Ex Bush Official: WTC was "professional demolition"

Nawww... he wasn't involved. He's too dumb. Carl Rove on the otherhand....

The entire unrealistic approach to opposing the Republicans and President Bush -

such as wild Conspiracy theories and attacking Bush as a person and not his politics and ideas.

Make me understand why the conservatives get away with calling us liberals "wackos".

So..you should only attack Bush by his policies? I think most do that. I, however, think he's a spoiled, stupid, evil and sad excuse for a human being, who is doing terrible things to our country and the world. So judging him as a person just comes natural I guess.

And admittedly, some conspiracy thearies are indeed wild. However, do you deny that there are conspiracies within our government, and that some of them are probably far reaching and NOT for the good of mankind? I hope to god people never stop digging for conspiracies, because that would mean turning a blind eye to anything our government does and give some very greedy and very corrupt people a free hand. Although we are almost to that point now.

You *all* have it wrong. The evil overlord Xenu and this firey Thetan minions erupted the giant volcanic rift right under Manhattan. They then imprinted the Bush administration with corrupt engrams to bend them to their will.

Only the Scientologists can save us now...the second coming of L. Ron Hubbard is coming!!!

But that does make it tough to place him in such a pivtoal role in this little conspiracy, doesn't it?

Now that they have secured Katie Holmes, it should be easy to dominate humanity!!


/me stocks up on aluminum foil to keep the evil republicans from reading the thoughts of these poor defenseless saviors of us all....




Actually, you've just described virtually every politician we've got

Maybe he really is an evil genius and gifted actor (coached by Reagan himself, no doubt) who is just playing dumb so he can claim "plausible deniability" if the whole scheme blows up.

Naaaaaah...

Judging from the real conspiracies that are coming to light, I don't think the Shrub is in the loop on anything other than trivia. He believes what his advisors tell him, and they take great pains to insulate him from anybody save the Party Faithful. That lets them carry out their secret agenda (formulated during the Reagan-Bush Sr. administrations) without any embarassing slips from the Resident.

Ah, but of course.... it all makes sense now

Actually, I think 9/11 was masterminded by Hillary Clinton. She knew that drastic steps would be taken to try and increase security within the country and hoped that enough common people would be alienated to the point where they might view HER as the lessor of two evils. Of course, Bill might have come up with the idea (in that day dreamy state while Monica tried to scrub that stain), but he would have known that he couldn't serve a third term. Hmmm.... who could it be? Wait! What about Hilary! She could pretend to be all about New York issues and they could get some retiring NY Dem to endorse her so her foot would be in the political door. Yes, it's all becoming clear now!

P.S. Did you know that Rodham means New Operating Thetan IV in ancient Sanskrit?

------------------------------------------------
On Bush as a person.

Spoiled? Definitely. His father was the product of a rich man who went on his own to earn vastly more money in the oil business.

Stupid? I actually doubt this - a terrible public speaker though and an average student.

Evil? I think fervent Nationalist and intollerant religeous conservative is more accurate.

Sad excuse for a human being? why becuase with the help of the Republican Political Machine he managed to get elected (well legally anyhow)? For procesecuting a war many thought has been coming since Iraq invaded Kuwait?

I would add - probably Baised by the influence of certain corporations in the US

Hes also high Motivated and has proven he can lead in a crisis. To say he isnt is to underestimate him.

- the problem I have with attack Bush isnt that people criticism him, its that liberals assume if they say hes a bunch of bad things that means his polotics are wrong and thus win. When in reality that just makes someone look like a Bush Basher. Plenty of people with none of those flaws support and even help him form these stances on the issues.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Remember Clinton? how the conservatives did the same attacted Clinton primarily on who they perceived him as and not his Stance on the Issues and what he accomplished. Many of the same people who were upset about the politics of personal destruction are the same peopel who now bash Bush.

So yes I prefer to argue on issues. I consider attacking Bush on a personal level counter productive to that. It reduces the debate to personal attacks. People on these forums understand as well as anyone how sucessful a debate is that devolves into personal attacks.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Wild Conspiracies vs Actual abuses of power.

OF course people should be concerned about actual governmental abuses of power - Watergate being a good example, Iran contra another.

What do fringe conspiracies do to help uncover those except to detract and discredit those who espouse them?

So you are putting aside any money factor or campain contributors or administration ties to various corporations as a reason to go to war. And his and others many refrences to 9/11 and Iraq as having ties, and his saying we had definite proof that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction, but was preparing to use them, and his saying three times in speeches, after being told that the report was very likely false, that iraq was seeking to buy weapons grade plutonium, the no-bid contract to haliburton, even as they were being investigated for ripping off the taxpayers, and about 1,000 other lies..err.wait.."mistakes"...

Well..there is a sucker born every minute in our country...and he so depends upon that.



See above. And he did hire Karl Rove, and does use him to his fullest, and most evil extent.



No probably. There is a paper trail a mile wide.

He has? By sitting frozen in a classroom? By having his advisors tell him every move he needed to make during the crisis? By having patriotic, mournful or angry speeches written for him that he delivered badly? How did he lead? The only people I see leading are big-money corporations. Oh..that's right..he went after those responisble, until the public lost interest, then directed their hatred and nationalism to his money making, oil grabbing war. Did we capture Osama Bin Laden? Did we actually even try to? Did we abandon that to go after Iraq on flase pretenses? Are we going to have another terrible national terrorist attack that we can once again blame on Osama, when George's ratings drop low enough?



From what I see, at least most liberals at least attempt to bad mouth folks based on real actions and facts. Are you saying Republicans don't bad mouth liberals or democrats? That Bush and his cronies didn't use total lies, fabrications, mud-slinging and character assisinations to get what they wanted, and continue to do so??




As far as Clinton goes, all they had to attack was his mistakes in Judgement on private issues. They couldn't attack his policies because they were working and even alot of Republicans were happy with them.

With Bush, there is NOTHING good about him. He sucks as a person and sucks as a President and is so obviously corrupt it is sickening.

When I say probably Biased I dont deny there are links to him and business I mean they probably influenced his decisions - harder to prove.

War with Iraq has been coming ever since the Conservatives didnt agree with stopping short of removing Saddam. Even Clinton considered Military Action becuase of the flaunting the inspectors.

Nothing had been done to diffuse the situation since Desert Storm, so Im really surprised anyone thinks this was all some mysterious plot.

You can not say he only showed leaderships becuase he had advisors. Every president since Washington has had Advisors. You can only go by what happened. The country was in crisis, few during the shock following the attacks questioned he was providing leaderhip. this includes liberal democrats.

Yes I saw Farenheit 911 yes that was disturbing, however I have no relative reference to how Gore would have responded. Bush showed Leadership following, 911 there was no crisis in the American people's faith in their President.

Of course Conservatives bash liberals -- part of my point is were making it easier for them.

Well..his actions seem like proof to me..but oh well.



So why use lies and deception to go to war with them. If he has valid reasons, why didn't he just use them. Possibly because the American public wouldn't have wanted to, and wouldn't have backed him on it at all?



yes..telling the truth when people wish to keep shoveling the public lies and misdirection will certainly piss off the Conservatives and make them bash the liberals as "hippies", "terrorists" "unpatriotic" and "obstructionists".

Well is totally wrong for conservatives to Bash Liberals the way they do - I dont think supporting things like the subject the original poster presented is going to win us any respect

Of course I call conservatives to task when they call us "traitors" and the like, Ive made many posts on this in this forum even.

In a more Enlightened manner - if some day it ever gets to that - Issues would be or not be based on their own merit as ideas.

Attacking the other side wouldnt be necessary.

For example- a couple of Bush's favorite causes

- Social Security and privitization - do we really want people to be able to opt out with no support system in place if they Fail?

Hmmm or would we rather combine opting out with welfare reform - make that 80 year old Great Grandmother who opted out and went broke work for her supper - Darn it.

- Energy Policy - This one im a bit divergent from most liberals on , I think we definitely need a better policy and yes, maybe do need to get more oil in Alaska and off shore. But I dont think we should have an Energy Policy that is basically written by energy coorporations. We need a serious Scientific Inquiry and Plan to handle current and future Energy Needs.

Clinton taxed me to death and lowered my quality of life. I can attack his policies all day long, make a thread for it.

Hmm..well..you must be damn rich then, because during his term, low and middle class folks did far better than they are now. If course, Clinton brought the country into a time of Surplus, great employment rates, a thriving economy...and now..would anyone venture to state how we are doing?

And why would I make a thread for it?

It's straying pretty far from the original topic.

Not that I disagree with you

I would recommend viewing FahrenHype 911 after watching Farenheit 911 to counterweight Moore's entry for the Leni Riefenstahl Prize.



Alexin

Err...actually the internet / telecomm boom did that. So unless you believe that Al Gore *did* in fact invent the Internet, Clinton got lucky and was smart enough not to rock the boat. The recent collapse of the Warsaw Pact and then the force drawdown started by Bush41 didn't hurt either. The good thing about Clinton was that he wasn't as ideologically dogmatic as alot of his more vocal followers. He worked with a Republican Majority House and Senate for 6 of his 8 years in the 104th - 106th Congress.

The economic slide started with the Telecomm crash and the spiral went down from there. That was at towards the end of the Clinton term. Trust me...I and a number of people I know lost money when that first bubble burst. And just as Clinton had little to do with the boom, he had little to do with the crash. Like blaming the clown out front when you get a crappy Big Mac, as the saying goes.

Under Clinton I paid double the percentage of taxes that I currnetly pay. My income would be considered maybe upper middle class (there is no middle class classification, it does not exist) by most standard for my income for 2 people.


Anyone with a decent college education knows that the economy goes in cycles and is bigger than a President. There is no President post WWII that can really take credit for the good economy or be blamed for a bad one. The economy tanked under Clinton, it started tanking in a big way in 1999, most people were just too dumb to notice it.

You should totally run our country....... uhh

I'd rather give my money to better causes then bullshit wars.

- Social Security - Someone that old isn't affected by the personal accounts, as far as I understand how it works. Also, as you get near that age, you switch to more conservative (and completely safe, btw) plans which have little or no dependency on the market. For someone younger however, historically speaking the stock market does very well over the LONG run (ex. 5 years is not "long" and if you're young you'll do much better with your own money (staying effectively in your own possession) in a personal account. If I had the option of taking a portion of my SS taxes and putting it into a personal account I'd do it in a heartbeat. The Dems are really pissing me off fighting so hard against this OPTIONAL idea. Let us keep more of the friggin money we earn, damnit. The only valid criticism I've heard of it so far has been that some amount of borrowing will be required, but I believe even this becomes a moot point in the long run.

- Energy policy - Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure Alaska won't even put a dent in our energy requirements. It'll be years before we even see anything more come out of the area, and the amount there isn't very likely to do much good. By then hopefully we'll be well on our way to getting OFF our oil dependency. (Not to mention the fact that refinery capacity is also to blame for high gas prices, not just oil prices.)

I have "heard" (so weigh this accordingly), although not personally read about yet, that the Bush administration has actually taken quite a few very good steps to move us forward towards getting OFF of oil dependency. I can't remember specifics though; I think some of involves research into alternate fuel sources and such, and also I believe there's some economic incentives involved. I do wish we were doing more in this regard to get some good alternatives sooner, you hardly ever hear about this topic. There's some really awesome developments lately involving wind generated power, and to a lesser degree solar of course. Why the hell aren't we building more of those damn things(?)...it's practically free energy! This is one area where states like CA *are* definitely "ahead of the curve". (But they're still tree-huggers! )

Eboni might be a good candidate!

Personally I don't mind handing over some money to try to assist one of the most screwed up areas of the world, which to some degree we are responsible for (contributing to) screwing up, during the Cold War. (And hopefully put an end to Islamic terrorism after a generation or so, to boot.)

Well this thread isnt about those issues i brought them up as examples -

NO the ability to "opt out" of Social security wont affect current 80 year olds , im talking about the 80 year olds 40+ years down the road, who WILL be affected if they make bad private investment choices, the money isnt some magic fountain, by giving private choice you add private risk.

The vast majority of current technology Energy sources are oil, therefore you have to make considersations in future sourses of oil and adjust as ne technologies exist , this is stuff those experts would determine , thats the whole point I was trying to make - I dont think the experts investigating should be the ones who stand to gain.

CA is one of the reasons that Bush wanted an Energy policy, remember Rolling black outs? My biggest problem with his plan is its basically researched and authored by the Oil and power companies, so it basically is the ultimate Pork barrel plan.

The District of Columbia?

She is correct on this.

This is the way I understand the Recent (12 years or so) economy -

As much as people like to give Clinton credit for the surplus, and blame Bush for Squandering it, No federal policies changed significantly during this time to cuase the downturn in the economy. (either under CLinton or Bush)

The Boom of the 90's was literally much simpler. The Baby boomers were had come into their peek income years and were spending and also investing a lot of their money.

The resulting crash was an extremely overvalued market in Technologies (a good share net related stuff) - some Economists had claimed the market was due for serious adjustments for years prior, they were dismissed as Bears of course.

Septemeber 11th compounded this to a huge degree by totally demoralizing investor and consumer confidence.

I for one though, highly doubt that the economy is "turning around" to the level the Bush admistration claims it is. I still know many people out of work and Job Mobility is very poor. I think a very good question as to whether the economy is goign good for a typical citizen is - "could i go out and in a month or two find a job that is comprable to the one I have now?" - if the answer is no - then theres potential problem, itf its NO for the majority of people - its a big problem.

During the 90's Jobs were easy to get - I turned away jobs I would love to be offered now.

On a personal level - and I do know many other in different fieilds with similair circumstances - I consider this a part of a soft economy.