NAU conspiracy theory pummeled by exasperated conservatives
posted at 8:33 am on September 15, 2007 by see-dubya
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
What else is there to add to these righteous sense-knockings?
First up: John Hawkins.
Now, you may be thinking that this whole theory is a little foggy and short on specifics — and you’d be right. It’s sort of like handing someone some cake mix, a frying pan, and 4 pine cones — and then saying you expect them to make clam chowder out of it in 30 minutes, but people are buying into the NAU by the thousands, so let’s just take the theory as we find it.
But that’s not all: Richard Reeb of the Claremont Institute piles on, in a post delicately titled “We’ve Got Our Nut Jobs Too“:
Last April at the annual convention of the California Republican Assembly (CRA) in Ontario, literature concerning the NAU was all over the place. People who cheered the President for his judicial appointments or staunch commitment to the war on the terrorists swallowed whole the insane idea that the the same man would betray his country for so banal an object. One particularly obnoxious speaker was one Stanley Monteith, a Santa Cruz-based broadcaster and political entrepreneur, who declared (I paraphrase here): “Your enemies are not some dangerous men abroad (e.g., Arab sheiks, Chi Com apparatchiks or Third World revolutionaries) but men in Washington, D.C., dressed in suits and working in government offices.” This was straight out of the old John Birch Society playbook, according to which the only real enemies of the United States are internal.
The notion that our lax border policy poses critical risks to American sovereignty is one thing, and it’s a concern I take very seriously.
This notion of mysterious shadowy bureaucrats meeting to usher in the NAU with George Bush’s blessing, however, is crazytalk. It hampers serious efforts to argue for border security by making the entire movement look like loons. Please, please, get over it, folks.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Again, you’ve refused to engage on the issue with me before, after simply whining about being “ridiculed”, so why would I bother trying again. And now you’re just flat out lying. So it’s not name calling if I now call you A LIAR, because this:
Is BS. You’re just lumping all of us “NAU deniers” together, because I’ve never done such a thing. Anyway, get the truth out while you can, before we (those of us in on the conspiracy… I seem to recall you semi-accusing Allah of having financial interest) throw you in a camp for trying to expose us.
RightWinged on September 16, 2007 at 8:22 PM
Lie.
Any reader of this blog for more than a day knows d&mn well that’s absolutely false. I’ve never refused to respond to ANY comment. You’re making a fool out of yourself. Go ahead. Challenge me on an actual fact related to the topic. Try me. Try doing it without having to link to someone else’s attempt to debunk the claim. Pick an actual portion of the NAU claim and tell me why it’s false. Anything. But realize that the claim that it would require a Constitutional amendment has already been proved false, and phone calls to Robert Pastor and Tony Snow are not evidence.
But you won’t take this challenge. You’ll simply say it’s a waste of your time.
You continually state that I refuse to engage you, but here I stand offering to actually debate you on the topic and you do nothing but run away.
Yes it is.
You’ve never debated the facts. Ever. All you’ve ever done is link to articles by other people offering the same “opinions” that we’re all fruitcakes. Like I said above … you’re incapable of debating this topic.
Gregor on September 16, 2007 at 10:29 PM
No sir, YOU’RE A LIAR:
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/08/23/heart-ache-bush-calls-north-american-union-suspicions-comical
YOU NEVER CAME BACK TO RESPOND! Again, my point stands
Need another?
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/08/30/first-mexican-trucks-set-to-roll-inside-us-on-saturday
(I’m not going to quote the entire comment again, because it’s so many quotes within quotes as it was, and it was a reiteration of the first example above)
BOTH TIMES, YOU WHINE ABOUT BEING RIDICULED, NEITHER TIME DID YOU RESPOND TO THE POINTS.
I, on the other hand explained (in response to more of your whining) why I will take a bit of time to debunk Truthers, but not you… is because you aren’t part of some growing movement. The Truthers are gaining a lot of prominence (which I predicted by the way), therefore ignoring them would be a mistake. You nuts on the other hand are insignificant, but it’s fun to mock you.
BUT THE POINT STANDS, I’VE ACTUALLY (RELUCTANTLY) SAID “OKAY, I’LL BITE FOR A MINUTE” AND THROWN A LINK AT YOU… AND YOU DIDN’T EVEN HANG AROUND TO DISMISS THE LINK.
Now you’re accusing me of other links that I never put up, because you’re obviously mixing me up with someone else.
So now you’ve been proven to be a repeated liar. Game, set, match.
RightWinged on September 16, 2007 at 11:43 PM
You and Geraldo are two peas in a pod. Thia is the most racist post in this thread.
What part of illegal do you not understand?
