Our President
POSTED BY: howdyrockerbaby1
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 21, 2025 16:36
VIEWED: 49464
PAGE 2 of 3
Quote:Oh sure, I see your point. I'm of the opinion that this anti-french thing is so rediculous it demonstrates the insanity of American cultural currents (and assumes I'm correct about the origins of the 'joke' I mention). American cultural hegomany worldwide is not what I'm on about in this case... though I could!
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
Ghoulman wrote:Quote:
... it just goes to show how hurtful, incestuous, and insane, American culture is. Reading certain posts above I gotta wonder if lobotomies are dirt cheap below the 49th.
Isn't this statement the same type of stereotypical nonsense you are opposed to from some Americans about the French above?
Seems to me that maybe the U.S. has not cornered the market on stereotypes.
Just sayin'.
Please, don't make me talk about Canadian culture because it's smug crap! Upper Cans anyho, we Maritimers actually do have a culture unlike the wonks in Ontario. Take that Globe and Mail!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Oh sure, I see your point. I'm of the opinion that this anti-french thing is so rediculous it demonstrates the insanity of American cultural currents (and assumes I'm correct about the origins of the 'joke' I mention). American cultural hegomany worldwide is not what I'm on about in this case... though I could!
I normally just laugh and shrug these things off, but thought otherwise in this case, because it's usage was in such poor elitist taste. If you are going to use words please:
A)Know how to properly spell them
B)know what they mean and use them properly.
hegemony
\He*gem`o*ny\, n. [Gr. ?, fr. ? guide, leader, fr. ? to go before.] Leadership; preponderant influence or authority; -- usually applied to the relation of a government or state to its neighbors or confederates. --Lieber.
Since America is a Leading Member in the UN,by leading I mean a Nation with Veto power and the ability to back itself up (unlike some nations who cower in fear and capitulate to terrorists), I would have to say America is indeed a Hegemony in a good way.
When lightning strikes, someone gets sick, someone stubs their proverbial toes in another part of the world, what country is asked first for Aid? Answer: The U.S.
What country gets condemned when they don't give "enough" Aid? Answer: The U.S.
Our American culture is indeed a Hegemony, built upon freedom and democracy, with one of the World's largest economies, largest free press, most liberal media/entertainment forum on the face of the planet,also a good thing. This is hardly something to scoff at or condemn.
Normally "Hegemony" is used in a negative sense by socially embittered Socialists (this normally falls into the middle to upper class elitists) who find it politically correct to portray a "farcical Socially Conscious, anti-establishment anti-economist" front, when they sit back and reap the benefits of it's very existence.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
When I moved into my dream house, I naturally expected to breathe good air and experience good health in the latter part of my sixth decade. Instead, after a hike in fine, blue-sky weather that was marred by criss-crossed persistent contrails, I got deathly sick in my upper respiratory tract.
I came to the inescapable conclusion that these aerosols seemed to be a prime cause of my health problems. I have all the symptoms of barium poisoning, and it has been determined by other researchers (Note well: RESEARCHERS, not conspiracy theorists) that barium salts are part of the aerosols. There is no doubt these aerosols exist.
I'm sorry to hear about your health problems from the gas contrails. I guess I'm a bit confused. Why arent you taking your white pill?
I thought everybody knew about the 'little white pill'.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Please, don't make me talk about Canadian culture because it's smug crap! Upper Cans anyho, we Maritimers actually do have a culture unlike the wonks in Ontario. Take that Globe and Mail!
Personally I would think that people in Toronto (and surrounding area) being wonky as they are is what there culture is. You shouldn't really lump Ontario all together, too big. ie I doubt that people in Kenora are the same as those in Toronto.
I as well think that the G&M is well... I really should use that word
Let's just say that I do agree with you here.I'd be curious on your take on us in Manitoba. Contact me through the FFF.net messaging if you don't want to bore the others with these details
----
"Hello, my name is SigmaNunki and I'm addicted to
s""Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nervouspete: And by the way, I am English, and I feel very strongly about America. You kicked our arses back in 1776, but we look to you to find your way to the first true ideal of a country. Even though we are cynics and disagree with you frequently, even though we laugh at you and mock you, we secretly are fascinated by you and want you to become something as noble as your heroes wanted it to be, badly. And cheers for putting yourselves on the line in World War II.
And never dismiss me as a liberal. God, that really annoys me.
Thank you Pete, for that..it made me smile. I don't think the US kicked the English arses in The American Revolution, I merely think we were more stubborn...hehe. Personally, I thank god every day for Brits like Tony Blair, and his predecessors,Margaret Thatcher, and Winston Churchill.
One of my favorite Churchill quotes: "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."
Another :) "Yes, madam, I am drunk. But in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly. -- (replying to Lady Astor's comment 'Sir, you're drunk!')
and finally, that which stands true even today , Prime minister Winston Churchill's summation to the gathered delegates at St. James's Place, London, June 12, 1941
: "This then, my lords and gentlemen, is the message which we send forth today to all states and nations, bound or free, to all the men in all the lands who care for freedom's cause. To our Allies and well-wishers in Europe, to our American friends and helpers drawing ever closer in their might across the ocean, this is the message-lift up your hearts, all will come right. Out of depths of sorrow and sacrifice will be born again the glory of mankind."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by richardecheandia:
Refuses to obey the Geneva convention in our completely lawless treatment of Afghan POWs (many American former POWs fear how nations will treat our soldiers in the future because we've invented something called enemy combatants (whatever the f*ck that is)
to answer this question, taken from Wikipedia of all places..hehe. Hope this clarifies things :)
The term was first introduced in 1942 by a United States Supreme Court decision in the case ex parte Quirin. In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of a U.S. military tribunal over the trial of several German saboteurs in the US. This decision states (emphasis added and footnotes removed):
"...the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."
Other countries, including the United Kingdom, Israel, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand make theoretical distinctions between lawful and unlawful combatants and the legal status thereof."
Historical basis in international law and practice
Prisoners of war
The Second Hague Convention of 1899 defined the requirements for combatants to be eligible for treatment as prisoners of war.
"Article 1. The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:
1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;
3. To carry arms openly; and
4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."
"Article. 3. The armed forces of the belligerent parties may consist of combatants and non-combatants. In case of capture by the enemy both have a right to be treated as prisoners of war."
Those terms thus divide people in a warzone into two classes, each of which is further subdivided into two. There are first armies and militias and then those not in armies and militias. Those in armies and militias have the right to be treated as prisoners of war upon capture and those not in armies and militias do not have the right to be treated as prisoners of war upon capture. The distinction of combatant and non-combatant is then applied. Those in armies and militias, whether combatant or non-combatant have the right to be treated as prisoners of war. An army chaplain or doctor is a non-combatant, whereas an ordinary soldier is a combatant. For those outside of armies and militias, by convention known as civilians, the right of being treated as a prisoner of war does not apply. However, the definition of combatant then becomes critical. A civilian who is a non-combatant is not eligible for the protections of prisoner of war status, but is eligible for protection under other statutes. Those are, for example, not being deliberately targeted by military action and other traditional protections. A civilian who is a combatant on the other hand has neither the protection of being able to be a prisoner of war, nor the protection of being a civilian non-combatant.
Protected persons
Those not eligible for prisoner of war status are cal
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I agree here and further that these folks should be damn glad that they are just ambiguously defined as enemy combatants and *not* as "unlawful combatants". Unlawful combatants are generally hung or shot as they are found - although sometimes they are quartered (no, not medieval type 'drawn -n- quarter') , bargained or traded away for our own field spies.
Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn:Quote:
Originally posted by richardecheandia:
Refuses to obey the Geneva convention in our completely lawless treatment of Afghan POWs (many American former POWs fear how nations will treat our soldiers in the future because we've invented something called enemy combatants (whatever the f*ck that is)
to answer this question, taken from Wikipedia of all places..hehe. Hope this clarifies things :)
The term was first introduced in 1942 by a United States Supreme Court decision in the case ex parte Quirin. In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of a U.S. military tribunal over the trial of several German saboteurs in the US. This decision states (emphasis added and footnotes removed):
...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn:Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Oh sure, I see your point. I'm of the opinion that this anti-french thing is so rediculous it demonstrates the insanity of American cultural currents (and assumes I'm correct about the origins of the 'joke' I mention). American cultural hegomany worldwide is not what I'm on about in this case... though I could!
I normally just laugh and shrug these things off, but thought otherwise in this case, because it's usage was in such poor elitist taste. If you are going to use words please:
A)Know how to properly spell them
B)know what they mean and use them properly.
hegemony
\He*gem`o*ny\, n. [Gr. ?, fr. ? guide, leader, fr. ? to go before.] Leadership; preponderant influence or authority; -- usually applied to the relation of a government or state to its neighbors or confederates. --Lieber.
Since America is a Leading Member in the UN,by leading I mean a Nation with Veto power and the ability to back itself up (unlike some nations who cower in fear and capitulate to terrorists), I would have to say America is indeed a Hegemony in a good way.
When lightning strikes, someone gets sick, someone stubs their proverbial toes in another part of the world, what country is asked first for Aid? Answer: The U.S.
What country gets condemned when they don't give "enough" Aid? Answer: The U.S.
Our American culture is indeed a Hegemony, built upon freedom and democracy, with one of the World's largest economies, largest free press, most liberal media/entertainment forum on the face of the planet,also a good thing. This is hardly something to scoff at or condemn.
Normally "Hegemony" is used in a negative sense by socially embittered Socialists (this normally falls into the middle to upper class elitists) who find it politically correct to portray a "farcical Socially Conscious, anti-establishment anti-economist" front, when they sit back and reap the benefits of it's very existence.
Hey spelling Nazi... when you call people names why don't YOU look up the meaning?
Quote:
ELITIST - e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-ltzm, -l-)
n.
1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
2.
1. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
2. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.
And I love how you basically rationalized yourself into labeling me an embittered Socialist. You're a real nut.
Still - your kind can only attack people by calling them names while the rest of us post actual facts, opinions, and knowledge.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ruxton, I believe you believe what you have written.. I won't try to convince you otherwise.. however there is one thing you said that I have to object to because it is not true. In fact, exactly the opposite is true. That is, "we are all conditioned from a very young age to trust our government".
This is the USA. We have been conditioned from a young age to not trust governments. To suspect our own but to be even more leary of anyone else's government. Why do you think most Republicans are for smaller government? We don't trust it.. but there are somethings that only a common federal government can accomplish, like the common defense. But I personally don't trust government in general.. absolute power corrupts absolutely.
As far as thinking that the US government faked 9/11 that's just too far off the deep end for me. It doesn't make any sense to me that George Bush or his administration would benefit from doing the things your taking about. Certainly the USA isn't benefiting.
I do think that there are countries that are angry and embarassed for purely economic reasons with the US decision to continue the war on Saddam's Iraq. The anger and embarassment seems to have colored their international politics.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
When did it become cool to have War's with inanimate objects or intangible ideas.
"War on Drugs", "War on Terror",
Is it because we'd just look silly having a war on druggies. Booze is the best selling drug ever, yet it's legal. Didn't we learn anything from the "war on booze" aka prohibition.
A war on terrorists isn't a terrible, but when did they become Iraq. There were terrorists in Iraq sure, but come on, it was not a threat. In the whole country they couldn't even get one fighter into the air to fight us off. As for WMD's, yeah there bad, but so isn't a carving knife in the wrong hands. I was on the bandwagon with all the it's a "new" kind of war. I feel like they bait and switched this "new warfare" for Iraq.
Since this is already just an incoherent rambling mish mash, let me add on last question: Did we really go from having a Rhodes scholar to a barely C student as our fearless leader???
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Hey spelling Nazi... when you call people names why don't YOU look up the meaning?
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELITIST - e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-ltzm, -l-)
n.
1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
2.
1. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
2. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I love how you basically rationalized yourself into labeling me an embittered Socialist. You're a real nut.
Still - your kind can only attack people by calling them names while the rest of us post actual facts, opinions, and knowledge.
It seems that I have struck a nerve by posting actual facts, opinion and well rounded knowledge. I also believe that you did indeed act and post in an embittered elitist fashion, while speciously misusing AND mispelling words outside your vocabulary.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ShinyEnder:
A war on terrorists isn't a terrible, but when did they become Iraq. There were terrorists in Iraq sure, but come on, it was not a threat. In the whole country they couldn't even get one fighter into the air to fight us off. As for WMD's, yeah there bad, but so isn't a carving knife in the wrong hands. I was on the bandwagon with all the it's a "new" kind of war. I feel like they bait and switched this "new warfare" for Iraq.
