Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
To clarify, I should say that Obama is not pro-Iraq war.

Sure - but he's still pro Afghanistan war so that effectively does still makes him pro-war.

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
Afghanistan is not really discussed these days nor was it really controversial when we went in. As a presidential campaign issue, the Iraq war in particular is what is always what we are referring to so sorry about that.

The mainstream media don't discuss his support for the Afghanistan war, they only focus on him wanting to pull out troops from Iraq.

Please do not apologize - I am not trying to attack you, just giving my point of view.

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
Look, you say you don't want to discuss 9/11 but you keep talking about it.

I would like to discuss it with you, but there is so so much information(that I have already covered that I have posted on this forum) that it doesn't make sense for me to post it all again. Also I am so busy, I don't have too much time to do it all again.

As I've said, all you need to do is to watch "Loose Change" on youtube and do a simple search on my username on this forum to get the relavant postings up.

Here's the link to the first part on youtube: (change the part number on youtube for the subsequent parts ! :-))


Also bear in mind there are thousands of facts which are more easily covered by you watching the video, than be me attempting to re-post them all for you.

But just to show I can just give a taste of how evidence much there is you may wish to look at this link:

911truth.org ::::: THE TOP 40

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
It's frustrating to talk about it when I don't get details and since I haven't delved into the subject in awhile. So either let me know details or let's not at all.

Please see my above answer - I hope that answers your question.

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
You obviously are convinced of one thing but I saw something that was a refutation of Loose Change. I didn't have to see Loose Change at the time because what I saw presented allegations Loose Change made and then refuted them. That's all.

What you saw was most likely a hit-piece that you imagined refuted the arguments made.

If you can show/tell me what you saw then I will try to cover what they said using facts and science.

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
You keep telling me to investigate this or that as if I'm not educated enough about what goes on and you're mistaken.

Are you aware that declassified US govt documents admit that the Gulf Of Tonkin incident which led to the Vietnam war was a false flag event ?

Spy agency faked key Vietnam War data

BBC Show Engages In Chaotic, Rambling 9/11 Truth Debunk-Fest

"It depends, I don't know, I haven't looked into it in real detail" was the stable response of both the studio guests to Alex's detailed rants about events such as the attack on the USS Liberty and the Gulf of Tonkin incident, both now corroborated as staged false flag events by declassified government documents, as well as the infamous green lighted
Operation Northwoods.

If you're so sure there's nothing to 9/11 then how do you account for the fact that governements have admitted being involved in previous false flag attacks that have led to other wars ?

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
I simply don't believe every allegation, theory or whatever that is presented.

I wouldn't expect you to. Or to take my word for it.
I'd hope however you would be open minded enough to look into the facts presented to make up your own mind.
If then you decide you don't believe it, then fair enough but personally I don't think you'll get a balanced view by watching a programme that refutes something you didn't see in the first place.

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
There are a TON of them out there and I can investigate until the cows come home but just because someone believes that something suspicious was done doesn't make it so.

Very true, but equally it doesn't mean it isn't necessarily true either.
If you watch the Loose change you may come to the conclusion that the official government story has been scientifically disproven (by leading scientists like Steve Jones and Pilots for 9/11 truth)

Scholars for 9/11 Truth - Home
pilotsfor911truth.org

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
You're right, if I knew more I could make a better argument but I am hard-pressed to find anyone I could believe whole-heartedly in an explanation, a conspiracy on 9/11.

Being an American, I am slightly suprised at your statement since polls show a large number of American's don't believe the official story:

CNN Poll: 90% Believe US Government Covering Up 9/11
New Zogby Poll: 51% Of Americans Want New 9/11 Investigation

But anyhow, in addition the following prominent people do not believe the official story either :

9/11: The Whistleblowers

Andreas Von Bülow - Former German Defence Minister
German Defense Minister Says Building 7 Used To Run 9/11 Attack
Willie Nelson
Willie Nelson: Towers Demolished on 9/11
Charlie Sheen
Actor Charlie Sheen Questions Official 9/11 Story
Governor Jesse Ventura
Former Governor Jesse Ventura: WTC Collapse A Controlled Demolition

and many many more.

