Bob Barr’s announcement video

52 Responses to “Bob Barr’s announcement video”

  1. Mike Theodore Says:

    Ahhhh. Like the summer breeze, the returning regime of BobBarrWatch. Sing us a song your the piano man, sing us a song tonight!

  2. DrGonzo Says:

    Yeah it is a little annoying, but this close to convention what do you expect. I honestly don’t think it will stay like this.

  3. Mike Theodore Says:

    WELL WE’RE ALL IN THE MOOD FOR A MELODY, AND YOU’VE GOT US FEELING ALRIGHT!
    lalala…

  4. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Wow, Bob Barr finally announced. How interesting.

    Oh, wait. That was last week.

    This week it’s all about “It costs [a lot of] money to raise [a little] money”

    http://www.ajc.com/pbcnorth/content/news/stories/2008/05/19/barrpac_0518.html

  5. End the Empire Says:

    Avid Ron Paul supporter and a major leader of the 9-11 truth movement, Radio talkshow host Alex Jones (Infowars.com, Genesis Communications Network) endorsed Chuck Baldwin on his show Sunday. In the very next sentence he said Bob Barr was a fraud.

    Jones supporters and Genesis listeners were a nice % of the Paul doners and grassroot activists. If Barr is the LP nominee look for the CP to actually finish ahead of the LP in vote totals for the first time.

    The StormTRUTHERS as I like to call them are deluxe street ativists and were responsible for alot of the high level enthusiasm within the RP R3VOlution. They can very well distribute 10 million campaign pamplets this summer and gather a million ballot access signatures. I had thought the LP would get some of this support, but alas CIA Barr is now a marked man like CFR McCain and B.O. in this movements eyes.

  6. Stefan Says:

    Susan:
    I am sure the politicians and marketing professionals with experience in fundraising will tell you mail-order is an expensive venture. Raising through the internet has proved to cost almost nothing and raise much more, by contrast.

  7. Susan Hogarth Says:

    I am sure the politicians and marketing professionals with experience in fundraising will tell you mail-order is an expensive venture.

    I have some experience with direct mail. Yes, it’s expensive. But:

    1) Any org that consumes 96% of donations in ‘costs’ is simply a scam, and

    2) Barr waving his arms and saying “The Internet! The Internet!” isn’t exactly a sound fundraising strategy.

  8. Stefan Says:

    Just a question for thought: David Nolan, the (co)founder of the LP has himself said Barry Goldwater is in a certain sense the founder of the ideas of the LP. Now as far as I know, Goldwater was the author of “The Conscience of Conservative” and he is known as “Mr. Conservative” (Robert Taft is known as Mr. Republican) and his ideas the centre of the Reagan Revolution.

    So with all this criticism on Barr by using the term conservative, it seems the LP should also then have nothing to do with Barry Goldwater, Mr. COnservative. They should also be reminded that the most libertarian politician Ron Paul, has referred to himself as the “most conservative” of all the candidates during the GOP debates.

    Is it so difficult to understand there is a huge agreement between “conservative” and “libertarians” and that alliances play a role in politics. BTW: Richard Viquerie is directly involved in the Barry Goldwater tradition. If the LP then does not want its name in any way referred to as “conservatives” as well, then it should state that it is a fiscal conservative, and socially liberal party. Classical liberalism (libertarianism) means the freedom of choice, live and let live, and one’s choice can either be “conservative” or “liberal”. If it ants to be truly libertarian (and not libertine), it would allow for social conservatives to be also allowed and welcomed.

    This is in a certain sense what the watershed LP convention will be all about, a testing of its tolerance of diverse points of view (conservatives and liberals). To only refer to itself as only “libertarian” and lambast anyone referring to him/herself as “conservative”, means by logical implication it alliagns itself with “liberals” in the social sense.

  9. Robert Capozzi Says:

    Yes, there’s no doubt that the modern Libertarian has lineage that is “conservative.” It’s also true that we have lineage that is “liberal,” as was pointed out by Mises, Hayek and Friedman.

    Rather than being divisive about it, why not be inclusive?

    If you consider yourself a conservative, and you think government is too big and taxes are too high, consider the LP.

    If you consider yourself a liberal, and you’ve had enough of the Patriot Act and government snooping, and you consider the Iraq War a big mistake, consider the LP.

  10. Susan Hogarth Says:

    The libertarian philosophy has a lot of overlap with Christianity. There are also many Christians in the LP.

