Does this scare anyone?

[Emproph]

Only the parts in bold have been changed.

Originally Posted by Emproph (courtesy simpleman)

Anyway, I feel like our country has moved into a state of relativism. The "conservatives" are at the forefront. Many ideas considered "conservative" or "Republican" are founded upon a kind of moral relativity. There is very little absolute left in our country. It seems as though law by law, precedent by precedent, the country is tearing down old foundations based on absolute moral principles, particularly those established under an equality democratic worldview, and replacing them with new laws, policies, and precedents. Now it seems that any law founded in equality teaching is destroyed, as soon as that equality teaching is questioned. Part of me likes this flow of ideas, this dissemination of information, and this questioning of what is and has been. I like to see opposing ideas flying around. That's why I'm so provocative here, it's because I want people to express what they believe, because I find a certain satisfaction in being able to express myself. On the other hand, I feel that relativism is dangerous. Once you divorce yourself from absolutes; in other words, as the gray area in our social and political world expands, people can unreason themselves from where they are, to anywhere else.

Not much change, but a BIG difference. It works even without the notion of LGBT "equality." The difference is that I ALREADY see 'you' as this. But you're not seeing that I'm already seeing that about 'you.'

This is what leads me to understand that the liberal perspective (at least in theory if not in practice) is superior. To be open to ALL perspectives, is to INCORPORATE the conservative perspective. Liberals are by default both liberal AND conservative. Conservatives cannot make this claim. Which is not to say that a pointed and sustained conservative outlook/worldview is not beneficial - if not essential, to help keep us 'wishy-washy' liberals in tune.

The point is that ultimately it's the liberal perspective that allows for ALL of our conservative perspectives. Our conservative perspectives can NEVER allow for all of our liberal perspectives because by their very nature they automatically preclude them. The trick of course is the never ending conundrum of the balance.

But that's outside-of-the-box thinking, which is "liberal" because it expands beyond the "box of knowledge" that is already known...


Never mind..

[ladyinred]

Now I feel somewhat vindicated when I literally begged my friends not to vote for Bush ,2004. From what I read Bush has always been a bully and knows nothing about foreign affairs. He got elected as governor of Texas, when I feel he didn't even have the qualifications or political backround. He was said to be a party animal and playboy until his 40's. He also helped ruin education and the environment in this state.

I voted against him as a matter of principles and read about the backround of his family which has been somewhat shady, his grandfather helped fund Hitler's rise to power.

The man is in denial about global warming and favors big business,often discriminating against unions in their favor. I still shake my head as to why after the first four years people voted for this man. I don't think anyone here is delusional in suspecting the man may have some screws loose.

I think he can be somewhat sadistic, explaining why torture in Iraq and even prisons here is overlooked or accepted. I even was watching footage of Laura Bush, whom I normally admired, but for some reason I looked into her eyes and got the creeps. There is something dreadfully wrong with the whole family up to Bush senior.

[ladyinred]

Daniel, I just love your line of reasoning, right on the mark:"You line of 'logic' is your own. You might remember that. And for all the vauntedness of absoluteness. Well. It's just so damn easy for anyone to assume that their view must be God's view- isn't it? Isn't it queer that one's idea of absoluteness always affirms one's views? "

That's not logic. That's hubris.

[tpdncr4christ]

Dude Simpleman shouldn't be taking all the sluff for this one! I agree with him. And I was very angry with the disrespect expressed in this thread when it started but I decided I wasn't in a button pushing mood so I didn't say anything. Not that you can't be rude or talk nasty about our President, because you can, I just don't like it.

As for 9/11 being a conspiracy, I doubt it is true. I've watched all of those online videos and have been disgusted with them. They are just the kind of misinformation this site is always fighting against. Not the misinformation, the kind of misinformation. Simpledude is right, that video is a culmination of clips out of context and full of misquoted and illegitimate information. None of the work or sources are cited, and a clever story is woven into the holes of missing links. I do not find it credible in the least. And as for History channel showing it, that means nothing. The History Channel just had a special all about how Christ was really an alien. Totally not credible.

Granted, Simplekid, you did bring about the whole hatred of gays thing, on your own this time, I know it surprised me too! No one said anything about you not liking gays. It's all that anti-discrimination stuff, the favoring the black guy over the white guy because you are afraid of being called a racist. Don't back into a corner and say, "You don't like me cause you think I hate gays!" Dude, that's not cool. We don't hate you because you hate gays, we don't hate you at all. Granted, some times there will be people who judge you because they think you are judging them. But that wasn't this time. They were just fussing at you cause they think you are wrong. I don't, but they do... we can take this together if we agree sexuality has nothing to do with it, ok?

[Daniel]

I'm not sure if the 'dude' you refer to is me, but since 'lady' is not a 'dude', strictly speaking, I will assume so. Are men and women being called 'dude' now? Or is it a catch all term for everything or everyone? Perhaps I'm showing my age, but this kind of terminology is lost on me.

My remarks, which Lady has quoted, has nothing to do with the vid that is being talked about, but rather, the same issue you raise, that being simpleman's feeling hated.

On that, it seems, we agree.

[tpdncr4christ]

all the dude's and simplewhatnot's were addressed to Simpleman, except for the very first due which is an address to the general forum population.

I was saying I agree with Simple man about the video, and about the negative reaction to the President's new decree. I find it disgusting that any one would think our President would plan 9/11. And I don't find his new decree scary, I find it comforting.

Concerning simpleman's feeling hated? I agree with the majority of the forum here in that any hatred from us that he could be feeling is self inflicted... make sense sir?

[antonyh]

Originally Posted by tpdncr4christ

As for 9/11 being a conspiracy, I doubt it is true. I've watched all of those online videos and have been disgusted with them. They are just the kind of misinformation this site is always fighting against. Not the misinformation, the kind of misinformation. Simpledude is right, that video is a culmination of clips out of context and full of misquoted and illegitimate information. None of the work or sources are cited, and a clever story is woven into the holes of missing links. I do not find it credible in the least. And as for History channel showing it, that means nothing. The History Channel just had a special all about how Christ was really an alien. Totally not credible.

Here is the governments account:
http://wtc.nist.gov/

I'm curious about why you're disgusted by questioning events?

[tdogg]

I think if we all new the extent of Bush & his administration's power, we would be scared. I don't think it's stretch to think at the very least Bush and his harem purposely failed to do all they could do to prevent the 9-11 disasters. I think the thought that Bush has granted himself authority to spy on any and all of us is terrorizing and at the least a very unwelcome invasion of my privacy. Wait, didn't we have a discussion on 'private' stuff several threads back??? Well, here's one: I do not appreciate that the president of the US has given himself the authority to peep in on my and my phone conversations (and likely my emails and internet researchin) if and whenever he pleases. Not cool.

I find it interesting Simple that the one thing you mention about learning on your trip to Ireland was about drinking alcohol. Hopefully, you garnered some history and geology to go with that. In my two trips to Scotland, I found a county STEEPED in civil and natural history. If nothing else learned, I got that constant warring and killing does not freedom necessarily make.

I never got the feeling that people on these forums considered Simple to hate gays. However, the common reaction to our responses to the idea that we are wrong, don't deserve equality and that we should really listen to those pushing fundamental, conservative religious fewpoints regarding how some feel about 'us', is suddenly very defensive and not taken well.

Just and FYI - I have had Simple, Simon & Sammy's and other's conservative, fundamental religious viewpoints shoved down my throat and rattled into my head for years. I personally don't feel the need to continue to try and listen to what these viewpoints are. I know what they are. I don't agree. I don't feel a need to listen to 'them'. I suffered through that for YEARS and YEARS. Been there, done that and done with that now. I appreciate they are your view points fellas. They are not mine.

If you want to know mine, I'm happy to discuss. If I don't come across as too open to listening to yours - please don't take it personal. You are just one more in a very long line of people that I'm reluctant to continue listening to. I think we have much to discuss. Whether or not being a homosexual or engaging in a same-sex relationship is a sin or not - I'm over that discussion. What we need to do to make progress towards equality in this country - I'm all ears.

[tpdncr4christ]

Originally Posted by antonyh

Here is the governments account:
http://wtc.nist.gov/

I'm curious about why you're disgusted by questioning events?

I'm not disgusted by questioning events, that's something I love! I'm all for challenging people and events, that's what I do...

I am disgusted with the reaction, with the fact that people actually think, that you can believe that our President is such an evil man. That kind of evil, to knowingly plan the death's of three thousand innocents, is something I cannot perceive. I am disgusted with suggestion that our President could be capable of that evil. I'm too much of an idealist to accept that.

Concerning the governments response, it looks very confusing, very complex, and like you have to have several college degrees to understand it. I'll be honest, I've only just now glanced through it, and I am almost certain it has holes the same as any conspiracy theory, the same as any government action. They hardly tell us anything. Ever. That isn't surprising to me.

9/11 was a horrible tragic event. It is not something that any man could do well with. Bush did not shine through, nor did he fail, he went with his gut and reacted accordingly (he may not have been right, but it is the job of the President to react so). September 30 of 2001 if you had asked anyone in the country whether we should go to war everyone would have said yes without thought. That is what the President did, albeit he has gone a little ADD since then and got distracted, but everyone wanted some sort of revenge or justice for our country.

So I'm not disgusted with questioning, I am disgusted with the implications of such evil. But I will say as much as to say IF Bush is the man you say he is, IF such evil does exist, and IF such evil ends up ruling the nation, I will be one of the first to stand against it. But, I really hope this isn't true, and I really hope you are wrong. Because I can't see what life will be like if you are right.

[tdogg]

Implications lead to questioning. It's prudent to examine the possibilities, even though they might not be true. Knowledge is power, and when we arm ourselves with knowledge we gain the power to make better decisions.

I hope Bush did everything he could do the best way he knew how. However, the knowledge I have gained in my lifetime tells me that might not be the case. I don't put anything past him and his people. Sorry, the fact that so many of his appointees have been accused and/or proven as criminals just gives me more bases to implicate him in possible bad decisions made for personal gain. It's been the norm for those he appointed to office, over and over again. Why would the appointer be any different?

I hope Austin you are right. Unfortunately I don't hold much hope. Hopefully you'll understand when people feel that Bush may not have acted in good faith, that there is history and are reasons why they feel that way. It's great that you are an idealist, we need more of that! But you should lace it with a bit of realism, especially where others thoughts might not be so positive.

[tpdncr4christ]

Ok... Now I mean this as un-sarcastically as possible, all sincerity here:

I don't think Bush is smart enough to have planned 9/11.

How's that? That's realism, isn't it?

[Dash]

Originally Posted by tpdncr4christ

Ok... Now I mean this as un-sarcastically as possible, all sincerity here:

I don't think Bush is smart enough to have planned 9/11.

How's that? That's realism, isn't it?

Bingo!

I think I watched that "Loose Change" video awhile back. I remember afterwards thinking that all their points didn't necessarily add up.

Was this the video that showed the towers falling--while pointing out what appeared to be other demolition explosions preceeding the collapsing floors? If it's the same theory, it seems farfetched to me. I would almost expect the tons of debris "pancaking" down to "blow out" windows and dust on the floors beneath by the force of air pressure. To my mind, no preset explosions would be necessary to produce that effect.

I didn't know what to make of their theories about the crash at the Pentagon.

That said, the powers the President seems to be awarding himself bug me too. We still have some separation of powers left in our government, though, so I remain confident that the Executive branch would not be able to singlehandedly take control.

The administration seems sometimes to be disintegrating around President Bush. If the same kinds of incompetent people that he has appointed to all high level posts were involved in planning the attacks in 2001, I think they'd have never pulled it off.

I mean, come on...look at how badly they are running their war and reconstruction efforts in Iraq.