Whilst this proves absolutely nothing, it shows at least it is not conspiracy theory madmen who disbelieve the official version of events(as the media again would like you to believe)

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
There is always a market for this type of thing - searching for explanation, multiple theories.

With all due respect, that is what the media wants you to believe so you don't go and research into the facts for yourself.

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
Personally, I believe more in the "Shock Doctrine". Heard of the book?

I haven't but I've found this video on youtube.
The Shock Doctrine by Alfonso Cuarón and Naomi Klein

Is this what you're referring to ?

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
Tragedies aren't necessarily created but taken advantage of in times of shock like 9/11, hurricanes etc. Bad things happen and then bad people swoop in and cash in.

Whilst that sounds like a reasonable theory, it doesn't explain a number of uncomfortable facts regarding prior-knowledge of the event and activities leading up to the event.

Consider this News Archive: 9/11 Prior Knowledge:

Prison Planet - 9/11 Prior Knowledge Archive

which includes issues such as (to name but a few)

Top Pentagon Officials were forewarned prior to 9/11.
How did Bush see the first plane hit the WTC ?
Insider trading prior to 9/11.
Why did the BBC report the collapse of Wtc7 prior to it's collapse ?
Why did Bush Snr meet with Bin Laden brother on 9/11 ?

Sorry I won't go on and on - just wanted to show there was a lot of foreknowledge and there still are a lot of unanswered questions(whatever TV hit pieces fail to address), in fact a staggering amount of them.

Please bear in mind I am not seeking to criticize you and I am only trying to help you and everyone understand the information which has been withheld from the public's view but is being successfully shared over the internet.
I can assure you I have no alterior motive except exposing the facts.

I have no (and I am sure no one seeking the truth has) any agenda regarding money, since a number of the individuals seeking a new 9/11 investigation are the victims families themselves (despite the media's gross assertion that those seeking a new investigation are disrepecting the victim's families).

Pelosi Says "No" to a New 9/11 Investigation, Claims Close Collaboration with Victim's Families on 9/11 Bill Passage

My only agenda is to put out the truth which is being withheld by the mainstream media from the public.

Anyway, I'll say no more, except please please watch the video.

Then if you still do not beleive there are any issues, then fair enough.....
[Rep]

[quote=youcanhandlethetruth;528261]Sure - but he's still pro Afghanistan war so that effectively does still makes him pro-war.

Argumentative.

The mainstream media don't discuss his support for the Afghanistan war, they only focus on him wanting to pull out troops from Iraq.
This is what I said.
Please do not apologize - I am not trying to attack you, just giving my point of view.

You are trying to attack and make sure that your point is RIGHT not just state it.

I would like to discuss it with you, but there is so so much information(that I have already covered that I have posted on this forum) that it doesn't make sense for me to post it all again. Also I am so busy, I don't have too much time to do it all again.
You may be busy, but not so busy that you don't have so much time to make many posts on this forum, correct?
As I've said, all you need to do is to watch "Loose Change" on youtube and do a simple search on my username on this forum to get the relavant postings up.
I might when I have I chance.
Here's the link to the first part on youtube: (change the part number on youtube for the subsequent parts ! :-))


Also bear in mind there are thousands of facts which are more easily covered by you watching the video, than be me attempting to re-post them all for you.
All you would have had to do is state a couple of events.
But just to show I can just give a taste of how evidence much there is you may wish to look at this link:

911truth.org ::::: THE TOP 40



Please see my above answer - I hope that answers your question.



What you saw was most likely a hit-piece that you imagined refuted the arguments made.
Of course you continue with statements like this when you are so convinced of your position - you may be right, you may be wrong but you won't budge. It's useless to "debate" with someone like that. Perhaps the piece YOU saw was a hit piece, did that ever occur to you? Perhaps something to make money? Of course not.
If you can show/tell me what you saw then I will try to cover what they said using facts and science.
That's ok, I'm not really interested at this juncture. Perhaps later.