ScottyDog on September 17, 2007 at 9:36 AM
Yo Einstein, the census tracks legal people in the country. And yes Virginia a good number of our LEGAL CITIZENS are of Hispanic origin.
Deal with it. Geraldo indeed!
Bradky on September 17, 2007 at 12:16 PM
OH and sugarbear, a person who thinks they can ascertain whether or not a person is legally here simply by looking at them is the very definition of a racist.
Bradky on September 17, 2007 at 12:17 PM
I don’t get it. You just PROVED my claim. I wrote that you have never debated the facts of this topic on your own, and that you’ve simply linked to a couple of articles which rely on nothing but ridicule to supposedly debunk the theory. So how do you respond to my claim?
By reposting your original post in which you refused to debate the facts and instead linked to someone else’s article consisting of nothing but ridicule.
Thanks!
And to help you prove me right, I’ll even repost your reply to my request that you debate the facts rather than post to silly articles of ridicule. Notice how you immediately post to SOMEONE ELSES article and then immediately go into your ridicule calling us all fruitcakes?
Notice there’s not a single fact to support your claims included in your comment. NADA.
Would you like to try again?
I’ll ask again:
Challenge me on an actual fact related to the topic. Try me. Try doing it without having to link to someone else’s attempt to debunk the claim. Pick an actual portion of the NAU claim and tell me why it’s false. Anything. But realize that the claim that it would require a Constitutional amendment has already been proved false, and phone calls to Robert Pastor and Tony Snow are not evidence.
But you won’t take this challenge. You’ll simply say it’s a waste of your time.
Oh wait. I forgot. You already did that. Hell, you even admitted it in your own words:
You’re nothing but a cowardly hack.
Here you go. I’ll ask you twice in the same comment:
Challenge me on an actual fact related to the topic. Try me. Try doing it without having to link to someone else’s attempt to debunk the claim. Pick an actual portion of the NAU claim and tell me why it’s false. Anything. But realize that the claim that it would require a Constitutional amendment has already been proved false, and phone calls to Robert Pastor and Tony Snow are not evidence.
But you won’t take this challenge. You’ll simply say it’s a waste of your time.
Gregor on September 17, 2007 at 1:25 PM
Spare me the lectures on Geraldo Rivera inspired racism and reconquista as you see it in defending illegal immigration.
The census bureau does not track whether the self identified Hispanics are here illegally.
I live in the heart of Southern California and have seen first hand how we are being invaded by Mexico.
BTW-It is not very hard to tell who the illegals are…the first hint is they cannot speak English and are dressed in “knock off” clothing from Mexico.
I still do not know why you attacked Christine with your racist attack when we were writing about the NAU, on second thought, yes I do.
That is what the open borders crowd does when they are loosing the argument.
ScottyDog on September 17, 2007 at 1:30 PM
Bradky, would you like to point to ANY comment on this thread which gives ANY indication that this is what ANYONE has suggested? Are you that cowardly that you need to resort to lies and the race card to offer up any debate at all? There’s not a single person on this thread who has even hinted that Hispanics should not be part of our population. Are you that stupid, or just a liar?
Gregor on September 17, 2007 at 1:30 PM
Hanging around. Still waiting for RightWinged to …
And waiting …
Gregor on September 17, 2007 at 2:33 PM
Is there a time limit we have to wait before abandoning a thread, in order to avoid having RightWinged come in and accuse us of “running away?”
Gregor on September 17, 2007 at 3:37 PM
Gregor, you’re such a douche… it’s your new thing to say “argue with me, but no links!”… My point was, you always whined when we mocked you previously, but whenever I’d finally spend 10 seconds to dig up a link, that I said was just to get the ball rolling, you never came back. You didn’t say “don’t give me links”, etc. at the time. You just pussied out, because you couldn’t respond.
Now, I’ve exposed you for being a f**king liar, so you’re trying to pretend that you’ve complained about links all along… when in reality, you NEVER even responded when I provided the link before.
Going back to my original point? Why get down in to this idiocy with you? So that I can spend the time researching each angle enough to debunk you on one, only to have you jump to your next smoking gun… before it’s debunked, and you do it again, and again. It’s like a Truther saying “but what about Building 7!” when all else fails. You’re silly, and insignificant. But you’re also a liar, as I’ve proven a number of times here. Again, wasting my time trying to prove a negative (lol, especially when links are off limits) with you is useless, because you’ll simply jump around “but look at this”, “no Gregor, that’s crap because XYZ”… “but what about this!?”. Sorry, maybe if you mattered like the Truthers, but you’re insignificant.
