Stop Microsoft
Miscellaneous => The Lounge => Topic started by: skyman8081 on 1 September 2004, 11:16
-
PLEASE READ THIS POST FIRST
In an attempt to see if it is possible to have a civilised political discussion, without resorting to flaming. Until now, this has largely been thought to be impossible, due to the anonymitity and lack of consequences of posting on the internet.
Therefore ANY AND ALL parties who wish to participate agree, by posting in this thread, that they will refrain from any and all form of Flaming, Ad hominem or any logical fallacy, Name-Calling of any kind, or swearing, whatsoever. At the first sign of those signs, this thread will be binned. This is why I am requesting the lounge mods to bin the thread at the first flame, derogatory term, improper logic, or swear word.
With that preface in place, I will seed this discussion, remember the rules.
While I do not agree with everything that President Bush has done while he was in office. I do feel that he best represents my interests as a citizen of the United States of America, and if I had the ability to vote in the 2004 election, I would vote for him.
-
Good for you (http://smile.gif)
It is still very up in the air for me as to who I am going to vote for.
[ September 01, 2004: Message edited by: xyle_one ]
-
How do you think he represents your interests?
[ September 01, 2004: Message edited by: flap ]
-
Why I dont like Bush:
1. Going out of his way to ban gay marrige. Bush supporters often say that Bush is spreading "freedom" in the middle east. I guess he wants to do the opposite here at home. Banning gay marrige does not sound like a "free" thing to do to me.
2. Tax cuts. Just about everyone (except people who are loyal to Bush) say that Bush's tax cuts really are only for the upper class. Fuck that.
3. WAR. We are in a nastly little situation in Iraq right now. I am not sure that pulling out is a good idea, but Bush REALLY fucked up by starting the war in Iraq in the fist place.
4. Environment. Bush, like a lot of republicans, shit all over the environment. It is really not that hard to keep it clean people.
That is all for now
-
quote:
Why I dont like Bush:
1. Going out of his way to ban gay marrige. Bush supporters often say that Bush is spreading "freedom" in the middle east. I guess he wants to do the opposite here at home. Banning gay marrige does not sound like a "free" thing to do to me.
Freedom is only for the people that Bush and the Fundamentalist "Religous Right" smile upon.
quote:
2. Tax cuts. Just about everyone (except people who are loyal to Bush) say that Bush's tax cuts really are only for the upper class. Fuck that.
Not much more I can say... Bush is an upper-class whore. He does what they want and they give him money for it.
quote:
3. WAR. We are in a nastly little situation in Iraq right now. I am not sure that pulling out is a good idea, but Bush REALLY fucked up by starting the war in Iraq in the fist place.
Yes, but... I think it was good that Hussein was finally actually dealt with. I've seen all of Bush's evidence that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and supported terrorism, but I've also seen the evidence brought back by the UN saying that he had no big bombs, and hadn't supported the terrorists. Either way, I think that it's still good that he's now in custody. If for no other reason than his own personal safety. He was a tyrant and gassed his own people. That's not our business, but that's never stopped us from making it our business in the past.
quote:
4. Environment. Bush, like a lot of republicans, shit all over the environment. It is really not that hard to keep it clean people.
And beyond that, they're hostile toward people who believe in a clean environment. Remember, keeping the earth clean cuts into profit margins.
-
Environment looks fine to me. *shrugs*
What's wrong with it? (Don't bother with things that started before Bush was around.)
Gay Marriage: Cheney doesn't support Bush's amendment. Since many believe Bush is Cheney's puppet, either this is a break from that, or the ban won't ever see the light of day.
Taxes: You know what top 1% that John Kerry talks about, that he'll take the cuts away from? Take a guess what percentage of the total they pay....it's 32% now. That's more than before the tax cuts! (Yes, that's possible.)
Here: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=5746&type=1 (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=5746&type=1)
This means that: The top 1% of income earners pay about 32% of all income taxes. The top 5% pays 51.4%. The top 10% of high income earners, pay 63.5%. The top 20% of income earners pays 78% of all federal income taxes.
So, the tax system is already very progressive, and it isn't changing. No reason to worry.
-
Wait... doesn't that add up to more than 100%?
-
^ It's cumulative.
-
im actually hearing my parents talking about how the tax cuts are benefitting them.
my dads a professor and my moms works at a museum. i go to an expensive private school and my sister is a freshman in college.
the tax cuts ARE helping.
-
Of course, given the social positions of your family, you may benefit from the tax cuts. But can the same be said of people with low revenues? I doubt it.
We could also waste time arguing how Adolf Hitler benefitted Germany economically with his policies, but that wouldn't excuse his crimes, now would it?