In my opinion there is a grander plan afoot. I believe there were a couple reasons we went into Iraq, other then the WMD's. Though I would like to believe that it was all for a noble cause to free the Iraqi people, I don't kid myself.
There are more selfish reasons(no..I don't believe this is all about the oil. If it was, we'd have already owned Kuwait and probably Saudi Arabia as well).
1st reason -- the de-stabilization and eventual democratization of the Middle East(forcing, if you will,their countries to move out of the biblical age and into the modern age). Can you imagine women having rights in the Middle East? I look forward to the eventual Arabic renaissance, for their artistic culture in many ways is unmatched.
We know that terrorism and its foundation still burns brightly in Iran (Our true Target IMHO). As I see it, Iraq is on one side of Iran and Afghanistan is on the other side. Once you place a country like Iran in a position where it is surrounded by 2 democracies, while fomenting from within by youth yearning for freedoms only known outside their country, there is nothing left to do except watch it implode. Lets call it, squeezing the proverbial pimple.
2nd reason -- Taking the war to their homeland, so we don't have to fight them in our own streets. As we have seen in the last several months, insurgents as well as foreign militants have been surging into the Middle East to fight the "Infidels" (anyone not an Islamafascist,and most specifically America), distracting them and essentially bringing about the Insurgent and Militant demise. Sadly capitulating to the Islamafascists merely strengthens their beliefs that they can actually win through the use of Terror.
Again, this is my own personal perception and belief.
As for the President being a barely "C" student, fortunately, college isn't the end all be all to life. There are many good examples of those who have succeeded in this world without a successful run in the university..for instance Abraham Lincoln, a middle school educated Republican, who of all people gave the Emancipation Proclamation freeing all slaves in the Confederate states.
One of my favorite Lincoln quotes, that can fit todays condition--"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan - to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations." Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1865.
More often then not, more is learned out in the real world then is learned inside the walls of a University.
Personally, I think he is pretty intelligent based on the fact he has surrounded himself with some VERY intelligent people (sans Rumsfeld, who I feel should be fired along with Director of the CIA), even while I laugh at his "Bushisms". One thing I can say for him, is that he is steadfast in his beliefs, right or wrong. Unfortunately, at this time, he is currently the only candidate running for the Presidency that is.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Ruxton,
thanks for being so honest with what cannot help but be a very unpopular theory. I understand what you mean by "being conditioned to trust our government." It doesn't mean that we trust any particular candidate or other, but we trust "the system." We are conditioned to believe in democracy like a religion. We are tought to believe absolutely that our votes count. Up until recently we all believed that presidents didn't have extramarrital sex fer cryin' out loud!
Here's what I gotta say about 9/11: I have a friend who currently resides in Pittsburg who is among a few hundred (few thousand?) people who saw with their own eyes that the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania was shot down. It's common knowledge in the area. Also, sadly, I have another friend who received one of the fateful cel phone calls from the second plane. How do you account for these in light of your information?
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HKCavalier, I have no doubt the Pennsylvania plane was in fact shot down, based on many apparent facts, such as large pieces of it being found miles away from the main wreckage, and many witnesses having seen a second plane near it. Exactly why it was, is open to many interpretations.
However, the phone calls from any of the hijacked planes are, for me, big problems. I have a close friend who installs cell phone towers and I specifically asked him if it was possible for those calls to have been made from aircraft at low altitudes going at the reported speeds they were traveling. He said it was impossible. I have read that from other sources also.
If the calls were phony, why were they hoaxed? Were they part of a ploy to grab people's sympathy, along with the "Let's roll" quote? Some other reason? I have no idea. I'd like to know more about your friend's received phone call, what was said, etc., if that's possible.
Seven or eight of the 19 alleged hijackers are alive and well in other countries, and had nothing to do with the events. But no one has gone to interview even one of them.
Why don't the alleged hijackers appear on the airport security videos of that day? Why aren't there credit card records of their ticket purchases? Why were there no Arab names on the passenger lists of any of the aircraft? Why did FBI director Robert Mueller say very publicly to the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco that nothing on paper connected Arab terrorists to 9/11?
And on and on, no answers to hard questions, just repeats of the same rhetoric you are expected to believe without question. The bottom line of all this seems to be money:
"Corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed." -Abraham Lincoln, letter to William Elkins, Nov 21, 1864.
"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.." President Franklin D. Roosevelt, November 21, 1933
.......Ruxton
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
However, the phone calls from any of the hijacked planes are, for me, big problems. I have a close friend who installs cell phone towers and I specifically asked him if it was possible for those calls to have been made from aircraft at low altitudes going at the reported speeds they were traveling. He said it was impossible. I have read that from other sources also.
.......Ruxton
That sounds like a friend of a friend of a cousin of a next door neighbor of a goatherder I once knew. Can it get more esoteric than that? What exactly does this cell tower installer do for a living? Does he erect the towers? Does he install the dishes and antennaes on the towers? Does he program the transponders? Does he manage the handoff protocols? Does he design cell systems? or does he just lays cables? Under what conditions does a cellphone have problem initializing with the tower? When will a cellphone have problem switching and missing a cell handoff? Somehow all of these details are missed and dismissed with a grunt by a guy who erects towers? In the real world, this is called a fallacy of false authority.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
However, the phone calls from any of the hijacked planes are, for me, big problems. I have a close friend who installs cell phone towers and I specifically asked him if it was possible for those calls to have been made from aircraft at low altitudes going at the reported speeds they were traveling. He said it was impossible. I have read that from other sources also.
.......Ruxton
That sounds like a friend of a friend of a cousin of a next door neighbor of a goatherder I once knew. Can it get more esoteric than that? What exactly does this cell tower installer do for a living? Does he erect the towers? Does he install the dishes and antennaes on the towers? Does he program the transponders? Does he manage the handoff protocols? Does he design cell systems? or does he just lays cables? Under what conditions does a cellphone have problem initializing with the tower? When will a cellphone have problem switching and missing a cell handoff? Somehow all of these details are missed and dismissed with a grunt by a guy who erects towers? In the real world, this is called a fallacy of false authority.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ok, there's no way I'm reading a post this long. This is a classic example of the polarization of American politics. There was a Washington Post series about it, where they had a Red state guy and a Blue state guy. Apparantly, people get their info online from people who believe the same thing as them. That's why there's all this disagreement on even the simplest facts, and all these links to conspiracy websites.
But I gotta say that I sure wouldn't vote for Bush, because he wasted all my gorram money! While his tax cuts were helping out the economy last time I checked, his big fat war is costing billions of dollars, and we're still underfunded. While it's really sad some of our soldiers have died, and many more will die, they volunteered to risk their lives for America, and I respect them for that. But I can't vote yet, and the deficit and national debt are going to be costing me a lot of money in the future, not to mention all the poor people we could be helping. We already spend like 10% of our budget just maintaining the national debt, so we really gotta balance the budget.
And just for the record, before 9/11, Hussein and Bin Ladin were mortal foes. They have entirely different ideologies.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
HKCavalier, I have no doubt the Pennsylvania plane was in fact shot down, based on many apparent facts, such as large pieces of it being found miles away from the main wreckage, and many witnesses having seen a second plane near it. Exactly why it was, is open to many interpretations.
However, the phone calls from any of the hijacked planes are, for me, big problems. I have a close friend who installs cell phone towers and I specifically asked him if it was possible for those calls to have been made from aircraft at low altitudes going at the reported speeds they were traveling. He said it was impossible. I have read that from other sources also.
If the calls were phony, why were they hoaxed? Were they part of a ploy to grab people's sympathy, along with the "Let's roll" quote? Some other reason? I have no idea. I'd like to know more about your friend's received phone call, what was said, etc., if that's possible.
Seven or eight of the 19 alleged hijackers are alive and well in other countries, and had nothing to do with the events. But no one has gone to interview even one of them.
Why don't the alleged hijackers appear on the airport security videos of that day? Why aren't there credit card records of their ticket purchases? Why were there no Arab names on the passenger lists of any of the aircraft? Why did FBI director Robert Mueller say very publicly to the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco that nothing on paper connected Arab terrorists to 9/11?
And on and on, no answers to hard questions, just repeats of the same rhetoric you are expected to believe without question. The bottom line of all this seems to be money:
"Corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed." -Abraham Lincoln, letter to William Elkins, Nov 21, 1864.
"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.." President Franklin D. Roosevelt, November 21, 1933
.......Ruxton
I live in NY. I've been a resident for all my life. The horrors of September 11th, 2001 will be with me for the rest of my life. I have friends who have lost loved ones. I was fortunate and blessed to not lose anyone.
I personally enjoy reading about conspiracy theories , in terms of UFO's, aliens, Is the Shroud of Turin a hoax, Was Hitler Gay? Was the Moonlanding an elaborate hoax? etc..etc..
However, here there is a horrific line that has been crossed. A very real one.
I would ask out of respect for those unfortunates and families (There were whole families murdered, man, woman and small child) who perished in those planes (that DID NOT have missles attached to them, and were NOT shot down), that you not make a mockery, not post falsehoods or wild conspiracy hoax theories, belittling their deaths. They were living, breathing, beautiful, brave and wonderful people with their futures to look forward to, with things like a Father-daughter dance at a brides wedding, the birth of a child, graduation from a school, a Big business deal to change a life,and all the other things we of the living take for granted every day. If I had the opportunity today, I would give my life in exchange for the lives of any of the children in those planes or the WTC and surrounding area, whose last moments in this life were filled with fear, and their parents couldn't console them, because there was no consolation to be had.
They were not fictitious characters in a favorite TV Show or Video game.
Regardless of politics or the right or wrong of it, 9/11 did indeed happen, was not a vast American conspiracy and many had their lives snuffed out, for no other reason then fanaticism, and the fact that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Before postin
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ok I do not buy into the whole conspiracy thing, but I do find that the more I read of the incidents, the more questions I have as to what really happened on 9/11.
Since you asked JasonZZZ here is a link to some allegedly empirical research on using cellphones at different altitudes:
http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ugh..
What a banal and irresponsible site. I wonder if Jayson Blair works for them?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I cannot believe that the attacking forces would have had the stomach to do a prolonged and bloodthirsty attack aiming at survivors.
First of all, nervouspete, you're completely right about the Liberty. The Israelis have enough foes, so they wouldn't bomb the most powerful nation just to no reason.
But people are completely capable of killing survivors. In WWII, one American sub sank a troop ship, and a few thousand Jap soldiers jumped off into the tropical waters. Then the captain drove around for a few hours and killed them all with machinegun and 4 in. gun fire. Of course, other sub captains were horrified. But, they would've done the same to us. Just wanted to point out that people have no problems with shooting up lifeboats.
By the way, I didn't read this on a liberal conspiricy website, but a reputable book about the American sub war, with lot's of military guys helping write it.
Oh yeah, and the 9/11 missile crap is a bunch of lunacy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Ruxton,
I'm sorry, my friend in P-burg is one of my closest friends in the world, but the fellow who lost his sister on one of the planes was really just someone I worked with at the time. I don't even know his last name, but he was pretty emotional about the event at the time. So did the people who got on those planes die that morning in your view? Or were the flight numbers entirely ficticious. And if the conspirators had such absolute control of the situation, what could have been the explanation for shooting one of the planes down in the skies over Pennsylvania?
The "cell phone hoax" is very troubling to me, because it really would have been an absolute stroke of genius, and if there were anyone with that kind of vision behind the Bush administration I think they would have handled a whole lot of things so much better than they have. It's really too imaginative for me to buy. Seriously, if Evil is really that clever and imaginative, we're doomed.
You know, but it ain't. The Nazis were really very short sighted and clumsy in their thinking. "Brutish" is the mind behind the camps, not "clever." The "masterminds" behind the war on Iraq should have come up with the "Hussein is a bad human rights violator" argument from the get go instead of in the eleventh hour. Remember how the Bush administration kept coming up with new spins on why we should go to war every week or so in the months leading up to the war? They just came up with one thing after another waiting for one of them to stick. Sloppy, unimaginative and opportunistic.
It's like a drunken father's prevarications about his mistress. Nobody believes his lies because he's brilliant or terribly clever. Some members of the family will deny it out of simple "love" for their father or because they just don't want to deal with the reality of betrayal, but others will be able to withstand the heartbreak of seeing the truth about their dad.
P.S: to connorflynn--I'm sorry this discussion has become so painful to you. It is painful to me as well. No one here is arguing that the events of 9/11 were not devastatingly horrible or that 3000+ people did not lose their lives. We all just want to know why and how it actually happened, if that's possible. Don't you believe the truth is worth investigating? Don't you think that if there is but the slightest chance that anything ruxton has printed is true, that it should be examined?
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There you go again, Ruxton...
Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
HKCavalier, I have no doubt the Pennsylvania plane was in fact shot down
I agree. As the matter of fact I have a friend who flies for the navy and he says the only way any plane can crash is if it was shot down.
Quote:
However, the phone calls from any of the hijacked planes are, for me, big problems.
Me too. In the old days you could not use phones on planes. Now they provide phones built into the seat backs for everyone to use. I knew it was a hoax. When my father called me from the plane the other day...who was I really talking to and how did that Govt agent know my dog had been messing on my rose bush?
Quote:
Seven or eight of the 19 alleged hijackers are alive and well in other countries, and had nothing to do with the events. But no one has gone to interview even one of them.
What about the arab media? They'd plaster a living hijacker across the TV. Wait...I bet Bush controls the Arab Tv networks.
Quote:
Why don't the alleged hijackers appear on the airport security videos of that day? Why aren't there credit card records of their ticket purchases? Why were there no Arab names on the passenger lists of any of the aircraft? Why did FBI director Robert Mueller say very publicly to the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco that nothing on paper connected Arab terrorists to 9/11?
1. They do, it helped ID them after the attack.
2. They paid with cash.
3. They used Arab names.
4. I guess Director Mueller thought no one would notice. Cause thats just what would happen. An elaborate global conspiracy to fake a massive terror attack spoiled by a trip to San Francisco. Well, it wouldn't be the first time.
Seriously, what conspiracy site do you subscribe to? Come on, share the nonsense for everyone to enjoy.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
P.S: to connorflynn--I'm sorry this discussion has become so painful to you. It is painful to me as well. No one here is arguing that the events of 9/11 were not devastatingly horrible or that 3000+ people did not lose their lives. We all just want to know why and how it actually happened, if that's possible. Don't you believe the truth is worth investigating? Don't you think that if there is but the slightest chance that anything ruxton has printed is true, that it should be examined?
Well..to answer your questions:
The posts above do argue the reality of 9/11, by quoting Conspiracy/hoax theories that are so far fetched, that it doesn't take a well schooled individual to refute them. The websites listed are irresponsible, and in my opinion, merely a motivated way to make money (they all ask for donations), by providing fictional entertainment to gullible or cynically minded people, much in the same way Scientology(Im sure L. Ron Hubbard, a science "FICTION" writer, if he were alive today would be laughing all the way to the bank) has gained a following.
Personally I wish folks spent more time watching Firefly and less time looking for rancid 9/11 theories, maybe it would still be on the air today.
9/11 has been investigated backwards, forwards, upwards and downwards. We know who the terrorists were, we know how they came to commit the crimes. Even now, many work to come up with better ways to prevent or hinder these types of heinous acts from occurring again. In this particular case there isn't the slightest chance that anything Ruxton has posted is true, so no I don't think valuable resources or time should be spent chasing fictitious, hateful in my opinion, theories.
my 2 cents.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Hey Ruxton,
...
The "cell phone hoax" is very troubling to me, because it really would have been an absolute stroke of genius, and if there were anyone with that kind of vision behind the Bush administration I think they would have handled a whole lot of things so much better than they have. It's really too imaginative for me to buy. Seriously, if Evil is really that clever and imaginative, we're doomed.
Not only is it preposterous to think that anything this complicated can be imagined down to the type of details it takes to carry it out, but conspiracy theorists obviously have never carried out any large projects that they believe are going on. How many people it would take to carry out this kind of planning - not just to think it out, but to carry out the shear logistics of it - have all of these people been silenced as well? Even if they didn't know what they were doing at the time ("oh, they told me to turn off the transponder on flight 77 for a test, little off procedure, but the paperwork is there..."). They've got to know afterwards and there will be plenty of talking - where are these people?
Look, most people don't realize the amount of paperwork and number of people it takes just to get the chow for a company of soldiers started and delivered out to the field. Even the simplest thing in the government takes some ooodles of people of "forms in triplicates" to accomplish. I can not imagine the number of folks it would take for this grand of a scheme.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I just want Nathan Fillion to show up at one of the Presidential Addresses and say in mid speech, "Bush. Your mouth is movin.. you may want to look to that."
that would be just shiny as hell.
Ahhhh.. Curse you sudden but inevitable betrayal!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
www.claimvfact.org[/]
claims vs. facts
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
MAKE THE PIE HIGHER
I think we all agree, the past is over.
This is still a dangerous world.
It's a world of madmen and uncertainty
And potential mental losses.
Rarely is the question asked
Is our children learning?
Will the highways of the Internet
Become more few?
How many hands have I shaked?
They misunderestimate me.
I am a pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity.
I know that the human being
And the fish can coexist.
Families is where our nation finds hope,
Where our wings take dream.
Put food on your family!
Knock down the tollbooth!
Vulcanize society!
Make the pie higher!
Make the pie higher!
(All the above are direct quotes of George W. Bush, rearranged for clarity.]
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Personally I wish folks spent more time watching Firefly and less time looking for rancid 9/11 theories, maybe it would still be on the air today"
Yeah, in fact I believe the whole 9/11 commission is a waste of time.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anyone seriously looking for answers and who wants to do some serious digging, I recommend visiting "whatreallyhappened.com" and following the links to news services all over the world on a large variety of subjects. Some of the information is sparse, some opinion, but much of it is hard fact from reputable news organizations worldwide. A thorough reading and analyzing of ALL the material on several related subjects will lead the serious student to some potential answers to serious questions. A few of the posters here clearly can't be bothered with opinions other than their own, but a few might find the above website to be instructive. It will take a tremendous amount of time, I warn you.
Obviously, some of our posters here already have taken time to look into things, and to question the pap they have been fed by liars and/or by a few self-indulgent dummies on this string. Their postings are not worth taking time to read, much less to merit a response.
.........Ruxton
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anyone can dream up stuff and make wildass speculations and have the right to do so - not everything has to (or merit) logic and reason either - those things are called fantasies.
But dream up things and not be able to support them with neither fact, a logical though process, nor sound reasoning, then call it fact *and* call folks dummies when they point out the lack of fact and logical flaws - that calls for some self-delusion of the grand type.
You must believe that there were no holocause or Apollo landings either.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by howdyrockerbaby1:
Who thinks that our President needs to get his butt out of the White House?
I certainly do.
EDIT: CLARIFICATION: I don't think the war in Iraq was necessary at all, and so far Bush has given no reason for going, I think its great that those people are now free, but Bush shouldn't have been so cocky as to think that we could fix that entire country all on our own without the help of the UN. Besides, we have our own problems in our country to worry about before we try fixing everybody elses.
Besides his Anti-Kerry commercials are just rediculous, almost all of the information (especially on the GAS TOPIC) that he says is at least 10 years old, for instance the 50 cent gas tax information(11 years old!) Plus his speeches annoy the hell out of me
The reason why i have asked this question is because i just wanted to know the general consensus of all my wonder browncoat friends, i'm not trying to start any debate or anything.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"Here's to Jayne, the box dropping man-ape-gone-wrong-thing"
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Amen.
There are many countries in the world living under far, far worse "dictators"(ones not sanctioned by the U.S.)than Saddam Hussein. The only thing we were intent on "liberating" are Iraq's oil resources.
If we control the country, we can help set the price for oil.
And if people take the anti-Kerry ads as truth and don't do any research on the Bush claims, they're all manner of fools.
The last election was a sham. It was like the kind of thing that happens in so-called "third world" nations.
I'm a Browncoat, and I vote.
He's not MY president. (Neither is his puppet master Cheney.)
"Take me, sir. Take me hard."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow that claim vs fact site is hi-larious. It's pretty interesting to see the claims that various people in the govt have made, vs the facts. It shows them up as either severely memory impaired officials, or worse prevaricators of the worst degree.
Example:
Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction
Speaker: Bush, George - President
Date: 9/26/2002
Quote/Claim:
“The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons…And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes.”
Fact:
“Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled chemical weapons program after 1991… Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections.” - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Topic: Iraq - Revising History
In answer to that 'immediate threat' claim debate:
Speaker: Rumsfeld, Donald - Secretary of Defense
Date: 3/14/2004
Quote/Claim:
"You and a few other critics are the only people I've heard use the phrase 'immediate threat.' I didn't...It's become kind of folklore that that's what happened."
Fact:
"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein and Iraq." -Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
Topic: Iraq - Revising History
Speaker: Bush, George - President
Date: 2/8/2004
Quote/Claim:
"I think, if I might remind you that in my language I called it a grave and gathering threat, but I don't want to get into word contests."
Fact:
The President made far more dire statements before the war. While Bush did call Iraq a "grave and gathering" threat, that was not all he said. On 11/23/02, he said Iraq posed a "unique and urgent threat." On 1/3/03 he said "Iraq is a threat to any American." On 10/28/02 he said Iraq was "a real and dangerous threat" to America. On 10/2/02 he said, "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency" and that Iraq posed "a grave threat" to America. - Bush, 10/2/02, 10/2/02, 10/28/02 11/3/02, 1/3/03
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Double Post
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I was about to give this site a chance, until I hit the propaganda wall LOL.
This is just in their "About us" section.
Quote:
The Center for American Progress is a nonpartisan research and educational institute dedicated to promoting a strong, just and free America that ensures opportunity for all Americans.
followed further down by:
Quote:
Every day we challenge conservative thinking that undermines the bedrock American values of liberty, community and shared responsibility.
Non-Partisan my Arse LOL. If you look, every headline is Pro-Democratic/Anti-Bush administration. Yeah CAP is definitely "Progressive, Open Mided and Non-Partisan"..
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Zoriah:
Wow that claim vs fact site is hi-larious. It's pretty interesting to see the claims that various people in the govt have made, vs the facts. It shows them up as either severely memory impaired officials, or worse prevaricators of the worst degree.
Example:
Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction
Speaker: Bush, George - President
Date: 9/26/2002
Quote/Claim:
“The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons…And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes.”
Fact:
“Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled chemical weapons program after 1991… Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections.” - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03
I've read David Kays published Public report and you have edited the above, which is misleading. Or the source you obtained it from is misleading you. I have included whole unedited portions, given on October 2, 2003. Removing words like "varied access and reliability" is called propagandic spin and can be misleading. The sources could be anyone from Saddam's cohorts to Saddam himself. It is very easy to get caught up in the propaganda game, especially when you claim something as fact, when it is merely conjecture at this point.
Please understand, I'm not refuting your above statements. Im adding everything you left off, so folks can get the full picture.
Quote:
Let me turn now to chemical weapons (CW). In searching for retained stocks of chemical munitions, ISG has had to contend with the almost unbelievable scale of Iraq's conventional weapons armory, which dwarfs by orders of magnitude the physical size of any conceivable stock of chemical weapons. For example, there are approximately 130 known Iraqi Ammunition Storage Points (ASP), many of which exceed 50 square miles in size and hold an estimated 600,000 tons of artillery shells, rockets, aviation bombs and other ordinance. Of these 130 ASPs, approximately 120 still remain unexamined. As Iraqi practice was not to mark much of their chemical ordinance and to store it at the same ASPs that held conventional rounds, the size of the required search effort is enormous.
While searching for retained weapons, ISG teams have developed multiple sources that indicate that Iraq explored the possibility of CW production in recent years, possibly as late as 2003. When Saddam had asked a senior military official in either 2001 or 2002 how long it would take to produce new chemical agent and weapons, he told ISG that after he consulted with CW experts in OMI he responded it would take six months for mustard. Another senior Iraqi chemical weapons expert in responding to a request in mid-2002 from Uday Husayn for CW for the Fedayeen Saddam estimated that it would take two months to produce mustard and two years for Sarin.
We are starting to survey parts of Iraq's chemical industry to determine if suitable equipment and bulk chemicals were available for chemical weapons production. We have been struck that two senior Iraqi officials volunteered that if they had been ordered to resume CW production Iraq would have been willing to use stainless steel systems that would be disposed of after a few production runs, in place of corrosive-resistant equipment which they did not have.
We continue to follow leads on Iraq's acquisition of equipment and bulk precursors suitable for a CW program. Several possibilities have emerged and are now being exploited. One example involves a foreign company with offices in Baghdad, that imported in the past into Iraq dual-use equipment and maintained active contracts through 2002. Its Baghdad office was found looted in August 2003, but we are pursuing other locations and associates of the company.
Information obtained since OIF has identified several keNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I am posting this but did not write it or research it, take it as you will...
George W. Bush - Resume
The White House, USA
EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE:
LAW ENFORCEMENT:
I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1976 for driving under the influence of alcohol. I pled guilty, paid a fine, and had my driver's license suspended for 30 days. My Texas driving record has been "lost" and is not available.