Are you aware that declassified US govt documents admit that the Gulf Of Tonkin incident which led to the Vietnam war was a false flag event ?
No more conspiracies.
Spy agency faked key Vietnam War data

BBC Show Engages In Chaotic, Rambling 9/11 Truth Debunk-Fest

"It depends, I don't know, I haven't looked into it in real detail" was the stable response of both the studio guests to Alex's detailed rants about events such as the attack on the USS Liberty and the Gulf of Tonkin incident, both now corroborated as staged false flag events by declassified government documents, as well as the infamous green lighted
Operation Northwoods.

If you're so sure there's nothing to 9/11 then how do you account for the fact that governements have admitted being involved in previous false flag attacks that have led to other wars ?
Why would I be absolutely sure about something I don't have firsthand knowledge of and why do you?

I wouldn't expect you to. Or to take my word for it.
I'd hope however you would be open minded enough to look into the facts presented to make up your own mind.
I am openminded, you are the one not here to discuss. You want to convince me of every conspiracy you can think of! I only have so much time in my day to research this stuff - come on!
If then you decide you don't believe it, then fair enough but personally I don't think you'll get a balanced view by watching a programme that refutes something you didn't see in the first place.
Ok, so make it your job to tell others how uninformed they are when you don't know what is behind the program YOU watched!



Very true, but equally it doesn't mean it isn't necessarily true either.
If you watch the Loose change you may come to the conclusion that the official government story has been scientifically disproven (by leading scientists like Steve Jones and Pilots for 9/11 truth)
What makes the scientists you watched better than the ones I watched?
Scholars for 9/11 Truth - Home
pilotsfor911truth.org



Being an American, I am slightly suprised at your statement since polls show a large number of American's don't believe the official story:

CNN Poll: 90% Believe US Government Covering Up 9/11
New Zogby Poll: 51% Of Americans Want New 9/11 Investigation

But anyhow, in addition the following prominent people do not believe the official story either :

9/11: The Whistleblowers

Andreas Von Bülow - Former German Defence Minister
German Defense Minister Says Building 7 Used To Run 9/11 Attack
Willie Nelson
Willie Nelson: Towers Demolished on 9/11
Charlie Sheen
Actor Charlie Sheen Questions Official 9/11 Story
Governor Jesse Ventura
Former Governor Jesse Ventura: WTC Collapse A Controlled Demolition

and many many more.

Whilst this proves absolutely nothing, it shows at least it is not conspiracy theory madmen who disbelieve the official version of events(as the media again would like you to believe)
Well, of course polls mean everything right? Out of all those CNN and Zogby are the only credible polls and any poll that came up with 90%? I'm sorry, 90% is not accurate - that is not my opinion, just factual in this case. It could have been an online poll or something which skews it, who knows. Point is, I'm not surprised people believe there was a conspiracy of some sort - hell, I wouldn't be surprised. I wouldn't be averse to any investigation just because so many people died that day plus many are sick from the environmental hazards. But, like I said a conspiracy can be made out of anything and you even stated that what I watched was probably a hit piece - to me, that means another conspiracy theory about a conspiracy theory! It isn't that difficult!


With all due respect, that is what the media wants you to believe so you don't go and research into the facts for yourself.
Media is YOUR friend for your research so you believe quite a bit what they want. You choose what facts you want to believe.


I haven't but I've found this video on youtube.
The Shock Doctrine by Alfonso Cuarón and Naomi Klein

Is this what you're referring to ?
Yes.


Whilst that sounds like a reasonable theory, it doesn't explain a number of uncomfortable facts regarding prior-knowledge of the event and activities leading up to the event.
Case in point. It's ok for you to walk the worst path that mankind can take but you won't accept the second worst because it doesn't fit your belief system. It doesn't fit all your conspiracies.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
Sure - but he's still pro Afghanistan war so that effectively does still makes him pro-war.

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
Argumentative.

Ok sorry you're right - he's against war.

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
The mainstream media don't discuss his support for the Afghanistan war, they only focus on him wanting to pull out troops from Iraq.
This is what I said.

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
Please do not apologize - I am not trying to attack you, just giving my point of view.

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
You are trying to attack and make sure that your point is RIGHT not just state it.

Sure - being right is SOOO important to me - more important than trying to put out information that people may actually benefit from.
That's right, I'm on a real ego trip with all this 9/11 stuff - no other reason.
And judging by how defensive you're getting, being right doesn't concern you whatsoever.

