TechDude, please call your office.

TechDude, please call your office.

ROFL!

Moore really should look into Ron Paul.  I think he’d love the dennis kucinich of the right. He blames 9/11 on America, and has truther leanings.  Only a fucking idiot with no real intelligence would support Ron Paul.  That makes Moore a perfect candidate.

I’m curious, the elimination of which department or departments would, in your opinion, “leave us in so much trouble we can’t begin to fathom it”? Are there any, which, in your opinion, could be eliminated without causing us trouble? Of these departments, which, if any, may exist under the U.S. Constitution?

Do you believe that the powers of the Federal Government should be limited to what is explicitly granted by the Constitution as the Constitution itself states should be the case?

If some of these departments are not supposed to exist but are truly necessary for our survival, why would anyone oppose a Constitutional amendment so they may legitimately exist?

Under no circumstances will I allow you to turn this into a fucking campaign thread for Ron Paul.  I am fed up to HERE with his online hit squads.

I voiced my opinion solely to illustrate that it doesn’t MATTER to Moore what the candidate is or isn’t for.  Only what party they belong to.

If you’d like to debate the merits of Ron Paul, please feel free to go to the forums and start a thread.  Do NOT attempt to divert this post away from the point.

Under no circumstances will I mention (nor did I mention) ‘Ron Paul’ in a posting (except for this one - please forgive me) in this thread. I am not a member of any ‘Hit Squad’, nor will I ever join one.

I was simply curious and was hoping you would expand upon and defend your statements as I generally find you to be an intelligent and insightful person.

My apologies for overreacting then.  It’s just that the instant you say Ron Paul’s name on the internet, the Paulites tend to swarm and distract from whatever larger point a person is making.

One of these fine days I’ll post something in the forums or my blog about Ron.  I just don’t have the patience for it yet.  ;)

Hardcore presidential politics in the summer before the summer before the election is a little too much.  :)

Apology accepted. :-)

I shall look forward to your posting and will hope I do not miss it.

Ron Paul is teh RoXXoR!!!!!!!!111!1!11!  LOL

Why doesn’t Moore just come out and admit that he’s a DNC shill and not the humble truth-seeking schlub he expects us all to believe he is?

...Oh, right. That would take a little something called “intellectual honesty,” which is a concept that’s foreign - nay, alien - to our mendacious manatee.

mendacious manatee… heh. Well done, ZK.

Though personally, I’m going to be laying off the “fat” aspect when assigning colorful nicknames to Moore in the future.
There are so many other, more valid reasons to poke fun at him for, anyway…
for example, terms like, ”Porcine Propagandist” may now be replaced with something more like ”Baneful Bolshevist” or ”The Pretentious Prince of Promulgating Prevarication”

Whew… thank God for Thesaurus.com, eh?

This was a suprise....

: rolls eyes

Notice how Mike looks around to make sure his people can’t hear him. He has no idea he is being recorded. That is clearly a hidden camera. For another post that goes right to the point without the long drawn out intro you can see it here .

I wonder what Mike means when he says in his own way, he intends to find some answers?  Interesting.

I did find this video of Michael Moore quite fascinating. Although the Update from Lee really stood out. I would like to take into consideration some details of Lee’s update since he has been so gracious to help confirm his feelings on the subject, likewise encouraging the reader to agree with him.

Lee said:

For any of you who think there might be something to this, let me ask you a couple of questions. ... The demolition crews go into detail about how they spend weeks, if not months, carting in wiring and explosives.  They’re positioned in exactly the right spot to make the building implode.  Demolishing a building is almost as much a marvel of engineering wizardry as building it.

Indeed, Lee is correct. The most important thing in a controlled demolition of a tall building that is close to other buildings is that it come straight down, into, or at least close to, its own footprint, so that it does not harm the other buildings. Acheiving this result, especially with a very tall building, is no easy matter. As Mark Loizeaux, the president of Controlled Demolition, has said “to bring a building down so no other structure is harmed the demolition must be completely planned using the right explosive and the right pattern of laying charges. If those 100 story buildings had fallen over, they would have caused an enormous amount of damage to buildings covering many city blocks.

Lee then went on to say:

Now, think of the WTC.  Are any of you out there seriously going to tell me that, for the month before 9/11, crews of workers were able to cart in enough explosives to bring down the towers, hide these enormous explosive charges in inconspicuous boxes and such, run wires through the buildings, and NOT ONE PERSON saw them doing it?  Out of the 50,000 people or so (including Port Authority police) who worked in that building, nobody noticed work crews setting up huge explosive charges?

That is another great point. That sure does sound awfully difficult to pull off. Placing that many explosives without anybody coming forward. Then again, imagine if someone did come forward, who would believe him or her? Imagine if someone contacted CNN or FOX… or even the FBI or CIA and said “I helped place the explosive devices in the World Trade Center on 9/11, I can expose the whole conspiracy open! I can give you all the names involved.” Who is going to listen to this person? Would you believe this person? Also, for what reason or motivation would anyone involved in a ‘cover-up’ of 9/11 have to come forward? How do we know they haven’t already?  It’s very important with anything look at all the options before making an educated decision. Therefore, the idea that “not one person saw them do it” simply isn’t a strong enough argument to counter the idea of a possible controlled demolition and planting of bombs. Plenty of people could have seen them do it, and they could have reported it. That doesn’t mean all reports could have not been ignored. If they planned on taking down the towers via controlled demolition, surely any reports of suspicious activity would eventually not be followed through. A strong argument against a controlled demolition would be to prove using scientific data that it wasn’t one. Simply saying “not one person saw them do it [that we are aware of]” doesn’t disprove the “controlled demolition hypothesis”. It simply states that Lee simply doesn’t have faith that it could be true, as he clearly stated by saying “Are any of you out there seriously going to tell me that..”

Lee then said:

Give me a break.  You have to REALLY want to believe in a conspiracy if you’re willing to believe something that completely asinine.

Well, this statement if fundamentally flawed from the outset. In order to make distinctions, have debates or make a decision based on the evidence and facts shared through language, it is important for Lee to understand the vocabulary of the language we have all agreed upon using. When Lee said “Give me a break.  You have to REALLY want to believe in a conspiracy...” The textbook definition of a conspiracy (which differes slightly in wording based upon which dictionary you use) is “an agreement, between two or more persons, to commit a crime”.

Therefore since Lee strongly believes that a bunch of “Crazy Arab Muslim terrorists blew up the Pentagon and WTC”, wouldn’t that indeed be a conspiracy? Then of course you realize that what Lee thinks happened on 9/11 and what the so-called 9/11 Truthers” think happened on that day are both conspiracy theories. They are theories created to explain what was involved in the conspiracy. Therefore, based upon the most fundamental use of the English language, bank robbers that rob banks two more at a time, Enron Execs that together cook financial books, Scientists who are paid money to hide the harmful elements of smoking from the public, and two or more people that work together to steal someone’s identity, and even bookies who bribe quarterbacks to throw games are all involved in conspiracies. The stories to explain the events of those said conspiracies would be called conspiracies’ theories.

Therefore, Lee’s statement is indeed, as he put it, asinine.

Then Lee shared his thought son the Pentagon videos that Michael spoke of:

Now, as to the Pentagon cameras.  I guess it never occurred to Mikey that maybe, just maybe, letting every terrorist in the world know where the cameras at the Pentagon are located is a good idea.  ....  I have no ida why those tapes haven’t been released, though I very easily could see legitimate national security reasons for them not doing so.

This may be true, but most anyone with a desktop computer can find layouts of the Pentagon and anyone that has been to the Pentagon can clearly see the 80 to 100 black tinted globe enclosed cameras that peer from the roof of the Pentagon every 200 or so feet (If you need a photograph, I’m sure I can dig one up). Michael also failed to mention that not only are all 80 or more of these cameras’ tapes being withheld from the public, the camera on the Sheraton Hotel and the Highway Authority have also been confiscated by the FBI on 9/11, never to be released - even after countless attempts to aquire them through the Freedom Of Information Act.

For the sake of arguement, if someone was involved in covering up the possibility that a plane did not hit the Pentagon on 9/11 - wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume that they would not allow all those cameras to be released? If anyone asked them why those tapes aren’t being released, and they had something they didn’t want anyone to see on those tapes (like NO commercial plane) it’s safe to assume they’d certainly use any excuse they could, such as the excuse to tell the public it was a “matter of national security” and “letting every terrorist in the world know where the cameras at the Pentagon are located is a NOT a good idea”.  You’d think that they’d want to shut up all these nutty truthers and their “No Plane” theory. Especially due to all these annoying “Truthers” screaming that a plane never hit it.

In the middle of Lee’s last quote he said:

In order for there to be a conspiracy about the Pentagon then you also have to believe the WTC was detonated, unless you think that it was a total coincidence that terrorists attacked the Pentagon the day the Bushitler blew up the WTC.

This is a leap of faith. I’m not sure what his point was. Could it not be concievable that a plane DID hit the Pentagon (if we were shown proof of course) yet the towers were detonated after the planes hit them? It seems pretty naive to think that one must by default agree with the other.

Then:

Crazy Arab Muslim terrorists blew up the Pentagon and WTC.

This certainly seems to be the story everyone is buying. Yet, there is not one shred of evidence linking Osama Bin Laden to the planning stages of 9/11. Shortly after 9/11, Osama denied doing it. Then in Dec 2001 a video tape found in a random house in Afghanistan seemed to have Osama admitting responsibilty. Aside from the fact some of the most leading Osama experts say that person isn’t actually Osama - and anyone with eyes can also tell it is not the same person on the FBI website , why would Osama suddenly change his mind? Most might say “who can trust Osama?” Which is a valid point. Based on credibility, who can trust anything the Bush admin has told us about 9/11 and Iraq when virtually everything they have told us has been false. Which non-credible liar do you choose to believe?

Then we have the magic arab passport that flew through the fireball of the 2nd plane that hit the WTC - unscathed. We also have a suitcase belonging to Atta with flight plans, a Koran and his will in it. The same bag that alledgedly and accidentally didn’t get checked by airline handlers. Why would anyone bring their last will on a plane they knew was going to explode in a giant fiery crash? (Atta who also received a 100K wire transfer just before 9/11 from the head of Pakistani’s ISI - interestingly, the head of ISI was having breakfast with Senator Biden and other Washington officials the morning of 9/11, FBI has confirmed it. In addition, since FBI did confirm the wire tranfer to Atta from ISI of $100K, their excuse for motting it form the 9/11 report was that the “funding of the 9/11 terror plot is of little practical significance”. Doesn’t it matter who paid for 9/11? ISI and the CIA have been allies for quite some time). It doesn’t say inside job, but it certainly is interesting information. Therefore, to say without question that only “Crazy Arab Muslim terrorists blew up the Pentagon and WTC.” isn’t backed up by facts. It is simply a conclusion that Lee has come up with after being exposed to continual news reports saying this is true.

Lastly Lee concluded with:

Ugh.  It’s like the Kennedy assassination.  No amount of evidence will ever be good enough.

Interestingly, that almost precise statement “No amount of evidence will ever be good enough.” is what those who do not believe the official story to be true have been saying to each other about those who think it is indeed true.

Truth is not told. Truth is realized. It must be difficult for people to accept authority as their truth, rather than truth as their authority.

For those completely unaware of the most simple facts surrounding why the events of 9/11 are so controversial - and why millions of people, quite frankly, think that criminal elements within the American government planned and executed 9/11 for their own emperical agenda, this 30 minute film sums it up for you. It’s a rapid fire and highly entertaining way of delivering what so many people around the world are seeing 9/11 as - an Inside Job.

for some reason the link didn’t work, here is is again: Truth is not told. Truth is realized. It must be difficult for people to accept authority as their truth, rather than truth as their authority. For those completely unaware of the most simple facts surrounding why the events of 9/11 are so controversial - and why millions of people, quite frankly, think that criminal elements within the American government planned and executed 9/11 for their own emperical agenda, this 30 minute film sums it up for you. It’s a rapid fire and highly entertaining way of delivering what so many people around the world are seeing 9/11 as - an Inside Job.

(edited by JimK: link removed.  Not on your LIFE will this be a promotion for your crazy truther shit)

Therefore since Lee strongly believes that a bunch of “Crazy Arab Muslim terrorists blew up the Pentagon and WTC”, wouldn’t that indeed be a conspiracy?

Except in Lee’s usage of conspiracy it is understood as a government conspiracy, not the conspiracy of a bunch of camel fuckers in a cave.

Fucking Truther idiots.

Okayyyyyyyyyy...thanks for opening the door for that, Lee.  :)

For the sake of arguement, if someone was involved in covering up the possibility that a plane did not hit the Pentagon on 9/11

Besides the plane debris that was on site at the pentagon.  And you know, the eyewitnesses who saw a plane fly into the pentagon.

Fucking Truther idiot.

Truthers suck so bad they make Michael look reasonable.

No Truther shit at this site please.  You have ruined huge swaths of the interwebs - go play in your crazy playground.

Edited in light of Jim’s wishes. 

Though I do love shredding the “facts” truthers put out.

I want to make sure I understand this:

1) A bunch of people go into the WTC, their hands full of wires, explosives, big drills, brackets to fasten the wires to the walls, sledgehammers to gain access to key points of the building, trash bags, and several shop vacs, and the reason no one reports that people are drilling into the columns is because they don’t have a financial incentive, or they’re afraid of being labeled a nut, or they got killed before they could tell anyone. Now these aren’t government workers we’re talking about, these are the regular Joes and Jolenes who work in the various businesses with offices in the WTC. Apparently, people wiring explosive charges into the walls wasn’t sufficient cause for alarm to get them to ask about it. 

2) Simultanously, you have lots of people coming forward after hearing mysterious explosions. Now, these people don’t have any more incentive to report these explosions than the Joes and Jolenes who worked in the WTC had for reporting the staggering amount of explosives being wired into the columns. But somehow, the explosion witnesses found their courage and came forward.

3) The Joes and Jolenes who witnessed the staggering amount of explosives being drilled into the columns STILL haven’t said anything, even after the amazing courage of the explosion witnesses. 

I posed this exact scenario to our old buddy Diamondsaremyfriend, and it was just as silly then as it is now.

Posted by Buzzion on 07/12/2007 at 07:38 PM (Link to this comment | )

“Except in Lee’s usage of conspiracy it is understood as a government conspiracy, not the conspiracy of a bunch of camel fuckers in a cave.”

I think Conspiracy has three different definitions.. or at least connotations… legal, straight common, and diagnosis (as in ‘conspiracy theorist’ / nut).