It's Official...FUCK the Democrats (4643 hits)
Category: PoliticsLabels: ets_sociopolitical_commentary
Rating: -0.21 on 172 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (View user info) at 2006-11-14 19:21:40 EST
Ok, that's it! I can already see that the democrats are going to act like a bunch of jackasses at a free-for-all...even moreso than their republican counterparts (if that is even possible).
Why do I say that? Well...besides the outright and up front 180 degree refusal to consider impeachment for the criminal Bush minions (http://www.infowars.net/articles/november2006/101106Rotten.htm), now it appears the don't know the meaning of "tactfulness" or "ethics" in their personal dealings.
I know you're thinking, "...and you're just figuring this out?" but take for instance the fascinating case of Howard Dean, who suddenly fancies himself the Karl Rove of the democratic party for their "strategic victory" in midterm elections, is now playing the role of strategic consultant - you heard that right, STRATEGIC CONSULTANT - for the...get this...BRITISH LABOUR PARTY!
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,1945410,00.html
There are only a certain number of ways to express disbelief in English, here, so I'll just stick to one of my all-time favorites: WHAT THE FUCK!?
Can someone...ANYONE...run as a third party candidate and get some real change moving in this country, or should I just run for office my goddamned self?
User Reviews
Submitted by goodontoast (user info) at 2006-11-19 14:44:37 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Yet another attempt at political maligning gone bad. If you don't know shit about politics, don't say shit about politics.
-2 for quoting a conspiracy theory website.
Submitted by chipolatte (user info) at 2006-11-17 22:06:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
nothing bush has done is impeachable status...
yes, please run, so everyone will laugh.
Submitted by VelvetElvis (user info) at 2006-11-17 19:57:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Spoon boy: Do not try and bend the System. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth.
Neo: What truth?
Spoon boy: There is no System.
Neo: There is no System?
Spoon boy: Then you'll see, that it is not the System that bends, it is only yourself.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2006-11-17 19:09:05 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by jack11058 (user info) at 2006-11-17 13:05:32 (#)
Ranking: -1
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-14 21:01:20 (#)
Ranking: 0
At least someone around here shares my disdain for my government.
This is the lamest country on the face of the earth. Fuck it.
-----------
Even someone as insane as you knows how dumb you are saying something like that.
Submitted by homer42 (user info) at 2006-11-17 17:49:39 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I can't believe this bullshit is still raging... how can anyone be this retarded?
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-11-17 14:30:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-11-17 12:24:58 (#)
Ranking: 0
I'll run.
My party is the "No Bullshit" party.
People come to me with stupid ideas and I say "No that's bullshit." and I exact capital punishment on them. Then the stupid people stop speaking up.
---
FUCK YEAH!
Submitted by Coleslaw_Murphy (user info) at 2006-11-17 14:17:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Vote Third Party in 2008:
http://www.ubersite.com/m/95868
Submitted by Ingsoc (user info) at 2006-11-17 13:31:46 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Look at this guy's tags. They're ridiculous. Oh, so suddenly the unkempt homeless guy in the faded olive parka on the street corner raving mad is a 'sociopolitical commentator'? You wish.
Submitted by jack11058 (user info) at 2006-11-17 13:05:32 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-14 21:01:20 (#)
Ranking: 0
At least someone around here shares my disdain for my government.
This is the lamest country on the face of the earth. Fuck it.
=-=-=-
Brad. Come on, man.
Submitted by ih8u2man (user info) at 2006-11-17 12:59:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
THERE IS NO COFFEE IN VANCOUVER PEOPLE!
IT HAS RAINED SO MUCH THE WATER TABLE IS CONTAMINATED!
I REPEAT! I REPEAT!
THERE IS NO COFFE IN VANCOUVER - STARBUCKS, TIMMY'S, ETC ARE CLOSED!
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-11-17 12:24:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'll run.
My party is the "No Bullshit" party.
People come to me with stupid ideas and I say "No that's bullshit." and I exact capital punishment on them. Then the stupid people stop speaking up.
Submitted by homer42 (user info) at 2006-11-16 22:28:49 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Is this flaming retard still going on and on about his idiotic 911 theories?
People like this should not be allowed to breathe.
To the jackass who wrote this if he's still reading: http://www.ubersite.com/m/95796 <--- do you have enough connected brain cells to understand that?
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-11-16 13:55:26 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-16 13:51:35 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by JMG114 (user info) at 2006-11-15 23:13:47 (#)
Ranking: 0
Why don't you just leave? It obviously sucks so bad here.
---------------
Because you people wouldn't know what to do without me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe we could get back to serious-serious discussions.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-16 13:51:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by JMG114 (user info) at 2006-11-15 23:13:47 (#)
Ranking: 0
Why don't you just leave? It obviously sucks so bad here.
---------------
Because you people wouldn't know what to do without me.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-16 13:41:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2006-11-16 09:13:09 (#)
Ranking: 0
(This review is from Razor)
Brad, has it ever occurred to you even for a moment that a lot of the time you sound and act exactly like the Bush administration you profess to despise so much?
Consider... once you make up your mind about something, there is no shaking you off of the idea, no matter how much evidence against it is presented.
In fact, you are so single minded, you basically just ignore evidence that shows you're wrong no matter how solid the evidence is, and you jump on evidence that shows you're right, even when it is obviously and demonstrably incorrect.
You're going to keep going your own way no matter how much over time your initial assertions look incorrect. I'm practically waiting for you to say you're going to "stay the course" with the whole 9/11 was a conspiracy argument.
-----------------------
If there wasn't evidence to support my assertion that 9/11 was a conspiracy, I wouldn't expound it.
I have made a couple suppositions in my argumments in the past because of the sheer speed of the arguments. When you've got 12 different people you're trying to respond to, you're bound to make a mistake here and there, and I'm the first to admit when I have. But, on the whole, I'll put my facts up against your facts any day of the week and see whose stands up to scrutiny.
I lost the argument today because I was hasty in my assessment of it, but if you actually took the time to go over what's been said in the past, my opposition has lost more of these little micro-arguments than I have, because there are certain things that they cannot and never will explain with the "official story". It just doesn't stand up.
And, no, I'm nothing like Bush. I just admitted when I was wrong and apologised for it. You'll never see that from him.
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2006-11-16 09:13:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-15 10:53:57 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2006-11-15 08:21:01 (#)
Ranking: 0
i have no views on whether or not there was a 9/11 conspiracy. nothing would surprise me.
however, one thing i do find odd is this:
WHY NOT JUST PRETEND TO FIND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ?
if you're willing to arrange for buildings in new york to be destroyed by airplanes etc etc, how hard would it be to just pretend to find a stash of WMD's in iraq? what's to stop you?
or was the lack of wmds also somehow part of the plot?
an enquiry into the whole business would be great, except do enquiries actually ever find anything out these days? except for semen on dresses and stuff like that?
--------------------
That's a valid question. Who's to say they didn't try? And who's to say that the weapons inspectors or the generals in Iraq had anything to do with the lies that got them there in the first place?
The Chief U.S. Weapons Inspector, David Kay, seems like an honest man to me. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june04/kay_01-29.html
There WERE attempts to mislead the public on the WMD situation. You can go to Fox News and dig up stories of discoveries of old, pre-Desert Storm stockpiles that were rotten and unusable being touted as a "major WMD discovery".
No one ever said these people were all powerful. No one ever said they had their hands in all pies. But I look at 9/11 and know that SOMEBODY here did. I look at the manufactured reasons for Iraq and know that the books were cooked.
Do you remember the whole Valerie Plame thing? Where her husband was more or less threatened to stop looking into the whole "yellow cake" story the Bushes cooked up in Africa by blowing his CIA wife's cover? If the intelligence was 100% accurate, why would they ever feel the need to do that? Just like in the case of 9/11 and the Pentagon videotapes...shouldn't they welcome the publication of more corroborating evidence for their story?
------------------------------------
(This review is from Razor)
Brad, has it ever occurred to you even for a moment that a lot of the time you sound and act exactly like the Bush administration you profess to despise so much?
Consider... once you make up your mind about something, there is no shaking you off of the idea, no matter how much evidence against it is presented.
In fact, you are so single minded, you basically just ignore evidence that shows you're wrong no matter how solid the evidence is, and you jump on evidence that shows you're right, even when it is obviously and demonstrably incorrect.
You're going to keep going your own way no matter how much over time your initial assertions look incorrect. I'm practically waiting for you to say you're going to "stay the course" with the whole 9/11 was a conspiracy argument.
Submitted by Evil_Morg (user info) at 2006-11-16 04:57:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2006-11-14 19:29:00 (#)
Ranking: 0
a third party is unrealistic...so pick. democrat or republican...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, that the reason why you have a two party system. So long as you think that voting for the party you want is waste of your vote then you will have two shitty parties to choose from.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by JMG114 (user info) at 2006-11-15 23:13:47 (#)
Ranking: 0
Why don't you just leave? It obviously sucks so bad here.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Good idea. Only a moron would be content in the U.S. right now.
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2006-11-15 23:22:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Shut the fuck up the lot of you.
1.9/11 or THE FUCKING 11th of SEPTEMBER as every sane nation calls it, was a tradgedy that was NOT some CIA mindfuck, just humans being idiots as per usual.
2. EVOLUTION IS A FACT, YOU INBRED CHRIST TOUCHERS!
Submitted by JMG114 (user info) at 2006-11-15 23:13:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Why don't you just leave? It obviously sucks so bad here.
Submitted by Kent_Weirdo (user info) at 2006-11-15 22:55:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-11-15 21:06:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I'll give the +2 for the entertainment value of an ETS post and the attendant reviews.
ETS changes his stance at a whim and drags all of you along with him.
He never had any credibility, but if he could ever have had any, it went away when he said the moon landings were faked.
Good reading, just like most fiction.....
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2006-11-15 20:21:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-15 14:10:04 (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html
All this debating about whether the CNN site was supposed to be a 'passenger list' or a 'victims list' is getting on my nerves.
Click the link above and show me where it says it's a "victims list", Indo, because all I see is the word "PASSENGERS" in big bold letters.
-------------------------------------------
*dies*
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2006-11-15 20:00:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"That's a very good question and I know you're going to think it's ridiculous of me to say, but I suspect that website may not be genuine. "
no, its not ridiculous, ets, its just sad, because this is what you say EVERY time someone presents you with a contradictory piece of 'evidence'.
this is what i was saying earlier about you being unable to understand other peoples point of view, or look at things with detached skepticism. anything that contradicts you is a 'scarecrow' (or whatever the fuck x-files term you use).
it clearly shows youve never gotten a serious education. you can read a book, and you can write an entertainingly histrionic essay, but you dont know the first thing about what its all supposed to be about. you talk all this big talk about truth - you dont want truth, you want proof that supports your moral, intellectual and emotional sandcastles, be it right or wrong.
youre the kind of guy that wants yes-men, not opinions.
oh, and by the way, when they were saying that 'attacking typos doesnt win arguments' it means that when you have to stoop to that, youve got nothing to say.
and you, bradley, have a WHOLE LOT of nothing to say, and you say it over, and over and over and over.