MILITARY:
I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL. I refused to take a drug test or answer any questions about my drug use. By joining the Texas Air National Guard, I was able to avoid combat duty in Vietnam.
COLLEGE:
I graduated from Yale University with a low C average.
I was a cheerleader.
PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:
I ran for U.S. Congress and lost.
I began my career in the oil business in Midland, Texas, in 1975. I bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas. The company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.
I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer money.
With the help of my father and our right-wing friends in the oil industry (including Enron CEO Kenneth Lay), I was elected governor of Texas.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS:
I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies, making Texas the most polluted state in the Union.
During my tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden city in America.
I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of billions in borrowed money.
I set the record for the most executions by any governor in American history.
With the help of my brother, the governor of Florida, and my father's appointments to the Supreme Court, I became President after losing by over 500,000 votes.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:
I am the first President in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record.
I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over one billion dollars per week.
I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury.
I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history.
I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.
I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.
I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market.
In my first year in office, over 2 million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues every month.
I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in U.S. history. My "poorest" millionaire," Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.
I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S. President.
I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations.
My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. History, Enron.
My political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election decision.
I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton against investigation or prosecution. More time and money was spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent investigating one of the biggest corporate rip-offs in history.
I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed.
I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history.
I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.
I appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any President in U.S. history.
I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy in the history of the United States government.
I've broken more international treaties than any President in U.S. history.
I am the first Pres
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey connorflynn,
I don't really see any substantive difference between the short quotation ("they don't got any") and the long quotation ("we really looked hard and a lot of folks said they might have something, there's still a lot of places that they might hide stuff, but as far as we know, they don't got any"). And what I mean by "substantive" is anything that would take use from "don't and might" to "they do."
And there's still a big difference between 45 minutes and 2 years.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A lie can get around the world before truth can get its pants on - Winston Churchill, (paraphrasing Mark Twain.)
You just told a whole MESS of lies. I suppose you expect us to do research on each and every lie, distortion and misrepresented statement. Since most of us have real lives and real jobs ( I happen to have 2 jobs, ) I'll just randomly pick 2 items which are false.
- In my State of the Union Address, I lied about our reasons for attacking Iraq, then blamed the lies on our British friends.
*** There was no lie, what so ever. See, all the Left can do is SAY Bush lied, but not ONCE can they cite an example of WHERE he lied. Fact is, not only did Iraq get its nuclear material for its Nuclear power plant ( wonder why a oil rich nation NEEDS nuclear power? hmmm ) from Africa, but the British intell STILL stands by their findings. No lie there, sorry. ***
- I am the first President in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election).
*** Good for W! There is absolutely ZERO reason why the *UN has any business trying to have a hand in OUR elections. We've been doing our own elections for longer than the UN has been in existence. We aren't some developing 3rd world country that has never had a national election before. This is ( like so many items on here ) a complete and utter red herring. ***
*The same corrupt UN that skimmed MILLIONS from the Food for Oil scam which oddly enough involved all those countrys who didnt' want the US to invade Iraq. The biggest KNOWN scandal that has been uncovered at the UN, which goes all the way up to the top and is a fair example of why NOT to trust the UN to do much of anything.
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn:Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Hey spelling Nazi... when you call people names why don't YOU look up the meaning?
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELITIST - e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-ltzm, -l-)
n.
1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
2.
1. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
2. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I love how you basically rationalized yourself into labeling me an embittered Socialist. You're a real nut.
Still - your kind can only attack people by calling them names while the rest of us post actual facts, opinions, and knowledge.
It seems that I have struck a nerve by posting actual facts, opinion and well rounded knowledge. I also believe that you did indeed act and post in an embittered elitist fashion, while speciously misusing AND mispelling words outside your vocabulary.
Liar.
You didn't post one little fact. I made a FRICKIN' LIST. What's your problem?
I'll tell ya. You are a liar! If someone says GWB is bad, you will disagree without hesitation. Does that sound rational? No, but it does sound familiar.
I didn't call anyone names but you jumped right up and called me an ELITIST. Dead giveaway as using that word in this context is only found comming from the mouth of GWB and other White House language police. Oh, and elitist doesn't mean that as I've already demonstrated above... which you still ignored just like everything else everyone else posted.
Rush Limbaugh called and he wants his rhetoric back!
And I noticed Connerflynn is far more fast and loose with facts than anyone here and he refuses to offer any facts that he can stand behind. Worse, he childishly side steps issues as if that's an Ok thing to do in a debate. Well, it isn't.
For example - When Connerflynn states that 9/11 has been investigated in detail, why would anyone believe that? We all recently know that the families of the 9/11 Attacks are trying desperately to get the White House to stop CENSORING THAT VERY INFORMATION! Then Connerflynn states he's very close to these victems because he is in New York. Well, if he's so close why did he say this?
Wild guess - He's not in New York. He's not close to anyone related to the 9/11 Attacks. He is a liar.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by FlyinFree:
I am posting this but did not write it or research it, take it as you will...
George W. Bush - Resume
Where did you get it?
"Dear diary, today I was pompous and my sister was crazy."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by maugwai:
Where did you get it?
Chain email.
"...we're still flyin'."
"That's not much."
"It's enough." Malcolm Reynolds and Simon Tam - Serenity
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
POLITICAL DEBATE IN AMERICA
aka The Puppet Show
Two puppets enter the "Punch and Judy"-style puppet stage from either wing, and face the audience
puppet1) "The candidate you like is a poopy-head!"
puppet2) "The candidate you like is a doody-head!"
puppet1) "Oh, so original"
puppet2) "Well, nyuh to you!"
puppet1) "It's pronounced 'nee-ah', moron"
puppet2) "Only by backwoods rednecks like you, jackass!. The original French pronunciation is used in sophisticated circles."
puppet1) "French pronunciation, eh? You saying you don't like how we do things here in AMERICA?!"
puppet2) "Stop twisting my words! I said nothing of the sort!"
puppet1) "You said you use French in your conversations. I'll bet you drive a German car too!"
puppet2) "I'm not going to dignify that with a response...LA LA LA LA..."
puppet1) "Guess that means I win"
puppet2) "What? Can't HEAR you...LA LA LA LA"
puppet1) "Like I thought, no answers to the tough questions"
puppet2) "Maybe if you'd ASK some questions instead of making sweeping statements...."
puppet1) "I asked you a question not two minutes ago, and you refused to answer it. Your side just avoids the subjects you can't answer."
puppet2) "Instead of asking about the economy, or the war, or health care, or taxes, you asked a rhetorical question about my views on American speech, right?"
puppet1) "Right. See, right there, I answered your question. Why won't you answer mine?"
..and so on and so forth, ad nauseum....
And as a final note, I learned a LOT about politics in the Bush-Gore election of 2000. Gore's camp insisting that certain areas of Florida be recounted, Bush's camp insisting that the votes had been "counted, re-counted, and counted again" I believe the phrase was. But I then realized that, had the count gone the other way and put Gore on top, he would have been using the EXACT SAME ARGUEMENTS to stop any further re-counting, and Bush would have been shouting JUST AS LOUDLY that the re-counts were essential to the democratic process.
Robert A. Heinlein wrote that politics are only slightly less important to a human being than breathing. I just wish that politics didn't leave such an ugly, noxious taste in the back of my mouth........
MAL "You only gotta scare him."
JAYNE "Pain is scary..."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OMG, the contrails are killing us!
Story:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id
=16528
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Originally posted by Ghoulman:Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn:Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Hey spelling Nazi... when you call people names why don't YOU look up the meaning?
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELITIST - e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-ltzm, -l-)
n.
1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
2.
1. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
2. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I love how you basically rationalized yourself into labeling me an embittered Socialist. You're a real nut.
Still - your kind can only attack people by calling them names while the rest of us post actual facts, opinions, and knowledge.
It seems that I have struck a nerve by posting actual facts, opinion and well rounded knowledge. I also believe that you did indeed act and post in an embittered elitist fashion, while speciously misusing AND mispelling words outside your vocabulary. Quote:
Liar.
You didn't post one little fact. I made a FRICKIN' LIST. What's your problem?
Awful defensive aren't ya? ;) As for your list of "FACTS" There is a difference between "Opinion" and "Fact". Everything you have posted up to now has been pure conjecture and 100% poorly worded opinion with zero fact.
I posted a number of facts, along with the sources.Quote:
I'll tell ya. You are a liar! If someone says GWB is bad, you will disagree without hesitation. Does that sound rational? No, but it does sound familiar.
I don't believe I've really disagreed with anyone who has posted a rational (emphasis on rational) thought on this topic. I may correct or add my own 2 cents, but not disagree. Everyone is entitled. If you'll notice, I haven't attacked any politician or nationality or political affiliation (Except for Islamafascism, which I find abhorrent). I don't mock our leaders, even if I find them amusing.Quote:
I didn't call anyone names but you jumped right up and called me an ELITIST. Dead giveaway as using that word in this context is only found comming from the mouth of GWB and other White House language police. Oh, and elitist doesn't mean that as I've already demonstrated above... which you still ignored just like everything else everyone else posted.
I'm not sure I follow you on this one? Too much rambling. This is actually entertaining. As for the Elitist part..I still believe it fits the bill. The republican administration doesn't have the corner on the market for the use of that word. It has been around for ages.Quote:
Rush Limbaugh called and he wants his rhetoric back!
Hehe..good one. What rhetoric did I steal from him again? Since I don't listen to him. Maybe I should start listening to him. Quote:
And I noticed Connerflynn is far more fast and loose with facts than anyone here and he refuses to offer any facts that he can stand behind. Worse, he childishly side steps issues as if that's an Ok thing to do in a debate. Well, it isn't.
One minute I don't use facts, next minute they are loose? LOL. What issue(s) have I sidestepped? Again, I have offerred a multitude of facts and their sources.
Saying Bill Clinton sucks, or George W. Bush is ignorant are opinions not facts(though in some cases I suppose a good argument could be made, with the use of various evidence)Quote:
For example - When Connerflynn states that 9/11 has been investigated in detail, why would anyone believe that?
WOW..
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/911.html
And that's just one source. How many ya want?Quote:
We all recently know that the families of the 9/11 Attacks are trying desperately to get the White House to
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Darkjester:
And as a final note, I learned a LOT about politics in the Bush-Gore election of 2000. Gore's camp insisting that certain areas of Florida be recounted, Bush's camp insisting that the votes had been "counted, re-counted, and counted again" I believe the phrase was. But I then realized that, had the count gone the other way and put Gore on top, he would have been using the EXACT SAME ARGUEMENTS to stop any further re-counting, and Bush would have been shouting JUST AS LOUDLY that the re-counts were essential to the democratic process.
Robert A. Heinlein wrote that politics are only slightly less important to a human being than breathing. I just wish that politics didn't leave such an ugly, noxious taste in the back of my mouth........
Sadly, I agree with you. Unfortunately the 2000 elections set an ugly precedent. I have heard rumors that both sides are building warchests for Recounts during the next election.
Yes, Bush lost the popular vote. He did win the electoral vote. Which is how our current elections are won and lost.
Heinlein quote..very nice =)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Hey connorflynn,
I don't really see any substantive difference between the short quotation ("they don't got any") and the long quotation ("we really looked hard and a lot of folks said they might have something, there's still a lot of places that they might hide stuff, but as far as we know, they don't got any"). And what I mean by "substantive" is anything that would take use from "don't and might" to "they do."
And there's still a big difference between 45 minutes and 2 years.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
I'm not sure what you mean by difference between 45 minutes and 2 years? Please clarify.
As for the report,
To me there is a difference between "not having for sure", and "They had them, we just can't seem to find any at the moment..because they aren't exactly facilitating the search" hehe. I guess that was why I posted the unedited paragraphs. Take it as you like. there are many reports. All of which are interesting in their own right.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Whether the site presents itself as nonpartisan or not is not the point.
It doesn't change that it shows up the hypocrisy and spin that is going on.
It still is amusing and alarming to use the database and search out claims the govt officials have made that are apparently completely false, contradictory or deliberately misleading.
I didn't edit anything, that's the way it is presented in the database.
Think of it as a guide. There are sources quoted there, just click on the reference link below the entry. There is nothing stopping you from verifying the facts in question yourself with your own research.
About nuclear/biological weapon proliferation:
Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction
Speaker: Rumsfeld, Donald - Secretary of Defense
Date: 5/14/2003
Quote/Claim:
"I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons."
Fact:
"We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." - Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, 3/16/03
Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction
Speaker: Bush, George - President
Date: 9/26/2002
Quote/Claim:
“The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons…And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes.”
