Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
We all know that you assign a "fanatical political agenda" to everybody who does not, like you, slavishly follows authority.We all know your fanatical political agenda
Interesting 9/11 video
- Thread starter Kittamaru
- Start date
But I do not slavishly follow authority. I just logically and reasonably see that on most occasions at most time on most subjects, that the majority are closer to being correct than the minority.To illustrate your poor excuse to belittle me, at present we have in Australia a Liberal government lead by the greatest political fool I know.
In that respect and on this occasion on my country, the majority is wrong...in my opinion.
My own political leanings are probably left of center and is the reason why I am a member of the present opposition party in my country the Labor party.
Either way, neither parties can really be classed as extreme, and speaking personally if the party in power that I oppose, legislates something reasonable and just, I will support it.
An illustration of that was our very tight gun laws implemented by the party I dont support a few years ago.
So no...I only assign the fanatical political agenda tag to those that have a fanatical political agenda.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
If you would reject all the great Australian opposition parties too, this would be a point. So it is simply irrelevant disagreement about political fashion and symbol politics. Instead, this is simply what democratic authority followers are supposed to disagree with - as the theater freak is not supposed to like every actor and every spectacle, the sheeple are not supposed to like every actual government and political actor.
LOL. I swear I have written the text above before reading this. Bingo.
The problem is that what is "extreme" is defined by ??? Given your behaviour, simply by what the great established parties name extreme. Imprisoning somebody for 15 years for a nonviolent "crime", where nobody feels even harmed, is something you don't consider as extreme, simply because all the big parties support this.
And I would not wonder at all if you support imprisoning people once it is supported by the Australian mainstream in one case and reject it as extremist once it is not supported by the Australian mainstream in another case.
Minor disagreement about penalties is what is allowed to the sheeple. In the homeland of the empire, it is even allowed to own guns, even to the sheeple.
Which great Australian opposition parties? Each side of politics has had its chance to occupy that position. Your fanatical system/outlook.politics dictates to you that all other parties occupying the center [or a small portion left or right of it] are all wrong.Yet it is your extremism [both in science and politics] that very rarely if at all, will ever get a look in.
The rest of your now familiar preaching and ranting is not worth commenting on...typical of a political extremist that is like most political extremists, and analogous to the "cocky on the biscuit tin" On the outside looking in.
Aemilius
Registered Member
Yet it is your extremism [both in science and politics] that very rarely if at all, will ever get a look in.
The rest of your now familiar preaching and ranting is not worth commenting on...typical of a political extremist that is like most political extremists, and analogous to the "cocky on the biscuit tin" On the outside looking in.
Translation - "Yes, the idea is to just continue generating a lot of irrelevant nonsense and clog up the thread."
Not at all.Translation: Just what it said in reply to someone who inevitably raises his form of politics in one manner or another.
On the subject matter of course I have stated the position I hold which aligns with the official version. I see know reason why it would be any different. [except by someone with an extreme alternative political agenda]
In fact for anyone to seriously suggest that a government would conspire to murder 3000 people to achieve some fabricated goal is lunatical to say the least.
Aemilius
Registered Member
O, Okae. I did knot of coarse understood nor sea and but now truly I do. I sea know reesun to keep tocking two you, I supposed becuase I do not beleeve you are reel. You righte like robot and theirfor often make no scence at many times. You knot provides sufishant infomation to support what you say ubout the discushuon. Maybe your can explain thusly perhaps.... How do free fall can happened when know plain hit bilding Sevun....
Hah! What a hoot!
Last edited:
Footage that kills the conspiracy theories: Unseen 9/11 footage shows WTC Building 7 consumed by fire
Its dramatic collapse several hours after the Twin Towers fell triggered a decade of conspiracy theories.
Those who believed thatthe September 11 attacks on America were not carried out by Al Qaeda terrorists pointed to the fall of World Trade Center Building 7 as proof of their wild claims.
But a newly released video appears to finally prove once and for all that Building 7 was brought down by the intense heat of the blazing World Trade Center - and not explosives, as conspiracy theorists claim.
The video shows up-close shots of the lower floors of World Trade Center Building 7, located just across the street from the Twin Towers, and focuses in on the exterior metal beams of Building 7 as they begin to buckle as they are overheated.
The buckling led to floors falling in on one another, causing the building to collapse.
Though the entirety of the collapse is not shown in the video, it does show how there is legitimacy to the explanation provided by the government's 9/11 Commission investigation.
The video was made by a local news reporter and was released through a Freedom of Information Act request.
