| Truther | 583 up, 248 down  | |
Noun- One who rejects the accepted explanation of the events of 9/11. Truthers generally believe the U.S. government committed the acts of terrorism against itself. BYU professor Steven Jones is perhaps the most famous truther. get this def on a mug  | ||
| 2. | Truther | 606 up, 362 down |
A crazy person who believes the US government committed 9/11. Truthers get their inspiration from a moronic documentary called "Loose Change" which provides no facts whatsoever and has been thoroughly debunked. People who disagree with the truthers are repeatedly called government shills since truthers have no logical argument to counter the evidence. Truther: 9/11 was an inside job! get this def on a mug Sane person: Prove it. Truther: There was no plane at the Pentagon, only a missile! Sane person: There's dozens of witnesses and plane debris was found all over the place. Truther: ...Well the WTC was a controlled demolition! Sane person: Why did both buildings collapse from the point of impact then? Pretty crazy the explosives were in the exact spot the plane hit and didn't explode upon impact. Truther: ...You're just a government shill! Enjoy your FEMA camp when the NWO rolls around! truther troofer crazy moron idiot kook tin foil hat nut job insane inside job 9/11 loose change september be nuts Jan 29, 2008 share this | ||
| 3. | Truther | 145 up, 76 down |
Currently the term "Truther" refers to someone who adheres to the beliefs espoused by the 9/11 Truth movement. Truthers are conspiracy theorists that, like all conspiracy theorists, blatantly distort facts and quotes. These are the Bible thumpers of 9/11. Some of them believe that the government orchestrated it in some complex, cockamamie scheme; others believe that the government simply let it happen. Debating a Truther is like banging your head against a brick wall - painful and futile. You are likely to be called many things by them: ignorant, stupid, sheltered, blind, scared of the truth, a sheep, a lemming. get this def on a mug | ||
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
What Do You Think About Bruce Fealk Being A Truther?
Have Fun With This Blog
You can get to youtube from this blog.Navigate around and have fun with it. I have a streamer with the latest news at the bottom.Tell your friends and let us know what is going on in the conservative movement.
Dick Cheney Thinks Obama Is A Waffling Pussy. What Do You Think?
Former Vice President Dick Cheney speaks on "FOX News Sunday." In a speech to the Center for Security Policy, Cheney said the Bush administration handed Obama's transition team a policy review of the Afghan war conducted last fall to meet the new challenges posed by the Taliban.
"They asked us not to announce our findings publicly, and we agreed, giving them the benefit of our work and the benefit of the doubt," Cheney said.
Cheney's comments countered a recent claim by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel that the Obama administration had to form an Afghan war strategy from scratch because the Bush administration hadn't asked any key questions about the war and left it "adrift."
The comments add more fuel to the ongoing war of words between the former vice president and Obama administration officials over the current administration's national security policies, including the Justice Department's probe into alleged abuse of terror suspects by the Bush CIA and the president's plan to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay.
Obama is currently debating whether to ramp up war at the request of his military advisers or scale back the effort and focus on going after Al Qaeda in Pakistan, as some of his political advisers are urging.
Gen. Stanley McCrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, is reportedly seeking up to 40,000 additional troops on the ground where there are currently 68,000 U.S. soldiers.
Cheney says Obama should listen to his military commander.
"They made a decision -- a good one, I think -- and sent a commander into the field to implement it," Cheney said, referring to McChrystal, who was chosen in May by Obama to lead the fight in Afghanistan.
"Now they seem to be pulling back and blaming others for their failure to implement the strategy they embraced," he said. "It's time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity."
Obama has drawn sharp criticism from conservatives who argue that the deliberations are playing into the hands of the Taliban and damaging the morale of the U.S. troops fighting there.
Obama has said he will make a decision soon, possibly before Nov. 7 runoff election between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his rival Abdullah Abdullah.
Emanuel told CNN that the president is "asking the questions that have never been asked on the civilian side, the political side, the military side and the strategic side."
"It's clear that basically we had a war for eight years that was going on, that's adrift, that we're beginning at scratch, just at the starting point…and that there's not a security force, an army, and the types of services that are important for the Afghans to become a true partner."
In March, Obama ordered 4,000 more troops into Afghanistan, bringing the total then to 21,000 additional soldiers since he took office.
