Disgusting new Giuliani ad

quijibo wrote: [quote=queencallipygos]But clearly you seem to think that this points to something being staged. If that's the case, who do you think staged it and why? ...you're not honestly suggesting that Giuliani staged it so he could become president now, are you?

(sits back to wait)

i thought you wanted some information and i gave you some
i have no desire to change your opinion, that can only happen through your own desire for knowledge, and your own investigation

who do you think killed JFK?

I didn't ask for information, you just shoved it at me.

I also don't consider conspiracy theories to be anything but theories, I do not consider them "information." Because, the one thing that conspiracy theorists seem to not be able to explain is, if the things they talk about are such big freakin' secrets, how come there are so many theorists who know all about it?

...So it further strikes me that the work of conspiracy theorists isn't "information" at all in the first place, unless you mean information about what people want to believe.

Now: we were in the midst of discussing a Giuliani campaign ad when you posted a link claiming 9/11 was staged. The only connection I can see is that, as I have surmised, you believe Giuliani personally staged 9/11 to further a future presidential campaign. If this is not what you are saying, then why on earth did you post that opinion?



...And it is indeed "skeptic" with a "k", by the way.

my dictionary has "sceptic" as the british spelling. i can't throw stones, since i always write "grey".

sweet tea wrote: my dictionary has "sceptic" as the british spelling. i can't throw stones, since i always write "grey".

i usually go for the British spelling as well, "especially" in these l33t daYz

mr. met wrote: that 9/11 conspiracy site says that 9/11 was too big to be an outside job, then it lists 40 reasons/events that suggest an inside job. if 9/11 were such a huge government conspiracy involving so many people, wouldn't if be just as hard to pull off as if islamic terrorists did it?

there are a million conspiracy theories out there. the one i adhere to most closely is one where the present administration had advance knowledge of it, and chose to ignore it for political expediency.

once you get into deeper details such as funding, patronage, blowback, cruise missiles, et al is when the conversation devolves into a shouting match

it is a useful exercise to question the official explanation of events

mr. met wrote: "political expediency"

do you mean so we could invade iraq and start the war on terror?

yes. the "war on a noun" is a neo-con invention with no end. i brought up 9/11 in relation to giuliani because he is running on a fear-mongering 9/11 platform.

i worry that another "attack" will happen again, coinciding with the coming election, which will swing voter sentiment/fear to Giuliani

quijibo wrote:
there are a million conspiracy theories out there. the one i adhere to most closely is one where the present administration had advance knowledge of it, and chose to ignore it for political expediency.

Even if you were right, that's still a far cry from saying that it was "staged". "Staged" means "carried out BY the administration", it doesn't mean blithe looking-the-other-way.

Also, for this administration to coordinate such an intentional coverup of such magnitude, it would require far more organization than I honestly believe the current administration is capable of. The thing that always fails to win me over about conspiracy theories is that for any of them to work, they depend on people not talking about them, and simple human nature counters that possibility.

There is evidence that there was evidence before the fact, but Occam's Razor dictates that it's far more likely that bureaucracy kept all the pieces in different offices where no one could put them together, rather than dictating that we had all the pieces in front of us and the Men In Smoke-Filled Rooms decided to lay back in the buckwheat and let it happen.

it is a useful exercise to question the official explanation of events

I forget precisely who said it, but a quote I've always liked says that "it helps to keep an open mind, but not one so open that your mind actually falls out of your head."

...And I'm still not sure why you brought this up in connection with Giuliani's ad. again, I ask, are you implying that Giuliani was responsible?

Then you haven't been paying attention.

Yes, the attacks on our liberty and the Constitution have been vile, BUT they've also proven themselves to be the most incompetent administration in history. You are giving these people far too much credit for actually having intelligence.

I also submit to you that authoritarianism and arrogance are hallmarks of incompetence. Competent people tend not to be power-hungry because we're too busy getting stuff done. Incompetent people try to gain power because they don't know how to do anything useful and have no desire to learn how.

quijibo wrote:
ok. here you go. top 40 reasons why 9/11 was staged
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646

Our present administration is way too incompetent to orchestrate such an attack. While I agree that military and government incompetence contributed to the attacks, claiming some kind of orchestration on behalf of the government is pure tinfoil-hat bullcrap.

Subject: Re: Disgusting new Giuliani ad

queencallipygos wrote: [quote=eggcream]Really, what rights have you lost? Who's pushing for endless war?

* The November 13, 2001, Presidential Military Order gave the President of the United States the power to detain a non-citizen suspected of connection to terrorists or terrorism as an unlawful combatant. As such, it was asserted that a person could be held indefinitely without charges being filed against him or her, without a court hearing, and without entitlement to a legal consultant. Many legal and constitutional scholars contended that these provisions were in direct opposition to habeas corpus and the United States Bill of Rights.

* Although the Act was passed by wide margins in both houses of Congress, it has been criticized from its inception for weakening protections of civil liberties. In particular, opponents of the law have criticized its authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; "sneak and peek" searches through which law enforcement officers search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s permission or knowledge; the expanded use of "National Security Letters," which allow the FBI to search telephone, email and financial records without a court order; and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records. The Fourth Amendment was created to protect us from such unwarranted searches and siezures.

* Perhaps one of the most controversial parts of the legislation were the National Security Letter (NSL) provisions. Because they allow the FBI to search telephone, email, and financial records without a court order they were criticized by many parties. In November 2005, BusinessWeek reported that the FBI had issued tens of thousands of NSLs and had obtained one million financial, credit, employment, and in some cases, health records from the customers of targeted Las Vegas businesses. Selected businesses included casinos, storage warehouses and car rental agencies. An anonymous Justice official claimed that such requests were permitted under section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act and despite the volume of requests insisted "We are not inclined to ask courts to endorse fishing expeditions". Before this was revealed, however, the ACLU challenged the constitutionality of NSLs in court. In April 2004, they filed suit against the government on behalf of an unknown Internet Service Provider who had been issued an NSL, for reasons unknown. In ACLU v. DoJ, the ACLU argued that the NSL violated the First and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution because the Patriot Act failed to spell out any legal process whereby a telephone or Internet company could try to oppose an NSL subpoena in court. The court agreed, and found that because the recipient of the subpoena could not challenge it in court it was unconstitutional.

* Another provision of the Patriot Act brought a great deal of consternation amongst librarians. Section 215 allows the FBI to apply for an order to produce materials that assist in an investigation undertaken to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. Amongst the "tangible things" that could be targeted, it includes "books, records, papers, documents, and other items".

...In other words, it is now LEGAL for the government to come and search your apartment WITHOUT a warrant, based only on someone with a bug up their butt about you giving them a tip. And it is now LEGAL for the government to go to your local library and get all the records of the books you checked out for the past year or two, and woe betide you if you'd ever had the notion to check out a copy of the Q'uran to check something quick.

Wow, the goverment is going to check up on what books I read? Who gives a s*it. How about the liberal nanny goverment telling you what to eat, no trans fat here, what car to drive, where you can or better yet cannot smoke, banning freaking lightbulbs to appease the "global cooling er warming nuts, putting thermostats controlled by the state in your home so they can regulate your heat and many other invasive acts in our daily lives. If checking out what I'm reading at the library will help stop a terrorist from blowing up my family then by all means...It's when they tell me WHAT to check out at the library is when I get pissed.

Liberals think everybody is an imcompetant idiot and cannot take care of themselves, especially minorities, and that is when they have to step in and save you. Slowly they will take away all our freedoms and then we're screwed. Thanks but no thanks.

Carnivore wrote: Skeptic Magazine, definitely a source that approaches something like this with an open mind, did a whole issue on the 9/11 conspiracy theory and concluded pretty decisively that the conspiracy theories are bunk. I have the issue if anyone wants to borrow it.

Popular Mechanics is another one:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

Doesn't matter though, the Charlie Sheen, Rosie O'Donnel nuts will never believe it.

Subject: Re: Disgusting new Giuliani ad

eggcream wrote: Wow, the goverment is going to check up on what books I read? Who gives a s*it.

But if you were in (name that country, say China) and landed in jail for some subversive reading material . . .

The erosion of our civil liberties is very real, and worth taking seriously if you want to keep them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html wrote: Fascist America, in 10 easy steps[/url]

From Hitler to Pinochet and beyond, history shows there are certain steps that any would-be dictator must take to destroy constitutional freedoms. And, argues Naomi Wolf, George Bush and his administration seem to be taking them all

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html
here's an excerpt

It is very difficult and arduous to create and sustain a democracy - but history shows that closing one down is much simpler. You simply have to be willing to take the 10 steps.

As difficult as this is to contemplate, it is clear, if you are willing to look, that each of these 10 steps has already been initiated today in the United States by the Bush administration.

Because Americans like me were born in freedom, we have a hard time even considering that it is possible for us to become as unfree - domestically - as many other nations. Because we no longer learn much about our rights or our system of government - the task of being aware of the constitution has been outsourced from citizens' ownership to being the domain of professionals such as lawyers and professors - we scarcely recognise the checks and balances that the founders put in place, even as they are being systematically dismantled.

HooRAY for Glen Johnson of the Associated Press! A reporter doing his job!



Did CBS air that on the evening news, or stick it on some dusty corner of their website?

quijibo wrote: [quote=pitu]HooRAY for Glen Johnson of the Associated Press! A reporter doing his job!



Did CBS air that on the evening news, or stick it on some dusty corner of their website?

i didn't catch it on tv so i don't know that
but the video on its website has been making the rounds on the internets via reddit/digg

http://popurls.com/ has become my new york times

I think all the networks and locals used it in one form or another. Nice!

It's not the "nanny government" that I fear. Erosion of rights HAS happened, but it's not because fast food restaurants are being forced to post nutrition info.

Because my father worked for a defense contractor in the 80s, we've had to have rather invasive investigations of our family every six months or so. My mom was doing a dissertation on early Bohemian music. Any time she got a microfiche from Czechoslovakia, our phone would get tapped. I used to be in an anti-nuclear war student group. I was forced to curb my political activities as a 14-year-old so my dad wouldn't lose his job. So unlike the rest of you, I've never truly experienced the political freedom of assembly or action that you may have. What the Patriot act does is ensure this state of affairs for EVERYBODY, not just family members of people who work for defense contractors.