The Bush administration is a fascist regime. No, I'm not exaggering. Since recently, it has matched to an extent and at a time or another each of the 14 characteristics of fascism as listed by Dr. Britt (http://www.8thdaycenter.org/052203.html):
quote:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
Recently I went to Plattsburgh, and in a single day I must have seen more than 50 flags in various locations, from houses to stores and even children drawings. I found that very disturbing. Even in Quebec, with the sentiments of separatism, there aren't nearly as much. (And before anyone points out at my sig, no, it's not because I'm patriotic, it's because I still haven't found anything more original.)
quote:
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
Two words: PATRIOT Act.
quote:
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
War on terrorism. Axis of Evil. Al Qaeda. Note how quick the authorities were to point the finger on Osama Bin Laden. To date, I haven't seen any concrete proof that he was responsible of the attacks. Not to mention using 9/11 as a pretext to go to war against Saddam Hussein.
quote:
4. Supremacy of the Military
Donald Rumsfeld is talking about arming space vessels. The US spends $343 billion (http://www.clw.org/milspend/ushighestbudget.html) per year, even as the federal defecit is reaching a record high. Though this may represent a low percentage, this does not take into account the astronomical amounts of military aid they supply to their allies, as well as the money wasted in useless military bases in England and Germany. The Jessica Lynch scandal is but one example of how incredible the glorification of the military has become.
quote:
5. Rampant Sexism
When the anti-abortion legislation was passed, Bush was surrounded by men (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/images/20031105-1_p35410-21-515h.jpg). Now, I have to admit, this is the only action of the Bush regime I can honestly approve, but this clearly shows the inequality where policies are enforced. Not to mention the attempts to integrate the regressive anti-gay marriage laws into the constitution.
quote:
6. Controlled Mass Media
Look who owns ABCNNBCBS and FOX (http://www.thenation.com/special/bigten.html). A few huge corporations own the major TV channels in the United States (and yes, it's a problem in the rest of the world, too!)
quote:
7. Obsession with National Security
Obvious. See 1, 3 and 4.
quote:
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
Ashcroft (http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/usa/john-ashcroft/) is part of an extremist Christian sect. He wrote his own religios song and forces his employees to sing it. Bush constantly refers to religion. And I will let this article (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/9537604.htm?1c) speak for itself:
quote:
``Father, help us. Help us to save this nation, this nation that has always said that it was under you, under God. Help us to rise and to raise up the banner that will re-elect George W. Bush,'' the Rev. Lou Sheldon, of Anaheim, head of the conservative Traditional Values Coalition, told about 250 delegates, alternates and guests. ``Yes, oh God, forgive us if we are too partisan. But we believe so much as at stake in having him there to guide us in what we believe.''
quote:
9. Corporate Power is Protected
Haliburton. Enron. Microsoft. Oil companies. Need I say more?
quote:
10. Labor Power is Suppressed
Not obvious at first sight, but this article (http://www.aflcio.org/aboutunions/voiceatwork/ns06182004.cfm) explains that the Bush administration is taking swipes at worker rights. A proeminent one is the proposal to eliminate overtime pay (http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_flsa_jun03).
quote:
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
People who are remotely interested in technology are called nerds or geeks. People who think the government is lying to them are called 'conspiracy nuts'. People who denounce Israel's policies are called 'anti-Semites'.
As for the arts, I did not think it was the case in the US, but according to this article (http://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/article.asp?idart=10977), it apparently is.
Disclaimer: this criterion does not automatically make a country fascist, and it could be applied to many countries in the world.
quote:
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
PATRIOT Act. As well as the fact that the US is one of the only countries in the industrialised world to still have the death penalty (even for minors).
quote:
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
See 9. Also, the fact that a significant number of the signatories of the PNAC (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm), which advocates 'American global leadership' are high officials of the current administration, such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz.
quote:
14. Fraudulent Elections
Many doubts have been casted over the validity of the 2000 elections, such as the reliability of the Diebold machines and the fact that Black Americans have been barred from the elections in Florida (which is coincidentially governed by George W. Bush's brother, Jeb Bush).
DISCLAIMER: while this message may seem offensive to some people, the intent is NOT to denigrate Americans or the United States. It should be taken as a warning about the direction in which the country is being led by the Bush administration. Any labelling of a forum member as 'anti-American' shall be treated as name calling and will result in the automatic binning of the thread, in compliance to the rules established by the original poster.
[ September 01, 2004: Message edited by: Laukev7 / BOB ]
-
Well, if those 14 points about Facism are correct (which I don't doubt), then you could argue that the US has been Facist for quite a long time. Clinton signed the DMCA and MS got away. Enron started their shit in 1999. And that's just the beginning.
PATRIOT Act: That thing is a joke. It's days are numbered even if Bush gets re-elected. Bush says he "wants to make it permanent" - silly him, there's no such thing in US law. And if Bush is re-elected, I can almost guarentee a Dem winning in '08, which would kill it. (I can even see myself voting for that person.)
ABCNNBCBS: Never heard that before...good one. :D Luckily, independent stuff via Internet can't really be stopped. I have some indymedia.org streams in my Winamp list (inclucing them at the RNC). Even if suppression of this is seeked by the government, that's another thing they won't be able to pull off.
Ashcroft: He can jabber about God all he wants, doesn't bother me. Why? Because like any extremist, he won't get away with much of what he appears to want. He's raided houses for file-sharers, and that's unrelated to religion: it's just the same corporate-controlled shit that's been out there for quite a while. RIAA, anyone? Oh, he wrote the Patriot Act...I still blame the Congress (the REAL power in this country) for voting for it right away. "Oh, but we NEED it!" coming from a cabinet member doesn't sound convincing to me.