Fact:
“Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled chemical weapons program after 1991… Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections.” - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03
Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction
Speaker: Rumsfeld, Donald - Secretary of Defense
Date: 3/25/2004
Quote/Claim:
"Indeed, I have no reason to believe that the intelligence that the United States government had and that Secretary Powell presented to the United Nations is anything but accurate.”
Fact:
"Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong." - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, testimony before Armed Services Committee, 1/28/04 Sec. of State Colin Powell conceded Thursday that despite his assertions to the United Nations last year, he had no 'smoking gun' proof of a link between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terrorists of al-Qaeda.'I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection,' Powell said. - NY Times, 1/9/04
Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction
Speaker: Bush, George - President
Date: 1/28/2003
Quote/Claim:
“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
Fact:
On 7/8/03, the Washington Post reported the Administration admitted the Iraq-Nuclear allegation was false. “Revelations by officials at the CIA, the State Department, the UN, in Congress and elsewhere” made clear that the White House knew the claim was false before making the allegation (7/20/03). In fact, “CIA Director George Tenet successfully intervened with White House officials to have the reference” removed from a Bush speech in Oct. of 2002. - Washington Post, 7/13/03
Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction
Speaker: Bush, George - President
Date: 2/8/2004
Quote/Claim:
"I expected to find the weapons [because] I based my decision on the best intelligence possible...The evidence I had was the best possible evidence that he had a weapon."
Fact:
The White House was repeatedly warned by the intelligence community about the imprecision of intelligence on WMD's. The day before the President appeared on Meet The Press, The Washington Post reported, "President Bush and his top advisers ignored many of the caveats and qualifiers included in the classified report on Saddam Hussein's weapons." Specifically, the President made unequivocal statements that Iraq "has got chemical weapons" two months after the DIA concluded that there was "no reliable inform
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And for Connorflynn 
Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction
Speaker: Bush, George - President
Date: 10/7/2002
Quote/Claim:
"If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today — and we do — does it make any sense for the world to wait?"
Fact:
Bush didn't care whether or not Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. When Diane Sawyer tried to make a distinction between stating as a "hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons," Bush snapped back "so what's the difference?" - ABC, 12/16/03
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well..here is where personal convictions play a part in making decisions. I wouldn't want to be the leader of the greatest country in the free world (I'm American hehe..Im sure all you other Browncoats who live in other countries feel the same about your own countries hehe:biggrin ), because their actions are under constant scrutiny, with everyone second guessing every move.
As I've said in previous posts, I personally don't feel the War in Iraq was anything more then a strategic move to put huge pressure on Iran (the true hotbed for extremism) and to have the Islamafascists fighting our "Armies not our civilians" on their own soils. Thats my opinion. Take it as you will.
As for striking first, Well, hindsight is 20/20. It is my opinion that 9/11 has changed the way wars will be waged in the future and I see Pre-emption as a necessary evil, particularly in the case of radical Islamafascism. There can be no reasoning with the Islamafascists, when their sole purpose on this earth is to convert the world to Radical Islam or become a martyr. When fighting that kind of mindset, it seems unrealistic and weak to deal with the situation with kids gloves on.
PS. I figured the partial report you posted was probably taken from another site. I just wanted to show the whole excerpt, because the "Cropped" one was misleading in my opinion. I have a hard time visiting websites that are partisan. It gives me great headaches to wade through the spin, to find a smidge of truth LOL. Too many people take spin as hard fact. I hope you didn't take it as an attack, because that was not the intent.
And for all you conspiracy theorists..here's a website I came across today in my internet perusing.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
I found this lil diddy intriguing and feel to a degree that Gary Shmidt hit the nail on the head.
"The question is whether Rumsfeld and his generals have learned from past mistakes. Or rather, perhaps, the question is whether George W. Bush has learned from Rumsfeld's past mistakes. After all, at the end of the day, it is up to the president to ensure that the success he demands in Iraq will in fact be accomplished. If his current secretary of defense cannot make the adjustments that are necessary, the president should find one who will."
America needs to win the war against the Islamafascists. Personally, I don't think Rumsfeld has the ability to make that happen.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh goody, another discussion!
But there is SO MUCH confusion and misdirected thinking!
First of all, I'm sorry to say this but George "dubya" Bush doesn't have the smarts to be "in charge". Apparently Cheney is George's Svengali. George is a man of convictions, but I'm not sure that he's capable of independent thought. (I know what I'm talking about. Since my daughter is borderline retarded I know what that looks like.)
The proof of the rightness of one's opinions is the ability to predict what's going to happen in the future.
EVERY YEAR for five years before 9/11 I would sigh and think- "Well, we squeaked by another one." After the embassy bombings and the Cole, and the TERROR ALERT that was broadcast ONE MONTH b4 9/11. did anyone really think that an ocean and unguarded borders were going to keep us safe???? Now. if I can see that with no special access, why couldn't Cheney?
I predicted (on-line, on another website) that we would invade Afghanistan, that we would bomb, that we would set up an oil guy, that biological warfare would start. Apparently my predictions were just a little TOO timely, so I was followed by the FBI for a couple of days.
I predicted that we would invade Iraq MONTHS before it happened, that it had NOTHING to do with WMD because the weapons never existed, and that it would be like Vietnam.
How did could I predict all of this??? BY following the money, and following the ideology. I expect the worst from the gang of thugs and hypocrites in the Aministraiton, and they haven't disappointed me yet!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, nobody responded.
OK, I'm going to have a "Mal" moment here- when I believe in nothing and reveal my true inner bitterness.
You might wonder why I'm telling YOU. It's because I believe that I undertsand Mal, and so some of you might understand me too.
Mal is the ultimate realist. His beliefs- in God, in the concern of the authorities, in the might of justice, the providence of Nature, the essential goodness human beings - were burned away in the crucible of experience.
While I can't claim to have Mal's battlefield experience, I've had many "Mal" moments- in my touch with insanity when I had to make a conscious choice to believe in my senses, when my daughter was born with a brain bleed so severe the doctors thought she would die or be profoundly retarded and when they threw up their hands six years later and said "We're up a creek without a paddle", when my MIL died on my watch and I was there for her agonal breaths, and then the same thing happened with my dad- who saw more as a Pole in WWII than you would ever want to be burdened with, when I had to pick up a gun and sit on a friend's porch waiting for the stalker to come by, when I saw "Hearts and Minds" and finally connected with the pain of our victims.
Most Americans (70%) are incapable of independent thought. I believe you are different.
Having lived nearly 50 years, I have the benefit of remembering Vietnam... and Grenada, and Panama, Afghanistan, and Gulf War I, and Gulf War II. Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, and Gulf War II were all strangely similar. First, the Administration would announce that they "suddenly" found a problem: Grenada had a stockpile of Cuban weapons, Noriega was a big "drug runner", Afghanistan was harboring ObL, Saddam had WMD. There would be the drumbeat to war. It was urgent. It was a severe threat to the USA. It had to be taken care of RIGHT AWAY. No delay was allowed! Not a year! Not a month! Not even a week!
The timing was all off because it was all pre-planned. Folks- don't look at the content of the headlines, look at the timing if you want to see what's going on.
So here we are: the threat of Grenada has been neutralized, the tide of drugs had been stemmed, ObL has been captured, and those WMD have been destroyed. Right?
I'm just going to add a couple more things- for those who have followed me tihs far.
None of the above makes sense if you think that Republicans Presidents, and THIS President and his neocon administration (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Perle, Wurmser, Feith, Libby, Abrams) lay awake at night worrying about us and the future of the USA.
The answer to my question- If I could see [9/11] why couldn't Cheney? - is that of course he could see it. He just didn't give a damn, and he still doesn't. Other administration folks have written extensively about how getting rid of Saddam would make the world safe- for Israel. I could give you links to the papers if you want- it's all published.
One of them- Wurmser- even postulated years before the fact that Chalabi would make a good puppet government. (also published). And of course Wurmser and Feith set up that "Office of Special Plans" that funneled "special" intelligence (from Chalabi and probably from Mossad) to Cheney outside of the normal CIA and military intelligence channels. The point of this is:
Please, disabuse yourselves of the notion that these people lay awake and worry about the USA. I do- they don't.
One other point- some of you folks are in the military, some are died-in-the-wool libertarians, some are leftover Confederate rebels. The one thing you all have in common is that you identify strongly with the underdog, which is why you like FF in the first place.
And then you take your helicopter gunships and daisy cutter bombs and the threat of nuclear weapons, your megacorporations and banks, your God-fearing religion and democracy, and smack Central and South America, Africa, central Asia and the Mid-East with rapacious dictators, torture (either by proxy or directly), a blood-sucking economy, a
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Most Americans (70%) are incapable of independent thought.
What the fuck? Just where in the hell did that statistic come from?
Bastard.
-Steve
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I watch the polls.
But, all I need to do is check out how many people think they want to buy SUVs, and how many really believe that god has spoken to them!
Friend, I'm ahead of the curve most of the way in figuring out what's going to happen. I take the notion to test my assumptions against reality.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SignyM
I'm not saying you are wrong, because I have no experience in much of what your first post said. But the way your post was written won't make you any friends or converts, in my opinion. It seems that you were saying that your experiences and perceptions of reality are the only things of importance, and the opinions of the others, the "not-you", are purposefully ignorant and pitifully niave. It also seems to me that you don't care if you change anyone's thoughts or opinions. And that seems to be a common theme throughout this thread.
It seems to me that this whole thread is a long string of inaccuracy. Opinions masquerading as informed comprehension. Facts presented as Truths, and vice-versa. It seems that we cannot even agree on what a "fact" consists of.
I once read an article in a newsletter on different forms of lying (I AM NOT implying that ANYONE on this thread has knowing told an untruth!!). Lies of omission, of mis-direction, etc. One example given by the author was of a friend telling how she was forced off a porch at a party, and told to leave. She and the host were argueing, and according to the woman it happened to, the host said "Get out of here!". While telling this story, the woman made pushing gestures with her hands, IMPLYING non-verbally that she had been pushed. The author of the article, however, had witnessed the whole scene, and could report that at no time did the host touch this woman. He had pointed to the stairs, and told the woman to leave.
Did the woman lie? Yes, by implying something that did not physically happen.
Did the woman tell the truth? Yes, by expressing how she felt at the time.
This is how I see a number of the "sweeping statements" made in this thread. Perhaps not "FACT" in the strictest sense, but certainly not lies, either.
But may I propose that simply because you cannot be proven WRONG does not mean your arguements and/or beliefs are RIGHT in shiny big letters. And as long as we keep insisting that other people recognize and acknowledge OUR truths, there will be less dialogue and more people spouting "facts" and saying to each other "No, you're wrong, moron".
As Browncoats, I think we can do better....
(but I could be wrong...)
MAL "You only gotta scare him."
JAYNE "Pain is scary..."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn:Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Hey spelling Nazi... when you call people names why don't YOU look up the meaning?
-------------------------------------
ELITIST - e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-ltzm, -l-)
n.
1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
2.
1. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
2. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.
---------
And I love how you basically rationalized yourself into labeling me an embittered Socialist. You're a real nut.
Still - your kind can only attack people by calling them names while the rest of us post actual facts, opinions, and knowledge.
It seems that I have struck a nerve by posting actual facts, opinion and well rounded knowledge. I also believe that you did indeed act and post in an embittered elitist fashion, while speciously misusing AND mispelling words outside your vocabulary.Quote:
Liar.
You didn't post one little fact. I made a FRICKIN' LIST. What's your problem?
Awful defensive aren't ya? ;) As for your list of "FACTS" There is a difference between "Opinion" and "Fact". Everything you have posted up to now has been pure conjecture and 100% poorly worded opinion with zero fact.
I posted a number of facts, along with the sources.Quote:
I'll tell ya. You are a liar! If someone says GWB is bad, you will disagree without hesitation. Does that sound rational? No, but it does sound familiar.
I don't believe I've really disagreed with anyone who has posted a rational (emphasis on rational) thought on this topic. I may correct or add my own 2 cents, but not disagree. Everyone is entitled. If you'll notice, I haven't attacked any politician or nationality or political affiliation (Except for Islamafascism, which I find abhorrent). I don't mock our leaders, even if I find them amusing.Quote:
I didn't call anyone names but you jumped right up and called me an ELITIST. Dead giveaway as using that word in this context is only found comming from the mouth of GWB and other White House language police. Oh, and elitist doesn't mean that as I've already demonstrated above... which you still ignored just like everything else everyone else posted.
I'm not sure I follow you on this one? Too much rambling. This is actually entertaining. As for the Elitist part..I still believe it fits the bill. The republican administration doesn't have the corner on the market for the use of that word. It has been around for ages.Quote:
Rush Limbaugh called and he wants his rhetoric back!
