Rachael Maddow....before & after; A true shame.

[Rustic]

I saw this on CBS Sunday News today. A great, mellow, fairly neutral show that I enjoy on Sundays. Easy watching. Interesting stories.

They did a piece on Rachael Maddow. It was good. Radical liberalism aside...she's worked hard at her career. And honestly....when serious breaking news occurs like a terror attack...when she has to go into serious news anchor mode...she is actually very good at it. If she was sane she'd be a tremendous news person.

And they showed her before and after photos. Wow. What a shame....

View attachment 74878

She is uglier on the inside than the outside... I did not think that was possible.
She's just a loopy kunt...

 

[Dale Smith]

Thank you...it's not like Camp writes anything that enhances the posting experience here...I certainly wouldn't miss seeing his worthless spews. He gives me some good material but hell, there is plenty of it here.

You lose every debate you get into. Something is wrong that makes you delusional. They last debate you and I had you got your butt kicked and had to quit and run away. No big deal, not bragging because everyone always kicks your butt in debates.

Really? Do tell? I have never " lost" a debate and especially to you and nor have I ever "quit" until it got to the point I was simply spinning my wheels. So what was this debate that you are claiming victory over? Because there is no way that you know more about what is going on then me...impossible...never happened.

It was the one you challenged me regarding your insistence that subjective and speculative source data as found in conspiracy theories could be used and compatible with objective and proven factual data. Your concept was put to rest when I posted a link to an interview with your top author, source and proponent admitting in the interview that many of his so-called facts were speculation and accuracy of facts was not one of his priorities. That plus a link explaining the consistency and methods of creating conspiracy theories caused you to end the debate and not return to it.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Seriously? You posted something by someone that says there are no such things as conspiracies and that's the end of the debate and a victory in YOUR mind? I posted names like Antony Sutton, Dr.John Coleman, Jim Marrs, William Still, William Guy Carr, Gary Allen, Jordan Maxwell, etc,etc that had intimate access to information and the best you could do was say "they are just conspiracy theorists" and that makes you (someone that has never done any nitty gritty research) right but these guys are wrong? That's the dumbest ******* thing anyone has ever posted here. I have the white papers written by CFR members themselves, I have direct quotes from Carroll Quigly that wrote "Tragedy and Hope" that mentored Bill "drop trou" Clinton. I have posted the findings of the Reece Commission and the real agenda behind tax free foundations....but **** that! Lil Camper found a web link that chastises those that don't believe "da gubermint" and that they should be demonized for DARING to question anything that comes out of the propaganda mouthpiece of USA.INC....dude, you didn't prove a ******* thing....nada, zilch and I will ride your ass like Zorro if you keep claiming that you did. I will flood every thread you are on with their own ******* words proving that I am right and you...are wrong

Wanna take another stab at that? I dare ya...I triple dog dare ya.

The link I provided did not say the things you are claiming. It explained the methodology of writing a conspiracy. You did not challenge the message, you attacked the messenger. In the other link, there was an interview with Sutton, your main source. You did not challenge its accuracy or deny the comments he made relating to his accuracy in his works. The guy is referred to as the conspiracy theories.
Your threat to follow me around the site and harass me does not intimidate me. I think you have a tear drop tattoo under your right eye. I suspect you are an ex-convict Maybe I am wrong, but you sure fit the profile. Not that there is anything wrong with being an ex-con prison *****.

The "methodology"? People conspire all the ******* time...it was total bullshit and you didn't disprove a ******* thing. Antony Sutton was an accredited researcher and his information is not even up for dispute. He worked for years and years for the Hoover Institute and found some information that put USA.INC in a less that sterling light so they tried to suppress him. I didn't see your link about Sutton but I will say with no hesitation whatsoever that his information has been verified and validated by more than just a few researchers. Don't post bullshit and don't post lies or make up revisionist history and you won't have to worry about me finding you and posting quotes that prove yo to be a liar...it's not that ******* hard. Ex-con? LOL! Hardly........but are you scared? Don't worry, little liberal *****...I have no ill will towards anyone...just trying to educate the stupid is all.....and it's not all that rewarding.

 

[Meathead]

Thank you...it's not like Camp writes anything that enhances the posting experience here...I certainly wouldn't miss seeing his worthless spews. He gives me some good material but hell, there is plenty of it here.

You lose every debate you get into. Something is wrong that makes you delusional. They last debate you and I had you got your butt kicked and had to quit and run away. No big deal, not bragging because everyone always kicks your butt in debates.

Really? Do tell? I have never " lost" a debate and especially to you and nor have I ever "quit" until it got to the point I was simply spinning my wheels. So what was this debate that you are claiming victory over? Because there is no way that you know more about what is going on then me...impossible...never happened.

It was the one you challenged me regarding your insistence that subjective and speculative source data as found in conspiracy theories could be used and compatible with objective and proven factual data. Your concept was put to rest when I posted a link to an interview with your top author, source and proponent admitting in the interview that many of his so-called facts were speculation and accuracy of facts was not one of his priorities. That plus a link explaining the consistency and methods of creating conspiracy theories caused you to end the debate and not return to it.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Seriously? You posted something by someone that says there are no such things as conspiracies and that's the end of the debate and a victory in YOUR mind? I posted names like Antony Sutton, Dr.John Coleman, Jim Marrs, William Still, William Guy Carr, Gary Allen, Jordan Maxwell, etc,etc that had intimate access to information and the best you could do was say "they are just conspiracy theorists" and that makes you (someone that has never done any nitty gritty research) right but these guys are wrong? That's the dumbest ******* thing anyone has ever posted here. I have the white papers written by CFR members themselves, I have direct quotes from Carroll Quigly that wrote "Tragedy and Hope" that mentored Bill "drop trou" Clinton. I have posted the findings of the Reece Commission and the real agenda behind tax free foundations....but **** that! Lil Camper found a web link that chastises those that don't believe "da gubermint" and that they should be demonized for DARING to question anything that comes out of the propaganda mouthpiece of USA.INC....dude, you didn't prove a ******* thing....nada, zilch and I will ride your ass like Zorro if you keep claiming that you did. I will flood every thread you are on with their own ******* words proving that I am right and you...are wrong

Wanna take another stab at that? I dare ya...I triple dog dare ya.

