TimeTraveler

The idea that the present administration was somehow complicent in the events of 9/11 speaks volumns about your of lack of understanding of world events as well as your gullibility in swallowing any cock-a-ninny conspiracy theory that finds a spot on the internet.

 

If serious conversation is what you seek' date=' please try to be serious! [/quote']

 

Okay Syntax, please tell me about PROMIS software, FEMA, and what these things have to do with 9/11. You can just give a brief overview. I want to see what you know that makes you claim that I am so "gullible", because I get the feeling that you probably do not know much about what I am talking about, but yet you can so easily dismiss what I am saying.

Pangloss,

You took what I said about "good vs. evil" out of context. I'm not sure how much you have read of the Straussian teachings or early neocon ideology. The reference of "good vs. evil" is something that is believed in this ideology as necessary in propagating and convincing the masses to support unilateral action in spreading American ideals across the world. It is actually credited to the nazi propaganda machine to convince the masses during the holocaust.

In the sentence you quoted "it is not as simple as good vs. evil", I was not meant to affiliate the word evil with anyone or anything. It basically means what it says. But you took it out of context to infer I was labeling something or someone as evil:

In essence, you're throwing away your ability to convey a rational analysis just so you can demonize, probably because you think it's necessary to stop this evil...

 

Dangerous, yes. Something people need to be more aware of, yes. Evil? No. Evil is what you would get if you allowed something like this to proceed unchecked. But it's not evil for people to want their country to be dominant. It's not evil for people to want their country to be strong. It's not evil for people to want to deal with enemies who they believe are hurting them. The evil lies in not paying attention to the consequences of unilateral actions.

What I said and how you interpreted the meaning are very different. But it's okay, it happens, and it's kind of irrelevant. But I just wanted to clear up that confusion.

I don't think that you think Wolfowitz is evil, I think you're concerned about what he's done and what he's going to do, and I share that concern.

Glad to hear it.

It's an agendized, extremist back-patting club exaggerating half-truths to convey conspiracy theories as if they are facts. In answer to your question, it is both non-credible and very biased. Nobody in their right mind would assume that anything they read there was even remotely related to the truth without verification from a reputable source. And taking a shower afterwards. (I need one myself now. Thanks a lot.) (shudder)

Wow, I thought you were more objective than this. In my opinion, this is the best investigative reporting I have seen. It is agenda based, to open up peoples eyes. This guy is so on top of everything and so good at investigative reporting he usually exposes something long before the mainstream media acknowledges it, sometimes even years before. This guy is a former LAPD narcotics investigator, he knows how to find answers and knows where to look. I trust him and have found no reason not to, and believe me I have looked for reasons. Perhaps you could explain in more detail why this source is so non-credible, with more ellaboration and examples.

Stay safe.

And you still insist that you want to be taken seriousely?

 

It ain't gonna happen posting this kinda crap........

And if it is true, and I really hope it is not, they would be allowed to get away with it simply because of the immediate denial and disbelief of Americans that do not even take the time to view the evidence, on top of a gutless congress and senate who are afraid to ask the important questions or demand a real investigation.

You did actually use the word evil (I quoted it in one of my replies), but maybe I read it out of context. I apologize if that's the case.

Must have been in another thread, it's not in this one. But, I do not remember ever stating Paul Wolfowitz was evil.

But the sources I've seen you post recently are so blatantly biased that they can't be taken seriously. It'd be like trying to convince people that aliens live amongst us by giving them a bunch of hyperlinks not from a reliable, objective sources, but from "www.webelievethataliensliveamongstus.com".

Two things are happening here. I think you are misinterpreting my ability to see through bullcrap. I know when something is biased, I know when something is propagated, and I know how to see through that to look at the content. And I think what is happening is you feel that when I post an article that article is conveying my opinions as well, understand it is not. The material I read rarely comes from websites, most all of it comes from books and documentaries, when I try to find articles that support what I am trying to say I usually do a google but do not spend a huge amount of time finding the perfect article to match my opinions. I just find something that touches on what I am trying to say, that does not mean I frequent these websites or I share similar beliefs with the authors.

Second thing is I think you are really taking certain things out of context, try not to focus on me and my opinions so much and try to find the bottom line, or the point I am trying to make. It can be tough sometimes, especially when your trying to understand someones demeanor. I think you may have misunderstood me alot in this thread, or others.

So they're going to open their eyes for a moment, see that it's not objective information, and close them again. Is that really what you want?

 

I dunno, it just seems like a waste to me. But hey, whatever floats your boat.

No that is not what I want. If that happens I think it would come from a misinterpretation of me, my opinions, and what links I post. However I do not feel I post the so called "non-credible" and "biased" articles to the extent of which you may be assuming. There is one particular website that I do frequent, it is http://www.fromthewilderness.com , I have posted a number of links from there. Would you consider that website "non-credible" or "very biased"? (A little biased I will give you, everyone is to an extent)

"A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject."

-- Winston Churchill

Fanatic, whoa. Huge misinterpretation. A little frustrated and outraged, yes. Fanatical, far from it.

Pangloss, I am not an experienced debater. My experience extends to about 6 months on this and a couple other message boards. I am not really big on debating, but it seems in alot of places a debate gets thrown in your face when just trying to express opinions, conversate, and ask questions. I think alot of people have a natural defense mechanism where they get defensive simply when someone expresses an opinion that doesn't match their own. And I think this effects everyone to an extent, and it reflects alot when interpreting someone else who's opinion's differ. Point is, I am more interested in seeking answers, truth, conversation, reason, and more questions to ask that need to be asked. Sometimes those things are difficult to find. I think you are very intelligent, you know alot of things I do not know, and there is some I know that you do not know. Perhaps both of us are a little guilty of not being open-minded, and a little judgemental. Hopefully we can fix that and answer more of each others questions, exchange opinions, and have discussion.

I've read that stuff as well' date=' and it does not lead an objective person to the word "insanity" as a logical conclusion. They also don't propose "infinite war", or that America always "needs an enemy" -- that's an interpretation of their position on your part.

 

This is what I mean when I say that you lose me when you go too far. You're welcome to do that -- I never fault someone for having an opinion -- but I think you should understand that when you do that it tells people something about you, not about the people you're trying to stop. In essence, you're throwing away your ability to convey a rational analysis just so you can demonize, probably because you think it's necessary to stop this evil. But the truth is that it isn't necessary at all. Reason and logic are alive and well in our time. [/quote']

 

Pangloss,

 

I do admit emotion has gotten the best of me. The reason: I strongly believe there is a very realistic possibility this administration played a role in orchastrating 9/11 to progress these ideals, among other strong motives.

 

I understand how my emotional responses can hinder my credibility, thats fine. I do not have any intention of convincing anyone, rather, just opening some eyes to information it seems no one knows anything about. People will make their own mind up of that information.

 

And btw, reason and logic are barely alive. We have become so dumbed down on the general level it's very rare to see large quantities of reason or logic.

 

Dangerous, yes. Something people need to be more aware of, yes. Evil? No.

 

Evil was not a word I used.

 

The evil lies in not paying attention to the consequences of unilateral actions.

 

You said it, not me.

Yes, and rather nicely, I might add.

No I am not a psyciatrist, no I cannot prove he is insane, in my opinions he is insane. Does that clear it up for you?

Here is a more accurate and not as biased Bio of Paul Wolfowitz:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz

His excellent management and accurate assessment skills:

Wolfowitz was critical and dismissive of General Eric K. Shinseki during pre-war testimony before Congress when he called the Army Chief of Staff "wildly off the mark" [2] (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0228pentagoncontra.htm) when asked for estimates of the size of the post war occupation force. Dr. Wolfowitz estimated that fewer than 10,000 troops would be necessary. He was equally dismissive of estimates that the cost would be between $65-$95 billion dollars, stating "To assume we're going to pay for it all is just wrong" and "I would expect that even countries like France will have a strong interest in assisting Iraq in reconstruction." As of March 2005 over 170,000 US military personnel are in Iraq with another 20,000+ in Kuwait and Qatar. Additionally it is estimated that as many as 30,000 private security personnel are in use in Iraq. The total cost for the war and reconstruction ranges from $250-$350 billion.

Not to mention the conflict of interest:

Wolfowitz has three children. He is divorced from Clare Wolfowitz, who works for IRIS at the University of Maryland in the Governance Institutions Group, primarily on its projects in Indonesia and with the Programs and Policy Coordination office of USAID. He is currently involved with Shaha Riza, an Arab feminist born in Tunis and brought up in Saudi Arabia who works as a communications adviser in the World Bank's Middle East and North Africa department.

What does the prefix 'Neo' indicate?

As Douglas said, neo means new. Most of the neocons have studied the teachings of Leo Strauss, the originator of the (in my opinion) psychotic neocon ideology.