    But if Christians wanted to make the LP about Christianity and say that the LP was a ‘Christian party’, a lot of Libertarians would have problems with that.

    That is analogous to the problem that many Libertarians have with the idea of trying to rebrand the LP as a ‘conservative party’ or (to a lesser extent) a ‘constitution party’.

  11. Stefan Says:

    “Rather than being divisive about it, why not be inclusive?”

    Exactly! That is what it should be and about tolerating different points of view: this is the ESSENCE of classic liberalism. Libertarianism as I see it is the movement to not leave the positive meaning of the Latin root “liber” (=freedom) over to “liberals”. The latin root “conservare” for conservatism also has a positive meaning.

  12. Susan Hogarth Says:

    That is what it should be and about tolerating different points of view…

    Which is why we welcome conservatives. But when they try to repurpose the LP as the ‘conservative party’ or the ‘states’ rights party, they become exclusionary of other viewpoints.

    The LP is not the/a conservative party. It is the/a libertarian party, in which conservatives and liberals are welcome.

  13. Kenny Says:

    “Any org that consumes 96% of donations in ‘costs’ is simply a scam”

    Browne-ite scam was the thought that sprung to mind when I looked at the details of Barr’s PAC.

  14. Stefan Says:

    Sunsan: hmm so you are running for office in NC (congress? which district?).
    The ultimate would be if Viquerie starts with ultimateonsusanhogarth.com ! :-)

    To take up your argument: There is a Constitution Party, but adherence to the constitution should be with ALL parties, not only them. Also, there are conservatives in the CP, LP, GP, RP, DP and liberals in the LP, GP, RP & DP and may appeal at times in this way to their voters base. This does not mean in any way they try to, for instance rebrand the Democratic Party as a “liberal party” etc.

  15. Bill Woolsey Says:

    I am a centrist libertarian, I guess.

    I like the message of “neither left nor right.”

    I was a volunteer for the McBride campaign
    in 1976, (my first vote for President,) and his
    message of free market economy, civil liberties,
    and a noninterventionist foreign policy remains
    what I see as being essential to libertarianism.

    In general, I see liberal Democrats as better on
    two out of three. I see conservative Republicans
    as better on only one.

    I have never felt betrayed by the Republican Party.
    I realize that many Libertarians were involved with
    the conservative wing of the Republican Party until it
    violated “conservative” principles—with wage and price
    controls, abandoning gold, raising taxes, restricting
    gun rights—and then became Libertarians. Not me.

    I still like best the Clark campaign of 1980, that
    was clearly aimed at liberal voters. (Not that
    I think it worked very well, but it was a good idea
    to try that approach.)

    While Paul was pegged as the “libertarian” Republican
    by the press. He often described himself as the
    real conservative.

    The Republicans controlled all branches of government for
    a time, and the policies they implemented were “big
    government” conservatism. There was, of course, the out
    of control spending. And then, we had the attack on the
    bill of rights and separation of powers. And then, finally,
    the adoption of neo-con foreign policy.

    This is the perfect time to try to attract betrayed Republicans.

    And, adopting Paul’s rhetoric regarding “true conservatives” is
    sensible, because one of the goals should be to get the support
    of as many Paul voters as possible.

  16. Bill Woolsey Says:

    I know that part of the Paul coalition is anti-war leftists. We didn’t have anyone like that in the Paul organization in Charleston. But, we did have a 9-11 truther. As far as I could tell, he didn’t have a libertarian or
    constitutionalist bone in his body, before he got involved in the Paul campaign. I think he did make tremendous progress. (Though,
    sadly, often through the lens of “patriot” conspiracy theories.)

    Anyway, I wonder how many of the “leftists” supporting Paul were
    truthers? Since they believe 9-11 was undertaken by the U.S.
    government, they are generally very much against the war. And, perhaps, some of them were Greens or something, before….

  17. Susan Hogarth Says:

    I am running for a position in the state legislature.

    I am a centrist libertarian, I guess.

    I like the message of “neither left nor right.”

    I also like that message, but I wonder if we perhaps mean it in different ways. Or perhaps not.

    In general, I see liberal Democrats as better on
    two out of three. I see conservative Republicans
    as better on only one.

    I have never felt betrayed by the Republican Party.
    I realize that many Libertarians were involved with
    the conservative wing of the Republican Party until it
    violated “conservative” principles—with wage and price
    controls, abandoning gold, raising taxes, restricting
    gun rights—and then became Libertarians. Not me.

