Top Leaderboard, Site wide
September 1, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


Satellite Mapping Shows Ice Caps’ Faster Melt Rate






Truthdig Bazaar
The Case for Big Government

The Case for Big Government

By Jeff Madrick
$15.61

more items

 
Report

Cheering for Ron Paul

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Nov 20, 2007
Ron Paul
AP photo / Charles Dharapak

By Robert Scheer

What can you get for a trillion bucks?  Or make that $1.6 trillion, if you take the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as tallied by the majority staff of Congress’ Joint Economic Committee (JEC).  Or is it the $3.5-trillion figure cited by Ron Paul, whose concern about the true cost of this war for ordinary Americans shames the leading Democrats, who prattle on about needed domestic programs that will never find funding because of future war-related government debt?

Given that the overall defense budget is now double what it was when President Bush’s father presided over the end of the Cold War—even though we don’t have a militarily sophisticated enemy in sight—you have to wonder how this president has managed to exceed Cold War spending levels.  What has he gotten for the trillions wasted? Nothing, when it comes to capturing Osama bin Laden, bringing democracy to Iraq or preventing oil prices from tripling and enriching the ayatollahs of Iran while messing up the American economy.

That money could have paid for a lot of things we could have used here at home.  As Rep. Paul points out, for what the Iraq war costs, we could present each family of four a check for $46,000—which exceeds the $43,000 median household income in his Texas district.  He asks: “What about the impact of those costs on education, the very thing that so often helps to increase earnings?  Forty-six thousand dollars would cover 90 percent of the tuition costs to attend a four-year public university in Texas for both children in that family of four.  But, instead of sending kids to college, too often we’re sending them to Iraq, where the best news in a long time is they [the insurgents] aren’t killing our men and women as fast as they were last month.”

How damning that it takes a libertarian Republican to remind the leading Democratic candidates of the opportunity costs of a war that most Democrats in Congress voted for.  But they don’t need to take Paul’s word for it; last week, the majority staff of the Joint Economic Committee in Congress came up with similarly startling estimates of the long-term costs of this war.

The White House has quibbled over the methods employed by the JEC to calculate the real costs of our two foreign wars, because the Democrats in the majority dared to include in their calculations the long-term care of wounded soldiers and the interest to be paid on the debt financing the war.  Of course, you need to account for the additional debt run up by an administration that, instead of raising taxes to pay for the war, cut them by relying on the Chinese Communists and other foreigners who hold so much of our debt.  As concluded by the JEC report, compiled by the committee’s professional staff, “almost 10 percent of total federal government interest payments in 2008 will consist of payments on the Iraq debt accumulated so far.”

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
However, even if you take the hard figure of the $804 billion the administration demanded for the past five years, and ignore all the long-run costs like debt service, we’re still not talking chump change here.  For example, Bush has asked for an additional $196 billion in supplementary aid for his wars, which is $60 billion more than the total spent by the U.S. government last year on all of America’s infrastructure repairs, the National Institutes of Health, college tuition assistance and the SCHIP program to provide health insurance to kids who don’t have any.

On this matter of covering the uninsured, it should be pointed out to those who say we (alone among industrialized nations) can’t afford it that we could have covered all 47 million uninsured Americans over the past six years for what the Iraq war cost us.  How come that choice—war in Iraq or full medical coverage for all Americans—was never presented to the American people by the Democrats and Republicans who voted for this war and continue to finance it?

Those now celebrating the supposed success of the surge might note that, as the JEC report points out, “[m]aintaining post-surge troop levels in Iraq over the next ten years would result in costs of $4.5 trillion.”  Until the leading Democratic candidate faces up to the irreparable harm that will be done to needed social programs over the next decades by the red-ink spending she supported, I will be cheering for the libertarian Republican.  At least he won’t throw more money down some foreign rat hole.

Click here to check out Robert Scheer’s book,
“The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street.”


Keep up with Robert Scheer’s latest columns, interviews, tour dates and more at www.truthdig.com/robert_scheer.



Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: What Would Jesus Buy?

Next item: A Telling Rejection of Rudy



New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 26, 2007 at 2:30 pm Link to this comment

Actually LWM, you are quoting Cyrena.  But she expressed my sentiments precisely.  (Adverb used correctly, NC?)

Report this

By LWM, November 26, 2007 at 2:13 pm Link to this comment

The First Real National Poll
by: Chris Bowers
Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 17:30:08 PM EST

In my nomination at a glance tables, I have used Pollster.com’s national poll regression lines (Democratic here and Republican here) as a substitute for comprehensive, February 5th, Super Tuesday polls. Lacking comprehensive polling for the twenty or so states that would take place on Super Tuesday, I figured that national polls probably were not really all that different from such a wide swath of the country, anyway. However, new data from Rasmussen Reports indicates that might not actually be the case. Here is Rasmussen’s data on the February 5th states, with national numbers in parenthesis:

Super Tuesday, Democrats
Clinton: 41 (41)
Obama: 23 (17)
Edwards: 14 (14)
Richardson: 5 (5)
Biden: 3 (5)
No one else above 2%

Apart from Obama’s better position on February 5th compared to his national numbers, a difference which is statistically significant, there are no real differences. However, the Obama difference is important, since it further emphasizes that he will almost certainly win the nomination if he sweeps Iowa and New Hampshire. Wins in those two states will probably allow him to gain much more than 18% on Clinton, especially since he is facing a smaller deficit in South Carolina. Of course, there is the possibility that even if Obama sweeps Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, that Clinton could blunt his momentum and maintain a narrow lead should she receive a boost from Michigan, Nevada and Florida.

Super Tuesday, Republicans
Giuliani: 27 (24)
Huckabee: 14 (13)
Thompson: 14 (13)
McCain: 11 (11)
Romney: 10 (13)
Paul: 4 (6)
No other candidate above 2%

Again, while there are few differences, the differences that do exist are quite important. In particular, Giuliani is stronger on Super Tuesday than he is nationally. This gives some credence to the notion that he can rely on New York, New Jersey, and a couple other bluish states on Super Tuesday no matter what happens in the early states. Also, that Romney is weaker in the Super Tuesday states than he is nationally further emphasizes how he can’t have any slip-ups in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. He needs to sweep those states, or go bust.

I’d love it if more polling organizations started incorporating Super Tuesday focused in their public releases, instead of relying so heavily on less meaningful national polls. It reminds me of the great advancement that was made in congressional polling last year, when “competitive district” named and generic ballot polls began to proliferate. With only ten weeks to Super Tuesday, this would be a nice advancement in the public understanding of the horserace. 

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2494

And I highly recommend Open Left to all of you real progressives here. You know who you are. Yes, that includes you, Ernest. They love Kucinich over there, but they are reality based.

http://www.openleft.com/frontPage.do


Even my alter ego, ITW.

Report this

By LWM, November 26, 2007 at 1:58 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous… Meantime, when MEN start getting pregnant, and giving birth, and caring for one or more children for the rest of their natural lives, I may reconsider the subject. But until then, I think they should just STFU!!!

If men could get pregnant there’d be abortion clinics next to every bar, open 24/7/365.

Report this

By LWM, November 26, 2007 at 1:51 pm Link to this comment

#115940 by Sleeper on 11/26 at 10:06 am

I’d respond to you but I’m not sure what language would be appropriate. “Oral disentary,” indeed. Better yet, take Ernest’s earnest advice.

#115944 by Ernest Canning on 11/26 at 10:21 am

sleeper, perhaps we would do well not to respond to LWM…

In the meantime, an update on Kucinich moving up in the polls in New Hampshire and his current efforts within the Granite State can be found at…

Ah, yes. The self-importance of being Ernest.

About a month ago:

New Hampshire Poll Shows Bumps For Kucnich and Obama
by: Chris Bowers
Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 16:30:33 PM EDT

A new Rasmussen poll out of New Hampshire shows the campaign getting more interesting:

10/23, 841 LVs, IVR style, 9/16 results in parenthesis
Clinton 38% (40%)
Obama: 22% (17%)
Edwards: 14% (14%)
Kucinich: 7% (at or below 2%)
Richardson: 7% (11%)
No one else above 2%...

(...)

It is important to keep in mind that the state of the campaign in early states is roughly where the campaign would nationally if there was actually a national campaign. The basic reason why national polls and early state polls are different is because the early states are where candidates are actually campaigning. Thus, how close the campaign is in the early states is how close the campaign actually is, overall.

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2095

Outlier or trend, Kucinich has more ground to cover in New Hamphire than Ron Paul. New Hampshire being the only eastern state Paul has a chance of showing in the finish. He won’t win or place.

Ernest is the exception to the rule. I’m sure most Kucinich supporters are nothing like Ron Paul’s, as the fellow who runs the Straw Poll website found out months ago.

http://www.strawpoll08.com/

Read the whole letter. Very funny.

http://www.strawpoll08.com/ronpaul.htm

About Ron Paul

Many are asking, “Why isn’t Ron Paul on the condensed monthly poll and weekly poll?”

I’ll give a time line and summary of developments on this site relating to Ron Paul.