The link I provided did not say the things you are claiming. It explained the methodology of writing a conspiracy. You did not challenge the message, you attacked the messenger. In the other link, there was an interview with Sutton, your main source. You did not challenge its accuracy or deny the comments he made relating to his accuracy in his works. The guy is referred to as the conspiracy theories.
Your threat to follow me around the site and harass me does not intimidate me. I think you have a tear drop tattoo under your right eye. I suspect you are an ex-convict Maybe I am wrong, but you sure fit the profile. Not that there is anything wrong with being an ex-con prison *****.

I think you've been punked too many times Camp. Its effects are cumulative and it does things to people. I apologize for my part.

 

[Camp]

You lose every debate you get into. Something is wrong that makes you delusional. They last debate you and I had you got your butt kicked and had to quit and run away. No big deal, not bragging because everyone always kicks your butt in debates.

Really? Do tell? I have never " lost" a debate and especially to you and nor have I ever "quit" until it got to the point I was simply spinning my wheels. So what was this debate that you are claiming victory over? Because there is no way that you know more about what is going on then me...impossible...never happened.

It was the one you challenged me regarding your insistence that subjective and speculative source data as found in conspiracy theories could be used and compatible with objective and proven factual data. Your concept was put to rest when I posted a link to an interview with your top author, source and proponent admitting in the interview that many of his so-called facts were speculation and accuracy of facts was not one of his priorities. That plus a link explaining the consistency and methods of creating conspiracy theories caused you to end the debate and not return to it.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Seriously? You posted something by someone that says there are no such things as conspiracies and that's the end of the debate and a victory in YOUR mind? I posted names like Antony Sutton, Dr.John Coleman, Jim Marrs, William Still, William Guy Carr, Gary Allen, Jordan Maxwell, etc,etc that had intimate access to information and the best you could do was say "they are just conspiracy theorists" and that makes you (someone that has never done any nitty gritty research) right but these guys are wrong? That's the dumbest ******* thing anyone has ever posted here. I have the white papers written by CFR members themselves, I have direct quotes from Carroll Quigly that wrote "Tragedy and Hope" that mentored Bill "drop trou" Clinton. I have posted the findings of the Reece Commission and the real agenda behind tax free foundations....but **** that! Lil Camper found a web link that chastises those that don't believe "da gubermint" and that they should be demonized for DARING to question anything that comes out of the propaganda mouthpiece of USA.INC....dude, you didn't prove a ******* thing....nada, zilch and I will ride your ass like Zorro if you keep claiming that you did. I will flood every thread you are on with their own ******* words proving that I am right and you...are wrong

Wanna take another stab at that? I dare ya...I triple dog dare ya.

The link I provided did not say the things you are claiming. It explained the methodology of writing a conspiracy. You did not challenge the message, you attacked the messenger. In the other link, there was an interview with Sutton, your main source. You did not challenge its accuracy or deny the comments he made relating to his accuracy in his works. The guy is referred to as the conspiracy theories.
Your threat to follow me around the site and harass me does not intimidate me. I think you have a tear drop tattoo under your right eye. I suspect you are an ex-convict Maybe I am wrong, but you sure fit the profile. Not that there is anything wrong with being an ex-con prison *****.

The "methodology"? People conspire all the ******* time...it was total bullshit and you didn't disprove a ******* thing. Antony Sutton was an accredited researcher and his information is not even up for dispute. He worked for years and years for the Hoover Institute and found some information that put USA.INC in a less that sterling light so they tried to suppress him. I didn't see your link about Sutton but I will say with no hesitation whatsoever that his information has been verified and validated by more than just a few researchers. Don't post bullshit and don't post lies or make up revisionist history and you won't have to worry about me finding you and posting quotes that prove yo to be a liar...it's not that ******* hard. Ex-con? LOL! Hardly........but are you scared? Don't worry, little liberal *****...I have no ill will towards anyone...just trying to educate the stupid is all.....and it's not all that rewarding.

You don't even know what revisionist history is you dumb ass. A history has to already be written for a revision to take place. Conspiracy theories are revisionist by nature and definition. In your dopey mind, a critique of a conspiracy theory is revisionism.

 

[blastoff]

[QUOightwinger, post: 14260049, member: 20321"]

I saw this on CBS Sunday News today. A great, mellow, fairly neutral show that I enjoy on Sundays. Easy watching. Interesting stories.

They did a piece on Rachael Maddow. It was good. Radical liberalism aside...she's worked hard at her career. And honestly....when serious breaking news occurs like a terror attack...when she has to go into serious news anchor mode...she is actually very good at it. If she was sane she'd be a tremendous news person.

And they showed her before and after photos. Wow. What a shame....

View attachment 74878

Shorter hair is a better style for her face[/QUOTE]
And espec

I saw this on CBS Sunday News today. A great, mellow, fairly neutral show that I enjoy on Sundays. Easy watching. Interesting stories.