    I’m glad to discover we have more in common than I thought. This is my experience as well.

    And, adopting Paul’s rhetoric regarding “true conservatives” is
    sensible, because one of the goals should be to get the support
    of as many Paul voters as possible.

    We disagree with the first part here, though not with the second part.

  18. Stefan Says:

    Susan:”... so in a sense, the Republicans ought to embrace my effort, because we’re going to be pulling people out to vote who otherwise wouldn’t be voting and some of them might vote for Republican candidates on the down-ballot.”

    I think Barr may well have meant libertarian Republican candidates like Dr. B.J. Lawson www.lawsonforcongress, who is in NC . The interview was with a NC radio host, so from the context he most probably meant that. Do not forget the Republican Party is NO monolithic Party either. He is basically saying to people who generally vote Republican, e.g. they will not be inclined to vote for a Libtertarian, they can vote for the LP presidential candidate while voting for the local GOP candidate. It does makes sense?

    Now, if there is a narrow contest and the specific RP candidate is very libertarian (vs Patriot Act etc. etc.) and the Democratic candidate very unlibertarian, why should the GOP voter or even LP voter not vote for the GOP candidate, where the race is very close between the two and the Lp candidate could probably only get 1 or 2 %? In case where the LP candidate can fare very well, it would make sense to vote for the LP candidate or where a Republican is not happy with his or her congressman/women, he or she can vote Libtertarian.

    Ron Paul has not voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 and spoke at the LNC where he probably endorsed and later voted for Badnarik, thus not according to party line and according to princple. Does it likewise not make sense for a Libertarian to vote for a libertarian Democrat or libertarian Republican. We want to end the Patriot Act, among others and the only way is to vote congress people in who are against it.

    Principle has preference over party. And in this case Barr was talking about Republicans, not Libertarians who can for Republican on he local level and Libertarian on the presidential.

  19. Eric Dondero Says:

    Stefan, nice of you to acknowledge that the libertarian movement was born out of the Goldwater Campaign, and of our long standing ties to the Conservative movement. There’s hope for you yet.

    As for the others: Liberals have always been and remain today the bitter enemies of libertarians. They are the ones blocking our Libertarian petititioners nationwide for Libertarian ballot access, Property Rights, Tax Cuts, ect… You don’t see “Conservative” blockers. Only Liberals out in the streets telling people not to sign out petitions.

  20. Susan Hogarth Says:

    I think Barr may well have meant libertarian Republican candidates like Dr. B.J. Lawson, who is in NC.

    Or he could have meant Republicans like the ones in NC that he sent PAC money to while he was serving on the LNC. But the point (one point) is that the LP has a specific policy against cross-endorsements. If Barr wants to change that, he needs to address it in the bylaws, not by openly demonstrating support for Republicans in preference to support for Libertarians.

    Principle has preference over party.

    Barr’s choice of PAC money recipients should in that case make Libertarians blanch at the ‘principles’ Barr would be supporting as our presidential nominee. However, I beleive that while it makes sense for voters to choose with little or no particular regard for party lines, it is a bad idea for a political party’s presidential candidate to support the candidates of other political parties. Barr would effectively be quashing Libertarians by giving support to their Republican opponents. I didn’t work to gather signatures here in NC so that the LP’s presidential nominee could support any Republicans.

  21. Rock Says:

    Truthers are a mixed blessing. They provide some money and some votes, but less than you might think given their numbers. Their energy for activism is outstanding, but sometimes misplaced as some of them will turn off more people than they attract due to their rhetoric. The good ones are very smart and hyper-aware in their areas of personal interest, but ultimately they are a faith-based movement and therefore a more natural fit for the so-called Constitution Party. Ron Paul had to work hard to keep this faction on board without becoming labelled as a thruther himself, but the fact that he was the truthers’ choice dogged him at times. Still, Ron Paul will hold large influence with truthers for a long time no matter if they turn to Baldwin for now.

    I really don’t see any of the Libertarian candidates being all that attractive to truthers. At the same time, all of the top candidates can probably attract a nice chunk of the typical Paul support. But turning Paul supporters into Libertarians does not grow the freedom movement or achieve anything important in and of itself. It is all about emulating Ron Paul who, despite himself, managed to open the eyes of a lot of citizens with his honesty, consistency, passion and, of course, his ideas and his love for liberty.