When Ron Paul first announced I received many emails telling me to put him on. Not nice emails.  They were emails filled with expletives and full of berating comments.

Since strawpoll08 is trying to be fair and include all, (as you can see from having over 120 candidates and over 50 parties to choose from) I decided to put him on all the polls.

I soon learned something. In the world of the Ron Paul follower, if he isn’t winning, then it must be because of a big vast corporate conspiracy meant to suppress him. But if he is winning, then it’s the Jesus given truth.

Well Ron Paul wasn’t winning some of the polls.  Because of this I received many berating emails filled with expletives, insults and conspiracy theories. The chat room and myspace messages were filled with such messages too.

We’re not talking a handful of idiots here.  We’re talking many uncouth idiots…

My point?  My site is not the only one that recognizes Paul supporters need a serious attitude adjustment.

I never received a message from another candidate’s followers berating me about their candidate.  Not one!  Now don’t you Paulies start sending me messages acting like you support someone else, and then berate me in their name.  I’ll know it’s you doing it.  Receiving one or two berating messages from another candidate’s followers isn’t going to make me take them off my polls.  I’m on to the games you all will try to play after reading this….

Report this

By LWM, November 26, 2007 at 1:27 pm Link to this comment

#115964 by antispin on 11/26 at 11:22 am


Jaki is right: if Paul rejects the rights of women then shit-can his candidacy and drop it off the end of pier.  Too bad - it would great to be able to support a Republican.

Denying women’s reproductive rights is a major deal breaker but of all the other glaring problems with Ron Paul, that is the one issue that takes the lipstick off that pig? Whatever. As long as you have your head on straight. The fact that he’s a Republican was enough for me. He’s no Eisenhower.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 26, 2007 at 12:44 pm Link to this comment

Non Credo on 11/26 at 12:15 pm
(609 comments total)

re: Jaki #115858:

What really scares me about many anti-abortion fanatics is that they want to make abortion “murder”, but they wish effectively to turn women into not-quite-adults before the law, by making them non-responsible for these “murders.” This is their idea of a “compromise” that will make criminalization of abortion more palatable.

They want to make women legally equivalent to dependent children.

Many anti-abortion zealots don’t want to punish women as “murderers” when they get abortions. They want to charge only the doctors with murder, because a woman is “not really responsible”.

So the woman, even if an adult, becomes this sort infantile semi-adult. This is supposed to be some sort of “Christian” gallantry: “There there, you poor thing, you’re just a woman — your emotions misled you. These things happen. We’re going to execute the bad doctor who took advantage of your womanly weakness…”

But the implications of this are extremely destructive to any sort of legal equality or even humanity for women.

****************

This is really scary.  NC, you actually wrote something I agree with completely. But if I just remind myself that even a broken clock is right twice a day, I’ll get through it.

I don’t give a rat’s gluteous maximus what you think.  It is (and should be) obvious to anyone with a critical eye and mind that LWM takes different views than I do. It also should be obvious that our writing styles are different.
Furthermore, I have NO reason to post under another handle—that’s just stupid paranoia on your part, AntiPatrickHenry’s, and that of “Robert the Xerox Guy” (‘cuz all his posts are xeroxes of somebody else’s work, or a string of stupid and vile invective—he’s not even CLEVER with his insults)

Report this

By antispin, November 26, 2007 at 12:22 pm Link to this comment

Jaki is right: if Paul rejects the rights of women then shit-can his candidacy and drop it off the end of pier.  Too bad - it would great to be able to support a Republican.

Report this

By cyrena, November 26, 2007 at 12:18 pm Link to this comment

#115895 by Shenonymous

Shenonymous,

Thanks ever so much for the compliment. And the encouragement. We’re supposed to be tireless, (I know) but admittedly, I’m not ‘feelin’ it’ at the moment. (maybe after my 3rd cup of coffee).

I too am glad that the anti-abortion subject and Ron Paul has re-entered the conversation, if only because memories are short, or issues are discussed so fleetingly, that people come and go to/from this or other blogs intermittently, and could easily have missed earlier conversations on it. And, I don’t know how often this comes up these days, from Dr. Paul himself. I say that because I suspect he may very well be avoiding such discussion, rather than have his real opinions known to the newer crowd that joins the discourse.

So, for the record, he IS anti-abortion, or anti-choice, however one wishes to put it. As a physician, this is abominable, for he is allowing his personal ideology to interfere with the treatment that he has sworn to provide. As a ‘claimed’ constitutionalist, it is despicable, because the issue was decided 30 plus years ago, and there is no reason or need for ANYONE to have this on their ‘political’ agenda. It is NOT a ‘political’ issue anymore than any doctor/politician should decide whether or not an individual undergoes a vasectomy or a blood transfusion, or an in-vitro fertilization, or the removal of a brain tumor. I don’t understand (and never have) how or why anybody should care about this issue when it involves anyone other than themselves or their own immediate loved ones. And, no person has yet to provide anything close to an explanation on why THEY care, if a perfect stranger that they obviously care nothing for or about, would choose to terminate a pregnancy.

I would have a tad bit more understanding of this, if we were some small country (like Israel) or even a very small ‘tribe’ of sorts, where the ENTIRE community treated it’s children as their own, (like Israel does have this collective mentality in reference to it’s military, because all citizens are required to serve – both genders) or like some Native American tribes where the children really do ‘belong’ to the entire community, or at least that’s more or less the collective cultural mentality. I use these only as examples, because I don’t believe that mentality to exist in these situations on any large scale here in the US. The point though, is that this would be my only way of ‘understanding’ how anyone else could or should care.

As we know, that is NOT the case with the anti-abortion folks in this country. They have no interest in providing for the health or well-being of any child born here, and THAT has been proven over and over again. They have NO concern for the huge disparities in infant mortality rates in the poorer regions of this country, and particularly the regions that are occupied primarily by people of color, who are not equipped to raise children, because they can’t necessarily even feed them, let alone house them or educate them. Women in these same areas do NOT have access to health care, (prenatal or otherwise) and yet that is of no concern to these millions who want to outlaw such a procedure. The hypocrisy involved in caring more about an unborn stranger (or pretending to) than a real live human being simply never ceases to amaze me. But, that’s what it boils down to.

Meantime, when MEN start getting pregnant, and giving birth, and caring for one or more children for the rest of their natural lives, I may reconsider the subject. But until then, I think they should just STFU!!!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 26, 2007 at 11:44 am Link to this comment

Non Credo, do you have any idea how many of those pregnant pro-abortion women out there are really children?  The men who impregnated them ought to be criminalized maybe, and I know I’m dreaming, maybe fewer rapes and fewer teenage pregnancies would happen and the abortion issue would be reduced.  Instead it is these females who are always condemned. 

Just a couple of statistics:  Each year in America, almost one million teenage women become pregnant, 13% of all US births are to teens. 

I refer you to
http://www.overpopulation.org/teenpreg.html

38% of women who have been raped were 14-17 years old. 

http://www.psu.edu/ouic/orientation100/T10/sexassult.html

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey there were an estimated 248,000 rapes and sexual assaults against victims over the age of 12 in the US in 2001. (US Department of Justice)

What is incredibly interesting is that our government is unable to provide any recent statistics, even up as late as 2005.  I’ve contacted the Justice Department.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 26, 2007 at 11:21 am Link to this comment

sleeper, perhaps we would do well not to respond to LWM aka (L)ost (W)ithout a (M)ind.  After a time even he may grow tired of his psychopathic rants and just go away.

In the meantime, an update on Kucinich moving up in the polls in New Hampshire and his current efforts within the Granite State can be found at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrzzZpK07Q8

Report this

By Sleeper, November 26, 2007 at 11:06 am Link to this comment

#115924 by LWM on 11/26 at 9:09 am

LWM,

I think I’ve watched you run on with enough sensless crap that every once in a while I add something that pertains to the subject matter of the discussion.  Then you come out with the above crap.

Some day maybe you will grow up and join the real world where some people actually back up the oral disentary with a little action. 

I’ve lived through and am very much invested in this tradgedy.  I have been on a front line against terrorist before, but it seem continually since 1983.  Have you ever worked?  Your pretty full of some psychotic dream world. 

I suppose you dictate to a group of joyful serfs that are plenty willing to kiss your selfrighteous ass.  I hope you meet some of the really passive agressive types soon, you deserve it.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 26, 2007 at 11:00 am Link to this comment

Ernest, yup, it is sexist. I am not allergic to that word.  Reality is sometimes distasteful.  Have a glass of good wine and keep supporting NOW.  I do believe Richard Dawkins would say that male predisposition for dominance was genetic.  And while at one time in human evolution that might have been a strategy for survival, we have crawled out of the cave a long time ago.  But the male right brain has not yet caught up.  The chromosomes that determine embryonic sex hasn’t evolved that gene for the notion of equality in the human male yet.  It might take another hundred thousand years if we women had to wait for that to happen. And since we are the ‘smarter” sex, we won’t wait.  Now not everyone appreciates Dawkins as much as I do, such is life, telle est la vie.  Whatever floats your boat.