Submitted by Dolson (user info) at 2006-11-15 18:06:49 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-11-15 16:21:11 (#)
Ranking: -2
Okay Brad, what about the other two things you mentioned, 7Gs I recall....I'd like to know where you get that from as from what I recall of the actions of the planes they didn't approach anything anywhere near 7Gs....and the hijackers still being alive and well....which semi-famously turned out simply to be completely different people who happened to have the same name...I thought that one was common knowledge actually....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, I strongly doubt you could pull 7Gs in a Boeing 757/767. You'd probably tear the wings off. Notwithstanding that, humans probably wouldn't black out at only 7Gs. More like 9Gs to 12Gs.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-11-15 16:21:11 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Okay Brad, what about the other two things you mentioned, 7Gs I recall....I'd like to know where you get that from as from what I recall of the actions of the planes they didn't approach anything anywhere near 7Gs....and the hijackers still being alive and well....which semi-famously turned out simply to be completely different people who happened to have the same name...I thought that one was common knowledge actually....
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-11-15 16:02:23 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-15 15:24:16 (#)
Ranking: 0
That's a very good question and I know you're going to think it's ridiculous of me to say, but I suspect that website may not be genuine.
---------------
But I thought you were as stringent in checking facts on conspiracy theory websites as with the official story. If that is the case how did you come about supporting this manifesto "proof"?
You have to admit this flies completely in the face of all of your claims of evaluating the facts and weighing them evenly. A very very cursory check into this story shows a reoccuring theme of citing that CNN victim list as a definative passenger list
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-15 15:24:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-11-15 14:55:23 (#)
Ranking: -2
That is a first.
Now you have to ask yourself why someone would put, or at least keep a webpage like that up. It took me thirty seconds to see that the CNN list wasn't a manifest and about a minute to go through the PDF's to see they had the terrorsits names. This page has absolutley no proof that 9/11 was fake. It has no evidence that would make me question 9/11, so why is it there? It is window dressing added on to make people question 9/11, but it is completely lacking in substance. If they had a real facts on their side why do they need to add this backwards "proof"?
------------
That's a very good question and I know you're going to think it's ridiculous of me to say, but I suspect that website may not be genuine.
I've know of several sites that are/were basically straw men, either that or they are poorly thought out, that contain information that supposedly helps prove the conspiracy, when in reality it's just there to confuse people. We've had debates about some of them before.
I don't know which this one is. I'm not real familiar with that particular site, I just used it because it was the first on google when I searched for passenger manifests from 9/11.
As a sidenote, Terrorstorm, by Alex Jones, has been screwed by google video's ratings numerous times by having their counter reset, thus pushing it out of the top 100.
If you want to move on to differnet evidence and debate that, I'm game. I consider this issue of the passenger manifests a dead one unless further information presents itself. You were definitely right about this one.
Submitted by FiveStarGeneral (user info) at 2006-11-15 15:01:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm going to watch some paint dry since this isn't the time of year when grass grows.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-11-15 14:55:23 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-15 14:39:53 (#)
Ranking: 0
You're right about this one, Indo. I owe you an apology.
Scratch everything I've said about the passenger manifest lists. Obviously they do show the hijackers. That whole thing was a complete red herring.
You definitely win this one. I was misreading the pages.
-------------------------
That is a first.
Now you have to ask yourself why someone would put, or at least keep a webpage like that up. It took me thirty seconds to see that the CNN list wasn't a manifest and about a minute to go through the PDF's to see they had the terrorsits names. This page has absolutley no proof that 9/11 was fake. It has no evidence that would make me question 9/11, so why is it there? It is window dressing added on to make people question 9/11, but it is completely lacking in substance. If they had a real facts on their side why do they need to add this backwards "proof"?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-15 14:48:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Yes, that makes perfect sense, Indo.
Like I said, you're absolutely right about that one. The hijackers' names are on the manifests. I'll relent that one.
Like I said, I was totally misreading the lists. I was looking for the wrong hijacker names on the wrong pages.
The whole thing about the hijackers being on the manifests should be put to bed.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-11-15 14:43:07 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-15 14:28:50 (#)
Ranking: 0
You stupid son of a fuck... I've already GIVEN you a link to what is ALLEGEDLY the ACTUAL airlines manifest lists straight off their presses. You jsut keep believing Indo for some fucking reason when he tells you they got them from the CNN website, when they got them from the Moussoui Trial exhibits website at the bottom.
Click here: http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/passengers.html
Do you see all those pretty pictures of pages in the middle of the fucking screen? Those are allegedly the actual passenger manifest lists referenced in the Moussoui Trial.
You see the little "9" citation out beside the part where they say, "Low-quality reproductions of alleged passenger manifests were released on a website of Moussaoui trial exhibits in July of 2006"?
That little "9" indicates the number of the source - listed at the bottom of the page - from which they obtained the files. The CNN website has/had nothing to do with those pictures, they just happen to corroborate them in that they do not contain any of the hijackers.
------------------------------------------
ETS,
Those little picture have the names of the hi-jackers.
I said it right here. http://www.ubersite.com/m/95772#2226102
They said the manifests don't have the terrorist names then linked a CNN victim list.
They repeat that the real manifests don't have the terrorists names then link manifests that show the terrorists names.
They have not a single shread of proof that those manisfest are fake, nor do they have a shread of proof that there are other manifests.
Does that make sense to you yet?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-15 14:39:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-11-15 14:22:36 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-15 14:16:26 (#)
Ranking: 0
You haven't contradicted shit. I made a single mistake when I linked to what I thought must have been the correct files because they seem to be all that mentions the word "passenger" or "list" when doing a search of the prosecution and defense exhibits in the Moussoui case. I admitted that mistake and apologised for it. That doesn't make me wrong on the whole, and you haven't shown that in the least.
You have a new sidekick though, I see, in this FiveStar fuck who has yet to create a single post, but seems to like reviewing me an awful lot.
You people can call me stupid and ridicule me all you want to, but intelligent people who take the time to read through the links provided will notice how you only avoid confronting the allegations head on and choose only to distract with inaccurate and misleading statements.
I apologised for mine. That's the difference between us.
------------------------------
I did confront the allegations made there. They stated that CNN posted passenger manifests which it clearly did not. They lied right there in the first paragraph.
They then say that the only passenger manifests they can find are low quality (thousands of thousands of paprer has been scanned for this case and airline paper isn't high grade stuff) and somehow this proves it is a fake? They have no real list but since they don't like this one it is fake? Great reasoning you stupid fuck.
I never called you for pointing to the wrong link because the links they are talking about are right on that page. I called you out because you bought their lies about a CNN passenger list.
-----------------------
You're right about this one, Indo. I owe you an apology.
Scratch everything I've said about the passenger manifest lists. Obviously they do show the hijackers. That whole thing was a complete red herring.
You definitely win this one. I was misreading the pages.
Submitted by FiveStarGeneral (user info) at 2006-11-15 14:34:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics
I know it is wikipedia, but there certainly is left-wing and a right-wing. It is not a red herring, sir.
Do U.S. politicians use these issues to distract the people? Yes, of course they do. But that doesn't mean there isn't folks with left-wing and right-wing views. Everyone has views and opinions and some of these views fall into one of these categories.
Eric Rudolph was an extreme right winger. Tim McVeigh was an extreme right winger.
Extreme left wingers tend to embrace communism and there are many violent acts attributed to them as well.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-15 14:28:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by FiveStarGeneral (user info) at 2006-11-15 14:21:02 (#)
Ranking: 0
God damn, electrictoothsyndrome, that is a CNN website. Why don't you whip out actual passenger manifests that the airlines have? This is a website, not a passenger manifest.
------------------
You stupid son of a fuck... I've already GIVEN you a link to what is ALLEGEDLY the ACTUAL airlines manifest lists straight off their presses. You jsut keep believing Indo for some fucking reason when he tells you they got them from the CNN website, when they got them from the Moussoui Trial exhibits website at the bottom.
Click here: http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/passengers.html
Do you see all those pretty pictures of pages in the middle of the fucking screen? Those are allegedly the actual passenger manifest lists referenced in the Moussoui Trial.
You see the little "9" citation out beside the part where they say, "Low-quality reproductions of alleged passenger manifests were released on a website of Moussaoui trial exhibits in July of 2006"?
That little "9" indicates the number of the source - listed at the bottom of the page - from which they obtained the files. The CNN website has/had nothing to do with those pictures, they just happen to corroborate them in that they do not contain any of the hijackers.
Does that make sense to you yet?
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-11-15 14:22:36 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-15 14:16:26 (#)
Ranking: 0
You haven't contradicted shit. I made a single mistake when I linked to what I thought must have been the correct files because they seem to be all that mentions the word "passenger" or "list" when doing a search of the prosecution and defense exhibits in the Moussoui case. I admitted that mistake and apologised for it. That doesn't make me wrong on the whole, and you haven't shown that in the least.
You have a new sidekick though, I see, in this FiveStar fuck who has yet to create a single post, but seems to like reviewing me an awful lot.
You people can call me stupid and ridicule me all you want to, but intelligent people who take the time to read through the links provided will notice how you only avoid confronting the allegations head on and choose only to distract with inaccurate and misleading statements.
I apologised for mine. That's the difference between us.
------------------------------
I did confront the allegations made there. They stated that CNN posted passenger manifests which it clearly did not. They lied right there in the first paragraph.
They then say that the only passenger manifests they can find are low quality (thousands of thousands of paprer has been scanned for this case and airline paper isn't high grade stuff) and somehow this proves it is a fake? They have no real list but since they don't like this one it is fake? Great reasoning you stupid fuck.
I never called you for pointing to the wrong link because the links they are talking about are right on that page. I called you out because you bought their lies about a CNN passenger list.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-15 14:21:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by FiveStarGeneral (user info) at 2006-11-15 14:07:10 (#)
Ranking: 0
Agreed Indoninja. The only difference is that the right wing WANT control of the Republican party while the left wing HAS control of the Democrat party.
----------------
Yay, more of the distracting left/right paradigm... Just what we needed.
The left v. right thing is a red herring.
Submitted by FiveStarGeneral (user info) at 2006-11-15 14:21:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
God damn, electrictoothsyndrome, that is a CNN website. Why don't you whip out actual passenger manifests that the airlines have? This is a website, not a passenger manifest.
Common sense says they wouldn't list the terrorists with the passengers. Could you imagine if you saw a list that says "victims on the plane that hit the north tower" and your loved one was listed directly below the fellow that perpetrated the crash itself? One thinks those individuals would be insulted that these people would be listed as "victims" when they aren't victims at all...they caused the catastrophe.