They did a piece on Rachael Maddow. It was good. Radical liberalism aside...she's worked hard at her career. And honestly....when serious breaking news occurs like a terror attack...when she has to go into serious news anchor mode...she is actually very good at it. If she was sane she'd be a tremendous news person.

And they showed her before and after photos. Wow. What a shame....

View attachment 74878

Shorter hair is a better style for her face

Especially when she's prancing around Rosie O'Donnell's bedroom naked with her strap-on at the ready.

 

[Camp]

You lose every debate you get into. Something is wrong that makes you delusional. They last debate you and I had you got your butt kicked and had to quit and run away. No big deal, not bragging because everyone always kicks your butt in debates.

Really? Do tell? I have never " lost" a debate and especially to you and nor have I ever "quit" until it got to the point I was simply spinning my wheels. So what was this debate that you are claiming victory over? Because there is no way that you know more about what is going on then me...impossible...never happened.

It was the one you challenged me regarding your insistence that subjective and speculative source data as found in conspiracy theories could be used and compatible with objective and proven factual data. Your concept was put to rest when I posted a link to an interview with your top author, source and proponent admitting in the interview that many of his so-called facts were speculation and accuracy of facts was not one of his priorities. That plus a link explaining the consistency and methods of creating conspiracy theories caused you to end the debate and not return to it.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Seriously? You posted something by someone that says there are no such things as conspiracies and that's the end of the debate and a victory in YOUR mind? I posted names like Antony Sutton, Dr.John Coleman, Jim Marrs, William Still, William Guy Carr, Gary Allen, Jordan Maxwell, etc,etc that had intimate access to information and the best you could do was say "they are just conspiracy theorists" and that makes you (someone that has never done any nitty gritty research) right but these guys are wrong? That's the dumbest ******* thing anyone has ever posted here. I have the white papers written by CFR members themselves, I have direct quotes from Carroll Quigly that wrote "Tragedy and Hope" that mentored Bill "drop trou" Clinton. I have posted the findings of the Reece Commission and the real agenda behind tax free foundations....but **** that! Lil Camper found a web link that chastises those that don't believe "da gubermint" and that they should be demonized for DARING to question anything that comes out of the propaganda mouthpiece of USA.INC....dude, you didn't prove a ******* thing....nada, zilch and I will ride your ass like Zorro if you keep claiming that you did. I will flood every thread you are on with their own ******* words proving that I am right and you...are wrong

Wanna take another stab at that? I dare ya...I triple dog dare ya.

The link I provided did not say the things you are claiming. It explained the methodology of writing a conspiracy. You did not challenge the message, you attacked the messenger. In the other link, there was an interview with Sutton, your main source. You did not challenge its accuracy or deny the comments he made relating to his accuracy in his works. The guy is referred to as the conspiracy theories.
Your threat to follow me around the site and harass me does not intimidate me. I think you have a tear drop tattoo under your right eye. I suspect you are an ex-convict Maybe I am wrong, but you sure fit the profile. Not that there is anything wrong with being an ex-con prison *****.

I think you've been punked too many times Camp. Its effects are cumulative and it does things to people. I apologize for my part.

I can not recall a single time you have ever come remotely close to punking me or even holding your own in a discussion, but honestly, the only thing you and I have really discussed is Reagan and you can not be blamed for coming up short on those discussions. He is a hard guy to defend.

 

[Dale Smith]

Really? Do tell? I have never " lost" a debate and especially to you and nor have I ever "quit" until it got to the point I was simply spinning my wheels. So what was this debate that you are claiming victory over? Because there is no way that you know more about what is going on then me...impossible...never happened.

It was the one you challenged me regarding your insistence that subjective and speculative source data as found in conspiracy theories could be used and compatible with objective and proven factual data. Your concept was put to rest when I posted a link to an interview with your top author, source and proponent admitting in the interview that many of his so-called facts were speculation and accuracy of facts was not one of his priorities. That plus a link explaining the consistency and methods of creating conspiracy theories caused you to end the debate and not return to it.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Seriously? You posted something by someone that says there are no such things as conspiracies and that's the end of the debate and a victory in YOUR mind? I posted names like Antony Sutton, Dr.John Coleman, Jim Marrs, William Still, William Guy Carr, Gary Allen, Jordan Maxwell, etc,etc that had intimate access to information and the best you could do was say "they are just conspiracy theorists" and that makes you (someone that has never done any nitty gritty research) right but these guys are wrong? That's the dumbest ******* thing anyone has ever posted here. I have the white papers written by CFR members themselves, I have direct quotes from Carroll Quigly that wrote "Tragedy and Hope" that mentored Bill "drop trou" Clinton. I have posted the findings of the Reece Commission and the real agenda behind tax free foundations....but **** that! Lil Camper found a web link that chastises those that don't believe "da gubermint" and that they should be demonized for DARING to question anything that comes out of the propaganda mouthpiece of USA.INC....dude, you didn't prove a ******* thing....nada, zilch and I will ride your ass like Zorro if you keep claiming that you did. I will flood every thread you are on with their own ******* words proving that I am right and you...are wrong

Wanna take another stab at that? I dare ya...I triple dog dare ya.

The link I provided did not say the things you are claiming. It explained the methodology of writing a conspiracy. You did not challenge the message, you attacked the messenger. In the other link, there was an interview with Sutton, your main source. You did not challenge its accuracy or deny the comments he made relating to his accuracy in his works. The guy is referred to as the conspiracy theories.
Your threat to follow me around the site and harass me does not intimidate me. I think you have a tear drop tattoo under your right eye. I suspect you are an ex-convict Maybe I am wrong, but you sure fit the profile. Not that there is anything wrong with being an ex-con prison *****.

