community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
a dishonest man
by BraveNewWorldOrderFighter
Tuesday, Nov. 11, 2003 at 2:53 PM
BraveNewWorldOrderFighter@yahoo.com (email address validated)
A dishonest man is posting here falsely using my name.
This post is not mine:
open arms
by BraveNewWorldOrderFighter </news/?author=BraveNewWorldOrderFighter&comments=yes> Monday November 10, 2003 at 02:20 PM
<mailto:>
So why is it the homosexuals complain when they're not received with open arms?
Seems hypocritical to me.
<http://>
add your comments </comment.php?top_id=10072>
...
This post also is NOT mine:
J'accuse
by BraveNewWorldOrderFighter </news/?author=BraveNewWorldOrderFighter&comments=yes> Monday November 10, 2003 at 08:52 PM
<mailto:>
The two above posts were not mine.
They were holograms.
Thank you....
<http://>
add your comments </comment.php?top_id=10072>
...
This is also NOT mine (and note the Rachel Corrie remark):
another hologram
by BraveNewWorldOrderFighter </news/?author=BraveNewWorldOrderFighter&comments=yes> Monday November 10, 2003 at 10:52 PM
<mailto:>
lice_storm_1.jpg, JPG image, 350x263
That post was from someone who is obviously flattered. Like rachel Corrie.
This is the real me. Honest. And I can prove it.
...
These posts are also NOT mine:
another hologram
by BraveNewWorldOrderFighter </news/?author=BraveNewWorldOrderFighter&comments=yes> Monday November 10, 2003 at 09:43 PM
<mailto:>
nyt09.jpg, JPG image, 434x321
It's obvious that this never happened.
<p>I've never seen <b>one</b> single person that was on that plane appear on Oprah's show.
<http://>
add your comments </comment.php?top_id=10060>
another hologram
by BraveNewWorldOrderFighter </news/?author=BraveNewWorldOrderFighter&comments=yes> Monday November 10, 2003 at 09:48 PM
<mailto:>
wtc16.jpg, JPG image, 640x519
This was taken during a volcanic eruption in Berkeley, and was photoshopped by ILM.
<http://>
add your comments </comment.php?top_id=10060>
another hologram
by BraveNewWorldOrderFighter </news/?author=BraveNewWorldOrderFighter&comments=yes> Monday November 10, 2003 at 09:51 PM
<mailto:>
autopsy32.jpg, JPG image, 419x331
This was supposedly one of the victims of the WTC.
It's the purple one, I think.
<http://>
add your comments </comment.php?top_id=10060>
yet another hologram
by BraveNewWorldOrderFighter </news/?author=BraveNewWorldOrderFighter&comments=yes> Monday November 10, 2003 at 10:07 PM
<mailto:>
brain_hologram.jpg, JPG image, 369x330
This is a hologram of my brain, I think. It was taken by one of the Grays while I was asleep. Art Bell gave them directions to my house. He's a good friend of mine. They came right through the wall. Scared my iguana.
<http://>
add your comments </comment.php?top_id=10060>
...
This post is NOT mine:
another hologram
by BraveNewWorldOrderFighter </news/?author=BraveNewWorldOrderFighter&comments=yes> Tuesday November 11, 2003 at 04:47 PM
<mailto:>
m02.jpg, JPG image, 582x472
This is absolute undeniable proof that the plane hitting the WTC was a hologram. In the frame on the right side, you see an explosion. But where is the plane? Planes just don't disappear. And why wasn't there an explosion in the image on the left? The plane is there. Explosions don't simply disappear.
These images don't match, and my fists are clenched with seething rage over the Government destroying a building using a hologram, which has no mass or weight and occupies no physical space.
It's obvious that the gray aliens will do anything when government agents torture them and force strawberry ice cream into them intravenously. I think it's a hate crime.
I want this statist administration to acknowledge we need their advanced technology to save the whales in their natural and pristine form, as seen on Star Trek 4.
I have a dog.
<http://>
add your comments </comment.php?top_id=10060>
This also is NOT mine:
that's not funny
by BraveNewWorldOrderFighter </news/?author=BraveNewWorldOrderFighter&comments=yes> Tuesday November 11, 2003 at 06:28 PM
<mailto:>
Go ahead and make fun of me. But the truth will win out.
What the Bush Administration won't tell you is what happened to my uncle. He was in New York City the very day of the big blackout. He was in one of the executive washrooms on the 912 floor of the Chrysler Building, taking a dump, minding his own business. When the power went out, his naked ass fell at least 20 miles and plummeted into the pavement.
When the power finally came back on, my sister, who worked at the Baskin Robbins in Bed-Stuy, found her arm frozen solid inside a 50 gallon bucket of mint chocolate chip.
On the Avenue of the Americas, a cab driver lost control since the steering wheel vanished and careened into a crowd of Hussein appeasers, killing all lice on board.
There are thousands of classified reports on missing people. My anus is clenched in twisted rage. I think Al Gore should demand Bush be impeached. Or unplugged.
<http://>
add your comments </comment.php?top_id=10060>
YOU HAVE UNJUSTLY ACCUSED ME
by 2Beers
Wednesday, Nov. 12, 2003 at 3:31 PM
But I will forgive, because in this like all things, you were ignorant of the facts. I wasn't even on the IMC pages yesterday, since it was Veterans Day and I was out doing what all good Americans should have been doing ... honoring the great Americans who have served to keep this country free, even while you and your ilk are committed to the destruction of free society.
I refer you to my efforts on correcting the roecord at the following:
http://www.indypgh.com/news/2003/10/10060_comment.php#10461
http://www.indypgh.com/news/2003/10/9822_comment.php#10463
http://www.indypgh.com/news/2003/10/9688_comment.php#10470
And what makes you so sure that whom enver is imitating you is a "man". they could be a "woman" or a "womyn" or even transgendered. You know, on the Internet, no one knows if your a dog.
God, this is hilarious
by Irving
Wednesday, Nov. 12, 2003 at 4:13 PM
I swear, it's been a long time since I've laughed this hard.
Try as they might, nobody can make stuff like this up.
names important?
by sorry
Wednesday, Nov. 12, 2003 at 7:28 PM
BraveNewWorldOrderFighter - I just want to say that I understand and I see where you're coming from with other people using your name to post things, but what I want to ask you is does the name itself really matter that much to you? Do you really need to be recognized every time you post? Personally, I use different names many of the times I post just to avoid exactly what happened to you. Would changing your self-proclaimed "title" each time you post really be detrimental to what you post? I'm not trying to make light of the situation or of how upset you are over it; I think it's sad but inevitable on a site like this one, but to allow the site to be somewhat "censor-free" is the necessity of slight anonymity really much of a sacrifice? Because that's what I would recommend. People on these discussions, I have discovered, have started to recognize "me" for my rhetorical structure, not the name I give myself online, and that's what I would recommend to everyone so some person wishing to discredit you cannot just use your name to do so. It can be irritating at times, but if it is the price to pay for free speech without censorship or logging into the site, I know I, for one, will be glad to pay it.
BraveNewWorldNavalGazerFighter
by BraveNewWorldOrderBlighter
Thursday, Nov. 13, 2003 at 6:16 AM
Are you nuts? Who cares? It's not like identity theft. They didn't steal your credit cards a charge up $1,000s on QVC. "Hello, QVC, this is BraveNewWorldOrderFighter. Oh yeah, everything is fine except for the aliens in my closet. Yes, I would like to order a gross of those wonderful pink bunny slippers, 200 of the Kicking Ass Beanie Baby Democratic Party Mascots, 100 of those cute talking dog cookie jars, and the Wayne Newton Box Set. Yes, I'll hold. What do you mean you can't take my order. No I did not order 57 autographed George W. Bush Official White House Flight Jackets. No I did not order 1,200 commemorative Jeff Gordon matchbox cars with plexiglass display cases. I'm telling you it wasn't me, now send out my beanie babies."
Besides, no one really takes you seriously, so everyone is taking the imposter less seriously than that. Get over it.
bump to the top
by a dishonest man
Wednesday, Nov. 26, 2003 at 10:25 PM
We can't let this absolutely priceless moment fade into obscurity, can we?