Is John Wayne Gacy a "victim" on his serial killer list because, ultimately, he was executed by the state due to those murders? He was responsible for his own death, so he should be listed among his victims...right?
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-11-15 14:17:38 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-15 14:10:04 (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html
All this debating about whether the CNN site was supposed to be a 'passenger list' or a 'victims list' is getting on my nerves.
Click the link above and show me where it says it's a "victims list", Indo, because all I see is the word "PASSENGERS" in big bold letters.
---------------------------
Well the link it self says VICTIMS.
If you click on it and look at the webpage the VICTIMS tab is highlighted at the top.
Nowhere on the site does it claim to be a complete manifest of the flight.
If I was making a list of victims of a horrible crime I wouldn't list the perpetrators of that crime with the victims.
The only reason it says passengers anywhere on that page is because they are differentiating between crew and passenger victims.
Once again the only passenger manifest that is linked on that page DOES contain the names of the terrorists, but since the scanned pdf of a airline papre printout isn't high enough quality for nuts like ETS it mus somehoe be fake. There is no proof of another passenger manifest. There has never been a reliable news source that mentioned another manifest or that listed all the people aboard the plane and left off the hi-jackers.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-15 14:16:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-11-15 13:46:19 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by FiveStarGeneral (user info) at 2006-11-15 13:42:10 (#)
Ranking: 0
Indoninja- short of taking this dumbass back in time and planting him in one of those 4 jetliner's seats, he will never believe what anyone else says to him that is contrary to conspiracy theory (flawed) logic.
---------------
This is true but I am bored.
I like to see him back track and keep changing his story, and link other "truth" sites where the hard hitting researchers can't even read their references.
It amuses me that it takes all of 30 seconds to point out how these sites completely contradict themselves.
-----------------
You haven't contradicted shit. I made a single mistake when I linked to what I thought must have been the correct files because they seem to be all that mentions the word "passenger" or "list" when doing a search of the prosecution and defense exhibits in the Moussoui case. I admitted that mistake and apologised for it. That doesn't make me wrong on the whole, and you haven't shown that in the least.
You have a new sidekick though, I see, in this FiveStar fuck who has yet to create a single post, but seems to like reviewing me an awful lot.
You people can call me stupid and ridicule me all you want to, but intelligent people who take the time to read through the links provided will notice how you only avoid confronting the allegations head on and choose only to distract with inaccurate and misleading statements.
I apologised for mine. That's the difference between us.
Submitted by FiveStarGeneral (user info) at 2006-11-15 14:15:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh, I know I'm going to take a hit for saying that comment below about the republicans. But anyone know really knows politics knows I'm speaking the truth.
The fact is, with a republican majority for the past number of years, if Bush was "right wing" he could have pushed through a ton of more policies with that agenda in mind. I suggest anyone who disagrees with me to turn on a christian radio station and listen to their comments about the man. These people are NOT happy and feel betrayed. I suppose rightfully so, because they thought their extreme agenda would have been rammed down the throat of America by this majority congress.
There are many people who are not "right wing nuts" that do not support gay marriage.
There are many people who are not "right wing nuts" that do not approve of stem cell research funding by the federal government because they are libertarians who do not like taxing the people for spending on these corporate welfare issues.
There are many people who like guns and they aren't "right wing nuts" as well. NOBODY touches gun control in Vermont, yet they elected a socialist into government.
Vermont is single-handedly the most odd state in the union...in my opinion.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-15 14:10:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html
All this debating about whether the CNN site was supposed to be a 'passenger list' or a 'victims list' is getting on my nerves.
Click the link above and show me where it says it's a "victims list", Indo, because all I see is the word "PASSENGERS" in big bold letters.
Submitted by FiveStarGeneral (user info) at 2006-11-15 14:07:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Agreed Indoninja. The only difference is that the right wing WANT control of the Republican party while the left wing HAS control of the Democrat party.
Submitted by homer42 (user info) at 2006-11-15 14:06:23 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Of all the posts I've read so far you are without a doubt the dumbest person posting shit on here, hands down, by an odrder of magnitude.
Only the stupidest of the stupid can even entertain the idea of a consipiracy in regards to 9/11.
Without getting into the minutia, suffice it to say that there isn't a single acredited expert anywhere in the world that's willing to endorse any sort of consipiracy theory what-so-ever. None. Zero.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-11-15 13:58:57 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by FiveStarGeneral (user info) at 2006-11-15 13:48:36 (#)
Ranking: 0
Fartsmeller is so right. Remember that big story about the edited "mission accomplished" banner that was supposedly blocked from a government website? That proved to be a big fucking lie as well.
-----------
There are plenty of right-wing conservative conspiracy theories.
you know all those creationist ones....
But seriously gay vampires DO spread aids.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-11-15 13:54:52 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by FartSmeller (user info) at 2006-11-15 13:44:57 (#)
Ranking: 0
The funny thing about you liberal types always quote the most bullshit online sources as being real news.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey! I'm a 'Liberal type', nothing like what americans seem to think 'Liberal' means, but I'm definately a Liberal. Do not lump me in with ETS.
Submitted by FiveStarGeneral (user info) at 2006-11-15 13:48:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Fartsmeller is so right. Remember that big story about the edited "mission accomplished" banner that was supposedly blocked from a government website? That proved to be a big fucking lie as well.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-11-15 13:46:19 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by FiveStarGeneral (user info) at 2006-11-15 13:42:10 (#)
Ranking: 0
Indoninja- short of taking this dumbass back in time and planting him in one of those 4 jetliner's seats, he will never believe what anyone else says to him that is contrary to conspiracy theory (flawed) logic.
---------------
This is true but I am bored.
I like to see him back track and keep changing his story, and link other "truth" sites where the hard hitting researchers can't even read their references.
It amuses me that it takes all of 30 seconds to point out how these sites completely contradict themselves.
Submitted by FartSmeller (user info) at 2006-11-15 13:44:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The funny thing about you liberal types always quote the most bullshit online sources as being real news.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-11-15 13:44:22 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-15 12:57:46 (#)
Ranking: 0
Here's another interesting note is that the alleged hijackers don't show up in any of the official autopsy lists either: http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/02/article_tro.htm
Is this all just a series of coincidental mistakes by disparate agencies? You decide.
----------------
No you stupid fuck. it is a series of ignorant people like yourself repeating the same lies until they think they are true.
On the sierra times article they link the same damn CNN site that lists the VICTIMS and calls it a passenger list.
Seeing as how that is the only working link on that guys website I find his "story" hard to believe. I am sure the original site where he got the autopsy list from was just a list of the VICTIM autopsies, just like the passenger list he references is only a VICTIM list.
Submitted by FiveStarGeneral (user info) at 2006-11-15 13:42:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Indoninja- short of taking this dumbass back in time and planting him in one of those 4 jetliner's seats, he will never believe what anyone else says to him that is contrary to conspiracy theory (flawed) logic.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-11-15 13:26:23 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-15 13:10:35 (#)
Ranking: 0
Again, Indo, you're misleading people. Directly to the right of the sentence, "Low-quality reproductions of alleged passenger manifests were released on a website of Moussaoui trial exhibits in July of 2006," is a "9", indicating the source was the source at the bottom of the page labeled "9", NOT the CNN page.
-----
Bullshit.
In the first paragraph they cite the CNN web page as proof even though that website never says it is a passenger manifest. "Yet the passenger lists published by CNN and elsewhere are free of any Arab names, much less any matching the alleged hijackers. 1 Â 2 Â 3 Â 4 Â " There is no ambiguity here, no clarification that explains this in the preceding or following sentences. They imply that the CNN web pages which they link are passenger manifests, which they never claim to be.
The ONLY manifests which they link to DO have the hi-jackers names on them. They have not shown a shred of proof that manifests withour the terrorists names exist. They have shown that manifests DO exist which show the terrorists names but for some unknow reason question their veracity.
Submitted by FiveStarGeneral (user info) at 2006-11-15 13:25:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I actually enjoy having people believe the government executed 9/11. That way, I know who is an idiot right up front and severe ties with that individual.
Also, if I'm having a bad day I may have found an easy victim to take out my bad work week on. If I just found some random idiot, I'd feel guilty afterwards. There is no need to feel guilty after leveling some dumbass conspiracy-theory spouting crazy person.
Submitted by Anansie (user info) at 2006-11-15 13:15:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
No big suprise. Politicians are opportunists, not idealists.
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-11-15 13:12:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You are gonna need to do a lot more back tracking than that.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-15 13:11:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Correction: a couple reviews below, I said "Zarqawi Case" instead of "Moussoui Case".
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-15 13:10:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Again, Indo, you're misleading people. Directly to the right of the sentence, "Low-quality reproductions of alleged passenger manifests were released on a website of Moussaoui trial exhibits in July of 2006," is a "9", indicating the source was the source at the bottom of the page labeled "9", NOT the CNN page.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-15 13:05:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The reprints on the 9/11 Research page are allegedly the actual manifests directly from the airlines...NOT from CNN. You can tell because it's printing not from a Word file, it's from a database quiery.
What this comes down to is the authenticity of the documents. Are they real or not? http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/passengers.html
Again, you decide.
I'm still trying to locate them on the Moussoui Trial site... There are thousands of files though. Will take forever. But I hope you will agree that if they appear there, the debate about the hijackers appearing on the actual flight manifest will end.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-15 12:57:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Excuse me, that file I linked to doesn't show the files I thought it did. It's just a flash file of the prosecution's story, which does show the hijacker's in seats on the plane.
I am not seeing the original lists which are referred to in the link I provided. When I find the source of those lists printed within the 9/11 Research page, I'll post it.
The prosecution's exhibit in the Zarqawi case is still interesting to look at, though, because of the sheer number of empty seats.
Here's some data...
Flight #11
Capacity: 158
On 9/11: 81 (Including hijackers)
Flight #77
Capacity: 178
On 9/11: 58 (Including hijackers)
Flight #93
Capacity: 182
On 9/11: 37 (Including hijackers)
(Interesting that this is the only flight with less than 5 hijackers aboard and it happens to be the one with the fewest passengers. Did the planners in Afghanistan anticipate this, or was it just a coincidence? Is it also a coincidence that this is the flight whose passengers supposedly fought back, the hardest one to provide fake passenger manifests for?)
Flight #175
Capacity: 168
On 9/11: 56 (Including hijackers)
Different numbers can be found here: http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/attack/index.html These are based on CNN reports of the flight manifest.
First, what is the source of all these numbers discrepancies? Second, what's with the low numbers of people on the planes? Some say it's an attempt to minimize casualties while at the same time maximizing terror: http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/bodycount.html#flights
The airlines reportedly said these capacity issues were due to a "computer glitch" in their system. But records of the other flights out of Dulles and Boston on 9/11 show no such issues. Furthermore, all these flights were headed to LAX, one of the busiest airports in the world.