RightWinged on September 17, 2007 at 6:02 PM
Hey, assclown… we don’t all operate on the Gregor schedule. Some of us are involved in a deep conspiracy to merge 3 countries and silence folks like yourself, and these are time consuming activities!
RightWinged on September 17, 2007 at 6:03 PM
The only racist in this thread is you. And I’m sure Christine is capable of defending herself without an internet forum knight in shining armor coming to her rescue…
Bradky on September 17, 2007 at 6:41 PM
Why even bother to post your comment RightWinged? There’s nothing in it.
Still waiting.
Challenge me on an actual fact related to the topic. Try me. Try doing it without having to link to someone else’s attempt to debunk the claim. Pick an actual portion of the NAU claim and tell me why it’s false. Anything. But realize that the claim that it would require a Constitutional amendment has already been proved false, and phone calls to Robert Pastor and Tony Snow are not evidence.
Coward.
Hack.
Troll.
Gregor on September 17, 2007 at 6:42 PM
SHOCKER!
Gregor on September 17, 2007 at 6:51 PM
It’s amazing really.
RightWinged accuses a commenter of refusing to engage.
Commenter engages and begs for an actual debate on actual facts.
RightWinged says accepting the debate is a waste of his time.
Classic troll work.
Gregor on September 17, 2007 at 6:59 PM
Bradky
Your the only one that raised race and tried to use it to attack Christine. Now you are using the same vicious racial slur to try and attack me for refuting your ridiculous assertions about race and illegal immigration.
Like Gregor said in his post, your the only one that is interjecting race into this issue on this thread.
ScottyDog on September 17, 2007 at 7:01 PM
I challenged to refute the facts in the last thread on the NAU and you have yet to do anything but cut and past John Hawkings or Joshua Holland assurtions.
Gregor and I have presented the facts but all you do in the end is make personal attacks.
What the heck does “Truthers” have to do with the ongoing NAU/SPP agreements that GWB has been conducting at the Commerce Department.
Why don’t you watch this video of George W Bush’s father talking about the New World Order in a speech given before congress in 1991 and tell me how that is a conspiracy or how HWB did not mean what he said?
Screaming “conspiracy theory” is nothing more than committing a straw man (an informal fallacy of basic logic).
Ridicule is the last resort of those who have lost the argument, as you and the skeptics clearly have.
Calling me or Gregor names only diminshes your assertions.
ScottyDog on September 17, 2007 at 7:14 PM
Grow up and get busy studying for the SAT.
PS Gregor was talking to RW not me.
Bradky on September 17, 2007 at 7:22 PM
Well, if I do have a few hours to waste next time this roles around… tell me exactly which “the NAU claim” you’re talking about. There are many, just as there are many shades of Truther. Some Truthers even believe that their leader, Alex Jones, is actually all part of the conspiracy and that he is employed by the CIA as part of project Mockingbird.
Sweet! So Gregor diminishes his arguments too?
“Uh, no wait Rightwinged.. I mean.. uh, Gregor is calling names because.. Um, it doesn’t diminish.. oh sh**… Uh Superhighway!!!”
Seriously though Gregor, you’re a liar.. I busted you repeatedly running from other threads, something you’ve only tried to spin and ignore here and this thread is now dead.. but if you want me to stop “ridiculing” you, give me exactly what your belief is (because there are many different versions). And I’ll even allow you a courtesy you don’t allow me, LINKS! You can link me to your favorite explanation of the
conspiracy theorytruth that I’m blind to.RightWinged on September 17, 2007 at 7:53 PM
Really then what was this:
Bradky:
I took the SAT over 38 years ago when reading and comprehension actually meant something.
Thoust protest too much.
ScottyDog on September 17, 2007 at 8:06 PM
No. Actually I was talking to you. Here’s my comment again:
Gregor on September 17, 2007 at 8:10 PM
So, let me get this straight. You want me to sit here and write my entire theory down so you can distinguish it from the other NAU theories that you say exist, and then … you’re going to get back to me “if you do have a few hours to waste next time this roles around?
LOL! Classic.
There’s no need to differentiate my theory, since this is not the 9/11 conspiracy we’re debating. There is only one claim by me. Simply that members of our government, including our President, are working with members of the governments of Mexico and Canada in eliminating our borders and merging the three countries into a borderless tri-lateral government. Do I think they’re going to “name” this the “North American Union?” NO. There’s no need to give it a name. The “union” will become reality by default due to the elimination of all efforts to enforce our borders, and through working agreements which allow the free movement of people and goods.” “Free movement of people and goods.” Those are George Bush’s words, by the way.
No Constitutional amendment. No Congressional approval. No transparency.
No. I actually HAVE an argument. I actually post FACTS instead of simply calling you names. There’s quite a difference.