Only an America hating Leftist wacko posting lies about holograms can turn around and bitch about dishonesty.
Take Me Seriously
by BraveNewGerbilOrificeFighter
Thursday, Nov. 27, 2003 at 7:44 PM
I AM NOT A HOLOGRAM. I AM A HUMAN BEING !!!
Does anyone need more proof that IMCis the haven of NutBalls, and the nutballs who can't help but point out that IMC is a haven for nutballs. As someone suggested, we should take a lesson from 2Beers ....... and write haikus. So I wrote a haiku.
Man, what a nutjob
BraveNewWorldOrderFighter
town crier or who
It's a hologram
9-11 was a stage show
Listen now P-G
IMC is dead
Holograms madeit that way
I love Howar Dean
Oh where are Irving
S. O., 2Beers, P yunzer
George K and the rest
dishonest haikus
by pentameter
Thursday, Nov. 27, 2003 at 8:26 PM
Your haiku is dishonest.
Just felt an overwhelming urge to point that out.
Before someone else did....
no more dishonesty
by can't pronounce it
Thursday, Nov. 27, 2003 at 9:00 PM
The theft of town criers will not be tolerated.
Yes, whatever happened to our Town Crier
by Octavio Manendez
Friday, Nov. 28, 2003 at 6:48 PM
Pittsburgh used to have a Town Crier. Whatever happened to the Town Crier. Has Indymedia thought of getting a town crier in Market square to announce alternative news. This would be a briliant effort and would be a great and creative way to confront the corporate media. Maybe Indymedia could get a hold of some of the people who used to play the town crier in Market Square and see if they would be willing to do this for Indymedia. All this stuff about town criers recently here has had me thinking that that would be pretty cool and kind of keep the alternative truth in front of everyone out there.
alternatives
by dishonest town crier thief
Saturday, Nov. 29, 2003 at 9:09 AM
How appropriate that a Leftist would call for the alternative truth....
Like, there's another????
i do not have
by gEORGE k
Saturday, Nov. 29, 2003 at 8:38 PM
dodgeramber@yahoo.com 724-773-1524
I do NOt have point ears. You dumb hippy smelly fucks cannot stand up to the face of debate-forum criticism. Your so called "facts" wither under the force of real and unyielding force of viewpoint from a majority of pittsburghers. None of you "retail employees" can muster enough time to formulate an actual arguement that makes sense, When faced with such an arguement, you shut of the source, as the case at the Web site http://www.voxfux.com, who will not allow comments any further.that have a dissenting viewpoint.
Email me, call me, in a serious manner. If I have the time, let us for a real forum to confron our issues, not have name-calling sessions.
do as we say and not as we do?
by J. ashcroft
Sunday, Nov. 30, 2003 at 6:09 AM
"When faced with such an arguement, you shut of the source, as the case at the Web site http://www.voxfux.com, who will not allow comments any further.that have a dissenting viewpoint."
not very surprising is it...? the dissenting (disrupting) viewpoints here are incapable of being expressed without resorting to abuse, and in 95% of cases consist in totally unfounded, un-thought out, uninformed content plagiarized from right-wing websites and based on McCarthy-ist clich�s of "kommies" trying to rob y'all of your freedoms. where do you even start discussing with that?
and if it's ok for "dissenting viewpoints" to enter this site and do everything they possibly can to prevent any kind of reasonable discussion, is it OK then if "we" attend the Republican convention next year, or maybe the next big NRA meeting? will Charlton, Cheney & co. let us heckle every single speaker who gets up on stage in the name of giving dissenting viewpoints a voice? or maybe at the next FTAA meeting. can we get in there and heckle that a little? think again. your side has set a precedent: don't give a voice to anyone who disagrees with you, keep 'em out through violent physical force where necessary and ensure they have no access to the major media. it's to the credit of the Indy Media sites that they tolerate the kind of disruption you and your buddies attempt to create. so go think again before you whine.