Here's another interesting note is that the alleged hijackers don't show up in any of the official autopsy lists either: http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/02/article_tro.htm
Is this all just a series of coincidental mistakes by disparate agencies? You decide.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-11-15 12:44:33 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I know, I just wanted to reiterate my point and make it clear to anyone who jumped in on the conversation how fucking stupid that site is (and all the other sites that spread similiar crap).
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-11-15 12:34:46 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Yeah...I got that...hence my next sentence....
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-11-15 12:28:54 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-11-15 12:15:26 (#)
Ranking: -2
I went and looked at that because it actually seemed that for once you were presenting factual evidence rather than blathering on about crap and making shit up as usual.
-----------------
It doesn't present facts it presents lies.
"Yet the passenger lists published by CNN and elsewhere are free of any Arab names, much less any matching the alleged hijackers. 1 Â 2 Â 3 Â 4 Â "
-There are no arab names on those lists but that is because they are lists of VICTIMS. Look for yourself on foot notes 1,2,3 and 4.
"Low-quality reproductions of alleged passenger manifests were released on a website of Moussaoui trial exhibits in July of 2006. 9 Â"
-Those manifests (which you can click to right on that page) actuall HAVE the names of the terrorists (or at least the names they were using).
This website, and largely the whole conspiracy movement on this is based around people like ETS being too stupid to do a little research, or too eager to hate the govt to actually study facts.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-11-15 12:16:27 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-15 11:28:26 (#)
Ranking: 0
Yes, Thorpe, I read what the guy said, and he's either lying or doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. Follow the link at the bottom of the page I linked to entitled "Zarquawi exibits".
Then go to the prosecution's evidence. In it you will find files that are labeled as flight summaries, not Indo's purported death lists.
See for yourself:
P200018 Summary from Flight 11: identity of pilots and flight attendants, seat assignments of passengers, and telephone calls from the flight [Listener discretion is advised. This exhibit also includes information about the other three flights hijacked on September 11]
------------------------------------------
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/docs/Flight11Manifest_a.jpg
You stupid stupid fuck.
What are the number 1 and 2 names?
Could it be Wail Alshehri and Waleed Alshehri. Those names ring a bell? Looks like they are on the passenger manifest, I am not going to go line by line and find them all.
I mean come on, these guys aren't even trying, their own webpage contradicts the bullshit they are spewing and dumb fucks like yourself swallo it up. Way to see the truth and educate yourself.
By the way they are the ones who referenced the CNN page as supporting their argument, the page that clearly says VICTIM list nor PASSENGER MANIFESTO. The poassenger manifestos they do present from the trial DO have the terrorist names on them.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-11-15 12:15:26 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-15 11:28:26 (#)
Ranking: 0
Yes, Thorpe, I read what the guy said, and he's either lying or doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. Follow the link at the bottom of the page I linked to entitled "Zarquawi exibits".
Then go to the prosecution's evidence. In it you will find files that are labeled as flight summaries, not Indo's purported death lists.
See for yourself:
P200018 Summary from Flight 11: identity of pilots and flight attendants, seat assignments of passengers, and telephone calls from the flight [Listener discretion is advised. This exhibit also includes information about the other three flights hijacked on September 11]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I went and looked at that because it actually seemed that for once you were presenting factual evidence rather than blathering on about crap and making shit up as usual.
That is complete crap, that site is so much bollocks....it even claims that the hijackers announced themselves as alive.....how stupid are you that you trust that site?
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-11-15 12:03:50 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-15 10:32:08 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-11-15 07:50:26 (#)
Ranking: -2
Seriously ETS keep posting about 9-11, keep talking about it. Everytime you open your mouth you shoot more and more holes in your theory.
Mistaking a victims list for a passanger manifesto is really of the three main pillars you chose to rest your belief in the 9-11 conspiracy on (I really don't think it is an honest mistake but a deliberate attempt to mislead dipshits like yourself who swallow any conspiracy without a second thought). Don't try and back peddle now you gave three brief reasons why you didn't believe and this was one, it must be important, it must have a big part of your argument. Are you going to think about it a little more now that it has been proven completely wrong? Are you going to re-think your position after learning they did poor research at best, or at worst lied about what their sources said?
I mean come on, how many times have you said open your eyes, question the truth, yet you sit there and swallowed this outrageous lie hook line and sinker because you couldn't take the 30 seconds required to look at the article they are referencing?
--------------------
Show me another picture of the flight's passenger manifests that contain the names on the FIB...excuse me, FBI's hijacker list we've all seen.
Keep running away from the truth... Keep making shit up, Indo...
---------------------------------
I love your logic ETS.
You base your conspiracy theories around websites that are run by people who are too stupid to read their sources, or who outright lie. When I point out the lies presented by your sources, you don't change your opinion of the sites, you don't rethink your stance, you accuse me making shit up.
Tell me ETS what did I make up? Your argument is based on passenger manifests not having the names of the terrorists. To back up your argument you use a list of victims when I challenge that a list of victims and isn't a passenger manifest you don't admit that your argument is wrong or flawed you demand more evicence.
You are 100% completely full of shit when you say you give scrutiny to conspiracy theories. You agree with their arguments when they are completey bereft for evidence, sources, or even common sense. You can't find a single passenger manifest that doesn't have the terrorists.
http://web.archive.org/web/20010914225345/http://boston.com/news/daily/13/victims_list.htm#aa11
Right there are the AA flight 11.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-15 11:28:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Yes, Thorpe, I read what the guy said, and he's either lying or doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. Follow the link at the bottom of the page I linked to entitled "Zarquawi exibits".
Then go to the prosecution's evidence. In it you will find files that are labeled as flight summaries, not Indo's purported death lists.
See for yourself:
P200018 Summary from Flight 11: identity of pilots and flight attendants, seat assignments of passengers, and telephone calls from the flight [Listener discretion is advised. This exhibit also includes information about the other three flights hijacked on September 11]
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2006-11-15 11:15:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-15 11:09:15 (#)
Ranking: 0
Here you go Thorpe: http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/passengers.html
-------------------------------
Did you read a word indoninja said?
Submitted by hour_man (user info) at 2006-11-15 11:11:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-11-15 11:05:33 (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm going to give you a +2. You know why? It's because every time I log into this site it's the same: bandwagon, circle jerk, bandwagon, circle jerk, ha ha emu, MS Paint done by a 3-year-old, rape, rape, circle jerk, blog entry.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-15 11:09:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Here you go Thorpe: http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/passengers.html
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-15 11:08:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2006-11-15 10:39:58 (#)
Ranking: 0
You show me a picture of the passenger lists which don't include the names of the hijackers.
---------------
I already did!
It's in the link below.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-11-15 11:05:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm going to give you a +2. You know why? It's because every time I log into this site it's the same: bandwagon, circle jerk, bandwagon, circle jerk, ha ha emu, MS Paint done by a 3-year-old, rape, rape, circle jerk, blog entry.
Submitted by RyuFu (user info) at 2006-11-15 10:58:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"Ok, that's it! I can already see that the democrats are going to act like a bunch of jackasses at a free-for-all..."
Well, I mean, they ARE donkeys. HIYOOOOOOOOO!!!
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-15 10:53:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2006-11-15 08:21:01 (#)
Ranking: 0
i have no views on whether or not there was a 9/11 conspiracy. nothing would surprise me.
however, one thing i do find odd is this:
WHY NOT JUST PRETEND TO FIND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ?
if you're willing to arrange for buildings in new york to be destroyed by airplanes etc etc, how hard would it be to just pretend to find a stash of WMD's in iraq? what's to stop you?
or was the lack of wmds also somehow part of the plot?
an enquiry into the whole business would be great, except do enquiries actually ever find anything out these days? except for semen on dresses and stuff like that?
--------------------
That's a valid question. Who's to say they didn't try? And who's to say that the weapons inspectors or the generals in Iraq had anything to do with the lies that got them there in the first place?
The Chief U.S. Weapons Inspector, David Kay, seems like an honest man to me. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june04/kay_01-29.html
There WERE attempts to mislead the public on the WMD situation. You can go to Fox News and dig up stories of discoveries of old, pre-Desert Storm stockpiles that were rotten and unusable being touted as a "major WMD discovery".
No one ever said these people were all powerful. No one ever said they had their hands in all pies. But I look at 9/11 and know that SOMEBODY here did. I look at the manufactured reasons for Iraq and know that the books were cooked.
Do you remember the whole Valerie Plame thing? Where her husband was more or less threatened to stop looking into the whole "yellow cake" story the Bushes cooked up in Africa by blowing his CIA wife's cover? If the intelligence was 100% accurate, why would they ever feel the need to do that? Just like in the case of 9/11 and the Pentagon videotapes...shouldn't they welcome the publication of more corroborating evidence for their story?
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2006-11-15 10:39:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You show me a picture of the passenger lists which don't include the names of the hijackers.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2006-11-15 10:39:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-15 10:32:08 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-11-15 07:50:26 (#)
Ranking: -2
Seriously ETS keep posting about 9-11, keep talking about it. Everytime you open your mouth you shoot more and more holes in your theory.
Mistaking a victims list for a passanger manifesto is really of the three main pillars you chose to rest your belief in the 9-11 conspiracy on (I really don't think it is an honest mistake but a deliberate attempt to mislead dipshits like yourself who swallow any conspiracy without a second thought). Don't try and back peddle now you gave three brief reasons why you didn't believe and this was one, it must be important, it must have a big part of your argument. Are you going to think about it a little more now that it has been proven completely wrong? Are you going to re-think your position after learning they did poor research at best, or at worst lied about what their sources said?
I mean come on, how many times have you said open your eyes, question the truth, yet you sit there and swallowed this outrageous lie hook line and sinker because you couldn't take the 30 seconds required to look at the article they are referencing?
--------------------
Show me another picture of the flight's passenger manifests that contain the names on the FIB...excuse me, FBI's hijacker list we've all seen.
Keep running away from the truth... Keep making shit up, Indo...
----------------------
So the burden of proof is on the people claiming it WASN'T a massive conspiracy to provide pictoral evidence?
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-11-15 10:35:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2006-11-15 09:06:09 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-11-15 08:59:09 (#)
Ranking: 1
Do it! Run for office!
------
YES!
-----
I'd pay to see that debate.
Moderator: Mr. Linzy, your time is up.
(out of nowhere)
ETS: NO! WHY CAN'T YOU FUCKING MORONS UNDERSTAND? WATCH THE 37 HOUR DOCUMENTARY THEN YOU ARE QUALIFIED TO DEBATE ME!
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-15 10:32:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-11-15 07:50:26 (#)
Ranking: -2
Seriously ETS keep posting about 9-11, keep talking about it. Everytime you open your mouth you shoot more and more holes in your theory.