    In some respects the liberty movement would be best served by a fresh libertarian voice that did not echo Ron Paul to closely but rather employed new memes to attract new people to the freedom movement.

  22. Austrian Economist Says:

    Hopefully, once the LP and its delegates take a collective dump on Bob Barr at the convention, we will be finally be free from hearing about this shit.

    I imagine BobBarrWatch wasn’t reporting on this, now were there?

    http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/05/19/barrpac_0518.html

    Thanks to you, Susan, for putting that out there.

  23. disinter Says:

    I honestly don’t think it will stay like this.

    I do.

    http://disinter.wordpress.com/2008/05/19/leaked-tpw-being-censored-by-shane-cory/

  24. disinter Says:

    Alex Jones endorsed Chuck Baldwin on his show Sunday. In the very next sentence he said Bob Barr was a fraud.

    And he is right.

  25. disinter Says:

    The LP is not the/a conservative party. It is the/a libertarian party, in which conservatives and liberals are welcome.

    Except Libertarians, according to the retard caucus.

  26. Stefan Says:

    Susan:
    So LP candidates like not only Barr, but also Kubby, Ruwart, Smith etc. have acted against LNC party policy by endorsing a GOP presidential candidate?

    Also: from his personal name Barr has supported NO Republican (party or candidate) since he is LP candidate. In 2006 he contributed to a LP politician, perhaps before he even officially joined the LP. He also made a personal contribution to the GA candidate for senator, a competitor to Saxby Cambliss.
    BTW the LIB candidate is running as a Ron Paul Libertarian. Could it be that the Bob Barr Leadership PAC is initiated by Barr, but not owned and that the money raised for that was by Republicans, who wanted to give it to a Republican and gave the money before or while or after Barr switched parties, so the PAC naturally contributed the money to Republicans (according to the wish of the donors, which should be respected) after Barr already joined the LP.

    Given thus possible background situation, I would find it very acceptable.
    It would be expensive flying across the country with engagements to promote the Libertarian Party and Barr probably used some of the money for this too.

    “I didn’t work to gather signatures here in NC so that the LP’s presidential nominee could support any Republicans”.

    Yes, I am not surprised. You should be supporting Dr. Phillies, not Dr.Ruwart, as she and her husband has worked actively in a RP meetup group.

  27. Susan Hogarth Says:

    I honestly don’t think it will stay like this.

    I do.

    Buck up, comrade. Despair is a sin. And though I’m not a Christian, I can see there’s a good reason for that teaching. :-/

    Anyway, nothing ‘stays like this’. Everything changes. So if you want to despair, imagine it getting worse.

    But I look forward to a re-awakening of the Libertarian base. Oh, it’s going to be something!!

  28. dodsworth Says:

    End of the Empire:

    You’re wrong IMHO. I have participated actively in more than one RP meet-up groups and vast majority of the folks are NOT 9-11 truthers. In any case, you are right in one sense. The Barr/Baldwin fundraising contest will give a good picture of the actual power of the 9-11 truthers.

  29. disinter Says:

    The Barr/Baldwin fundraising contest will give a good picture of the actual power of the 9-11 truthers.

    Yes, their fundraising will only be a tiny fraction of Paul’s because the “truthers” won’t donate to them.

  30. dodsworth Says:

    Disinter:

    You’re assuming that the truthers have a lot of money to throw around. I’ve seen no evidence of that.

  31. Stefan Says:

    Why would a LP candidate register the name of a fellow (then potential) LP presidential candidate?
    the domain www.bobbarr2008.org has been registered by:

    Registrant:
    George Phillies
    (I leave out the address, as it is personal)

    Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
    Domain Name: BOBBARR2008.ORG
    Created on: 03-Apr-08
    Expires on: 03-Apr-09
    Last Updated on: 03-Apr-08

  32. Susan Hogarth Says:

    So LP candidates like not only Barr, but also Kubby, Ruwart, Smith etc. have acted against LNC party policy by endorsing a GOP presidential candidate?

    Good question. I do beleive such endorsements by candidates and LNC leaders were inappropriate. I argued so at the time. But let me note that Ruwart helped the Paul campaign before she became a candidate. Also, it’s possible I was simply wrong in this matter (see below).

    There is a strong argument to be made that Paul is something of an exception, as a member of the LP and a former presidential candidate. That hardly holds true for Saxby Chambliss, for instance.

    Also: from his personal name Barr has supported NO Republican (party or candidate) since he is LP candidate.