yawn
by macy
Sunday, Nov. 30, 2003 at 6:13 AM
I can add "McCarthyism" and "Political Correctness" and "we do things and blame the Right" to my list of cliches'.
a dissenting viewpoint
by I love macy - yes indeed
Sunday, Nov. 30, 2003 at 2:55 PM
Here you go, Little Precious�. Here's something to make you feel comfortable, seeing as how those mean widdle Freeper types have just torn your feelings to shreds. You can marvel at the hate filled scrivening, the phobic references to Vaseline, masturbate to the "credibility" helped along by your komrades at CNN about Fox getting some sort of exclusive, (when Fox just happened to be the pool feed for the day), swoon at the staggering stupidity of a Leftist talk show host cum magician who bitches about Bush having to use secrecy, etc.
Have at it, sweetheart. Fresh from the "mind" of an adolescent Democratic Underground reject, here's a steaming bucket of clich� ridden sewage for your hunger pangs�.
http%3A%2F%2Fhttp://www.opednews.com%2Fbasham1103_baghdad_coward.htm
A Coward Goes to Baghdad
by Doug Basham
OpEdNews.com
Forget "The eagle has landed." On Thursday, the turkey landed - on many Americans dinner plates, and on the runway of the airport formerly known as Saddam Hussein International.
The stupidity of conservatives never ceases to amaze me, as well as that of the media (and the majority of the American people, come to think of it). And to MY way of thinking, no-one has got this trip right yet.
Thus far, the focus has been on the secrecy surrounding the trip, the choice of Fox News to accompany the president, (which pretty much sums up his credibility level when he chooses the television equivalent of the National Enquirer to assist him in his chicanery). The focus has also been on whether or not it was a wise decision for the president to make (what? Like wisdom has been a staple of this administration thus far?)
When I first learned of this trip, a couple things came to my mind immediately.
First, the obvious� Remember all the times Mr. Bush told us how swimmingly things were going in Iraq - much different than the "'perceptions" we were being given by the American "filtered" media - well except Fox News of course. (Which raises the question. I wonder if the anchors and hosts at Fox have to provide their own Vaseline, or if it's in their contract that Fox has to). Now... if things are so hunky dory in Iraq; if it's just a handful of rag-tag Baathist loyalists and remnants who are causing all the trouble - why all the secrecy? Why even take Air Force One? Why not just book your flight with 'Air Liberation', so that the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi populace who just LOVE our presence in their country, and think it's just so Mohammed when their 4 and 5 year olds are frisked - they could be waiting for you at the airport with flowers and chocolates.
While much of the focus of the president's trip to Iraq (rightly so, and primarily because it is so obvious) has centered on the fact that the very nature of the trip demonstrates how dire the security situation in Iraq truly is, there hasn't been as much mention as to how this "nature" undermines the administration's claims to the contrary.
But here's the other thing that came to my mind after learning of his secret trip to Iraq - and the part of the equation that no-one seems to get, or simply doesn't have the balls to articulate.
Listen to this first line in a story from London's "The Telegraph" on Friday�"President George W. Bush was back at his Texas Ranch yesterday basking in the most adulatory coverage in months, as an admiring American media described his surprise trip to Iraq as one of the boldest ever presidential forays."
BOLD?!?! Doesn't anybody get it? Let's put the pieces together.
First piece... I remember this pathetic, cowardly little man in the White House standing before the cameras and saying� "Bring 'em On". And I remember how his mindless boot lickers praised him for his bravado - too damn stupid to realize that a comment like this was putting our troops in FAR more danger than any 10 stories the media could report - the same media who essentially handed Bush his war on a silver platter - the same media this administration and their apologists now like to blame for the deaths or our soldiers.
Second piece... Last Monday at Fort Carson, Colorado� the president said "The United States of America will not be intimidated by a bunch of thugs."
Third piece... During his visit with the troops in Baghdad, he said "We did not charge hundreds of miles into the heart of Iraq, pay a bitter cost in casualties, defeat a brutal dictator and liberate 25 million people only to retreat before a band of thugs and assassins." Now first of all� What do you mean "we", Kemo Bushbey? The only charge you've led is the one against our values, intelligence, decency, reputation and civil liberties� altho' you have been charging a lot to America's American Express card, haven't you?
