Guys, you haven't won -- to win, you'd have to be right. And you're just not. I'm sorry I'm not much of a debater -- I'm the kind of guy who always thinks of clever way to say something three days later when I'm sitting in the bathroom. Makes me a good writer, but not much for arguments.
And I apologize for that. Because you're quite skillfully debating yourself into a dictatorship. I feel as though I'm letting you down by not explaining it well enough.
Because this is important, dammit. It's not a joke. It's not a movie. It's not some Tom Clancy novel. It's real life, and real things like freedom and democracy that are being stolen out from underneath you. I take these things seriously, and even sort of personally.
The argument itself is controlled. Have they ever once even mentioned the French report? All they've done is talk about a French book, and totally slam it (so much for the wonderfully impartial news).
I'm sorry, guys. I wish I was better at arguments, but I'm just not. You're gonna have to figure this one out for yourselves.
Okay. It's darker now. The night is halfway cool. It's no longer hotter than shit in here. Feeling my second wind.
#1: Of course I'm not saying that cops get a pay-off when the convenience store gets robbed (unless they do -- weirder things have happened). What I'm saying is that if you know for a fact that the cop makes money when the convenience store gets robbed, you have to wonder about whether or not the cop is gonna look the other way when a guy with a gun walks in. You've accepted, I presume, that the Shrub and his buddies do make money off of this pipeline, and that what the terrorists did leads directly to the installation of that pipeline. Your only response was "Welcome to capitalism, Afghanistan," and quite frankly you wouldn't have let me get away with a lame response like that. Capitalism is a motive.
#2: And by the way, I'd like to take an opportunity to make a funny face at Britney. You said something about how we're giving Afghanistan an economy and feeding them. How 'bout this -- go beat somebody to death with a crowbar, then leave five bucks and a Snickers bar on their corpse. See how it helps your conscience and the jury's opinion.
#3: You still haven't explained why underfunding made the planes late to show up. We're talking about New York and Washington, D.C. This isn't some plane flying over Anarctica, this is a situation where the two most obvious targets for terrorism in the entire universe, as far as cities go, with the possible exceptions of Israel or the Vatican, have got planes moving overhead -- and we're supposed to believe that they were caught flat-footed? We're supposed to accept the thinly-veiled implication that it's all the fault of us stingy liberals? "Lousy left-wingers would rather spend money on baby-producing crack-whores than jetplanes!"
No. I'm sorry. This kind of incompetence beggars belief, and Occam's Razor works against it. The simplest explanation is not that people who live in D.C. elected to put the ready-to-scramble jets in Detroit, or something. If what you're saying is true, and "underfunding" is somehow responsible for those planes not making it to their targets on time, that's just a different kind of conspiracy. That means that our territorial military bases are completely useless and serve no function whatsoever. That means that the world's most expensive military had no defense against this kind of attack -- and if you believe this, I'm sorry, but you're a moron.
#4: Comparing my argument to the ol' "marijuana leads to shooting battery acid and eating your kittens" argument? I don't think I'm the one guilty of misdirection, here.
This is not a slippery slope, this is a clear and obvious pattern of behavior. I defy you to find a single Shrub policy that doesn't make one person rich at the expense of somebody else's ability to go on breathing. His own administration tells him that pollution is a real problem, and he just blows it off, calling it "bureaucratic." There are people in the world who can bitch about bureaucracy and sound like they mean it, but when this guy talks, his own behavior makes it clear that he's just out to consolidate power. Every single move this guy makes is either to increase his own power or to show that he's already got it. He's done absolutely nothing else since taking office. If he were using a scalpel rather than the Oval Office, he'd be guilty of malpractice. If it were a knife, he'd be a serial killer.
Marijuana has not killed a single person, ever. The Shrub has killed thousands. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
#5: Not conceding the point that you were trying to make by quoting that article is not a "lack of style." It's called "reading the whole article." If you missed the obvious and blatant discrepancy in what they were saying, I'm sorry. That's not my fault, though. It just makes it harder than hell to explain anything, when you're going to be so deliberately obtuse.
I left this board a little while ago feeling frustrated because I just knew I wasn't going to find the words to explain anything to anybody that just didn't want to listen. B y'know what? It's just not my job to convince you. If you don't want to believe, fine. You're still wrong. These are not flaws in my logic, this is deliberate and pathological avoidance of reality on your part.
I'm not giving up, simply because I'm right -- and because if these guys succeed in destroying America, it isn't gonna be because I was too busy bleating like a sheep to try to make the obvious truth a little more clear.
And no, Rob. I don't "need a conspiracy." What's going on is that you reach instinctively for the blinders, because sticking your head in the sand in easier than doing anything about the world's problems -- which is precisely why assholes like the Shrub generally get away with their crap.
ill gladly and freely admit that id readily turn a somewhat "blind eye" to certain events. in fact, im as blindly pro-american as you come off blindly anti-american. thats, really, our main/only difference; im glass half full, you're glass half empty.
the bottom line is, neither of us know shit (i know shit!) about what happened yesterday, much less on sept 11th. you werent in any secret conference room, and i wasnt there next to you. and neither of us was president at the time, and able to react in a way to understand what was going on in his mind, for better or worse.
you tend to see the bad in things (at least in this situation). you assume a lot of things, based on little or no evidence, that make the worst of nearly every person in every situation.
i'm the reverse. i assume a lot of things, based on little or no evidence, that make the good of nearly every person in every situation.
putting it bluntly, we're both retarded.
i just tend to think that its a safer bet to go with the 'lighter' side, if you will.
for bush to pull off what you're suggesting, not only would he have to be smart enough to come up with it, he'd have to be smart enough to pull it off (not to mention ballsy). THEN, he'd have to be skilled enough to lie to millions of people, and a good enough actor to do so convincingly. for someone you claim to hate so much, you're giving him boat loads of credit, beyond a cartoon supervillain level.
i tend to think this hit him hard, and as a shock. again, im not basing this off of any proof or facts or documented reports from foreign magazines, complete with hubble telescoped images. mostly, i base my assumptions off myself -- how i would (or did) react in a similar situation.
maybe thats stupid, maybe thats naive, and maybe thats dumb. but its no better or worse than jumping to the conclusion that he masterminded the entire event, then spent the night doing hookers and brooding at castle greyskull.
my way, to me, makes much more sense. its much more logical.
you can jump to conclusions and conspiracies in ANY situation. maybe byron scott wanted the lakers to win last night. maybe the weathermen actually work for snow plow companies. maybe #3 pencils give people super strength. any possible plot that you can conceive COULD be true, and could have some factual backing to the story.
but i tend to think that what actually happened is what you heard about -- that there's not something deep-routed going on. that there's no need to look for the trees when you are in the forrest; they're right there.