Hehe..good one. What rhetoric did I steal from him again? Since I don't listen to him. Maybe I should start listening to him.Quote:
And I noticed Connerflynn is far more fast and loose with facts than anyone here and he refuses to offer any facts that he can stand behind. Worse, he childishly side steps issues as if that's an Ok thing to do in a debate. Well, it isn't.
One minute I don't use facts, next minute they are loose? LOL. What issue(s) have I sidestepped? Again, I have offerred a multitude of facts and their sources.
Saying Bill Clinton sucks, or George W. Bush is ignorant are opinions not facts(though in some cases I suppose a good argument could be made, with the use of various evidence)Quote:
For example - When Connerflynn states that 9/11 has been investigated in detail, why would anyone believe that?
WOW..
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/911.html
And that's just one source. How many ya want?Quote:
We all recently know that the families of the 9/11 Attacks are trying desperately to get the White House to stop CENSORING THAT VERY INFORMATION!
Once again pure conjecture with no basisNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I watch the polls.
But, all I need to do is check out how many people think they want to buy SUVs, and how many really believe that god has spoken to them!
Friend, I'm ahead of the curve most of the way in figuring out what's going to happen. I take the notion to test my assumptions against reality.
Yeah yeah, nice. I asked where you got that statistic from. A survey, or scientific study; was it given in a news article somewhere?
Don't just make shit up. Especially if what you are saying slanders my entire family and all of my friends. That tends to upset me.
-Steve
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SignyM, well said. Those of us who think we are capable of independent thought most likely agreed so much with what you said there was little need for response, other than to note that some of the rest of us also knew what would happen post-invasions. For those with sufficient interest to have looked into things, the situations today in Iraq or Afgh. are not big surprises.
After reading your second post above, I must say I agree with most if not all you said. You didn't mention that Chalabi is a convicted (for fraud, as I recall, without looking anything up) criminal.
No, the Dem's don't have anything to offer. I personally like Kucinich.
Concerning "thinking": I once took a long drive of about 12 hours, in a car with no radio. When I arrived, my friend asked me how I could stand being in the car that long without a radio. I told her I enjoy thinking, and a radio interferes with that, in my case. I regretted the journey's end because I hadn't thought enough things through. Thinking seems to be a dying art, commonly among the younger set. (I'm a bit older than you.)
I'm pleased to see you have much the same attitude as I do, in that you find it unnecessary to violently defend your well-informed position against the blindness some posters here exhibit. Those with fixed opinions won't be swayed by the truth, even if it hits them smack in the face. Those who have taken great steps to illustrate the reasoning behind their posts, as I have (far above), are shunned by those who think they have all the facts, when actually they don't have a clue. One poster here seemed to think the US went to Iraq to prevent Iraqis from coming here -- as if they could actually get here. (Of course, they might load their one and only model airplane with firecrackers and hope it lands somewhere near the White House.) Others cry foul at thoroughly researched facts but bring nothing to the forum that supports their beliefs, and express outrage that anyone could think differently from them.
I went to great pains above to give an example of how I arrive at ALL my conclusions, but the dummies here are incapable of making a simple connection, and still seem to think I subscribe to one or another conspiracy theories. One fellow thought I was insulting him or his beliefs, because I have taken very considerable steps and vast amounts of time to learn what's going on, and he has not.
------------------------
Ghoulman, your grasp of facts is mostly irreproachable. Most of the posters here seem agree with you. I'd suggest you ignore all three major dummies, as I have, and not waste your valuable time and energy responding to them.
------------------------
Steve580, you said:
"Yeah yeah, nice. I asked where you got that statistic from. A survey, or scientific study; was it given in a news article somewhere?"
Seems to me SignyM was able to make predictions based on his (her?) personal research. It matters not where he got the facts, as long as they showed him the path to be able to make such accurate predictions. Can you not do the same?
.......Ruxton
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
"Seems to me SignyM was able to make predictions based on his (her?) personal research. It matters not where he got the facts, as long as they showed him the path to be able to make such accurate predictions. Can you not do the same?
.......Ruxton"
OMFG! Somebody thinking for themselves? Making judgments based on their own experience? Assessing the political scene using their own god-given powers of discernment? Pretty radical claims there, Rux, don't want to scare the children!!! LOL
What's most troubling to me about our situation in this country is that "rational discourse" seems to be entirely out of favor, which is extremely perilous for us since Democracy cannot exist without it. If simple reason cannot be respected (as for instance: X says he never said Q. A transcript of X saying Q is produced. Ergo, X lied), how can anyone be held accountable? Without a reality check, reality doesn't matter. Ignorance is Strength, War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery. Make the pie higher! Put food on your family!
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Steve, just out of curiosity, why do you think I'm putting you in with the 70%?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Whew.... I feel better now... I had to barf all of that conspiracy bullcrap out of my system. Thanks....
Don't bother, I know next you will be talking about how Jews all moved out of Europe before WWII ever happened and they are all happily scurried away in the US; or maybe how The Illuminati rules over the U.S. and will be dominating the entire Universe (oh, my bad, it's just the Earth after all) with the New World Order; or maybe how the Federal Income Tax is a big fraud and is completely illegal; or maybe the Federal gov is a big cooperation back when Lincoln signed our country away into debt; or each baby's footprint taken at the hospital (before their feet touch anything else) is a bondage to the Corporate US, or maybe how the Federal gov's powers are supposed to be restricted to just the D.C. are and has never been extended any further; or maybe how NASA faked the entire Apollo moon landing (Was it in Nevada or in New Mexico?).
oh wait, you've had your kidney/bladder/liver removed and is right now sitting in a bathtub full of ice and trying to dial the hotel operator to get help. Oh, what?!? That's a hoax?! Damn...
Yeah, other people get to read the same crap on the internet that you do - except other folks read it, laugh out loud at the sort of idiot who take this shit for real and waste their little hamster cage cycles rattling on about useless crap when there are plenty of other shit out there in the world that needs people to think about. If the world's conspiracy theorist toss out their paranoia collectively and put their little hamsters to work - maybe we can solve world hunger. Or maybe not, since world hunger was also invented and dreamed up by those sickos in the government trying to enslave your mind. Oh, the horror!!! Xenu has arrived!
No, keep feeding me that stuff. Really, it's quite entertaining. I just can't believe that rational and reasonable folks actually believe these horse pucky - wait, rational and reasonable folks *DON'T* belive in that horse pucky...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anybody know what the heck Jasonzzz is on about?
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ghoulman,
ROFLMAO..."Netiquette".
I do believe there was a post by you that used the words F**k Off! LOL. So much for the "netiquette" LOL.
I am not for a war on Islam. I'm for the complete annihilation of all militant Islamafascists. There's a difference. It's unfortunate that many good muslims have had their religion hijacked.
/laughs at Ghoulman
In the Proverbial words of Conan hehe " Crush the enemy, drive them before us, and hear the lamentation of their women"
Moving on to some real political MB's where constructive debate takes place.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
^^^ See? TROLL. You're not nearly as bright as you think are ya?
Islamifascists? Fascism doesn't mean that. Buy a dictionary genius.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Can anyone from either side of the fence here tell me why political discussions like this inspire such contempt in y'all? Can anyone tell me what kind of thrill or satisfaction you get out of calling someone a moron over and over again online? Do you really believe that you're contributing to the forum in any way? Or do you consider this thread to be your own private cyber-spittoon? Seriously, there have been some interesting things discussed on this thread and there have been some interesting posts that have been drowned out by the constant bickering. What have you got to say for yourselves? Anything?
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Anybody know what the heck Jasonzzz is on about? "
You actually have to try to read the whole thread to understand what he's talking about.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Steve580:Quote:
Most Americans (70%) are incapable of independent thought.
What the f##k? Just where in the hell did that statistic come from?
I think he should tell us where it comes from.
We can't think for ourselves.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Steve580, Jasonzz is a perfect example of why I think that most Americans are incapable of independent thought. (Or, in Jasonzz case, any thought at all.)
With no facts on his side, Jasonzz spews. What he's doing here... "I know next you'll be talking about...Jews... Illuminati... NASA...kidney..." is called the straw man argument- putting words into my mouth because he can't rebut what I REALLY said. This part ... "folks read it, laugh out loud at the sort of idiot who take this shit for real and waste their little hamster cage cycles rattling on about useless crap..." is called "begging the question". In other words, he uses his ASSUMPTION as the proof of his assumption. They're pretty easy rhetorical dodges to spot, once you know what you're looking for you'll see them all the time in right-wing opinion-pieces and papers like The Federalist.
Unlike Jasonzz, I at least TRY to discern reality. So, as proof of my other post, here is information about Feith, Wurmser, Perle, Wolfowitz et al with references to their actual works in such radical, conspiracy-minded publications as The Wall Street Journal. Just so you don't have to, I DID look up these references, they're bona fide. And to provide context, here is the chain of command:
Cheney
Rumsfeld
Wolfowitz
Feith
Wurmser
------------------------------
"Wurmser would be the founding participant of the unnamed, secret intelligence unit at the Pentagon, set up in Feith's office (OSP)... While the CIA and other intelligence agencies concentrated on Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda as the culprit in the 9/11 attacks, Paul D. Wolfowitz and Feith obsessively focused on Iraq. For years... [Feith] had been... beating the drums for war against Iraq. Along with Perle and Feith, in 1996 Wurmser and his wife, Meyrav, wrote a provocative strategy paper for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu called 'A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.' It called on Israel to work with Jordan and Turkey to 'contain, destabilize and roll back' various states in the region, overthrow Saddam Hussein in Iraq, press Jordan to restore a scion of the Hashemite dynasty to the Iraqi throne, and, above all, launch military assaults against Lebanon and Syria as a 'prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East which would threaten Syria's territorial integrity.'
"In 1997, Wurmser wrote a column in the Wall Street Journal called 'Iraq Needs a Revolution' and the next year co-signed a letter with Perle calling for all-out U.S. support of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an exile group led by Ahmad Chalabi, in promoting an insurgency in Iraq.
At AEI, Wurmser wrote 'Tyranny's Ally: America's Failure to Defeat Saddam Hussein', essentially a book-length version of 'A Clean Break' that proposed an alliance between Jordan and the INC (Chalabi) to redraw the map of the Middle East. Among the mentors cited by Wurmser in the book: Chalabi, Perle, and Feith."
------------------------------------
I know I didn't directly answer your question about that 70%. It's a composite of various poll and study results that demonstrate sheer brainlessness. Here are some stats:
65% of the average American would torture an unknown study subject with 450 V shocks, despite screams and pleas, on the sheer say-so of the "investigator".
70% still believe that Saddam had something to do with 9/11.
At one point, 90% thought that invading Iraq was a great idea.
Given those stats, I think my composite is pretty accurate, possibly even generous. There's only one reason that I can think of why people would act this way: sheer, unadulterated cowardice.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Believe me, Doran, I have. All the heavy conspiracy theory posts are from two days ago (three days ago now). Jasonzzz's extreme reaction seemed to have some kind of immediate inspiration. I thought maybe Jasonzzz had a broader definition of conspiracy than I do, wide enough to encompass something that had been said in the last two days (I'd have asked Jasonzzz but he seemed to be too busy cyber-puking for reasonable discussion). Also his remark about rechannelling conspiracy theorists' energy to illuminate small midwestern towns (I think that's what he said, can't check while I'm posting, sorry) seemed to suggest that conspiracy theorists were far more numerous and influencial than I ever thought they were. Also I felt that it was the height of redundancy to tell a conspiracy theorist that he's full of crap, not because they are, mind you, but because conspriracy theorists get told they're full of crap about as often as someone makes a typo on the internet.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
At this point, I'm going to bow out of discussion because I might post something really offensive.
If you have any questions, or you want some POLITICAL, MILITARY, or MACROECONOMIC predictions, I'll be happy to answer them if I feel I have something to say. (Unfortuantely, I don't spend as much time trying to predict the stock market, my stock picks make only about 10-50% so I won't post them!)
Happy discussion, happy FF watching!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Simulpost.
So, SignyM, it was you that inspired all the green effluvium? Why, because you suggested that a President of the United States could be a cynical, self-interested politician? OMFG! Is that all it takes to be considered a conspiracy theorist these days??? What is this, the court of Louis xiv?
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, it was I (sigh). However, note that I left Bush off the chain of command. The poor fellow really thinks he's bringing God's democracy to Iraq. Bush doesn't make a decision until after speaking with Cheney, and it was Cheney who brought Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith into the Pentagon, Bolton into the State Department (Undersecretary) and Abrams into the NSC. This is what got him so hot and bothered.
---------------------------------------
Well, nobody responded.
OK, I'm going to have a "Mal" moment here- when I believe in nothing and reveal my true inner bitterness.
