Our rights are being taken away-Patriot Act

[Heavy Z]

profit motive gets A LOT STRONGER, which can drive sales and trade up

 

The active word here being "can." It hasn't happened after 3 years and two tax cuts, as you probably know already.

[Guest freedomfighter]

In my experience' date=' the “sheeple†are on the side of the patriot act because they simply don’t take the time to research things.

 

What category do you fall in?[/quote']

 

There are far to many wonderfully brilliant posts on this very thread refuting this very statement. Frankly, I'm shocked... ... to be reading that this is STILL your possition. Personally, I choose to fall into the catagory of the silent majority who know that WE are in charge of the Patriot Act... and as a Patriot, I choose to believe in the greater good of those we elect into office, giving them the responsibility of getting it done on our behalf.

 

More B.S. (just doesn't feel strong enough without the full spelling ) The economy works in cycles. What we do know effects the next several years. Surely... you all must know this. Reagan and Bush fixed what Carter screwed up. Clinton went into office riding the wave they created... with tax increases for his big gov spending... he killed the wave.

 

You sure pick and choose which facts you want to believe. You say the economy works in cycles' date=' yet Reagan and Bush are responsible for everything good, yet Carter and Clinton either got lucky or screwed things up.[/quote']

 

NO, I'm not saying anything. History proves that record clearly. Its not opinion, it is the record. Luck had nothing to do with it. Policy did. Tax Policy. The MORE the government "allows" us and business to keep of our own production... the better the economy will due. It's plain and simple.

 

As for the deficit, use a little common sense. There are numerous economic theories that say the government doesn’t need to maintain a balanced budget to stay viable. But at the same time there has to be some limit. What percentage of our yearly budget goes to debit servicing? Isn’t it double digits? How long do you think you could run your household like that?

 

Again... what we really need is a "Dave" moment (hasn't any of you seen this film? ) because obviously running in the red is not the objective. That was never my point... and maybe its my fault for not stating it clear enough:

After The Dot.Bomb

After Corporate Scandals

After 9/11

After Afgan

After Iraq...

Damn, people... we are doing awsome. History will look back and see this as one of the most brilliant moments of our time. There have never been wars fought and won and fought some more with this level of success... with this level of efficiency and precission. Never have we seen this kind of financial recovery in the midst of these kinds of challenges! Thank God for those who represent us at home and abroad, both in service and of the civil service... for the most part they are doing one hell of a great job on our behalf.

[johnc]

I am referecing Subjectivity -vs- Objectivity. One person's Perception (progroamming AKA: how they were raised, how they responded to outside family influences, as well as their own presumptions) is their reality and affects their "analytical reasoning".

 

That's correct if you're approaching it via Kant, as you are. Basically you're say that there is no "one, true, factual reality" because everything we perceive is based on our preceptions. Again, pure Kant.

 

So, simply because you "Assume" that something has to be one way...doesnt necessarily mean that it is that way especially if we remove a possible solution simply because it is uncomfortable to mentally grasp.

 

I didn't say that and Occam's Razor doesn't either. It says that the explanation with the fewest "unproven" assumptions is the most likely.

 

I only brought this up due to your JFK statement that the Single Bullet Theory was the correct one.

 

In keeping with my using the JFK assasination as a perfect example of Occam's Razor, I should have used the term "most likely" instead of "correct."

 

Unless you were on both ends of the Shooting and Receiving of said bullet - your summation, regardless of how hard you wish to reject its basis, is an assumption.

 

In keeping with our use of logic terms, my summation is a theory that contains assumptions.

 

To this day we are not allowed to have a hand in making real decisions...such as NAFTA, such as the Warren Commision, such as the 911 Commision...we get bottle fed a programming and anyone who questions said program is labeled then demonized.

 

And I disagree. We do have a say in this country and I've expressed my views on this in other threads. The recent CBS/Rathergate issue is a perfect example of how the "people" rose up and successfully questioned something that they were being "force fed."