"So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future," he said at the time.
But rapidly deteriorating conditions and a widely disputed and unresolved election in Afghanistan gave the Obama administration pause and led to the current policy review.
"Having announced his Afghanistan strategy last March, President Obama now seems afraid to make a decision, and unable to provide his commander on the ground with the troops he needs to complete his mission," he said, calling on Obama to fulfill a promise he made in August to armed forces in a speech at the VFW to give them the support and resources need to get the job done.
"It's time for President Obama to make good on his promise," he said. "The White House must stop dithering while America's armed forces are in danger."
"Make no mistake, signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries," he added. "Waffling, while our troops on the ground face an emboldened enemy, endangers them and hurts our cause."
Former Vice President Dick Cheney said Wednesday that the Bush administration had developed a new strategy on the war in Afghanistan before leaving office -- a strategy that he said "bears a striking resemblance" to the one announced by President Obama in March.
"They asked us not to announce our findings publicly, and we agreed, giving them the benefit of our work and the benefit of the doubt," Cheney said.
Cheney's comments countered a recent claim by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel that the Obama administration had to form an Afghan war strategy from scratch because the Bush administration hadn't asked any key questions about the war and left it "adrift."
The comments add more fuel to the ongoing war of words between the former vice president and Obama administration officials over the current administration's national security policies, including the Justice Department's probe into alleged abuse of terror suspects by the Bush CIA and the president's plan to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay.
Obama is currently debating whether to ramp up war at the request of his military advisers or scale back the effort and focus on going after Al Qaeda in Pakistan, as some of his political advisers are urging.
Gen. Stanley McCrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, is reportedly seeking up to 40,000 additional troops on the ground where there are currently 68,000 U.S. soldiers.
Cheney says Obama should listen to his military commander.
"They made a decision -- a good one, I think -- and sent a commander into the field to implement it," Cheney said, referring to McChrystal, who was chosen in May by Obama to lead the fight in Afghanistan.
"Now they seem to be pulling back and blaming others for their failure to implement the strategy they embraced," he said. "It's time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity."
Obama has drawn sharp criticism from conservatives who argue that the deliberations are playing into the hands of the Taliban and damaging the morale of the U.S. troops fighting there.
Obama has said he will make a decision soon, possibly before Nov. 7 runoff election between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his rival Abdullah Abdullah.
Emanuel told CNN that the president is "asking the questions that have never been asked on the civilian side, the political side, the military side and the strategic side."
"It's clear that basically we had a war for eight years that was going on, that's adrift, that we're beginning at scratch, just at the starting point…and that there's not a security force, an army, and the types of services that are important for the Afghans to become a true partner."
In March, Obama ordered 4,000 more troops into Afghanistan, bringing the total then to 21,000 additional soldiers since he took office.
"So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future," he said at the time.
But rapidly deteriorating conditions and a widely disputed and unresolved election in Afghanistan gave the Obama administration pause and led to the current policy review.
"Having announced his Afghanistan strategy last March, President Obama now seems afraid to make a decision, and unable to provide his commander on the ground with the troops he needs to complete his mission," he said, calling on Obama to fulfill a promise he made in August to armed forces in a speech at the VFW to give them the support and resources need to get the job done.
"It's time for President Obama to make good on his promise," he said. "The White House must stop dithering while America's armed forces are in danger."
"Make no mistake, signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries," he added. "Waffling, while our troops on the ground face an emboldened enemy, endangers them and hurts our cause."
Why Do You Think The Libs Are Trying To Gay Our Kids Up In Gov't. Schools???
SaveCalifornia.com has launched a new drive to protest a pro-homosexual bill recently signed into law.Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, tells OneNewsNow he is calling for a boycott over a law designed to force students to honor a deceased homosexual activist.
"With Harvey Milk Gay Day now the law for California government schools, and a handful of sexual indoctrination laws already existing that are in effect throughout the entire school year, parents have to at least boycott Harvey Milk Day or days or week," Thomasson urges.
The boycott, he says, needs to be established by parents to protect their children, but also to drive home a point that they do not want their children indoctrinated with a pro-homosexual philosophy. Thomasson feels that taking students out of the government school system is the only way to accomplish this protection. He adds that parents also need to be aware of the quality of education their children are receiving in California.