Saying “you’re stupid so I’m not answering your questions” is a little less effective than saying “you’re stupid because the answer to that question is 54, not 48.”
LOL! Riiiiiiight. Obviously, I run from threads on this topic. As I pointed out earlier … I’ll let my history speak for itself and any reader who’s participated in HotAir since day number one knows you’re talking out your a$$ with that accusation. But that’s fine. You go right ahead and keep saying it. Eventually, someone might believe you, but Robert Pastor doesn’t count.
Gregor on September 17, 2007 at 8:34 PM
And no RightWinged, I’m not running away. I’ll be gone for about three hours in case some magical spell should come over you causing you to answer my challenge:
Challenge me on an actual fact related to the topic. Try me. Try doing it without having to link to someone else’s attempt to debunk the claim. Pick an actual portion of the NAU claim and tell me why it’s false. Anything. But realize that the claim that it would require a Constitutional amendment has already been proved false, and phone calls to Robert Pastor and Tony Snow are not evidence.
Gregor on September 17, 2007 at 8:43 PM
Good, because it proves you’re a liar.
Again, there are different strains… There is the “there’s a map showing the superhighway” crap, which is thoroughly debunked, there’s the “Amero” crowd, etc.
At any rate, AS I SAID, I may pick it up when there’s a fresh thread at some point, because you’re really insignificant.. but I may be bored in the future, and want to tangle, so I just wish I had more of a clear picture of what you think. Are you a “skull and bones” guy? Are you a “bohemian grove” guy? I don’t know how far you go, because all of you conspiracy theorists overlap in different areas.. some only attach themselves to certain parts, others attach themselves to ALL theories.
Anyway, regarding name calling diminishing arguments.. I don’t really care, I just found it funny that the other douche said flat out that name calling diminishes arguments.. he didn’t say “unless it’s done with good arguments presented first”, he just simply said “name calling”… It was just pretty funny, because you keep calling me a troll, etc.
At any rate, I’m done in this thread… but for next time, I’ll be trying to think of ways to debunk aspects of your theory, which I guess requires making things up in my head, since I’m not allowed to seek information from other sites… Or is it just that you’re allergic to links? Am I allowed to take information from sites, just not link to them? Because if I’m not allowed to find information on other web sites, then I’m left to sit here and just make stuff up.
RightWinged on September 17, 2007 at 11:52 PM
BTW, I know links offend you some how (I’m not sure exactly why), but can you link me, or somehow support your claim that “Free movement of people and goods”, are Bush’s words? I’m not challenging it, I’m just curious if you could point me to a link (or show me how you magically support it without a link?) And, I shouldn’t have to say this, but NAU conspiracy theory sites won’t do.
RightWinged on September 17, 2007 at 11:59 PM
You’re such a chicken sh!t it’s pathetic. So predictably dishonest.
Really? So debunk it then. If it’s so “thoroughly debunked.” How hard can it be? Give it your best shot. Oh wait. ANY shot would be your best shot, because you’ve yet to give any shot at all.
And this actually shows your intelligence level. So you believe that gathering information from other sources and putting it together in an effort to verify a theory is the same as simply copying and pasting a link to someone else’s “opinion?”
Maybe you haven’t heard of the word … “research?”
I guess in your mind, Allah Pundit, Michelle Malkin, Bryan, and all the rest of the world’s journalists simply make stuff up since they don’t rely on just copying and pasting links to other people’s opinions? No wonder you’re struggling here.
So I’m curious. How is it that you have time to be replying to all of these comments, but you claim to not have time to post a single fact? I thought all of this had already been “thoroughly debunked.” I thought you had already researched it out and come to a conclusion.
The truth is that you don’t know a d&mn thing about the theory, do you. You’re exactly what I said you are, which is a troll. You have no knowledge. You have no information. You simply hang out in this blog and most likely others and think its fun to mock others who actually spend their time doing “research.”
I feel bad for you actually. If it makes you feel smarter than everyone else, good for you.
Gregor on September 18, 2007 at 12:13 AM
It’s because it takes RESEARCH (something you’re claiming to know something about (FYI, don’t think I’m ignoring that whole thing about if MM, etc. make things up, etc. etc…. It’s just a garbled mess that is so beyond idiotic, I just can’t even wrap my head around the circles you went in).
Because if I tell you things, you’re going to want proof… So that requires time, especially when you demand that I simply retype things that I could otherwise just link to.
As for the “NASCO Superhighway Map” (first of all, like Bush Sr.’s “new world order” comment, it’s not very descrete is it? Reminds me of “controlled demolitions” on 9/11… wouldn’t the conspiracy masterminds have thought of that?)… The map is not scale, it’s simply highlighting the already existing I-35, I-29 and I-94. Again, thoroughly debunked. The map isn’t brazenly showing a massively wide highway to scale, it’s highlighting existing highways.