Mistaking a victims list for a passanger manifesto is really of the three main pillars you chose to rest your belief in the 9-11 conspiracy on (I really don't think it is an honest mistake but a deliberate attempt to mislead dipshits like yourself who swallow any conspiracy without a second thought). Don't try and back peddle now you gave three brief reasons why you didn't believe and this was one, it must be important, it must have a big part of your argument. Are you going to think about it a little more now that it has been proven completely wrong? Are you going to re-think your position after learning they did poor research at best, or at worst lied about what their sources said?
I mean come on, how many times have you said open your eyes, question the truth, yet you sit there and swallowed this outrageous lie hook line and sinker because you couldn't take the 30 seconds required to look at the article they are referencing?
--------------------
Show me another picture of the flight's passenger manifests that contain the names on the FIB...excuse me, FBI's hijacker list we've all seen.
Keep running away from the truth... Keep making shit up, Indo...
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-15 10:28:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Stagger_Lee (user info) at 2006-11-15 01:19:05 (#)
Ranking: 0
Attacking typos doesn't win arguments.
----------
Oh, it's not typos, it's a consistent neglect for proper punctuation and grammar. The fucking guy doesn't even know where periods go half the time.
Besides, I won the argument even without the typos.
Submitted by morontian (user info) at 2006-11-15 10:24:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Let it burn.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-11-15 09:15:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
how did you honestly expect it to make a difference who's in office? rich white guys are still just rich white guys.
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-11-15 09:15:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-11-15 07:54:31 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-11-15 07:49:39 (#)
Ranking: 0
I thought the above quote is interesting because I read in a review below (can't be arsed to search for it) someone ranting about 'why do you always quote international law and stuff'
America are happy to recognise the international cummunity (and therefore laws I assume) when it suits them.
Or am I getting it vastly wrong?
-----------------------------
the sentiment of the international community is much more important than international law. it can be argued that international law only applies if the country has some how ratified a treaty or agreement.
Bush is a politician, when international support backs him of course he will play it up, and when it doesn't he will refer to the "coallition of the willing".
-----------
hmmmm, that's what I thought.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2006-11-15 09:06:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-11-15 08:59:09 (#)
Ranking: 1
Do it! Run for office!
------
YES!
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-11-15 08:59:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Do it! Run for office!
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2006-11-15 08:21:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i have no views on whether or not there was a 9/11 conspiracy. nothing would surprise me.
however, one thing i do find odd is this:
WHY NOT JUST PRETEND TO FIND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ?
if you're willing to arrange for buildings in new york to be destroyed by airplanes etc etc, how hard would it be to just pretend to find a stash of WMD's in iraq? what's to stop you?
or was the lack of wmds also somehow part of the plot?
an enquiry into the whole business would be great, except do enquiries actually ever find anything out these days? except for semen on dresses and stuff like that?
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-11-15 07:54:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-11-15 07:49:39 (#)
Ranking: 0
I thought the above quote is interesting because I read in a review below (can't be arsed to search for it) someone ranting about 'why do you always quote international law and stuff'
America are happy to recognise the international cummunity (and therefore laws I assume) when it suits them.
Or am I getting it vastly wrong?
-----------------------------
the sentiment of the international community is much more important than international law. it can be argued that international law only applies if the country has some how ratified a treaty or agreement.
Bush is a politician, when international support backs him of course he will play it up, and when it doesn't he will refer to the "coallition of the willing".
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-11-15 07:50:26 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Seriously ETS keep posting about 9-11, keep talking about it. Everytime you open your mouth you shoot more and more holes in your theory.
Mistaking a victims list for a passanger manifesto is really of the three main pillars you chose to rest your belief in the 9-11 conspiracy on (I really don't think it is an honest mistake but a deliberate attempt to mislead dipshits like yourself who swallow any conspiracy without a second thought). Don't try and back peddle now you gave three brief reasons why you didn't believe and this was one, it must be important, it must have a big part of your argument. Are you going to think about it a little more now that it has been proven completely wrong? Are you going to re-think your position after learning they did poor research at best, or at worst lied about what their sources said?
I mean come on, how many times have you said open your eyes, question the truth, yet you sit there and swallowed this outrageous lie hook line and sinker because you couldn't take the 30 seconds required to look at the article they are referencing?
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-11-15 07:49:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
George Bush quote.....
Once again North Korea has defied the will of the international community, and the international community will respond. This was confirmed this morning in conversations I had with leaders of China and South Korea, Russia and Japan. We reaffirmed our commitment to a nukyular-free Korean Peninshula.
-- Bush offers up a rare two-for-one special: nukyular and peninshula. White House, Oct. 9, 2006
------
I thought the above quote is interesting because I read in a review below (can't be arsed to search for it) someone ranting about 'why do you always quote international law and stuff'
America are happy to recognise the international cummunity (and therefore laws I assume) when it suits them.
Or am I getting it vastly wrong?
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-11-15 07:43:41 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
That additional "Nobody said they pulled off a 7-G manuever" at the end of my last response was a typo.
As far as the meet of this post I don't recall anyone saying in a speech they one of their main platforms was to impeach bush, I could be wrong. But even if they did it wouldn't matter because they would need more votes than the Democrats have to get an impeachmant.
Personally, and I think most if not the overwhelmingy majority of the US agrees, I would rather have the democrats do something than make meaningless time wasting gestures that will only sour any positive work that the parties could do together.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-11-15 07:36:45 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-15 00:35:57 (#)
Ranking: 0
I reject the idea of Saudi terrorists for a whole lot of reasons. I won't get into all of them here but let me name just a couple...
a) At least 7 of the hijackers we've all seen on the FBI website and our lying TV sets are still alive, yet scarecely a mention of this will ever be seen on any news program or in any newspaper inside this country
b) The people who trained them in their American flight schools said on the record they were poor students who had trouble controlling single engine commuter planes, yet they supposedly pulled of 7-G maneuvers when approaching the Pentagon
c) The names of all the hijackers are missing from ALL FOUR of the official passenger manifest lists. That's right, not one of them appears! http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/passengers.html
------------------------------------------------------
Jesus christ you are stupid.
a) 7 of the alleged hi-jackers aren't alive, I challenge you to find one source that doesn't have 9-11 conspiracy, steve jones, or prison planet in the headline that supports your theory.
b) They didn't pull a 7-G maneuver, once again find me a single respectable news source that supports this outrageous claim.
c) On the link you provided they cite a real news source for their lists, but unfortunately the news source calls the lists a list of the VICTIMS. This is their source right here http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html right in the link it says VICTIMS. Nowhere on this page do they say it is the passenger manifest.
The one claim you make that relies on verifiable and real news sources took all of about 30 seconds to prove wrong. Grow the fuck up and learn to use your head.
Nobody said they pulled off a 7-G manuever
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-11-15 07:04:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Stagger_Lee (user info) at 2006-11-15 01:19:05 (#)
Ranking: 0
Attacking typos doesn't win arguments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-15 01:16:21 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2006-11-15 01:11:34 (#)
Ranking: 0
If I were him, I'd tell you to fuck yourself from be so presumptuous, but that's just me. But on the other hand, why even bother with someone who can't formulate a grammatically correct and/or complete sentence using proper capitalization and punctuation. Really, why bother?
--------
Especially when you introduce more of your own in the same review.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2006-11-15 06:59:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Before I -2 this, I want an answer to this question: What change do you want to see in this country? If you had free hand to legislate, what would you pursue?
Submitted by Timmaaaaah (user info) at 2006-11-15 06:24:01 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Moaning lalalalalalalalalala
Democrats, Republicans blah blah blah, all the same, theres a big monkey in space who runs the world so there.
Monkeys 4 ever ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2006-11-15 06:04:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You sure cry like a woman. About fucking everything.
Submitted by Snuffleupagus (user info) at 2006-11-15 03:31:02 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Fuck the Democrats because some of them suck? Fuck you too because you're a human and some of them suck, eh? Nice logic.
Submitted by VelvetElvis (user info) at 2006-11-15 03:14:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Back in '92, when Bill Clinton was running against W and Ross Perot, Clinton was only slightly behind P in the polls just before Perot dropped out. C quickly did the smart thing, and took on Gore as his running mate, a solid, down to earth....... \
Clinton won, and was re-elected, and for good reason, because for the first time in history.........in history........ every single year he was in office he reduced the deficit, and created a surplus.
That will be studied in history books by our children.
So, to say fuck the demos-- cha, you know what? I don't think so.
You know all this brad, and I mostly agree with you most the time. I just had to say that about Clinton, and that he can wail on the sax.
Now, if his wife gets elected (Oprah has already endorsed her, in public. she can pull out several million *new* voters with a word) Bill will back in the big house, we all know that, so, I say, vote for Hillary.
Call it lesser of two evils, but not quite. She/he (and he would be advising her) would put us back, hopefully, where we were in the little golden age with him.
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2006-11-15 03:10:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2006-11-15 02:21:31 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Stagger_Lee (user info) at 2006-11-15 01:19:05 (#)
Ranking: 0
Attacking typos doesn't win arguments.
______________-
It won Vietman.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2006-11-15 02:21:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Stagger_Lee (user info) at 2006-11-15 01:19:05 (#)
Ranking: 0
Attacking typos doesn't win arguments.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2006-11-15 01:26:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
please tell me you have some sort of worthwhile qualification. i would like to have SOMETHING to respect you for, not that you want my respect, but i would like to think that you have actually done something with your worthless life besides write a fucking letter.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2006-11-15 01:23:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
oh, you did marry your internet girlfriend. lets not forget that. maybe you two can go LARP together.
a/s/l?
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2006-11-15 01:22:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"And yes, of course I question the conspiracy theories as vigilantly as I question a Bush administration publication, for example."
this from some who apparently values truth more than happiness.
dude, you swallow anything that goes along with whatever you have to think wholeheartedly. youre reactionary and you think youre we'll informed when you couldnt be further from being as such. what do you do all day? you go to work, you read some shit on the fucking internet, you play a song or two, and you sit on your couch with some tea and ponder the mysteries of human existence. oh, and lets not forget your crowning acheivement: you write letters to a congressman. if anyone is a fucking waste, its you, make no mistake. you carry on like yorue doing something, and worst of all you actually beleive that youre somehow more enlightened or more knowledgeable than anyone else.
tell me something, do you even have any sort of qualifications. qualifications you didnt get on the internet? if not, are you even working toward any?
Submitted by Stagger_Lee (user info) at 2006-11-15 01:19:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Attacking typos doesn't win arguments.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-15 01:16:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2006-11-15 01:11:34 (#)
Ranking: 0
no, he means to have the capacity to understand a perspective from someones other than your own, which you are patently unable to do, being the foaming at the mouth zealot that you are. (of course, however, a foaming at the mouth all talk and no action zealot)
you answer his query with just more links to other peoples words and some more ranting from YOUR OWN PERSPECTIVE.
you are a moron. a genuine moron.
