Posted on 02/12/2010 6:27:28 AM PST by IbJensen
Thanks, I was wondering what it was that got so many people on edge, it sounds to me like she was trying to waffle, that while SHE DIDN'T BELONG TO THE TRUTHERS, that she didn't feel that she could comment upon them because she didn't know enough.
That's giving the Truthers & Alex Jones' Conspiracy Theorists a free ride. Do you suppose she was trying to answer in such a way as to not offend anyone???
Pathetic.
Rosie O’Donnell, Alex Jones, Van Jones, Amy Goodman aren’t standing anywhere close to where I’m standing. I have personal information that Pearl Harbor was very like the kind of setup they say 9/11 was. I have no proof on 9/11, and have substantial reasons to disbelieve the so-called truthers. But I have every reason to distrust my government. I come by it personally and honestly. If having that single attribute in common with them discredits me in your eyes, that’s your choice, as you say.
But I wonder then what it really means to be “gullible?” I found this definition and somewhat like it:
… perhaps from the bird (see gull (n.)), or from verb gull “to swallow” (1530, from O.Fr. goule, from L. gula “throat,” see gullet); in either case with a sense of “someone who will swallow anything thrown at him.”
So if I’m swallowing neither the 9/11 insider theory nor the faulty premise that our government can do us no harm, but you are accepting the latter, then which of us is more “gullible?”
BTW, yes, I agree, “truthers” is such an unfortunate label. EVERYbody’s a truther, don’tcha know.
No, and I clearly said that in my post under the disclaimer. I am pointing out to the poster that he/she is being a hypocrite by condemning Medina as a some kind of kook when the person the poster campaigned for as late as 2008, Ron Paul, also questioned 9/11 and even went further saying he would throw his support behind Kucinich for an investigation into the "cover-up".
Bottom line...there are still legitimate questions about 9/11, to believe so and say so does not automatically make one a "truther", a "kook" or a "loon" as many are suggesting.
I find it amazing that with all the information we have access to online, that it can still be so hard to find out about candidates. I was so shocked when the once prestigious Governor Mark Sanford, who many believed would run in the 2012 presidential race, became known as a common adulterer with a mistress in Argentina.
Isn't it amazing how little we know about the individuals to whom so much power is given?? BHO is the obvious big case, but there are so many other examples.
Go bully someone who'll truly appreciate your rudeness.
Medina shouldn't be part of "GOP Party politics" becasue she is a Libertarian.
Incorrect. I posted a LINK to the original transcrip. I posted, in SINGLE QUOTES so as to NOT connotate a direct quotation, my opinion of her quote at the link, to re-interpret the slanted media bias of adding a comma where she intendeded, by pause in her speech pattern, to end the statement, usually denoted in text with a period.
Bottom line...there are still legitimate questions about 9/11, to believe so and say so does not automatically make one a “truther”, a “kook” or a “loon” as many are suggesting.
*************************************************************
I agree...
Malkin questioned, too
http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2002/03/08/just_wondering
I’ve read good questions but I certainly don’t buy the bomb thing in the towers or whatever. The crazy ROP folk flew those planes into the towers and killed thousands. There are still unanswered questions about Fort Hood, too.
Peculiar woman.
MEDINA — "I don't, I don't have all of the evidence there, Glenn. So I don't I'm not in a place, I have not been out publicly questioning that. I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard. There are some very good arguments, and I think the American people have not seen all of the evidence there. So I've not taken a position on that."
BECK — "I think the people of America might think that might be a yes."
MEDINA — "Well [...] I'm not going to take a position."
>> So if I’m swallowing neither the 9/11 insider theory nor the faulty premise that our government can do us no harm, but you are accepting the latter, then which of us is more “gullible?”
I never said “the government can do us no harm” — and I specifically cautioned against extrapolating my beliefs about “truthers” to the opinion that “the government is always trustworty”. I never said that, and did not imply it.
I said the 9/11 truth movement are anti-American propagandists and engaged in intentional lies for the express purpose of blaming this country for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Anyone who buys into their propaganda is either malicious or gullible, and, in either case, is aiding and abetting avowed enemies of this country.