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
I would like to discuss it with you, but there is so so much information(that I have already covered that I have posted on this forum) that it doesn't make sense for me to post it all again. Also I am so busy, I don't have too much time to do it all again.

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
You may be busy, but not so busy that you don't have so much time to make many posts on this forum, correct?

Oh sorry wasn't my lengthy post good enough for you ?
How much time would you like me to spend ?
3 hours ? A day ?
A 1000 apologies for my lengthy response.

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
What you saw was most likely a hit-piece that you imagined refuted the arguments made.

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
Of course you continue with statements like this when you are so convinced of your position - you may be right, you may be wrong but you won't budge. It's useless to "debate" with someone like that. Perhaps the piece YOU saw was a hit piece, did that ever occur to you? Perhaps something to make money? Of course not.

may be, may be, perhaps, perhaps.... :-)

The difference is that my opinion is based on scientific evidence and days of research, whereas you want to "debate" on something when you haven't even examined the evidence.

That's why I won't budge. What's your excuse ?

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
Are you aware that declassified US govt documents admit that the Gulf Of Tonkin incident which led to the Vietnam war was a false flag event ?

Spy agency faked key Vietnam War data

BBC Show Engages In Chaotic, Rambling 9/11 Truth Debunk-Fest

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
No more conspiracies.

Conspiracy ? It's DECLASSIFIED for god sake !!!!!! :-)

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
"It depends, I don't know, I haven't looked into it in real detail" was the stable response of both the studio guests to Alex's detailed rants about events such as the attack on the USS Liberty and the Gulf of Tonkin incident, both now corroborated as staged false flag events by declassified government documents, as well as the infamous green lighted
Operation Northwoods.

If you're so sure there's nothing to 9/11 then how do you account for the fact that governements have admitted being involved in previous false flag attacks that have led to other wars ?

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
Why would I be absolutely sure about something I don't have firsthand knowledge of and why do you?

I never said you sure be "absolutely sure" and I wouldn't expect you to be without looking into it yourself.
I'm just saying that given the government's own admissions, it could(in theory) make sense to examine the facts regarding this event too.

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
I wouldn't expect you to. Or to take my word for it.
I'd hope however you would be open minded enough to look into the facts presented to make up your own mind.

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
I am openminded,

Sure you are - so much that you leap to the term "conspiracy theory" (whilst making your own up about me) at every opportunity.

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
you are the one not here to discuss.

Now you're being just silly and putting your defences up at every opportunity.

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
You want to convince me of every conspiracy you can think of!

Sorry if I'm overloading you with information, but it is relavant so I posted it.

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
I only have so much time in my day to research this stuff - come on!

You may only have so much time in my day, but not so busy that you don't have so time to make many posts on this forum, correct? :-)

Sorry but you asked for that one......

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
If then you decide you don't believe it, then fair enough but personally I don't think you'll get a balanced view by watching a programme that refutes something you didn't see in the first place.

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
Ok, so make it your job to tell others how uninformed they are when you don't know what is behind the program YOU watched!

When did I ever use the word "uninformed" ?

But yes you are uninformed - that's why beleive it or not, I'm actually trying to help you out.
But rather than trust my integrity and good faith, you've come up with your own "conspiracy theories".

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
Whilst this proves absolutely nothing, it shows at least it is not conspiracy theory madmen who disbelieve the official version of events(as the media again would like you to believe)

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
Well, of course polls mean everything right? Out of all those CNN and Zogby are the only credible polls and any poll that came up with 90%?

I'm not sure how relaible they are either, but I know there are a lot of people who don't beleive the official version of events - that's a fact.
So sorry, I forgot you expected me to quote every single poll that has ever been made, but because I only posted a couple then that's not good enough.
And obviously you haven't got the capability to research into it for yourself either.

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
I'm sorry, 90% is not accurate - that is not my opinion, just factual in this case. It could have been an online poll or something which skews it, who knows.

If it's factual in this case, then why did you say "It could have been an online poll or something which skews it, who knows." ?
You mean it doesn't seem to be true ?