 

(hence the incredible doc's the govt wont release regarding JFK, OKC Murrow Building Bombing, 911 - you name the event and there is not full disclosure)

 

And in the spirit of Occam's Razor, all of these are unproven assumptions.

 

The JFK scenario is full of holes, 911 is full of - dare I say it, holes...perhaps "Unexplained Patterns" is a better way of putting it.

 

And, again, going back to Occam's Razor, the theory with the fewest holes is the most likely one to be correct. But, if you subscribe to anti-Occam's Razor the theory with the most holes is the one we should focus on.

 

All we can do is understand the past, present, future and hope to protect our families and leave them w/a world of their own that allows them to do the same.

 

A pessimistic view. I'm much more optimistic.

[Guest freedomfighter]

Wrong... have to tell you, Tax Cuts increase tax revenue... this has been proven throughout history.

 

Put very simply, if you have a tax cut it means the government is receiving LESS revenue(money). The reasons you give make no sense. Freedomfighter, I'd recommend taking a basic course on macroeconomics to better understand how it works.

 

It is you, with all due respect, who needs the lesson. Again I point not to a calculator and an economics book, but a history book. The fact remains, whether you get it or not, that tax cuts increase the gov's take. It increases many variables that put more money in Uncle Sam's pocket every time its done. It's happenning again, right now, as we speak.. uh, er... type.

[JMortensen]

The active word here being "can." It hasn't happened after 3 years and two tax cuts, as you probably know already.

 

OK let me relate to you the situation which I personally saw over months and years of employment in a sales job:

 

When I was 17-19, I worked for Ronco, Inc. You know, the Pocket Fisherman, GLH (Great Looking Hair), now he's got that rotisserie thingy. "Just set it--AND FORGET IT!" You know who I mean.

 

Anyway we had at least 1/2 of the sales force that was either not working for sales or not claiming sales on their paycheck because they'd be bumped into the next tax bracket and make LESS money than if they didn't make the sales. This was a bottom of the barrel job to be sure, but even at this level people were aware and would do whatever they could to get out of a higher tax rate, despite the damaging effect it had on the business as a whole.

 

Taxes CAN stifle business, and it's not as theoretical as you would make it out to be.

[johnc]

OK, regarding the deficeit and taxes. If you download the spread sheet from: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy00/sheets/hist01z1.xls and add in a column to determine the percentage defecite or excess comparing government actual receipts to outlays, you get something like this (in ascending order from worst to best years):

 

