you dont like to make actual points or actually say anything. do you have a point? is your point that 9/11 was an inside job because the government is corrupt, and your proof is northwoods? or are do you continue to be unwilling to ever make a point of any kind, out of fear that i will demonstrate why your point is stupid?
I'm fairly hard lined with my points. I simply brought up something I found interesting. And no I was not pointing out that 9/11 was an inside job because I don't think it was. You are the one that likes to think that. Next.
ok then, why would this, if it something you simply find interesting (which is a lie, you are trying to make a point you are unwilling to defend) make me squirm according to your OP? why would i "squirm" over something of no consequence, just something you happen to find interesting?
I gotta defend Martin on this one, he has been extremely outspoken against truthers. Even though he loves to point out when he believes someone doesn't have a point.
what i dont like is when someone is obviously making a point, but they will not defend it, and then they claim that they were "just putting it out there", or "just thought it was interesting, take it or leave it". that is pointless. there is nothing to discuss when you are saying nothing. sabanfan and shane and rex all do it. lasalle makes non-points as well but at least he thinks he is making a point and will put in an effort. some folks wont even bother, and will pretend they were not saying anything. clearly rex is saying the government is bunch of corrupt conspirators and they are capable of inventing wars, including the current ones. rex also thinks it is interesting that one time a guy who later became a prominent al queda guy once had lunch at the pentagon. but if you ask him why that is interesting he will get all shy, rather than admit he thinks the guy was on the pentagon payroll as part of the US government plan to invent wars against muslim nations.