You might wonder why I'm telling YOU. It's because I believe that I undertsand Mal, and so some of you might understand me too.
Mal is the ultimate realist. His beliefs- in God, in the concern of the authorities, in the might of justice, the providence of Nature, the essential goodness human beings - were burned away in the crucible of experience.
While I can't claim to have Mal's battlefield experience, I've had many "Mal" moments- in my touch with insanity when I had to make a conscious choice to believe in my senses, when my daughter was born with a brain bleed so severe the doctors thought she would die or be profoundly retarded and when they threw up their hands six years later and said "We're up a creek without a paddle", when my MIL died on my watch and I was there for her agonal breaths, and then the same thing happened with my dad- who saw more as a Pole in WWII than you would ever want to be burdened with, when I had to pick up a gun and sit on a friend's porch waiting for the stalker to come by, when I saw "Hearts and Minds" and finally connected with the pain of our victims.
Most Americans (70%) are incapable of independent thought. I believe you are different.
Having lived nearly 50 years, I have the benefit of remembering Vietnam... and Grenada, and Panama, Afghanistan, and Gulf War I, and Gulf War II. Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, and Gulf War II were all strangely similar. First, the Administration would announce that they "suddenly" found a problem: Grenada had a stockpile of Cuban weapons, Noriega was a big "drug runner", Afghanistan was harboring ObL, Saddam had WMD. There would be the drumbeat to war. It was urgent. It was a severe threat to the USA. It had to be taken care of RIGHT AWAY. No delay was allowed! Not a year! Not a month! Not even a week!
The timing was all off because it was all pre-planned. Folks- don't look at the content of the headlines, look at the timing if you want to see what's going on.
So here we are: the threat of Grenada has been neutralized, the tide of drugs had been stemmed, ObL has been captured, and those WMD have been destroyed. Right?
I'm just going to add a couple more things- for those who have followed me tihs far.
None of the above makes sense if you think that Republicans Presidents, and THIS President and his neocon administration (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Perle, Wurmser, Feith, Libby, Abrams) lay awake at night worrying about us and the future of the USA.
The answer to my question- If I could see [9/11] why couldn't Cheney? - is that of course he could see it. He just didn't give a damn, and he still doesn't. Other administration folks have written extensively about how getting rid of Saddam would make the world safe- for Israel. I could give you links to the papers if you want- it's all published.
One of them- Wurmser- even postulated years before the fact that Chalabi would make a good puppet government. (also published). And of course Wurmser and Feith set up that "Office of Special Plans" that funneled "special" intelligence (from Chalabi and probably from Mossad) to Cheney outside of the normal CIA and military intelligence channels. The point of this is:
Please, disabuse yourselves of the notion that these people lay awake and worry about the USA. I do- they don't.
One other point- some of you folks are in the military, some are died-in-the-wool libertarians, some are leftover Confederate rebels. The one thing you all have in common
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
Seems to me SignyM was able to make predictions based on his (her?) personal research. It matters not where he got the facts, as long as they showed him the path to be able to make such accurate predictions. Can you not do the same?
.......Ruxton
It always matters where someone got the facts. That's how you know whether or not they're really facts. If I say I got a fact from Mad Magazine, Seventeen, Time or The Nation, which one do you think is going to be more reliable? Jason Blair and Stephen Glass made their information up. Sources always matter.
And please, people, cut the egos. I echo Jasonzzz's barfing, although I barf for different reasons. Anyone who disagrees with you is "incapable of independent thought"? Everyone here is capable of independent thought. That's why we post. Some people on this thread seem to believe that "because you're stupid and I'm smart" is a great argument.
People's spelling, educational background, age and location doesn't make them smarter or dumber than anyone else. Up the maturity level a little and talk like grownups.
"Dear diary, today I was pompous and my sister was crazy."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Steve580, Jasonzz is a perfect example of why I think that most Americans are incapable of independent thought. (Or, in Jasonzz case, any thought at all.)
SignyM, here's an independent though straight from me and direct to you
Don't bother, yours was "Ad Hominem" and so was mine.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
With no facts on his side, Jasonzz spews. What he's doing here... "I know next you'll be talking about...Jews... Illuminati... NASA...kidney..." is called the straw man argument- putting words into my mouth because he can't rebut what I REALLY said.
All conspiracy theory crap sounds alike to me and all equally entertainment in a keystone cop sort of way. If the shoe fits, wear it. If the examples offered are similar enough, good enough for me.
BTW, it would have been a "non-sequitur" if you didn't think you believe the similar sort of crap, but since you called it a "Straw Man", you joined the fun and labeled yourself.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
This part ... "folks read it, laugh out loud at the sort of idiot who take this shit for real and waste their little hamster cage cycles rattling on about useless crap..." is called "begging the question".
Oh yeah, I was "begging the question" there alright. I wrongly assumed that you had any hamster cage to begin with.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
In other words, he uses his ASSUMPTION as the proof of his assumption. They're pretty easy rhetorical dodges to spot, once you know what you're looking for you'll see them all the time in right-wing opinion-pieces and papers like The Federalist.
and stop throwing "Red Herrings". Take the argument like a man and following it along. Stop dodging the crap. If you can't deal with it, get on.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Unlike Jasonzz, I at least TRY to discern reality.
Wow, "Hasty Generalization", "post hoc", "False Analogy". Wanna go for four next time?
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, as proof of my other post, here is information about Feith, Wurmser, Perle, Wolfowitz et al with references to their actual works in such radical, conspiracy-minded publications as The Wall Street Journal. Just so you don't have to, I DID look up these references, they're bona fide. And to provide context, here is the chain of command:
Cheney
Rumsfeld
Wolfowitz
Feith
Wurmser
------------------------------
"Wurmser would be the founding participant of the unnamed, secret intelligence unit at the Pentagon, set up in Feith's office (OSP)... While the CIA and other intelligence agencies concentrated on Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda as the culprit in the 9/11 attacks, Paul D. Wolfowitz and Feith obsessively focused on Iraq. For years... [Feith] had been... beating the drums for war against Iraq. Along with Perle and Feith, in 1996 Wurmser and his wife, Meyrav, wrote a provocative strategy paper for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu called 'A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.' It called on Israel to work with Jordan and Turkey to 'contain, destabilize and roll back' various states in the region, overthrow Saddam Hussein in Iraq, press Jordan to restore a scion of the Hashemite dynasty to the Iraqi throne, and, above all, launch military assaults against Lebanon and Syria as a 'prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East which would threaten Syria's territorial integrity.'
"In 1997, Wurmser wrote a column in the Wall Street Journal called 'Iraq Needs a Revolution' and the next year co-signed a letter with Perle calling for all-out U.S. support of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an exile group led by Ahmad Chalabi, in promoting an insurgency in Iraq.
At AEI, Wurmser wrote 'Tyranny's Ally: America's Failure to Defeat Saddam Hussein', essentially a book-length version of 'A Clean Break' that proposed an alliance betwNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Umm... Apparently you missed the entire point of my post. You screen your information by WHERE it comes from? That's authority-driven thinking.
So, to make this absolutely, abundantly, inescapably clear:
I look at the information coming in. I form a hypothesis as to what is "really" happening. Now, there are only a few ways to test hypotheses:
1) You perform a lab EXPERIMENT, and others try to reproduce your results.
2) If you are unable to directly experiment you PREDICT what will happen on the basis of your hypothesis
3) If you are unable to predict- or your predictions are too far out in time, or otherwise untestable- you search for CONSISTENCY with all observable facts.
I can't experiment, so I go the prediction route. So far, my predictions have held up remarkably well... have yours? You can check this out for yourself if you care to dig up a long-past thread on Iraq, where I said that Gulf War II had nothing to do with WMD. I caught a lot of flak on that. I ALSO said that the United States IS the Alliance. Shit flew at me from all directions!!!! Since you apparently have difficulty with the concept of fact-driven thought, I'll quote you an authority on that- Joss himself, as originally posted by Bibsy:
---------------------------------
There's a slight problem with your analogy in that the show's creator doesn't see it that way. Here's what Joss Whedon had to say about Mal's politics in the New York Times Magazine in September 2002:
"Mal's politics are very reactionary and 'Big government is bad' and 'Don't interfere with my life.' And sometimes he's wrong -- because sometimes the Alliance is America, this beautiful shining light of democracy. But sometimes the Alliance is America in Vietnam: we have a lot of petty politics, we are way out of our league and we have no right to control these people. And yet sometimes the Alliance is America in Nazi Germany. And Mal can't see that, because he was a Vietnamese."
--------------------------------
Good enough for you?
Do you remember that scene where Mal lunges at Niska and roars something along the lines of "Do you want to see the REAL ME?"
You haven't seen the real me.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Speaking of tossing out first-year compostion phrases...
Jasonzz, I've made predictions- years of them, some of them found on this very website. I'd ask my colleagues to corroborate my predictions, and dig up some old discussions (on another website) on Afghanistan and 9/11... except that I know you'd never read them with an open mind.
So tell me- oh fearless leader who knows all (especially first-year composition books)- what's gonna happen next?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The silence is deafening.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The silence is deafening.
LOL... I believe it's called /ignore.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
ConnorFlynn, let's say we close down a pub or two! First five rounds are on me!
Anyone else care to join in, feel free. Sometimes I think it'll take an entire brewery (or winery or distillery, your choice!) to reach agreement. I'll donate to the cause- serious!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Does America need its allies any more?
Yes. England, Spain, Italy, Poland, Thailand, Spain, Australia, Bulgaria (glad their President wasn't hurt today), Albania, The Dominican Republic, etc, etc.
No. France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, Canada, the UN, and any other country that allows its foriegn policy to be dictated by those who were skimming billions from Iraq's Oil for Food Program or selling them weapons in violation of international sanctions, or who President was Saddam's best friend in the '70s and '80s. Really just France. To the liberals the whole world is French.
I am shocked by the nastiness that has been thrown Canada's way since we decided to stay out of the war. I blame Fox News. :)
For decades Canada has been a loyal ally and good friend of the US. We fought together in wars. We supported the US in NATO and were a partner in Norad. After Sept. 11 thousands of american airline passengers were stranded in Canadian cities, and were shown great hospitality. We joined along with the rest of the world in fighting terrorism and increasing security. We sent troops to Afghanistan, who are still there, and didn't complain about the fact that more of our troops have been killed by american friendly-fire than by the enemy. You are our biggest trading partner, and we are yours (bet you didn't know that). Our cultures, while not identical are very similar.
So it pisses me off to no end that when we make a rational, informed decision to stay out of the war in Iraq we become the great satan (or as Pat Buchannan called us, Soviet Canuckistan) to a huge number of people in the States. I don't care whether you supported the war or not - how about a little respect for a fellow democracy, a country that has the right to make its own damn decisions.
I have great respect for the States and many Americans. I have to keep reminding myself that the majority of Americans didn't vote for Bush... To those of you who are hoping for a change in Presidents this fall, good luck.
Hans
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SignyM, O the joy! Someone actually knows how to use the phrase, "begs the question." That is extraordinarily rare, in my experience, and I congratulate you.
Without yet having read the responses to your detailed exposé of the bozos in office, I'd bet a sawbuck none of the dummies bother to verify them, nor will it change their so-called opinions.
Maugwai, It seems to me it matters not if oddball sources like those you named lead someone who is an ardent seeker after knowledge to draw accurate conclusions. The bottom line is the validity of the conclusion reached after filtering bits of information from numerous sources. SignyM WAS able to reach accurate conclusions. Hence my statement the source is immaterial. There are zillions of sources on the internet. Those who seek answers with an open mind, as must be done during serious "brainstorming," will keep that mind open until the information gleaned from (sometimes) years of study point to the clear-cut answers. IMPORTANT: the mind must be kept open after conclusions are reached. There may be other conclusions that can be drawn, given more evidence. A few posters here exhibit drastically shut-and-locked minds, which tend only to cloud issues. They have provided exactly NO evidence to support their conclusions, other than to make repeated and empty claims that those of us who look for alternate answers simply must be wrong.
JasonZZZ, why specifically do you think those who disagree with you are wrong? All I get from your postings is a sort of hope that we're wrong and you're right. Specifically why do you think some of the things discussed here are conspiracies? I don't believe you've made this adequately clear. Rather than wasting space here calling posters names, which is really all you've done, give us some facts that support your position. Real hard facts, backed by links to world-wide news services, preferrably, or with direct quotes from your beloved administration. Something concrete, please.