Year Total

Receipts Outlays Surplus or Deficit(−) Percentage

1919 5,130 18,493 -13,363 -260.49%

1918 3,645 12,677 -9,032 -247.79%

1943 24,001 78,555 -54,554 -227.30%

1932 1,924 4,659 -2,735 -142.15%

1942 14,634 35,137 -20,503 -140.11%

1933 1,997 4,598 -2,602 -130.30%

1934 2,955 6,541 -3,586 -121.35%

1936 3,923 8,228 -4,304 -109.71%

1944 43,747 91,304 -47,557 -108.71%

1945 45,159 92,712 -47,553 -105.30%

1935 3,609 6,412 -2,803 -77.67%

1917 1,101 1,954 -853 -77.48%

1941 8,712 13,653 -4,941 -56.71%

1939 6,295 9,141 -2,846 -45.21%

1940 6,548 9,468 -2,920 -44.59%

1937 5,387 7,580 -2,193 -40.71%

1946 39,296 55,232 -15,936 -40.55%

1983 600,562 808,364 -207,802 -34.60%

2004est 1,798,093 2,318,834 -520,741 -28.96%

1985 734,088 946,396 -212,308 -28.92%

1986 769,215 990,430 -221,215 -28.76%

1984 666,486 851,853 -185,367 -27.81%

1992 1,091,279 1,381,655 -290,376 -26.61%

1991 1,055,041 1,324,369 -269,328 -25.53%

1976 298,060 371,792 -73,732 -24.74%

1993 1,154,401 1,409,489 -255,087 -22.10%

1990 1,031,969 1,253,165 -221,195 -21.43%

2003 1,782,342 2,157,637 -375,295 -21.06%

1982 617,766 745,743 -127,977 -20.72%

1975 279,090 332,332 -53,242 -19.08%

2005est 2,036,273 2,399,843 -363,570 -17.85%

1987 854,353 1,004,082 -149,728 -17.53%

1988 909,303 1,064,455 -155,152 -17.06%

1968 152,973 178,134 -25,161 -16.45%

1959 79,249 92,098 -12,849 -16.21%

1994 1,258,627 1,461,877 -203,250 -16.15%

1989 991,190 1,143,646 -152,456 -15.38%

1977 355,559 409,218 -53,659 -15.09%

1931 3,116 3,577 -462 -14.83%

1978 399,561 458,746 -59,185 -14.81%

1909 604 694 -89 -14.74%

1980 517,112 590,941 -73,830 -14.28%

1981 599,272 678,241 -78,968 -13.18%

1971 187,139 210,172 -23,033 -12.31%

2006est 2,205,666 2,473,298 -267,632 -12.13%

1995 1,351,830 1,515,802 -163,972 -12.13%

1972 207,309 230,681 -23,373 -11.27%

2007est 2,350,795 2,592,067 -241,272 -10.26%

2008est 2,485,315 2,724,284 -238,969 -9.62%

1908 602 659 -57 -9.47%

1953 69,608 76,101 -6,493 -9.33%

1915 683 746 -63 -9.22%

2009est 2,616,397 2,853,473 -237,076 -9.06%

1979 463,302 504,028 -40,726 -8.79%

2002 1,853,173 2,010,970 -157,797 -8.51%

1904 541 584 -43 -7.95%

1950 39,443 42,562 -3,119 -7.91%

1996 1,453,062 1,560,535 -107,473 -7.40%

1962 99,676 106,821 -7,146 -7.17%

1850–1900 14,462 15,453 -991 -6.85%

1973 230,799 245,707 -14,908 -6.46%

1967 148,822 157,464 -8,643 -5.81%

1964 112,613 118,528 -5,915 -5.25%

1955 65,451 68,444 -2,993 -4.57%

1963 106,560 111,316 -4,756 -4.46%

1905 544 567 -23 -4.23%

1961 94,388 97,723 -3,335 -3.53%

1958 79,636 82,405 -2,769 -3.48%

1966 130,835 134,532 -3,698 -2.83%

1910 676 694 -18 -2.66%

1974 263,224 269,359 -6,135 -2.33%

1952 66,167 67,686 -1,519 -2.30%

1954 69,701 70,855 -1,154 -1.66%

1970 192,807 195,649 -2,842 -1.47%

1997 1,579,292 1,601,250 -21,958 -1.39%

1938 6,751 6,840 -89 -1.32%

1965 116,817 118,228 -1,411 -1.21%

1960 92,492 92,191 301 0.33%

1912 693 690 3 0.43%

1949 39,415 38,835 580 1.47%

1911 702 691 11 1.57%

1969 186,882 183,640 3,242 1.73%

1998 1,721,798 1,652,585 69,213 4.02%

1906 595 570 25 4.20%

1957 79,990 76,578 3,412 4.27%

1920 6,649 6,358 291 4.38%

1956 74,587 70,640 3,947 5.29%

1789–1849 1,160 1,090 70 6.03%

1916 761 713 48 6.31%

2001 1,991,194 1,863,770 127,424 6.40%

1999 1,827,454 1,701,891 125,563 6.87%

1903 562 517 45 8.01%

1921 5,571 5,062 509 9.14%

1947 38,514 34,496 4,018 10.43%

1901 588 525 63 10.71%

2000 2,025,218 1,788,773 236,445 11.68%

1951 51,616 45,514 6,102 11.82%

1907 666 579 87 13.06%

1902 562 485 77 13.70%

1930 4,058 3,320 738 18.19%

1922 4,026 3,289 736 18.28%

1923 3,853 3,140 713 18.51%

1929 3,862 3,127 734 19.01%

1925 3,641 2,924 717 19.69%

1926 3,795 2,930 865 22.79%

1928 3,900 2,961 939 24.08%

1924 3,871 2,908 963 24.88%

1948 41,560 29,764 11,796 28.38%

1927 4,013 2,857 1,155 28.78%

1913 714 715 −* #VALUE!