Thomasson reports that "on the academic chart, California is among the lowest academically in the country. On the sexual indoctrination chart, California leads the pack with Massachusetts following."
Given these statistics, the West Coast pro-family, pro-child organization hopes that the boycott will convey the message that time in the classroom should not be used in a way that might risk losing average daily attendance funds. In addition, Thomasson believes California parents need to be concerned enough about the welfare of their children to begin homeschooling or sending them to private or religious schools.
"With Harvey Milk Gay Day now the law for California government schools, and a handful of sexual indoctrination laws already existing that are in effect throughout the entire school year, parents have to at least boycott Harvey Milk Day or days or week," Thomasson urges.
The boycott, he says, needs to be established by parents to protect their children, but also to drive home a point that they do not want their children indoctrinated with a pro-homosexual philosophy. Thomasson feels that taking students out of the government school system is the only way to accomplish this protection. He adds that parents also need to be aware of the quality of education their children are receiving in California.Thomasson reports that "on the academic chart, California is among the lowest academically in the country. On the sexual indoctrination chart, California leads the pack with Massachusetts following."
Given these statistics, the West Coast pro-family, pro-child organization hopes that the boycott will convey the message that time in the classroom should not be used in a way that might risk losing average daily attendance funds. In addition, Thomasson believes California parents need to be concerned enough about the welfare of their children to begin homeschooling or sending them to private or religious schools.
This Is Your Blog
Feel free to give me some ideas of things to post or just post them on the comments. Have some fun with it. This is your blog.
Bruce Fealk Is A Danger To Society
In what was is Bruce a danger to society? What will the headlines read when he does crack? And who will he hurt when he falls to the stress of having liberal retardes running our country into the ground?
This Is How They Indoctrinat Our Kids In Government Schools
The progressives are starting much younger these days...there is a video being played in schools all across America -- that lays out the 'story of stuff' a loving, anti-capitalist tale that unfortunately has virtually no facts correct. Watch the video (if you can stomach the entire thing) -- when you are done, check out this thorough debunking of the video, in which the commentator investigates the footnotes used in the 'story of stuff' video.
Glenn Beck
Glenn Beck - Weeknights at 5p ET on the Fox News ChannelFor the latest about Glenn Beck on the Fox News Channel, click here... Don’t miss “Glenn Beck” on the Fox News Channel, weekdays at 5p & 2a ET! |
Ron Bloom Obama's Manufacturing Czar
Obama's Manufacturing Czar Ron Bloom |
Brian Pannebeckers is back for good this time
Brian Pannebecker's site was up for only a short time before the OakLib Press wiped it off the face of the web. Brian now has a new site up and running. He unfortunately lost all of his hard work, including his archives. He's starting from scratch, but now he will not be constrained by the liberal OakLib Press editors and their kow-towing to liberal-radical Bruce Fealk. Here is Brian's new blog; please visit and enjoy: http://www.bpannebecker.blogspot.com/
Welcome back... Again!
Welcome back... Again!
Obama Must Be Gay
Obama is sure about something
Sandy Rios - Guest Columnist - 10/20/2009 10:25:00 AM
Do you remember the anticipation surrounding the great non-debate between Barack Obama and John McCain hosted by Pastor Rick Warren? Televised from Saddleback Church as millions watched, Warren pledged to ask the hard questions in order to get to the truth. It was a critical juncture in the presidential campaign and there was much public discussion over faith and values and marriage and Proposition 8 and where, exactly, each man stood."I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman...for me as a Christian it is also a sacred union...you know, God is in the mix," Obama declared to thunderous applause.
So there it was...proof. The skeptics of Obama's Christian faith and his position on the moral implications of same-sex marriage had been put in their place. The man had said he believed marriage was between a man and a woman, it was sacred and that it was his Christian faith that informed him of this. It was convincing and powerful and many social conservatives breathed a sigh of relief and voted for the charming candidate with the lovely smile, believing they were affirming a new era in race relations and signing on to "hope and change."
Fast forward to a recent appearance by the president in Washington, DC. The occasion was the annual dinner for the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the leading organization promoting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights. That audience was also eager to know just where he stood. Restless with his perceived inaction on their issues, they waited eagerly as Obama rose to speak.