Here are some articles about Neo-Conservatism and Leo Strauss teachings

http://reason.com/rb/rb101701.shtml

http://www.strike-the-root.com/51/johnson/johnson3.html

http://hometown.aol.com/sincere33/PNACNSSUSA.html

Pangloss,

Interesting article, but as usual it doesn't even touch the real basis of concern. Democrat or Republican, in US journalism it doesn't matter, journalists have become a bunch of lazy cowards who are afraid to ask the real tough questions for fear of getting flamed, and too lazy to do any investigating.

I have read through the released parts of the Wolfowitz doctrine, I have read all 90 some pages of the rebuilding of America's defenses written by PNAC, I have studied some aspects of Straussian ideology and teachings, and I understand Paul Wolfowitz'es ideals and mentality, I just think its insane. You cannot have infinite war, America does not always need an enemy, everything is not as simple as good and evil, and America does not need to dominate the world, space and cyberspace. And he believes we do, putting him at the head of the world bank gives him alot of power, and trust me this man could give a rats ass about starving children in a third world country.

Are you an MD? Or a psychiatrist? Do you have a degree in the field of world finance? Or even local finance?

Does Bush? Or better yet does the candidate have a degree in finance? Even local finance? What are his qualifications? Is Bush an MD or a psychiatrist?

When asked what qualifications Wolfowitz had Bush responded, "He has managed a large organization, the pentagon is a large organization, the world bank is a large organization."

I guess running a similar size organization is qualification enough, even though those positions are at completely opposite ends of the spectrum. Not to mention he has done a piss poor job running the pentagon, maybe he needs to try something smaller like a used car lot.

What a joke.

LOL. I should get paid for set-up lines like that. I'll set 'em up, and you and Phi can knock 'em out of the park.

Haha! I'm serious though.

I still can't get over the disbelief that this is happening, it is way past the line of disgusting. And it is past the time for America to pay attention to what is going on, Paul Wolfowitz is an insane man with insane ideologies of American global domination and power. He is not the man to head the world bank.

Keep in mind there is a huge difference between Neo-conservatives and Conservatives. Just as there are between Neo-liberals and Liberals.

Just out of idle curiosity, what position could Paul Wolfowitz be nominated for that wouldn't draw a boatload of ire from the left?

Inmate.

But looking at it from a centrist position, it does seem to be another deliberately provocative appointment. I don't understand that approach from the President who claimed to be a uniter.

Wolfowitz wants America to dominate the world with the use of force. This move is just another step towards American empire.

Paul Wolfowitz running the World Bank.

Article: Wolfowitz nomination throws harsh spotlight on World Bank

Top 10 reasons why Paul Wolfowitz would make a good World Bank president

I know I am going to get yelled at for just posting a link again, without my opinion or discussion points. But, my discussion points and similar opinions are contained within the links.

Whats your opinion or thoughts?

The only reason I mentioned it was because I recall you starting various Iraq threads, and the theme seems to be the same in them all. It's not a major issue by any means

Thanks Sayo. Dealing with the Iraq issue is something I think is very important especially now when I think some Americans are beggining to wake up (including myself) to what the world has been saying, and you yourself have been saying.

TT' date=' no offense, but I'm not sure how any of that relates to the conviction of Bernard Ebbers or the taking-on of corporate corruption cases under the Ashcroft chairmanship of the Justice Department. I don't generally mind digressions or other subject changes, but changing course *specifically* to make a political point seems a bit off the charts. Can we at least talk a LITTLE bit about corporate corruption cases? (grin)

 

I looked at your link on the Anthrax case, and I don't see the relevence of that at all. It's just some guy ranting about how the whole thing might have been secretly manufactured by the government. WTF? That guy needs to take his drugs or something. Sure, it was probably a right-winger, but this guy wants us to think Bush licked the 'lopes himself. I voted for John Kerry in *spite* of guys like this, not because of them.

 

Come on, guy, you can do better than that. Anybody-But-Bush is sooooooooooooooooo 2004. (grin)[/quote']

 

Pangloss, sorry bud. I was not paying attention. I misread your first post or something, not sure what happened there. Anyways, yeah I agree it is a step in the right direction.

 

(btw, I think the guy is trying to say there appears to be a connection to the anthrax and CIA, possibly)

Don't let Sayo's obligatory (and welcome) Admin stuff put you off. You didn't commit any great sins as far as I can tell.

Oh no not at all! Sayo is a great admin. Blunt, and brutally honest with opinions at times, but that makes it more interesting.

I said before that the thing Ashcroft OUGHT to be remembered for is not the Patriot Act (which half the Democrats in congress, including both Kerry and Kennedy, voted for),

Well, here is a different angle on that:

http://www.freefromterror.net/other_articles/gov_anthrax.html

but for attacking the corporate corruption beast. I read somewhere that there were over 600 convictions, compared with NONE from the Janet Reno Justice Department (a reign known more for its pandering to corporate political donors than for any kind of "justice").

The act is very useful in some parts, unconstitutional in others. While I do not doubt alot of good has been done with it, alot of bad has also come with it. On a documentary I recently watched it showed how arab-american legal citizens had been detained, held without charges against them, and no family was notified. These were people working, supporting their family, and basically stripped of their rights without reason. Most of their family members filed missing persons reports before finding out they had been detained. I think many were deported for technicalities on their immigration documents, but quite a few were released back to their families. No criminal charges were ever filed. I remember some of them were detained for about 9 months, in what they described worse than prison, with no charges brought on them or no conflicts with their immigration status.

I do not know the whole story of what happened as I didn't see the entire documentary, if anyone has more information as to what actually took place please share.

Well I've read the site, and I'll say it: It is a left wing site. As far as I know (not having done any in-depth analysis), it's not deceptive (being a Nader product might have something to do with that -- he's a stickler for "screaming with accuracy"). But there's no question about its ideology, at least with regard to the Iraq war.

What is the definition of left wing and right wing? In my eyes the site seems to go against both wings and is more of a grassroots, unique, seperate ideology. I don't think its really fair to say because it goes against the Bush administration it is left wing. But I guess its all a matter of perception.

I think people should consider all the facts, and then make up their own minds. Ideologues, on the other hand, think people should consider all of THEIR facts, ignore other facts, and then think their way. I see little value in that, except to point out the line of demarkation between extremism and moderacy/centrism. (There's nothing funnier and sadder than a liberal screaming about free speech with one hand, and with the other hand trying to silence anybody who doesn't agree with him.)

I agree, consideration of all opinions and ideas and deciding for yourself what fits with your moral and personal beliefs is the honest thing to do, if for nobody else but yourself. The left wing - right wing division, and mud-slinging without considering the opinions or facts is very troublesome.

In short, I guess I'm with Sayonara on this. I don't really mind people passing links along, but I'm more interested in what you think about that information.

I did not think much of it as in the astronomy section you will find handfuls of threads saying nothing more than "Hey! Check out these pics (Link)". Or just yesterday there was a thread in the general section "I thought this was funny (Link)."

But in the future I will try to take more care to post information and thoughts along with a link, like I said it was late, i was tired but I wanted to get the link out there so people could absorb the information and reply to it, giving me a base to start discussion.

If you're going to keep making new Iraq threads, please actually post something more than a link that could have easily gone in any of the countless other Iraq threads.

I apologize, it was late. I plan to start discussion about some of the material in the link.

Gee, how about I post some "facts" from rightwingnews, to balance things out.

Just curious if you read through the links, blike? Or did you just right it off because you thought it was a left wing site? And sure if you have a facts sheet from somewhere else that contradicts or counters these facts, post it, I would love to read it. I posted this for those who have a hard time keeping up with all that is going on.

For those interested here is a good link:

http://democracyrising.us/content/blogcategory/3/71/

The American people must demand a revolution of the way we allow information to be distributed to the people. Media and government should not be intertwined in any way where a conflict of interests will arise.

I have sworn upon the alter of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

Thomas Jefferson

Okay. Get well soon, and good luck with the law suit.

Thanks! No law suit yet, just finding out information still, but if anyone comes across anything please post it! Mainly looking for information to what farms have been using this product and where the shipments from those dairy farms goes to.

So what is the deal with the US, China and Taiwan? I keep hearing that war word relating to this and I don't know much about what is going on in this situation. Anyone want to give me a briefing on why China wants Taiwan so bad, why Taiwan doesn't want China so bad, and why it is important to the US? And is war with China a possibility?

Thank you for the links Nevermore and Skye.

jdurg, thank you for your concern. Tomorrow morning I go under the needle I have to get a series of tests to determine if I may possibly have Diabetes among other things. The doctor seems baffled that my immune system is so unable to fight the infection.

Also I have opened some dialog with some lawyers who are helping me look into the possibility of my infection being in anyway related to this product, if I find out anything I will let everyone know.