RightWinged on September 18, 2007 at 12:31 AM
Thank you, please save me from myself. I’m just another Bush sheep headed for the slaughter. (Well, not slaughter, but likely an implant chip)
RightWinged on September 18, 2007 at 12:33 AM
Apologies for missing that – you were right about Gregor making the post his rhetoric and rightwinged’s tend to sound alike and I don’t bother with RW’s at all.
Bradky on September 18, 2007 at 12:44 AM
Really? Seriously? It’s already there? “Existing highways?” No massively wide highway?
Are you absolutely positive?
(Emphasis would be mine) Pay attention.
Oh. Are you familiar with Cintra? Let me help you out.
Gregor on September 18, 2007 at 12:48 AM
Grow up Gregor. The worst racists are the ones that make their slurs by implication. You saw what Christine said as I’m quite sure you understood the implication.
Go back to your wrestling match with RW.
Bradky on September 18, 2007 at 12:48 AM
RightWinged …
So far, you’re 0 for 1. Got any more?
Gregor on September 18, 2007 at 12:49 AM
Just in case you didn’t know …
Saying that something has been “thoroughly debunked” does not count as a debunking all by itself. It’s highly important to actually point out some details to support that claim. Otherwise, I could just as easily say the NAU has been thoroughly proven to be true and the entire argument would be over.
Gregor on September 18, 2007 at 1:18 AM
Shouldn’t I dismiss your comment, because you’re linking and copying and pasting? You said that’s off limits… Oh, that’s right, it’s off limits if the sites are attempts to debunk NAU conspiracy theories.
Uh, the problem AGAIN YOU F**KING MORON, is that I can’t prove a negative, and I can’t support my contentions because you made links off limits. You’re saying “this is happening, prove it isn’t!” Very Trutherish of you.
But just for sh**ts and giggles:
The smoking gun you nuts used regarding the Superhighway was the hugely wide highway, shown in scale on a map, extending from Mexico to Canada. Sadly, it was simply an identifier on the map OF EXISTING HIGHWAYS, not showing to scale a new tremendously wide highway system.
Now, you raise some crap about the DEVOLOPING the (already in existence) Trans Texas Corridor. It may include miles and miles of new roads, but doesn’t have crap to do with pretending a map identifying an existing highway from Mexico to Canada as a new enormously wide highway. That is the claim I addressed and pointed out was crap, and instead of either admitting it is (and that the map wasn’t showing showing a “scale” width highway) or attempting to support the conspiracy theory claim, you focused on the further development of the Trans Texas Corridor.
Further, you linked (which you keep telling me isn’t allowed) to 2 fricken’ no name sites. Yeah, I know you tried to disguise the second one with a Free Republic link because you know the source of the article is a partisan columnist who agrees with your thinking.) So, no links are allowed from me, if what is said supports my position. But all sorts of unsupported links that are glorified columns (at best) from you, and that’s okay?
Further, this couldn’t be more vague:
You realize of course that the “up to 1,200 feet wide” first of all, means nothing because it’s an “up to”… but primarily because it likely means that areas such as the toll areas it mentions could be UP TO that wide. Hell, maybe even areas where the opposite bounds lanes are separated by a large grass/wooded median? But you aren’t going to have highways that are 1,200 feet wide. I can see it now 60 lanes headed each way! Riiiiiiight.
RightWinged on September 18, 2007 at 2:45 AM
First off, YOU dismiss ALL comments by anyone who disagrees with you.
Second, you might notice that I did not simply paste a link into the comment and run away as if that was the end of it. I included the quotes which supported my case and emphasized specific lines which should further enlighten you.
This is a far cry from your tactic of pasting a link to a 1000 word essay and expecting us to know what part of the article you’re referring to and expecting us to debunk the entire article instead of specific claims.
You might also notice, if you’re paying attention, that this is how it’s done in blogging. Take a look at this post by Allah Pundit as an example. You have a link followed by specific quotes, and then another link, followed by more specific quotes, and then finally a follow up intended to wrap it all up nicely for the reader. Nice, isn’t it?
Yet another lie by the master troll. No. I never said links were off limits. Once again, I merely suggested that linking to another person’s opinion without posting actual facts regarding the topic to support your claim is worthless. An “opinion” is worthless without evidence.
I can easily show you a link to Loose Change’s video of lies. Is that going to somehow prove that 9/11 was an inside job?