1914 725 726 −* #VALUE!

 

The formatting sucks but it shows that 2004 is comparable in loss for the year to other war years.

[JMortensen]

Boy look at how many bad years had FDR as pres... 13 out of the top 16.

[JMortensen]

Damn, people... we are doing awsome. History will look back and see this as one of the most brilliant moments of our time. There have never been wars fought and won and fought some more with this level of success... with this level of efficiency and precission. Never have we seen this kind of financial recovery in the midst of these kinds of challenges! Thank God for those who represent us at home and abroad, both in service and of the civil service... for the most part they are doing one hell of a great job on our behalf.

 

Can't agree with this enough. Still don't like the patriot act.

[Kevin Shasteen]

John,

 

Your are missing the point. The point isnt if you can prove something beyond an assumption or not.

 

The issue is that your thinking involves an assumption that leads to your decision as "being correct".

 

I am not claiming that there is no right or wrong. I am not being philosophical. I am attempting to proclaim that when full disclosure is not given you cant simply make a conclusion w/the compromised-condensed evidence...instead you should cry and scream "FOUL" and demand full disclosure...otherwise you can not reach the "correct conclusion".

 

I am claiming that when you use an assumption to reach a conclusion that is not substantiated - then it is not necessarily correct: what it is is a justification that because I cant come up with any other answer, and I dont have access to full disclosure - well then, doe-ti doe-ti do, I guess I have to accept this as my aswer and therefor this answer must be the correct one (which isnt always correct).

 

Kevin,

(Yea,Still an Inliner)

[Guest freedomfighter]

Damn, people... we are doing awsome. History will look back and see this as one of the most brilliant moments of our time. There have never been wars fought and won and fought some more with this level of success... with this level of efficiency and precission. Never have we seen this kind of financial recovery in the midst of these kinds of challenges! Thank God for those who represent us at home and abroad, both in service and of the civil service... for the most part they are doing one hell of a great job on our behalf.

 

Can't agree with this enough. Still don't like the patriot act.

 

LOL... I luv ya maaaan...

[johnc]

I am not claiming that there is no right or wrong. I am not being philosophical. I am attempting to proclaim that when full disclosure is not given you cant simply make a conclusion w/the compromised-condensed evidence...instead you should cry and scream "FOUL" and demand full disclosure...otherwise you can not reach the "correct conclusion".

 

But, that's just an excuse for not coming to a conclusion. As with everything in life, you'll never have 100% of the facts needed to base a conclusion on. You have to go with what you know.

 

Since we're using the JFK assasination as an example, I'm willing to say that based on the information available at the time and the information that is currently available, the Warren Commission came to the right conclusion. Now, if tomorrow the FBI releases a bunch of documents that make a bunch of unproven assumptions (the second gunman, Mafia involvement, Castro's hired assasin) factual, then I'm willing to admit the conclusion was wrong, in light of the new information. But, until that happens, I'm not going to worry and fret that Oliver Stone is right.

 

I'm willing to risk making mistaken conclusions in hindsight. That's how Occam's Razor helps me sleep at night because applying it makes my conclusions "most likely correct."

[Mikelly]

"most likely correct."

 

And John C., From one realist to another, that is all you can ask, and all we should expect...

 

John C. for President...

Mike

[JMortensen]

LOL... I luv ya maaaan...

"most likely correct."

 

And John C., From one realist to another, that is all you can ask, and all we should expect...

 

John C. for President...

 

Agreed. You can spend your whole life waiting for certainty that's never coming.

[Heavy Z]

It is you, with all due respect, who needs the lesson. Again I point not to a calculator and an economics book, but a history book.