The "methodology"? People conspire all the ******* time...it was total bullshit and you didn't disprove a ******* thing. Antony Sutton was an accredited researcher and his information is not even up for dispute. He worked for years and years for the Hoover Institute and found some information that put USA.INC in a less that sterling light so they tried to suppress him. I didn't see your link about Sutton but I will say with no hesitation whatsoever that his information has been verified and validated by more than just a few researchers. Don't post bullshit and don't post lies or make up revisionist history and you won't have to worry about me finding you and posting quotes that prove yo to be a liar...it's not that ******* hard. Ex-con? LOL! Hardly........but are you scared? Don't worry, little liberal *****...I have no ill will towards anyone...just trying to educate the stupid is all.....and it's not all that rewarding.

You don't even know what revisionist history is you dumb ass. A history has to already be written for a revision to take place. Conspiracy theories are revisionist by nature and definition. In your dopey mind, a critique of a conspiracy theory is revisionism.

Revisionist history as in "I defeated Dale in a debate"...that was my point ya dumb ****. You disproved nothing.
So....given what we know now...did Oswald act alone in your opinion? Do you believe the Warren Report? Because your answer will tell me all I need to know about you.

 

[Meathead]

Really? Do tell? I have never " lost" a debate and especially to you and nor have I ever "quit" until it got to the point I was simply spinning my wheels. So what was this debate that you are claiming victory over? Because there is no way that you know more about what is going on then me...impossible...never happened.

It was the one you challenged me regarding your insistence that subjective and speculative source data as found in conspiracy theories could be used and compatible with objective and proven factual data. Your concept was put to rest when I posted a link to an interview with your top author, source and proponent admitting in the interview that many of his so-called facts were speculation and accuracy of facts was not one of his priorities. That plus a link explaining the consistency and methods of creating conspiracy theories caused you to end the debate and not return to it.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Seriously? You posted something by someone that says there are no such things as conspiracies and that's the end of the debate and a victory in YOUR mind? I posted names like Antony Sutton, Dr.John Coleman, Jim Marrs, William Still, William Guy Carr, Gary Allen, Jordan Maxwell, etc,etc that had intimate access to information and the best you could do was say "they are just conspiracy theorists" and that makes you (someone that has never done any nitty gritty research) right but these guys are wrong? That's the dumbest ******* thing anyone has ever posted here. I have the white papers written by CFR members themselves, I have direct quotes from Carroll Quigly that wrote "Tragedy and Hope" that mentored Bill "drop trou" Clinton. I have posted the findings of the Reece Commission and the real agenda behind tax free foundations....but **** that! Lil Camper found a web link that chastises those that don't believe "da gubermint" and that they should be demonized for DARING to question anything that comes out of the propaganda mouthpiece of USA.INC....dude, you didn't prove a ******* thing....nada, zilch and I will ride your ass like Zorro if you keep claiming that you did. I will flood every thread you are on with their own ******* words proving that I am right and you...are wrong

Wanna take another stab at that? I dare ya...I triple dog dare ya.

The link I provided did not say the things you are claiming. It explained the methodology of writing a conspiracy. You did not challenge the message, you attacked the messenger. In the other link, there was an interview with Sutton, your main source. You did not challenge its accuracy or deny the comments he made relating to his accuracy in his works. The guy is referred to as the conspiracy theories.
Your threat to follow me around the site and harass me does not intimidate me. I think you have a tear drop tattoo under your right eye. I suspect you are an ex-convict Maybe I am wrong, but you sure fit the profile. Not that there is anything wrong with being an ex-con prison *****.

I think you've been punked too many times Camp. Its effects are cumulative and it does things to people. I apologize for my part.

I can not recall a single time you have ever come remotely close to punking me or even holding your own in a discussion, but honestly, the only thing you and I have really discussed is Reagan and you can not be blamed for coming up short on those discussions. He is a hard guy to defend.

I am not interested in "hard guys". You've obviously lost count of the times you've been punked. It does things to people, as I said.

I don't give a rat's ass who you marry or what bathroom you use btw.

 

[Camp]

It was the one you challenged me regarding your insistence that subjective and speculative source data as found in conspiracy theories could be used and compatible with objective and proven factual data. Your concept was put to rest when I posted a link to an interview with your top author, source and proponent admitting in the interview that many of his so-called facts were speculation and accuracy of facts was not one of his priorities. That plus a link explaining the consistency and methods of creating conspiracy theories caused you to end the debate and not return to it.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Seriously? You posted something by someone that says there are no such things as conspiracies and that's the end of the debate and a victory in YOUR mind? I posted names like Antony Sutton, Dr.John Coleman, Jim Marrs, William Still, William Guy Carr, Gary Allen, Jordan Maxwell, etc,etc that had intimate access to information and the best you could do was say "they are just conspiracy theorists" and that makes you (someone that has never done any nitty gritty research) right but these guys are wrong? That's the dumbest ******* thing anyone has ever posted here. I have the white papers written by CFR members themselves, I have direct quotes from Carroll Quigly that wrote "Tragedy and Hope" that mentored Bill "drop trou" Clinton. I have posted the findings of the Reece Commission and the real agenda behind tax free foundations....but **** that! Lil Camper found a web link that chastises those that don't believe "da gubermint" and that they should be demonized for DARING to question anything that comes out of the propaganda mouthpiece of USA.INC....dude, you didn't prove a ******* thing....nada, zilch and I will ride your ass like Zorro if you keep claiming that you did. I will flood every thread you are on with their own ******* words proving that I am right and you...are wrong

Wanna take another stab at that? I dare ya...I triple dog dare ya.

The link I provided did not say the things you are claiming. It explained the methodology of writing a conspiracy. You did not challenge the message, you attacked the messenger. In the other link, there was an interview with Sutton, your main source. You did not challenge its accuracy or deny the comments he made relating to his accuracy in his works. The guy is referred to as the conspiracy theories.
Your threat to follow me around the site and harass me does not intimidate me. I think you have a tear drop tattoo under your right eye. I suspect you are an ex-convict Maybe I am wrong, but you sure fit the profile. Not that there is anything wrong with being an ex-con prison *****.

The "methodology"? People conspire all the ******* time...it was total bullshit and you didn't disprove a ******* thing. Antony Sutton was an accredited researcher and his information is not even up for dispute. He worked for years and years for the Hoover Institute and found some information that put USA.INC in a less that sterling light so they tried to suppress him. I didn't see your link about Sutton but I will say with no hesitation whatsoever that his information has been verified and validated by more than just a few researchers. Don't post bullshit and don't post lies or make up revisionist history and you won't have to worry about me finding you and posting quotes that prove yo to be a liar...it's not that ******* hard. Ex-con? LOL! Hardly........but are you scared? Don't worry, little liberal *****...I have no ill will towards anyone...just trying to educate the stupid is all.....and it's not all that rewarding.

You don't even know what revisionist history is you dumb ass. A history has to already be written for a revision to take place. Conspiracy theories are revisionist by nature and definition. In your dopey mind, a critique of a conspiracy theory is revisionism.

Revisionist history as in "I defeated Dale in a debate"...that was my point ya dumb ****. You disproved nothing.
So....given what we know now...did Oswald act alone in your opinion? Do you believe the Warren Report? Because your answer will tell me all I need to know about you.

Why are you using quotation marks as if you are quoting me? Why do you have to use a misquote to make a point? I clearly said that the links I provided proved my case and put you on the losing side of the discussion. You admit to not reading the link that has your source admitting to not using real factual data in the very book you use as a main source for your ideas. How convenient. In the other link, the essay provides numerous mistakes and untrue statements made by Sutton.
The first link shows the untruthfulness of Sutton. The second link is an interview where Sutton admits much of his work in the very exact book in question contains untrue statements. His excuse, "factual accuracy was not my priority".

 

[Camp]

It was the one you challenged me regarding your insistence that subjective and speculative source data as found in conspiracy theories could be used and compatible with objective and proven factual data. Your concept was put to rest when I posted a link to an interview with your top author, source and proponent admitting in the interview that many of his so-called facts were speculation and accuracy of facts was not one of his priorities. That plus a link explaining the consistency and methods of creating conspiracy theories caused you to end the debate and not return to it.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Seriously? You posted something by someone that says there are no such things as conspiracies and that's the end of the debate and a victory in YOUR mind? I posted names like Antony Sutton, Dr.John Coleman, Jim Marrs, William Still, William Guy Carr, Gary Allen, Jordan Maxwell, etc,etc that had intimate access to information and the best you could do was say "they are just conspiracy theorists" and that makes you (someone that has never done any nitty gritty research) right but these guys are wrong? That's the dumbest ******* thing anyone has ever posted here. I have the white papers written by CFR members themselves, I have direct quotes from Carroll Quigly that wrote "Tragedy and Hope" that mentored Bill "drop trou" Clinton. I have posted the findings of the Reece Commission and the real agenda behind tax free foundations....but **** that! Lil Camper found a web link that chastises those that don't believe "da gubermint" and that they should be demonized for DARING to question anything that comes out of the propaganda mouthpiece of USA.INC....dude, you didn't prove a ******* thing....nada, zilch and I will ride your ass like Zorro if you keep claiming that you did. I will flood every thread you are on with their own ******* words proving that I am right and you...are wrong

Wanna take another stab at that? I dare ya...I triple dog dare ya.

The link I provided did not say the things you are claiming. It explained the methodology of writing a conspiracy. You did not challenge the message, you attacked the messenger. In the other link, there was an interview with Sutton, your main source. You did not challenge its accuracy or deny the comments he made relating to his accuracy in his works. The guy is referred to as the conspiracy theories.
Your threat to follow me around the site and harass me does not intimidate me. I think you have a tear drop tattoo under your right eye. I suspect you are an ex-convict Maybe I am wrong, but you sure fit the profile. Not that there is anything wrong with being an ex-con prison *****.

I think you've been punked too many times Camp. Its effects are cumulative and it does things to people. I apologize for my part.

I can not recall a single time you have ever come remotely close to punking me or even holding your own in a discussion, but honestly, the only thing you and I have really discussed is Reagan and you can not be blamed for coming up short on those discussions. He is a hard guy to defend.

I am not interested in "hard guys". You've obviously lost count of the times you've been punked. It does things to people, as I said.

I don't give a rat's ass who you marry or what bathroom you use btw.

I said Reagan was a hard guy to defend you stupid fool. Keep it up, I can handle you and dickwad dale at the same time. Do yourself a favor and quit now, go get a late meal in Andel.

 

[Meathead]

I said Reagan was a hard guy to defend you stupid fool. Keep it up, I can handle you and dickwad dale at the same time. Do yourself a favor and quit now, go get a late meal in Andel.

I am sure you can handle two guys at one time, and no doubt you have. Still, I don't go that way.

 

[Camp]

I said Reagan was a hard guy to defend you stupid fool. Keep it up, I can handle you and dickwad dale at the same time. Do yourself a favor and quit now, go get a late meal in Andel.

I am sure you can handle two guys at one time, and no doubt you have. Still, I don't go that way.

Is that all you got? You are one lame ass punk if that is the best you can do. On the other hand, you are the nit-wit that calls himself Meathead. When they were handing out fool badges they threw handfuls at you. Sounds like plenty of them stuck to you.

 

[Meathead]

I said Reagan was a hard guy to defend you stupid fool. Keep it up, I can handle you and dickwad dale at the same time. Do yourself a favor and quit now, go get a late meal in Andel.

I am sure you can handle two guys at one time, and no doubt you have. Still, I don't go that way.

Is that all you got? You are one lame ass punk if that is the best you can do. On the other hand, you are the nit-wit that calls himself Meathead. When they were handing out fool badges they threw handfuls at you. Sounds like plenty of them stuck to you.

Look, I know this is about Rachel Maddow, but why the hell don't you start a thread about gay sex with hard men and multiple partners and stop polluting this one?!

 

[Camp]

I said Reagan was a hard guy to defend you stupid fool. Keep it up, I can handle you and dickwad dale at the same time. Do yourself a favor and quit now, go get a late meal in Andel.

I am sure you can handle two guys at one time, and no doubt you have. Still, I don't go that way.

Is that all you got? You are one lame ass punk if that is the best you can do. On the other hand, you are the nit-wit that calls himself Meathead. When they were handing out fool badges they threw handfuls at you. Sounds like plenty of them stuck to you.

Look, I know this is about Rachel Maddow, but why the hell don't you start a thread about gay sex with hard men and multiple partners and stop polluting this one?!

Dude, you are the one that always finds a way to bring up gay sex. I never do. You took my comment about taking on both you and dale in a debate and translated it into a gay reference. Going gay was your thing. You do it all the time. You are obsessed with it.
See how easy it is to reveal your stupidity and punk like personality. The other asshole, that dickwad dale character was coward enough to flee. You should do the same. Unless you just enjoy making a public mockery of yourself.

 

[Camp]

I said Reagan was a hard guy to defend you stupid fool. Keep it up, I can handle you and dickwad dale at the same time. Do yourself a favor and quit now, go get a late meal in Andel.

I am sure you can handle two guys at one time, and no doubt you have. Still, I don't go that way.

Is that all you got? You are one lame ass punk if that is the best you can do. On the other hand, you are the nit-wit that calls himself Meathead. When they were handing out fool badges they threw handfuls at you. Sounds like plenty of them stuck to you.

Look, I know this is about Rachel Maddow, but why the hell don't you start a thread about gay sex with hard men and multiple partners and stop polluting this one?!

This thread hasn't been about that lesbian for a long time you moron. It is about two losers named dickwad dale and meatloaf fool trying to boost their ego's and making a wrong turn.

 

[Dale Smith]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Seriously? You posted something by someone that says there are no such things as conspiracies and that's the end of the debate and a victory in YOUR mind? I posted names like Antony Sutton, Dr.John Coleman, Jim Marrs, William Still, William Guy Carr, Gary Allen, Jordan Maxwell, etc,etc that had intimate access to information and the best you could do was say "they are just conspiracy theorists" and that makes you (someone that has never done any nitty gritty research) right but these guys are wrong? That's the dumbest ******* thing anyone has ever posted here. I have the white papers written by CFR members themselves, I have direct quotes from Carroll Quigly that wrote "Tragedy and Hope" that mentored Bill "drop trou" Clinton. I have posted the findings of the Reece Commission and the real agenda behind tax free foundations....but **** that! Lil Camper found a web link that chastises those that don't believe "da gubermint" and that they should be demonized for DARING to question anything that comes out of the propaganda mouthpiece of USA.INC....dude, you didn't prove a ******* thing....nada, zilch and I will ride your ass like Zorro if you keep claiming that you did. I will flood every thread you are on with their own ******* words proving that I am right and you...are wrong

Wanna take another stab at that? I dare ya...I triple dog dare ya.

The link I provided did not say the things you are claiming. It explained the methodology of writing a conspiracy. You did not challenge the message, you attacked the messenger. In the other link, there was an interview with Sutton, your main source. You did not challenge its accuracy or deny the comments he made relating to his accuracy in his works. The guy is referred to as the conspiracy theories.
Your threat to follow me around the site and harass me does not intimidate me. I think you have a tear drop tattoo under your right eye. I suspect you are an ex-convict Maybe I am wrong, but you sure fit the profile. Not that there is anything wrong with being an ex-con prison *****.

The "methodology"? People conspire all the ******* time...it was total bullshit and you didn't disprove a ******* thing. Antony Sutton was an accredited researcher and his information is not even up for dispute. He worked for years and years for the Hoover Institute and found some information that put USA.INC in a less that sterling light so they tried to suppress him. I didn't see your link about Sutton but I will say with no hesitation whatsoever that his information has been verified and validated by more than just a few researchers. Don't post bullshit and don't post lies or make up revisionist history and you won't have to worry about me finding you and posting quotes that prove yo to be a liar...it's not that ******* hard. Ex-con? LOL! Hardly........but are you scared? Don't worry, little liberal *****...I have no ill will towards anyone...just trying to educate the stupid is all.....and it's not all that rewarding.

You don't even know what revisionist history is you dumb ass. A history has to already be written for a revision to take place. Conspiracy theories are revisionist by nature and definition. In your dopey mind, a critique of a conspiracy theory is revisionism.

Revisionist history as in "I defeated Dale in a debate"...that was my point ya dumb ****. You disproved nothing.
So....given what we know now...did Oswald act alone in your opinion? Do you believe the Warren Report? Because your answer will tell me all I need to know about you.

Why are you using quotation marks as if you are quoting me? Why do you have to use a misquote to make a point? I clearly said that the links I provided proved my case and put you on the losing side of the discussion. You admit to not reading the link that has your source admitting to not using real factual data in the very book you use as a main source for your ideas. How convenient. In the other link, the essay provides numerous mistakes and untrue statements made by Sutton.
The first link shows the untruthfulness of Sutton. The second link is an interview where Sutton admits much of his work in the very exact book in question contains untrue statements. His excuse,"factual accuracy was not my priority".

"factual accuracy was not my priority"....hmmmm? I plugged that into Google search and got nothing. You are obviously confused because Sutton was a meticulous researcher and what he found upset the establishment so much that they wanted to censor his work. Losing side of the debate? Hardly...... people have tried to debunk the work of Eustace Mullins by trying to claim he was a racist sans any proof. You must know what that link was since you quoted it verbatim.

 

[Dale Smith]

I said Reagan was a hard guy to defend you stupid fool. Keep it up, I can handle you and dickwad dale at the same time. Do yourself a favor and quit now, go get a late meal in Andel.

I am sure you can handle two guys at one time, and no doubt you have. Still, I don't go that way.

Is that all you got? You are one lame ass punk if that is the best you can do. On the other hand, you are the nit-wit that calls himself Meathead. When they were handing out fool badges they threw handfuls at you. Sounds like plenty of them stuck to you.

Look, I know this is about Rachel Maddow, but why the hell don't you start a thread about gay sex with hard men and multiple partners and stop polluting this one?!

This thread hasn't been about that lesbian for a long time you moron. It is about two losers named dickwad dale and meatloaf fool trying to boost their ego's and making a wrong turn.

Camp, you have done nothing of the sort......only in your mind maybe but there is plenty of room in there.

 

[Dale Smith]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Seriously? You posted something by someone that says there are no such things as conspiracies and that's the end of the debate and a victory in YOUR mind? I posted names like Antony Sutton, Dr.John Coleman, Jim Marrs, William Still, William Guy Carr, Gary Allen, Jordan Maxwell, etc,etc that had intimate access to information and the best you could do was say "they are just conspiracy theorists" and that makes you (someone that has never done any nitty gritty research) right but these guys are wrong? That's the dumbest ******* thing anyone has ever posted here. I have the white papers written by CFR members themselves, I have direct quotes from Carroll Quigly that wrote "Tragedy and Hope" that mentored Bill "drop trou" Clinton. I have posted the findings of the Reece Commission and the real agenda behind tax free foundations....but **** that! Lil Camper found a web link that chastises those that don't believe "da gubermint" and that they should be demonized for DARING to question anything that comes out of the propaganda mouthpiece of USA.INC....dude, you didn't prove a ******* thing....nada, zilch and I will ride your ass like Zorro if you keep claiming that you did. I will flood every thread you are on with their own ******* words proving that I am right and you...are wrong

Wanna take another stab at that? I dare ya...I triple dog dare ya.

The link I provided did not say the things you are claiming. It explained the methodology of writing a conspiracy. You did not challenge the message, you attacked the messenger. In the other link, there was an interview with Sutton, your main source. You did not challenge its accuracy or deny the comments he made relating to his accuracy in his works. The guy is referred to as the conspiracy theories.
Your threat to follow me around the site and harass me does not intimidate me. I think you have a tear drop tattoo under your right eye. I suspect you are an ex-convict Maybe I am wrong, but you sure fit the profile. Not that there is anything wrong with being an ex-con prison *****.

The "methodology"? People conspire all the ******* time...it was total bullshit and you didn't disprove a ******* thing. Antony Sutton was an accredited researcher and his information is not even up for dispute. He worked for years and years for the Hoover Institute and found some information that put USA.INC in a less that sterling light so they tried to suppress him. I didn't see your link about Sutton but I will say with no hesitation whatsoever that his information has been verified and validated by more than just a few researchers. Don't post bullshit and don't post lies or make up revisionist history and you won't have to worry about me finding you and posting quotes that prove yo to be a liar...it's not that ******* hard. Ex-con? LOL! Hardly........but are you scared? Don't worry, little liberal *****...I have no ill will towards anyone...just trying to educate the stupid is all.....and it's not all that rewarding.

You don't even know what revisionist history is you dumb ass. A history has to already be written for a revision to take place. Conspiracy theories are revisionist by nature and definition. In your dopey mind, a critique of a conspiracy theory is revisionism.

Revisionist history as in "I defeated Dale in a debate"...that was my point ya dumb ****. You disproved nothing.
So....given what we know now...did Oswald act alone in your opinion? Do you believe the Warren Report? Because your answer will tell me all I need to know about you.

Why are you using quotation marks as if you are quoting me? Why do you have to use a misquote to make a point? I clearly said that the links I provided proved my case and put you on the losing side of the discussion. You admit to not reading the link that has your source admitting to not using real factual data in the very book you use as a main source for your ideas. How convenient. In the other link, the essay provides numerous mistakes and untrue statements made by Sutton.
The first link shows the untruthfulness of Sutton. The second link is an interview where Sutton admits much of his work in the very exact book in question contains untrue statements. His excuse, "factual accuracy was not my priority".

This website????? A debate with Antony Sutton

I see this as a mild hit piece about the formation of the first central bank that was chartered and they are claiming that he got some information wrong sans any proof and not only that, the one trying to cause a stink about his work is someone that is defending the Federal reserve central bank which automatically sets off my bullshit detector. All you could find to pick at Sutton's work was some webpage from the year 2000? Wow, Camper....you really showed us! (snicker)

 

[Camp]

The link I provided did not say the things you are claiming. It explained the methodology of writing a conspiracy. You did not challenge the message, you attacked the messenger. In the other link, there was an interview with Sutton, your main source. You did not challenge its accuracy or deny the comments he made relating to his accuracy in his works. The guy is referred to as the conspiracy theories.
Your threat to follow me around the site and harass me does not intimidate me. I think you have a tear drop tattoo under your right eye. I suspect you are an ex-convict Maybe I am wrong, but you sure fit the profile. Not that there is anything wrong with being an ex-con prison *****.

The "methodology"? People conspire all the ******* time...it was total bullshit and you didn't disprove a ******* thing. Antony Sutton was an accredited researcher and his information is not even up for dispute. He worked for years and years for the Hoover Institute and found some information that put USA.INC in a less that sterling light so they tried to suppress him. I didn't see your link about Sutton but I will say with no hesitation whatsoever that his information has been verified and validated by more than just a few researchers. Don't post bullshit and don't post lies or make up revisionist history and you won't have to worry about me finding you and posting quotes that prove yo to be a liar...it's not that ******* hard. Ex-con? LOL! Hardly........but are you scared? Don't worry, little liberal *****...I have no ill will towards anyone...just trying to educate the stupid is all.....and it's not all that rewarding.

You don't even know what revisionist history is you dumb ass. A history has to already be written for a revision to take place. Conspiracy theories are revisionist by nature and definition. In your dopey mind, a critique of a conspiracy theory is revisionism.

Revisionist history as in "I defeated Dale in a debate"...that was my point ya dumb ****. You disproved nothing.
So....given what we know now...did Oswald act alone in your opinion? Do you believe the Warren Report? Because your answer will tell me all I need to know about you.

Why are you using quotation marks as if you are quoting me? Why do you have to use a misquote to make a point? I clearly said that the links I provided proved my case and put you on the losing side of the discussion. You admit to not reading the link that has your source admitting to not using real factual data in the very book you use as a main source for your ideas. How convenient. In the other link, the essay provides numerous mistakes and untrue statements made by Sutton.
The first link shows the untruthfulness of Sutton. The second link is an interview where Sutton admits much of his work in the very exact book in question contains untrue statements. His excuse,"factual accuracy was not my priority".

"factual accuracy was not my priority"....hmmmm? I plugged that into Google search and got nothing. You are obviously confused because Sutton was a meticulous researcher and what he found upset the establishment so much that they wanted to censor his work. Losing side of the debate? Hardly...... people have tried to debunk the work of Eustace Mullins by trying to claim he was a racist sans any proof. You must know what that link was since you quoted it verbatim.

Here you go dunce. He also gets demolished in this interview about his accuracy.

publiceye.org/conspire/rough/sutton.htm

 

[Dale Smith]

The "methodology"? People conspire all the ******* time...it was total bullshit and you didn't disprove a ******* thing. Antony Sutton was an accredited researcher and his information is not even up for dispute. He worked for years and years for the Hoover Institute and found some information that put USA.INC in a less that sterling light so they tried to suppress him. I didn't see your link about Sutton but I will say with no hesitation whatsoever that his information has been verified and validated by more than just a few researchers. Don't post bullshit and don't post lies or make up revisionist history and you won't have to worry about me finding you and posting quotes that prove yo to be a liar...it's not that ******* hard. Ex-con? LOL! Hardly........but are you scared? Don't worry, little liberal *****...I have no ill will towards anyone...just trying to educate the stupid is all.....and it's not all that rewarding.

You don't even know what revisionist history is you dumb ass. A history has to already be written for a revision to take place. Conspiracy theories are revisionist by nature and definition. In your dopey mind, a critique of a conspiracy theory is revisionism.

Revisionist history as in "I defeated Dale in a debate"...that was my point ya dumb ****. You disproved nothing.
So....given what we know now...did Oswald act alone in your opinion? Do you believe the Warren Report? Because your answer will tell me all I need to know about you.

Why are you using quotation marks as if you are quoting me? Why do you have to use a misquote to make a point? I clearly said that the links I provided proved my case and put you on the losing side of the discussion. You admit to not reading the link that has your source admitting to not using real factual data in the very book you use as a main source for your ideas. How convenient. In the other link, the essay provides numerous mistakes and untrue statements made by Sutton.
The first link shows the untruthfulness of Sutton. The second link is an interview where Sutton admits much of his work in the very exact book in question contains untrue statements. His excuse,"factual accuracy was not my priority".

"factual accuracy was not my priority"....hmmmm? I plugged that into Google search and got nothing. You are obviously confused because Sutton was a meticulous researcher and what he found upset the establishment so much that they wanted to censor his work. Losing side of the debate? Hardly...... people have tried to debunk the work of Eustace Mullins by trying to claim he was a racist sans any proof. You must know what that link was since you quoted it verbatim.

Here you go dunce. He also gets demolished in this interview about his accuracy.

publiceye.org/conspire/rough/sutton.htm

Sutton isn't being interviewed here, dumb ass....did you even read the whole thing? Gerry Rough is a dinfo agent that actually DEFENDS the Federal reserve bank and that's all I need to know about that piece of shit. He takes cheapshots at the Tea Party and the leftard clown posse touts his work on sites such as Huffington Post and that's an "ender" for me. Ezra Pound, Eustace Mullins are the ones that discovered the meeting at Jekyll Island. Griffin took their work and combined it with his but it did happen and they even admitted that it took place. Do you defend the Fed because it is one of the planks of the communist manifesto? I suspect that may be the case. Either way, you debunked nothing. You found some little website from 2000 ansd you think you have ptoved that this parasitic entity known as the Fed is a good thing and those that speak out against it are "Birchers" and rightwing whackos....BFD. I stand behind the things I read and write about and just consider the source of a mis-information whore like Gerry Rough.