I concede - maybe it's not totally reliable.
Does that mean every other fact in relation to 9/11 is unreliable ? No.

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
Point is, I'm not surprised people believe there was a conspiracy of some sort - hell, I wouldn't be surprised.

Can you break free from media brainwashing and send the word "conspiracy" to the trash can ? Can you replace it with facts and science as your guide to truth without pre-judging everything as possible "conspiracy" ?

Can you accept it may be just possible that there is indisputable evidence that proves the government account of events is untrue ?

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
I wouldn't be averse to any investigation just because so many people died that day plus many are sick from the environmental hazards.

Good point.
And given the EPA lied by saying "The air is safe to breathe" after the event, it doesn't support or help the credibility of the government's version of events.
Before you jump on my back and accuse me that I'm making up another conspiracy, that doesn't mean necessarily mean they're not telling the truth about everything else either.

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
But, like I said a conspiracy can be made out of anything and you even stated that what I watched was probably a hit piece - to me, that means another conspiracy theory about a conspiracy theory! It isn't that difficult!

Ok fair point, but that was my guess(I never said anything was true or not).
And that doesn't mean I'm not not dealing with the facts in relation to explaning why the government's account is untrue either.
You're the one imagining what you want to believe, because you don't know what research I've done, so you've come up with your own conspiracy theory about me instead to fill in the gaps of your knowledge to explain what you don't understand.

Did you not see the article I posted about "BBC debunk fest " ?

I said "it was probably a hit piece" because I've scientifically evaluated other "debunk" pieces and have exposed them, and I know how the media indulges in spin, lies and manipulation.

But notice I said probably, not that it was - I was simply trying to give you an initial explanation of why you shouldn't necessarily believe everything you're told.
The fact that it may have seemed convincing doesn't necessarily mean it is telling you the truth does it ?
Obviously you don't necessarily beleive me (which is good), so why are you so quick to believe the mainstream media ?

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
With all due respect, that is what the media wants you to believe so you don't go and research into the facts for yourself.

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
Media is YOUR friend for your research so you believe quite a bit what they want.

Don't get your point here but the mainstream media and the alternative media are very different animals.

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
"You choose what facts you want to believe."

Sure - you're so open minded.

How can someone choose what facts to believe ?
Surely something is a fact or not ?

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
Whilst that sounds like a reasonable theory, it doesn't explain a number of uncomfortable facts regarding prior-knowledge of the event and activities leading up to the event.

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
Case in point. It's ok for you to walk the worst path that mankind can take but you won't accept the second worst because it doesn't fit your belief system. It doesn't fit all your conspiracies.

What are you talking about ?
It wasn't me that flew planes into the Twin Towers.

The point is, I'm haven't come up with any theory as to what actually happened on 9/11.
I'm saying that the official story has been scientifically disproven.

All one can do is examine the evidence, and if the facts and evidence say without doubt that the official story is untrue, is that my fault however unsavoury it may be ? No.
But is it better to know the truth than bury my head in the sand ? Yes.

And if the government are responsible that isn't my fault either.

You can't simply say:
"I'm not prepared to believe it could ever be true" out of hand, without examining the evidence.

Well I tried my best to show you what to look at and have a discussion, but sorry if I rammed it down your throat.
Believe it or not, I was only trying to help.

So believe what you want to believe - I'm not wasting my time with you anymore.

If you can't swallow your pride and your ridiculous need to always deny that I might be right and you might be wrong, then don't look into the evidence I've posted ok ?

Simply love your government, take your vaccinations and flouride and be a good American and go in ignorant bliss to the FEMA camp ok ?

But I forgot they're all "conspiracy theories" too and don't exist do they ?
[Rep]

To: youcanhandlethetruth,
Obviously you want to have the last word in this discussion knowing nothing, being satisfied that you are correct even though you aren't and I don't mean about our supposedly two-sided debate. Everyone is against you apparently even though when we have agreed on some things you don't see that. It's insulting to be told I'm something I know I'm not, you don't know me and haven't attempted to know me. You haven't really asked questions, only told me things. Why does one become defensive? You make them that way. In so many ways you tell someone they are stupid, you don't have to use the word - but you did it. I ask for information as is normally done in any debate but you refuse it, tell me to do my own research and then I must be uninformed if I don't know of a subject YOU brought up. Then, you throw more stories at me with NO explanation. Is that fair? I think not. No one wants to be lectured either. Swallow my pride? That's funny from someone who refuses to accept anyone else's opinion and tells them to "love your government". You just aren't interested in anything I have to say.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
To: youcanhandlethetruth,
Obviously you want to have the last word in this discussion knowing nothing

Nice tactic - make me look like you're right if I do reply, and if I don't reply then I can't counter what you say and stick up for myself.