Elections: Even if the disenfranchisment story is all true (94,000 purged, was it?), there was still one thing that stopped Gore: voter stupidity. In Palm Beach county (which, BTW, is only half an hour from here), the little arrow next to Gore's name didn't seem to mean anything. :rolleyes: I've seen the ballot - only a true asshat would mess that up - and, apparently, there were 19,000 asshats in P.B. County. Easy Gore win otherwise. "Make it easier"...please, voting is important, perhaps people should take some responsibility (gasp ;) ) and double-check things.
Then there's the recount itself, and counting dimpled ballots. They had a system down well, so why stop it? Here's why: a few days after the election, MSNBC got a hold a bunch of ballots and styli used, and tried to purposely make a dimple in the ballot. They couldn't do it! Either nothing happened, or it punched through the card. That raises the question...where did they come from then? One possibility is that the automatic counting machines from Nov. 8 created those marks. Last I checked, a machine can't vote. :D Ok, not funny, but still.
Now, I'm not a die-hard Bush supporter - in fact, every political post I make here seems to confuse me more (or get me nowhere). I agree that's there's problems that I don't like, and then feel like just dealing with them - all in the span of ten minutes of typing. WTF is wrong with me? :(
[ September 02, 2004: Message edited by: WMD ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Sauron / B0B:
While I do not agree with everything that President Bush has done while he was in office. I do feel that he best represents my interests as a citizen of the United States of America, and if I had the ability to vote in the 2004 election, I would vote for him.
Hang on a second, no offence or anything but doesn
-
quote:
Because of this I feel that gay couples should be able to sign a legally binding contract declaring their love, thus giving them the same rights as a married couple.
Why not let them get married then?
[ September 02, 2004: Message edited by: flap ]
-
WMD: Yes, you could argue that many of the characteristics of fascism have been present for a long time in the US (such as the corporatism and the nationalism). However, only recently have they all really come together. I think the point when the US could be qualified a fascist state for the first time was in the mid-term of the Bush administration, after he passed the PATRIOT Act and anti-labour laws, for example.
Of course, as you point out, Bush is not the sole responsible of the situation. Though I think that Bush and his neoconservative cronies have contributed the most to put the US in deep trouble, both parties as well as Congress are deeply corrupt (after all, Democratic politicians such as Kerry have also voted for the PATRIOT Act and the war). Like for any fascist state, the complicity of the whole government and part of the people was required. However, what must also be taken into account is the fact that the PATRIOT Act has been passed in a hurry, and no one had actually read it (http://slate.msn.com/id/2087984/).
I hope for you that the PATRIOT Act gets repealed. And fortunately, there is an independent media. I can only hope that the tendency reverses, but you can't just expect that problem to solve itself. I understand your situation, but the best course of action is to denounce the tendency, not assume that other administrations are going to save you. Don't forget Nazi Germany, where the democracy wasn't restored until the end of a bloody war.
[ September 02, 2004: Message edited by: Laukev7 / BOB ]
-
quote:
However, what must also be taken into account is the fact that the PATRIOT Act has been passed in a hurry, and no one had actually read it.
Yeah, I know, that's why I blame the Congress - they didn't bother to read it. Usually if it isn't read, the person doesn't vote (like Kerry, out campaigning, has voted for hardly anything). But the Senate went 99 to 1 on a law nobody read? :rolleyes:
quote:
I hope for you that the PATRIOT Act gets repealed.
Thank you (http://smile.gif) .
quote:
I can only hope that the tendency reverses, but you can't just expect that problem to solve itself.
I can practically guarentee a Democrat winning in '08 if Bush gets reelected. And if he doesn't, there's a Democrat in '04. And I don't expect all hell to break loose if he's reelected. All law is reversible, which inevitably happens (Prohibition).
[ September 02, 2004: Message edited by: WMD ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
Why not let them get married then?
Because marriage is for heterosexual couples.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Aloone:
Because marriage is for heterosexual couples.
Why is that? If you agree with giving gay couples the practical, legal rights of a married couple, what are you objecting to? The ceremony itself?
-
quote:
Originally posted by Aloone:
Because marriage is for heterosexual couples.
Whether a 'traditional' marriage should be allowed is up to the religious institution, not the state. If two consenting adults wish to engage in a secular marriage, then the state has no authority to refuse or discriminate. This is another example of separation of church and state.
[ September 02, 2004: Message edited by: Laukev7 / BOB ]
-
Of course they could have a ceremony.
How could they have a bridesmaid/page boy? Would there be two, one for one partner and one for the other?
Would there be two stag/hen nights?
Who would adopt who's surname?
Gay marriage would mess all this up.
-
That would be up to the gay community to decide. The government has no business discriminating who is allowed to marry with whom. Consenting homosexual couples who wish to unite should be allowed to marry. This should not even be open to vote.
-
First of all, I support gay marriage, since, IMO, they won't be affecting my life. But...
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7 / BOB:
Whether a 'traditional' marriage should be allowed is up to the religious institution, not the state. If two consenting adults wish to engage in a secular marriage, then the state has no authority to refuse or discriminate. This is another example of separation of church and state.
Wasn't marriage created by religious institutions? If so, then the state shouldn't be marrying people anyway. Why? Separation of church and state.
-
Luckily enough I don
-
quote:
Originally posted by WMD:
Wasn't marriage created by religious institutions? If so, then the state shouldn't be marrying people anyway. Why? Separation of church and state.
Come to think of it, I'm not religious, and I don't really believe in marriage in the first place. However, there is such a thing as civil marriage, which is universal and is not exclusive to religion. My main concern is the legal recognition of the couples, where there should be no discrimination.
[ September 02, 2004: Message edited by: Laukev7 / BOB ]
-
If the state is going to provide a tax shelter for married couples, and insurance companies are going to provide family insurance to spouses, then gay marriage is a secular issue. Combine that with the fact that marriages can be performed by a dog (if that's the sort of thing that interests you) as long as the licenses are in legal order, and we have a secular problem. This forces us to wonder why marriage is rewarded in this way. I see three possibilities:
1. Rewarding people for providing children with a stable home environment. Studies have shown that gay couples are just as capable of raising children as straight couples are. So if this is the case, there is no reason to ban homosexual marriage.
2. Rewarding people for becoming monogamous. In theory, this would prevent people from whoring themselves all over town, because you supposedly quit being a horndog when you get married. This is stupid, since we all know that marriage does not stop rampant "sinning". If this is the case, then everyone needs to wake the fuck up.
3. Rewarding people for not indulging in homosexuality. In theory, married people are not gay. So encouraging people to pair off in hetero couples prevents gayness. If this is the case, we live in a very fucked up society.
Now, you might wish to vote for Bush because he represents your interests. However, he does not represent mine. In fact, current polls show that neither political party can gain greater than 50% of the voters, which means that Bush is only representing 50% of American interests (assuming that Bush does in fact represent the interests that they think he does, which is another issue altogether). And to be perfectly legit, Bush only had 50% of voter support in the last election. Considering that there was only like 20% voter turnout, then George W Bush only "represents" the interests of 10% of the American population.
These numbers are unacceptable. Someone that only 10% of the people even like should not have this kind of power. But there's no real solution, since neither Kerry nor Gore is showing the ability to get more than 10% of the vote either.
I think it is pretty obvious right now that America is divided. Clearly, we are not one nation, because approximately half of us are opposed to the policies of the other half. The United States, as it is currently set up, will never have a successful and/or popular governing body again.
Back to the trees, everyone. Time to start over.
-
Here's my view:
I am 100% convinced that the attacks of 9/11/01 were staged by the United States government. I have not seen any proof by the government for their story. Yet I have seen countless proof showing an inside job. If anybody is up for a CIVILIZED AND MATURE pure-factual debate about 9/11, I would love to participate in one.
At the same time as I see the Republican party becoming the 21st century party of fascism, I see the Democratic split into 2 parts: 1)accomplises to the coverup who take advantage of the fascist acts, and 2)pussies who are afraid to reveal the truth.
And so having said all that, I am voting for John Kerry. Now John Kerry is a douchebag. I am the first to admit that. I don't believe he is any better than Bush, but just as corrupt. However with Bush we know exactly what we're getting. With John Kerry there at least is some chance we'll be surprised with something decent or even good. As for John Edwards, I honestly don't know. He seems like a good man from a good family, but you never know...
I am all for getting rid of the 2 party system of corruption in our government. Under normal circumstances I would vote for Ralph Nader or one of the other candidates for president who are actually discussing the truth behind 9/11 now. But I feel getting rid of Bush is the first step. Then while Kerry is president, the thousands of newly formed truth communities nationwide will take the next step.
-
Wow I havent posted here in ages.
I personally am very liberal on most issues. First off it sucks that i will not be able to vote this election because I am 17. I believe Bush is a moron. I do like some of his programs though, No child left behind, Guns, and Space programs. Other then that he hasent really helped America become a better nation as I see it.
Now with that being said I dont support Kerry either. He is a doushebag and is just as bad as Bush.
I dont support either of the major parties though for diffrent reasons then most. I am very against corporate money in elections. Corporations dont have a right to vote, hence they should not have a right to give money to running candidates. That is my biggest problem with the 2 major parties.
I personally am a Nader supporter because he best represents my values as where I want America to go. universal health insurance, A mininum wage that you can live off, alternate energy sources, environment friendly, against patriot act, against corporate crime, wants to end the war on drugs, voting age 16.
Bush is against most of those values so that is why I would not vote for him.
Also xeen I would like you to actually start a post about the 9/11 attacks. I do not know if they were staged or not. I wouldnt doubt it though if they were and I would like to get whatever info you have on it.
-
I second xeen's statement. There are more holes in the official 9/11 story than in every Microsoft software put together, and the evidence that 9/11 was a scam is overwhelming. The idea that a vast global network of Muslim terrorists want to destroy America because they hate their freedoms is even more far-fetched a conspiracy theory than the accusations of cover-up against the American government. Also, the lies used as justification for the war on Iraq make it official that the Bush administration can no longer be given the benefit of doubt.
-
xeen, you said you haven't found any evidence to support the official story. have you really tried to find evidence for it?
I honestly dont think the attacks were staged. ive even heard that a plane didn't hit the pentagon. which made me think why wouldn't the US use a real plane if they wanted to make it look authentic.
and laukev, dont forget its not the first time the wtc was attacked. and they didn't attack because they hate our freedom. I think it either had to do with millitary bases on their holy lands or something. it might have been a protest of free trade or something though.
-
The "They hate our freedom" is only part of it.
Al queda is mainly trying to prevent us from allying with and supporting Israel.
The agenda of the Terror networks are:
- Destroy the current US government
- Make the US abandon Israel
- Make America ally with/recognise the Nation of Palestine
- Replace the predominately Athesitic/Christian Government with an Islamic theocracy that follows the islamic law
that last point is there the "They hate our freedoms" come in. Al Queda disagree's with any freedoms/rights that conflict with islamic law. (Women's Rights, etc...)
If the 9/11 attacks were staged, my one question is: How?
Who would send operatives to hijack one of their own airplanes, into a building of your own citizens, less than a year after your election to justify a war that won't happen for another 2 years?
Edited to add: Although I disagree with most of you here, I do respect your opinions, and your right to hold them.
[ September 03, 2004: Message edited by: Agent Sauron ]
-
The Arab peoples have some rights. The right to govern themselves the way they choose, the right to determine their own economic future, and the right to not have the United States up their ass every damn day. The fact that they have been denied these basic freedoms is why they get so angry. The goings-on in Africa and the Middle East over the past few years are the result of Western imperialism gone awry. IIIIIIFFFFFFF the US and the rest of the world would just leave them alone and let them reset their borders and elect who they want and sell their products to the highest bidder, I bet they would be the center of world peace in five years max. But that would probably cause gasoline prices in the US to rise to well over $5/gallon. And we are so used to prices being artificially kept low that we would flip out. Plus, the giant American oil companies wouldn't be raking in trillions of dollars on MidEast oil anymore, so they wouldn't be happy.
Which leaves us right where we are, with nothing changing but the price of a night in the Lincoln bedroom. If you really wanted to change any of this, you would sell your car today and buy only recycled products.
-
I agree, the palestinians do have he right of existance and self-determination.
now the problem is this:
- Israel has claims to some of the land in the middle east.
- Radical Arabic sects feel threatened with a Jewish state.
- Israel has the right to defend its borders
Israel also has the right of existance and self-determination.
-
Correct.
If Israel is assumed to be a sovereign nation, then they have the same rights as, for example, Syria. However, if you check into your history, you will see that Israel may not have an acceptable claim to their land, in the same way that Brittain does not have any claim on India. Very tricky situation.
-
quote:
and laukev, dont forget its not the first time the wtc was attacked.
It's not the first time that the US has tried to stage terror attacks, either. Operation Northwoods (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html) is but one example.
quote:
xeen, you said you haven't found any evidence to support the official story. have you really tried to find evidence for it?
It is up to the government to prove the people that it is really Al Qaeda who caused the attacks. Having read the newspaper and watched ABC, I haven't seen proof, and the US government refused to provide it to the Taliban. All I have heard so far is arrests of alleged Al Qaeda members.
[ September 03, 2004: Message edited by: Laukev7 / BOB ]
-
quote:
The "They hate our freedom" is only part of it.
No, it isn't any of it. I laugh everytime I hear someone from the administration coming out with that absurd line. That's just a way of stopping Americans from asking the question "Why do they hate us?" It's easier to sate the American populace by telling them that their freedom is under attack rather than making them aware of the real reasons why so many people are justifiably hostile towards the US.
A summary of US false-flag operations and deliberate provocation of other powers to create excuses for military action:
http://www.911review.org/Wiki/FakeTerror.shtml (http://www.911review.org/Wiki/FakeTerror.shtml)
More on WTC 1993 by Ralph Schoenman:
http://wbaifree.org/takingaim/articles/wtc93.html (http://wbaifree.org/takingaim/articles/wtc93.html)
There are also lots of good videos on http://www.snowshoefilms.com (http://www.snowshoefilms.com) about 9/11, false flag operations etc from people like Schoenman and Michel Chossouovsky.
-
quote:
Also xeen I would like you to actually start a post about the 9/11 attacks. I do not know if they were staged or not. I wouldnt doubt it though if they were and I would like to get whatever info you have on it.
I am so lazy right now to type up a good explanantion that includes everything about 9/11 being a scam.
Here are a few videos you MUST watch:
http://pages.infinit.net/noc/pentagon.swf (http://pages.infinit.net/noc/pentagon.swf)
http://www.question911.com/ (http://www.question911.com/)
Finally, here is another movie about the events of 9/11:
http://www.911inplanesite.com/ (http://www.911inplanesite.com/)
This is the 9/11 movie that is being sent to people all across the country, and is being discussed everywhere where 9/11 truth is being discussed.
It's not a free movie...but you can download it from any file sharing service for free.
ALso, go to amazon.com and check out the dozens of books about 9/11.
I'll try to write some stuff up later. ALso note that the 9/11 truth movement is growing very fast. Already lots of news and talk radio shows nationwide are discussing the truth, letters by citizens are being sent out to government and news agencies, etc.. There are also lots of 9/11 truth protests going on, but the mainstream media doesn't report on them. It may take another week, month, year, or possibly years before the truth behind 9/11 sparks the 2nd American Revolution but make no doubt about it - it will. My money's on sometime within the next year.
[ September 03, 2004: Message edited by: xeen ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by the stiller:
ive even heard that a plane didn't hit the pentagon. which made me think why wouldn't the US use a real plane if they wanted to make it look authentic.
Unfortunately it didn't look "authentic", as eyewitnesses described seeing something that looked like a military plane or a missile. There was a number of cameras that recorded the crash and whose footage would presumably clear this up, but the FBI confiscated it all and it's never been released. Now what possible excuse could they have for doing that?
There is a lot of information about the 9/11 discrepancies, but here are just a couple of recent articles:
One about flight 93, which supposedly was brought down by a struggle between the passengers and hijackers, but which looks like it was shot down:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/WAL403A.html (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/WAL403A.html)
And another about the supposed cell phones made from people in the planes, which seemingly couldn't possibly have been made:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO408B.html (http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO408B.html)
[ September 03, 2004: Message edited by: flap ]
-
Well since this has gotten off topic and now is more or less about 9/11 I would like to throw in some other linkis that I have found.
Physics behind pentgon attack (http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3)
From the wilderness (http://www.fromthewilderness.com)
I have not done to much research into this matter but I definately think that out there is a truth we need to know.
-
quote:
Originally posted by xeen:
I am so lazy right now to type up a good explanantion that includes everything about 9/11 being a scam.
Here are a few videos you MUST watch:
http://pages.infinit.net/noc/pentagon.swf (http://pages.infinit.net/noc/pentagon.swf)
http://www.question911.com/ (http://www.question911.com/)
Finally, here is another movie about the events of 9/11:
http://www.911inplanesite.com/ (http://www.911inplanesite.com/)
This is the 9/11 movie that is being sent to people all across the country, and is being discussed everywhere where 9/11 truth is being discussed.
It's not a free movie...but you can download it from any file sharing service for free.
ALso, go to amazon.com and check out the dozens of books about 9/11.
I'll try to write some stuff up later. ALso note that the 9/11 truth movement is growing very fast. Already lots of news and talk radio shows nationwide are discussing the truth, letters by citizens are being sent out to government and news agencies, etc.. There are also lots of 9/11 truth protests going on, but the mainstream media doesn't report on them. It may take another week, month, year, or possibly years before the truth behind 9/11 sparks the 2nd American Revolution but make no doubt about it - it will. My money's on sometime within the next year.
[ September 03, 2004: Message edited by: xeen ]
2nd american revolution within a year? care to bet on that?
the biggest flaw i see with the arguments is that the people making these sites and movies more than likely dont know what they're talking about. they have pretty good guesses as to what you'd expect to happen but it just seems to much like a fake moonlanding. before you go into the whole "but stillmon you hot dude, phds have backed these claims" thing, a phd doesn't really mean you know everything about plane crashes. what about all the phds and dudes that support the story?
oh yeah, and about people saying they thought they saw a missile. those could easily be taken out of context. and afterall, planes look like missiles.
-
quote:
Originally posted by the stiller:
2nd american revolution within a year? care to bet on that?
the biggest flaw i see with the arguments is that the people making these sites and movies more than likely dont know what they're talking about. they have pretty good guesses as to what you'd expect to happen but it just seems to much like a fake moonlanding. before you go into the whole "but stillmon you hot dude, phds have backed these claims" thing, a phd doesn't really mean you know everything about plane crashes. what about all the phds and dudes that support the story?
oh yeah, and about people saying they thought they saw a missile. those could easily be taken out of context. and afterall, planes look like missiles.
First of all, what I meant was that the 9/11 truth movement in my opinion will go mainstream within the next 1-2 years definately. It's already exploded tremendously within the last 3 months!
As for everything else you said, I wouldn't mind having a debate over all the evidence, but only after you watch at least the free videos that I've listed. If you haven't seen it, there's really no point in talking to you about it.
And yes, of course nobody in the truth movement knows anything 100%. But the fact of the matter is that there is almost no evidence supporting the government story except for "the government said so". Face it, they've never proved anything and you gotta admit that inexplicable secrecy means they've got something to hide. On the other hand, the other side's got tons of evidence. If the government story is true, why don't they come out and prove it and make the truth people look like idiots?
Anyway, please watch the short flash video about the Pentagon, and then you MUST watch the free 4-part Painful Deceptions movie.
-
i watched the flash movie before my last post, ill make sure to get to the rest in a second.
the government really doesn't have to prove anything. nobody is stepping up to say the official story is right because its the official story and its truth is kind of implied.
but most of the evidence against the story seems like conjecture.
-
You have to admit, tho, the administration is being extremely dodgy about this. I thought for sure they would make some kind of official denial about all this, but they just pretend it isn't happening. Sadly, there is nothing any of us can do to determine the truth.
-
.
[ September 04, 2004: Message edited by: xeen ]
-
quote:
the government really doesn't have to prove anything.
Of course they don't! Why would they need proof to go on a rampage and bomb the shit out of other countries? They didn't need proof to bomb Iraq, did they?
I mean, it's obvious: America has been attacked by a group of hijackers, 8 of whom have been found alive (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm), and based on a passport which miraculously survied a fire (http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/august2004/230804visafound.htm) that rendered indestructible black boxes (http://www.context.co.nz:8080/discuss/msgReader$1356) unusable (and doesn't even look like the real person), and with the amazing psychic powers of the FBI, the CIA and the Mossad (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fakealqaeda.html), it's been found that the hijackers were part of a global Muslim conspiracy to destroy America because they hate their freedoms!
The only 'proof' I have seen so far is a confession video, which has not only been proven by the German media to have been mistranslated (http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/01/Laden/tapes9_Monitor.html), but was an an obvious fake (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html) to begin with.
[ September 04, 2004: Message edited by: Laukev7 / BOB ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by the stiller:
its the official story and its truth is kind of implied.
Oh...it's true because the government says it true! So what you're saying is that if you're ever arrested for something then the prosecutors don't have to prove your guilt and present evidence right? After all, they're the government and if they say you did it then you did it!
[ September 04, 2004: Message edited by: xeen ]
-
what i mean is theres probably going to be much more people investigating the official story than people going out of their way to be sure its right. sorry i used kinda weird wording there.
id make a longer reply to worker and laukev if i wasn't about to be gone a day or so.
[ September 04, 2004: Message edited by: the stiller ]
-
quote:
what i mean is theres probably going to be much more people investigating the official story than people going out of their way to be sure its right.
This may be true, but it's up to the government to prove their allegations in the first place, not to others to prove them true or wrong. As it turns out, their claims are incoherent, whereas overwhelming evidence is against them, and their motivations as well as their reactions make them very suspect
-
Vent your fustration of Bush to his face!
[email protected] ([email protected])
-
quote:
Originally posted by Canadian Lover:
Vent your fustration of Bush to his face!
[email protected] ([email protected])
...and I want Der Schutzstaffel on my case... why? Keep in mind that all e-mail sent to that address is vetted and form-lettered, nothing from anyone not in his "inner circle" ACTUALLY reaches him...
-
It's official. 85% of the world wants Bush gone.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=586&e=2&u=/nm/20040908/wl_nm/campaign_world_opinion_dc (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=586&e=2&u=/nm/20040908/wl_nm/campaign_world_opinion_dc)
-
If they didn't poll US troops based overseas, it would probably be more like 95%.
Actually, no source for the poll was given, either on Yahoo or Reuters. Names of countries polled were not given either, nor a sampling method. US polls are shitty enough, but now we have jerkoffs phoning random people in Venezuela and Namibia right at dinnertime?
I believe the results of the poll, but I hate "new sources" who just hand out little factoids like they were Halloween candy, without any source materials.
-
quote:
The only countries where Bush was preferred in the poll of 34,330 people that was conducted mainly in July and August were the Philippines, Nigeria and Poland.
Hmmm....Philippines, E-Mail Scam Central, and my ancestral homeland. I am missing something? :D
-
On a related note, it seems that Chimp-In-Chief is backing out of one of the 3 scheduled debates where the candidates have to answer questions from a live audience. What a coward.
AWOL from service in 1972.
AWOL from debates in 2004.
Article (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040908/ap_on_el_pr/presidential_debates_1)
-
Calling Bush a coward and Chimp-in-cheif is very close to name-calling, which, ITT is not going to be tolerated.
getting back on topic, I might try cracking into "Unfit For Command" eventually. I figure, that the Liberal/Democratic side has just been unrelenting in their attacks on President Bush, and they bore me now. I'm going to give The Right-Wing an equal opportunity to present their point of view.
And regarding the Debate, according to the article, President Bush never agreed to any of the debates, and they are concerned that the audience might be biased in general, both candidates were under the pretense of an audience of undecided voters, chosen by the Gallup Group.
Just to put this in perspective (if a bit extreme), It would be like Kerry doing a Q&A debate, infront of an audience of Christian Fundamentalists, under the pretense of objective and undecided voters.
my example is obviously a tad extreme, but it illustrates WHY President Bush chose to not participate in it.
[ September 10, 2004: Message edited by: Agent Sauron ]
-
Personally, I would welcome the chance to deliver a considered and thoughtful answer to the other side. With all the muckraking that is going on in this campaign, a lot of people are missing the key points. If I were running, I would certainly take the time to speak to rightwing christians and racist hicks, because they are the ones who are the most misled by their leaders. And any candidate who is unable to come up with intelligent rhetoric even in the face of brutal attacks does not deserve to be president. Fast-thinking and cool-headedness are 2 requirements for the office of president.
-
quote:
it illustrates WHY President Bush chose to not participate in it.
Or maybe this is the reason:
http://media.ebaumsworld.com/index.php?e=sovereignty.mov (http://media.ebaumsworld.com/index.php?e=sovereignty.mov)
-
Oh come now, he doesn't mess up that badly ALL the time. :D His debates in 2000 were much clearer.
On that note, anyone got a clip of the "Left Hand, Right Hand" thing? My favorite. (http://smile.gif)
-
Although we have mentioned 9/11, the war in Iraq and agree about the fascism going on in America currently.
I have to mention the current treatment of America's allies that did not join the invasion of Iraq.
I know that America, being a soverin nation has every right to protect its boarders but what business has it got to enforce its strong hold on Canada to force Canadians to accept biometrics in passports and other official documentation? Why should Canada be slammed with articles of 'harboring terrorism' when basically the war on terror has nothing to do with us?
Why bring that fascism north of the boarder?