He promised them the world. He promised a hate crimes bill that will put an added measure of federal law enforcement on anyone perpetrating a violent crime against a gay, lesbian or transgender person. If passed, murdering a gay man will be a much more serious crime than killing a grandmother. With bravado, he pledged to name this bill after Matthew Shepherd, the young gay slain in Wyoming in 1998. ABC tried to correct the narrative not long after the incident to clarify it was robbery not "homophobia" that resulted in the murder, but the story was already larger than life. Matthew was known for soliciting straight men and abusing drugs. His murder was tragic, but he was no hero. Still, Obama advanced the legend, and gave tribute to a man not known for his character, but for his sexual preference.
Next he promised ENDA (the Employment Non-Discrimination Act) to punish moral objections to hiring of GLBT persons -- even in schools, churches, private business and government offices. The next time you visit your child's school, after it passes, you could be met by a male teacher in a skirt or a drag queen as the office secretary.
"There are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors, even loved ones -- good and decent people -- who hold fast to outworn arguments and old attitudes," Obama continued.
I wonder if he had Rick Warren or the audience at Saddleback or the Christian world in mind. Surely that inference to a homosexual audience very clearly suggested that objections to homosexuality on moral grounds constituted those "outworn arguments" and "old attitudes." What could be older than the biblical prohibition against same-sex sex?
"I'm here with you in that fight....My commitment to you is unwavering....Do not doubt the direction we are headed and the destination we will reach," the president promised to the applause of the crowd.
If he had only made promises that definitive to Rick Warren....But he did say this during that televised "debate" in the heat of the campaign: "I'm not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage."
Really? He promised those at the HRC banquet he would overturn the Defense of Marriage Act. Ultimately he fought against Proposition 8 in California, a vote by its citizens to prevent same-sex marriage. And later he made sure he spoke in opposition to traditional marriage advocates in Iowa who were, with his help, defeated.
But the promises to the Human Rights Campaign didn't end there. In spite of objections by the best military minds who have cautioned about the dangers to troop cohesion in the face of open sexuality of either gender, Obama declared defiantly, "I will end 'Don't ask, don't tell.' That's my commitment to you!" Commitment to the homosexual activist community...not so much to our troops in the field.
"My expectation is that when you look back on these years, you will see a time in which we put a stop to discrimination against gays and lesbians whether in the office or on the battlefield. You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as between a man and woman...I am committed to these goals...."
Indeed, I believe he is. For a man who is so uncertain on so many things, of the need to advance homosexual rights he seems passionately convinced.
So there it was...proof. The skeptics of Obama's Christian faith and his position on the moral implications of same-sex marriage had been put in their place. The man had said he believed marriage was between a man and a woman, it was sacred and that it was his Christian faith that informed him of this. It was convincing and powerful and many social conservatives breathed a sigh of relief and voted for the charming candidate with the lovely smile, believing they were affirming a new era in race relations and signing on to "hope and change."
Fast forward to a recent appearance by the president in Washington, DC. The occasion was the annual dinner for the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the leading organization promoting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights. That audience was also eager to know just where he stood. Restless with his perceived inaction on their issues, they waited eagerly as Obama rose to speak.
He promised them the world. He promised a hate crimes bill that will put an added measure of federal law enforcement on anyone perpetrating a violent crime against a gay, lesbian or transgender person. If passed, murdering a gay man will be a much more serious crime than killing a grandmother. With bravado, he pledged to name this bill after Matthew Shepherd, the young gay slain in Wyoming in 1998. ABC tried to correct the narrative not long after the incident to clarify it was robbery not "homophobia" that resulted in the murder, but the story was already larger than life. Matthew was known for soliciting straight men and abusing drugs. His murder was tragic, but he was no hero. Still, Obama advanced the legend, and gave tribute to a man not known for his character, but for his sexual preference.
Next he promised ENDA (the Employment Non-Discrimination Act) to punish moral objections to hiring of GLBT persons -- even in schools, churches, private business and government offices. The next time you visit your child's school, after it passes, you could be met by a male teacher in a skirt or a drag queen as the office secretary.
"There are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors, even loved ones -- good and decent people -- who hold fast to outworn arguments and old attitudes," Obama continued.
