|
|
i don't like your tone. it seems to me you are looking for conflict more than you are looking for a discussion, and i don't do conflicts. i will, however, answer you anyway.
1)
 Originally Posted by will641
bureaucracy is completely incompetent.
is this your opinion or is this fact? what is incompetent? who is incompetent? incompetence in what respect? every single thing the bureaucrats (which I assume you'd mean your specific current governmental bureaucracy) would want was made either into law or done anyway, so i would definitely not choose incompetence as an adjective here. The problem I personally have with it is seeing the level of complacency on part of the general Public, seeing their rights being stripped away one by one and not lifting a finger to prevent it. Sure, one person would stick his hand out of the masses and cry bullshit, but he would be quickly named names by the masses and labeled lunatic because he seems to differ from the imposed status quo, while the masses are totally forgetting about the status quo ante...
these are some of my thoughts on this issue (being 911):
the key question is who did this? who's actually responsible? and also who knew about it? common sense would indicate that you would not need for the whole bureaucratic apparatus to know about it to pull a stunt like this off. its impractical, not to mention the logistical nightmares trying to keep everyone in check AND trying to keep it down low, or secret if you may.
you would need a few people in specific positions who stand much to lose a lot if it ever comes to light, guaranteeing their silence. also, you would somehow need to actually get the masses to believe you and make it seem that whatever you need done is necessary and totally and completely unavoidable.
fact is, none of us do know what really went down. its up to you what you want to believe. for every argument it seems there's a contra argument on both sides. but some "facts" of what went down are borderline fantastical. like the alleged hijackers' passports being found in the wreckage of collapsed buildings, planes, dead bodies, molten steel etc., unscathed. i can't believe that. in fact, i refuse to believe that shit. I don't believe in the Tooth Fairy either. Nor Santa Claus. Nor the Loch Ness monster, AKA Nessie. And especially not the Boogie Man. I simply refuse to believe that shit.
also fact is the precedent that has been set after these events. if you wanted something to go your way, simply find a way to mention it in the same sentence as terrorism and it will go your way. this has been vastly overused in many many occasions, yet nobody seems to give a damn. if you don't accept this law, the boogie man (that is, the terrorist) will come for you! have fear, because the boogie man is everywhere, waiting to strike you! terror terror terror! two shining examples come immediately to mind, which are the Patriot Act and the Safe Port act. Both had the keyword in it, and both passed immediately, boom!, unquestioned.
Originally Posted by will641
how do you think that bureaucrats could somehow cook up this master scheme (refering to 9/11) and execute it out of their ass perfectly
perfectly? not at all, and that is the problem. but did they get away with it? obviously yes in my opinion.
Originally Posted by will641
while they fuck up everything else?
what is being done when "they fuck up everything else"? are the bureaucrats being held accountable when "they fuck up everything else"? are the masses revolting when "they fuck up everything else"? are the masses even aware of when "they fuck up everything else" or suddenly become aware right after everything else has already been FUBAR? do the masses actually give a shit when "they fuck up everything else"?
2) lemme play along with you, since apparently you asked for my thoughts on the subject. the main problem would have been continuity: when did they discover the weapons of mass destruction? where? what evidence was brought up? who saw this? who found this? who vouches for this? does that corroborate actual factual findings?
timeline, continuity, is very important here. Iraq was an international issue, meaning many different factions from all over the world were involved. How can you plant the evidence postinvasion, which in this case I imagine would have to be like humongous rockets of some kind capable of blowing shit up and long distance travel, in appropriately humongous facilities that since satellite surveillance prior to the invasion did not uncover anything concrete, would have to be either underground, underwater, in convertible mountaintops or moving in the sky somehow, without a significant amount of the people (the watchful international eye) present noticing that that was not there at first and then all of a sudden its there?
not even Houdini was that good IMO.
now my opinion: I dislike wars. i dislike the fact that people would lose their lives for totally pointless reasons which could have all been avoided. I also dislike misleading or deceptive conduct. I totally dislike the way that so many countries were manipulated into aiding this effort, and then "OOPS, sorry, no bombs here. But we got Saddam" and then proceed to spout Saddam's resume, reminding everybody that he's a bad guy and therefore the mission is a complete success. BUT STILL NO BOMBS, NO GASSES, NO NUKES. And I totally hate the fact that there was no punishment handed out for anything. Heads MUST roll for this shit.
3) you do realize you just went on the ad hominem route?
Originally Posted by will641
you are the biggest hypocrite on this site. you talk pompously about how fox news is the most ridiculous news channel ever, blah blah everything is a right wing conspiracy, and that we who are republican need to read carefully and challenge everything that we read and listen to.
do you also realize that I back Ron Paul, who just happens to be a Republican, and also happens to be pro arms bearing which I am fully against?
I only started paying attention to American Politics around the time that it was Obama/Clinton vs McCain who somehow just got a walk as nominee. I had no idea about who the other candidates were, nor their policies or viewpoints. So I had to make up for lost time, and do some research of my own in my free time.
Originally Posted by will641
that is a correct way of thinking, however, when it comes to your ridiculous fucking half ass conspiracy theories or "sources", where are your critiquing skills? do you just lack a brain or are you already so pre-determined in your views that you aren't capable of thinking otherwise?
About my critiquing skills: I am naturally curious by nature, but not nosy. I am also very peaceful, never looking for, causing, nor continuing in conflicts. I am always looking for stuff to learn, stuff to observe. I also have a strong sense of right and wrong, truth and lies. And I will never lie, pretty much never in any circumstance. if I have to lie, I prefer to shut the fuck up.
What I want to get to is the following: I never take something for granted, I am always double and triple checking it against multiple opinions and facts. I research pretty much every single thing ever, a lot.
Regarding conspiracy theories, there's too many of them for me to research them all. But, for example, I don't believe there are UFO's in captivity on this planet, but I do believe there must be intelligent extraterrestrial life somewhere out there (in the universe obv), and its foolish to think otherwise. I also believe Tupac really died. When presented with something, it has to add up however.
But this 911 thing smells like bullshit on soo many levels. There's way too many loose ends that cannot be tied. And there's way too many things that were, for lack of better wording, waaay too convenient to be legit. If before the event the general consensus on a specific issue in the whole scientific community is one way, and then after the event there has to be introduced a level of detail and coincidence that would rival a season of 24 for it to make sense and therefore cause a relatively big paradigm shift, I start calling bullshit. Like the free-falling buildings for example.
It does not add up. And that is the problem.
But today, while browsing around for conspiracy theories to see where I could find them (basically as a result of your post), I found an interesting one involving JFK, Executive Order 11110 and the Federal Reserve.
the following, however, is true, AND a fact AND also my opinion AND I stand 1,000,000 percent behind it. lemme fix your post to add additional emphasis, and take the relevant part out of intended context
Originally Posted by will641
fox news is the most ridiculous news channel ever.
the fact that they are so obviously biased yet keep calling themselves "fair and balanced" is the most laughable thing in history IMO.
there goes my WPP
|
Reply With Quote
) Plato had that sh!t right ... our perspectives are all defined by our own personal cave. We can work damn hard to make that cave bigger. But everyone is going to view other people through their own partisan lens. Their own dogma, experience, what they've been taught / encountered locally, cultural and political pre-disposition... that sh!t is the definition of partisan, and everyone brings it to the table. Couple that with limited, partial and mis-information, and your stew likely to have a lot more mystery meat in it than mine. 
) not affilliated with any of the parties in question is less likely to be affected by peer pressure (any entity who exerts pressure on you to vote for whatever choice) while making a choice. 