-------------------
I'll tell you what, asshole, why don't you let the man speak for himself. He seemed to find my answers perfectly suitable from his review, yet you try to put words in his mouth and thoughts in his head like he is some kind of child.
If I were him, I'd tell you to fuck yourself from be so presumptuous, but that's just me. But on the other hand, why even bother with someone who can't formulate a grammatically correct and/or complete sentence using proper capitalization and punctuation. Really, why bother?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-15 01:13:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Phallic: I'm sorry if I've been too harsh with you tonight. I've had a hard day...a pretty frustrating one. I think I might have taken some of that out on you. My apologies.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2006-11-15 01:13:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
hence the phrase 'detached skepticism'.
none from you, jsut mroe links to people who agree with you and yet more exclamation marks.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2006-11-15 01:11:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
no, he means to have the capacity to understand a perspective from someones other than your own, which you are patently unable to do, being the foaming at the mouth zealot that you are. (of course, however, a foaming at the mouth all talk and no action zealot)
you answer his query with just more links to other peoples words and some more ranting from YOUR OWN PERSPECTIVE.
you are a moron. a genuine moron.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-15 01:06:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2006-11-15 00:56:49 (#)
Ranking: 0
jesus christ you couldnt have answered those questions more poorly if youd tried.
he asks you if youd be able to accept a balanced view of the other side of your issue with 9/11. not whether you think its right or wrong, just whether you could accept that view - what do you do in return? you spout some more conspiracy theories and rant for a bit more.
------------------
No, that's NOT what he meant. At least I hope not, because that would make him as stupid as you, which I believe to be impossible.
What does it mean to "accept that view"? This is a stupid fucking argument, and you're thinking in a paradox you don't even understand. To "accept a view", to me, means "subscribing to" or "acknowledging the truth of", but I DON'T think that view is true, therefore I do not "accept that view".
How can I be anymore fucking straightforward than that? Or do you only understand something if it's couched in the most pretentious and overwrought terms possible?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-15 00:59:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
If you think "Fuck international law, my country should look after itself", then you can extend the same principle to Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as they, after all, are just protecting national interests.
-------------------
Oh, and by the way, I DO extend this same principle to them without the slightest reservation.
I think you are too 'educated' for your own good. Sometimes our 'learning' only gets in the way of our 'seeing'. Your association of the uneducated with reservations about one world government shows the same misguided and elitist view that I have come to expect from today's college-educated smartasses and armchair philosophers. There are other considerations to be made that transcend the surface economical, military, environmental, and humanitarian.
International treaties, if well constructed, can be valuable to the countries involved, but the wholesale surrender of one's ability to choose another direction should not something that's taken lightly, and from what I see, that's exactly what you're doing.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but one world government was pretty much the goal of the British Empire too. There was a good reason we got out of that.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2006-11-15 00:56:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
jesus christ you couldnt have answered those questions more poorly if youd tried.
he asks you if youd be able to accept a balanced view of the other side of your issue with 9/11. not whether you think its right or wrong, just whether you could accept that view - what do you do in return? you spout some more conspiracy theories and rant for a bit more.
he then makes some points about your flawed perceptions and discussion of said perceptions. instead of answering those, you say, and i quote: "Eh...doesn't matter. You'll never get it. You don't WANT to. "
way to cop out brad. the only person that doesnt want to 'get' anything is YOU.
like i said earlier, fucking PWNED.
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2006-11-15 00:49:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Stagger_Lee (user info) at 2006-11-15 00:30:03 (#)
Ranking: 0
Phallic, are you coming up to uni exams or something? You seem to have a switch set to "essay" somewhere in your head.
_____________
Nah, exams were two weeks ago. This is what happens when i haven't had a drink in 6 days. My brain starts thinking again, it's infuriating.
Thanks for the answer ETS.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-15 00:42:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2006-11-15 00:15:11 (#)
Ranking: 0
If you don't support it, you adhere to a "fuck the world, GO MY COUNTRY!" view which was pervasive in the middle ages, and remains today in many undeveloped countries where education levels are low.
-----------------
I will be the first person to tell you that it would be ideal if the world could get together and have a world government that actually worked. The problem is, in order to have world government, state sovereignty and, thus, the constitution would have to be thrown out the window. You would then face not only the very real possibility of a worldwide dictator seizing the reigns of a power already consolidated for him, but you would find yourself subject to laws devised for your particular town or region by someone halfway 'round the world.
What's the point? So we can grow the economy? So we can fill fewer and fewer men's pockets at the expense of more and more people? So we can have free trade policies that turn all of mankind into one giant factory?
This world is ridiculous enough without a One World Government. That's my opinion, and it's one I'm perfectly willing to fight for...with force if necessary. Sorry. Sue me.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-15 00:35:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2006-11-14 20:07:24 (#)
Ranking: 0
This is not in regards to this message specifically, but i'd like you to answer it.
In many of your political and philosophical posts you ascribe a lot of weight to "looking past" the apparently illusory and misleading facades of modern life, and finding "the truth".
You also identify that many people derive happiness from these illusions, and that this is a possible basis for their resistance to "looking deeper" and challenging their perceptions.
Firstly, why do you value truth over happiness? Surely the end-goal of any philosophical musing is to derive satisfaction from the fact you have arrived upon a cohesive theory that seems to coincide with all the evidence.
Lots of the "unenlightened" have done this. The only difference is that you have different evidential criteria to other people, but that doesn't make your premise any more valid.
Secondly, do you approach conspiracies with the same detached skepticism with which you approach, say, a White House publication? As a corollary to this, do you accept that someone COULD investigate the conspiracy theories that you support, make a balanced analysis of the information to hand, and then arrive at a conclusion different to yours, namely that 9/11 WAS the work of the identified Saudi terrorists.
In regards to the first point, i find it hard to believe that you can adequately suppress your natural anti-authoritarianism to make a balanced view of conspiracy websites versus official/popular media.
Extending from this, i suspect that you could not accept that someone could make a balanced analysis of all the information surrounding 9/11 and come to a conclusion different to yours. If this is the case, your philosophy is as atrophied as the neo-cons you despise.
Looking forward to some answers.
-------------------
I wasn't ignoring this review (iddqd) I was in the middle of coming home from work and when I got here I honestly didn't see it. I'm glad you seem to think it "PWNED" me though even though the guy is just making some observations and asking a few simple questions. I've got a question for you though, why is it you love sucking this guy's ass so much? Seems like you do it quite a lot. Just wondering if there isn't something going on with that...
Anyway, in response...yes I do value truth more than happiness. I really couldn't tell you why. Give me a couch and an ayahuasca tea and maybe I'll figure it out. Maybe it's as simple as not enjoying being lied to by anyone for any reason. I try to extend this courtesy to others. I don't always succeed, and I don't think always succeeding would even be possible, but I do try. I expect the same in return. Anything less is an insult to my intelligence.
And yes, of course I question the conspiracy theories as vigilantly as I question a Bush administration publication, for example. Some I find rather ridiculous. 9/11 is not one of them, at least in whole. That's not to say there aren't theories about 9/11 that I flatly reject as fantastic, such as the whole "the planes were a hologram" thing.
I look at each piece of evidence separately and the most compelling to me is the naked videotape of that day. A clue here, a clue there... If you listen intently to what is said and watch the videos of the towers falling closely, remembering to take it in context of all the other evidence, I simply do not see how a person with two brain cells to rub together could deny it. It screams at you.
I reject the idea of Saudi terrorists for a whole lot of reasons. I won't get into all of them here but let me name just a couple...
a) At least 7 of the hijackers we've all seen on the FBI website and our lying TV sets are still alive, yet scarecely a mention of this will ever be seen on any news program or in any newspaper inside this country
b) The people who trained them in their American flight schools said on the record they were poor students who had trouble controlling single engine commuter planes, yet they supposedly pulled of 7-G maneuvers when approaching the Pentagon
c) The names of all the hijackers are missing from ALL FOUR of the official passenger manifest lists. That's right, not one of them appears! http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/passengers.html
And there's a lot more than that. You can begin to see how no amount of FBI statements saying how they've found a miracle passport on the street can atone for these problems.
And now we're faced with rumors of Rudy Guliani being the Republican frontrunner in '08 on the strength of his "handling of 9/11"... Pretty easy to handle the situation when FEMA was already there on Monday, September 10th. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fematape.html
The problems with the official story go on and on. "Happiness v. Truth" is not the issue here. What kind of happiness do you think comes from a 9/11 that was the result of a U.S.-based conspiracy?
Eh...doesn't matter. You'll never get it. You don't WANT to.
Submitted by Stagger_Lee (user info) at 2006-11-15 00:30:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Phallic, are you coming up to uni exams or something? You seem to have a switch set to "essay" somewhere in your head.
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2006-11-15 00:15:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
International law is an ATTEMPT to codify various human rights in a legislative form.
While it is a weak doctrine on the basis of certain pragmatic factors, it is important for one reason.
If you support it, you support moves towards a cohesive and practical level of international interaction which is increasingly relevant in modern times on the basis of massive immigration.
If you don't support it, you adhere to a "fuck the world, GO MY COUNTRY!" view which was pervasive in the middle ages, and remains today in many undeveloped countries where education levels are low.
As i prefer to think of the West as developed, and as i also like to think that we have actually made some progress since the Enlightenment and the massive human rights and education reforms that it empowered, i support advocacy of international law measures.
Feel free to shit on it, but you lose the moral high ground if you do. Worse, you dispel any sense that in the last 200 years, with all of those great philosophers bending the status quo since Mill and Kant, we have actually risen above a tribalistic, bellicose and antagonistic world view.
If you think "Fuck international law, my country should look after itself", then you can extend the same principle to Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as they, after all, are just protecting national interests.
Submitted by FiveStarGeneral (user info) at 2006-11-15 00:00:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Only idiots toss out "international law" arguement. International law is a sham. A country has to allow itself to be subjected to these laws to allow them to punish those people who are convicted of a crime.
The USA hasn't signed on to the international court, therefore it has absolutely no meaning in the USA. As a matter of fact, the USA will invade The Hague before it allows one of its citizens to be held there. The USA kicks all kind of ass, doesn't it?
Submitted by AsshOly (user info) at 2006-11-14 23:50:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-14 20:03:20 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-11-14 19:53:23 (#)
Ranking: -2
And Brad, if you think "off the table" means "it will never happen no matter what" then you need to stop, because you're clouding your own head with hate.
-----------------
Dude...I don't HATE anyone, goddamnit! I just want a little fucking justice in my world... Is that too much to fucking ask?
-------------
Any political scientist looking at the issue from a realist viewpoint would say yes, that is too much to ask. +2 because I understand where you're coming from... I guess.
Submitted by r0fl (user info) at 2006-11-14 23:32:47 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
I'm sorry man I'm usually in support of something you view important:
But tell me SOMETHING NEW.
Submitted by LongestPants (user info) at 2006-11-14 23:23:44 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Blah, blah, blah.
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2006-11-14 23:10:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2006-11-14 22:49:35 (#)
Ranking: 0
Bush didn't do anything illegal you dick. The Republicans AND the Democrats, including the likes of John Kerry, where completely behind the invasion of Iraq.
____
International law, Jack. That quaint little thing.
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2006-11-14 22:49:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Bush didn't do anything illegal you dick. The Republicans AND the Democrats, including the likes of John Kerry, where completely behind the invasion of Iraq.
Screw all that impeachment bullshit.
Submitted by GMCrayon (user info) at 2006-11-14 22:14:25 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2006-11-14 21:03:13 (#)
Ranking: 0
id ignore phallic, too, if i were you, bradley.
fucking PWNED.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2006-11-14 22:11:52 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Baby steps mate. Have you ever had to deal with a giant backlash of public opinion?
Apart from on here?
Submitted by Axolotl (user info) at 2006-11-14 22:00:26 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-14 21:01:20 (#)
Ranking: 0
This is the lamest country on the face of the earth.
---------
brillaint insight, could you describe how America is more "lame" than central Africa, east Asia, South America, etc?
Submitted by Dolson (user info) at 2006-11-14 21:58:35 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2006-11-14 21:45:51 (#)
Ranking: 0
Meet the new boss.
Same as the old boss....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2006-11-14 21:45:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Meet the new boss.
Same as the old boss....
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2006-11-14 21:45:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Well...besides the outright and up front 180 degree refusal to consider impeachment for the criminal Bush minions
---------------
Maybe the Demos dont want to get into the childish shit-flinging like the Republicans did with the whole impeaching of Clinton thing?
No?
Yes?
Its all a crock of shit anyway, theyre all a bunch of cunts
Submitted by NerfHerder (user info) at 2006-11-14 21:39:26 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Maybe we should just overthrow the government and install you as supreme chancellor. It's the only damn way your crazy ass will be satisfied.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-11-14 21:39:18 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
He's said not all to infrequently that he can't stand living around people who don't see the government the same way he does. I take that as hating the American people, since almost no one thinks the same way he does.
Submitted by FiveStarGeneral (user info) at 2006-11-14 21:30:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
What a pretentious little fuck you are! You are a snobby shit-head. I challenge you to visit and live among the natives in the following countries:
Anywhere in Africa
Anywhere in the Middle East (barring Israel of course)
Anywhere in South and Central America and you can toss Mexico into that bunch
North Korea
Cuba
China
Bosnia
Albania
Indonesia
Cambodia
Vietnam
There is a reason illegal immigrants are flooding into the United States at an unprecedented rate.
It is amazing that there are arrogant, ungrateful little shits still wandering the streets of the USA claiming the country is the "worst". It is far from the truth.
Even countries in Europe are hardly at the top of the list, sir.
It would be nice to see you leave. To see you live in a house with dirt floors, no electricity, and have to fend for yourself for food.
Do you even have a family to worry about? I doubt it.
Your ignorance, arrogance, and incompetence stems from some other misgivings in life. Small dick? Girlfriend cheat on you by getting gangbanged by the H.S. football team? Your dad left you and the only male figure in your life is named "Bertha" who took the role when your mother came out of the closet as a carpet muncher? Your mom didn't stop breastfeeding you until last year?
Anyone who listens to somebody who claims the USA is the "worst country in the world" is as much of a dumbass as that individual. You are a joke of a human being.
Your stupid comments would get you prison time in 1/2 the world's countries.
I don't know what else to say but "Go kill yourself." because it is the only option you have at redemption.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2006-11-14 21:19:05 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
"FUCKING vote for ETS 2008! HE IS ONE GOD-DAMNED MOTHERFUCKING ARTICULATE GOOD THINKIN' POLITICAL GUY YEAH!1!!one"
Submitted by maiorano84 (user info) at 2006-11-14 21:17:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't think Brad ever said anything about hating America. I think he just hates the Bush Administration.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-11-14 21:11:26 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Brad, seriously, if you hate living in America, and hate the American government, and hate the idea of America and whatever else about this country, seriously, move to Britain with FA, because it's getting to be not only sad, but depressing, too.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2006-11-14 21:03:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
id ignore phallic, too, if i were you, bradley.
fucking PWNED.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-14 21:01:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
At least someone around here shares my disdain for my government.
This is the lamest country on the face of the earth. Fuck it.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-11-14 21:00:37 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Rad, in Colorado, we passed one Amendment that said "marraige=man+woman" and defeated another one that said the exact same thing...
OK, so the second one ALSO said that gays should be allowed the legal rights of married couples like defacto wills and a say in health care and spousal covereage for insurance and all, but it's not the point. :-)
Submitted by thesushiking (user info) at 2006-11-14 20:59:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
you should run if you feel like it
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-11-14 20:57:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
oh and we kept our republican senator.
"Small Government" my arse.
the american people are brainwashed to the extent that third party choices hurt their sensibilities and they wouldn't know how to function without the entitlement nanny state.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-11-14 20:56:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
bad choice of words.
NOt a bill, per se.
It was a ballot initiative that passsed with 54% of the popular vote.
and a confusing ad campaign.
BECAUSE THERE WERE TWO QUESTIONS ON THE BALLOT THAT WERE ALMOST IDENTICAL
4&5
4 failed
5 passed.
ANYTHING FISHY?
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-11-14 20:54:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I hate everybody.
PS: Nevada passed an anti smoking bill.
Yes people, thats right. In Las Vegas you (starting whenever they enact it) cannot smoke anywhere that serves food.
Meaning Bars.
Oh, except casinos. Casinos are still cool.
Anyone smell buyoff?
fucking crooks.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-14 20:49:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by jack11058 (user info) at 2006-11-14 20:39:46 (#)
Ranking: 0
when are you people going to realize the most basic aspect of american politics? POLITICIANS ARE LIARS, CROOKS, CHEATS AND ALL AROUND BAD PEOPLE!
holy shit, i grasped that as a 10-year old! why do you act surprised that these people don't do what they say they will do, or ever give a straight answer to a simple question?
it's been said time and time again: we elect the government we deserve. if we are stupid enough to believe in ONE WORD of what these "people" in washington say--the Cunninghams AND the Murthas--then we deserve what we get.
if you think voting one party into power is going to promote the sweeping "revolution" you desire, you need to sit down and read 250+ years of American political history.
jesus christ!
-------------------
Read this post: http://www.ubersite.com/m/95374
I know that. I am not pissed off because I am surprised. I'm pissed off because it's simply not right.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-11-14 20:49:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I agree, the brain department at the White House is sorely understaffed. but the ego department is bursting with interns.
That was what I was trying to get to. :-)
Submitted by maiorano84 (user info) at 2006-11-14 20:42:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"Bush has a chance to change his staff in a way that will open them up to the possibility that maybe someone is just as smart as they are"
As smart as they are as in "as smart as the Bush administration"?
HA!!!! That aint saying much.
But in any case, I agree with you, Jay.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-11-14 20:40:15 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I didn't say they *do* Matt, I said they have the *chance*
In the old administration, there wasn't even the chance. If you thought different, you were wrong and unAmerican.
Christ, over the next 2 years, we'll be seeing the Bush from the fall of 2000, who actually WAS somewhat centrist. With Rummy out, and Rove on the skids (do you really think he still has the same pull now that his election strategy went to shit?) Bush has a chance to change his staff in a way that will open them up to the possibility that maybe someone is just as smart as they are, and if that happens, the entire government will move back to center-ish.
Submitted by jack11058 (user info) at 2006-11-14 20:39:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
when are you people going to realize the most basic aspect of american politics? POLITICIANS ARE LIARS, CROOKS, CHEATS AND ALL AROUND BAD PEOPLE!
holy shit, i grasped that as a 10-year old! why do you act surprised that these people don't do what they say they will do, or ever give a straight answer to a simple question?
it's been said time and time again: we elect the government we deserve. if we are stupid enough to believe in ONE WORD of what these "people" in washington say--the Cunninghams AND the Murthas--then we deserve what we get.
if you think voting one party into power is going to promote the sweeping "revolution" you desire, you need to sit down and read 250+ years of American political history.
jesus christ!
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2006-11-14 20:39:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
everything is going to be ok.
i promise.
Submitted by maiorano84 (user info) at 2006-11-14 20:32:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"I would rather have a government who LISTENS TO ALL SIDES, like this one has the ability to do, than a government that says "Hey, this is what we think, so this is what you think" like the previous one"
Yeah, I'd like that too, but we don't have that right now. In fact, this statement is completely false, as our government does NOT listen to all sides and tries to force its own ideals down our throats.
Submitted by FiveStarGeneral (user info) at 2006-11-14 20:32:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I just went to your links. ARE YOU FUCKING MAD?!? Are you a mindless idiot? Do you need these websites to make up your mind for you? This guy "Alex Jones" is living in a god damn mansion because of morons like you. Did you buy into it and give him money for T-shirts, bumper stickers, and tapes?
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-11-14 20:30:10 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
*scribbles on prescription*
Submitted by jraines (user info) at 2006-11-14 20:30:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-11-14 20:20:03 (#)
Ranking: -2
Brad.
Calm. The. Heck. Down.
Breathe, man.
What I am saying is that any time someone tries to bully through a partisan agenda without caring what those in the opposition think, it backfires, and NOTHING gets done.
NOTHING AT ALL.
I would rather have a government who LISTENS TO ALL SIDES, like this one has the ability to do, than a government that says "Hey, this is what we think, so this is what you think" like the previous one.
But overall man, CALM DOWN.
---------------
This is a good point, too. One of the reasons Republicans have been so hated and got booted out of the office is because their appearance of having a radical, right-wing agenda. People don't want the new government to be a mirror-reflection of the one they just kicked out.
Also, the Democratic majority is not that big, and they will have to compromise and be realistic if they want anything done (just like the Republican one never was - also, I'm not counting the election for Bush because he was never elected, twice).
Submitted by maiorano84 (user info) at 2006-11-14 20:27:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The reason why I say this (no doubt you're going to respond with some other rant, calling me every conceivable name that sounds remotely like my last name, ie: MORONo) is because you are literally so hopelessly biased that you cannot put together a good argument without sounding like one of the following:
1: A Lunatic - You make up one theory after another trying to instill fear amongst anybody who will listen to your nonsensical ramblings. Granted, some of it may be coherent enough, but even a blind squirrel can find an acorn every now and then.
2: A Hypocrite - You ask people to show you verifiable proof, and when we do you say that this "proof" was planted by the people you loathe, whereas you cite unverified sources that agree with your beliefs, and then have the audacity to never question it in the first place.
3: An Arrogant Cunt - Once you hear somebody with a legitimate point of view that's opposite your own, you resort to belittling them and calling them 'sheep' or some sort of variation, while claiming yourself to be enlightened. Yeah, your eyes are wide fucking open. We're just jealous.