(this one is good, because it talks about Cheney misleading people on TV about how only the President can order jets to shoot down airliners)
I've posted all this to see if there really was something in the mainstream media that we're all missing. And most of it is as crazy as saying that Neil Armstrong didn't go to the moon (which some people do believe, but anyway...). You might like to look at those, as they might support your argument.
But this is the one you should really read, from the Boston Globe:
quote: Pakistan: Improbable theories have wide acceptance
By Colin Nickerson, Globe Staff, 9/23/2001
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - The manager of a deluxe hotel, a man of polish and broad exposure to the West, pulled a journalist into his office the other day to offer the real lowdown: It was the Jews that did it.
In these dangerous days in a desperate land, rumors are flying thick, fast, and outlandish.
Except they are believed deeply and widely across the Islamic world. Nowhere more so than in this South Asian nation caught in the whirlwind of Western outrage at the suicide attacks in New York and Washington.
Take the tale of ''the 4,000,'' reported even in the mainstream Pakistani press as a theory at least as plausible as the notion of murderous hijackings orchestrated by an exiled Saudi Arabian multimillionaire on the lam in Afghanistan, which lies next door to Pakistan.
Just before dawn on Sept. 11, so the story goes, 4,000 Jews working in the World Trade Center literally got a wake-up call from agents of Mossad, the Israeli spy agency. Or maybe it was the CIA. Or perhaps some shadowy cabal of international bankers and American arms manufacturers.
Versions vary, except on the curious (an unexplained) number: Precisely 4,000 people - all Jews - are said to have received the life-saving tip-off.
What makes such a preposterous tale seem a horrifying metaphor for the estrangement of Muslim and Western societies is the calm and matter-of-fact way it is related by people from every walk of life.
''They were warned, `Don't go to work today,''' said a professor of medicine at an elite teaching hospital.
Did the doctor, a liberal Muslim educated in the West, really believe such a thing?
''I am not 100 percent believing it, but I am 75 percent believing it,'' he said with a shrug. ''Americans have their theories. We have ours.''
The hottest theory in Pakistan these days is that either the Israeli government or a secret society of American Jews engineered the bloody attacks.
''Everyone suspects Jewish involvement. It's a possibility that cannot be denied,'' said Mohammad Afra, owner of an electronics shop.
But why on earth would Israel want to hijack airliners flying the skies of its close ally, destroy the World Trade Center, and smash the Pentagon?
That's a no-brainer to Sartaj Qadari, who sells tea from a pushcart along a busy Islamabad thoroughfare. Turning down the newscast blaring from his battery radio, Qadari was happy to relate the street buzz.
''Israel was badly embarrassed by the uprising in Palestine, all those terrible pictures of Muslim people shot dead,'' he said. ''So they organize these actions to turn away attention. Now all the media men come to Pakistan, and who hears of Gaza or the West Bank? Mossad is sly, very sly.''
Remarks that in the Western world would be taken as grotesque anti-Semitism are the stuff of everyday conversation in a land where even the best educated, sophisticated individuals doubt that the Nazi Holocaust occurred and regard Israel's policies toward Palestinians as by far the worst human rights atrocity of modern times.
Meanwhile, the tales circulating through Pakistan are taken at least as seriously as the United States' contention that Islamic militant Osama bin Laden plotted the murderous assault from a remote hide-out in the Hindu Kush, the forbidding mountains that cover much of Afghanistan.
''People in Pakistan really can't accept the idea that the skyscrapers were collapsed by this one fundamentalist man living in hiding,'' said a political writer with a respected Pakistan newspaper.
''From the view of proof, these stories about bin Laden seem nothing more than claims by your President Bush,'' he said. ''I don't give them any more, or less, credence than I give the stories about Jewish involvement.''
The ''4,000 Jews'' rumor has been reported as straight news in the nation's Urdu-language press. The stories cite vaguely identified ''press accounts'' from Canada and Germany, apparently nothing more than rantings plucked from anti-Semitic Web sites posted in British Columbia and Hamburg. Oddly, however, the mere fact that allegations of Jewish schemes can be attributed to Western sources makes them seem all the more reliable to Pakistanis.
What is perhaps most striking about the bizarre yarns is how widespread they are and the almost ho-hum tone in which they are related.
''I was sort of sickened the first time I heard this, but I also just dismissed as weird anti-Jewish stuff,'' said Steve Caplan, a Canadian aid worker with a Western relief agency. ''Now I've heard it dozens of times from every kind of Pakistani, and I am even more appalled. Something is way out of kilter between Muslim and Western cultures if ordinary people easily believe such lunacy.''
Plenty of other rumors are riding the winds. At yesterday's daily press briefing by the Pakistan Foreign Ministry, reporters from Muslim nations raised frantic questions about ''George Bush's promise to lead a Christian crusade against Islam'' or ''George Bush's statement that all Muslims should be killed.''
Until the ministry's spokesman, Riaz Mohammad Khan, finally got fed up: ''Where do these rumors fly from? There are so many irresponsible reports and stories. Why so much trash when the truth is terrible enough?''
So these guys don't blame oil barons, they have a much better motive and suspect - Zionism is to blame. Its a Jewish conspiracy, leading to a Christian crusade into Afghanistan, to divert attention away from Palestine.
And, Jack, they are just as credible as you are.
quote:Originally posted by Jack, the Little Death: Okay. It's darker now. The night is halfway cool. It's no longer hotter than shit in here. Feeling my second wind.
#1: Of course I'm not saying that cops get a pay-off when the convenience store gets robbed (unless they do -- weirder things have happened). What I'm saying is that if you know for a fact that the cop makes money when the convenience store gets robbed, you have to wonder about whether or not the cop is gonna look the other way when a guy with a gun walks in. You've accepted, I presume, that the Shrub and his buddies do make money off of this pipeline, and that what the terrorists did leads directly to the installation of that pipeline. Your only response was "Welcome to capitalism, Afghanistan," and quite frankly you wouldn't have let me get away with a lame response like that. Capitalism is a motive.
I think you've got the cause and the effect mixed. The effect of the installation of a moderate Afghan government is foreign investment (and you were being glib in not acknowledging that is what I meant), not the cause.
quote: #2: And by the way, I'd like to take an opportunity to make a funny face at Britney. You said something about how we're giving Afghanistan an economy and feeding them. How 'bout this -- go beat somebody to death with a crowbar, then leave five bucks and a Snickers bar on their corpse. See how it helps your conscience and the jury's opinion.
I have said elsewhere that the number of people killed in the attack on the Taleban equals the number of people killed in the WTC attacks. This is extremely lamentable.
quote:
#3: You still haven't explained why underfunding made the planes late to show up. We're talking about New York and Washington, D.C. This isn't some plane flying over Anarctica, this is a situation where the two most obvious targets for terrorism in the entire universe, as far as cities go, with the possible exceptions of Israel or the Vatican, have got planes moving overhead -- and we're supposed to believe that they were caught flat-footed? We're supposed to accept the thinly-veiled implication that it's all the fault of us stingy liberals? "Lousy left-wingers would rather spend money on baby-producing crack-whores than jetplanes!"
I don't think that is the point.
If there was a Soviet Union to contend with, the prospect of MiGs flying in from the Arctic circle or something, then the USAF would have been more or alert. But this was the sneakiest of attacks - the enemy used US civilian planes as their weapons. They didn't have to fly in from foreign airspace. They didn't have to bring an aircraft carrier nearby. This is something I have no problems with, at all.
quote:
No. I'm sorry. This kind of incompetence beggars belief, and Occam's Razor works against it. The simplest explanation is not that people who live in D.C. elected to put the ready-to-scramble jets in Detroit, or something. If what you're saying is true, and "underfunding" is somehow responsible for those planes not making it to their targets on time, that's just a different kind of conspiracy. That means that our territorial military bases are completely useless and serve no function whatsoever. That means that the world's most expensive military had no defense against this kind of attack -- and if you believe this, I'm sorry, but you're a moron.
Now now, no name calling. Attack the argument, not the man. You forget what the military were preoccupied with back then. "Hmm, North Korea is testing missiles, flying them over Hokkaido. We needs lasers in space to knock them out." As opposed to, "Lets frisk the shit out of everyone who gets on board a plane" (which happened to me in Kuala Lumpar airport on 14 Sept.). And I think you think that the US military flies patrols over its own airspace. I've not heard of that before. If you can find evidence suggesting that there should have been planes guarding the Pentagon and they weren't there, then I'd have to give you some credibility points.
quote: #4: Comparing my argument to the ol' "marijuana leads to shooting battery acid and eating your kittens" argument? I don't think I'm the one guilty of misdirection, here.
It was an analogy, so you'd know what I was talking about.
quote: This is not a slippery slope, this is a clear and obvious pattern of behavior. I defy you to find a single Shrub policy that doesn't make one person rich at the expense of somebody else's ability to go on breathing. His own administration tells him that pollution is a real problem, and he just blows it off, calling it "bureaucratic." There are people in the world who can bitch about bureaucracy and sound like they mean it, but when this guy talks, his own behavior makes it clear that he's just out to consolidate power. Every single move this guy makes is either to increase his own power or to show that he's already got it. He's done absolutely nothing else since taking office. If he were using a scalpel rather than the Oval Office, he'd be guilty of malpractice. If it were a knife, he'd be a serial killer.
You can be critical of Republicans all you like - shit, I think he is a bare faced hypocritical liar for imposing steel tariffs for all his talk on free trade, and knocking over Canadians on wood. Looking after special interest groups doesn't make someone a mass murderer. There is no logical sequence there. Its like saying, "Rob Kamphausen reads comics on the toilet. Therefore, he is capable of farting the national anthem." It doesn't flow as a consequence.
quote: Marijuana has not killed a single person, ever. The Shrub has killed thousands. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
#5: Not conceding the point that you were trying to make by quoting that article is not a "lack of style." It's called "reading the whole article." If you missed the obvious and blatant discrepancy in what they were saying, I'm sorry. That's not my fault, though. It just makes it harder than hell to explain anything, when you're going to be so deliberately obtuse.
Dealt with this, above.
quote: I left this board a little while ago feeling frustrated because I just knew I wasn't going to find the words to explain anything to anybody that just didn't want to listen. B y'know what? It's just not my job to convince you. If you don't want to believe, fine. You're still wrong. These are not flaws in my logic, this is deliberate and pathological avoidance of reality on your part.
I'm not giving up, simply because I'm right -- and because if these guys succeed in destroying America, it isn't gonna be because I was too busy bleating like a sheep to try to make the obvious truth a little more clear.
And no, Rob. I don't "need a conspiracy." What's going on is that you reach instinctively for the blinders, because sticking your head in the sand in easier than doing anything about the world's problems -- which is precisely why assholes like the Shrub generally get away with their crap.
>Sigh< I had an argument at www.straightdope.com about 6 months back with a guy who was convinced that the Chinese People's Liberation Army were supporting the Taleban during the US attack on Afghanistan, because they had the motive of weakening the US because the US couldn't fight two wars at once. It was absolute bullshit, because
(a) Jiang Zemin's horror at the WTC attack was well known (he was shit scared it was going to happen to him next, I mean)
(b) China is repressing its Muslim minority in the east, so they have no real motive.
(c) now the US are there, there is no proof of PLA involvement.
The guy just refused to see otherwise, even though three of us (all living in different cities in China) were pounding his arguments.
Its all conjecture. I could mount a Jack-esque argument that Bill Clinton purposively got busted getting head because he wanted to divert attention away from, I don't know, his failure to solve the health care system's problems. It must be true, because he has the FBI and the CIA at his disposal, and they would've covered it up unless he wanted it public.
I shouldn't mock you, Jack, but what you're saying is devoid of evidence. Find some evidence, and you'll get some credibility.
You're right, Dave, I'm being overly sensitive and I shouldn't have called you a moron. I don't think you are one -- I just think you're a better debater than me and that you're still wrong. You can imagine my frustration. I'd have the same problem with Ari Fleischer -- he's considerably more glib than I am -- but he's still evil.
Yeah, you could probably put together a theory that Clinton got busted on purpose to distract the people from something, but it would lack several elements:
1) Clinton doesn't make money off of the failure of the health-care system, so far as I'm aware.
2) Neither Clinton nor his dad were ever Director of the CIA.
3) Clinton never showed up on the cover of Time with the words "The Accidental President" over his head.
No, being Director of the CIA does not suddenly mean anyone is guilty of anything, necessarily. And yes, my evidence is purely circumstantial -- these guys are smart enough to tie their shoes and smart enough to control the press, they're not going to just blurt out, "Oh, by the way, it was us all along. We needed to make some money, see ... doesn't that make everything okay?" But you've got a few zillion bits and pieces of this circumstantial evidence, none of which you've managed to refute to my satisfaction.
You might be satisfied with the idea that once the Cold War stopped, pilots started taking twenty minutes instead of ten minutes to get their planes into the air, but I'm not. I think your logic crumples completely on that one.
You're the one that brought Occam's Razor into this, and I think it serves my argument, not yours. Why? Because the official story relies far too heavily on coincidence.
In order to accept the official story, we not only have to ignore all the things I've already talked about (yes, I know, you think you managed to disprove them but I really don't believe you have), you also have to accept:
1) The Shrub's Unocal boys just happened to be the forerunners to the pipeline project as far back as 1996 or 1997 (I keep forgetting which year it was).
2) Cheney's Haliburton also just happened to be the one with with the construction contract.
3) Osama bin Laden just happened to be hiding in Afghanistan.
4) Afghanistan just happens to be where the pipeline goes.
5) The Shrub's popularity just happened to be in tremendous decline in the weeks before 911, far too low for him to have ever managed to get the American people to go to war in Afghanistan.
6) 911 just happened to occur at exactly the time when the Shrub's "Presidency" needed it the most.
7) Le Figaro just happened to report a member of the CIA meeting with OBL.
8) There just happened to be an article about how Ashcroft was spending taxpayer money on private jets, refusing to take public transportation in the weeks before 911 (criticize me for having a bad bibliography all you want -- I'm afraid I don't have the link anymore -- you'll just have to trust that I wouldn't just make something up).
9) The Shrub just happened to not be in the White House that day (a small coincidence, I admit -- unless you add it into all of the other coincidences you're asking me to believe).
10) The Elder Shrub just happens to have been the Director of the CIA at one time.
11) The mainstream press and the FBI just happen to have traced the anthrax scare back to a retired army officer who had connections with the CIA (again, this is something I saw on CNN -- I realize that's a weak source but again I hope you trust that I don't just make stuff up) and then dropped the Anthrax story entirely.
12) The FBI just happens to have ended up taking most of the heat for our "intelligence failures."
13) The CIA just happens to be taking over the FBI now.
Now, can you honestly tell me that Occam's Razor makes all of those coincidences more likely than the idea that the Shrub Administration saw a way to make some money and took it? You're an excellent debater and you have a great way of making your points, but ultimately your entire argument comes down to a combination of coincidence and the idea that the Shrub and his buddies are just too benevolent to ever do anything like that. Occam's Razor slices quite neatly through the coincidences, and a study of the Shrub's behavor kills the idea that he just has too much respect for human life.
(P.S. I should point out that I agree with Rob on one point -- the Shrub is simply not intelligent enough to pull this off on his own. I honestly suspect the man doesn't know how to read. He is, in the words of Dennis Miller, a hole that has surrounded itself with a donut. Cheney alone is evil and resourceful enough. The Shrub is but a cog in the crap machine. When I refer to him, I'm speaking collectively of the Administration.)
(P.P.S. I still think it's terribly naive to believe that those warm, fuzzy thoughts you have for people aren't being manipulated by the media. You remember that "survival of the fittest" thing you were talking about on another thread? Where did you get that idea, exactly?)
Remember what everyone was saying, back when the Shrube and Gore were campaigning? "If Bush gets elected, there'll be a war in the Middle East." Everyone knew this. We accepted it as inevitable.
And it was. By hook or by crook, they found a way. It's called "pretext" and politicans have been using it since the dawn of time, just as Roosevelt used Pearl Harbor.
[ 06-13-2002, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: Jack, the Little Death ]
What about Clinton receiving money from the Chinese, and A Chiese spy stealing Nuclear secrets? By your logic, Bill Clinton is obviously willing to watch millions of Tawainese and who knows else die by more powerful nuclear weapons for money. I could come to the same conclusions about him that you have about Bush by using your skipping rock theory of logic.
with this kind of logic, you can literally say anything about anything.
my whole post above states it purdy well -- there are limitless 'conspiracy' possibilites, some will have more backing than others. on this whole debacle, jack has found piles of 'evidence' to use. ttt found piles of 'evidence' about no plane flying into the pentagon. bastie has followed claims that the nba playoffs are rigged. msnbc did a report on how seton hall university was lit aflame by student protestors. hundreds claim evidence of ufos and coverups for demi moore forced out of hollywood.
there are evidence trails all over... you can literally state a claim about anything and surely find 'proof' to back it up for various sources (thanks, internet!) -- my previous silly 'convenience' store example was suddenly made somewhat credible by jacks' post.
and, really, thats simply where i just lose all possible credibility in conversations like this. you can have a view point on ANYthing, and it is automatically a possibility. if two or three people think the same way, its a working theory. if four or five agree, and one of them saw something, its an obvious conspiracy -- and it doesnt matter what the subject matter consists of.
and conspiracies will ALWAYS make sense, because its simply a theory, a puzzle to be completed -- even if you mashed the final 4 pieces in, and one of them was actually a lego. its STILL a "complete puzzle" to many people.
quote:Originally posted by Jack, the Little Death: Damn skippy we should be suspicious of Clinton for those reasons! Geez, what, am I talking to a brick wall, here?
...your talking like things are fact, you g=have no facts, just suspicions, therefore,,,,,,,I WIN!
quote:Originally posted by Dave: I just don't know how to show you how far into ORBIT you've gone. I've called in the heavy crew to stop by and contribute:
dave tells jack his argument has traveled into orbit... but then, this same dave calls upon 'orbit' to help his own side.
interesting, to say the least.
what about this:
has anyone ever seen dave and jack together? do their posts ever occur at the same moment?
in fact, the more i look into this, the more it makes sense.
on page 1 of this very thread, they both use the term "oil companies" within hours of one another -- a slip up if i've ever seen one.
and, has anyone else notice "dave's" recent avatar change? what is he hiding? further, is it any wonder he's selected "bruce wayne: MURDERER" as his avatar?
and tho jack is able to quote things properly, "dave's" continual "struggle" with the ubb code is just a little over-played. you've dropped your glasses ... SUPERMAN!!!
checking further into it, HERE is an article from El Peluquero discussing the similarities between jack and "dave."
and i find it just a little coincidental that "dave" agrees with bsams' arguments. if you know how debates work, you have to understand that its not the actual debate sides, but the debate itself that is important. by "dave" agreeing with bsams, he's actually giving fuel to jacks' argument, by allowing jack another chance to clarify his points.
ill continue to check into this deeper, but... its really pointless. the truth is right here, on my very board.
Ha! I appreciate your efforts to make me a little less of a lunatic, Dave.
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe it's all just smoke and mirrors -- but if I am, it isn't because the logic doesn't follow. I think it's crazy the way you guys wait for the people who are doing you wrong to admit it to you. Seriously, it's like putting Jeffrey Dahmer in charge of his own jury, prosecutor, defense, the judge, the prison, the media reports on the trial ... how do you expect the right thing to happen?
Damn, Rob has caught me out! Send a team to liquidate him.
quote: I think it's crazy the way you guys wait for the people who are doing you wrong to admit it to you.
Looking at the Iran-Contra Scandal, or Watergate, I'm minded to agree with you (on that comment only!). But then, look at one of the advantages of a free press: Bob Woodward's book Shadow says that Americans generally lost a huge amount of faith in their government after Nixon (which might explain why you feel this way in the first place, Jack), with the collateral result that the media is very aggressive in seeking out faults in government. Woodward draws the lack of parallel between JFK boffing Tweedledee and Tweedledum (the FBI code names for two college girls) and the fact that the press respected his privacy and didn't breathe a word of it, and Clinton - Lewinsky.