[antonyh]

Since our Spare Change 2 boys are not "credible", here are some more weighty critics of the government's account of 9/11:

Former German Defense Minister Andreas von Bülow and former Blair cabinet member Michael Meacher:
http://www.daanspeak.com/USAUnderAttack07v.html

Physics professor Steven E. Jones:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10053445/
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

Professor Emeritus of theology David Ray Griffin:
http://www.911blogger.com/2005/04/pr...n-madison.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/se...688800-9237509

Economics professor Morgan Reynolds, the 'former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term':
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911

Paul Craig Roberts, 'Assistant Secretary of Treasury under President Reagan', 'former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal and columnist for Business Week' and 'listed by Who's Who in America as one of the 1,000 most influential political thinkers in the world':
Link Broken

Dr. Robert M. Bowman, former 'head of advanced space programs for the Department of Defense and a combat pilot who flew 101 missions in the Vietnam War':
http://www.rmbowman.com/ssn/Secrecy.htm

U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D., Ga.):
http://ajbenjaminjr.blogspot.com/200...1-coverup.html

Catherine Austin Fitts, former 'Assistant Secretary of Housing under President George Bush Sr.':
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?...41101130426916

Physics 911:
http://physics911.net/

Surviving family members of The Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Commission:
http://911independentcommission.org/index.html

'An alliance of 100 prominent Americans and 40 family members of those killed on 9/11':
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?...41026093059633

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by tpdncr4christ

all the dude's and simplewhatnot's were addressed to Simpleman, except for the very first due which is an address to the general forum population.

I was saying I agree with Simple man about the video, and about the negative reaction to the President's new decree. I find it disgusting that any one would think our President would plan 9/11. And I don't find his new decree scary, I find it comforting.

Concerning simpleman's feeling hated? I agree with the majority of the forum here in that any hatred from us that he could be feeling is self inflicted... make sense sir?

Yes- it makes sense (and you know your getting older when people call you 'sir'! ). Just goes to show that I have an ego of my own in thinking that your first line had something to do with me. (Ya gotta watch those performer types....always stealing focus. )

Now to matters at hand: I don't thing El Presidente had anything to do with planning 9/11, though I would like to see his security advisor, Miss Condi, fired. If Bush and Co are guilty of anything, it is gross negilgence. They cut the budget for CIA intelligence a few days prior to 9/11, and blew off a key intelligence report about Bin Laden planning to use planes to attack the United States. They did nothing about that. And then, after 9/11, it took more than a full year to them to do anything about airport security.

And isn't it insteresting that Condi had a oil tanker named after her? Makes me wonder who this administration is working for.

Who needs conspiracy theories when the facts will suffice?

[ladyinred]

"Dude Simpleman shouldn't be taking all the sluff for this one! I agree with him. And I was very angry with the disrespect expressed in this thread when it started but I decided I wasn't in a button pushing mood so I didn't say anything. Not that you can't be rude or talk nasty about our President, because you can, I just don't like it."

You have a right to disagree with people who don't see things your way. But I don't believe in a blind allegiance to any leader of our country. Not that I hate Bush personally, but I do have a big problem with his leadership and policy making.
I don't even have a blind allegiance to my own party, if they are doing things which I think aren't working in the best interests of the American people, I will not vote for them even if they are a democrat.
In my mind this President is doing grave harm to our country, He supports big business over workers rights, he has helped erode protections and regulation through the EPA and FDA,we are now in a war that is costing us dearly in dollars and lives and hasn't made us feel more secure,people are afraid to speak up because of the patriot act,tax breaks that benefit primarily the rich while domestic programs are being cut into, public education is a dirty word now,cronyism in Bush's administration rather than hiring people based on merit...

What if you were told that 75% of children's drugs are not FDA approved that are being presribed? What if you were told that the FDA doesn't do inspections like they used to to ensure food safety and now we are facing an epidemic of foods that are tainted and contaminated. What if the President has helped erode civil rights and stepped over his bounds as a leader and is now acting like Napoleon?

I don't think people who disagree with Presient Bush are being rude or hateful, if they are like me , they are concerned with the state of affairs, and they love their country and are concerned with the direction it has been headed in.To make Bush into some kind of demagogue and put him on a pedastal like he is to be worshipped or something ,to me is basically being blind.I don't take lightly the fact that I feel like he has done alot of damage to our country and our democracy.But I guess when you have a child who eats tainted peanut butter and dies, or when your job is outsourced to India, or even when your phone is being wiretapped ,you might see the light.

And pardon me for giving a damn.

[ladyinred]

Now as for Judeo Christian values and absolute morals, I will stand by Daniel and his remarks. We've seen what those "morals" have done in the past when people absolutely believed they were on the" right hand" of God.

Slavery, segregation, slaughtering of the indigenous people, inquisitions , witch burnings and of course homophobia. Why do we view homophobia and anti gay as destructive and violent? Because when people wish you harm or are trying to punnish you and dehumanize you by taking away your basic right to exist and are actually trying to get laws passed that deny you equal protection under the law, or think it's ok to fire you and deny you housing, or deny your loved ones benefits and even kill you... Yeah I guess that wouldn't sit too well with people who are on the receiving end, but gee, neither did slavery, or segregation or putting the Indians on the reservation.

Oh and since there are those in the RR who believe that Jesus is coming back soon and taking them(Of course ) away with him to heaven, "Hey why worry about things like the environment or other concerns anyway?" " We can just do anything we basically want and the "Lord will provide." It doesn't matter if we destroy the environment and the earth resources, because the end times are a coming and it won't matter anyway." Oh and of course you pagans ,buddhists and hindus don't believe in our Christian God, so you all are headed to hell, better convert or "die." Muslims are "evil" and the anti-Christ",we'll just conquer their nations and force "Christianity" on them ,if they don't conform, we'll just kill them. (Remember Ann Coulter's remarks?)

If you ain't "right", there goes your ticket to Heaven.
"When you pledge allegiance to our theocracy and align yourself with our world view, there goes the democracy,but hey,it isn't God's way, he wants you to live under tyranny and an autocratic rule."Those who don't follow or agree with us, we will anniliate and consider our enemies, and we will wage war on these "evil" heretics.

Yep give us those absolute "Morals." Just what we neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed.(But of course those of us who believe that God's love is inclusive and not based on "religious affiliation",sexual orientation,or the color of your skin. We is just a bunch of flakes.")

[tdogg]

Originally Posted by tpdncr4christ

Ok... Now I mean this as un-sarcastically as possible, all sincerity here:

I don't think Bush is smart enough to have planned 9/11.

How's that? That's realism, isn't it?

I'm with you on this one Austin! No disrespect to our President, but he is a few cans short of a 12-pack. But he does have some intelligent people surrounding him (ok, maybe even that is questionable).

I agree with Daniel - gross negligence. I would add possible cover-ups, the Bush administration is full of that. Double-speak is the standard. Lies and deceit. I wish that I could respect our President but sadly I cannot.

Is there even the remotest possibility of finding a future candidate who is intelligent, compassionate, and a defender of equality and protections for all those he or she is in charge of governing? One whose own interests don't take precedence over those who voted him/her into office? One who would do all in his/her power to serve and protect those who voted for him/her? I'm not seeing anyone so far.

[simpleman]

First of all, my bringing sexuality into it again was not about sexuality itself, it was about how my arguments aren't often considered based on their merit, but rather on, what I believe to be an unfair equation of my religious beliefs to hateful beliefs. I am not, as Daniel has accused, claiming that my beliefs are absolute. I am not trying to force any of you to pick up on my beliefs on sexuality, etc., I was trying to point out that I would like my arguments, most specifically about the Hate Crimes Bill, to be considered based on their merits and basis in our legal system, not on whether or not my arguments have anything to do with hatred, conscious, subconscious or otherwise. I wasn't even talking about my beliefs, themselves. Daniel actually came through to prove my point exactly:

Originally Posted by Daniel

You line of 'logic' is your own. You might remember that. And for all the vauntedness of absoluteness. Well. It's just so damn easy for anyone to assume that their view must be God's view- isn't it? Isn't it queer that one's idea of absoluteness always affirms one's views?

That's not logic. That's hubris.

This accusation, to me, states that I believe my views, and only mine to be God's view. The logic I was referring to actually had nothing to do with my religious beliefs, or beliefs on sexuality, but Daniel demonstrated my final point (no one can look past my religious beliefs to consider my arguments against the hate crimes bill based on their merit) perfectly by dragging my religious beliefs back into the argument, when my sole point was that no one would consider my argument against the Hate Crimes Bill under grounds of anything other than my religious beliefs. Furthermore, as for the relativity vs. absoluteness, I don't believe I ever said that my beliefs represented the absolute, I was just making a lamentation on the changing way American political discourse takes place. Daniel, however, chooses to always see the worst in everything I say, so he used it to tear down my religious beliefs, once again. I do want to make it clear at this point that I myself don't feel hated, and have not once felt hated since I came here. No one should think that I'm crying foul that people here hate me. I really don't think that, and even if people here really did hate me it wouldn't be any big deal to me.

Back to the topic, President Bush, tapdancer has a lot of good ideas about it. He didn't plan this, he didn't execute it. As I said it would take too many people keeping quiet and as tapdancer said he's probably not capable (thought I don't think many could) of pulling something like this off.

I've also seen hurled a million different accusations about his administration, one after the other, and I know (Daniel) that I'll miss a few, and furthermore there isn't enough space in this post to try and explain some of the things that people believe about Bush that aren't necessarily true or in proper context.

Here's one:

Originally Posted by Daniel

blew off a key intelligence report about Bin Laden planning to use planes to attack the United States

I do believe that you are referring to a PDB (President's Daily Briefing) from August 6, 2001. It was entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US".
You can find the exact transcript of this brief here: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/

Of course the fact that Bin Laden was determined to strike the United States, even on it's own soil, was no new news to anyone, much less the President or Condoleeza Rice. It's akin to saying "Little League World Series MVP determined to make the Big Leagues". The only reference within the entire briefing (which is quite a boring read, btw) to using airplanes was a hijacking to try and get America to release the "Blind Sheik". Pre-9/11, hijacking meant taking control of a plane and land it somewhere and holding the passengers hostage. This would make sense, as the passengers would be ransom for releasing the "Blind Sheik". Crashing them into buildings, or using them as weapons, etc. would kill the whole ransom thing, and the hostage-takers, and said sheik would not have been released. It also mentioned 70 FBI investigations currently operating to try and infiltrate Bin Laden cells, or anything else Bin Laden-related. So you see, this key document is really nothing more than a historical, redundant account of a lot of things that everybody already knew. Hell, I know that Bin Laden is probably planning to attack the US again, does that mean that it's my fault if he does?

If you are referencing the July 10, 2001 meeting between George Tenet (then leader of the CIA) and Rice, it has been reported extensively that Rice heeded warnings presented to her that day, and set in motion several plans. I don't have a link to the New York Times article, but I read one.

Regardless of what gets stirred around on the internet, what gets tossed around in the news, etc. there was no magical document, or report, etc. that outlined any specifics of any thing like the 9-11 attacks. It was definitely unprecedented, and it definitely wasn't Bush's fault. See my post about Able Danger for evidence that if it was any president's fault, it was Clinton.

[simpleman]

First of all, my bringing sexuality into it again was not about sexuality itself, it was about how my arguments aren't often considered based on their merit, but rather on, what I believe to be an unfair equation of my religious beliefs to hateful beliefs. I am not, as Daniel has accused, claiming that my beliefs are absolute. I am not trying to force any of you to pick up on my beliefs on sexuality, etc., I was trying to point out that I would like my arguments, most specifically about the Hate Crimes Bill, to be considered based on their merits and basis in our legal system, not on whether or not my arguments have anything to do with hatred, conscious, subconscious or otherwise. I wasn't even talking about my beliefs, themselves. Daniel actually came through to prove my point exactly:

Originally Posted by Daniel

You line of 'logic' is your own. You might remember that. And for all the vauntedness of absoluteness. Well. It's just so damn easy for anyone to assume that their view must be God's view- isn't it? Isn't it queer that one's idea of absoluteness always affirms one's views?

That's not logic. That's hubris.

This accusation, to me, states that I believe my views, and only mine to be God's view. The logic I was referring to actually had nothing to do with my religious beliefs, or beliefs on sexuality, but Daniel demonstrated my final point (no one can look past my religious beliefs to consider my arguments against the hate crimes bill based on their merit) perfectly by dragging my religious beliefs back into the argument, when my sole point was that no one would consider my argument against the Hate Crimes Bill under grounds of anything other than my religious beliefs. Furthermore, as for the relativity vs. absoluteness, I don't believe I ever said that my beliefs represented the absolute, I was just making a lamentation on the changing way American political discourse takes place. Daniel, however, chooses to always see the worst in everything I say, so he used it to tear down my religious beliefs, once again. I do want to make it clear at this point that I myself don't feel hated, and have not once felt hated since I came here. No one should think that I'm crying foul that people here hate me. I really don't think that, and even if people here really did hate me it wouldn't be any big deal to me.

Back to the topic, President Bush, tapdancer has a lot of good ideas about it. He didn't plan this, he didn't execute it. As I said it would take too many people keeping quiet and as tapdancer said he's probably not capable (thought I don't think many could) of pulling something like this off.

I've also seen hurled a million different accusations about his administration, one after the other, I'd try to defend a thing or two, but there isn't enough space in this post to try and explain some of the things that people believe about Bush that aren't necessarily true or in proper context.

Here's one, though:

Originally Posted by Daniel

blew off a key intelligence report about Bin Laden planning to use planes to attack the United States

I do believe that you are referring to a PDB (President's Daily Briefing) from August 6, 2001. It was entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US".
You can find the exact transcript of this brief here: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/

Of course the fact that Bin Laden was determined to strike the United States, even on it's own soil, was no new news to anyone, much less the President or Condoleeza Rice. It's akin to saying "Little League World Series MVP determined to make the Big Leagues". The only reference within the entire briefing (which is quite a boring read, btw) to using airplanes was a hijacking to try and get America to release the "Blind Sheik". Pre-9/11, hijacking meant taking control of a plane and land it somewhere and holding the passengers hostage. This would make sense, as the passengers would be ransom for releasing the "Blind Sheik". Crashing them into buildings, or using them as weapons, etc. would kill the whole ransom thing, and the hostage-takers, and said sheik would not have been released. It also mentioned 70 FBI investigations currently operating to try and infiltrate Bin Laden cells, or anything else Bin Laden-related. So you see, this key document is really nothing more than a historical, redundant account of a lot of things that everybody already knew. Hell, I know that Bin Laden is probably planning to attack the US again, does that mean that it's my fault if he does?

If you are referencing the July 10, 2001 meeting between George Tenet (then leader of the CIA) and Rice, it has been reported extensively that Rice heeded warnings presented to her that day, and set in motion several plans. I don't have a link to the New York Times article, but I read one.

Regardless of what gets stirred around on the internet, what gets tossed around in the news, etc. there was no magical document, or report, etc. that outlined any specifics of any thing like the 9-11 attacks. It was definitely unprecedented, and it definitely wasn't Bush's fault. See my post about Able Danger for evidence that if it was any president's fault, it was Clinton.

[tpdncr4christ]

Originally Posted by simpleman

First of all, my bringing sexuality into it again was not about sexuality itself, it was about how my arguments aren't often considered based on their merit, but rather on, what I believe to be an unfair equation of my religious beliefs to hateful beliefs. I am not, as Daniel has accused, claiming that my beliefs are absolute. I am not trying to force any of you to pick up on my beliefs on sexuality, etc., I was trying to point out that I would like my arguments, most specifically about the Hate Crimes Bill, to be considered based on their merits and basis in our legal system, not on whether or not my arguments have anything to do with hatred, conscious, subconscious or otherwise. I wasn't even talking about my beliefs, themselves. Daniel actually came through to prove my point exactly:



This accusation, to me, states that I believe my views, and only mine to be God's view. The logic I was referring to actually had nothing to do with my religious beliefs, or beliefs on sexuality, but Daniel demonstrated my final point (no one can look past my religious beliefs to consider my arguments against the hate crimes bill based on their merit) perfectly by dragging my religious beliefs back into the argument, when my sole point was that no one would consider my argument against the Hate Crimes Bill under grounds of anything other than my religious beliefs. Furthermore, as for the relativity vs. absoluteness, I don't believe I ever said that my beliefs represented the absolute, I was just making a lamentation on the changing way American political discourse takes place. Daniel, however, chooses to always see the worst in everything I say, so he used it to tear down my religious beliefs, once again. I do want to make it clear at this point that I myself don't feel hated, and have not once felt hated since I came here. No one should think that I'm crying foul that people here hate me. I really don't think that, and even if people here really did hate me it wouldn't be any big deal to me.

Back to the topic, President Bush, tapdancer has a lot of good ideas about it. He didn't plan this, he didn't execute it. As I said it would take too many people keeping quiet and as tapdancer said he's probably not capable (thought I don't think many could) of pulling something like this off.

I've also seen hurled a million different accusations about his administration, one after the other, I'd try to defend a thing or two, but there isn't enough space in this post to try and explain some of the things that people believe about Bush that aren't necessarily true or in proper context.

Here's one, though:


I do believe that you are referring to a PDB (President's Daily Briefing) from August 6, 2001. It was entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US".
You can find the exact transcript of this brief here: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/

Of course the fact that Bin Laden was determined to strike the United States, even on it's own soil, was no new news to anyone, much less the President or Condoleeza Rice. It's akin to saying "Little League World Series MVP determined to make the Big Leagues". The only reference within the entire briefing (which is quite a boring read, btw) to using airplanes was a hijacking to try and get America to release the "Blind Sheik". Pre-9/11, hijacking meant taking control of a plane and land it somewhere and holding the passengers hostage. This would make sense, as the passengers would be ransom for releasing the "Blind Sheik". Crashing them into buildings, or using them as weapons, etc. would kill the whole ransom thing, and the hostage-takers, and said sheik would not have been released. It also mentioned 70 FBI investigations currently operating to try and infiltrate Bin Laden cells, or anything else Bin Laden-related. So you see, this key document is really nothing more than a historical, redundant account of a lot of things that everybody already knew. Hell, I know that Bin Laden is probably planning to attack the US again, does that mean that it's my fault if he does?

If you are referencing the July 10, 2001 meeting between George Tenet (then leader of the CIA) and Rice, it has been reported extensively that Rice heeded warnings presented to her that day, and set in motion several plans. I don't have a link to the New York Times article, but I read one.

Regardless of what gets stirred around on the internet, what gets tossed around in the news, etc. there was no magical document, or report, etc. that outlined any specifics of any thing like the 9-11 attacks. It was definitely unprecedented, and it definitely wasn't Bush's fault. See my post about Able Danger for evidence that if it was any president's fault, it was Clinton.

Simpleman! Why are you so smart? Seriously? I like your references. You make good points, really good points. But I wouldn't point the finger too quickly, if any fault is to be cast it is on Bin Laden, not Bush, not Clinton, not George Washington. The reason for the attacks was Bin Laden. The man behind the attacks was Bin Laden. That's simple init?

Antony, I don't really know if you have an answer to this next question or not, you probably do, but I'm gonna ask it all the same. If the plane that crashed into the Pentagon wasn't a Boeing 747, what happened to the people on the plane that was a Boeing 747 that was supposed to have crashed? If this is a smaller plane, a plane that wasn't one of the four hijacked ones, then we are missing a plane, are we not? If the plane that his the Pentagon was indeed some smaller plane, what happened to the big one?