I wonder if he had Rick Warren or the audience at Saddleback or the Christian world in mind. Surely that inference to a homosexual audience very clearly suggested that objections to homosexuality on moral grounds constituted those "outworn arguments" and "old attitudes." What could be older than the biblical prohibition against same-sex sex?
"I'm here with you in that fight....My commitment to you is unwavering....Do not doubt the direction we are headed and the destination we will reach," the president promised to the applause of the crowd.
If he had only made promises that definitive to Rick Warren....But he did say this during that televised "debate" in the heat of the campaign: "I'm not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage."
Really? He promised those at the HRC banquet he would overturn the Defense of Marriage Act. Ultimately he fought against Proposition 8 in California, a vote by its citizens to prevent same-sex marriage. And later he made sure he spoke in opposition to traditional marriage advocates in Iowa who were, with his help, defeated.
But the promises to the Human Rights Campaign didn't end there. In spite of objections by the best military minds who have cautioned about the dangers to troop cohesion in the face of open sexuality of either gender, Obama declared defiantly, "I will end 'Don't ask, don't tell.' That's my commitment to you!" Commitment to the homosexual activist community...not so much to our troops in the field.
"My expectation is that when you look back on these years, you will see a time in which we put a stop to discrimination against gays and lesbians whether in the office or on the battlefield. You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as between a man and woman...I am committed to these goals...."
Indeed, I believe he is. For a man who is so uncertain on so many things, of the need to advance homosexual rights he seems passionately convinced.
Don't forget to vote at the bottom of my page.
Americans Don't Like Black Conservatives
In the convoluted world of the Voting Rights Act, about which Chief Justice Roberts famously said, “It is a sordid business, this divvying up by race…” (see LULAC v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006)), it is never surprising when high-minded liberals use racism to combat supposed racism. Rare, however, is it that the Department of Justice or a Court is so blatant about it.
Welcome to Kinston, N.C. The city overwhelmingly voted to eliminate party affiliations for candidates in local elections. Given the state of each of the political parties these days, one might give the city the benefit of the doubt that this decision is a good, healthy thing.
But, Kinston must pre-clear any actions it takes regarding voting and elections with the Department of Justice pursuant to the Voting Rights Act. And the Department said, “no.” That, in and of itself, is not all that surprising (troubling, but not surprising). What is quite startling is the language the Department uses. According to the Washington Times:
What is particularly interesting, according to the article, neither local elected officials in Kinston nor a group of local voters could recall a Republican ever winning an election in the town. It’s a “one-party town.”
Further, if the article is correct, the town voted for this change last November, when a record number of blacks turned out to vote for President Obama.
Finally, again according to the article, even the local NAACP chapter head is skeptical of the decision.
No one doubts the troubling racial past of many jurisdictions in America - particular, of course, in the South (though it would be unfair not to give a hat tip to Cincinatti, South Boston, etc…). But the Voting Rights Act has, sadly, become little more than a tool for political hacks to hide behind race in a quest to promote liberal ideology and the Democrat Party.
Welcome to Kinston, N.C. The city overwhelmingly voted to eliminate party affiliations for candidates in local elections. Given the state of each of the political parties these days, one might give the city the benefit of the doubt that this decision is a good, healthy thing.
But, Kinston must pre-clear any actions it takes regarding voting and elections with the Department of Justice pursuant to the Voting Rights Act. And the Department said, “no.” That, in and of itself, is not all that surprising (troubling, but not surprising). What is quite startling is the language the Department uses. According to the Washington Times:
The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters’ right to elect the candidates they want.That’s right… “white voters… will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats.” Well, this is fairly common theory among abusers of the Voting Rights to political ends, but it usually isn’t said in such clear language.
What is particularly interesting, according to the article, neither local elected officials in Kinston nor a group of local voters could recall a Republican ever winning an election in the town. It’s a “one-party town.”
Further, if the article is correct, the town voted for this change last November, when a record number of blacks turned out to vote for President Obama.
Finally, again according to the article, even the local NAACP chapter head is skeptical of the decision.
No one doubts the troubling racial past of many jurisdictions in America - particular, of course, in the South (though it would be unfair not to give a hat tip to Cincinatti, South Boston, etc…). But the Voting Rights Act has, sadly, become little more than a tool for political hacks to hide behind race in a quest to promote liberal ideology and the Democrat Party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)