 

LOL, thanks...If you are referring to the last 20 years, remember that tax cuts have been augmented by increased borrowing (federal and personal - offsetting the gains you mention), and you assume that people these days are actually spending more money to help stimulate the economy. According to the Labor and Commerce Department, in the 10 quarters since the official end of the recession of 2001, 47% of the real national income growth went to corporate profits and only 15% to wages and salaries. Even if you add in the cost of health insurance and other benefits, as you should, workers only got 43% - well below the 61% average in eight previous recoveries. This is the first time since WW2 where corporate profits grabbed off a bigger share of the growth than workers' pay and benefits. Why is this important? Because average people have less to work with than in the past, thus aren't "spendng up" the economy, while corporations, who have a TON of finance capital, are reluctant to use the money for starting new businesses because people don't have the dough to sustain them.

 

You aren't kidding about it being more complicated, keep in mind the people of this country are responsible for 70% of the economy. If money goes to average people, they'll more than likely spend it. That's not how these recent cuts have been allotted though, most of the gains are being hoarded by wealthy interests in a "wait and see" posture.

[Kevin Shasteen]

But, that's just an excuse for not coming to a conclusion. As with everything in life, you'll never have 100% of the facts needed to base a conclusion on. You have to go with what you know.

 

I do believe that police and court rooms everyday dismiss unsubstantiated allegations based on unproven facts or close files that cant be concluded because of a lack of facts. So I would argue that you do not have to go w/what you know...unless what you know is "COMPLETE" or complete enough.

 

I would agree that something can be proven w/out a doubt and still not have all the facts...yet look at this thread, Do you honestly believe that the issues we have discussed are beyond a shadow of doubt? Hardly.

 

Kevin,

(Yea,Still an Inliner)

[wheelman]

Kevin,

What you're saying is that it's not possible to reach a conclusion unless you have perfect knowledge. How do you ever make a decision about anything if you really believe that.

 

Also wouldn't you agree that there is a difference between saying "I believe this conslusion to be the most accurate based on the facts I have" and "I can prove this is the absolute truth because I have complete knowledge"?

 

All of us live in the first situation and make decisions based on what we "know" (perceive, deduce, or induce). To expect perfect knowledge before reaching a conclusion means you're always in a state of limbo waiting for the last fact. You also have no way of gauging when you've received the "last" fact. So where does that leave you.

 

I don't understand how you make the leap from wanting complete knowledge and not having it to believing the world is run by some shadowy secret group. Is it that you think someone is purposely preventing you from attaining perfect knowledge and doing so for nefarious reasons?

 

Jon,

Regarding Carnivore. It's not possible that all email or internet traffic is monitored by carnivore unless every server owned and operated by every ISP and private company is running the carnivore program. My understanding is that carnivore tries to monitor international traffic and looks for certain key words that trigger further investigation. I don't think all international internet traffic is even routed through it, so the idea that Big Brother is watching us is laughable.

As for should the government read our email? No. Unless we've already demonstrated through our behaviour patterns that we are a threat to the country. It would still require some sort of wire tap on my personal DSL line for them to get at it as my email isn't provided by my ISP. More effort than it's worth for email I send and receive, unless they want to read several hundred spam messages a week.

 

Lots of things can be done, the real question is "Will the big bad government read me email"? Personally I'm more worried about viruses and hackers (criminals) breaking into my computer to steal credit card numbers and such than the government.

 

Wheelman

[JMortensen]

It would still require some sort of wire tap on my personal DSL line for them to get at it as my email isn't provided by my ISP. More effort than it's worth for email I send and receive, unless they want to read several hundred spam messages a week.

 

Last post on the email thing then I'm done trying to convince you Wheelman.

 

There have been plenty of illegal wire taps to prove that the wire tap authority could be abused. It's too easy to plant crap on anyone. If you read someone's snail mail that is one thing. The letter still goes to their home, they receive it and don't know that it has been read. Electonic files are totally different.