Shot from the north side of the building on Barclay Street, and between the buildings in the background, the video shows the mass of raging fires taking place on the grounds of the World Trade Center.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html#ixzz3hXBJIW00
Its dramatic collapse several hours after the Twin Towers fell triggered a decade of conspiracy theories.
Those who believed thatthe September 11 attacks on America were not carried out by Al Qaeda terrorists pointed to the fall of World Trade Center Building 7 as proof of their wild claims.
But a newly released video appears to finally prove once and for all that Building 7 was brought down by the intense heat of the blazing World Trade Center - and not explosives, as conspiracy theorists claim.
The video shows up-close shots of the lower floors of World Trade Center Building 7, located just across the street from the Twin Towers, and focuses in on the exterior metal beams of Building 7 as they begin to buckle as they are overheated.
The buckling led to floors falling in on one another, causing the building to collapse.
Though the entirety of the collapse is not shown in the video, it does show how there is legitimacy to the explanation provided by the government's 9/11 Commission investigation.
The video was made by a local news reporter and was released through a Freedom of Information Act request.
Shot from the north side of the building on Barclay Street, and between the buildings in the background, the video shows the mass of raging fires taking place on the grounds of the World Trade Center.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html#ixzz3hXBJIW00
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/4278874/
World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest
Conspiracy theorists have long claimed that explosives downed World Trade Center 7, north of the Twin Towers. The long-awaited report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conclusively rebuts those claims. Fire alone brought down the building, the report concludes, pointing to thermal expansion of key structural members as the culprit. The report also raises concerns that other large buildings might be more vulnerable to fire-induced structural failure than previously thought.
World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest
Conspiracy theorists have long claimed that explosives downed World Trade Center 7, north of the Twin Towers. The long-awaited report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conclusively rebuts those claims. Fire alone brought down the building, the report concludes, pointing to thermal expansion of key structural members as the culprit. The report also raises concerns that other large buildings might be more vulnerable to fire-induced structural failure than previously thought.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
if sufficiently supported by the mass media.
They are all supported and controlled by the 1%. This is slightly different, because it cannot be excluded that the 1% want something which is not wrong.
To a certain extent they do have a bearing, which is why both major political parties are close to the center. disatisfaction with both major parties though has been evident over the last decade or so, in the fact that the monority parties such as the Greens have held the balance of power in the senate.
In essence and getting down to the nitty gritty, this is just another political whinge by you and I don't believe you know anywhere near enough about the Australian political system to comment logically.
Wrong choices are obviously made but we have the chance and the power to kick them out at following elections. It's called a democracy.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Of course, I don't know much about Australia, but I know general economic theory, in particular public choice theory, and how modern management of media-controlled democracies works in general.
If there are two big parties, it is clear that their program will be almost identical. This is a consequence of a general optimization problem, which can be formulated even for completely different problems: Two firms in one town, assuming that they will be preferred by the customers living closer to them then to the competitor. Where will they place their shops? Answer: at the same place in the center. That there will appear two big players is also natural, given that democracy is a game where the winner takes it all (all posts in the government). Moreover, many democracies have artificial large hurdles, typically from 3-10%, before one gets even a single place in the parlament at all.
Essentially, it may be difficult to create a democracy, because it starts in a situation where are yet really independent political movements, but once it is established, it is easy to handle for the 1%. If some politician becomes dangerous, this can be easily managed by the media, a pretense of a scandal can always be found, if necessary it can be created (Wulff, Strauss-Kahn are nice examples). All this is standard polittechnology.
Once all this is quite standard, I don't have to know much about Australia.
By the way, the raise of dissatisfaction with both major parties is also predictable - you know why? Because of the raise of the internet. The more people use the internet, which gives them access to alternatives to the mass media, the less they trust the mass media, and, consequently, the whole established political system.
No, this chance you have only if you are allowed to have it, by the 1%, because or they consider it as irrelevant, or they have not found an agreement between themself in this question. This is called controlled democracy.
In the US one of the two big Parties advocates privatization of Social Security and Medicare, and the other Party opposes that. One of the two big Parties lobbied hard for invading Iraq with the US army, and the other one voted against doing that. And so forth. These are major issues.schmelzer said:
The history of the US is full of examples of major policy changes brought about by a change from one of the two Parties of the time to the other.
The factions most dissatisfied with the major Parties in the US are the ones that use the internet the least and trust some part of the mass media the most.schmelzer said:
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
But Obamacare was more or less a copy of some law which some republican had already implemented (or at least proposed) in one of the states. And above parties have fought in Iraq. So, these are only minor disagreements about the methods, no fundamental difference.
