The ones of which I'm aware (and I'll be more knowledgeable about this in a couple weeks): 9/11, Birther, Bilderberg and Chemtrails.

Like any "conspiracy theory", there is an orthodox version and the more serious version which the orthodoxy ignores. Which does Chelene prescribe to, the orthodox versions or the more serious versions? 9/11, for example. Was that anything but an Al Qaeda conspiracy, according to Chelene? I wouldn't trust anyone to any government position who couldn't come to terms with that. If one wanted to confront the complexities of Al Qaeda itself, that might be acceptable in theorizing over conspiracies around 9/11, but nothing short of that for me.

But "chemtrails" was a new one for me. Here is Wikipedia's entry on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtra...spiracy_theory

It is very hypocritical of Chelene to ask for the feds for protection from her state debts while also relentlessly parroting that she would stand up to the feds on the water issue, immigration and a few others. If the feds shouldn't be allowed to regulate water, what is her reasoning that they should intervene between her contract with a state creditors? I'm not disputing the BK act, but it seems she wants to choose which portions of the constitution to obey, and which to disregard.
I agree that a BK person can still demand fiscal restraint of their government without being hypocritical, but my point was that it goes against the grain of a conservative to waste money on a ridiculous premise when you have none, and your prospects are slim. No self-respecting conservative who cannot manage a mere pittance of their own bank would run off and claim they should be given the keys to the state treasury so they can fix that too. That would be a bit more befitting a liberal.
Chelene has already started to go a little sideways on her immigration stance by stating she would like to make the legal immigration system easier. I don't see how this doesn't follow Megs double speak, and I should mention this bit of inconsistency came shortly after her tour through farmland where she claimed that all the farmers want to hire Americans, but cannot. The second amendment thing has been a useful tool for her. Chelene has no background in the 2nd Amendment field prior to the past few years, and when she ended her hardship walk at the state capitol, no a word was uttered about guns by her. It was WATER, WATER, WATER. The truth is that she tried to weasel her way onto the gun forums around and was immediately outed as dishonest. With no support there, she went crawling back to the Scwhilk types who would stand with her holding a gun for photo ops. The theme I'm propounding here is that she quacks like a conservative, but walks like a con. Real conservatives live the lifestyle.

It is good to see someone say something nice about her, I know the majority doesnt care for her and perhaps she earned those feelings, but at one time she was a sister in the movement and must have some good qualities. That mob mentality that we speak about on the illegal side can go both ways. I am not her cheerleader but on a personal level she has always treated me with respect, so I will do the same until she no longer deserves that from me. God Bless America and Her Troops!

I said the same things and then it was my turn. That changed things quite a bit.

The problem, 4shadows, is that nearly everyone here has been treated and is still being treated disrespectfully by her and her sycophants. Did you know just by posting on this board you are showing your disloyalty? I was told the same thing be Nightin-ghoul, when I began posting on No More Invasion back in 2007.

She'll turn on you when, and if, she perceives you as a threat. I became a threat to her, and all I ever did to her was disagree with her choice for president in 2008. For that I have been called a la raza mole and a number of other childish insults.

Aaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrgggggghhhhhh!! I knew this would happen. This is Davi The Instigator/Provocateur's fault.

I did not say anything nice about Chelene. I don't have anything nice to say about Chelene. Chelene does not deserve to have anything nice said about her, and if she did, I would not be the one saying it. Anything that could even remotely be construed as close to "nice," I said prior to my last post: She's given her campaign great effort and she's easy on the eyes.

What I said is that she holds legitimate conservative positions. She has textbook GOP platform ideology. Further, she hasn't wavered from those positions.

Davi's criticism of her as something other than a conservative is unwarranted. Whatever else she may be, Chelene is a political conservative.

It's not a matter of saying something nice. It's a matter of fairness and accuracy.


I already know it is a mistake to ask this question, but here goes: Can you please tell me which of the 9/11 consipiracy theories are the orthodox versions and which are the more serious 9/11 conspiracy theories?

9/11 was a well documented Al Qaeda conspiracy, no theorizing is necessary. What does she say about 9/11?

Who cares?

She's not even a contender.

On the old SOS Chelene started a thread with an article that promoted the conspiracy theory of our government being behind the 9-11 attacks and she stated that she agreed with it. I spoke to Chelene about having such stuff on our board and advised her that it was not wise. But of course, she didn't hear a word I said. The thread went on for weeks and continued even after Chelene had left and I was supposed to be in charge (I was never really in charge). I think, but I'm not sure, that I shut the tread down.