 

Picture this: you wake up in the morning and find out on the news that the FBI raided a suspected child pornographer's house. They got a warrant for his computer and analyzed the hard drive and found 1000's of child porn pictures.

 

Now which of us is going to defend the guy who has 1000's of kiddy porn pics on his hard drive? Might he have been framed? Will the jury convict? The idea is that it is EASIER to plant evidence in the world of electronic file transfer than it was through the mail. Physical evidence of wrongdoing isn't even necessary. Just electrons shooting through a wire and all of a sudden your guilty.

 

Again, I'm not saying that this is anyone's intent or that we should be worried about this happening to us. Just that it is a possibility, and that if someone was in a position to misuse the power and wanted to, it would be relatively easy to do so.

[wheelman]

Jon,

I have to agree with your last post and the state of security on most home computers makes it a very trivial matter to hack in and plant files (thank you very much Micro$oft). I guess where we diverge is the idea that the Patriot Act has somehow made this EASIER or more likely to happen. I don't believe it has, although as I said in a prior post I don't trust the government with any more power than it absolutely needs. I hope that when the War on Terror winds down, if it ever does, the Patriot Act will be relegated to ash heap of history.

 

Wheelman

[Michael]

Pete,

 

I didn’t want to identify folks by name, but yes, in my previous post I was thinking of you and others of my friends in the D.C. area.

 

You make a critically important point, which has much to do with the psychology of the differences in our positions. You actually feel safer surrounded by a barbed wire fence and armed guards. Whereas I feel threatened! The barbed wire makes me think of Dachau.

 

In your perspective, evidently, the guards are there to protect you, too. Protecting the “secrets†going on at the military base, and protecting the men and women who work on them, are intimately related. As a law-abiding citizen just doing his job, protecting the secrets means protecting you, too – hence, the guards are on your side.

 

Whereas in my view, the interests of the government and of the individual are invariably at odds. The government which is “best†is that government that’s mired in confrontation with other concentrations of power, such a corporations, unions, PACs, churches, whatever. Then, the individual can “relax†while the various organs of power battle it out. Those teens in uniform toting M16s are there to protect the interests of the government. I do NOT see those interests as my interests. But I swallow my pride and stomach the situation, because I’d rather work in my relatively cushy job than pump gas or dig ditches, even if it means being surrounded by barbed wire. There indeed crumbles the courage of my convictions.

 

The conservative newspaper columnist George Will put it quite deftly, when he wrote that a quintessential feature of government is that it has a monopoly on the legitimate exercise of violence. I agree. But that is precisely what scares me. No terrorist, no matter how brutal, how cunning or how amoral, can exercise violence with “legitimacyâ€. And in that sense, terrorists can be fought. But government is special. Government can exercise violence legitimately – that is its prerogative. One can not hope to confront the government with violence, and entertain the hope – even in the abstract – of winning.

 

 

If I may put forth some rather curt and perhaps inflammatory statements:

 

1. I personally feel far more threatened by soldiers with M16s than by turban-clad lunatics with Ak-47s.

 

2. Most emphatically, I do not believe that the U.S. should be at war, or that the “war on terrorism†is a war at all. War, by definition, is between nation-states; between governments.

 

3. And, to be entirely forthright, I would rather risk being blown up by terrorists than being interrogated in a basement cell of some federal building. I don’t say this in some benighted effort to appear heroic, in the “give me liberty or give me death†sense. But I’ve heard enough from first-hand sources about what it means to be “protected†by one’s government.

[Kevin Shasteen]

Kevin' date='

1) What you're saying is that it's not possible to reach a conclusion unless you have perfect knowledge. How do you ever make a decision about anything if you really believe that.

 

2) Also wouldn't you agree that there is a difference between saying "I believe this conslusion to be the most accurate based on the facts I have" and "I can prove this is the absolute truth because I have complete knowledge"?

