• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

James Traficant

UNLoVedRebel said:
An anti-semitic libertarian seems oxymoronic. If Ron Paul's policies (or lack of) were in practice, the Jews would come in and start their own businesses, banks, think tanks and take control of virtually every sector in the Western World. 50% of Congress owned by the Jews? If you like Ron Paul you better get used to 110% of congress owned by the Jews.
Click to expand...

What's more, I wonder what 9/11 investigator, a "Ron Paul fan", thinks Ron Paul's view would be about his call for -- get this -- a Dutch-led European invasion of the USA (to subdue the zionist-Jewish-masonic New World Order, of course).

Wouldn't that be an act of war against the USA (welllllllllllll, presuming (a) it occurs, and (b) anybody notices)? Wouldn't that sort of piss off Ron Paul?
 
Last edited:
9/11-investigator said:
I tend to not see a too big a difference between the US and Israeli government. It's one complex.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

On October 3, 2001, I.A.P. News reported that according to Israel Radio (in Hebrew) Kol Yisrael an acrimonious argument erupted during the Israeli cabinet weekly session last week between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his foreign Minister Shimon Peres. Peres warned Sharon that refusing to heed incessant American requests for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger Israeli interests and "turn the US against us. "Sharon reportedly yelled at Peres, saying "don't worry about American pressure, we the Jewish people control America."
Click to expand...


Sorry, I didn't find any news agency called I.A.P. or an audio clip of that radio show to confirm that hearsay rumor.
 
Monkeys may be able to understand who owns Congress, but your average Nazi hasn't yet reached the simian level of intelligence.
 
9/11-investigator said:
I tend to not see a too big a difference between the US and Israeli government. It's one complex.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

On October 3, 2001, I.A.P. News reported that according to Israel Radio (in Hebrew) Kol Yisrael an acrimonious argument erupted during the Israeli cabinet weekly session last week between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his foreign Minister Shimon Peres. Peres warned Sharon that refusing to heed incessant American requests for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger Israeli interests and "turn the US against us. "Sharon reportedly yelled at Peres, saying "don't worry about American pressure, we the Jewish people control America."
Click to expand...

Let me get this stright... Your "proof" of Israeli influence over the U.S. government is to show a quote that:
A: Is from a 'source' (IAP news) that most people have never heard of
B: Doesn't even give the name of a source
C: Even if the quote were accurate, doesn't even give any "facts", just a supposed opinion by Sharon
D: Doesn't even appear in the web page that you linked to

never mind the fact that you made specific claims about how Jews were somehow funding 50% of the politics, a claim that you have yet to provide evidence for.
 
Galileo said:
Haven't you read his case? By common consent, Traficant was railroaded by overzealous prosecutors.
Click to expand...

You realize this is an assertion and not based on anything more than your wishful thinking. My interpertation of conmmon consent (or consensus) is that he was guilty and got what was coming to him after years of political corruption...not to mention bafoonery.

My assertion is equally as valid as yours.
 
I think it is worth mentioning that Traficant (according to wikipedia) was expelled by a 420 to 1 vote.

That means something. Even if he was innocent of the charges, even if he was "railroaded," when literally every single member of congress wants to expell you ...
 
headscratcher4 said:
You realize this is an assertion and not based on anything more than your wishful thinking. My interpertation of conmmon consent (or consensus) is that he was guilty and got what was coming to him after years of political corruption...not to mention bafoonery.

My assertion is equally as valid as yours.
Click to expand...

No, I followed the case in the newspapers at the time it happened. The case is not legitimate.

And you show your true colors. Defending our liberties from excess taxation is not buffoonery, nor is it illegal.
 
What I like most about him is that he's spent the last seven years in prison.
 
No, I followed the case in the newspapers when it was happening. Clearly the case was completely legitimate. Further, "The case is not legitimate" is your opinion not a factual or legal conclusion -- and not supported by evidence or backed up by any court to date. Further, your assertion that it is "common consent" that it was an illigitmate prosecution is not backed-up by any polling. So, so much for your common "consent". You do not get to extrapolate your interpretation of events into facts or common "consent" merely by assertion -- any more than do I.
 