SignyM, I've gotten rid of a few so-called friends over the past years taking a position similar to yours. I tried hard, the year preceding the Iraq invasion, to try to get folks to take an interest in what was going on. Most said they had enough trouble trying to live their own lives without getting interested in politics, or taking time to learn some basic facts. The murder of Rachel Corrie by an IDF bulldozer hit me particularly hard, and I weeded out a few more supposed friends as a result. To date nothing has been done by our government to prosecute the IDF killer, except to send more money to the IDF.
You asked, What's going to happen next? The Bush and Blair administrations will be kept out of the limelight concerning the ongoing torture investigations, despite the fact that Bush tried to keep the photos of molested Iraqis out of the media, and despite the fact that a general was canned for the supposed transgressions of six people. Yet per Hirsch's lengthy and well-linked article, military intelligence and the CIA were behind the torture mandates, and that implies the current administration was also complicit. Let's see how fast someone here proclaims their ignorance by calling me loco, when all the evidence is easily found today. All they'll be doing is once again showing us how incredibly blind they are to available facts.
Iraqis will continue to kill the terrorists who have invaded their country, though our media will cover little of it. The Iraqi situation will persist for at least five more years. Very possibly, a "terror attack" of some sort will occur in this country just in time to save Bush's arse in the November elections from a very-pissed-off electorate. However, Diebold's machines are still capable of altering the will of some of the voters, so I dunno if we'll see more Bush, or Kerry. Sorry, no prediction there.
Sharon has already stated he will not step down. Big surprise. So US dollars will still go to the IDF whenever that bum demands them. Blackmail, of course.
Enough for now.
......Ruxton
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I thought I'd tell you all about something important related to WMDs and Iraq.
For a good while, Military planes would fly in from Iraq to the Atlanta Air Force base in the middle of the night, and then large convoys would leave there, escorted by Army Rangers and Delta Force, to another more secure government facility.
These convoys consisted of large cargo trucks...
Anyone wondering what was in them? :)
That ain't no shepard...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ahhh... Mike... any chance of you producing evidence for this???
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Whoops, double post...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To get back to something discussed beforehand:
I googled after the Kyoto protocol, here it is:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop3/07a01.pdf
Hero discussing the Kyoto protocoll:
Quote:
Because the so called protocol only applied to the USA.
I can't claim to have read the protocol, because quite frankly it's too bloody long and complicatedly written, however, I did search through the pdf and found a list of how the emission limits should be set. The US of A scores 93% of "the base year" (Although I can't positively confirm this, I'm guessing 1990 not that it really matters). Note that Germany receives 92%, France 92%, Japan 94%, Russia 100%, Luxembourg 92%, Monaco 92% and about 30 others around the same range, check out Annex B. Point of interest: Iceland got 110% and thereby the highest rating.
The US emits 36.1% of the CO2 emissions emitted by the nations that signed the Kyoto protocol (remember the US did actually sign it). Russia comes in second at 17.4, Japan third at 8.5%, Germany fourth at 7.4%.
Here from the European Union's summary of the Kyoto protocol:
Quote:
The developed countries commit themselves to reducing their collective emissions of six key greenhouse gases by at least 5%. This group target will be achieved through cuts of 8% by Switzerland, most Central and East European states, and the European Union (the EU will meet its target by distributing different rates among its member states); 7% by the US; and 6% by Canada, Hungary, Japan, and Poland. Russia, New Zealand, and Ukraine are to stabilize their emissions, while Norway may increase emissions by up to 1%, Australia by up to 8%, and Iceland 10%. The six gases are to be combined in a "basket", with reductions in individual gases translated into "CO2 equivalents" that are then added up to produce a single figure.
http://europa-eu-un.org/article.asp?id=1420
I think this should sufficiently prove that the US was not in any way specifically targetted or singled out in the protocol. Neither did it set unrealistic or impossible goals since some countries have nearly fullfilled the conditions set forth in the protocol. A quote from the website of the reputed public German TV-news program Tagesschau's website:
Quote:
Im europäischen Vergleich liegt Deutschland mit seinen Klimaschutzzielen weit vorne. Mit der Einsparung von rund 240 Millionen Tonnen Treibhausgasen hat die Bundesrepublik etwa doppelt so viel reduziert, wie die gesamte Europäische Union. Im Klimaschutzabkommen von Kyoto hatte sich Deutschland verpflichtet, seinen CO2-Ausstoß bis 2010 um 21 Prozent zu reduzieren. Bis 2002 wurden davon immerhin schon 19,4 Prozent erreicht. Es fehlen also nur noch 1,6 Prozent, die man durch den 2005 beginnenden Emissionshandel zu erreichen hofft.
Problem is you probably don't speak German, basically it says that out of the 21% emissions that Germany was supposed to reduce till 2010 they have already reduced emissions by 19,4%.
Now I don't claim the Kyoto protocol was perfect (I haven't read it), but from all the evidence I could find it seems to me it was at least a step in the right direction: to counter the very real threat of global warming (maybe we should have a "War on Global Warming" to make it more sellable, eh?). If you do not believe in global warming I suggest you read chwyatt's post on an imbd message board, because he just said it a lot more eloquently than I ever could. Find it at:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0319262/board/nest/8116319
Or you could just look it up in science journals, on the Internet, or ask just about any reputable scientist anywhere.
Now thanks to George W. Bush the Kyoto protocol is worth basically zilch because the World's biggest (or should that be ... greatest?) polluter is not playing along. Global warming is not a conspiracy theory, it is not speculation, it is happening everywhere around us.
(P.S. The movie "the day after tomorrow" from what I've seen seems to grossly exaggerate the problem)
Coward
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"None of the above makes sense if you think that Republicans Presidents, and THIS President and his... administration (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Perle, Wurmser, Feith, Libby, Abrams) lay awake at night worrying about us and the future of the USA."
I just want to stand and be counted here; I happen to believe that most of the current administration, including the president, do lay awake at night worrying about the United States and about her citizens. I firmly believe they are good people doing a hard job. Perhaps that's why I have such a problem with some of the above. :O)
I find it offensive to have anyone suggest that I'm am not capable of independant thought. I am not a conservative because it is the easy road or because Rush Limbaugh told me to be one. I do think about things and and form my own opinions. I am not a moderate, independant, undecided, wishy washy, person.
If for instance, someone wanted to convince me of a conspiracy where Bush was responsible for flying airliners with missles attached to them into US buildings killing 1000's of people - First,they would have to have a recorded confession of someone involved in the alegied conspiracy that confirmed this is what happened. Second, there would have to be physical evidence on par with court admissable evidence to show the event occured.. (note: the very blury pictures I've already seen will not work) Third, there would have to be a very good motive for such an action laid out.. and a pattern of behavior shown that would explain why someone like Bush would choose such a strange action. Fourth, there would have to be someone who could place the president at a meeting or location where he overheard Bush as he planned or ordered such an action.
If these elements were available I would revisit this issue and form a new, perhaps different, perhaps the same, opinion.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just like to chime in here.
http://www.enn.com/news/enn-stories/2000/04/04232000/cancuts_12173.asp
"Greenhouse gas emissions in Canada can be curbed by 50 percent by 2030 using current technology, according to a report issued this week by The David Suzuki Foundation."
So, if Canada can do this, why can't other nations (Yes I know, some are ). I truly think that people don't see that while some industries will fall others will be created. Sure there will be a period of economic flux, but, IMHO, it's damn well worth it.
Oh my, why won't somebody think of the children
EDIT FOR CLARITY:
Currently Canada isn't really implementing this. I'm just stating that it is possible, so, why deny it.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OMG-- you would hope the next thing he said was, "Wait a minute-- ooops...". You hope that it was just a momentary mistake that anybody could make, but you have to wonder...and if Bush didn't say anything, would the officers have had the guts to point out his little mistake?
Oh, bugger! Now I have to wait for someone to wake up!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The whole idea of "them" worrying about "us" fell away in a sad epiphany after years... and I mean years... of throwing observations against the concept and just not having it stick. I kept asking myself "But WHY can't they just see..? WHY can't they just do..? WHY can't they just let..?" It finally came to me that they could, and everything that was skewed fell into place.
My conjecture is that they (everyone except the President that is) DID know something was going to take place. There was a terror warning issued about one month before, the first ever, for Americans and American interests abroad. Interestingly, Ashcroft actually stopped flying commercial airplanes at about that time. Whether they knew specifically or just generally, my feeling is that they didn't do anything to stop it, and the reason why they didn't was because, as the Project for the New American Century authors wrote in their 2000 report:
--------------------------------
“The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”
“The process of transformation,” the plan said, “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”
------------------------------------
The early and/or founding memebers of PNAC include Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle. I don't think that these people created 9/11, I think they just didn't have a strong motive to stop it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.snopes.com/photos/binoculars.asp
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
ROTFLMAO
"Once again, words failed him."
At least Jasonzz always good for a hoot!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
" and I mean years... of throwing observations against the concept and just not having it stick. I kept asking myself "But WHY can't they just see..? WHY can't they just do..? WHY can't they just let..?" It finally came to me that they could,"
This information is very non-specific but it appears you are condeming the Bush administration as unfeeling and caring because of a gut feeling of your own. I don't have that gut feeling.
"my feeling is that they didn't do anything to stop it, and the reason why they didn't was because, as the Project for the New American Century authors wrote in their 2000 report:"
What authors? what project? Or is this their 'secret plan'?
"PNAC include Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle."
Where did you find out that these individuals had anything to do with the "PNAC", the defunct non-profit organization. And I don't see George Bushes name there?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Coward:
The US emits 36.1% of the CO2 emissions emitted by the nations that signed the Kyoto protocol (remember the US did actually sign it).
Now thanks to George W. Bush the Kyoto protocol is worth basically zilch because the World's biggest (or should that be ... greatest?) polluter is not playing along.
Thank you for correcting me. The US was not the only country to be bound by the treaty. Yet it is the countries not so bound which concern me.
I would humbly suggest that the US has fully complied with its treaty obligations. The loss in jobs in our manufacturing industry also represent the shut down or reduction in production of the plants employing those workers.
However this reduction in US emissions has not helped the situation. The reason is that those industries relocated to nations where there are few if any enviromental controls.
Now enviromentalists seek further expensive restrictions on emissions in PA and OH, two states devestated by the loss of domestic manufacturing. Their objective may be sound, but few if any of the soon to be unemployed workers would trade their job for a tiny percentage reduction in CO2 emissions.
If we pollute the enviroment without control then we are destined to live in misery. If we preserve the enviroment at the expense of all domestic manufacturing then we are destined to live in misery.
Maybe we should seek a happy medium.
How about new factories must meet clean air standards. Make clean air credits a commodity they can sell to older factories who can't meet the standards. This allows new factories to run and old factories to run, and produces a net reduction in emissions. Then a program of grants and tax incentives make conversion of the old factories to new ones or at least updated ones an easier prospect over the long term rather then impossible in the short term. People work, birds chirp, and we can all focus on hating France, killing terrorists, and watching American Idol.
I just wish an American President would have the guts to take on the Big Greenies and adjust Air Emissions standards to allow for such a plan. Wait, President Bush did that. Good job, George.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Project for the New American Century authors wrote in their 2000 report:
--------------------------------
“The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”
“The process of transformation,” the plan said, “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”
------------------------------------
Which report are you talking about? There are a bunch from 2000 regarding global foriegn policy issues, a militarty review, etc.
Also, how do you connect the names you mentioned to the Group?
Also, who cares? Its just a thinktank. Everybody uses thinktanks to keep their players warmed up during seasons they are out of power.
Come on. Is Bill Kristol the head of the conspiracy? Quick, everybody read 'The New Republic' if you want in.
Next you'll be telling us how the contrails are killing you.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
?que? wtf are you mumbling about now?
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
ROTFLMAO
"Once again, words failed him."
At least Jasonzz always good for a hoot!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OMG. Look, I know that you're all smarter than this. You want ME to tell you what the PNAC is and where I got the roster from? It's all published. Look it up!
You need ME to tell you why I should care? Show some independent thought! Sheesh!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No Sigmond,
I don't need you to tell me where it is. I want to know why you think that the folks you mention have anything to do with the "plan" not written by them that is part of a failed non-profit organization.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
SignyM wrote:
Wednesday, May 05, 2004 00:24
OMG. Look, I know that you're all smarter than this. You want ME to tell you what the PNAC is and where I got the roster from? It's all published. Look it up!
You need ME to tell you why I should care? Show some independent thought! Sheesh!
So in other words, when someone asks you for a source for your information, you can't provide it.
If your information is accurate, you should be able to tell everyone where you got it. That way we can determine whether or not we think it is reliable and use that to determine whether or not what you say is worth some consideration. If you can't provide confirmation, the rest of us have to wonder how much of your information you're making up.
"Dear diary, today I was pompous and my sister was crazy."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME