2016 Election
Quote: Beethoven9thPoll: Mitt Romney beats President Obama today
If the 2012 election were held today, Mitt Romney would win.
49% Romney
45% Obama
(Too bad stupidity took hold last Nov)
But aren't most of the problems caused by the guy who was in office before his election in 2012?
Quote: AZDuffmanBut aren't most of the problems caused by the guy who was in office before his election in 2012?
Love it! Obama inherited all of his problems from the guy who was elected in '08! I think I'm gonna borrow that one, if you don't mind...hehehe ;)
First what do you think say the 3 or so most important points are for the platform? Less government, taxes, what?
Az, if you would. When you are supporting the tea party are you strictly national in your opinions?
I came across inadvertently a few articles that were talking about Pierre Omidyar, are you familiar with some of his efforts to reduce poverty through business?
If so, are you aware of SKS microfinance particularly in India?
Also, BRAC as NGO? Which would include Hernando de Soto the Frederick Von Hayek of Latin America?
I am interested for my personal knowledge of what this all about, Thanks.
Quote: petroglyphOne of you guys help me out so I have a better understanding of your support for tea party beliefs, ok? Honest questions here.
First what do you think say the 3 or so most important points are for the platform? Less government, taxes, what?
Az, if you would. When you are supporting the tea party are you strictly national in your opinions?
Please rephrase or clarify "strictly national in your opinions" so I may answer properly. I don't quite understand what you are asking the way it is phrased.
My 3 most important points? On the spot I would say in no special order I want to see:
1. A more Constitutional government reaching less into our lives with a pre-1915 reading of the proper role of government. This would include removing direct election of US Senators and returning their role to be to look out for the states and not the people as well as eliminating the income tax and going back to consumption taxes. Additionally it means get rid of the ability of activist judges to "find rights" never before thought of. In other words, the Constitution is a contract and you go by what was intended when it was written, not the latest fad. And no more submitting to the UN, which has become a joke. One can only dream of some of this.
2. A government that tries for equality of opportunity and not equality of outcome. This would mean banning all affirmative action and other preferences. Also means if people want the house, car, and other things I have then go hustle for them like I did, not camp out and refuse to work.
3. A return to a more "classical" society. This means society that more believes in doing for oneself and not waiting for or demanding the government do for you. It means not trying to make men and women interchangeable. It means not getting "offended" at the drop of a hat. It means more minding our own business. It means not crying to HR because two guy on the crew are called "Black Jim" and "White Jim" when not even they mind. And it means not minding! Simply a society where people "get over it."
Was hard to list it as just three, but that is probably my big issues.
I'm leaving for a few hours but I'll return.
My question on national boundaries of the tea party would be in reference to there being an international scope of some of the financial supporter's of the tea party movement. Koch brother's, Omidyer possibly Gates?
Desoto has worked for decades for private property rights in latin America and school privatization.
Just so I can more accurately follow some posts here, I was curious if the topics discussed here had intranational scope, I didn't want to use the word agenda because of possible negative connotations?
I vote to get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US, if my vote counted.
I can easily accept your 3 points above. Could we back that up to pre-1913?
Quote: Beethoven9thOh yeah, and to answer your question, NO Republican candidate can win in 2016..........2020..........2024..........ad infinitum. The biased media, dishonest Democrats, and the liberal Hollywood elite are just too much to overcome in today's political climate. Not even Ronald Reagan—the grandfather of modern Republicans—could win an election today.
Surely the pendulum swings back & forth. And if the Democrats consistently win the White House for the next couple election cycles, their own complacent corruption will cause them to self-destruct thereby offering an opening to a Republican challenger, no?
From Karl Rove's Nov 7, 2004 appearance on Meet The Press:
TIM RUSSERT: You have said that you--your ultimate goal is a permanent Republican majority. What does that mean?
KARL ROVE: Well, first of all, there are no permanent majorities in American politics. They last for about 20 or 30 or 40 or, in the case of the Roosevelt coalition, 50 or 60 years and then they disappear. But would I like to see the Republican Party be the dominant party for whatever time history gives it the chance to be? You bet.
Quote: petroglyph
My question on national boundaries of the tea party would be in reference to there being an international scope of some of the financial supporter's of the tea party movement. Koch brother's, Omidyer possibly Gates?
Desoto has worked for decades for private property rights in latin America and school privatization.
Finance has been international for years, that does not bother me so much as you put it.
Quote:I can easily accept your 3 points above. Could we back that up to pre-1913?
1913-1920 was when we really went off the tracks in the USA. I just want to get to before the Fed, Income Tax, and direct election of Senators. That is most of our issues. The Fed started as a needed thing but when they gave it the dual-mandate that was a sentence to a forever declining currency.
And the real big problem is so few people understand any of what is going on.
Quote: AZDuffman. It means not getting "offended" at the drop of a hat. It means more minding our own business. It means not crying to HR because two guy on the crew are called "Black Jim" and "White Jim" when not even they mind. And it means not minding! Simply a society where people "get over it."
Your Constitutional date timeline goes around the time the ADL formed.
Quote:The Anti-Defamation League was founded in 1913 "to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all." Now the nation's premier civil rights/human relations agency, ADL fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals and protects civil rights for all.
http://www.adl.org/about-adl/#.Uo1uCGwo7bg
Do you consider them a root cause of all the whining about discrimination?
Quote: rxwineYour Constitutional date timeline goes around the time the ADL formed.
http://www.adl.org/about-adl/#.Uo1uCGwo7bg
Do you consider them a root cause of all the whining about discrimination?
The whining about discrimination didn't hit until the 60s and more so the 1980s. The Constitutional timeline is a separate issue to me.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe whining about discrimination didn't hit until the 60s and more so the 1980s. The Constitutional timeline is a separate issue to me.
There's whining and awareness of whining.
The ability to communicate everywhere has increased significantly.
Rxwine, did you read the link you put up about the adl or just post it? Are you a member?
I don't get why all these threads keep bringing up discrimination?
This is a totally logical, sensible point. But from what I've observed with voters, they're neither logical nor sensible. For example, take California and New York. Democrats have destroyed those two states, yet voters keep electing and re-electing.............DEMOCRATS!!! And it doesn't look like it's going to change any time soon.Quote: renoSurely the pendulum swings back & forth. And if the Democrats consistently win the White House for the next couple election cycles, their own complacent corruption will cause them to self-destruct thereby offering an opening to a Republican challenger, no?
Add in the media bias (which is worse today than it was 10 years ago), the Hollywood bias, and the electoral advantage that Democrats currently have, and I just don't see a Republican winning any more presidential elections.
Another good point, since Rove has been the most successful Republican strategist of his generation.Quote: renoFrom Karl Rove's Nov 7, 2004 appearance on Meet The Press:
TIM RUSSERT: You have said that you--your ultimate goal is a permanent Republican majority. What does that mean?
KARL ROVE: Well, first of all, there are no permanent majorities in American politics. They last for about 20 or 30 or 40 or, in the case of the Roosevelt coalition, 50 or 60 years and then they disappear. But would I like to see the Republican Party be the dominant party for whatever time history gives it the chance to be? You bet.
But a lot has changed in 9 years. I would have agreed with Rove in 2004, but in 2013, things look bleak.
Quote: petroglyphRxwine, did you read the link you put up about the adl or just post it? Are you a member?
I am not a member. I brought it up as I was curious about Duffman's 3 stances, one being about people being treated as if discrimination was something we are done with. Not sure who gets to decide that.
Quote: petroglyphOne of you guys help me out so I have a better understanding of your support for tea party beliefs, ok? Honest questions here.
First what do you think say the 3 or so most important points are for the platform?
There is no single entity called the "Tea Party", so there isn't any platform. The term is actually more of a description than an official title.
Kinda like the word "liberal". There isn't an official "liberal" platform. It's more of a description. Same thing with the Tea Party.
Quote: Beethoven9th...take California and New York. Democrats have destroyed those two states, yet voters keep electing and re-electing.............DEMOCRATS!!! And it doesn't look like it's going to change any time soon.
I should probably add, I also hear some conservatives saying that the terrible economy and Obamacare will doom Democrats in 2016. Wrong!
We conservatives forget about history sometimes. We said the same thing after 1994, but then 1996 occurred. Then we said the same thing again after 2010, but then 2012 happened. We'll probably have a good 2014, and we'll probably crow about it, but that doesn't mean sh*t when it comes to 2016.
And this idea that Democrats will get the blame for their failures? Wrong again! Remember when Dems tried to blame Detroit's downfall on Republicans? Well, now Obama's trying to blame Obamacare on Republicans!!! And you know the media will play along.
Obama says Republicans share some blame for health-care law’s failures
I hate to be a pessimist, but get ready for Hillary (or whatever Dem they put up) in 2016.
Quote: Beethoven9th
I hate to be a pessimist, but get ready for Hillary (or whatever Dem they put up) in 2016.
Just shoot me...
Quote: chickenmanJust shoot me...
With what? Won't they have banned handguns by then? :D
Quote: thecesspitWith what? Won't they have banned handguns by then? :D
Yes, but you can still be turned to stone, according to some conservatives.
Pretty decent pic. An improvement from the last one I saw of her.
Quote: AZDuffmanPlease rephrase or clarify "strictly national in your opinions" so I may answer properly. I don't quite understand what you are asking the way it is phrased.
My 3 most important points? On the spot I would say in no special order I want to see:
1. A more Constitutional government reaching less into our lives with a pre-1915 reading of the proper role of government. This would include removing direct election of US Senators and returning their role to be to look out for the states and not the people as well as eliminating the income tax and going back to consumption taxes. Additionally it means get rid of the ability of activist judges to "find rights" never before thought of. In other words, the Constitution is a contract and you go by what was intended when it was written, not the latest fad. And no more submitting to the UN, which has become a joke. One can only dream of some of this.
2. A government that tries for equality of opportunity and not equality of outcome. This would mean banning all affirmative action and other preferences. Also means if people want the house, car, and other things I have then go hustle for them like I did, not camp out and refuse to work.
3. A return to a more "classical" society. This means society that more believes in doing for oneself and not waiting for or demanding the government do for you. It means not trying to make men and women interchangeable. It means not getting "offended" at the drop of a hat. It means more minding our own business. It means not crying to HR because two guy on the crew are called "Black Jim" and "White Jim" when not even they mind. And it means not minding! Simply a society where people "get over it."
Was hard to list it as just three, but that is probably my big issues.
Those are admirable goals there Az.
I thought in the past that generally people just can't handle freedom. Look what they do with it. There is no stopping evolution, in politics or nature and if it was the legitimate outcome of a constitutional republic then those ideals failed, much to my dismay.
I don't see the moneyed interests giving up their control of government simply because of a vote. You've mentioned elsewhere that democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner, that's about right. The majority of voters are not going to like what it would take to fix what most realize is very wrong with a country once the beacon of the world for freedom and hope.
The Romans had it figured out that if they kept the populace fed and entertained they could do pretty much anything they wanted. There are over 47 million people in America receiving food stamps [ebt]. The priority of my government is dumbfounding if I accept there stated intentions at face value. That goes for both the dems/republicans. Like you say above a big problem is people won't inform themselves about what's really happening. I find it bizarre that of the 47 million on ebt that the processing of those claims were privatized. That processing was split up between BOA, CITI, JPMorgan, and they outsourced the processing to India. Wow. I can hardly imagine what some slave wage worker is thinking when they are working their asses off processing food benefits for Americans who can't find enough resources to feed themselves, whew. At times I am embarrassed for my country.
Was it Ron Paul's lack of charisma that undermined his support? That man in my mind was probably the last chance in a long time of returning the country to what it was intended to be. His voting record for the last 30 years if people would inform themselves have been almost without fail right down constitutional lines. A large percentage of voters are just going to vote for what they saw on tv in the last few days before the election. They think they are voting for a movie character or something. It's mostly just theatre. They don't want the truth. The masses are always going to follow the path of least resistance and vote what they believe is their pocketbook not their conscience.
Quote: petroglyph
The Romans had it figured out that if they kept the populace fed and entertained they could do pretty much anything they wanted. There are over 47 million people in America receiving food stamps [ebt]. The priority of my government is dumbfounding if I accept there stated intentions at face value. That goes for both the dems/republicans. Like you say above a big problem is people won't inform themselves about what's really happening. I find it bizarre that of the 47 million on ebt that the processing of those claims were privatized. That processing was split up between BOA, CITI, JPMorgan, and they outsourced the processing to India. Wow. I can hardly imagine what some slave wage worker is thinking when they are working their asses off processing food benefits for Americans who can't find enough resources to feed themselves, whew. At times I am embarrassed for my country.
The problem with breaking dependency is that so many people would rather live out a meager existence on aid than actually work but live far better. We have made an institutionalized sub-society that cannot function in the real world. We always have and always will have an underclass. But pre-1960s the underclass was more functional than it is today. Drugs are also playing a huge role in this destruction.
Quote:Was it Ron Paul's lack of charisma that undermined his support?
Ron Paul lost my support the first time I ever heard of him when he said we need to look to blame ourselves for 9/11.
I thought he was trying to bring awareness of blowback.
He has said several times that the US shouldn't try and be the worlds' police we can't afford it and it's none of our business.
Why do you think this 911 happened? You don't believe it was some crazy Afghany's or Iraqis on those planes do you? And then after that happened who do we go to war with? Wmd's, "War on terrorism",,,, it's all bull, follow the money.
Do you think the whole truth was told to or given by the 911 commission? How many Americans even know building seven wasn't even hit by a plane and fell at free fall speed, in it's own footprint?
The last president to even mention constitutional currency was Kennedy, right before.
Quote: petroglyphJust like aid leads to dependence actions have reactions.
I thought he was trying to bring awareness of blowback.
He has said several times that the US shouldn't try and be the worlds' police we can't afford it and it's none of our business.
Why do you think this 911 happened? You don't believe it was some crazy Afghany's or Iraqis on those planes do you? And then after that happened who do we go to war with? Wmd's, "War on terrorism",,,, it's all bull, follow the money.
Do you think the whole truth was told to or given by the 911 commission? How many Americans even know building seven wasn't even hit by a plane and fell at free fall speed, in it's own footprint?
The last president to even mention constitutional currency was Kennedy, right before.
Are you seriously suggesting a conspiracy on 9/11.....If you are please wake up. Or at least spare the rest of us such drivel. You dishonor the memory of the many brave men and women who died that terrible day.
Quote: vendman1Are you seriously suggesting a conspiracy on 9/11.....If you are please wake up. Or at least spare the rest of us such drivel. You dishonor the memory of the many brave men and women who died that terrible day.
I honor those that died, not only in the buildings but in the wars that followed more than you can possibly imagine.
Nice job of attacking the messenger and not the message.
Have you watched the video's of building seven falling in it's own footprint in less than 8 seconds, do you think that was caused by a fire?
If that 110 story building came down because of the small amount of fire, it was the first steel reinforced building in history to have done so. That's not conspiracy, over 1025 engineers agree.
Only you can spare yourself from drivel, try blocking.
Reid, Democrats trigger ‘nuclear’ option; eliminate most filibusters on nominees
The party that railroaded Robert Bork 26 years ago now has the audacity to complain about treatment of nominees. *headshake*
Quote: petroglyph
Do you think the whole truth was told to or given by the 911 commission? How many Americans even know building seven wasn't even hit by a plane and fell at free fall speed, in it's own footprint?
Of course it did, it was on fire all day and the steel softened until it snapped. How else would you have expected it to fall?
Quote: Beethoven9thWell, it looks like Senate Dems just went nuclear!
Reid, Democrats trigger ‘nuclear’ option; eliminate most filibusters on nominees
The party that railroaded Robert Bork 26 years ago now has the audacity to complain about treatment of nominees. *headshake*
Both parties (with the exception of John McCain among Senators in office at the time of both events) completely switched sides on this issue--Senator Obama, Senator Biden, and Senator Reid said how horrible this was when the Republicans considered doing this a few years ago; now they think it is the best thing since sliced bread. The Republicans, for the most part (Senator McCain is the exception) supported it last time and now believe it may be the end of the world.
This is one of those important "little things" in our government that helps protect us from the majority just tossing out everything the minority says or does. It gives the minority some limited power to push back. The majority, as a group (and no particular party in mind) sometimes wants to take things too far; this destroys a bit of what helps reign them in...no matter what party is in power.
I think both parties spend too much political energy holding up nominations that in earlier years would have been approved easily. It doesn't really get that much done--if I am president and I appoint a conservative or liberal to the Supreme Court, do you think I am going to back down and not appoint the same type of candidate if you freeze my first appointment out? There may be some moderation, but a Liberal president is unlikely to appoint a conservative justice and vice versa. The President has the right to appoint who he'd like; the Senate should give advice and consent with a fairly quick vote after hearings.
The fillibuster of these candidates should only take place in the rare case one is so objectionable that it is worth the effort. The rest of them should be voted on...but the same goes for both republicans and democrats.
I have a feeling that this rules change will come to a vote again between the 2014 election and the swearing in ceremonies for incoming Senators should the power change hands in the Senate. The intellectual dishonesty of our political class will rear its ugly head again--the democrats will want to get rid of the new rule before the republicans take power, forcing the republicans to reinstate it with everyone on opposite sides again if they want to keep the rule. The republicans will need an extra vote on their side, since Senator McCain has thus far proven to be the only one who has kept the same position in both situations.
Some here will be tempted to "cut and paste" statements here to suit their agenda. Screw you. You may take that as a personal insult. The point is that the "political class" just doesn't give a crap about you or me...whether we shout liberal or conservative positions. Their only concern is maintaining power over us. Every single Senator that was sitting at both points this measure was considered deserves to be run out of office--Senator McCain (and I am not a huge fan of his) is the only one who did not flip flop for political expedience.
Quote: petroglyphI honor those that died, not only in the buildings but in the wars that followed more than you can possibly imagine.
Nice job of attacking the messenger and not the message.
Have you watched the video's of building seven falling in it's own footprint in less than 8 seconds, do you think that was caused by a fire?
If that 110 story building came down because of the small amount of fire, it was the first steel reinforced building in history to have done so. That's not conspiracy, over 1025 engineers agree.
Only you can spare yourself from drivel, try blocking.
OK you accused me of attacking the messenger not the message. So here is why your message is complete bunk.
1. Myself and millions of others WATCHED the planes fly into the building. Did we all have a mass delusion? Of course the planes hit the buildings.
2. Yes the towers fell in their own footprint(mostly). It's perfectly logical...they fell because an enormous and massive impact blew the fire coating off of the steel beams, that support the weight of the building. Then the incredibly hot fire, fueled by jet fuel, weakened the unprotected steel columns which caused them to buckle leading the floor(s) above to pancake onto the floors below which caused the chain reaction of the buildings pancaking and falling straight down.
3. It was not a small amount of Fire...it was a fully loaded jet aircraft and it's highly flammable load of jet fuel. You make it sound like a dumpster fire.
4. The wars that followed 9/11 are a completely different issue than the tragedy itself. But the simple fact is 19 men highjacked 4 airplanes and attempted to fly them into buildings. 3 groups did just that , the 4th crashed into the PA field. Do you dispute these facts? I can't see how.
Quote: vendman1OK you accused me of attacking the messenger not the message. So here is why your message is complete bunk.
1. Myself and millions of others WATCHED the planes fly into the building. Did we all have a mass delusion? Of course the planes hit the buildings.
2. Yes the towers fell in their own footprint(mostly). It's perfectly logical...they fell because an enormous and massive impact blew the fire coating off of the steel beams, that support the weight of the building. Then the incredibly hot fire, fueled by jet fuel, weakened the unprotected steel columns which caused them to buckle leading the floor(s) above to pancake onto the floors below which caused the chain reaction of the buildings pancaking and falling straight down.
3. It was not a small amount of Fire...it was a fully loaded jet aircraft and it's highly flammable load of jet fuel. You make it sound like a dumpster fire.
4. The wars that followed 9/11 are a completely different issue than the tragedy itself. But the simple fact is 19 men highjacked 4 airplanes and attempted to fly them into buildings. 3 groups did just that , the 4th crashed into the PA field. Do you dispute these facts? I can't see how.
I get your contempt. And the tragedy is too ugly for me to want to go through it again at this time in depth. But I will go this far at least.
There is tons of documentation if anyone cares enough to go through it objectively.
Again... I said Building Number SEVEN. I did not mention towers ONE and TWO. I had to click this link so I could paste it here and a statistic jumped out at me. Apparently there are still 46% of americans that don't realize that THREE towers went down that day. One and Two were hit, number Seven over a block away also went down without being hit. The first steel reinforced concrete building in history to collapse from a fire.
Click on the link scroll till you see the footage of Building number SEVEN. Not buildings One and Two, which I watched in horror myself. If you still think as you do, I can't and won't try to change your mind.
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth - Wikipedia, the free ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architects_%26_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth
Oct 01, 2013 · Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) is an American non-profit organization of architects, engineers, and demolition experts who dispute the ...
.
ae911truth - YouTube
www.youtube.com/user/ae911truth
Architects & Engineers for 9//11 Truth. Re-examining the 3 World Trade Center "collapses", the Twin Towers and Building 7. Examine the Evidence! http://www.A...
31,761 subscribers ·
Videos ·
Discussion ·
About
Quote: petroglyph
The first steel reinforced concrete building in history to collapse from a fire.
This would be a valid point if there was a control building that had a similar building that had such a large, uncontrolled fire weakening the structure. To suggest it was anything but the fire causing the collapse is silly.
Quote: AZDuffmanThis would be a valid point if there was a control building that had a similar building that had such a large, uncontrolled fire weakening the structure. To suggest it was anything but the fire causing the collapse is silly.
I don't want to go through this.
Did you look at the link I posted?
There are over 1025 professional engineers and architects that disagree with you.
Building, demolition, fire experts together with thousands of years of experience, and it wasn't easy for any on them to say what they've said.
Tell them.
I assume we are both referring to the third tower, not one and two.
Quote: petroglyphI don't want to go through this.
Did you look at the link I posted?
I have seen all the nonsense for years now. To believe Building 7 was somehow demolished is to believe a crew could sneak in and do all the work for weeks before. Like I said, nonsense.
Quote: AZDuffmanI have seen all the nonsense for years now. To believe Building 7 was somehow demolished is to believe a crew could sneak in and do all the work for weeks before. Like I said, nonsense.
I agree. There's plenty of people out there who have gone through this documentation, piece by piece and refuted it. Popular Mechanics did a great job on it, as I recall.
Like the Kennedy assassination, people want to believe it was more than it was, that the failures must have been interior to the system.
But in the end, it was a bunch of committed losers, funded by an outside source, that found the loop holes and weakness in the security systems. Any links to the aftermath being 'good' for some group or other are just opportunism. Maybe evidence of the threat before the event was missed or ignored. But there's no 'smoking gun' for an inside job.
Ron Paul questioned -why- a group of committed fundamentalists would commit a terror attack on the US. His answer makes many people uncomfortable. There's elements of truth, but overall, you can't 'blame' US foreign policy for a terrorist attack.
Quote: AZDuffmanI have seen all the nonsense for years now. To believe Building 7 was somehow demolished is to believe a crew could sneak in and do all the work for weeks before. Like I said, nonsense.
Like I said, did you watch the link I provided, I'm going to guess no. I don't think you or thecesspit or vendman took the time out of our busy schedules to look at a 5 minute video and a short explanation by professional engineers and architects who have made knowing this material their lives work.
You may have seen this "nonsense" for years, but I believe it is from the same source. If sometime you have the time to watch this short video, please do so with the volume from the tv turned down and evaluate sevens collapse for yourself. They show a comparison to another building collapsing and although it wasn't on fire it is enough of a comparison with freefall speed.
If a thousand professionals and eye witness testimony can't persuade you to reconsider what the msm has convinced you are the facts, then it probably can't be done, let alone anything I might have to say. I recognize the futility in me trying. I had hoped that you were more objective than to just accept what's on the msm as gospel.
Quote: RonCSenator McCain (and I am not a huge fan of his) is the only one who did not flip flop for political expedience.
Totally agree. I don't care for McCain either, but he was 100% consistent on this one.
What link? I once sat through an entire 911 truther video on YouTube. It was very convincing except for some questions that kept bothering me. If 7 WTC was "brought down" by a team of engineers then why haven't any of these engineers bothered to mention it to anyone else? Where were the demolition materials kept and why did they wait for terrorists to fly planes into WTC 1 and WTC 2 to then go in and set up the explosives to bring down a perfectly good building that housed a lot of office space? If it was a controlled demo then why couldn't they wait until the scene was better controlled? If it was terrorists, then why bring down 7 WTC when the Deutsche Bank building a.k.a. 2 WTC (which eventually had to come down as well) was larger and closer to Wall Street?Quote: petroglyphLike I said, did you watch the link I provided
If you're going to cook up a good conspiracy then you need a motive. 7 WTC wasn't important or iconic.
Quote: s2dbakerWhat link? I once sat through an entire 911 truther video on YouTube. It was very convincing except for some questions that kept bothering me. If 7 WTC was "brought down" by a team of engineers then why haven't any of these engineers bothered to mention it to anyone else? Where were the demolition materials kept and why did they wait for terrorists to fly planes into WTC 1 and WTC 2 to then go in and set up the explosives to bring down a perfectly good building that housed a lot of office space? If it was a controlled demo then why couldn't they wait until the scene was better controlled? If it was terrorists, then why bring down 7 WTC when the Deutsche Bank building a.k.a. 2 WTC (which eventually had to come down as well) was larger and closer to Wall Street?
If you're going to cook up a good conspiracy then you need a motive. 7 WTC wasn't important or iconic.
I don't want to cook up anything.
I was peacefully yesterday exchanging comments about political groups and up jumped a topic I didn't really want to go into.
I posted a link earlier today, which interestingly enough I can't open now, no conspiracy just the way it is.
If you sat through those videos and this is your conclusion than so be it, everybody gets to believe what they want after all it's a free country.
So I went and dug up a fresher link if you were interested although I'm sure it would have been easy for anyone if I can do it. I don't have any info that isn't publicly accessible. The whole thing is a terrible tragedy and over 3 thousand were not only killed, they were murdered.
The 911 commission never even looked at wtc seven in their report, that is the only building I have referred to.
If anyone wants to look at the subject this link should take them there.
http://www2.ae911truth.org/images/aelogoleft.png
Yes 3,000 people were murdered, but by radical Muslim terrorists. Not by a weird pointless conspiracy.
Quote: vendman1Ok, so your link still doesn't work, but I found it elsewhere and watched it. If this is your evidence of a conspiracy please try harder....it's nonsense. As s2dbaker points out; it makes no sense on so many fundamental levels. Bringing down WTC7 as a conspiracy would be pointless...as you yourself point out few people even remember it fell down. What would be to gain from bring down one building amongst a much larger tragedy. This just fails the smell test.
Yes 3,000 people were murdered, but by radical Muslim terrorists. Not by a weird pointless conspiracy.
I was never trying to convince anyone of a conspiracy, is that what your really want? Are you trying to get me to bring up some evidence to refute the most popular story? Why. It seems we agree 1/2 of Americans don't even know how many buildings came down. But they are sure who did it, however many buildings there were. I can't think of anything for me to gain to try and prove some crazy "conspicacy". Who to?
What would be the point of bringing down a building that no one even remembers, no matter why it came down, we know the official story is the one that matters to most and therefore is what happened. Nothing to see here, move along. Trying to prove anything different is what is pointless.
I don't know why the building collapsed, but a lot of very educated people say it wasn't because of a fire burning for 5 hours in a cement building that was steel girder reinforced. The building as you saw, wasn't engulfed in flame. Maybe the country just needs better building codes? Certainly the fire and building codes are inadequate as we can see. And all of the structural engineers don't know what they are doing giving us these inferior designs. What say you?
If I was looking for some kind of conspiracy, and I am not, then I would have to ask, what type of offices occupied it? What was lost in the collapse that will never be seen, that type of thing. Or maybe who benefitted? But I am not looking, and not enough remember or care, after all it is NFL season.
I agree that fundamentalists can be very dangerous. It is also true that it could be any type of fundamentalist such as Christians or any other kind.
Quote: petroglyph
I don't know why the building collapsed, but a lot of very educated people say it wasn't because of a fire burning for 5 hours in a cement building that was steel girder reinforced. The building as you saw, wasn't engulfed in flame. Maybe the country just needs better building codes? Certainly the fire and building codes are inadequate as we can see. And all of the structural engineers don't know what they are doing giving us these inferior designs. What say you?
Inferior design? Building codes? Seriously, now you are going to say building codes need to be changed?
There was an uncontrolled fire raging for 5 hours, it was not even possible to fight the fire for multiple reasons so they chose to just let it burn. This could not, and really should not, have been anticipated by building codes and practices. When you design a building or a building code you design for what will probably happen, not for anything that ever might happen.
In most cases a fire in a building will start in a small way and be contained by the fire department. If it is not, the idea is to get the occupants out to safety long before the building fails. All buildings will fail sooner or later. WTC-7 passed in this regard.
But I will add to your conspiracy theory. You ask "what occupied building 7?" Part of what occupied it was commodity trading floors, made famous in the movie "Trading Places." Now, I knew a guy who was a trader on that floor, cocoa or sugar, I do not remember exactly. Stay with me here, this guy did not go to work that day. He says it was because it was a beautiful late-summer day and he was going to phase out of the job anyways. But should I call the DHS and tell them he "knew something?"
Again, the architectural engineers say the fire didn't bring down the building in it's own footprint at freefall speed, no matter how long you disagree I won't change my mind any more than you will, even if you beat this to death.
I don't have a conspiracy theory, no need for you to add to or take away from it.
If you are aware of something that is a threat to national security and are seeking my advice, yes you should call.
Read a cool story about Bush the other day. Back when Dana Perino was WH Press Secretary, she was very upset after Scott McClellan (her predecessor) trashed the Bush White House. She wanted to get back at him, but then she was summoned to see President Bush. He told her that he would not allow her to do so:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/dana-perino-reveals-a-secret-about-george-w-bush
Quote: Brief passage from articlePerino said that Bush told her she should “try to forgive” McClellan.
“No buts,” Perino said Bush demanded of her. “I don’t want you to live bitterly. I want you to let it go. This book is not going to be remembered in about three weeks.”
Perino revealed that she asked if she could throw her predecessor under the bus and was told by the president that she could not.
Now can you imagine any punk Democrat saying this about someone who trashed them? Hell no!
Bahahahahahahahahaha!!!
Quote: Beethoven9thPack your bags, Alec! MSNBC fires Baldwin over anti-gay slurs
Bahahahahahahahahaha!!!
Huh, this guy had a show? The commercials are funny but a TV show? why? Is Flo from Progressive getting a show? Tell you what, if the gecko from geico gets a show, I might watch.
The cavemen from Geico got a show. It didn't last very long.Quote: terapinedTell you what, if the gecko from geico gets a show, I might watch.
Presidential poll: Ronald Reagan's the greatest, Obama the worst
And here's a link to the full survey results:
http://today.yougov.com/news/2013/11/22/poll-results-presidents/
Quote: Beethoven9thHahahahahaha!!!
Presidential poll: Ronald Reagan's the greatest, Obama the worst
And here's a link to the full survey results:
http://today.yougov.com/news/2013/11/22/poll-results-presidents/
Very small sample, 1k, and its a web interview based survey. Really meaningless.
You're a nice guy and all, but do you realize how ignorant your posts sound when you make statements like this? Have you ever taken a course in statistics???? This is a math site. Ask the Wizard or any of the other math experts here whether or not it's a "very small sample".Quote: terapinedVery small sample, 1k
Quote: terapinedQuote: Beethoven9thHahahahahaha!!!
Presidential poll: Ronald Reagan's the greatest, Obama the worst
And here's a link to the full survey results:
http://today.yougov.com/news/2013/11/22/poll-results-presidents/
Very small sample, 1k, and its a web interview based survey. Really meaningless.
If the poll results are something one agrees with, it is the best poll out there. If not, the methodology used was incorrect or insufficient.
