Should Ron take on a 9-11 Conspiracy theorist?

[lagwagon12]

<p>Ron seems to have very well formed opinions and is also very good at&nbsp;debating people. I would like to see him take on a 9-11 conspiracy nut. I didnt feel like O&amp;A were really cut out for the arguement.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Should Ron take on a 9-11 conspiracy theorist on the air?</p>
<span class=post_edited>This message was edited by lagwagon12 on 4-6-06 @ 1:56 PM</span>

[cupcakelove]

OnA took on one of these guys earlier today.&nbsp; He was a lot like
the lady from that baptist church.&nbsp; He had it all figured out and
the only reason you would disagree with him is because you don't have
all the facts.&nbsp; The guy really didn't have any solid evidence
beyond saying Bush had motivation to do something like this, and was
unable to answer many of OnA's questions.&nbsp; I hate Ramone calls but
I laughed hard when Norton Ramoned the guy twice.<br />

[UnknownPD]

<p><font size="2">The 9-11 conspiracist should argue with Shirley from Westminster Baptist</font></p>

[GlassJoe]

<strong>UnknownPD</strong> wrote:<br /><p><font size="2">The 9-11 conspiracist should argue with Shirley from Westminster Baptist</font></p>They'd probably fall in love and have a child that would grow up to become the antichrist.<br />
<p>&nbsp;</p>

[FezPaul]

<p>Another new poster w/ a # in their name starting a new thread?</p><p>I think it's a conspiracy.</p>

[curtoid]

<p>I am sick of the conspiracy theories, from all sides. Nothing will make me flip away faster.</p><ul><li>A plane hit the Pentagon </li><li>A plane did not circle Washington before it hit the Pentagon </li><li>There was no explosion at the State Department </li><li>A plane wasn't shot down over over Pennsylvania </li><li>We will never know if the Flight 93 passengers stopped the flight </li><li>Bush wasn't responsible for what happened </li><li>Neither was Clinton </li></ul><p>Did Bush maybe ignore some signs? Sure - but so did a lot of people. Some bad guys did bad things in the middle of a &quot;perfect storm&quot; that let it happened. It was a different time then - the magnitude of foreigners striking at our heart wasn't fathomed. I'm all about being critical about what happened afterwards, with the respondence of the President, but looking at this with current perspective isn't going to help anyone.</p>

<span class=post_edited>This message was edited by curtoid on 4-6-06 @ 2:34 PM</span>

[Hottub]

I'm listening to the replay now. O, A &amp; LJ picked this asshat apart! I think Ronnie could do an equally good job. But he would need support. Is fezzie up to the task?

[margin]

<p>No, i don't want to hear it. </p><p>Let the conspiracy theorists have their conspiracy theories.</p>

<span class=post_edited>This message was edited by margin on 4-6-06 @ 6:40 PM</span>

[Furtherman]

<strong>Hottub</strong> wrote:<br />I'm listening to the replay now. O, A &amp; LJ picked this asshat apart! I think Ronnie could do an equally good job. But he would need support. Is fezzie up to the task? <p>Only if Brett Michaels is claiming conspiracy.</p>

[bitterbuffalo]

<p>Yes, because I think that most of those supposed &quot;calls&quot; were staged...I mean who seriously gets their tongue stuck in a freezer?</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><img width="188" height="142" border="0" src="http://www.classictvhits.com/shows/315.jpg" alt="your host...the Shat!" title="your host...the Shat!" /></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Otherwise no, because there is nothing an&nbsp; &quot;expert&quot; could add that couldn't already be argued by a caller or a Flash movie on the Internet...<br /></p>

[The Blowhard]

I blame it all on Clinton. He sat on his hands after the 1993 WTC bombing, and history will judge the slick one responsible. No need to debate this silly issue anymore. Screw the crackpots who want to sell DVD's!

[Plethora]

<p> </p><strong>Blowhard</strong> wrote:<br />I blame it all on Clinton. He sat on his hands after the 1993 WTC bombing, and history will judge the slick one responsible.<p> </p><p> </p><p>A well constructed &amp; cogent argument, sir. I'm convinced.</p><p>Wait a second... on closer inspection, this seems to be the work of some sort of a <a target="_blank" href="http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=blowhard">big headed, big mouthed, big talker, big timer, bluffer, blusterer, boaster, bragging, braggadocio, bullshitter, egotistical,
exhibitionistic, gasbag, gasconer, grandstander, hotdogger,
hotshot, know-it-all, peacock, ranter, raver, rodomont, show-off,
strutter, swaggerer, swashbuckler, swelled head, trumpeter, vaunter,
windbag...</a> or BLOWHARD.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>rodomont? rodomont?! well at least I learned a new word... it was nearly worth it. </p>

<span class=post_edited>This message was edited by Plethora on 4-7-06 @ 2:02 AM</span>

[GlassJoe]

<strong>Furtherman</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Hottub</strong> wrote:<br />I'm
listening to the replay now. O, A &amp; LJ picked this asshat apart! I
think Ronnie could do an equally good job. But he would need support.
Is fezzie up to the task? <p>Only if Brett Michaels is claiming conspiracy.</p>Ronnie would take pleasure in ripping him apart.&nbsp; We all know that Ronnie thinks that Brett screwed Brett.<br />
<p>&nbsp;</p>

[kdubya]

Hell yeah, and they should start with Norton, Ron's knowledge of plane debris should come in handy.

[suggums]

yes, it makes for interesting conversation and is a debate oft-ignored by any media outlet<br />