I do blame some of our politians for this though. Namely The Tories and current liberal party of Ontario.
If anything, if the U.S. wants to 'protect' itself. Then it can. But we should not cater to their fear.
I've never been 'Anti-American,' I am however anti-Nazism and anti-bush. I have a big problem when a country starts going after other countries in this world and I believe just because it is the "U.S. of A" does not mean that America has the right to the same fascist actions that people have condemned Germany in the past. If anything we should learn from our mistakes and clearly recognize that this is wrong. I'm just glad that there are people out there that have dedicated in putting out the truth and not just accepted 'the government says so.' excuse.
agree that kerry is not the greatest leader. But I believe its the step in the right direction if all bush wants is total chaos. I just want things to go back to normal, (pr 9/11.) And stop with the racism, fascism, terrosim bullshit.
-
One caveat when using the 'fascism' label, however, is how one defines it. Strictly speaking, most people in the US, including the leaders, probably don't consciously follow Mussolini's original philosophy (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html). However, the term 'fascist' has also been used to describe regimes that bear similar characteristics, such as intense nationalism and obsession for national security at the expense of civil rights, the use of the word 'fascism', in that sense, would likely apply to the US under the current Bush regime.
Of course, such a comparison is prone to criticism, both because it is associated with superficial and specific characteristics of past regimes, and because the word has been overused in debates for the powerful images that it evokes as a means to defame a political adversary. However, if one looks beyond mainstream assumptions and put all matters in context, one can find out that parallels between the Bush administration and fascist regimes are not so far-fetched.
Fascist states are commonly assumed to be dictatorships controlled by a single, ruthless leader whose rule is enforced by a pervading cult of personality. In reality, similar regimes have also been instilled in the past by elites (whether part of the government or not) who glorify puppet leaders though various means (http://perdurabo10.tripod.com/id580.html) of propaganda while they work behind the scenes to further their agendas. Many of the elites in question are owners of select few corporations that work in tandem with the regime, whether directly or by affiliation.
It is worth noting that democratic institutions, separation of power, bills of rights and constitutional provisions have not prevented fascist regimes from taking over the country by legal or pseudo-legal means (Nazi Germany is a prominent example). Fascist regimes that have been instituted by an (often fraudulent) election are more difficult to recognise, and are often only identified several years later when it is too late, after having progressively expanded their powers by abolishing civil rights, often as a response to a staged attack or a perceived threat, and after having brought down the separations of power by various means.
Contrary to past European fascist regimes like Nazi Germany, there is no need for the US to expand its borders, as it is already a large nation; all it has to do is allow its corporations to exploit the natural and human ressources of third world countries. However, the PNAC's aim to turn the US into a global defacto hegemony is only slightly different, with the exception that the neocons claim that they dream of world peace through unity, as opposed to classic fascists who made their dreams of self-aggrandisement explicit.
In short, neoconservatism is simply a subversive and more subtle variant of fascism that relies slightly more on perceived threats than on patriotic fervour, and whose control is less direct, but more spread out and much more powerful.
BTW, here is Lawrence Britt's original article:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm (http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm)
OK, time to stop now. The effects of my medication are dissipating.
[ September 11, 2004: Message edited by: Laukev7 / BOB ]
-
Aside from a few minor grammatical errors, which I will politely ignore, that was a very nice essay. However, the true definition of fascism does not come from the top down. It comes from the bottom up. If the people feel threatened by their own government, then something is terribly wrong, whether there is democracy present or not. I personally feel that the current administration has an irrational grudge against me, just because I am not a CEO. Additionally, the executive and legilsative branches of government have proven time and time again that they are not all that interested in the democratic opinions that normal citizens are voicing. Ergo, fascism abounds.
-
we could nick pick and argue what 'facism' or a 'dicatorship' is. The fact is that we use history to look back appon and reconize a problem if the same problem is presented.
Indeed there has been an over use of words. Even new words such as the 'war on' or 'shock and aw' or the use of 'freedom' and 'liberties' to definne their image and goal. When using words, it is about spinning the image to glorify the mass chaos that is happening now.
People use the basic system of the U.S. two party system to confuse the issue. Like left vs right. Republicans vs Democrats. Or East vs West. Islam vs Christan. All of which, I believe is utter nonsence and takes away the criminal actions made by the bush regime.
But the fact boils down to what actions the current america has taken. Despite the arguments, If I kill a person then that would make me a killer. The bush regime has done the same things. Instead of just killing one person they have killed many through 9/11, the attack of iraq and afganistan. No matter how they justify it. They have commited a crime where they have threatend, injured and even killed innocent civillans!
Thus you cannot just suddenly justify that crime with words like the 'war on terror.'
It doesn't make it all of a sudden right. In todays age, if Hitler was around, he would have faced war crimes for what he did back in that period of time. So whay should bush be any different? He should face the same punnishment since he has commited the same crimes.
Of course no matter how I would like that to happen, it probably will not.
So the first step, I see is to get rid of bush. Second, his goons. Third get rid off ALL of the idiotic bullshit laws and restrictions that have been put in place since his comming of power.
I believe that, given a heack of a lot of time. America can recover. If germany could do it after hitler, then why not America after bush. I just want the process to start so we can at least end this nightmare.