If you mean knowing nothing about you then you're right - but I was presenting information, not seeking to give you a personality assessment.

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
being satisfied that you are correct even though you aren't and I don't mean about our supposedly two-sided debate.

I've never personally slandered you, but you're making it personal now.
Obviously you're either paranoid or painting the picture that I'm out to attack you which as I took great lengths to explain, I am not.

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
Everyone is against you apparently

Like who ?
Who's being personal now ?

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
even though when we have agreed on some things you don't see that.

Yes I did - I said "you are right" and "good point".
Again you think I'm out to cause conflict for you and you're wrong.

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
It's insulting to be told I'm something I know I'm not

Like what ? What have I said you are ?
Again you're painting the picture that I'm "out to get you".

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
you don't know me and haven't attempted to know me.

Likewise, but I was here to debate an topic.
If I want to meet people and get to know them I'll try a dating site.
Besides, whatever your personality doesn't change the facts in respect to the issues of what we've been talking about.

If I come across as arrogant(yes I am) then I'm sorry ok ?

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
You haven't really asked questions, only told me things.

I thought you might be interested to learn, that's all.
Sorry I didn't try to build an intimate friendship or relationship.

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
Why does one become defensive? You make them that way.

Maybe you're right.
But not my intention.
Sorry.

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
In so many ways you tell someone they are stupid, you don't have to use the word - but you did it.

Then you obviously haven't seen some of the other posters on this forum ! :-)
Actually I thought you were quite intelligent and was impressed by your knowledge on the subject. Maybe I should have mentioned that then you wouldn't have jumped to the wrong conclusion that I was "out to get you".

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
I ask for information as is normally done in any debate but you refuse it, tell me to do my own research

Don't talk runbish - I showed you all the information you need and never refused to do anything.
You wanted me to explain everything that has been historically documented rather than you actually reading the documents and watching the videos I've shown you yourself ?

And why can't you research what I've shown you ?

No doubt you'll take that personally and make me out to be the bad guy too.

Rather than thank me with providing you with information, you simply respond "Oh you're telling me I'm stupid because you've shown me all this information that I don't know"

Well it's common sense that if you asked for something, then you don't know everything, but you make me sound like I'm calling you stupid by providing you with information that YOU asked for. Go figure.

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
"and then I must be uninformed if I don't know of a subject YOU brought up."

I was trying to show other information can be relevant.
Again you're being ultra defensive.

Look I'm sorry if you're in denial over the shocking information I've shown(sorry pointed to), but that's not my fault.
I can't wrap nasty and uncomfortable facts up with a sweet smelling pink ribbon bow. That's not how truth works unfortunately.
For what it's worth though, if I sound aggressive then I apologize - again not my intention - just telling you the facts.
If you're not aware of them don't blame me - I'm not out to get you ok ?

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
Then, you throw more stories at me with NO explanation. Is that fair?

The explanations are in the articles and the videos.

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
I think not. No one wants to be lectured either.

You're taking it WAYYYY too personally.

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
Swallow my pride? That's funny from someone who refuses to accept anyone else's opinion and tells them to "love your government".

I do accept your opinion and won't try to change your opinion on anything else I promise.
As for "love your government" that was sarcasm, which came out of sheer frustration, because of your unwillingness to examine anything I said without saying that I'm out to make you look stupid or other nonsense.

Originally Posted by a_little_birdy:
You just aren't interested in anything I have to say.

You're the one that's made your mind up about "conspiracy theorists" and then slanders me for simply showing you some information.
Ok maybe I overloaded you with too much information - that doesn't mean I'm not interested though.
[Rep]