Again, here’s how it works. Someone tells you there was no airplane that flew into the Pentagon, and you answer by producing photos of burnt out airplane parts, charred bodies, and eyewitness accounts of the incident. It’s extremely easy to debate a bogus theory without simply yelling that they’re all fruitcakes.
Here’s the problem with your links. Your links went directly to an article which was nothing more than a man’s opinion that the entire theory was hogwash. He produced absolutely zero evidence or ANYTHING to support his claim except for his gut feeling that everything was a giant coincidence. And even more absurd was the fact that the man even said “never say never” and suggested he could very well be wrong.
You didn’t paste ANY portion of the article at all which would show us why you feel this supported your case. Nothing. So after reading it, we’re left with nothing to debate other than to say … he’s wrong.
How easy it would be for Allah and Michelle if all they needed to do was paste links all day. But that’s Drudge’s job, right?
This is a great example of your worthlessness. You simply say everything in the article is cr&p and that’s that. We’re supposed to just drop it and say you win because you say its all cr&p. You again offer absolutely nothing to substantiate your claim that it’s crap. And finally, it’s obvious that you do absolutely no research to verify your claims before making them. Take this last comment that you just made:
How about we take the word of the Texas Department of Transportation? Would that be good enough for you, or are they liars too? Here’s what THEY say in an attempt to debunk some concerns (emphasis added):
Check out that last line. Interesting, isn’t it. If your claim is correct that these are all existing roads, then why is the Texas Department of Transportation saying that “incorporating existing highways and railroads is being considered?strong>”
An educated person would gather from this that the current plan is for BRAND NEW highway, and that they are CONSIDERING “incorporating existing highways and railroads along with it.” “CONSIDERING!”
And why would they write THIS?
Why can’t we just expand the current system as the need arises?
Are you an educated man?
Now, before you start claiming that the TexDOT debunked all those claims in that article, I’ll urge you to read THIS first. And yes, I’m linking to another blog and no I did not say that’s not allowed. Any clear headed person can see that there are plenty of facts and support material in this comment to go along with it.
Why do you continue to restate this lie?
See how this is done? Are you catching on? You make a claim that there’s not going to be a highway 1200 feet wide and I show you that you’re wrong by quoting the Texas Department of Transportion.
You are now 0 for 2. You ought to quit now.
Gregor on September 18, 2007 at 3:52 AM
I’m going to bed, and I’m done with this thread. It’s all yours RightWinged. Feel free to use the last comment knowing you have the ability to write whatever you desire, true or not, and knowing it won’t be challenged.
What a deal. One of the rare times you’ll actually NOT fail.
Gregor on September 18, 2007 at 4:05 AM
I will quite now, because your long rants are full of nothing but lies and mischaracterizing what I said. Your dishonesty is disgusting and I’m really sick of it.
I can’t resist clarifying a few things first though.
First off all you piece of s**t, I never claimed the one link I tossed up there in the past was my argument. In fact I REPEATEDLY SAID I DIDN’T CARE TO ARGUE THIS, BECAUSE YOU IDIOTS ARE INSIGNIFICANT. I simply pointed out that you didn’t even attempt to dismiss the link previously, you just ran and hid.
ONLY NOW, do you act like you just had a problem with me linking. Before you simply didn’t respond AT ALL. You’re a liar for acting like I tried to throw a link at you and say “case closed”, I said “start here”. YOU are a POS and refused to address any of the issues raised. Now you’re saying you won’t because it’s just “opinion”, while you sit here posting a bunch of opinion.
First of all, you need to wake the f**k up. You keep lumping me in with someone else apparently, with your insistance that I paste these lengthy excerpts, etc. I never did any of that, I said FOR STARTERS one time and I gave you one link, which you refused to acknowledge in previous threads. I’m not acting as if it’s any sort of huge argument against it, I said “start”, hoping you’d actually address claims. You refused to. Now, I’ve only brought it up in this thread, to bust you for refusing too. I couldn’t care less if you really want to address it or not, just exposing you for your victim “stop ridiculing us” crap.
Anyway, as I started out saying… you’re worthless to debate this with, because you’re obsessed with diverting from the claim that there is a massively wide superhighway going through the country from Mexico to Canada and the evidence was a NASCO scale map. I chose to start out discussing that one point… You refuse to acknowledge it, and obsess over the Trans Texas corridor, WHICH ALREADY EXISTS. I never said “no new roads will be built”, of course they will… but they’re DEVELOPING an already existing corridor. But that isn’t evidence to support that the NASCO map was showing a scale width of a new highway going from Mexico to Canada.
This is the part where you divert back to the Trans Texas Corridor, because you can’t simply answer the NASCO map issue.