A fundamental difference would have been Ron Paul. But he had no chance, and even if he would have won, he would have followed JFK before realizing anything of his really different proposals.
But all in one direction: More power to the state.
Source?
But, ok, there is some point - if you believe the mass media, you will think that all these symbol politics is really important, you will hate one party and be dissatisfied by the other one because it makes to many compromises with the hated one.
If you have understood the system, you will no longer care about the US parties. Once you recognize they are only puppets of the oligarchs, why would you be angry? They are puppets and behave like expected for puppets.
I have a similar relation to German government. They are US puppets, it is known that the NSA has enough material to blackmail all of them - so, why should I be angry about them? I couldn't do much more, given that I would have a chance to get "power" anyway only if the NSA has enough material about me, so it would be clear that I could not do much more than Merkel.
Advocating privatization of Social Security and Medicare is a very big difference. One Party majority voted against the Iraq War, while the other Party voted and pressed hard for it - that's another very large difference.schmelzer said:
These are major differences in policy. There are several others. Even more significant are the differences in tactics, and character/competence of candidate.
Now of course the increasing corruption and corporate influence have driven US politics to the authoritarian right in general, so that since 1980 or so the differences between the Parties have been increasingly limited to differences between different rightwing positions and different authoritarian tactics, but they remain significant - the Republican Party governs much differently than the Democratic Party, in particular with respect to matters of physical reality (climate change, income inequality, racial bigotry, school financing, public health measures, disaster relief, immigration, etc).
No. We have seen the elimination of the military draft, significant deregulation of the banking and financial industry, repealing or weakening of laws regarding guns and drugs and pornography and gambling and abortion and marriage and so forth and so on.schmelzer said:
Selling that line was a major tactic in electing W&Cheney in 2000 - low voter turnout favors Republican candidates in national elections, so inculcating the belief that all the Parties and candidates are the same is always a subtext of Republican national campaigns.schmelzer said:
Oh give it a break Smelchzer.
You tired old political [and scientific conspiracies] are just the usual plaintiff cries from someone who obviously is like the cocky on the biscuit tin.
Still, I suppose you are in the correct section for that.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Military draft was simply considered as no longer useful, the army was not in need of a lot of unwilling slaves, but needed specialists able to handle modern weapons. Simply the same economic reasons against slavery have reached this last domain of slavery - the military - too.
The "deregulation" of the banking sector was what the 1% wanted at that time. And if I compare the amount of unnecessary state-enforced paperwork in a usual bank, I can say that at least in Germany there was no deregulation, but, at best, a modification of the regulation.
The other things I would roughly classify as the domains where some political disagreement is allowed by the 1%. Say, they couldn't care less about pornography, abortion and marriage laws, except if they have some personal issue about this.
If the US would really stop the war on drugs, this would really surprise me. They don't. Except in Afghanistan, where the US has created the largest opium producing country of the world - the only domain where the afghan economy has been growing, after the persecution of the drug production by the evil taliban. But this is opium production intended to destroy Eurasia, in the old tradition of the opium wars.
Regarding guns, this seems to be the only point where the people themself care about their rights, against the 1% who would prefer an unarmed population as almost everywhere else.
That's not what happened to either slavery or the draft. Draftees in the US were on average more, not less, capable of handling highly technical weaponry, and more likely to enlist for specialized training than undrafted citizens with their capabilities. And slaves are perfectly capable of handling machinery etc - at the time of the US Civil War slavery was a burgeoning and highly profitable enterprise, there was no economic barrier to expanding slavery even further in territory, or expanding the employment of slaves into the growing industrial economy of the US (and vice versa).schmelzer said:
Yep. Your "libertarian" ideology is much favored by the 1% in the US.schmelzer said:
They did, with alcohol. Also tobacco.schmelzer said:
The US expanded the War On Drugs to Afghanistan, with the same consequences as everywhere else (Latin America, Mexico, Vietnam and environs, etc)schmelzer said:
The supposed persecution of the poppy farmers by the Taliban was a one year wonder, best explained as a standard market manipulation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistanschmelzer said:
So you have learned to infer government "intentions" not by their declared laws and overt prosecutions, but by the actual consequences of their behaviors. Progress. But in that line of approach, the US government's "will" or "intention" in all these drug wars was apparently to destroy its own citizenry and economy - the US opium wars, like its cocaine wars and meth wars and cannabis wars and hallucinogen wars and alcohol wars and so forth, would be domestic and civil, not colonial. If judged by their consequences.schmelzer said: