A politics thread for things other than the 2008 election

by **dajafi** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 16:17:40

Philly the Kid wrote:Issa is wrong. The truth is out there.

Right. Because it's so, so easy to keep secrets about the most important event in recent U.S. history, a conspiracy necessarily involving hundreds of people and tens of millions of dollars.

I don't want to have this whole conversation again and I certainly don't feel the need to go through engineers' reports, discrepancies between eyewitness accounts and "the record," process abnormalities with the 9/11 Commission and so forth. If you say that "the official story" isn't all-encompassing and conclusive, no argument here. But the broad outlines of the story are pretty well confirmed.

Knowing your political leanings, I'd also suggest that 9/11 conspiracy-mongering takes the focus off where it should be: the atrocious failures of the Bush administration to take action in the face of adequate warning ("Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside U.S.") or respond effectively (finishing the job in Afghanistan and bringing that mfer to justice rather than leaping into a stupid and pointless war of choice based on academic theory and political calculation).

by **Wizlah** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 16:22:18

dajafi wrote:Knowing your political leanings, I'd also suggest that 9/11 conspiracy-mongering takes the focus off where it should be: the atrocious failures of the Bush administration to take action in the face of adequate warning ("Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside U.S.") or respond effectively (finishing the job in Afghanistan and bringing that mfer to justice rather than leaping into a stupid and pointless war of choice based on academic theory and political calculation).

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 16:56:10

Wizlah wrote:
dajafi wrote:Knowing your political leanings, I'd also suggest that 9/11 conspiracy-mongering takes the focus off where it should be: the atrocious failures of the Bush administration to take action in the face of adequate warning ("Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside U.S.") or respond effectively (finishing the job in Afghanistan and bringing that mfer to justice rather than leaping into a stupid and pointless war of choice based on academic theory and political calculation).

I'm pretty sure the Bush administration plants conspiracy theories to do exactly that.

by **Philly the Kid** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 17:03:57

dajafi wrote:
Philly the Kid wrote:Issa is wrong. The truth is out there.

Right. Because it's so, so easy to keep secrets about the most important event in recent U.S. history, a conspiracy necessarily involving hundreds of people and tens of millions of dollars.

I don't want to have this whole conversation again and I certainly don't feel the need to go through engineers' reports, discrepancies between eyewitness accounts and "the record," process abnormalities with the 9/11 Commission and so forth. If you say that "the official story" isn't all-encompassing and conclusive, no argument here. But the broad outlines of the story are pretty well confirmed.

Knowing your political leanings, I'd also suggest that 9/11 conspiracy-mongering takes the focus off where it should be: the atrocious failures of the Bush administration to take action in the face of adequate warning ("Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside U.S.") or respond effectively (finishing the job in Afghanistan and bringing that mfer to justice rather than leaping into a stupid and pointless war of choice based on academic theory and political calculation).

Yes, I try to stay out of this conversation because sharp thinkers like yourself are fairly reactionary to the conspiracy stuff. Which I don't even use that terminology. I can't say with certainty what happened and why, but I can say that I'm largely unconvinved about almost anything in the 'official story". Have you read any of the David Ray Griffin? There are a lot of really really peculiar un-answered questions. Why did they remove the steel remains so quickly on barges to China before anyone could do any analysis? That's just 1 of hundreds of questions.

I think the fallback position of modetate liberals of focus on "ineptitude" is a dangerous mis-direction -- this wasn't just an administrative failure and that line of thinking still leads us to Patriot Act, Homeland Security, and "fear of a terrorist world".

Anyway -- I'm way too out of the mainstream and not really a political scientist nor devoting my life to this research. I just beleive there is a lot out there to review and I think for good conscienced people with a modicum of independent thinking, they will at least, be clear that things are not even remotely as we've been told they were.

I would add too -- that the mere use of language is already indication of buying in to certain beliefs, most of whcih are shaped by coroprate media. The term 'war' as opposed to 'occupation' or 'invasion'.

I don't believe we're any safer and in fact less safe. There was no connection between Sadaam and 911 nor did he have any nukes or the ability to launch them on American soil and no one believed it until Bush and the media lackeys began to say it. This has been covered before...

I don't want to get drawn in to one of these debates. My theme though, when people use the "911 card" casually in political discussion, is to say things like "do the research..." I'm not and never will buy in to the way '911' has been manufactured in to something we're supposed to all understand the same way and generally agree on.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 17:09:08

I love that being batshit crazy is OK when you're just asking questions

by **dajafi** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 17:12:46

Philly the Kid wrote:...the mere use of language is already indication of buying in to certain beliefs, most of whcih are shaped by coroprate media. The term 'war' as opposed to 'occupation' or 'invasion'.

I don't believe we're any safer and in fact less safe. There was no connection between Sadaam and 911 nor did he have any nukes or the ability to launch them on American soil and no one believed it until Bush and the media lackeys began to say it. This has been covered before...

I don't want to get drawn in to one of these debates. My theme though, when people use the "911 card" casually in political discussion, is to say things like "do the research..." I'm not and never will buy in to the way '911' has been manufactured in to something we're supposed to all understand the same way and generally agree on.

See, all of this I can buy. (Perhaps the biggest reason I support Obama is because he and his people explicitly reject "the politics of fear." I hope that they'll actually try to talk about this in a general matchup vs. McCain; I almost wish they had the chance to do so against a Republican less honorable and responsible than McCain...)

But I think it actually weakens these arguments when one pegs them to "alternate theories" about 9/11. I'd rather talk about how we *are* less safe, how we squandered the goodwill of the world, and how we fix these things by explicitly and unalterably rejecting the crazed and harmful policies of Bush And His Loyal Bushies.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 17:17:20

It's worth adding that I'm utterly irrational about a number of things. Most relating to sports. But I just can't even begin to wrap my head around the truther stuff.

by **Philly the Kid** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 17:22:23

dajafi wrote:
Philly the Kid wrote:...the mere use of language is already indication of buying in to certain beliefs, most of whcih are shaped by coroprate media. The term 'war' as opposed to 'occupation' or 'invasion'.

I don't believe we're any safer and in fact less safe. There was no connection between Sadaam and 911 nor did he have any nukes or the ability to launch them on American soil and no one believed it until Bush and the media lackeys began to say it. This has been covered before...

I don't want to get drawn in to one of these debates. My theme though, when people use the "911 card" casually in political discussion, is to say things like "do the research..." I'm not and never will buy in to the way '911' has been manufactured in to something we're supposed to all understand the same way and generally agree on.

See, all of this I can buy. (Perhaps the biggest reason I support Obama is because he and his people explicitly reject "the politics of fear." I hope that they'll actually try to talk about this in a general matchup vs. McCain; I almost wish they had the chance to do so against a Republican less honorable and responsible than McCain...)

But I think it actually weakens these arguments when one pegs them to "alternate theories" about 9/11. I'd rather talk about how we *are* less safe, how we squandered the goodwill of the world, and how we fix these things by explicitly and unalterably rejecting the crazed and harmful policies of Bush And His Loyal Bushies.

But the squandering assumes that the Bushies had that objective. When you look at some of the other analyses -- you can see clear reasons why those things were squandered because that wasn't the agenda... anyway -- cool.

by **Philly the Kid** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 17:25:25

Has anyone here watched the entire "Zetigest -- The Movie" -- just curious?

Sorry I mis quoted his name -- but has anyone heard David Ray Griffin speak, or read any one of his books in its entirety?

like "Debunkin 911 Debunking" and others...

by **CMD** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 17:25:44

For those interested in western pa politics...

http://www.postgazette.com/pg/08095/870495-85.stm

Pittsburgh and Allegheny County are now apparently serious about merging. As a city resident, I am very hesitant. We pay higher wage taxes and property taxes...I don't want to see our services decline while we pay more. I think this has worked elsewhere but am not sure how it will play out in a place like Allegheny County. We have hundreds of little towns, lots of hills and rivers, and some sketchy infrastructure. People are very provincial here, I don't see people willingly giving up their local governments/services/emergency services.

Also, I am a little suspicious of our boy mayor, Mr. Ravenstahl, who was up until recently very much against the plan. If governments were to merge, his office would be dissolved and control given to Allegheny County Commisioner, currently Dan Onorato. I'm wondering if Onorato, a frontrunner for the Democratic nomination in the 2010 governor's race, cut a deal w/ Ravenstahl where he gets endorsed as the next County Commisioner. Something doesn't sound right to me.

by **dajafi** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 00:04:11

Sounds like the Republicans found a good Senate candidate in NJ after all.

I know this isn't the way to think about this stuff, but karma-wise I feel like the Democrats are due for an embarrassing defeat somewhere in the mid-Atlantic or northeast. (If Bloomberg re-registered as a Republican and beat Patterson in 2010, obviously this would be my preference...) NJ-Sen could be it. The question is how effectively the Democrats can hang President Dumbass on McCain and Crowley.

by **jerseyhoya** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 00:06:19

I've very excited about Crowley. The NJ GOP needs to fix itself up and clear the primary field for him. The guy sounds absolutely awesome.

He's gonna lose 54-45 in November, cause that's what GOP senate candidates do.

Unanue is gonna drop his bid. Maybe we're gonna figure it out.

http://politickernj.com/wallye/18137/update-unanue-will-drop-senate-bid

by **Disco Stu** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 00:29:36

Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago) interrupted atheist activist Rob Sherman during his testimony Wednesday afternoon before the House State Government Administration Committee in Springfield and told him, “What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous . . . it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!

“This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God,” Davis said. “Get out of that seat . . . You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon.”

Apparently it’s still open season on some views of God.

Outside of Change of Subject, where I posted a transcript and the audio, Davis’ repellent, un-American outburst received no attention whatsoever. (h/t Michael)

Morons to the right of me, idiots to the left of me. Ok, not true, they are all on the right of me.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 00:30:50

By the way, that Crowley guy isn't running, so that seat will stay with whoever wins the Dem primary (Lautenberg, presumably).

by **dajafi** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 00:44:19

Disco Stu wrote:
Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago) interrupted atheist activist Rob Sherman during his testimony Wednesday afternoon before the House State Government Administration Committee in Springfield and told him, “What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous . . . it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!

“This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God,” Davis said. “Get out of that seat . . . You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon.”

Apparently it’s still open season on some views of God.

Outside of Change of Subject, where I posted a transcript and the audio, Davis’ repellent, un-American outburst received no attention whatsoever. (h/t Michael)

Morons to the right of me, idiots to the left of me. Ok, not true, they are all on the right of me.

She clearly isn't very familiar with most interpretations of Lincoln's personal religious views...

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 09:13:08

Pete Olson crushed Shelly Sekula Gibbs in the runoff in the GOP primary in TX-22, setting up the GOP's best pickup opportunity in the House. It's DeLay's old district, represented by Nick Lampson, who won last time mostly because the GOP had to run a write in campaign against him, and he still only won 52-42%.

Olson is Sen. Cornyn's former CoS. Sekula Gibbs would have been a nightmare candidate. We made the right choice for a change.

Republicans are going to have to win seats like this back this cycle if they don't want to get their clocks cleaned again. With the 29 retirements (and counting) so far this cycle, we're going to be losing a lot of open seats.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 16:30:10

Dick Zimmer might jump into the Senate race. New Jersey elections are absurd.

by **steagles** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 18:01:35

can anyone tell me why david gregory annoys me more than brit hume?

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 09:32:15

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1T-A3N8--4[/youtube]

We make fun of the spelling of a Cajun name in Louisiana in the latest sterling effort by the NRCC. I think the NRCC this cycle is trying to be the least helpful party committee in the history of the world.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:13:48

Former Rep. Dick Zimmer will enter the US Senate race in NJ. I wonder if he'll be able to make it a race. Probably not, but he'll do better than any of the other fools in right now.

Archived

A politics thread for things other than the 2008 election