And your behavior is exactly what I predicted and exactly what I was afraid of… and exactly why it’s pointless to waste my time on you.
If I had more interest in it, I’d spend the next half hour explaining how you’re either an idiot or a liar for how you mischaracterized what I said… but the problem is, I’ve already sized you up, after you’ve done it repeatedly, and I realize it will just go on like that. We’ve all dealt with your type before, sadly it’s just usually the liberals around here who behave like you.
At any rate, go to bed having nightmares about 100 lane highways with tolls you must pay using the Amero. There are certainly attempts at bringing about a New World Order, but you’re focusing on the wrong crowd.
RightWinged on September 18, 2007 at 4:48 AM
Never leave Gregor.
You can do better than Harry Reid.
Mcguyver on September 18, 2007 at 7:51 PM
Clarify to me, RW, in two sentences where Gregor is caught lying.
Mcguyver on September 18, 2007 at 7:56 PM
If it’s so important, you wouldn’t complain.
Only people with the mindset of small children who don’t understand sacrifice and dedication to what one believes, whine and complain how hard a job is.
Here’s ———–> some cheese to go with your w
hine.Mcguyver on September 18, 2007 at 8:02 PM
I know the truth hurts you Hispanics when the truth is turned in your face.
You are not welcome here if you cannot take the heat.
Mcguyver on September 18, 2007 at 8:07 PM
Attention RightWinged, et al,
Again you’re whining about time…. and the need for proof.
And here’s Gregor explaining how we do it here:
So simple to do, but here you go throwing the worst, childish, bratty, asinine, fit and name calling:
You really are acting like a schoolyard bully that just cannot stand when someone smarter than you has entered the room.
Then you give an admission of something being done to change our National sovereignty:………
………therefore exposing yourself for acting like the bully that has to agree but doesn’t like the fact that somebody else smarter has won the argument.
Mcguyver on September 18, 2007 at 9:04 PM
And to Gregor…… I want to say:
“What we are dealing with here regarding RightWinged is a bully that has a willing/working intellect of a child and has never before been challenged to use more than a gnome size portion of his brain.
When challenged intellectually RightWinged does simply not know how to respond in kind, because he is a very little child upstairs.
Keep that in mind when you debate their kind…..I’m not suggesting any different tactics…..Just keep it in mind.
Your posts are very thorough and they do have an impact on their kind….never forget that.
At least next time they know that you are a formidable force to be reckoned with.
And you will get a lot of mileage out of that fact”.
Mcguyver on September 18, 2007 at 9:05 PM
I’ve already explained repeatedly. He’s accused me of pasting Hawkins links as my entire argument. I’ve never pasted a Hawkins link. Further, the one link I have supplied, I specifically said “okay, here’s this for STARTERS”, after Gregor whined about being ridiculed and not having anyone argue the facts. In both previous threads where I pasted it, he didn’t whine about my MO, he simply ran away and never responded. Then we get here, and he LIED by saying I’d never done anything but “ridicule” him, despite the fact that I’d, FOR STARTERS, tossed a link at him that he never responded to. He can complain (stupid as it is) about a link now, but he never did before.. he simply didn’t respond.
It’s not important… I’ve REPEATEDLY said it’s not, and that you NAU Truthers are insignificant, which is why I’ve not really spent time arguing with you. The 9/11 Truthers are a growing bunch and a genuine concern.. You people are nobodies.
But you know the best part? You’re a dishonest POS, DEFINITELY NOT WORTH MY TIME, because you took that comment out of context
You quoted me:
In reality, I was mocking Gregor with this comment:
I was pretending that I’m part of the conspiracy to merge the countries moron, not saying “I won’t debate you because it takes time”… It was in response to Gregor sitting around and bitching that I hadn’t responded to him quick enough. I pointed out that we don’t all operage on his schedule, especially when we’re busy working on our evil conspiracies. This is particularly funny as he’s come close to accusing AllahPundit of having a financial stake in the NAU.
So now, while that might not be technically a “lie”, it’s as dishonest as one.. so you’re basically a liar too.
Again, you’re essentially being a LIAR here. I’m saying that there are folks attempting to bring about a NWO, but this NAU conspiracy theory BS has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. I’m not admitting that anyone won anything, I’m saying he’s focusing his attention on the wrong crowd.
At any rate, I’m needed at the Bohemian Grove.
(PS – The Bohemian Grove comment is a joke, not some sort of comment that you can spin in to me admitting that there’s an NAU conspiracy and that Gregor just educated me on it.)
RightWinged on September 18, 2007 at 10:59 PM
.
So then if it’s not important to you then why do continue to invest time in it?
Mcguyver on September 18, 2007 at 11:44 PM
Here is another of your examples – slamming others as a lier – when it is not true.