Has it ever occurred to you that you're dealing with a subject that requires a certain amount of compromise? Has that thought even entered that thick fucking head of yours? Are you even aware that in politics, YOU HAVE TO CONCEDE TO CERTAIN IDEAS THAT MAY BE OPPOSITE YOUR OWN, AND THAT IF YOU DON'T YOU ARE JUST AS SHORT-SIGHTED AND SINGLE-MINDED AS GEORGE WALKER BUSH!?
You are an intelligent guy, but your rhetoric is infuriating, and that's EVERYTHING if you're even toying with the idea of being a politician.
*End rant*
Submitted by jraines (user info) at 2006-11-14 20:23:31 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Eh...
Seriously, man, you need to outline your arguments before you start. At least four times you started an argument, only to move immediately to another (leaving me a terrible, sad and incomplete feeling inside :( poor me... **tear**).
I would probably like to read this article, but it's got to be better argued. Also, the poll cited on the Infowars site isn't scientific. It isn't random, it is not representative of the population (i.e., only people online at that time who visit that website HAD A CHANCE of participating, let along actually doing so) and isn't at least ten other essentials for political science research which I would need to break out my old textbook from Research Methods to list for you. Online polls are next to worthless for just about everything.
To demonstrate this further, imagine how many people would be "for Bush impeachment" if the poll were made up of readers of Infowars.com. Now imagine if that same poll were on FOXNews.com. Do you think there might be a difference?
Show me a Gallup poll with a crazy, 80% majority who wish for Bush to be impeached, and then I'll get enthusiastic about the idea.
Submitted by FiveStarGeneral (user info) at 2006-11-14 20:21:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2006-11-14 19:44:09 (#)
Ranking: 0
apparently the krauts are considering bringing war crime charges against rumsfeld
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. The German courts are being abused by non-residents backed by a progressive civil liberties organization. Without money from someone with an anti-U.S. agenda, those cases can't go anywhere.
Hamas gets money from Syria, Hezbollah gets money from Iran, and Al Qaeda gets their money from the American progressives.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-11-14 20:20:03 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Brad.
Calm. The. Heck. Down.
Breathe, man.
What I am saying is that any time someone tries to bully through a partisan agenda without caring what those in the opposition think, it backfires, and NOTHING gets done.
NOTHING AT ALL.
I would rather have a government who LISTENS TO ALL SIDES, like this one has the ability to do, than a government that says "Hey, this is what we think, so this is what you think" like the previous one.
But overall man, CALM DOWN.
Submitted by pen_name (user info) at 2006-11-14 20:17:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You're not talking about justice. You're talking vengence. Justice could very well result in an innocent verdict. In your narrow world view, politicians are guilty until proven guilty.
Submitted by maiorano84 (user info) at 2006-11-14 20:16:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Translation: Stick to writing on Ubersite. It's the only place people will pay attention to you.
Submitted by maiorano84 (user info) at 2006-11-14 20:15:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Have you realized yet that you're the equivalent to a political Kevin Federline?
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2006-11-14 20:12:26 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words
words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-14 20:12:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-11-14 19:59:02 (#)
Ranking: -2
Shit, Pen, he needs to read "Audacity of Hope" by Obama.
but then again, I don't think he'll understand that when ANY government, no matter WHAT side is in the majority decides to force their agenda and play bully, it backfires. EVERY TIME.
-------------------
Backfires? If you are a congressman and you pursue justice in your job - WHEREVER THAT LEADS - and you fully explain to your constituency what you've done and why and it BACKFIRES...then, I hate to say it, but those people DESERVE to be ruled by tyrants!
Use your capacity for reason here. Do you know what justice is, Jay? Justice...the concept is very basic. Explain to me how ANY pursuer of justice, if that is their true intention - NOT JUST WINNING ELECTIONS - can make a statement like these democrats are starting to make?
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-11-14 20:11:19 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Brad, man, seriously.
CALM DOWN.
I'm not kidding, you can read it in your writing, you're LIVID right now, and that's not a good state to be in, OK?
Serious, give FA a call, have her talk you down or something but CHILL OUT.
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2006-11-14 20:07:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
This is not in regards to this message specifically, but i'd like you to answer it.
In many of your political and philosophical posts you ascribe a lot of weight to "looking past" the apparently illusory and misleading facades of modern life, and finding "the truth".
You also identify that many people derive happiness from these illusions, and that this is a possible basis for their resistance to "looking deeper" and challenging their perceptions.
Firstly, why do you value truth over happiness? Surely the end-goal of any philosophical musing is to derive satisfaction from the fact you have arrived upon a cohesive theory that seems to coincide with all the evidence.
Lots of the "unenlightened" have done this. The only difference is that you have different evidential criteria to other people, but that doesn't make your premise any more valid.
Secondly, do you approach conspiracies with the same detached skepticism with which you approach, say, a White House publication? As a corollary to this, do you accept that someone COULD investigate the conspiracy theories that you support, make a balanced analysis of the information to hand, and then arrive at a conclusion different to yours, namely that 9/11 WAS the work of the identified Saudi terrorists.
In regards to the first point, i find it hard to believe that you can adequately suppress your natural anti-authoritarianism to make a balanced view of conspiracy websites versus official/popular media.
Extending from this, i suspect that you could not accept that someone could make a balanced analysis of all the information surrounding 9/11 and come to a conclusion different to yours. If this is the case, your philosophy is as atrophied as the neo-cons you despise.
Looking forward to some answers.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-14 20:03:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-11-14 19:53:23 (#)
Ranking: -2
And Brad, if you think "off the table" means "it will never happen no matter what" then you need to stop, because you're clouding your own head with hate.
-----------------
Dude...I don't HATE anyone, goddamnit! I just want a little fucking justice in my world... Is that too much to fucking ask? I want to wake up knowing that there are people out there besides me that still care about such apparently lofty ideals. Shit, man, I just want a world in which the real wrongdoers are held accountable and the victims of their crimes stop acting like a pack of mewling cowards in the midst of a retard episode.
I don't/didn't HATE the democrats. FUCK, I voted damn near straight ticket for them. I just want them to do what we both know the American people put them there to do....INVESTIGATE and CHANGE!
This is not it!
Why don't YOU explain to me what "off the table" means, because to me, if they wanted it to sound less final they could have remedied that easily by tacking on a simple "right now" at the end of it. But they didn't, did they!
Now, you explain that to me, Jay. Tell me, once again, where I'm crazy.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-11-14 19:59:02 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Shit, Pen, he needs to read "Audacity of Hope" by Obama.
but then again, I don't think he'll understand that when ANY government, no matter WHAT side is in the majority decides to force their agenda and play bully, it backfires. EVERY TIME.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-14 19:58:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2006-11-14 19:44:09 (#)
Ranking: 0
apparently the krauts are considering bringing war crime charges against rumsfeld
-----------------
I know, and GOD BLESS THEM!
At least SOMEBODY still knows the real meaning of justice, be it poetic or statutory. I'm just sorry that it couldn't be my own countrymen and had to end up being the Germans.
These men lied to get us into war. It's that simple. Whether you believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy or not, it's hard to look at the videotape of George Tenet sitting behind Colin Powell testifying before the United Nations about Iraq's WMD "intelligence" knowing as we do now that virtually everyone in the CIA EXCEPT Tenet knew it was completely bogus.
650,000 people have died, folks. I mean...COME ON! Get your heads out of your asses! This at least merits an investigation. We deserve to know the truth. We do NOT deserve to be pampered like a bunch of little babies who can't handle the thought that our own beloved president could do such a thing...
Get real! You want a solution in Iraq? I suggest you start at the source of the fucking problem...and here's a clue: it ain't fucking Saddam and it ain't fucking Al Qaeda.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-11-14 19:53:23 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
And Brad, if you think "off the table" means "it will never happen no matter what" then you need to stop, because you're clouding your own head with hate.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-14 19:50:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by pen_name (user info) at 2006-11-14 19:45:59 (#)
Ranking: 0
Yep. Instead of working to get the troops out and do some real good with their majority, they should spend months in an impeachment trial that would ultimately fail.
Read an article in the Novemeber edition of Harper's, titled "Barack Obama Inc." Without a willingness to do a little wheeling and dealing, nothing gets done. They will NEED the Republicans. There's no reason to piss them off in a pointless gesture.
------------------
Justice is NOT a "pointless gesture".
Seriously...what the hell is going on in this country!!? It's like I live in an insane asylum here.
I've come to the ultimate and sad conclusion that you are all cowards.
I can't fucking believe this.
Are you really this clueless that you can possibly mistake this sort of inaction as measured wisdom?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-11-14 19:47:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"soon-to-be-started investigations bring information that show cause"???
Jay...listen to me...they are saying, and I quote, "IMPEACHMENT IS OFF THE TABLE"!
Please, just drop the bias you have for two seconds and look at that. That would be like the judge in a trial stating before it even starts that "we will not be pursuing punishment here today, no matter what the outcome".
Go on and excuse them all you like, dude. This IS what they're saying, and it's wrong.
You want reasons to impeach Bush? PICK ONE! The man has broken innumerable laws and ADMITTED IT! He even said several times he had not the intention of obeying these laws and you can honestly sit there like a good little party shill and say that bullshit!?
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Submitted by pen_name (user info) at 2006-11-14 19:45:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Yep. Instead of working to get the troops out and do some real good with their majority, they should spend months in an impeachment trial that would ultimately fail.
Read an article in the Novemeber edition of Harper's, titled "Barack Obama Inc." Without a willingness to do a little wheeling and dealing, nothing gets done. They will NEED the Republicans. There's no reason to piss them off in a pointless gesture.
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2006-11-14 19:44:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
apparently the krauts are considering bringing war crime charges against rumsfeld
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-11-14 19:32:39 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Sorry, Brad. I know I said I'd give you zeros, but this is a needed -2.
Even BEFORE the elections, the Democratic leadership said that they would not attempt to impech Bush unless soon-to-be-started investigations bring information that show cause. And to be honest, even I, a rather strong Bush hater don't see cause to impeach him. I believe he is a Reagan-style hands-off man, and most problems were because of his underlings and staff, not him specifically.
My advice: calm down, wait a few months before falling to pieces over anything, and let the bipartisanship work itself out.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-11-14 19:32:13 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-11-14 19:32:12 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
besides the outright and up front 180 degree refusal to consider impeachment for the criminal Bush minions
------------
you're SUCH a jackass, Brad.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2006-11-14 19:29:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
a third party is unrealistic...so pick. democrat or republican...
that is unless you can get some of the 50 biggest companies to support a third party, which they wont.
so oh well.
Submitted by darko (user info) at 2006-11-14 19:23:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Please don't run for office, the two parties would use people like you to show why they need to keep their monopoly on this country.
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2006-11-14 19:22:20 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
You're running out of parties to hate, dickhead.