Your position appears to be that you despise your own country, at least the current principles and ideologies. Even with thousands of innocent Americans brutally murdered, instead of blaming the terrorists, your statements are basically that America deserved it, we had it coming, hatred of America is justified. You're apparently unable to muster any criticism for those actually responsible. You would rather blame America. The self loathing assessment of you is extremely accurate. I'm sorry you find it so frustrating that everyone doesn't agree with you, such is life. Blah, blah, blah... Blah, blah, blah... Right.
Aren't we all? Obviously you are, for all the lip service you pay to being open minded. You can't even explore questions with obvious answers that threaten the house of cards your opinions are based on. Yes, but a shill for who? Newsflash. Isolationism IS an extreme position. Even the founding fathers you supposedly adore were not Isolationists you and Dr. Paul claim they were. Who do you think we bought Louisiana from? Why do you think the Marines were formed? If you read the wiki link, you'll find poverty is thing all the countries with Isolationist foreign policies had in common. Welcome to North Korea. A legitimate complaint, assuming we were to go to war against a nation state instead of something so nebulous as "Terror". Regardless, it is an individual complaint, and has little to do with the overall doctrine of Isolationism you promote, and its obvious foregone conclusion. Not true. First off, you'll find most Toyotas sold in America are made in America. Second, to say foreign trade didn't make America richer is absurd. Again, a smidgen of legitimate complaint about our manufacturing base being moved mostly off shore spun into an out and out lie. Congratulations. So which is it. American foreign policy makes other countries worse off and the hate us for it, or it brings them better life and they love us for it. You cant have it both ways. Quit arguing with yourself. Thank you for stating the very obvious reason why international trade makes the world a more stable place. So now your against American corporate profits? Really? It amazes me Paul supporters claim to be conservatives or Republicans, when they spout this kind of nonsense. You guys aren't even on the scale of right to left. You have your own special little place in the universe but your policies more often than not go hand in hand with the collectivist leftists you supposedly hate. I suppose you would have every business be family owned, at the largest, which would leave us all as farmers and, once again, poor. When you make comments like, "They attack us because of our support for Israel", you most certainly are claiming to be one. Example? So far all I see from you are extremist ideas and self loathing based on conjecture and opinion, with a few facts buried deep under it all. I asked you questions to get at some facts, but you wont answer questions, so I guess we will have to check our facts at the door and stick with name calling. It is natural, but if you could point me to the person who will pay my invoice, I will gladly put it in the mail.
I put blame where it deserves to be placed. If you don't agree with my judgment, great, I don't agree with yours either obviously. And last I checked, this was not a thread to discuss the greatness of America. It's to disucss if 9/11 was an inside job in any way whatsoever. Am I saying that terrorists have no part in the blame? No, but this is the assumption both of you are giving of me. I believe the world is just as dangerous and full of hatred as the next person. But what I'm not going to do, is sacrifice by beliefs and abandon the constitution. As for your other assumption that I believe America deserves the harm they get. On the issue of terrorists hating us, the terrorists are to blame for their immoral mindset partially. Our corrupt system of politics, nation building policies and membership with the United Nations, which simply is a bigger monster, also creates tension and deserves blame. It's not frustrating to me if someone doesn't agree with me. What I am frustrated at, is someone claiming me to be wrong, making wrong assumptions/statements such as yourself. Wrong. Neither I nor Dr. Paul claim they were isolationists. You're confusing non-interventionism with isolationism, which are completely different. Here it is explained clearly, http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst121806.htm I was going to simply post key points but I believe it's important for you and the others to read and understand this as it is what I've been talking about in regards to foreign policy and the constitution. As for what I would implement, a truer understanding of the constitution and free markets. The limitation of our growing government and have people take responsibility for themselves, instead they are dependent on the governments hand and welfare state. Many others but I don't have the time nor do I believe it's worth my energy to try and get through to you any longer.
Let me rephrase that for you. You put blame where [You Think] it deserves to be placed. Take this quote of yours for instance. The area around Palestine is in conflict, as it has been for the last 6000 years, and yet you claim that our friendship with Israel is the cause of our current foreign policy problems? Perhaps you need to think it through a bit more. That is incorrect. You make a statement of root cause, just like Paul does all the time. The terrorists are to blame, but the root cause is America's foreign policy choices. You make the same argument the terrorists make. Congratulations. You need to get out more. If you think the US govt. is corrupt, try living in Spain, or almost any other nation for that matter. People are corrupt. Period. Have you rethought your position on the issue since this post? I see you went back to the bible of Ron Paul for some new talking points, and I would encourage you once again to think for yourself. Let me point out a few of the glaring problems with your ideas and Pauls. Actually they are not. The link in my earlier post explained it clearly, but I supplied the wiki def since you didn't want to look it up yourself. So now you've abandoned out and out isolationism in favor of non-interventionism. Fine. Let me shoot a few holes in your new found foreign policy. First, it is important to note, that our policy with Israel is arguably non interventionist. We send them aide, but we send a lot of countries aide. We sell them weapons, but we sell a lot of countries weapons. We don't sell everyone nuclear weapons, but I suppose that is our choice. Second, Paul argues the founding fathers advocated against interventionist foreign policy by quoting Washington and Jefferson speaking out against "entangling alliances". The problem is Paul is quoting two of the founding fathers as if there were only two, or as if they all shared the same opinion on this issue. Paul, like every other politician on the planet, has no problem twisting the facts to suit his needs. He even went so far as to suggest abandoning the "founding father's principal of non interventionism might be equatable to the abandonment of the 1st amendment". If Paul wants to equate those two, perhaps he should show us all a clause, the clause, ANY CLAUSE in the constitution that says the US should be non-interventionist. He wont. He cant. It doesn't exist. His claims are exaggerations at best, and lies at worst. Here is the real historical record of the US' interventionist foreign policy starting in 1778, 2 years after the birth of our nation. You'll note that they were put in place by John Adams and Benjamin Franklin. They wouldn't be founding fathers... would they? It sounds like that would be a good place for you to start. It must suck knowing the opinion you've formed to date was based on a lie. Now there we can agree. It also happens to be the nexus between the Paul supporters and the Tea Party movement. Put the coolaide down and welcome aboard.
That is a matter of opinion. It's not up to you to decide whether terrorists or foreign policies deserves the blame more for each individual terrorists attack. Sure you can say that ideology they follow is the main part to blame, which it may very well be. But in the case of individual terrorist attacks, you can't assume that if our foreign policy was based on non-interventionism and we had a different attitude towards the middle ease, that the attack wouldn't happen. I get out plenty, noble karl rove lover. Is it up to you to decide what the corrupt corruptness level should be? You're thinking is totally wrong. You're saying that just because a different country is more corrupt, that we should lie down and ignore our corruptness because it's not as great as Spain's. Have you forgotten the Federalist Papers? Which were put out in the same time period by Hamilton, Madison and John Jay. The point our current government is at, is no republic. No country that abides by it's constitution and certainly no country with a mindset even close to the founding fathers. Instead we're called a democracy, voted by the majority, instead of by the rule of law. So please, prove that the founding fathers would be in agreement to the connection with the UN, being in 150+ countries around the world, removal of any republic in our country, patriot act, and so many more policies we are no involved with. It's also odd how seem to follow an individual foreign policy in the 1770s, yet disregard the majority of the constitution. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it's because it's an older document not meant for a modern world? So how much are you being paid to spread your ideas, which you label as truth so ignorantly. You've already admitted it was natural but c'mon, your post count clearly shows that you joined these forums for one purpose only.
More amusement from Greddy. I can't assume that jerking off to a picture of naked Mohammad beating a woman wouldn't help. I can't assume killing all the Jews wouldn't help. I can't assume converting to Islam wouldn't help. There are many things I can't assume. Leadership means making timely decisions, and timely decisions mean making assumptions based on the information available to us. Even with the 20/20 vision of hindsight, I don't think we'd do Israel any different. Funny. Maybe you can explain to me how an Interventionist foreign policy disregards the Constitution. I challenged you to do this very same thing in my last post and you produced nothing. Do you have anything more than bluster? Obviously I haven't, as I am the one who brought up Mr. Adams opinion on the topic at hand. Were you planning on making the Federalist Papers relevant to your point, or were you just throwing the name out there to sound informed? I'm not going to waste any more time with you unless you can put together a coherent argument to back your position Seriously, I sympathize with your position. Here you've been running about talking to people about the virtues of the Ron Paul belief system, and you just discovered its all based on BS that sounded great, sucked in by a few keywords. "Founding Fathers", "Constitution", "Non-Intervention", "Federalist Papers","Patriot Act", "UN". Now what to do? Save face, obviously, but then what? My guess is a graceful bow out of the conversation, followed by a bit of study, comparing Paul's claims to what the history books say. The cliff notes version is no more than a 15 minute read off of a Google search. You'll either treat it as an opportunity to confirm the beliefs you hang on to like a "crackhead clings to his rock", or you'll treat it as an opportunity to learn and improve your opinion on the matter with real and factual information. I wish you luck. Whats not to like. The man can even rap! [video=youtube;Ln5RD9BhcCo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln5RD9BhcCo[/video]
No it wasn't an "inside job". It was a terrorist attack on the United States and it's highly likely that more attacks are being planned right now. And no doubt after the next attack (and its only a matter of time) there'll be conspiracy talk of an inside job on that too. It all gets rather repetitive.
Before watching the video clip i would like to tell that the movie was released in 1996. [video=youtube;L90qXfvx5L4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L90qXfvx5L4[/video] Clip From The Long Kiss Goodnight
Interesting. This is also a clip from 1996. [video=youtube;oC5O9NFWZCs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oC5O9NFWZCs[/video] In other works of fiction, Tom Clancy wrote a story in 1994 about a person who weaponized a commercial jet and flew it into a government building. What do you want to bet Osama reads Clancy.... (or if the book is to be taken as a factual source, it was the Japanese!)
This is the worst case i have seen. It seems like there is some inside job which made them to do such attacks.
A very interesting revelation never seen before. It's a four part video (70min) eye opener http://media.abovetopsecret.com/med...cy_The_911_News_Special_You_Never_Saw_Part_1/
I'd start with The History of Brainwashing – The Start of Stupid It helps people understand the history of manipulation better. From there they are more receptive to look deeper into things. Once they get angry and start understanding how they have been fooled, they might show signs of interest in understanding what the media is not showing.
Listen you brainwashed parrot, Bin Laden admitted 9/11 and all the terrorists involved we're Muslim so it is not about what you say it is about the evidence. Go back to reading your fairytail.
None of you have yet been able to explain how this conspiracy of yours was pulled off, if that can't be logically explained then it makes the conspiracy impossible, sorry for throwing in logic into this thread.
i have a lot of it, but your mind seems to be made up that it just "couldn't have happened any different than it was portraited"