Fourth piece... On the plane, just 3 hours from Baghdad, Bush said "I was fully prepared to turn this baby around and come home." Again - YOU were prepared to turn the plane around, Mr. Resident?
Is it starting to become clearer here what the main issue of this Iraq trip SHOULD be? Let me bottom line it� plain and simple.
When the coward in chief is safe and sound in America, he says� "Bring 'em On", or..."We will not be intimidated by thugs." Now don't you think a more appropriate time to say that - if indeed you were a man of courage, honor, conviction and "boldness" - would have been if you were planning to GO to Iraq, or when you were already THERE in Iraq?
But what did he say instead? First thing he said was� "Shhhhhhh." The second was, "I was fully prepared to turn this baby around and come home."
Put another way - when it's the lives of our soldiers that are at risk, Bush says "Bring 'em on" or, "The United States will not be intimidated by a bunch of thugs." When it's HIS sorry ass that might be in peril, he says, "if anyone finds out I'm coming� I'M turning this plane around and going home." And for this act of seemingly unnoticed cowardice, he's called... bold?!
Where's the boldness? Where's the bravado? Where's the� "Bring 'em on", and "We won't be intimidated by thugs" when it really matters? Wouldn't THAT have been the time for the bra-a-a-v-e Commander in Chief to say "Hey, you want a piece of me? I'm coming to 'gitcha'. Gonna' smoke you out. Dead or alive. Take your best shot�thug! Bring it on.. THUG!!
Nope. When there's a chance he might face the same kind of danger he himself has CREATED for our soldiers; and it's time for him to put action to words? No bravado and no courage at all. Instead there's "Shhhhh" and "I'll turn this baby around and come home."
And yet the� "liberal media" (God, that's one lie I am getting so sick of)� the "liberal media" absolutely gushes and slobbers all over this cowardly performance and calls it one of the boldest presidential forays EVER!!
And you wonder why the majority of Americans still support this arrogant little coward? I'll TELL you why they do. Because no-one is telling them he IS an arrogant, little coward, that' why. They're telling the American people� he's bold.
And actually, he IS bold. He's bold with his LIES! That coupled with the fact that he lies so constantly - many people who ARE aware of how long his nose is are in such shock by how blatant and in your face many of his lies are - are left speechless with their jawbones dragging on the ground. Case in point - right after he went on television and admitted there was no evidence to support a link between Saddam Hussein and 9-11, he went back to his very effective "propaganda by segue" schtick, and the next time he tried to justify his misguided debacle in Iraq, he said it was important to learn the lessons of 9-11.
RIGHT THERE - someone should have raised their hand and said "Uh, Mr. President? You're doing it again. You just said yesterday there was no link, but now by segueing from 9-11 into Iraq, you're implying there is. People with REAL values call that lying." But did anyone say that? Besides me? Not that I heard.
And you know why he was able to say again for the umpteenth time just the other day that the Taliban were gone forever? Because the very FIRST time he said it - right after a barrage of reports that the Taliban were reconstituting themselves - no-one raised their hand and said, "Uh, Mr. President, there is report after report coming out of Afghanistan that say the Taliban are not only resurging, they actually control several provinces in the country, and that we don't even completely control Kabul anymore. How can you in all good conscience - being a man of God yourself, in fact, the man God himself chose to lead this great nation"� (and I guess that makes sense� he certainly wasn't the first choice of the American people in 2000)� "How can you stand before this great nation and "boldly" LIE to them?"
I would like to ask the president these questions. Is this your way of making us all pay for not electing your father twice? Is it your way of making us pay for not electing you even ONCE? How badly do you feel we need to be punished for just not being smart enough to realize who God himself wanted in the oval office in the year 2000? And is this how your sick mind has justified acting like a dictator and stifling democratic dissent - because you know you were never democratically elected in the first place, so like, what difference does it make?
"Bottom line is folks� we're losing the battle. No-one seems to be able - or they don't have the GUTS - to look past the surface of this administration's shallow, deceitful crap and report what the REAL story is. Not one news show I watched on television, or one person I saw on any of the shows said "The main thing this trip proves is that not only is Bush a LIAR� he's a GUTLESS liar as well!"
And here's one other element you can add to this story, just to use this administration's blustering bulls--t against them. By including a "turn around and head home" provision in his travel plan, could not a case be made that while he was verbally saying "We will not be intimidated by thugs", what he was insinuating was "I will be intimidated by thugs"? And then, using the president's own criteria for dissenter demonization, could not a further case be made that Mr. Bush provided aid and comfort to the enemy (now defined as anyone who disagrees with Bush's occupation or policies), by acknowledging how precarious the situation in Iraq really is by including a "turn around" provision?... and by demonstrating to the "terrorists" (now defined as anyone who disagrees with Bush's occupation or policies) how successful and feared their resistance is by the "Top Goon" in the United States? When any other American does this, this administration and their hit men label them unpatriotic and unsupportive of the troops, but when Bush does it, he's called... bold? Just food for thought.
Back to the real issue behind "the trip" - namely, cowardice. From "Bring 'em On" and "WE won't be intimidated by thugs" to I'M gonna' turn this baby around and go home". And yet the media - (even the British media for God's sake, who certainly should be able to figure this one out) - drops the ball once again, and calls this "one of the boldest presidential forays ever"? How insulting. All I see is blatant, 2 faced hypocrisy, and spineless, shameful cowardice. Verbal machismo backed by physical retreat do not equate with courage. But to anyone familiar with Mr. Bush's military record or his actions on that fateful day in September 2001, this is par for the course. And while Mr. Dressup in the White House's physical actions may be bold in their sheer audacity, they are certainly not bold in the positive context the media is framing them in now.
Where I come from, "boldness" must be rooted in honesty. And seeing as we cannot count on the media to inform the American people, let us never forget the one over-riding truth in this entire Iraqmire. Bush lied and our soldiers died. Period. Our men and women - our brothers and sisters - and our kids. And the only "boldness" in this equation are the repeated lies Bush, his administration and our compliant media keep shoving down America's throat with such force they would make Linda Lovelace herself gag. Bold.. my... ass.
= = = = = =
Doug Basham broadcasts every weekday morning on AM 1230 KLAV in Las Vegas from 8 - 9 AM Pacific. The show is also simulcast on the internet. For more show or guest information, to listen live on the web, or to sign up for his free email newsletter, please visit http://www.dougbasham.com. Doug can be reached at bashamradio@cox.net, or toll free at 1-866-DOUG-911. This article is copyright Doug Basham and originally published by opednews.com but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog or web media so long as this credit paragraph is attached.
What a crock
by USSHateBaiter
Monday, Dec. 01, 2003 at 4:43 PM
The left wants everyone to believe that they are NOT consumed by HATE? Bull crap. That piece pretty much says it all. Enough hateful editorializing to last a lifetime.
more hate
by macy
Monday, Dec. 01, 2003 at 5:25 PM
And there's the Hate Bush rally in hollywood tomorrow night. It's okay for the Left to hate, of course....
it's okay for the Left to hate
by macy
Monday, Dec. 01, 2003 at 6:23 PM
But it's not okay for the Right to speak their minds? That needs to change.
Liberals finding their voice � and it's angry
By Kathy Kiely, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON � President Bush a "liar?" Donald Rumsfeld a defense secretary who "betrayed" his troops? Republican leaders in Congress part of a "concerted effort to erase the 20th century?"
Not since Richard Nixon left the White House have liberals felt so free to be feisty. After decades of being shushed and shooed aside by centrist Democrats who feared the party's left-wing image was turning off voters, liberals have kicked their way out of the political closet. They are loud. They are angry. And they've got a whole new attitude.
"We have been too nice. We have been too polite," says Ann Lewis, a veteran strategist with the Democratic National Committee, where the official party weblog is called "Kicking Ass."....
SNIP
Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-11-30-liberals-usat_x.htm
![[masthead]](/images/masthead_140.png)