My point is that the American press would be looking very hard at the cause of this, even in the current bubble of patriotism. Organisations with more resources than you or I have delved into this - it would be the story of the century if it was true, and would make a reporter's career. But, not a word form the mainstream press.
quote:Originally posted by Jack, the Little Death: Ha! I appreciate your efforts to make me a little less of a lunatic, Dave.
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe it's all just smoke and mirrors -- but if I am, it isn't because the logic doesn't follow. I think it's crazy the way you guys wait for the people who are doing you wrong to admit it to you. Seriously, it's like putting Jeffrey Dahmer in charge of his own jury, prosecutor, defense, the judge, the prison, the media reports on the trial ... how do you expect the right thing to happen?
But see there's the thing, thats why we have seperation of powers, the presidency is not an all powerful position, there are a number of checks and balances that make what you suggest immpossible, and you Dahmer example proves only one thing.....I WIN! You lose Jack as all who argue with me do!
Once upon a time, you might've been right about our ability to trust in, or at least have faith in the motives of, the mainstream press.
But this is post-merger America, man. There is no mainstream press anymore, especially when it comes to television, which more and more Americans are coming to rely upon entirely. We've got news re-packaging services now, that's all.
See, you guys are talking like I'm some lunatic out on a street corner, shouting to a world that knows I'm nuts. Quite possibly, I am -- but I'm not the only one. Observe the story I read in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer about the Air Force Colonel who was fired and now faces a court-martial for claiming that "Bush allowed 911 to happen because his presidency was going nowhere."
He's now facing a court-martial, because of some rule in the military that says you aren't allowed to utter "contemptuous words" against the President of the United States.
This is news! This is HUGE news! An Air Force colonel, claiming that us conspiracy theorists are correct -- now, how much of this have you seen on CNN? They're too busy covering sex scandals in the church, apparently.
There are, what, three companies that own the majority of networks now, including the news networks? And they aren't exactly varied experiences -- the only real difference is that a different set of talking heads tells you exactly the same news on MSNBC that you were getting on FOXNews (although I like the talking heads on MSNBC more -- I suddenly can't remember which one Ashley Banfield is on -- is she a hottie or what?). Sure, they've got reporters, but are they really anything other than actors anymore? They go to the Middle East and report exactly the same press releases from the Pentagon, which the Pentagon has already admitted are faked!
On the rare occasions when real news shows up, they can't away from it quickly enough. They'll show the same report on sex scandals and missing kids, over and over and over again, with no new information, just a different person giving a live report of exactly the same information they gave before. Then, whenever someone says anything that isn't in the script -- and watch their eyes, there is a script -- it's always, "Oops! Sorry, guys, this has been fascinating, but we're out of time. Let's take you now to breaking news in the catholic church sex scandals ..." Whereupon they recycle that information once more.
What about the best-selling book in France, the title of which I've forgotten (Dave seems to know what I'm talking about better than I do -- maybe he remembers), that claims that the Pentagon was never hit by an airplane? It was reported once that I saw, just long enough for that skinny little dipshit with the evil-looking nose to talk about what an outrage it was that anybody would dispute the "official" reality given to us by our friends in military intelligence, and then never discussed again.
There is no mainstream press. It's nothing but one big commercial for whoever's in charge around here -- not that I've got much clue who the hell that is anymore.
Think about it -- is there more money to be made in reporting the news, or in playing along and enforcing the public's perception of events?
The WTO riots in Seattle, popularly known as "The Battle for Seattle." Us left-wing whackos like to chalk it up as a victory.
The news reported, fifteen minutes after the event, that the police used tear gas to disperse rioters.
They must have a different definition of "rioter" than I do. They first used tear gas on people who were sitting down with their arms linked. This is a riot? Christ, we're mellow in Seattle, but a bunch of people sitting down is not a riot.
Open, blatant, bald-faced lie.
And no, it was not picked up on by any of our supposed "checks and balances" in the press.
Ran across something on the web tonight that I thought was at least mildly related to this topic.
Note that this comes from ABC ... that's gotta be "official" enough, right?
Now, to be clear and to make sure I'm not accused of intellectual dishonesty ('specially by myself), I should point out that ABC itself doesn't make the report, they're careful to qualify their statements with words like "reportedly" a lot. Much the same way they use the word "allegedly" whenever the government tells them anything, these days (hey, you never know -- the good guys might get elected at some point and everybody might be held accountable).
quote:Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.
The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.
quote:"These were Joint Chiefs of Staff documents. The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing," Bamford told ABCNEWS.com.
"The whole point of a democracy is to have leaders responding to the public will, and here this is the complete reverse, the military trying to trick the American people into a war that they want but that nobody else wants."
quote:The Joint Chiefs even proposed using the potential death of astronaut John Glenn during the first attempt to put an American into orbit as a false pretext for war with Cuba, the documents show.
Should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, they wrote, "the objective is to provide irrevocable proof … that the fault lies with the Communists et all Cuba [sic]."
quote:"The scary thing is none of this stuff comes out until 40 years after," says Bamford.
Hey, we're all pretty young guys. Bet we can all live another forty years and see who's right.
You're referring to the theory that a zillion Jews who worked in WTC didn't show up to work that day?
Well, I'm as reflexively sensitive to anti-Semitism as anybody else in this country, so I'll admit that I didn't really give that one a lot of thought. That argument did come up once before, though, and at that time I decided that fair was fair, I'd see if there were any holes in the theory so obvious that even I could figure them out.
So I wandered out to a website ... I forget whose it was, I want to say ABC's again ... and checked out a list of the names of the dead and presumed dead.
Whole lotta Jewish sounding names in that list, gotta tell ya. Not that I'm an expert on what is and isn't a Jewish name -- but as you scroll down the list, you can't really go a whole page without running into a "-berg" or a "-stein" or something.
So if the conspiracy went in that direction -- and I wouldn't be at all surprised to discover that Israel had something to do with it, Sharon does strike me as that kind of guy -- I'd say that there probably wasn't a Jewish conspiracy, but rather an Israeli conspiracy. Big difference.
But the idea that a thousand Jews didn't show up to work that day? Doesn't pan out, mostly because a whole bunch, apparently, did show up.
That there was foreknowledge of the attacks is, in my mind, no longer in serious doubt (I realize that you guys are still waiting for CNN to tell you). That some of the people that had foreknowledge were Jewish is statistically likely, given the situation and the place. I don't think that makes it a "Jewish conspiracy," though.
And Rob, name a conspiracy, I'll talk about it. The thing is, the one I'm going with doesn't have any big holes in it. It did, at one point -- for a while, I couldn't figure out why the Oil Boys wouldn't just cut a deal with the Taliban to put their pipeline through, so I figured that my budding theory wasn't real likely. Then I came across this (note the owner of the website -- and tell me it's not "official" -- also note the company making the statement and tell me it's not a conflict of interest) :
quote:The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades. The territory across which the pipeline would extend is controlled by the Taliban, an Islamic movement that is not recognized as a government by most other nations. From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of our proposed pipeline cannot begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders and our company.
In spite of this, a route through Afghanistan appears to be the best option with the fewest technical obstacles. It is the shortest route to the sea and has relatively favorable terrain for a pipeline. The route through Afghanistan is the one that would bring Central Asian oil closest to Asian markets and thus would be the cheapest in terms of transporting the oil.
Makes it pretty clear, I think. The Oil Boys want a pipeline through Afghanistan, 'cause it's cheap (in terms of money -- not human lives). It's clear that a war will be necessary to remove the Taliban, which is a necessary precursor to the building of the pipeline. It's also clear that the Shrub did not have the political power to talk the American people into fighting a war in Afghanistan on September 10th, 2001 -- but he did on September 11th.
That, I think, is what makes this theory more plausible than, say, the bullshit we're being handed by the government and their puppet news networks -- it only requires four basic steps, and they're all pretty undeniable. 1) The Oil Boys wanted to make the Taliban go away. 2) The Shrub couldn't do it because he was too unpopular. 3) September 11th made him really popular. 4) The connections were in place and the will to do such an evil act existed.
If you can point out how another theory fits together quite as neatly, I'll be happy to entertain it. If, for example, you can demonstrate that the Shrub family is actually Israeli, not one of the Oil Boys, then the Israeli theory starts to make sense (though you still have the problem that Sharon isn't quite the chess-player than the Oil Boys are -- he wouldn't have come up with a three-step plan -- he's a two-step plan guy at best).
I'm quite proud to say (I want a gold star) that I figured this one out all on my lonesome. Not that I should brag much -- a few zillion other people figured it out, too, and quicker than I did. The talking heads on CNN figured it out -- I presume they still have some journalistic instincts left. So did the talking heads on all the other news networks, I'd imagine. They just aren't telling you, 'cause the same people that sign the paychecks of the people that sign their paychecks also sign the Shrub's paychecks (in a figurative sense -- I've always sort of wondered who really does sign the President's paychecks -- is it the Secretary of the Treasury or something?).
As a matter of fact, if you just go cruising the web, or look at independent or foreign news, you'll discover that pretty much everybody on Earth has this one figured out -- except for people who are waiting for CNN to tell them, that is.
Which is well researched, and again supports what you say.
Except that its all flawed:
quote: East: Geographical considerations would force these pipelines to head north of the impassable mountains of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan across the vast, desolate Kazakh steppe, thereby adding even more length (and cost) to any eastward pipelines.
Bullshit. Now way this against the cost of destroying the WTC, plus insurance claims, plus the damage the stock markets took following the attacks. If not for the hard work done in preparing the stock markets for Y2K, the global economy might have sustained very serious damage. As it was, the NYSE shut down for a week. Do you have any idea how much that would have cost multinationals, including UNOCAL? Much cheaper to build a pipeline through the Kazahk steppe.
quote: South: The Iranian route for gas would pipe Caspian region gas (from Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan) to Iran's southern coast, then eastward to Pakistan, while the oil route would take oil to the Persian Gulf, then load it onto tankers for further trans-shipment. However, any significant investment in Iran would be problematic under the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act, which imposes sanctions on non-U.S. companies investing in the Iranian oil and gas sectors. U.S. companies already are prohibited from conducting business with Iran under U.S. law.
Which is shit. Iran is beoming more and more moderate with every passing day - it is one of the region's few democracies. It has a nasty habit of training terrorists, but so does Pakistan. The US government is still in a sulk because they kicked out their good friend the Shah, but Iran has recently been identified as trying to establish secret links with the US. Another 5 years and I'd guess Iran would be on side. Cheaper than overthrowing the Taleban, destroying the WTC, running the risk of ruining the global economy etc.
quote: North or north-West: For its part, Russia itself has proposed multiple pipeline routes that utilize Russian export pipelines that transport oil to new export outlets being developed on the Baltic and Mediterranean Seas. Russia is set to complete its Baltic Sea port at Primorsk later this year, and the country is working with Croatia to connect the Adria pipeline with the southern Druzhba pipeline. Reversing the flows in the Adria pipeline and tying it to the southern Druzhba route would allow oil exports from the Caspian to run via Russia's pipeline system, across Ukraine and Hungary, and then terminate at the Croatian deep-sea Adriatic port of Omisalj. In addition, Russia already has the most extensive natural gas network in the region, and the system's capacity could be increased to allow for additional Caspian region gas exports via Russia.
However, there are political and security questions as to whether the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union should rely on Russia (or any other country) as their sole export outlet, and Caspian region producers have expressed their desire to diversify their export options. In addition, most of the existing Russian oil export pipelines terminate at the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossiisk, requiring tankers to transit the Black Sea and pass through the Bosporus Straits in order to gain access to the Mediterranean and world markets. Turkey has raised concerns about the ability of the Bosporus Straits, already a major chokepoint for oil tankers, to handle additional tanker traffic
And this is shit, too. People are really going to blow up the WTC etc etc rather than take extra tankers through the Bosporus? The new former Soviet governments are considered less volatle than the political circus which is Afghanistan? and the oil pipeline still has to go through Pakistan, which is only slightly less volatile than Afghanistan (and is on the verge of war over Kashmir).... And the pipeline still has to go through these "risky" former Soviet states anyway.
Jack, this just doesn't add up. Now that Afghanistan is willing to co-operate with the West and wants money badly, theyre going to do a deal with oil companies. But it doesn't work in reverse - oil companies had other options which didn't involve blowing up the WTC etc etc.
quote:Rob, name a conspiracy, I'll talk about it. The thing is, the one I'm going with doesn't have any big holes in it.
of course it has big holes in it -- its a conspiracy theory!
and i stress the word 'theory' (actually, i literally stressed 'course' and then, later, 'stress', but i was speaking figuratively).
you're using the 'if - then' idea taking one fact to make something else fact, when thats really not possible. sure, you're able to use existing facts to make something else SEEM like a fact, but that doesnt necessarily make it so.
based upon that whole list of facts you provided the other day, you could make any number of claims. and, by you're thinking, of course they're true, because everything else you said is true.
for example:
my theory is that the bush family hates network tv's news coverage. my proof?
cnn came to major prominance in the early 90s mainly because of its detailed coverage during the gulf war. who initiated the gulf war? thats right! bush sr.
years afterward, during the clinton terms, cable news 'died down' to an extent, losing a majority of their ratings to competition and a general lack of around-the-clock story ideas. the monica lewinski scandal was covered wonderfully (and sufficiently) by the traditional network channels -- even gaining indepth one-on-one interviews on the regular, 'basic cable' channels.
the bush family needed to make a statement.
for starters, the election drama (centralized in florida, of course, run by members of the bush family) was highly covered by newcomer foxnews network.
and later on, of course, it was msnbc that hit alltime news-ratings highs with its various sept 11th (and afterward) coverage.
president at the time? bush jr.
so, with the above facts (and they ARE all facts), i have a theory that has become a working theory with my factual examples.
but its not a TRUE statement (not that i know of, anyway) -- just one that works.
It's actually hilarious that you should say that, Rob ... 'cause I think you could be right. So did this guy who wrote an article to that very effect, a few months ago ... I honestly didn't pay it much attention, but it was something about mergers and oil companies and the military and the Bush family.
See? You're starting to get the hang of this.
Dave: Y'know, I've had my disagreements with what Unocal said to the House of Representatives, too. But y'know what? The fact that they're morons doesn't mean that they don't still think what they think. I'm not at all surprised to discover that these guys are totally flawed and had other, better options. Nevertheless, I think the horse's mouth is a pretty reasonable source, y'know?
It's like Doomsday Prophecy and all these nuts running around thinking that the world is going to end. Personally, I don't believe any such thing. Rather, I don't think that the world has to end. What I do believe is that I'm stuck on a planet with a bunch of snapperheads who do think the world is going to end any minute now, and might even decide to help the process along.
Sound stupid, doesn't it? And yet, why don't you go ask all these fundamentalist Christians and Jews and Muslims what they believe? Just 'cause the idea of a cleansing, world-wide Holy War is stupid beyond belief doesn't mean that these people, who are also stupid beyond belief, won't believe in it, prepare for it, and even take steps to ensure it.
Seriously, I'm running out of better ideas for why these people are such monumental fuck-ups. Religious zealotry on all sides might be the answer, I dunno.
Oh, by the way -- just to make it clear, I don't mean to present my opinion as fact. Just as a likelihood. I find it to be more likely than anything else that's come along -- otherwise I would've changed my opinion (contrary to what Supergirl's Dad might think). Rob, you're stuck reading the boards a lot, I'm sure you can back me up on this one.
quote:Originally posted by Jack, the Little Death: It's actually hilarious that you should say that, Rob ... 'cause I think you could be right.
...
..
KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!!!!!!!
quote:Oh, by the way -- just to make it clear, I don't mean to present my opinion as fact. Just as a likelihood. I find it to be more likely than anything else that's come along -- otherwise I would've changed my opinion (contrary to what Supergirl's Dad might think). Rob, you're stuck reading the boards a lot, I'm sure you can back me up on this one.
heh.
you think i read the boards.
...
anywho, im glad t'know that y'say you're simply proposing a theory and/or a possibility. that sounds a lot better.
If I was UNOCAL, and I wanted to prompt the US to enter into a war with Afghanistan so I could get my pipepline through Afghanistan and not Iran or through the Bosporus (as ludicrous as that seems) you know what I'd do? Drop a plane into the Statue of Liberty, and another into Mt Rushmore. No disruption of the NYSE and my investments, no risk of damage to the global economy, minimal deaths, and a nation of hopping mad Americans.
quote:Originally posted by Jack, the Little Death: We also know that something blew up a big chunk of the Pentagon, but the details remain sketchy there. I've yet to read a credible report on exactly what did happen, but there's enough doubt that the official story shouldn't be taken as gospel.
jack, there's a very interesting website that has photos of the damage to the pentagon taken immediately following it's "attack" which you might find interesting. let me look for the url and i'll post it. basically, the official story makes no sense...as you've come to see. And guys? I really wish you would put together a coherent argument. 'Cause frankly, when you come back with nothing but jokes and the implication that I must be nuts for thinking anything other than what the Shrub Administration tells me ... that really just proves that there aren't very many arguments to be made.
A good point, Dave, but let me offer two possibilities for why that doesn't seem to be the case:
1) All that disruption and chaos does seem to have worked out okay, doesn't it? No, the real catastrophe for the business world right now (another thing it's impossible to get the mainstream news to talk about) is the total lack of faith in our economic systems, spreading like wildfire. Think about it, man. Andersen, and now Merrill-friggin'-Lynch?
Dude, we're dealing with paper money, and the paper no longer represents anything real. We all know that. Ever since the paper became materially worthless, it's only been worth the faith that the people have in the system. As that faith evaporates, so too does the system.
The way I see it, destroying the WTC might have been more like a kid who's been winning a game of checkers for a long time, and then suddenly sees himself losing. Given the maturity of the people involved -- they don't really seem to understand that the rest of us human beings are real -- is it so surprising that they would upend the checkerboard rather than admit defeat?
I mean, really look at what these scandals might mean to the world, if the mainstream press (with as vested an interest as anyone else in keeping the fundamental faith in the system alive) were to somehow be inspired to really run with the story? The true meaning of capitalism and economic darwinism might suddenly become very clear, even to those of us that have been reaping its benefits all along.
To put it another way -- sure, Rob might be really into this "survival of the fittest" thing right now, 'cause he's a reasonably bright guy with marketable skills, and he probably imagines himself in the "fittest" 25% or so, the guys that will survive. But what if it turns out that only the top 5% are actually going to be allowed to prosper? Or the top 1%? What if it becomes public knowledge, I mean a real part of the collective consciousness, that less than one-tenth of 1% of the world is gonna live like kings while the rest of us clean their toilets with our lungs?
I'm thinking that darwinism seems a whole lot less appealing, all of a sudden ...
2) It might simply be that you're smarter than Unocal. Also not hard to believe.
quote:Originally posted by Jack, the Little Death: A good point, Dave, but let me offer two possibilities for why that doesn't seem to be the case:
1) All that disruption and chaos does seem to have worked out okay, doesn't it? No, the real catastrophe for the business world right now (another thing it's impossible to get the mainstream news to talk about) is the total lack of faith in our economic systems, spreading like wildfire. Think about it, man. Andersen, and now Merrill-friggin'-Lynch?
Dude, we're dealing with paper money, and the paper no longer represents anything real. We all know that. Ever since the paper became materially worthless, it's only been worth the faith that the people have in the system. As that faith evaporates, so too does the system.
The way I see it, destroying the WTC might have been more like a kid who's been winning a game of checkers for a long time, and then suddenly sees himself losing. Given the maturity of the people involved -- they don't really seem to understand that the rest of us human beings are real -- is it so surprising that they would upend the checkerboard rather than admit defeat?
I mean, really look at what these scandals might mean to the world, if the mainstream press (with as vested an interest as anyone else in keeping the fundamental faith in the system alive) were to somehow be inspired to really run with the story? The true meaning of capitalism and economic darwinism might suddenly become very clear, even to those of us that have been reaping its benefits all along.
To put it another way -- sure, Rob might be really into this "survival of the fittest" thing right now, 'cause he's a reasonably bright guy with marketable skills, and he probably imagines himself in the "fittest" 25% or so, the guys that will survive. But what if it turns out that only the top 5% are actually going to be allowed to prosper? Or the top 1%? What if it becomes public knowledge, I mean a real part of the collective consciousness, that less than one-tenth of 1% of the world is gonna live like kings while the rest of us clean their toilets with our lungs?
I'm thinking that darwinism seems a whole lot less appealing, all of a sudden ...
2) It might simply be that you're smarter than Unocal. Also not hard to believe.
My answers:
1. Absolutely no way. Globalisation is the extension of capitalism into, well, the balance of the globe which doesn't have rampant free-for-all capitalism. This involves trust in the system. Which is why Andersen and Enron cause big multi-nationals so much in the way of a motherfucker of a headache. Institutions like banks and pension funds suddenly are suspicious about putting money into old stalwarts like GE. This is bad for the guys at the top, because a drop in share price makes it harder to justify the annual bonus, and affects the stock options value. Ruin the financial system, and the people in power - those with a vested interest in capitalism - are ruined.
I deal with multinationals daily (being a cog in the wheel, and little more, but in a position to see strategy) and there is nothing which would scare them more than a global meltdown.
Now, as I said, the only reason the global economy only took a count of 7 and not a KO is because primarily of reinforcement of systems in the lead up to Y2K. The Economist discussed it a few weeks back. It really does look like OBL did come very close to achieving his aim. And now everytime a broker hears about a plane crash, the sell orders flood in.
Secondly, globalisation (the thing short-sighted people in Western countries riot about for fear of losing their jobs to more competitive foreigners - like me) counts on the establishment of a middle class - a large body of people with consumer spending patterns. Which is why every company in the world right now is lubing up over China's 1.2 billion (the area I live in - South China - is the size of France with the same population). Shoving the world into a depression where only 1% of people live like kings is not in anyone's interest. Big business wants to improve the standard of living for everyone - not through altruism or anything so stupid as that, but because the more well-off people there are in the world, the more people will buy toasters, Gameboys, pick-up trucks with monster tyres and Clinique skin care. Paper money - consumer spending - is the biggest game in town. So, big business, not knowing what would happen if a plane went into the WTC, would not try to cause a recession by arranging for a plane to go into the WTC.
In respect of the Pentagon, The Time Trust posted that link in the Deep Questions boarde. It got me thinking until Roberto wisely pointed out that there were witnesses. A disinformation campaign on that level cannot be successful.
2. Modesty prevents me from agreeing with you. But answer me this - did the oil barons you say are behind this also arrange for the smoking gun video of OBL saying he only thought the top of the WTC tower would collape, not the entire building?
quote:Big business wants to improve the standard of living for everyone ...
Okay, now who's out of touch with reality? Geez, you say something like that, and then you say that a disinformation campaign on a much smaller scale than the one you just participated in is impossible? Dude! Crack kills!
No, I'm being unfair ... I'm sure you genuinely believe what you're saying. You give off a benevolent vibe. But you should know better.
See, you can say that a disinformation campaign is impossible ... but we know that's not true. For one thing, people are talking about the Pentagon, aren't they? Something smells fishy there.
But again we run into the same old problem ... you aren't going to consider that talk valid until it's CNN or someone similar doing the talking. While it's us normal folks, it's wild-eyed conspiracy theory ... while it's a talking head on a screen, it's official reality.
Allow me to submit that the disinformation campaign has failed, in spite of CNN's participation ... much like the similar campaign that insists that global capitalism is a really great idea for everybody.
Man, I don't even think capitalism is a good idea for those of us in the United States. I'm quite offended whenever anyone talks as though capitalism is as much a part of America as democracy.
Y'know the old saw about how "Communism and socialism would be great, if only human nature didn't make them impossibly corrupt!" Well, that's basically true -- and it's also how I feel about capitalism. Want proof? Easy. Go ask anybody without any capital.
As for the likelihood of the Oil Boys slamming planes into the WTC being affected by a hit to the world economy, the fact remains that it played directly into the Shrub's political hands. He was able to get away with some really disgusting tax breaks to some really disgustingly rich people. Microsoft alone walked away with 1.4 billion dollars in retroactive tax cuts. The government becomes more like comicbooks every day -- now they're doing financial retcons.
Maybe those Y2K bracings made the WTC attack possible? I don't know. But the fact remains that the Shrub and the Oil Boys came out on top of this one, in spite of the way things could've gone. You can't tell me you don't wonder just a little bit about whether or not they knew that.
Speaking of Microsoft ... if you're interested in what the shrinking middle-class of America thinks about capitalism (though they probably wouldn't put it in such terms), why don't you ask a Seattlite how he feels about Microsoft?
See, we're not afraid of losing our jobs. Economically, America is way too arrogant to worry about that as much as we say we do. The generation that remembers the Great Depression is either dead or has been drinking out of so many aluminum cans that their memories are lost to Alzheimer's. We protest against global capitalization because we know what capitalists are like.
Jack, has it occurred to you that capitalism is the best way to keep the entrenched hierachy in power?
If you give the people a taste of what they want, as opposed to depriving people of it entirely, you don't end up with nasty revolutions and the ruling clique's heads in baskets.
Even better, capitalism, as well as keeping the masses on the consumer leash, works so as to allow the wealthy to get more wealthy.
Its a fantastic system for maintaining power.
Now, hand out that harness to the developing world, and watch your billions multiply.
Like I said, there is no altruism involved. Less people will die of famine and disease, but more people will be filling the environment with CFCs and carbon monoxide. Its pure power and money.
I don't believe for a moment that Shell, for example, really gives a shit about the environment or indigeneous people despite their enormous ad campaign (they learned a lesson about the hatred of consumers when they meddled in politics in Nigeria and then tried the trick with the Brentspar platform - the CEO was reported to have been warned by his in-laws that their neighburs regarded him as a criminal, and mamangement's kids were picked on at school). But, shit, they'd love those indigeneous people to buy a Ford which they could fill with Shell gas.
("Good vibe"? You act like you don't know who I am, Lildeath. Typhoid Dave: I've dropped the "typhoid" bit here.)
PS In defence of capitalism, its worked for me - my parents were low wage earners: I worked 3 jobs to put myself through university (hired by big businesses), and continue to improve my lot through the benefits of capitalism.
If this was feudal Russia or contemporary North Korea, I'd be out tilling fields.
![[Frown]](images/icons/frown.gif){kind=icon}
![[Smile]](images/icons/smile.gif){kind=icon}
![[izzat so?]](graemlins/zatso.gif)
![[devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
And Zod is proud to be apart of it, being evil myself and all. Now, KNEEL!!
![[Big Grin]](images/icons/grin.gif){kind=icon}
![[Wink]](images/icons/wink.gif){kind=icon}