    Irrelevant, in my opinion. Barr has his leadership PAc specifically to fund people and causes he likes - that;’s what a leadership PAC is for.

    Could it be that the Bob Barr Leadership PAC is initiated by Barr, but not owned and that the money raised for that was by Republicans, who wanted to give it to a Republican and gave the money before or while or after Barr switched parties, so the PAC naturally contributed the money to Republicans (according to the wish of the donors, which should be respected) after Barr already joined the LP.

    Why don’t you ask Barr and see if you get an answer that is (1) comprehensible, (2) not defensive, and (3) credible. You’d have a scoop on the AJC if you could do that.

    You should be supporting Dr. Phillies, not Dr.Ruwart, as she and her husband has worked actively in a RP meetup group.

    Until she decided to run for president herself. Try to grasp the difference between supporting someone as a voter and supporting them as someone who wants to be the Party’s standardbearer.

    And of course this is the nowhere near the only issue I am interested in. Ruwart’s libertarianism works better for me than Phillies’.

  33. Balph Eubank Says:

    Ron Paul has been working with conspiracy types for at least two decades. He has spoken at their meetings and adopted their language in his newsletters. These people didn’t “discover” Ron Paul in 2007, they were already with him for years.

    I doubt Bob Barr will get their support in any large numbers. None of the LP presidential candidates have been working this particular circuit.

  34. disinter Says:

    You’re assuming that the truthers have a lot of money to throw around. I’ve seen no evidence of that.

    Collectively they have millions. And this particular truther, who donated the max to Ron Paul, won’t donate a dime to Barr. Ruwart, yes.

  35. dodsworth Says:

    Ah….but will you give to Baldwin? Barr v. Baldwin fundrasiing is the true test of truther strength.

    BTW, as an ardent anti-Truther, I have lukewarm attitude to Barr and rather like Ruwart.

  36. Stefan Says:

    Ron Paul is no conspiracy theorist, although some of his supporters are. If you look at the definition of “conspiracy”, e.g. two or more people talking in secret with evil intentions and plans, there are many conspiracies.

    Disinter: one cannot agree with all that Alex Jones is saying, really! Some of things are good, but some not at all.

    In december 2005 he had an interview with Bob Barr over the patriot act etc:
    www.mininova.org/tor/173703

    Susan, why don’t you also download it and listen, it may give you some more insight on how Barr operates (it is clear to me now that he is funding senators who are already against the Patriot Act or to sway them - in the good way - to vote against the Patriot Act.

  37. disinter Says:

    Ron Paul is no conspiracy theorist

    Bullshit. Everyone is a conspiracy theorist. Can you name ONE person that doesn’t believe two or more people ever planned anything? Perhaps there may be a few in the loony bin…

  38. disinter Says:

    Ah….but will you give to Baldwin?

    I am not in favor of a Christian theocracy, no.

  39. dodsworth Says:

    Good for you. Unfortunately, you seem to believe that a small cabal in the federal government have God like powers to pull off such a grand conspiracy and cover it up. I don’t share your apparent faith in the intelligence and planning ability of the feds. I think their a bunch of bunglers who can’t even keep a secret or organize themselves out a paper bag. BTW, Ron Paul agrees with me not you!

  40. disinter Says:

    BTW, Ron Paul agrees with me not you!

    Want a cookie?

  41. disinter Says:

    Unfortunately, you seem to believe that a small cabal in the federal government have God like powers to pull off such a grand conspiracy and cover it up.

    I don’t think they executed, or covered it up, well at all. There are far too many holes in the official conspiracy theory for it to be credible.

    People always think the truth is “insane” until they finally figure out it is the truth.

  42. disinter Says:

    “Oh yeah, I know, conspiracy theories are not allowed and conspiracies do not actually exist. Although, if that were true the word itself would not exist and you would not know what I am talking about. In fact we all conspire and have conspired since the first grade and some of the conspiracies become known, like the tobacco industry fudging its figures on cancer or the recent expose of the KGB planting false scientific information in the west about a so called “nuclear winter.””

    http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2008/05/19/how-a-gop-conspiracy-continues-to-cheat-ron-paul/

  43. End the Empire Says:

    dodsworth Says:

    May 20th, 2008 at 9:07 am
    End of the Empire:

    You’re wrong IMHO. I have participated actively in more than one RP meet-up groups and vast majority of the folks are NOT 9-11 truthers. In any case, you are right in one sense. The Barr/Baldwin fundraising contest will give a good picture of the actual power of the 9-11 truthers.”“”

    I don’t know you Dodsworth, but you need to slow down or reread a post I post before you correct me.

