bad analogy, since even animals are not this vile and vicious and murderous), disgraceful manner.

I'll give you that on most polticians, but many of the others I've met are anything but what you claim. The reason we got on this tangent was my assertion on the limitations that human beings have, and then you go along a kind of agree with me, YET will turn around and grant them skills and powers of manipulation that are beyond their skills. It's the former or the later, not both. I stick to the former.

JDHURF · Joined: 01 Jul 2006 Posts: 3601 Location: Tulsa, OK

If psholtz had PM’d me and admitted that he was propagating a hoax I would have kept it to myself but he has actually insisted that he is genuinely serious, which, I believe, speaks volumes about his character. Example:

psholtz wrote: That is correct, sir..
But if we are given that "p" (Bush dresses up in black Druid robes") and "q" (Bush bashes little babies heads in and eats their brains out of their skulls) and "q" (Bush is a member of the Satanic society Skull&Bones at Yale), then given these three conditions, we could logically infer that p & q & r => "s" (Bush is a Satanist).
Not that hard, is it?
Clearly this is either a joke or the ravings of a madman foaming at the mouth with hysteria, but maybe with psholtz it's a combination of the two.