Oliver said:
Sorry, I didn't find any news agency called I.A.P. or an audio clip of that radio show to confirm that hearsay rumor.
Click to expand...

That must be International Antisemitic Propaganda, in other words, 9/11´s personal enterprise.
 
rocketdodger said:
I think it is worth mentioning that Traficant (according to wikipedia) was expelled by a 420 to 1 vote.

That means something. Even if he was innocent of the charges, even if he was "railroaded," when literally every single member of congress wants to expell you ...
Click to expand...

Not having followed this, I am curious as to who cast the single vote against expulsion. I am assuming that Congress has some minimum level of sanity and Trafficant himself was not allowed to vote on his own expulsion. (I am also fully prepared to accept evidence that my assumption is completely wrong)
 
cwalner said:
Not having followed this, I am curious as to who cast the single vote against expulsion. I am assuming that Congress has some minimum level of sanity and Trafficant himself was not allowed to vote on his own expulsion. (I am also fully prepared to accept evidence that my assumption is completely wrong)
Click to expand...
The referenced wikipedia article says the lone dissenting vote was from Gary Condit.
 
Oliver said:
Sorry, I didn't find any news agency called I.A.P. or an audio clip of that radio show to confirm that hearsay rumor.
Click to expand...

Islamic Association for Palestine, IIRC. I was going to mention that they were the people responsible for the "we, the Jews, control America" canard.

But I see our resident Nazi has already repeated it.

Funny how no matter how many times claims like that one are debunked, no matter how thoroughly staked right through the heart and crumbled into dust they are, the hatefreaks will keep right on using them.

For understanding the life cycle of conspiracist claims, I recommend the fine series of educational films produced by Hammer in the '60s and '70s, featuring Christopher Lee and the late Peter Cushing, as an illustration of the
"there's always someone stupid enough to come along and pull out the stake" principle.

For understanding 9/11 investigator's posts, it's useful to remember the following rule of thumb:

Half of what he says is lies. The other half ain't true.
 
Brainster said:
What I like most about him is that he's spent the last seven years in prison.
Click to expand...

Me too.

In times of social upheaval prisons are the anti-chambres to power.

Ask Havel. Ask Walesa. Ask Mandela.

Oh and I almost forgot: ask Dolfie.

--> 2012 <--

James Traficant Hearing <-- note the 'friendly embrace', priceless. He is much more robust than Ron Paul and hence probably more suitable to play the tribun during the coming 'troubles'.

912 Tea Party

The Bankruptcy of The United States

James Traficant Welcome Home Speech

James Traficant needs to be returned to congress
 
Last edited:
9/11-investigator said:
Me too.

In times of social upheaval prisons are the anti-chambres to power.

Ask Havel. Ask Walesa. Ask Mandela.

Oh and I almost forgot: ask Dolfie.

--> 2012 <--

James Traficant Hearing <-- note the 'friendly embrace', priceless. He is much more robust than Ron Paul and hence probably more suitable to play the tribun during the coming 'troubles'.

912 Tea Party

The Bankruptcy of The United States

James Traficant Welcome Home Speech

James Traficant needs to be returned to congress
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but watching all those videos -- and many more similar ones -- I get this sense that James Traficant is a very shady individual.

Here is my question -- if he was a good guy at heart, why would he speak like such a corrupt jerk? Why does he add so many shady pauses in his speeches, and sound so drunk, and so threatening?

I seriously cannot listen to him without feeling like he is a criminal.
 
9/11-investigator said:
You missed the Dolfie part.
Click to expand...

I didn't miss it, it just made no sense to me. The closest thing I could find is this, and I presume it's not what you meant.

You are wrong wise guy. Both spellings are admissible.
Click to expand...

In English the two prefixes mean very different things. Only one makes any sense here. Look at the links I gave and you'll learn the difference.
 
By the time the boy in the marmot hide toupe went to the slammer, the only pepole who thought he was fit to hold office were Republicans. The fat deaf eunuch devoted hours of air time to playing sound bites of Trafficant's floor speeches on his radio show and, during the brief time that it tookfor even Faux News to realize that the rushblob had a face for radio, showed video of him on the tv.

With friends like the ranting pill-popper and the anti-Semite and twoofer crowds, could Trafficant be a totally useless nuisance?

Could be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom