carlgo wrote:I knew one of the principle defenders on Flight 93 quite well. Frankly, I think that the wild conspiracy theories are an insult to him and the others. It is dangerous when the Wrights of the world promote cartoon views of real and dangerous situations.

911 was an amazingly difficult and well-planned attack. It was lucky to have succeeded. Would Bush, and the zillion others at all levels that would have had to be involved, picked such a difficult operation to get us involved? No way, not in a million years.

Bush didn't need 911 to go into Iraq. The WMD argument was enough for that. His administration simply made sure that its view prevailed by not allowing any dissident views to confront them with facts. That isn't as sexy as a huge conspiracy orchestrated from Cheney's underground lair, but one is possible and one is impossible.

It is always puzzling when people pick the least likely scenario to explain things. Bush didn't plan 911, Clinton didn't bomb the government building in Oklahoma, Roosevelt didn't plan Pearl Harbor. And, you know, Kennedy was undoubtedly killed by crazy Oswald (that is the hardest one). Aliens do not fly their crafts through billions of light years only to crash into each other once they get to earth, AIDs is not a planned genocide for blacks...

No, it isn't sexy, but most tragic events are the result of craziness, arrogance, laziness, bad luck, lack of preparedness, bureaucratic inertia and every other human condition.

When people blame Bush for 911, it makes it seem that he is under attack from the loony fringe and that makes him look better in comparison and thus bails him out. Stick to the actual offenses. Yes, it is more work to prove a case than it is to make wild accusations, but it is the kind of work that needs to be done.

Wow...............dont really know where to start.

Flight 93, when you say "defenders" I presume you mean you knew someone on the plane? if not, then let us know what you mean.

From the stuff I have gathered on Flight 93, it seems to me to be the only one that made any kind of sense, Im not gonna say that a missle took it down............but there arent any facts that say anything to the contrary of the official explanation.

"911 was an amazingly difficult and well planned attack"..........well, that makes it even more suspicious then doesnt it? how would a bunch of Muslim extremists, already under scrutiny and watchful eye be able to pull of such a difficult act?

It had to be a massive attack, with lots of casulties, to get America united behind the "war".............all I ask is that people take off there rose tinted glasses and look at the scientific facts that disprove the official explanations in one foul, easy swoop.

IF all the things you mentioned are what they explained them to be..........as it was so simple as they say they were.............then why not explain them to dispell any possibility of conspiracies? why destroy the evidence that would 100% prove there explanations? like the remains and ruble from the Twin Towers = it was all destroyed, even before the commisioned report could expect it.........why? well, there would be alot of evidence in those remains, and if they were able to be looked at and have someone say "Well, there was no traces of explosives" then why would you not want that?...........the mere fact that all the necessary evidence to dis-credit conspiracy theories is hidden or destroyed, makes the conspiracy theories even more possible and plausible............why put your self in that position?

There are a 1000 more things I could say on this but you obviously have some kind of emotional attatchment to these things, so there really is no point.............youll be fine, believing what you do.............Ill be fine believeing in the cold hard facts that make a hell of alot more sense to me as a logical/thinking human.

Once more for the record.............I dont do conspiracy theories, I do my research of the scientific facts and things that cannot/havnt been explained.

What does it mean when Rush Limbaugh isn't backing the republican nominee?

Rehren1296 wrote:What does it mean when Rush Limbaugh isn't backing the republican nominee?

It means mcain acts like a democrat.

Rehren1296 wrote:What does it mean when Rush Limbaugh isn't backing the republican nominee?

I would call it odd, because most things that fat dumb bastard is against, I am for.

bigstrads wrote:

carlgo wrote:I knew one of the principle defenders on Flight 93 quite well. Frankly, I think that the wild conspiracy theories are an insult to him and the others. It is dangerous when the Wrights of the world promote cartoon views of real and dangerous situations.

911 was an amazingly difficult and well-planned attack. It was lucky to have succeeded. Would Bush, and the zillion others at all levels that would have had to be involved, picked such a difficult operation to get us involved? No way, not in a million years.

Bush didn't need 911 to go into Iraq. The WMD argument was enough for that. His administration simply made sure that its view prevailed by not allowing any dissident views to confront them with facts. That isn't as sexy as a huge conspiracy orchestrated from Cheney's underground lair, but one is possible and one is impossible.

It is always puzzling when people pick the least likely scenario to explain things. Bush didn't plan 911, Clinton didn't bomb the government building in Oklahoma, Roosevelt didn't plan Pearl Harbor. And, you know, Kennedy was undoubtedly killed by crazy Oswald (that is the hardest one). Aliens do not fly their crafts through billions of light years only to crash into each other once they get to earth, AIDs is not a planned genocide for blacks...

No, it isn't sexy, but most tragic events are the result of craziness, arrogance, laziness, bad luck, lack of preparedness, bureaucratic inertia and every other human condition.

When people blame Bush for 911, it makes it seem that he is under attack from the loony fringe and that makes him look better in comparison and thus bails him out. Stick to the actual offenses. Yes, it is more work to prove a case than it is to make wild accusations, but it is the kind of work that needs to be done.

Wow...............dont really know where to start.

Flight 93, when you say "defenders" I presume you mean you knew someone on the plane? if not, then let us know what you mean.

From the stuff I have gathered on Flight 93, it seems to me to be the only one that made any kind of sense, Im not gonna say that a missle took it down............but there arent any facts that say anything to the contrary of the official explanation.

"911 was an amazingly difficult and well planned attack"..........well, that makes it even more suspicious then doesnt it? how would a bunch of Muslim extremists, already under scrutiny and watchful eye be able to pull of such a difficult act?

It had to be a massive attack, with lots of casulties, to get America united behind the "war".............all I ask is that people take off there rose tinted glasses and look at the scientific facts that disprove the official explanations in one foul, easy swoop.

IF all the things you mentioned are what they explained them to be..........as it was so simple as they say they were.............then why not explain them to dispell any possibility of conspiracies? why destroy the evidence that would 100% prove there explanations? like the remains and ruble from the Twin Towers = it was all destroyed, even before the commisioned report could expect it.........why? well, there would be alot of evidence in those remains, and if they were able to be looked at and have someone say "Well, there was no traces of explosives" then why would you not want that?...........the mere fact that all the necessary evidence to dis-credit conspiracy theories is hidden or destroyed, makes the conspiracy theories even more possible and plausible............why put your self in that position?

There are a 1000 more things I could say on this but you obviously have some kind of emotional attatchment to these things, so there really is no point.............youll be fine, believing what you do.............Ill be fine believeing in the cold hard facts that make a hell of alot more sense to me as a logical/thinking human.

Once more for the record.............I dont do conspiracy theories, I do my research of the scientific facts and things that cannot/havnt been explained.

He was one of the guys that rushed the cabin on 93. He was a really big energetic Div I athletic guy and was in the huddle with the guy that organized the passenger uprising. Nobody knows who was really involved, but he and a couple of others were placed at the scene, so to say. I like to believe that some little old ladies hit the aholes with frying pans...

I think your reference to scientific evidence pertains to the properties of steel under heat stress. Some say there weren't enough btus to melt the steel and so shadowy government figures must have packed two giant buildings with tons of additional explosives and then hijacked airlines piloted by amateur pilots would hit the buildings in exactly the right place, two buildings, and the explosives would then be detonated by shadowy government figures. Of course, if any stage of this attack failed, investigators would have found the tons of unexploded material and that just might have raised some suspicion.

Actual scientific evidence shows that thousands of gallons of jet fuel will indeed overcome the insulation builders spray over the steel beams. The amount they use is enough to counter the typical building fire caused by a bad electrical outlet.

"Scientific evidence" is, as you know, often not. "Scientific evidence" shows, according to Xtian fundamentalists, that there isn't enough dust on the moon, so it must only be 6000 years old. I worked with a lady who often quoted her religious support literature's "scientific" research that showed that there were no dinasaurs, and a host of other "proofs" of things that supported fundamentalist views.

A guy I worked with got religion and his new-found pastor seemed to spend a lot of time debunking the Apollo moon landings. Clearly, he was trying to create doubt about science so that people would accept his teachings.

Missiles downed 93? So, all the tapes that recorded the cockpit struggles and the hijackers agreeing to "put it down" were all fakes? The passengers really did nothing? More shadowy government audio experts? How about all the cell phone calls from passengers? Manipulated by shadowy government AT&T operators? Fighter pilots, air crews, armament loaders, radar operators...hmmm, all shadowy government figures.

Shadowy government operatives destroyed the evidence? Good grief, there were millions of tons of rubble. There were fights over the asbestos and other hazardous materials. Huge convoys of trucks hauled this stuff to the dump. Did government agents then hide it somewhere. Now, more agents are involved, shadowy truck drivers, bulldozer, loaders, dump site employees...

How did fanatical Muslims do all of this while under scrutiny by the government? They weren't in those days. Some spy-types warned of this, but in typical government fashion, they seemed to be more worried about their budgets, powers and positions.

Too hard a feat for a small band of people to pull off? Maybe it was actually more possible because there weren't too many hands involved. If the Bushies tried to do the same thing on an Iranian plane, it would have involved 10,000 people and would have become so complicated that it would fail.

These people are as smart as anyone. All it took was a few guys that could fly a plane a little, some strongmen with knives and a lot of dry runs, planning and, of course, their famous fanaticism.

The first flights that were jacked were fairly easy because the passengers thought it was just another hostage-type situation and that is was best to just endure it. 93 fought back because they heard about the towers and knew they were fked.

The most surprising thing to me was the skill of the pilots. Unless you believe that suicidal shadowy government pilots went to flight schools pretending they were not pilots, just to get a cover.

Any plot as hugely, enormously big as 911 would require hundreds, if not thousands, of shadowy government operatives. Not one of them would feel bad about the thousands of deaths, the war and casualties, hate Bush, get religion, want a book deal? Come on, the conspiracy theory is the least likely explanation.

Here is a real conspiracy: Nixon (who supposedly was really smart) and Watergate. That is the type of stupid plot you could really expect. And what happened there? Ratting each other out, book deals, talk shows...that is real life, folks.

You know, the CIA, FBI and other shadowy governmental agencies are made up of fanatical right-wingers dedicated to the overthrow of democracies...No, not really. Their employee base is recruited from the most prestigious and allegedly most liberal colleges, law schools and specialty institutions. They do not have job fairs for white supremists, Hells Angels, NRA life members or the like.

The point is that it is harder than you might think to organize any huge conspiracy and people just seem to be incapable of actually succeeding at them if they try.

So, I do believe that 911 is what it seems to be: clever and lucky fanatics and a poorly prepared government. I completely reject the notion that the Bushies, of all administrations, were capable of organizing anything like this. Look at their incredible record of bumbling. Listen to all the rats leaving the sinking ship, trying to sell books. You really think that it is even the teeniest bit possible these idiots could have organized this?

The reference to "rose-colored glasses" is somewhat insulting, implying that some people, but not you, view the world through reality-distorting filters, poor fools.

I am a camera guy and have several red and orange filters that really alter a black and white view of the world, but I use them judiciously because I know that they can create a false image. You know what I mean?

So, I think my filters are selective and I like to think I can use them when I want to have fun and leave them off when a reality view is needed.

I believe there was a thread where you discussed coming to the US and going to a good school like Stanford. I admire your passion and involvement. I do hope you get at least one tough and intellectually honest professor who holds your feet to the fire a bit when you throw out an unlikely theory, call it scientific, accuse others of a distorted vision and then seal the deal by saying you only deal with fact. That is wrong on several levels and you must defend it. Maybe you can.

Anyway, it has been fun but I gotta go. Damn UN black helicopters are dissecting my cows again.

I am in Missouri right now. Today, we drove from Saint Louis to Kansas City, and, because it is a five hour drive. I got bored and turning on the radio, and heard Rush Limbaugh. He is never heard in California, so I thought I would listen to him.

What a f'n dumbass. If I were a republican, I would be damn embarrased to have him represent my party. Holy sh*t. If you have never heard his show, listen to it. You will come away with more hatred for the Conservatives than you had before.

carlgo wrote:

bigstrads wrote:

carlgo wrote:I knew one of the principle defenders on Flight 93 quite well. Frankly, I think that the wild conspiracy theories are an insult to him and the others. It is dangerous when the Wrights of the world promote cartoon views of real and dangerous situations.

911 was an amazingly difficult and well-planned attack. It was lucky to have succeeded. Would Bush, and the zillion others at all levels that would have had to be involved, picked such a difficult operation to get us involved? No way, not in a million years.

Bush didn't need 911 to go into Iraq. The WMD argument was enough for that. His administration simply made sure that its view prevailed by not allowing any dissident views to confront them with facts. That isn't as sexy as a huge conspiracy orchestrated from Cheney's underground lair, but one is possible and one is impossible.

It is always puzzling when people pick the least likely scenario to explain things. Bush didn't plan 911, Clinton didn't bomb the government building in Oklahoma, Roosevelt didn't plan Pearl Harbor. And, you know, Kennedy was undoubtedly killed by crazy Oswald (that is the hardest one). Aliens do not fly their crafts through billions of light years only to crash into each other once they get to earth, AIDs is not a planned genocide for blacks...

No, it isn't sexy, but most tragic events are the result of craziness, arrogance, laziness, bad luck, lack of preparedness, bureaucratic inertia and every other human condition.

When people blame Bush for 911, it makes it seem that he is under attack from the loony fringe and that makes him look better in comparison and thus bails him out. Stick to the actual offenses. Yes, it is more work to prove a case than it is to make wild accusations, but it is the kind of work that needs to be done.

Wow...............dont really know where to start.

Flight 93, when you say "defenders" I presume you mean you knew someone on the plane? if not, then let us know what you mean.

From the stuff I have gathered on Flight 93, it seems to me to be the only one that made any kind of sense, Im not gonna say that a missle took it down............but there arent any facts that say anything to the contrary of the official explanation.

"911 was an amazingly difficult and well planned attack"..........well, that makes it even more suspicious then doesnt it? how would a bunch of Muslim extremists, already under scrutiny and watchful eye be able to pull of such a difficult act?

It had to be a massive attack, with lots of casulties, to get America united behind the "war".............all I ask is that people take off there rose tinted glasses and look at the scientific facts that disprove the official explanations in one foul, easy swoop.

IF all the things you mentioned are what they explained them to be..........as it was so simple as they say they were.............then why not explain them to dispell any possibility of conspiracies? why destroy the evidence that would 100% prove there explanations? like the remains and ruble from the Twin Towers = it was all destroyed, even before the commisioned report could expect it.........why? well, there would be alot of evidence in those remains, and if they were able to be looked at and have someone say "Well, there was no traces of explosives" then why would you not want that?...........the mere fact that all the necessary evidence to dis-credit conspiracy theories is hidden or destroyed, makes the conspiracy theories even more possible and plausible............why put your self in that position?

There are a 1000 more things I could say on this but you obviously have some kind of emotional attatchment to these things, so there really is no point.............youll be fine, believing what you do.............Ill be fine believeing in the cold hard facts that make a hell of alot more sense to me as a logical/thinking human.

Once more for the record.............I dont do conspiracy theories, I do my research of the scientific facts and things that cannot/havnt been explained.

He was one of the guys that rushed the cabin on 93. He was a really big energetic Div I athletic guy and was in the huddle with the guy that organized the passenger uprising. Nobody knows who was really involved, but he and a couple of others were placed at the scene, so to say. I like to believe that some little old ladies hit the aholes with frying pans...

I think your reference to scientific evidence pertains to the properties of steel under heat stress. Some say there weren't enough btus to melt the steel and so shadowy government figures must have packed two giant buildings with tons of additional explosives and then hijacked airlines piloted by amateur pilots would hit the buildings in exactly the right place, two buildings, and the explosives would then be detonated by shadowy government figures. Of course, if any stage of this attack failed, investigators would have found the tons of unexploded material and that just might have raised some suspicion.

Actual scientific evidence shows that thousands of gallons of jet fuel will indeed overcome the insulation builders spray over the steel beams. The amount they use is enough to counter the typical building fire caused by a bad electrical outlet.

"Scientific evidence" is, as you know, often not. "Scientific evidence" shows, according to Xtian fundamentalists, that there isn't enough dust on the moon, so it must only be 6000 years old. I worked with a lady who often quoted her religious support literature's "scientific" research that showed that there were no dinasaurs, and a host of other "proofs" of things that supported fundamentalist views.

A guy I worked with got religion and his new-found pastor seemed to spend a lot of time debunking the Apollo moon landings. Clearly, he was trying to create doubt about science so that people would accept his teachings.

Missiles downed 93? So, all the tapes that recorded the cockpit struggles and the hijackers agreeing to "put it down" were all fakes? The passengers really did nothing? More shadowy government audio experts? How about all the cell phone calls from passengers? Manipulated by shadowy government AT&T operators? Fighter pilots, air crews, armament loaders, radar operators...hmmm, all shadowy government figures.

Shadowy government operatives destroyed the evidence? Good grief, there were millions of tons of rubble. There were fights over the asbestos and other hazardous materials. Huge convoys of trucks hauled this stuff to the dump. Did government agents then hide it somewhere. Now, more agents are involved, shadowy truck drivers, bulldozer, loaders, dump site employees...

How did fanatical Muslims do all of this while under scrutiny by the government? They weren't in those days. Some spy-types warned of this, but in typical government fashion, they seemed to be more worried about their budgets, powers and positions.

Too hard a feat for a small band of people to pull off? Maybe it was actually more possible because there weren't too many hands involved. If the Bushies tried to do the same thing on an Iranian plane, it would have involved 10,000 people and would have become so complicated that it would fail.

These people are as smart as anyone. All it took was a few guys that could fly a plane a little, some strongmen with knives and a lot of dry runs, planning and, of course, their famous fanaticism.

The first flights that were jacked were fairly easy because the passengers thought it was just another hostage-type situation and that is was best to just endure it. 93 fought back because they heard about the towers and knew they were fked.

The most surprising thing to me was the skill of the pilots. Unless you believe that suicidal shadowy government pilots went to flight schools pretending they were not pilots, just to get a cover.

Any plot as hugely, enormously big as 911 would require hundreds, if not thousands, of shadowy government operatives. Not one of them would feel bad about the thousands of deaths, the war and casualties, hate Bush, get religion, want a book deal? Come on, the conspiracy theory is the least likely explanation.

Here is a real conspiracy: Nixon (who supposedly was really smart) and Watergate. That is the type of stupid plot you could really expect. And what happened there? Ratting each other out, book deals, talk shows...that is real life, folks.

You know, the CIA, FBI and other shadowy governmental agencies are made up of fanatical right-wingers dedicated to the overthrow of democracies...No, not really. Their employee base is recruited from the most prestigious and allegedly most liberal colleges, law schools and specialty institutions. They do not have job fairs for white supremists, Hells Angels, NRA life members or the like.

The point is that it is harder than you might think to organize any huge conspiracy and people just seem to be incapable of actually succeeding at them if they try.

So, I do believe that 911 is what it seems to be: clever and lucky fanatics and a poorly prepared government. I completely reject the notion that the Bushies, of all administrations, were capable of organizing anything like this. Look at their incredible record of bumbling. Listen to all the rats leaving the sinking ship, trying to sell books. You really think that it is even the teeniest bit possible these idiots could have organized this?

The reference to "rose-colored glasses" is somewhat insulting, implying that some people, but not you, view the world through reality-distorting filters, poor fools.

I am a camera guy and have several red and orange filters that really alter a black and white view of the world, but I use them judiciously because I know that they can create a false image. You know what I mean?

So, I think my filters are selective and I like to think I can use them when I want to have fun and leave them off when a reality view is needed.

I believe there was a thread where you discussed coming to the US and going to a good school like Stanford. I admire your passion and involvement. I do hope you get at least one tough and intellectually honest professor who holds your feet to the fire a bit when you throw out an unlikely theory, call it scientific, accuse others of a distorted vision and then seal the deal by saying you only deal with fact. That is wrong on several levels and you must defend it. Maybe you can.

Anyway, it has been fun but I gotta go. Damn UN black helicopters are dissecting my cows again.

Ok.............alot of stuff here.

1 - Flight 93 = Man, the only thing I said about that was that it was the clearest and easily explanable part of the whole incident............you must have mis-read what I said, as I said that I wont mention that a missle took it down, as I dont believe that............I believe, have seen, have even heard (I found a recording of a call from one of the stewardesses that was played to the victims in court) what you believe and agree with everything youve said about it so far.

2 - Melting Steel = Simple fact man, steel cannot be melted (as per the pools of molten steel seen in the rubble) by jet fuel and the available combustables alone..........there was nothing in that building, when combined with a oxygen starved jet fuel induced fire (as evident from the black smoke) that could melt steel...............hence the reason that steel is used and hence the reason they would not put anything in the building that could be combined with anything else that could melt steel.

I only say that the only way to melt stell is to use explosives or things such as thermite............I didnt once say THAT for sure explosives were planted through out the building...........I just ask the question of how could the steel be melted and cause a perfect collapes at the rate of gravity (when if it was just one or two floors that collapsed and then crashed into the others as per the official explanation, it would have expelled energy and slowed or fell to the side)............all of this is of course by implication, me saying that explosives were used...........but I try not to say it for definate, just put it in the form of a question you know.

3 - Those involved/responsible = Well of course it wasnt planned/orchestrated by the Bush family or anyone close.........merely by the fact the fact that if it ever was found out, it would be directly linked to them, they are as smart as to not be directly involved themselves.

It would be more in the form of a plan/directive, that a specially designed task force of select few would plan/orchestrate.

Yet again though, I try not to talk about things I cant explain, as that would be a conspiracy theory............so, if I suggest that it had to be an inside job, then thats what I say...........of course, I cant say who is exactly responsible for it, however I can suggest and point out what is possible and what is not, and again by implication say that it could not have been a bunch of muslims, a plane and jet fuel.

Also, how can you say that "these guys" were not under surveillance? of course they were, not only by the fact that the CIA trained/armed most of them for there war against Russia..........but simply that the US had received numerous intelligence reports suggesting the attacks were coming.

Man, there is so much on this side of things............like:

A - A few of those named to be the hijackers were later found to be alive and well in there respective countries.

B - The pathology reports from the remains found, there were next to no muslims named, bit of a co-incidence that theres were the only bodies that had no remains left.

C - The 3 flights themselves were only half sold...........which was the first time in about 5 years that those airlines had anything less than atleast a 75% passenger capacity.

Those are just a few.

4 - Rose coloured glasses = I apologise for that, that was abit off of me to say and I certainly dont mean to offend/upset you man, I obviously did and I re-read what I wrote and it was just my passion, for the subject specifically, that made me say that.

I have been nigh on obsessed with 9/11 since the day it happend...........I have a 6 gig or so file of all the research I have done, lots of official documents, audio, video, testamonies (spelling? )...........all trying to prove both sides of the argument. Its just that after all my years of research, I have formed the opinion based on all of this.

5 - The remains = This is one that Ive said a few times............if you research it, you will see that the remains were never "officially" inspected, and the law was actually broken by the way that it was all taken to a landfill and destroyed/made into tar mac/cement (something NY residents were not happy about as they reslised that they were walking on streets made out of there remains of the building and as such there fallen citizens).............when the commisioned report was set up, the remains had already been destroyed/made un-inspectable.............so why was that?

Phew............Im sure I missed a few in there and I apologise for that, if your ok with going on with this in a debate, then I am too, certainly no name calling or insults from me (anymore than the rose coloured glasses one which wont happen again)

I welcome and enjoy talking about this and being told I am wrong or whatever for thinking/believing/suggesting what I do............most people dont want to go into it or dont understand. Your obviously a smart guy and I like talking to smart people about subjects like this, even if they share a totally different view point to me.

Good luck with your cows, those heli's dont miss much!

Hi again. You are supposed to reply "not yet".

I dunno. It is human nature to try to come up with evidence to support our beliefs. That is why I threw in the example of people who grasp at all sorts of proof to support their particular religious belief.

Explanations can be classified as more likely or less likely. Some would use the term "grasping at straws", although I never quite figured out what that actually means. I have grasped at many things, some successfully and some not, but never straws and certainly not those straws that have artificially flavored innards to alter your drink. That is too much like those rose-colored glasses we discussed.

It sounds like you have really researched all this and that is good. I certainly can't claim the same. My only concern is that you are trying too hard to prove something that has a low probability of being factual.

Remember the "I want to believe" sign over Mulder's desk? I think there is more of a chance of aliens being kept in the caves of Area 51 than 911 being a US plot.

The Bushies took full advantage of 911 and what they did was bad enough. I would like to see the focus kept there rather than on things that dilute the argument or marginalize the critics.

Code: Select all

[b]Bush's Third Term[/b]
 
This year, we're facing the most important election in a generation. As Americans, we must ask ourselves which candidate will bring about the change our country so desperately needs. In my opinion, Barack Obama is the only candidate with the judgment to move our country forward.

The disastrous consequences of George W. Bush's poor judgment over these last 7 1/2 years are all too apparent. Now, John McCain is offering 4 more years of Bush -- while Barack Obama offers the change in direction our country so desperately needs.

Barack had the judgment to oppose the war in Iraq before it began, and he is ready to bring our troops home and end the occupation of Iraq in a responsible way. John McCain has said that American troops should be willing to stay in Iraq for 100 years.


Barack will engage in the diplomacy that is necessary to bring stability to the Middle East. Just like George Bush, John McCain repeatedly resorts to saber-rattling and threats about invading Iran while revealing a startling ignorance of the basic issues that define the politics of the region.
Barack knows we have to invest in renewable energy to end America's dependence on foreign oil and fight global warming. And like George Bush, John McCain is in the pocket of big oil.

It's about judgment -- and I think the answer is clear.

While I respect John McCain's service, I know exactly what he stands for -- Bush's third term. And in national security terms, John McCain is largely untested and untried. He's never been responsible for policy formulation. John McCain is calculating that he will use the national security debate to his advantage. He's wrong.

Like Bush, McCain has always been for the use of force, force, and more force. In my experience, the only time to use force is as a last resort. When John McCain talks about throwing Russia out of the G8 and makes irresponsible comments about bombing Iran, he reveals his own disrespect for the office of the presidency.

And while he's all too willing to continue putting our troops in harm's way, John McCain initially refused to support providing benefits like the new GI Bill to our veterans because he believes that providing good education opportunities to our troops will hurt retention. That's ridiculous.

We need new leadership in the White House -- not George Bush's third term.

Last week I sat down with Barack Obama. I know he's the right person to lead our country forward. Now we need to come together and support his campaign for change.

As I see the sacrifices our troops and their families make every day; as I see Americans buckling under the weight of record high gas prices; and as I see families struggling with sky rocketing health care costs, I know this:

We simply can't afford another 4 years of the McCain-Bush-Cheney agenda.

We must change the course of our country's future. We must elect Barack Obama the next president of the United States.

--General Wesley Clark--

It is nice to see a soldier of fourty years, a guy that won the Defense Distinguished Service Medal five times, the Army Distinguished Service Medal twice, the Silver Star, the Legion of Merit four times, the Bronze Star twice, and a Purple Hart have some sort of brains when it comes to this. What is even better is that he is a legend in battle, yet wont support McCain, another soldier. What does that tell you?

Two more McCain "jokes." Seems the old man is more out of touch with the rest of the world than we thought.

First, was a comment about how cigarettes are one of the biggest exports to the Middle East:

Code: Select all

IRAN: McCain cigarette joke smolders in Tehran
U.S. Sen. John McCain made a wisecrack last week describing reports of increased American cigarette exports to Iran as a way of killing off Iranians. It was just a joke, the presumptive presidential candidate insisted immediately afterward.

Today, Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Mohammed Ali Hosseini responded to the comment, and he was not smiling at all.

Mohammed Ali Hosseini said the Iranian government regarded the comment as ugly and immoral, "especially for someone who intends to lead a country claiming civilization," according to a report carried by the Fars News Agency:

"We condemn such jokes and believe them to be inappropriate for a U.S. presidential candidate. It is most evident that jokes about genocide will not be tolerated by Iranians or Americans."

On Wednesday, McCain responded to a question about American cigarette imports to Iran by saying, "That's one way of killing them."

He quickly insisted that he meant it as a joke, as someone who quit smoking 28 years ago.

Iran has no plans of discouraging smoking on the home front. According to the Fars News report, the country hopes to increase domestic cigarette production from 26% to 75% over the next two years.


Then, we have the "Bomb Iran" thing from last year that I just heard for the first time. He is an idiot who thinks that he is funny.... very similar to Bush:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg[/youtube]

hey me and Sf agree again... how bout them apples?

I agree that the mid west is a huge problem. hispanic's too.
one bright point though, all the young people are never really taken into account in those polls. most 20 somethings have cell phones and no home lines (like me), so they can't be polled. I'm sure they estimate the numbers, but we've never seen youth so involved in an election (at least during my lifetime) - they could be way off. since its so "in" to support Obama these days, maybe he'll have a bigger chance than the pundits say he does.

I hate the way McCain can get away with so much and everyone just says, "oh thats just old McCain being McCain". if Obama made one slip up like above, they'd being saying how young and inexperienced he is. Thank God Obama is Obama. confident, well spoken, and he demands your attention when he speaks (unlike Kerry).

I might have to cross the pond and hang with my cousins in England if McCain wins. btw Bigs why do you live in England right now? I'm just curious as to why, arguably the most active poster probably lives the furthest away from anything Warriors related.

warrior 4 life85 wrote:hey me and Sf agree again... how bout them apples?

I agree that the mid west is a huge problem. hispanic's too.
one bright point though, all the young people are never really taken into account in those polls. most 20 somethings have cell phones and no home lines (like me), so they can't be polled. I'm sure they estimate the numbers, but we've never seen youth so involved in an election (at least during my lifetime) - they could be way off. since its so "in" to support Obama these days, maybe he'll have a bigger chance than the pundits say he does.

I hate the way McCain can get away with so much and everyone just says, "oh thats just old McCain being McCain". if Obama made one slip up like above, they'd being saying how young and inexperienced he is. Thank God Obama is Obama. confident, well spoken, and he demands your attention when he speaks (unlike Kerry).

I might have to cross the pond and hang with my cousins in England if McCain wins. btw Bigs why do you live in England right now? I'm just curious as to why, arguably the most active poster probably lives the furthest away from anything Warriors related.

We agree on stuff... just not much.

By the way, James has always lived in England. That is why he lives in England now.

Can someone explain to me why McCain's arms are so short? I've always wanted to know. did he have surgery or something? He looks like a fvcking albino T-Rex with a bad comb over!

sfsfsfgiants wrote:

warrior 4 life85 wrote:hey me and Sf agree again... how bout them apples?

I agree that the mid west is a huge problem. hispanic's too.
one bright point though, all the young people are never really taken into account in those polls. most 20 somethings have cell phones and no home lines (like me), so they can't be polled. I'm sure they estimate the numbers, but we've never seen youth so involved in an election (at least during my lifetime) - they could be way off. since its so "in" to support Obama these days, maybe he'll have a bigger chance than the pundits say he does.

I hate the way McCain can get away with so much and everyone just says, "oh thats just old McCain being McCain". if Obama made one slip up like above, they'd being saying how young and inexperienced he is. Thank God Obama is Obama. confident, well spoken, and he demands your attention when he speaks (unlike Kerry).

I might have to cross the pond and hang with my cousins in England if McCain wins. btw Bigs why do you live in England right now? I'm just curious as to why, arguably the most active poster probably lives the furthest away from anything Warriors related.

We agree on stuff... just not much.

By the way, James has always lived in England. That is why he lives in England now.

Yup, thats me, born here unfortunately..............Ive alwasy travelled to America my whole life, and my favourite place is San Francisco, I got into basketball when I was 12, saw the Warriors and it made sense...............16 years of following them from this far away! I better win "Fan of The Year" this year, due to my staying up till 6am most nights to watch my boys live!

Warrior 4 life, where do you friend live over here?

bigstrads wrote:I better win "Fan of The Year" this year, due to my staying up till 6am most nights to watch my boys live!

Wow, already starting your campaign?

bigstrads wrote:Warrior 4 life, where do you friend live over here?

"Where do your friend live?" What the f*ck kind of English is that, Mr. Englishman?