>> But I have every reason to distrust my government. I come by it personally and honestly. If having that single attribute in common with them discredits me in your eyes, that’s your choice, as you say.
I never referred to Pearl Harbor or general government distrust. I referred exlusively to 9/11 “truthers”. To the extent you align yourself with “truthers”, you are discredited. If you do not — OK. If your general distrust of government leads you into “trutherism”, you are gullible (and discredited). If not — OK.
I understand your distrust — but if you wish for your distrust to remain credible, I’d avoid the “truthers” like the plague.
SnakeDoc
I think it people need to take the time to research candidates and part of the research is reading forums like FR where other researchers can post their results.
My initial rejection of Medina was due pro-legalisation stance of drugs. I was a child of the sixties and saw many families destroyed by the drug use of their children as well as themselves. It is not negotiable.
Legalization would be a disaster.
>> Incorrect. I posted a LINK to the original transcrip.
You posted a link to a transcript which incontrovertably contradicted your disingenuous characterization of her statement.
>> I posted, in SINGLE QUOTES so as to NOT connotate a direct quotation, my opinion of her quote at the link, to re-interpret the slanted media bias of adding a comma where she intendeded, by pause in her speech pattern, to end the statement, usually denoted in text with a period.
Single quotes are not a universal indication of a doctored paraphrase. Quotes connote a quotation ... and, in your case, connoted a quotation that was never made.
You wrote “I don’t”, and then intentionally eliminated “I don’t have all of the evidence there, Glenn” from directly thereafter to make it appear that “I don’t” was disconnected from the next sentence. Your paraphrase is misleading, at best, and a lie at worst.
I heard the interview — Beck’s transcript is accurate; yours is not.
How could she answer the question “I don’t”, and immediately follow that with “I don’t have enough evidence”? You cannot express an opinion, and then immediately express that you lack the evidence to form an opinion. Your “interpreted” paraphrase doesn’t make any sense.
SnakeDoc
MEDINA: I don't, I don't have all of the evidence there, Glenn.
She's obviously clearing her mind when she repeats the first two words of what she believes will be an "acceptable" answer.
Beck: Do you believe the government was any way involved with the bringing down of the World Trade Centers on 9/11?
Medina: I don’t
What is more clear than that?
Medina shouldn't be part of "GOP Party politics" becasue she is a Libertarian.
From what I can see, the Texas GOP is so screwed up that there are actually quite a few Libertarian local office holders in this state...
and usually a healthy offering of Libertarian candidates on the ballot as well.
A lot more than I've seen from "third parties" in other states....
But then again, given the contempt and disdain that Party Elites have for the grassroots, it really shouldn't be that surprising.
That would be clear if that is what she said. It isn’t. You can’t just crop the quotation wherever you see fit.
She said ...
“I don’t, I don’t have enough evidence there, Glenn.”
not ...
“I don’t. I don’t have enough evidence there, Glenn.” (which means I have a definite opinion but lack the evidence with which to form an opinion — and thus makes no sense) ...
or
“I don’t, I don’t. Have enough evidence there, Glenn.” (which means I can’t form a complete sentence ... and thus makes no sense).
Your “interpretation” is wrong. “Spinner Web” is a fitting handle — you’re spinning.
SnakeDoc
What is more clear than that?
Because her followup negates those words.
If your was correct she would say something like:
"I don't, because it's an absurd claim"
Instead it was more like
"I don't, but I'm likely wrong"
>> How is your interpretation, or snakedoc’s, any less of a guess than mine?
See above. Your “interpretation” either leaves an incomplete sentence with the remaining words of her statement ... or has two back-to-back contradictory statements. Both are nonsensical, and thus wrong.
Even Medina didn’t argue that she said “I don’t” ... in fact, she released a lengthy statement explaining her crappy answer. You’re arguing that her answer actually wasn’t crappy ... and not even the esteemed nutjob herself is buying it.
SnakeDoc
They are just using the party affiliation as an advantage to their campaigns and ridiculing the GOP at the same time.
We all know how far Ron Paul got as an admitted Libartarian!
I wonder, has Medina read the state GOP platform?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.