Mcguyver on September 18, 2007 at 11:50 PM
Another one of your bullying attempts by smearing someone as a lier when it is not true.
Mcguyver on September 18, 2007 at 11:51 PM
Another bullying smear of yours.
Mcguyver on September 18, 2007 at 11:52 PM
Another bullying smear of yours, accusing someone of being a liar, when in fact it’s just not true.
You did in fact ridicule Gregor throughout whenever he insisted you play by the rules – such as providing proof of your claim/disclaim – which of course you couldn’t do, since you simply are not capable of exercising the use of more than a gnome size portion of your brain, that much you have made clear to all who read this thread.
Mcguyver on September 19, 2007 at 12:01 AM
s
This is your first post on this blog…….
…….and you start out with [drum rolls] a bullying smear!
Mcguyver on September 19, 2007 at 12:09 AM
More ridiculous bully smearing and nonsense ranting.
Mcguyver on September 19, 2007 at 12:12 AM
Same thing.
More bullying with smear tactics and accusations.
No debating, just bullying.
Mcguyver on September 19, 2007 at 12:15 AM
More accusations, bullying and making up stuff.
No debating, just your typical bullying.
Mcguyver on September 19, 2007 at 12:20 AM
More accusations of Gregor being a liar, calling him a nut job, and saying it’s fun to mock him.
No debating on the issue, just bullying and name calling.
Mcguyver on September 19, 2007 at 12:24 AM
More bullying – name calling, calling his debate points insignificant and idiotic, accusations, and no real debating.
Mcguyver on September 19, 2007 at 12:29 AM
Yup, I’m a bully and I keep ridiculing the poor victim Gregor. You win.
RightWinged on September 19, 2007 at 12:30 AM
More bullying – name calling, nonsense rhetoric.
No debate of the issues.
Mcguyver on September 19, 2007 at 12:31 AM
***Gregor explained what he believes clear enough for an orangutan to understand it, but you respond with
more bullying – name calling, nonsense rhetoric.
No debate of the issues.
Mcguyver on September 19, 2007 at 12:36 AM
****Gregor gave you a very clear picture of what he wants from you as peer that should be able to debate the issues.
You cannot deliver. You have proven that. You cannot debate.
This subject is not important to you.
So why are you here?
All you respond with is more bullying – name calling, nonsense rhetoric.
Mcguyver on September 19, 2007 at 12:43 AM
******Again, Gregor has given you many links to do your own research.
Mcguyver on September 19, 2007 at 12:46 AM
More bullying – name calling, calling his debate points insignificant and idiotic, accusations, and no real debating.
Mcguyver on September 19, 2007 at 12:51 AM
Oh wow, breakthrough! You’re going to make a point?
Oh wait…. oops my bad:
More of the same bullying, name calling accusations:
More crass bullying reserved for adolescent school yards and gnome communities:
More of the same…..not worth your time:
So why are you here if it’s not worth your time?
Your not interested enough to make it worth your time:
More bullying accusations, name calling and nonsense rhetoric.
………. ………. ………. .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
….. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. ………. ………. ……….
The only hope I saw where you might actually start making a point was this:
But alas that was false hope.
Mcguyver on September 19, 2007 at 1:15 AM
Gregor, tell this guy he can get off his knees for you already. Geez.
RightWinged on September 19, 2007 at 1:52 AM
Did it occur to you that some of us take this NAU thing seriously?
I for one am extremely disturbed that a sitting President is doing everything he can to destroy the middle class and is selling off the USA to foreign interests. Think Dubai Ports and the Cintra NAFTA Superhighway Texas toll road that is being built against the wishes of Texas voters.
That is why people like me and others here take the time to respond to your contention that this is all a bunch of crap.
I did not serve my country to have a bunch of elitists give it all away to the globalists that want to replace our constitutional republic with a socialist en-elected ruling body like the EU.
Just today Jerome Corsi released another article on the NAFTA Superhighway project and for the first time the new NAU logo is dispayed on Canadian rail cars.. In addition, Corsi has been refused admission to another behind closed doors meeting with the SPP.EuroMoney is the same outfit that trained the Texas DOT how to sell taxpayer financed roads to a foreign company that is going to turn around and charge tolls for Americans to use those roads.
As a conservative, I cannot understand why you feel all these developments do not raise red flags that our country is being sold out to the Globalists.
ScottyDog on September 19, 2007 at 12:18 PM
Don’t tase me bro!
RightWinged on September 19, 2007 at 6:02 PM
So I see you have learned some new phrases.
But have learned any debate skills?
Mcguyver on September 21, 2007 at 8:29 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2