    Since when is a “nice %” the same as a VAST MAJORITY? If I’m wrong I’m sure you can correct me, SON, was the Austin, TX meet-up group one of the top five in total members? They had “a nice %” of truthers in their midst. To a LP member more than 00.5 % or to a CP member more than 00.25 % could be a “nice %”! Paul supporters come from many backgrounds, some have even been known to smoke a joint on occasion ! HaH, now you know they are lining up to support Barr, don’t you ?

    As for your Barr/Baldwin fundraising scale as a deciding factor, I feel that is rather unfair since Barr has a long list of “defenseless” old ladies and men in their eighties and nineties with more money than judgement (but not in all cases, some are on fixed income and perhaps at the poverty level!), in which Barr and his people can SCAM.

    Chuck Baldwin, to my knowledge, is above such practices. As a believing christian, if he did so, he would suffer for it in this life.

    My post:
    “Jones supporters and Genesis listeners were a nice % of the Paul doners and grassroot activists.”

    “NICE %”, Mr. Dodsworth…

  44. Kenny Says:

    Bob’s fundraising counter is ticking over very slowly at his website. His endorsements are pathetic. FUBARR?

  45. dodsworth Says:

    Disinter:

    You’re right that End of Empire did not say “most” but he came pretty darn close to arguing that truthers, they were the main driving force behind the RP movement. In my personal experience, to the contrary, truthers were generally on the side lines and not key to either fundraiising or leadership or even the basic energy of the meet-up groups. Here is what End of Empire said:

    The StormTRUTHERS as I like to call them are deluxe street ativists and were responsible for alot of the high level enthusiasm within the RP R3VOlution. They can very well distribute 10 million campaign pamplets this summer and gather a million ballot access signatures.

    As to your quip, no I don’t want a “cookie.” I was just making the point that RP sensibly rejects truther theory and would further add he is in far better position than either you or me to know. I trust Ron Paul, who has always rejected truther theory, far more than Alex Jones or, for that matter, an ex-wrestler who was once governor of Minnesota. If RP thought that truther theory was anything more than complete hogwash, he would say so.

    If you are right that a small cabal in the government organized this, it was indeed a brilliant, almost superhuman feat. Even if they made other mistakes, their very success (again if you are right) in keeping anyone from talking would be sufficient truth to show that. Why hasn’t anyone spilled the beans? Heck, they could millionaires several times over if they went public.

    As I said, if you are right, government is far, far more efficient than libertarians like me give it credit for.

  46. kombayn Says:

    The Libertarian Party needs to focus on a few pro-Liberty states such as Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and New Hampshire as states they can WIN! To really make a dent in the two-party system, the LP will have to take a state and even if it is only 1 that’ll make National Headlines and build the base. Ross Perot never won a state, winning a state is vital in the movement and getting LP officials or 3rd party officials elected to your local office is another key step in the right direction. Infiltrate and promote a site just like PaulCongress.com

  47. disinter Says:

    If you are right that a small cabal in the government organized this, it was indeed a brilliant, almost superhuman feat.

    But at the same time you think a bunch of cave dwellers were capable of carrying out the same “brilliant, almost superhuman feat.”? Alrighty then…

  48. disinter Says:

    As I said, if you are right, government is far, far more efficient than libertarians like me give it credit for.

    Government is VERY efficient. You just think they should be efficient at something else.

  49. dodsworth Says:

    Disinter:

    I noticed that you ignored my point that these “cavemen” were able to keep anyone from talking, a true superhuman feat.

  50. disinter Says:

    I noticed that you ignored my point that these “cavemen” were able to keep anyone from talking, a true superhuman feat.

    Nonsense. The CIA periodically puts out fake videos of a dead man admitting he did it.

  51. dodsworth Says:

    Disinter:

    I give up. You are true believer who doesn’t want dialogue.

  52. DrGonzo Says:

    But at the same time you think a bunch of cave dwellers were capable of carrying out the same “brilliant, almost superhuman feat.”? Alrighty then…

    Hijacking a plane is superhuman? It has been done countless times through the years. It really isn’t that hard to fly planes into a building.

    These were all educated men. They weren’t some cave dwellers as your characterized them.

    Disinter:

    I give up. You are true believer who doesn’t want dialogue.

    Which is normal for conspiracy theorists.

Leave a Reply