 

3) All of us live in the first situation and make decisions based on what we "know" (perceive, deduce, or induce). To expect perfect knowledge before reaching a conclusion means you're always in a state of limbo waiting for the last fact. You also have no way of gauging when you've received the "last" fact. So where does that leave you.

 

4) I don't understand how you make the leap from wanting complete knowledge and not having it to believing the world is run by some shadowy secret group. Is it that you think someone is purposely preventing you from attaining perfect knowledge and doing so for nefarious reasons? [/quote']

 

Wheelman,

 

Interesting isnt it? How everyone claims you dont need 100% proof to form an opinion. Yet when you claim to have an opinion, that doesnt have 100% proof, and this opinion differs w/others it is called a conspiracy theory - sounds like a double standard to me.

 

#1. I am not saying its not possible to make a conclusion w/out perfect knowledge: Those were your words not mine. What I said was, if you base your opinion on what knowledge you have w/out said knowledge being complete - then it is only an OPINION..., it IS NOT FACT. And those that make an opinion w/incomplete "perfect knowledge" as you put it should not argue that their decision is right or wrong - rather they should admit that their OPINION was based on what "limited" facts they had.

 

#2. Thank You - that is all I have been trying to get accross w/all my posts. I couldnt have said it any better.

 

#3. Well I dont know about you but I dont make decisions based on incomplete facts. I may have an opinion but I am not so opinionated that I would ever say I have all the facts. My opinion is subject to change if/when new facts are found. Until then - an opinion is just that: IT IS ONLY AN OPINION.

 

#4. I never said I wanted perfect knowledge - again those are your words. And some questionable unproven theories are rediculous while others are not so rediculous. IMHO, I do believe in God and what his word says. How interesting it is that Daniel predicted a global order that would rule the world...I find that very facsinating that such a story was written thousands of years prior to what we are currently about to experience "GLOBALISM".

 

And yes I also believe evil is real and attempts to work through govt through its secret and not always so secret org's. It usually isnt secret or hidden if you are willing to research: just like John Kerry's running mate John Edwards....why would the newspapers write how the "Bilderburgers" were responsible for choosing John Edwards as Kerry's runningmate? Isnt John Kerry suppose to be the one that makes that decision?

 

Oh wait, I'm sorry - to read that story in the newspaper and then talk about it and believe that the Bilderburgers actually affect our current events would mean you believe in conspiracy theories...but yet the mainstream papers wrote the exact same article shortly after Edwards was announced...I guess the newspapers didnt really know what they were talking about.

 

Why hasnt the onwer of Building #7's interview on a public ran PBS film where he admitted "I decided to PULL the building due to the surface damage caused by the falling debris from the other buildings" make the newspapers?

 

For those who dont know what "Pulling" means, it is a Demolitionist term and means to "Implode" a building. If the owner, on the spur of the moment decided to "PULL" the building this would imply that the explosives were already in the building - otherwise how could a building be imploded only minutes after the decision was made when it takes months to prep a high rise building for said implosion. Yet no one wants to talk about building #7 - ooooh, conspiracy theory wacko nut weirdo.

 

Never in the history that mankind has been building high rises has a steel frame building perfectly fallen inward, just like an implosion, due to debris falling on it from the outside - NEVER! Untill of course 911's building #7...yet the owner of the building admitted that he gave the go to "Pull" it...implying the explosives were already there!

 

I dont know about you but I would really like more "perfect knowledge"...whatever you want to call it, before I form an opinion about 911 and the Patriot Act I, II. Right now w/out that disclosure my opinion about 911 is highly suspect.

 

I would also challenge you to read Albert Pike's essays. He has been given the title as the father of modern day freemasonry. Did you know that he laid out exact plans for how WWIII would take place - read it and you will see that we are following said Albert Pike's sugestions to the letter. But I'm sure I'm just one of those crazy people who read too much.

 

FWIW: I dont believ they, whomever they are, will have TOTAL control, but they will and do sway how events will play out.

 

Yes, it is only my opinion and I'm not afraid to make said opinion.

 

Kevin,

(Yea,Still an Inliner)