Report this

By bobadi, November 26, 2007 at 10:33 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

On and on we go, everything touched upon from woman’s rights to the control AIPAC has on us.

I guess Greens are just not sexy enough to hold anyone’s interest here.

It far more interesting for you to busy yourselves with the minutia of escapism away from Neo-conservatism, of political intrigue, especially but not limited to those foolish supporters of Ron Paul (someone who I happen to mostly agree with on many subjects except for this one all important point).

This is why you all continue to argue falsely as if the Military Industrial Complex, or Corporatism, or the Israeli lobby, or health care, or education, or economics or any other; is the one ultra important issue facing our country and our world today.

Makes sense.

It’s just too difficult for you to contemplate the BY FAR larger; world ending ecological nightmare, that you, and especially Ron Paul, all would rather; completely ignore.

It is far easier for you to debate these comparably minor issues which helps to steer your attention away from the absolute need to make deep and meaningful changes in your own personal lifestyles and of course; the much needed changes to all of your single, personal political ideologies that continue to bath you in the your own supposed romantic; “political pundit” glory. 

I wonder if cancer cells behave in this same way?

Perhaps they specialize in keeping themselves happily busy, multiplying, consuming, thriving in deep occupation competing for domination and minor group directional changes throughout the body’s different organs, ignorant of the day in which they bring their host, their world, and themselves to their ultimate; final, and catastrophic end.

Report this

By LWM, November 26, 2007 at 10:09 am Link to this comment

#115875 by Sleeper,

Read up on propaganda.

I can supply you with some links.

Or start with Leni Riefenstahl.

This is a left leaning (in terms of current American politics) progressive blog. That kind of silly crap has little to no effect on the reality based among us.

Report this

By LWM, November 26, 2007 at 9:58 am Link to this comment

Cyrena… Now of course that immediately turns me into a ‘conspiracy’ theorist, if I suggest that while at least SOME members of the administration may have ‘appeared’ to ignore the intelligence, there could still have been others who decided to take a different angle on it, and actually allow and plan for them to go forth.

Not at all, Cyrena. I have said before, on this very thread that, I can accept that possibilty. I tend towards the total incompetence/turning a blind eye thesis or explanation. One would hope that if anyone had a clue about 4 jets being hijacked, where and when and what targets, it would be stopped, but anything is possible. That goes under the turning a blind eye with specific information that would have allowed them to stop it. Evidence of that, if it still exists, will be hard to come by. I just will never buy into the grand conspiracy that was planned by PNAC and this administration and carried off with controlled demolitions and cruise missiles and the assistance of the Mossad. I keep an open mind, but no so open as to let my brains fall out. I do not think of you as a conspiracy theorist. Just someone who keeps a reaonably open mind.


And, I’m not just throwing that out there, as a person who routinely indulges in conspiracy type thinking. I don’t. I’m a skeptic, and I do exercise critical thinking, but I’m also inclined to believe (in general terms) that things generally ARE what they ARE. If it looks, walks, and talks like a duck, it probably is a duck. However, there’s no denying that so much of what we’ve taken for granted in the OLD centuries, have been totally turned upside down in this 21st Century, and all things simply are not as they may appear. That’s why I’ve consistently had to do the “rabbit hole check”; ie, is it ME, or has everybody else just lost their damn minds?

Report this

By cann4ing, November 26, 2007 at 9:53 am Link to this comment

Male “genetic predisposition?”  Sounds rather sexist, Shenonymous.  As a male who supports almost all of NOW’s policies, I take offense to that.

Report this

By LWM, November 26, 2007 at 9:05 am Link to this comment

We can safely put Robert and Patrick Henry in the same category, virulent anti-semites. Non-Credo probably, but his real problem is that he sees ITW everywhere he looks. The other two see “The Joos” under every bed and in every woodpile

TBRNews, a well known anti-semitic and holocaust denial propaganda wing of The Barnes Review is typical of the websites they read. Any idiot can figure this out. It is no surprise they are Ron Paul supporters.


The Barnes Review is an anti-Semitic web site whose primary propaganda goal is disparagement of Jews and denial that the Nazi Holocaust ever occurred. The home page of the Barnes Review has included articles with titles such as “The Myth of the Six Million” and “Jewish History, Jewish Religion,” which states, “When the Roman historian Tacitus pointed out 19 centuries ago that the Jews are unique among the races of man in their intense hatred and contempt for all races but their own, he was only repeating what many other scholars had discovered before him.”

The Barnes Review is named after Harry Elmer Barnes, once a well-known and respected World War I historian and revisionist whose obsession with conspiracy theories led him to virulent anti-Jewish bigotry and support for Nazi policies during World War II and to a later belief that the Holocaust was a hoax. It was founded by Willis Carto, who also founded the extreme right-wing Liberty Lobby and the Institute for Historical Review (IHR), another organization engaged in Holocaust denial. Carto founded the Barnes Review after he was forced out of the IHR in 1993 in an apparent dispute over funding and ideology.

Shortly after the commencement of the U.S.-led war in Iraq, the Barnes Review was associated with an attempt to exploit anti-war sentiment by circulating fake whistleblower memos on media bias in the Iraq war.

The Barnes Review is notable for its development of a new bit of PR doublespeak: “junk history,” similar to “junk science”.

TBRNews.org is a website that says it “originally came from the Barnes Review” but is now “under different management.” However, its website continues to offer links to websites that sell Nazi memorabilia and promote books by authors including British Holocaust denier David Irving.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barnes_Review

The Israeli Lobby, as Mearsheimer and Walt choose to call it:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html


...has what many concede is undue influence over current American foreign policy, but you only lend creedence to the charge of anti-semitism when you associate yourselves with the likes of Patrick Henry, Robert and even Ron Paul. Mr Scheer would be wise to make note of that. As to the charge of Zionism… which kind?

Christian Zionism
General Zionists
Labor Zionism
Political Zionism
Reform Zionism
Religious Zionism
Revisionist Zionism
Cultural Zionism

Report this
Robert's avatar

By Robert, November 26, 2007 at 8:06 am Link to this comment

#115846 by Non Credo on 11/25 at 7:42 pm
(607 comments total)

re: #115839 by PatrickHenry on 11/25 at 7:03 pm:

BTW, Pat - you are absolutely right that LWM is ITW.
===============================

Non Credo, Patrick Henry…

LWM (lilmamzer), Lefty (Ephraim Pesach), IWT (inherit the zionist wind) are almost always the same truthdig’s fanatic zionist residents. They hover around truthdig’s threads to attack anyone who tries to post the TRUTH about Israel’s brutal policies in the occupied territories, AIPAC’s control of the US News media and US politicians and much more.

Yep…their zionist manure trails are scattered all over truthdig’s forums! One can really see right through them and their zionist ideology.

These zionist resident(s) are ADL, AIPAC and Zionism’s watch dogs!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 26, 2007 at 7:35 am Link to this comment

Jaki #115858  

It is so heartening another woman has brought to the forefront one of the major impediments Ron Paul represents.  My mention of it early on in this thread went completely unnoticed and other issues eclipsed the matter.  I was hoping for another opportunity to bring it up again.  Your warning about the jeopardy women’s rights would be subjected to were someone of Paul’s mental flavor be made president would set women’s place in society back to pre-19th century’s male antipathy towards women, up most visibly to the 1960s, particularly in 1973 when Roe v. Wade was decided, and even now as we are still struggling against À la peur des femmes.  I put it in French because to say in English “the fear of women” is too inflammatory to the defensive chauvinistic male population in general, but I sneaked it in anyway.  As a result we have to keep fighting the same socially debilitating battles over and over.  It is evident even on this forum if you were to review many of the comments even the last one from the gentle Leefeller shows shadows of it embedded in his question.  The antipathy to which I refer, I believe, is an unconscious, for the most part, almost genetic prepossession that evolved in the culture of the cave.  A tough meme to root out and eradicate.  But we have one thing going for us, we are tireless, we women.

Funny thing, I do not feel a feminist.  I retain admiration for many men but find an unsatisfactory few who deeply understands the plight of women.

You realize it is almost a futile effort.  But you did speak out here and I thank you.  There is another brave and intelligent lady on this thread, Cyrena.  Her grasp of political issues are both amazing and pungent.  You might find her comments enlightening.

I hope to see more of your comments.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 26, 2007 at 7:05 am Link to this comment

Jaki,

With you on the right to choose, be interesting to find out how the other candidates for change, lean on the issue.  Kucinich, and Gravel,

Ron Paul, is the only Republican running that seems to have some sort of integrity, by being against the war he looses funding from special interests, just like Kucinich and Gravel.

Report this

By Sleeper, November 26, 2007 at 5:28 am Link to this comment

Here are three self explainatory videos concerning the Ron Paul candidacy and a few tid-bits about other candidates:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilzoAYE498A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClNTr-3R_dE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mid8-qfJHZ0

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 26, 2007 at 5:18 am Link to this comment

Non Credo on 11/25 at 9:03 pm
(606 comments total)

#115848 by LWM on 11/25 at 8:22 pm:

LWM: our identification of you as ITW is based on far deeper and more extensive similarities than that.

************

NC, get some serious help NOW! Your paranoia and cognitive dissonance have gone out of control.

I have NO idea who LWM is, and I have not posted on this thread—until now. But this crap that he (or she) is me is pure nonsense.  I haven’t been following this thread, so to see you up to the same old, same old to try to discredit an opponent is really depressing. 

So stop with the ad hominem attacks and try, TRY (I know it’s hard) to respond to the issues raised.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, November 26, 2007 at 4:31 am Link to this comment

NC, it only takes a red herring post to bring out the jewish supremist in one who can’t control themselves.

BTW, the reason the ADL/AIPAC trolls will be so adamantly opposed to Ron Paul or Dennnis Kucinich is that when elected they will dry up Israels’ public funding, cutail their spying via Amdocs and Infosys, and place conditions on the weapons they will now have to buy from us In lieu of the U.S. giving them.

Report this

By Jaki, November 26, 2007 at 12:50 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Wasn’t this article about Ron Paul’s candidacy?
Scheer seemed to leave out one very important element in Paul’s belief system:  He DOES NOT SUPPORT A WOMAN’S RIGHT TO CHOOSE.  He is not pro-choice.  He is against a woman having the right to control her own body.  He is willing to let women go back to back alley abortions and self-mutilation.  Because that’s what they will do if Roe v Wade is tampered with.

Well, he’s out for me and millions of other women who refuse to go backwards.

It’s our litmus test for all candidates.

Ron Paul is out of step.  Ron Paul is out.

Report this

By cyrena, November 25, 2007 at 10:30 pm Link to this comment

#115821 by LWM

LWM,

Thanks for the reply on the confusion. I agree wholeheartedly, that it’s definitely enough to add to that confusion, and it all clearly states the obvious…incompetence at the highest levels. So, there is no doubt in my mind that this was indeed a ‘factor’ in the disaster of 9/11. The blasé excuses that they’ve all made, including Condi the Rice, with everybody pointing the finger at somebody else, for not passing on what was obviously critical information. And, the same goes for the information that was collected by some FBI folks, I believe in Minnesota, regarding the highjacker that allegedly trained at some facility there, and then was promptly ignored, or otherwise tossed aside as a result of bureaucratic infighting. In other words, they never followed up on a bunch of stuff, and ignored too much other stuff.

I’m not ignoring all of that myself, though I admit that it added to my own confusion, (at least initially) and if I had all of the answers even now, I’d surely share them with SOMEBODY, after lining up a secure protection system for myself. (like my own handpicked “Secret Service”) So, while I’ve never doubted the information on bin Laden’s threat or intent to target the US, I’m still not 100% convinced that he actually did. I mean, bin Laden (from what we’ve read over the past 15 or so years) isn’t exactly a model for sane, rational, or balanced thought. He was equally anxious to provoke and wage a war against Saddam Hussein’s secular Iraq nearly 2 decades ago, until he was reminded that Saddam’s army, (at least at the time) just happened to be the 4th most powerful army on the globe, and OBL MAYBE had 300 fighters at the ‘peak’ of his operation. So, while I’m certainly not discounting those threats, or the incompetence of the thugs in DC who overlooked it all, I’ve also needed to consider the fact that maybe, possibly, not ALL of them DID “overlook” it. In other words, Bush may indeed have had knowledge of this in advance, (although my own guess would be more like CHENEY had knowledge in advance) but that it was hardly ‘incompetence’ that prevented them from doing anything about it.

Now of course that immediately turns me into a ‘conspiracy’ theorist, if I suggest that while at least SOME members of the administration may have ‘appeared’ to ignore the intelligence, there could still have been others who decided to take a different angle on it, and actually allow and plan for them to go forth. And, I’m not just throwing that out there, as a person who routinely indulges in conspiracy type thinking. I don’t. I’m a skeptic, and I do exercise critical thinking, but I’m also inclined to believe (in general terms) that things generally ARE what they ARE. If it looks, walks, and talks like a duck, it probably is a duck. However, there’s no denying that so much of what we’ve taken for granted in the OLD centuries, have been totally turned upside down in this 21st Century, and all things simply are not as they may appear. That’s why I’ve consistently had to do the “rabbit hole check”; ie, is it ME, or has everybody else just lost their damn minds?

At any rate, there’s no denying the incompetence of this administration, but I’ve never assumed that the right hand necessarily knew what the left fist was doing in that Cabal. And incompetence can exist quite easily, alongside downright criminal behavior and intent. In fact, the combination can come in quite handy for those with the criminal intent.

Report this

By cyrena, November 25, 2007 at 10:28 pm Link to this comment

Part 2 of 2 #115821 by LWM

Still, my own lengthy response only came about as a result of Nonmesky’s suggestion that if the pilots on 9/11 had been equipped with guns, this probably wouldn’t have happened. It’s the typical overly simplistic kind of thing that would come from a person whose world view could fit on the head of a pin. In other words, it’s all the fault of regulation and government, and everybody should just do whatever the hell they want to do, as if they were the only people in the universe, and if there DO happen to be some other folks around at any given time, then surely those other people must think exactly like they do, or they’ll just take ‘em out.

Needless to say, that’s exactly the kind of razor thin mentality that has us in this huge free fall decline that we’re in, and the Little House on the Prairie scenario just doesn’t cut it in the 21st century. And, if in fact he or she really did get what they hope for in a Ron Paul Hobbsian type existence, they’d be the first to fall…toting all of those guns can weigh one down, especially if some light stepping being comes up and chops off their head with a single stroke of a well maintained blade. So, I think folks should be careful about what they wish for.

Meantime, the new word for homeless is ‘residentially challenged’. Swear to god…I just saw a woman holding a sign that said exactly that, as I was leaving the grocery store, having spent my last few cents on a jar of pickles.

I don’t think she was kidding…

Report this

By LWM, November 25, 2007 at 9:22 pm Link to this comment

BTW, Pat - you are absolutely right that LWM is ITW.

Seriously, what are the odds that two different people might point out that Patrick Henry reads anti-semitic and holocaust denial websites? Almost as slim as finding one of the few left-wing anti-semites around, I guess. Assuming you are telling the truth. That’s not an assumption I would make.

Report this

By LWM, November 25, 2007 at 8:25 pm Link to this comment

Leefeller on 11/25 at 7:20 pm


LWM,

Maybe new world order was the wrong choice of words, I was referring to WTO and Nafta, and the elimination of borders between Mexico, Canida and USA, the world plan by the neocons.

Fair enough. Understand The Right if you want to beat it.

Start here

http://www.publiceye.org/study_right.html

and refer to this website often.

This chart will help:

http://www.publiceye.org/research/chart_of_sectors.html

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 25, 2007 at 8:20 pm Link to this comment

LWM,

Maybe new world order was the wrong choice of words, I was referring to WTO and Nafta, and the elimination of borders between Mexico, Canida and USA, the world plan by the neocons.

Report this

By LWM, November 25, 2007 at 8:17 pm Link to this comment

Oh, thank you, Patrick Henry. Thank you for that! It’s like shooting fish in a barrel here.


Patrick Henry… A report some months ago at http://tbrnews.org/Archives/a2774.htm

The Barnes Review

The Barnes Review is a magazine founded by Willis Carto, dedicated to historical revisionism such as Holocaust denial. Willis Carto had earlier founded the Institute for Historical Review in 1979 but lost control of that organization in an internal takeover by former associates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnes_Review


The Barnes Review
The Barnes Review is an anti-Semitic web site whose primary propaganda goal is disparagement of Jews and denial that the Nazi Holocaust ever occurred. The home page of the Barnes Review has included articles with titles such as “The Myth of the Six Million” and “Jewish History, Jewish Religion,” which states, “When the Roman historian Tacitus pointed out 19 centuries ago that the Jews are unique among the races of man in their intense hatred and contempt for all races but their own, he was only repeating what many other scholars had discovered before him.”

The Barnes Review is named after Harry Elmer Barnes, once a well-known and respected World War I historian and revisionist whose obsession with conspiracy theories led him to virulent anti-Jewish bigotry and support for Nazi policies during World War II and to a later belief that the Holocaust was a hoax. It was founded by Willis Carto, who also founded the extreme right-wing Liberty Lobby and the Institute for Historical Review (IHR), another organization engaged in Holocaust denial. Carto founded the Barnes Review after he was forced out of the IHR in 1993 in an apparent dispute over funding and ideology.

Shortly after the commencement of the U.S.-led war in Iraq, the Barnes Review was associated with an attempt to exploit anti-war sentiment by circulating fake whistleblower memos on media bias in the Iraq war.

The Barnes Review is notable for its development of a new bit of PR doublespeak: “junk history,” similar to “junk science”.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barnes_Review

Report this

By LWM, November 25, 2007 at 8:11 pm Link to this comment

Does this site attract weirdos or what?

Between this dingbat:

how does that fit into the new world order, we seem to be forced to take?

New World Order (conspiracy)


A New World Order (Novus Ordo Mundi or Novus Ordo Seclorum) refers to a conspiracy theory, in which a powerful and secretive group is to be conspiring to eventually rule the world via an autonomous world government, which would replace sovereign states and other checks and balances in world power struggles. In the new world order, many significant occurrences are caused by a powerful secret group. Historical and current events are seen as steps in an on-going plot to rule the world primarily through a combination of political finance, social engineering, mind control, and fear-based propaganda.
 

And the Jew obsessed nut bar, Non Credo, I think I have a better place for them.

http://batr.org/gulag/081903.html

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, November 25, 2007 at 8:03 pm Link to this comment

#115828 by Non Credo

I hear and agree with what your saying NC, moreover, to add to the 9/11 posts here it would seem those who are the most pro Israel supporters are the most ardent 9/11 conspiracy debunkers.

A report some months ago at http://tbrnews.org/Archives/a2774.htm gave a likely sequence of events which would clearly implicate elements of the American and Israeli governments with the terrorists.

If vetted and this information were to be proven true, heads would roll.  Israel would face U.S. Marines instead of rock throwing Palistinian youth.  Alot of Marines would be looking for some payback if the following were also true.  http://just-another-inside-job.blogspot.com/2007/04/zionist-s-killing-of-us-marines-in.html

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 25, 2007 at 7:51 pm Link to this comment

For the longest time I have believed the Neconrepubs and the democrats were in tandem when it comes to the war in Iraq. Differences between the Dems and repubs are minor, they all look the same with their heads up their arses. 

Non, if your premise is correct why not focus on the Neocons instead of their Jewish connection?  Must admit your opinion is much easer to take than some of the other anti Jewish posts. Wasp neocons, jewish neocons, how does that fit into the new world order, we seem to be forced to take?

It seems to me that the Jewish people only seem smarter then the rest of our lovely nation of morons, only because they are educated and well read, sort of like the gays.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 25, 2007 at 7:29 pm Link to this comment

Alliteration (alliterative) is associated with repetition of sounds.  Hence the repetition of the –ly business.  I was merely making an allusion to poetic sensibility. Apparently you are so uptight that you cannot make connections like that.  And everybody knows that adverbs don’t always modify verbs.  You seem to enjoy name calling and bashing.  It is kind of pathetic.  It is the resort of a frustrated person.  Do you want a couple of boards and some nails and a hammer?  Life is much more beautiful when it isn’t spent fettered inside of cubes. Are you any better at metaphor?  Well yeah just fagetdaboudit.

Report this

By LWM, November 25, 2007 at 6:55 pm Link to this comment

Non Credo… Most neoconservatives are Jewish, but most Jews are not neoconservatives. As a matter of fact, Jews are probably over-represented in the racks of prominent anti-neoconservatives.

That’s an assertion based on what evidence? Is Bush Jewish? Condi Rice? Dick Cheney? John Bolton? It actually displays your ignorance of neoconservatism in general, what it is and where it comes from. To be sure, many high profile neocon pundits are Jewish and many of the members of this administration are (or were, most have left) Jewish neocons. You really do have an unhealthy obsession with this.

Count them if you like. They are well represented, but not even close to “most”. You might want to talk to a therapist. It helped Mel Gibson.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 25, 2007 at 6:43 pm Link to this comment

Non Credo,

Since I have very a low regard for the neoconservatives,  and all this time, according to you I must have been blaming the wrong religion, I always believed we should be complaining about the Methodists, because of bush and cronies. now I find out most or all neoconservatives are also not methodists, what a shock. Your absolutisms are so reassuring, Maybe I should ask is Ron Paul Jewish before I do not vote for him? 

Ron Paul offers something most of the other candidates do not, an offer of balancing the books by not sleeping with special interests and getting the troops out. 

I still believe you are lead to believe, what the neocons want you to believe, you actually fall into their trap.

Report this

By LWM, November 25, 2007 at 6:35 pm Link to this comment

Cyrena…It will be interesting to hear what they come up with. My own basic feelings about it are that when the founders suggested that we should have the ‘right to bear arms’ they probably weren’t considering a handgun in every pocket, or a couple of submachine guns under every bed or pillow. That’s just my take.

Some good background on the realities and facts of the 2nd amendment debate:

2/1/00

Gun Control, the NRA and the Second Amendment

By Jeff Cohen

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2587

Contrary to popular opinion, the SCOTUS has never ruled in favor of the individual (vs collective) interpretation of the 2nd. It will be interesting to see what it does next year.

Report this

By LWM, November 25, 2007 at 6:28 pm Link to this comment

Cyrena,

Much of the confusion stems from this:

Memo To New York Post: The Bush Administration Was Warned About 9/11

New York Post reporter Andy Soltis writes of the latest Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll that finds a great majority of Americans believe the government failed to heed warnings about 9/11. Soltis writes that this poll shows increasing support for 9/11 “conspiracy theories”:

Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the federal government had warnings about 9/11 but decided to ignore them, a national survey found.

And that’s not the only conspiracy theory with a huge number of true believers in the United States. […]

Sixty-two percent of those polled thought it was “very likely” or “somewhat likely” that federal officials turned a blind eye to specific warnings of the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

The NY Post’s headline blares: “‘Blame U.S. For 9/11′ Idiots In Majority.” As frequent readers of this site are well aware, ThinkProgress does not condone 9/11 conspiracy theories which allege the attacks were an inside job. But whether the Bush administration failed to heed warnings of a terrorist strike is not a conspiracy theory — it is a fact.

Here are some bits of information the NY Post may want to read up on:

1) Bush received intel briefing on Aug. 6, 2001 entitled “Bin Laden Determined To Strike In US.” The briefing specifically warned to “patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks,” particularly targeted at New York.

2) CIA Director George Tenet briefing Condoleezza Rice and other top administration officials on July 10, 2001 about a specific urgent and looming threat from al Qaeda.

3) An FBI agent in Phoenix sent a memo to FBI headquarters on July 10, 2001, which advised of the “possibility of a coordinated effort” by bin Laden to send students to the United States to attend civil aviation schools.

The alarming nature of the Scripps poll is not that 62 percent of Americans believe the government ignored warnings of 9/11; it’s that nearly 40 percent still aren’t aware of that fact.

UPDATE: Malkin proudly trumpets the NY Post story as evidence of “America: Tinfoil hat nation.”

UPDATE II: Atrios pulls up this gem from the archives:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/25/ny-post-911-conspiracy/

No one disputes we don’t have the whole story. Very few people make leap of faith from that point to the tin foil hat wearing crowd. I always opt for incompetence because the evidence of it is overwhelming with this administration.

http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Sept2004/barsamian0904.html

http://www.zmag.org/conspirthdebate.htm

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 25, 2007 at 6:24 pm Link to this comment

Non Credo, while it is rather picayune or maybe you just have a stick up your ___ (fill in the blank) nose?  “correctly spelled perfectly” just doesn’t sound right, neither does spelled correctly, perfectly, or spelled perfectly, correctly; and in writing informally, which I am perfectly, and completely (yeah, that is redundant, but crap) sure these forums are not formal writing belles-lettres, it just doesn’t mean di un ratto asino whether an adverb is redundant. The distance between the two adverbs does something alliterative and it is just a matter of a writer’s emphasis, style… as I said.  I’ll bet Ernest Hemingway just kills your grammatical sensibilities.

And no, I wouldn’t call you irresponsible.  I say you are a shape-shifter who is dwelling somewhat obsessively on Jews.

Over and out.  Oops…a fragment.

Report this

By LWM, November 25, 2007 at 6:14 pm Link to this comment

#115791 by PatrickHenry on 11/25 at 3:20 pm
A more telling sign of Ron Pauls evergrowing momentum.

In the reports listed at Truthdig, the recent Hillary report has 15 comments, Obama 14 comments and Rudy 4 comments.

The fact Ron Paul has 350 comments, good and bad mixed in with the typical blathering by some posters, indicates he’s getting out there.

That’s arithmetic if not scientific!

#115785 by PatrickHenry on 11/25 at 2:27 pm

This poll was posted earlier and seems to have been glossed over.  I find it more “valid” as it includes all the candidates.

This is why they say that ideologies and presidential candidates on the internets appear larger than they actually are.

Report this

By LWM, November 25, 2007 at 6:12 pm Link to this comment

#115789 by Non Credo on 11/25 at 3:07 pm
Actually, on second thought, “Lee” (if you really are a different person who just popped in to make this one rather ITW-ish comment and then leave without bothering to see it answered), I can’t let you get away with that.

This poor slob forgot his medication.


#115787 by Non Credo on 11/25 at 2:38 pm
(596 comments total)

#115784 by LWM on 11/25 at 2:20 pm:

Oh, ITW, please leave the serious discussion to the grownups.

Illuminati Toast Wonderbread is everywhere!

Report this

By cyrena, November 25, 2007 at 6:05 pm Link to this comment

Part 1 of 3 reply to 115736 by Nomascerdo

Nonmascero,

Your post tells me that you’re involved in the typical behavior of those who make a career on making assumptions. I think the psychobabbalists would call it something like ‘projection’. I just call it the ignorance of making assumptions about things of which one has no knowledge.

So, here’s an example: why do you ‘assume’ that I am ‘pro’ big government? I’m not. However, I’m also not of the ‘either or’ or the ‘all or none’ mentality. You also suggest that the “only” thing you and I would ever agree on is a statement that you suggest I ‘stole’ from Ron Paul. This is the sort of mentality that concerns me about a huge portion of the populace with whom I share the planet, as well as my more immediate surroundings here at home.

In reality, you don’t ‘know’ ANY of that, unless you’ve taken the time to read, and paid careful attention to other posts that I’ve contributed over a long period of time. In all honesty, while that might be flattering for me, I simply doubt that it’s happened. (and now that I think about it, I really wouldn’t be ‘flattered’ – never have been the type that craves attention). In short, you have no idea what I think, or whether or not we would agree, so save the projection of YOUR ‘assumptions’ onto the mentality of others. As for my own suggestion about the fact that we were not attacked on 9/11 because of our freedoms, that was hardly a ‘quote’ from Ron Paul. I’ve never heard him say that, so I’ll take your word for it. OTOH, I should qualify my own statement since our ‘freedoms’ in traipsing around the sovereign nation states of OTHERS, is certainly a sound reason.

Now, I have avoided going into any long discussion on the details of the 9/11 catastrophe on THIS particular thread, because we’ve been through mountains and mountains of words on this subject, and on this very website. I’m not opposed to discussing it yet again, but at this point, (at least for me) we’re pretty stuck on moving any further forward on the subject, for a multitude of reasons. However, what it boils down to, is that there is NO as in ZERO physical evidence left (or available to the public or it’s agencies) to tell us what actually occurred that day. If there IS evidence, of the standard type that we always look at when air disasters occur, it has been kept from us.

So, you call me a conspiracy theorist, and that too, is a tired and worn excuse for dismissing anyone who questions the ‘official conspiracy’. The ‘official conspiracy’ is contained in the 9/11 Commission Report. And yes, it IS a conspiracy, because there are too many things included, and NOT included, to call it anything else. Based on that, ANYONE who has any discussion on those events is a conspiracy theorist. In that respect, I stand accused.

As for the lack of hijacking incidents leading to complacency of the cockpit crews, I take offense. The security/safety protocol for the traveling public depends on a huge number of people performing their individual functions, and that system DID indeed work, for many decades. Pilots of most commercial airlines receive extensive and on-going training for their entire careers, so they are not ‘complacent’ when they’re sitting in that cockpit. I will admit that the intelligence and training levels of all of the other people that make up the whole have drastically declined, and that yes, that was occurring even prior to 9/11. Much of this important work, (like the screening of passengers) was handed off to ‘contract’ employees who did not receive the level of training that was provided in the past. More than anything, they lacked basic common sense, and the ability to ‘connect the dots’. (That’s just my own term for using a certain amount of life experience and common knowledge to connect with the ‘specifics’ of any operation or protocol) And, I’d be more than happy to provide several very recent examples of this if you’re interested, when I have more time.

Report this

By cyrena, November 25, 2007 at 6:03 pm Link to this comment

Part 2 of 3 reply to Nomascero 115736

Now we could theorize endlessly on whether or not it was the ‘system’ that prevented earlier hijackings of US carriers, or whether it was simply because no attempts were made. But, if we’re looking at that, then we would have to include those attempts that HAVE been made, (and in a few cases accomplished) by lone crazies. Back in the 70’s one aircraft in California was brought down by a disgruntled former employee. The Egypt Air flight that crashed of the East Coast in 1999 was presumed to be the same sort of deal. Paradoxically, the dispute surrounding THAT disaster was the fact that the investigation (by the US agencies) determined it to be a criminal event, and assumed that one of the pilots had intentionally brought the aircraft down. (I tend to agree). The Egyptians were HIGHLY inflamed at such a suggestion, because it is a horrific violation of the principals and tenets of Islam, for ANY Muslim to even consider suicide. Now, in that vein, you can look at this web site, to get an idea of how a REAL investigation, (including some highly explosive politics) was accomplished.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990


Compare that to the incidents of 9/11, and you may be able to answer at least part of your own question about why you ‘assume’ that no US pilots have ‘done anything about’ the questions surrounding 9/11. But, just to get you started, you can also check this site:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

This will explain that many pilots HAVE attempted to follow-up on the inconsistencies of the 9/11 official conspiracy, and try to get some answers. It will also require that you employ some of those other skills I mentioned earlier. First and foremost, there was virtually NO information made available to pilots or any other aviation professionals in the days, weeks, months, years following 9/11. At least nothing of the standard sort that would come from a thorough and typical investigation of aviation disasters, as performed by the NTSB, or the FAA, or any other agency normally empowered to do such investigations. So, the only ‘information’ available to anyone (pilots included) was the bullshit that we ALL got from the bush administration.

So, most pilots and other aviation professionals, (myself included) were forced to accept whatever they were coming up with at the time, even if it made no sense. I might add that anyone who DID question the official lies (out loud) generally found themselves unemployed, if not worse. Now of course that wasn’t just aviation professionals, but pretty much ANYBODY that questioned the official tale. BUT, keep in mind that we waited over 3 years to even GET an ‘official’ story, and that the administration fought it every step of the way. It was only because of the families of the victims, who relentlessly pursued the need for such an investigation, that anything happened at all. And, that turned out to be an obvious white wash.


My point however, is that when YOU board an airplane, you aren’t just trusting the pilots with your life. You’re trusting the air traffic controllers, the dispatchers, the mechanics, the ticket/gate agents, and those people at the security check points, as well as the cargo handlers, and the behind the scenes folks you never see, who keep track of the numbers, the weights, the load and balance, and the weather. And yes, you’re also trusting the regulatory agencies who put all of this stuff together. There are REASONS for regulations and protocols. You’re trusting a whole bunch of people to perform their jobs accordingly. And, as I’ve said, despite the fact that some of those ‘links’ in the process may (and certainly have) failed in the past, it has always ‘worked’.

TBC

Report this

By cyrena, November 25, 2007 at 6:01 pm Link to this comment

Part 3 of 3 reply to 115736 by Nomascero

Now, YOU might say that it was a matter of simply covering up incompetence in intelligence. That too, would be bullshit. The system did not fail at MULTIPLE levels, because of incompetence regarding intelligence. Still, as far as the pilots go, it’s simple enough to understand that UNTIL some information was finally published under an ‘official cover’, there was little to ‘investigate’ on their own. What would we do? DEMAND that Dick Cheney turn over those tapes that were confiscated from the cameras around the Pentagon, that would have surely shown us some indication of a 757 crashing into it?  It hasn’t happened yet. Any clues as to how we might have recovered (on our own) those voice and data recorder boxes from the aircraft that slammed into the WTC? The federal agencies weren’t looking for them, and that would have been a waste of time anyway, because while those boxes are surely designed to survive the kinds of high impact damage that would be sustained in any crash, they wouldn’t have survived massive demolitions in the midst of gigantic skyscrapers being demolished in the same process. In short, there has been NOTHING left for pilots or anybody else to actually investigate on their own. At least not at the time.

I’ve only just gone back to the pilots for truth site that I posted above, primarily just to validate the link. (I don’t look at it that frequently). And, I’ve noticed that the format/design has changed since they originally put it together, in maybe the past 2 or 3 years. It’s been since the official report, because there was little else to put out there before, without being immediately thrown into the group of conspiracy crazies. What I didn’t see on the new site, (though it may be there if I check further) is the original list of pilots who more or less founded the movement and committed to the mission statement. (they were originally part of an overall organization that joined with Scholars for Truth, and Engineers and Architects for Truth, among others). I had noted before, (from the original site design) that with one exception, these were all RETIRED pilots. (military and commercial pilots). Rest assured that if they had attempted such ‘speaking out’ while they were still employed, that would have guaranteed an even earlier ‘retirement’ than they might have planned. And again, for what? What did they have in the way of ‘evidence’ to present?

To summarize, there has been next to nothing left in the way of physical evidence that could independently corroborate the official story line. What HAS become available has been hard sought, and by those committed to trying to piece it together. They’ve had to do it with their own funds, and/or donations as well as their own time and energy. That alone, should be a real eye-opener to any person of reasonable intelligence, even those who don’t know anything at all about the aviation industry, or the various components that make it all happen. The fact of the matter is that whatever these independent groups can come up with now, SHOULD have all been immediately available to the NTSB, the FAA, the FBI, the CIA, the DoT, and of course, the so-called ‘Commission’ itself. Please feel free to visit the site and contribute generously.

As for my thoughts on the second amendment, I’ll be happy to entertain that later. But, just for the sake of intellectual awareness, you might want to check out the case regarding the 2nd amendment, which the Supreme Court has recently agreed to hear.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/washington/20cnd-scotus.html?_r=1&bl;&ex;=1195966800&en=39c89c8e523b54d9&ei=5087 &oref=slogin

It will be interesting to hear what they come up with. My own basic feelings about it are that when the founders suggested that we should have the ‘right to bear arms’ they probably weren’t considering a handgun in every pocket, or a couple of submachine guns under every bed or pillow. That’s just my take.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, November 25, 2007 at 5:19 pm Link to this comment

The only way Clinton won’t win is if she faces Ron Paul in the general election. 

If someone else in the Republican party wins the nomination and Ron Paul or Kucinich doesn’t run in a 3rd party, I would most likely vote for Hillary, hoping she will drop her carpetbagging pandering to AIPAC lobbies and put America first.

The last election had shown that Americans don’t want more of the same and our House and Senate has still failed to get that message.

Report this

By ted tyson, November 25, 2007 at 5:15 pm Link to this comment

cyrena—
      i’m flattered that you spent so much time responding to my posts.  for me, all of these issues are relevant to the topic of our presidential candidates—the war, 9/11, politics, etc, and so that is why i bring all these topics together. all are intertwined.  keep doing your research(and take a look at the films i mentioned).  and don’t worry.  most ron paul supporters are more on the same page with you than it might seem right now.  we expect the congress and the people to give us the balance we’ll need to work for justice together.  thanks for caring.  keep the faith.


                    sincerely,

                    ted tyson

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 25, 2007 at 5:06 pm Link to this comment

But I (uh, we) do expect you to be able to back up your comments too.  Being an anti-royalist, I don’t excuse those who think they have rights others don’t.

Report this

By FrostedFlakes, November 25, 2007 at 5:05 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ron Paul may not be as roguish and corrupt as Dick and Bush, but he is still a repugnicant and a potentially dangerous man.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 25, 2007 at 5:02 pm Link to this comment

You mean, Wicher, you are not an ordinary, run-of-the-mill Democrat?  Isn’t it moot once the vote is cast?

Oops, Non Credo, I see I made a typo with the word “please” in my last post.  Flying fingers of fate, I guess.  Come un favore, la prego di scusarmi.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 25, 2007 at 4:56 pm Link to this comment

Non Credo, would you plese list all of the neocons?  Your scorch of Leefeller smacks of the fallacy of non-inclusion

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 25, 2007 at 4:54 pm Link to this comment

#115679 by LWM on 11/25 at 4:57 am
(83 comments total)

Good Morning, Shenonymous.

Fortunately for us, I don’t think the 21st Century Jefferson has even been born yet.
Tony,

My goal is to stop Republicans, not most other fellow Democrats, unless they are Joe Lieberman. My goal is to get Mo’ Better Democrats elected because usually even the worst Democrat is better than the best Republican. Lieberman was Obama’s mentor in the Senate, wasn’t he?
——————————————————————————
I have said I will vote for Clinton if she gets the nomination. But I am not just a Democrat, I am a progressive, anti-war Democrat as opposed to a corporate, DLC Democrat. Most of the people posting here on Truthdig are trying to stop Clinton. You don’t seem to recognize much difference, which means to me that for all practical purposes you are a DLC Democrat. If you want to call that “progressive”, go ahead - Hillary does - but I don’t think you have been making it clear where you stand.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 25, 2007 at 4:53 pm Link to this comment

Wrong, the order of the adverbs modifying the past tense verb ‘spelled’ are fine. While English usually puts adjectives and adverbs before the noun or verb, but puts prepositional phrases afterwards, it’s worth remembering that adjectives, adverbs, and relative/subordinate clauses don’t need to always all go in the same place. For example, you may put adjectives before nouns, relative clauses after, and adverbs could move about more-or-less freely. The order of my sentence is allowably correct.  It depends on the emphasis the writer wishes to make.  Obviously your writing mind is in some sort of straightjacket. Actually, the very last sentence was referring back the sentence right before it, and I will repeat it:  Quite frankly, you can stuff it.  Sorry for the confusion there.

We are on somewhat of a tangent, which is all right, Non Credo.  But maybe we can get back to the topic?

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, November 25, 2007 at 4:20 pm Link to this comment

A more telling sign of Ron Pauls evergrowing momentum.

In the reports listed at Truthdig, the recent Hillary report has 15 comments, Obama 14 comments and Rudy 4 comments.

The fact Ron Paul has 350 comments, good and bad mixed in with the typical blathering by some posters, indicates he’s getting out there.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, November 25, 2007 at 3:27 pm Link to this comment

#115783 by LWM

This poll was posted earlier and seems to have been glossed over.  I find it more “valid” as it includes all the candidates.

Thanks sleeper.


http://www.sirius.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Sirius/CachedPage&c=Genre&cid=1186596317421

Report this

By LWM, November 25, 2007 at 3:20 pm Link to this comment

There’s at least some truth to that, I’m sure. It’s all become a hall of mirrors. I can’t tell any more what’s really in whose interests, what’s only pretended to be in whose interests, or what’s genuinely but mistakenly thought to be in whose interests, who believes whom, who only pretends to believe whom, and who only pretends to disagree with whom.

Clearly it is all too much for you. Like a man who is lost while driving but refuses to ask directions, you should pull over, get out, stretch your legs and take a deep breath. Then climb in the back and take a nap and let the wife drive. You’ll get there before your nap is over.

Report this

By LWM, November 25, 2007 at 3:12 pm Link to this comment

I love this. I really do.

Patrick Henry… To have a poll without Ron Paul on it is invalid and smacks of journalistic fraud.

By fox news own admission, Ron Paul won their republican debate poll as well as many other states GOP straw polls.

Political polls are commisioned by various entities, some by media/journalism outlets, but they are done by professional polling outfits. This is statistical analysis. You are conflating two separate and distinct professional areas of expertise. Media outlets report on the polling data collected by the polling professionals.


And Fox News is not journalism nor is it a professional polling outfit. Fox News is by definition, journalistic fraud.

And you don’t seem to understand the meaning of the term “valid” as it relates to the matter of the polls in question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity

Ron Paul is not included because he is barely registering in the polls at all. He is only registering in your mind. That could change, but if you think he will do more than be the Republican version of Kucinich I have an all expense paid trip to Cancun with Elizabeth Kucinich, minus Dennis, I’d like to sell you.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 25, 2007 at 3:11 pm Link to this comment

Non Credo your grammatical and spelling criticisms are absurd.  Now diagram that.  I suggest you get yourself a spell and grammar checker and run my comments through it to see exactly what the hell you are not talking about.  But you get an A for the use of whose, who, and whom.  By the way, you could connect the a and the while in awhile, #115751 even though a and while are spelled correctly.  Now travel back in time to #115738, “Very good observation.” is a fragment. You should consider revising it. Your hyphenation of antiwar-ish at #115733 is an unword (which I often allow, but in your case, no!  You are a bad boy and unwords shall not be tolerated).  Oh, oh…is it shall or will? I refer you, for the sake of simplicity and efficiency, to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shall
I think that is enough.  Quite frankly, you can stuff it. This last sentence is grammatically correct and perfectly spelled correctly.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, November 25, 2007 at 2:20 pm Link to this comment

#115770 by LWM

To have a poll without Ron Paul on it is invalid and smacks of journalistic fraud.

By fox news own admission, Ron Paul won their republican debate poll as well as many other states GOP straw polls.

Report this

By LWM, November 25, 2007 at 2:15 pm Link to this comment

PatrickHenry

God I love democracy.

No you don’t. It interferes with “your” liberty.

Report this

By LWM, November 25, 2007 at 2:12 pm Link to this comment

I know that’s what you were trying to say. I was just ribbing you for failing to say it. Congratulations. Your sentence structure as already getting better. But don’t ask Shenon to help you with it - hers is even worse than yours.

Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

IDIOT, n.

A member of a large and powerful tribe whose influence in human affairs has always been dominant and controlling. The Idiot’s activity is not confined to any special field of thought or action, but “pervades and regulates the whole.” He has the last word in everything; his decision is unappealable. He sets the fashions and opinion of taste, dictates the limitations of speech and circumscribes conduct with a dead-line.

A.B.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, November 25, 2007 at 2:11 pm Link to this comment

#115758 by LWM

Clowns and Conspiracy morons for Hillary?

God I love democracy.

Report this

By LWM, November 25, 2007 at 2:10 pm Link to this comment

More polling data than you ever wanted or knew what to do with. Every legitimate poll in every state going back months. No, you won’t find Ron Paul there. It’s a vast neocon conspiracy.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2007/Pres/Maps/Nov15.html

Report this

By LWM, November 25, 2007 at 2:04 pm Link to this comment

Non Credo,

Maybe if you are nicer to Shenonymous she might help you with your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills. I’ll be happy to translate it for you in the mean time:

Damn few of you understand the complexities of American politics and the presidential electoral process and this website is overrun with conspiracy nuts.

Report this

By Sleeper, November 25, 2007 at 1:56 pm Link to this comment

Here’s an interesting poll that I found on Sirius satellite radio’s website

Who do you think will be the presidential nominee?

Ron Paul is currently leading with 31% with Rudy Giulliani a close second with 30%

on the democratic side Hillary Clinton is in the lead with 56%


http://www.sirius.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Sirius/CachedPage&c=Genre&cid=1186596317421

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, November 25, 2007 at 1:47 pm Link to this comment

Hillary is just more of the same tripe we’ve been handed since JFK’s administration was hijacked.  She panders to the Israeli lobby which is akin to selling the rest of America down the river. 

Although she is agreeablely smarter than Giuliani and Romney, she is pro big government, in a time that we need less.

“That government is best which governs least”

Thoreau.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 25, 2007 at 1:39 pm Link to this comment

Non Credo
Been missing all the fun here, response to your comment: 

“That’s probably true, but there is no question that the neoconservatives who run things believe that that policy is in Israel’s interest.” 

My I suggest that the neoconservatives are actually using Israel as smoke and mirrors, to cover their tracks.  Looking at some of the posts here, should be validation, me thinks you have it back-words.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 25, 2007 at 1:31 pm Link to this comment

What’s the matter Non Credo, don’t you like the word penis?  It won’t be god that helps my students, it will be their improving their f***n writing skills.  But I do love florid vocabulary misapplied.  It is called being colorful.  Disorganization is not one of my worst suits.  And punctuation is pretty good, an A minus maybe.  But I do mispronounce words sometimes. Nitpickies need to F off more often.  At least LWM knows some history.

Report this

By Nabih Ammari, November 25, 2007 at 1:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To:#115370 by Ernest Canning on 11/23 at 5:27 pm.

Ernest,

After reading your post referred to above,I went back to the article and read it another two times.My purpose was to try to read in-between-the-lines,hoping to reach,somehow,a similar assessment to yours sothat I could decide whether to continue in this blog business or just quit and return to my old hobbies.I regret to say that I simply
could not.On the contrary,I have developed the feeling
(not conclusion-one does not conclude anything by just trying to read in-between-the-lines.Period) that
what Mr. Robert Scheer was trying to accomplish from
devoting one full article about Ron Paul and his
persuasive statistics was really to send a tough and
critical message to the Democratic Party front runners such as:Where is your clear-cut commitment
not just to stop the war but withdraw all,all,all
American troops from Iraq???.Where is your detailed
statistical studies about the drain on US treasury
due to our 700 military bases scattered around the
globe to protect what???An empire for the Hallis,the
Bechtels,the Exxons and the Hunts etc…while the poor,
the homeless,the Middle Class and the diseased stricken Americans slowly die for lack of health care
they cannot afford to pay for.That is the message Mr.
Scheer was trying to convey to the front runners of
the Democratic Party.It did happen that Ron Paul did
question the wisdom in maintaining the 700 military bases world wide.

I read “the Five Lies” book written by Robert Scheer
and his brother,when it was published three or four
years ago.The content of the book is strong and quite
persuasive stuff.It pales,however,when compared to
the content of the following books which were aimed
at GWB and of course his supporters in the Republican
Party:

“Bushit!” written by Jack Huberman.

“Bushworld” written by Maureen Dowd.

“War Made Easy” written by Norman Solomon.

“Losing America” written by Senator Robert Byrd.

“Worst Than Watergate” written by John Dean.

“Dude,Where Is My Country” written by Michael Moor.

“Oil,Power & Empire” written by Larry Everest.

Those are the ones that came to mind at the moment.
There are others,perhaps,more damaging to the whole
Republican establishment.

Ernest,if all the above fails to persuade you or at least induce you to reconsider your skepticism about
the motive behind devoting an article about Ron Paul,
I just do not know what will.I seldom disagree with
what you intelligently write in your posts,since I started reading them four or five months ago.This one
is one of the seldom ones.I have felt that it is
worth the time to call your attention because it
touches not only writer of the article but those who
rapidly and eagerly comment on it:If the basis,that is the article, is not what it says it is,then every
comment you and me and others made on it would be
just as honest and credible as the doubt you shed
on the motive behind writing an article on Ron Paul
whose name lately started to shine among Democrats,
Republicans and Independents because of his bold stand
on many issues affecting the lives and livelihoods of
millions of Americans and people across the globe.
Whether Ron Paul’s views are right or wrong or his
association with a repulsive society is not the point
at hand,at all.The whole point is the integrity of the motive behind writing the article.If such integrity has become questionable,it does not make
any sense for a simple man like me to continue following what you and others write in your posts
and return to my hobbies of reading books and getting
the news from the international newspapers through
the internet.At least,these hobbies do not require
me to type anything.Therefore,I respectfully ask
you to reconsider what you have written.
Sincerely,
Nabih Ammari
An Independent in Ohio.

Report this

By LWM, November 25, 2007 at 1:22 pm Link to this comment

What you have here is a few clowns whose total lack of sophistication in the art of American politics stands in stark contrast to the high number of conspiracist morons who post here. If it wasn’t for Cyrena and Shenonymous, this would be a virtual wasteland of stupidity and ignorance. That, in itself, is a good enough reason to vote for Hillary, although not my first choice, for reasons other than her gender. Women are just smarter than most men.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, November 25, 2007 at 1:19 pm Link to this comment

#115739 by Shenonymous

You are certainly no toad sir.

#115751 by Non Credo

Yeah, and the age old Lefty suddenly appeared, a more proper posting name should be Sybil.

Report this

By LWM, November 25, 2007 at 1:13 pm Link to this comment

Canning, you are a fool. Kucinich isn’t electable. Only a fool believes otherwise. There is this little thing called the Electoral College. Given a choice between Guiliani or Romney and Kucinich or Obama, who do you think Alabama, or Lousiana, or any of the really red states will go for? Get real, and if you are going to start with the ad hominems, please try to inject some flare and panache into the exercise. I’ve seen 12 year olds do better. And before you tell me hillary isn’t electable there either, please check the polling data.

Patrick Henry, you are a conspiracist moron. Enough said.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 25, 2007 at 12:55 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, I thank you for the intellectual integrity displayed by your last comment.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 25, 2007 at 12:24 pm Link to this comment

To non credo & Patrick Henry:  While one hopes, in posting, to attract a serious intellectual buffet, unfortunately, every picnick is likely to also attract flies, like our mindless LWM.  So long as their numbers don’t reach epidemic proportions, sometimes it is best to just ignore these pesty intruders.  In time, they get tired of talking to themselves and just go away.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 25, 2007 at 12:24 pm Link to this comment

A little absinthian, Ernest.  An insolence trickles through.  Serious intellectual colloquy?  The dialogues don’t quite rise to that level, but I have to rescind my high horse admonition.  I went back and read all the posts and while there is some antagonism,  it seems more friendly and for the most part this forum has more civility than others I’ve seen.  There actually is some learning to be done here and many seem to be either scholars or have listened to the principles and the media.  So I thank you for calling me out on what was a prima facie jump to conclusion kind of expression. It is a danger of reading too fast.  I look forward to the interaction.  I can assure you, even if you aren’t interested, I don’t sit back waiting for others to sell a bill of goods on any candidate.  And I frequently visit ontheissues.com to see what the candidates are about and visit their websites to make sure that is what they are about.  The fray over Kucinich and Obama did seem like a list for comparison of yours and Tony’s points could be helpful but not of the greatest importance.  It won’t be from what either of you say that will decide my vote at any rate.  It will be from what the candidates deliver at least in their rhetoric at this point.

And Non Credo, I don’t think we are competing for a writing contest, and that is a neat offense to deflect the mild criticism in a different direction away from yourself, classic reactionary.  Since I teach critical writing skills, I am on point for hubris.  Colloquialisms are quite allowable in an informal forum such as this.

PatrickHenry, 5% is hardly a top tier candidate, even though his star is rising.  Yup, I’m a toady.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, November 25, 2007 at 12:12 pm Link to this comment

Cyrena,

If so many airline pilots don’t think the attack could have happened, as you seem to claim, then why aren’t we hearing from concerned airline pilots like yourself?  If you have some truth, as a person who would know better, then why haven’t you done something about it?  If you have, please point me in that direction so I can take a look.

That all said, it doesn’t seem that implausible to me that trained killers could overtake a flight crew or four on an early September morning.

Most flight crews are (very nice) middle aged people in the service industry.  These are not people I would bet money on in a street fight.  Furthermore the long span of time that you described without a serious hijacking would only contribute to their relevant complacency in handling such a horrible and sudden threat.  The sad and shameful fact that our intelligence agencies never shared information regarding potential new threats with our airline industry did nothing to increase their awareness.

Also, I believe that the use of box cutters is only speculation as far as the weapons they had. Who knows what they actually had. Post 9-11 screening is still largely ineffective but Pre 9-11 screening I am assuming had an even lower level of vigilance, but maybe not.  Impossible to say.

You essentially believe in a massive conspiracy perpetrated by the government.  I personally don’t believe that to be the case.  I think a much more plausible situation is incompetence, as I have stated in a previous post.

For the one thing we do agree on, and I suspect it will probably be the only thing we ever will…
I will quote Ron Paul… er.. well, You, as well I suppose but I am pretty sure you stole it from him:

It’s definitely NOT because “they hate our freedoms.”

In conclusion, if you do think it was a massive government conspiracy then it would be a little strange for you to be so pro big-government. Wouldn’t it?

PS - How do you feel about the second amendment?

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, November 25, 2007 at 12:11 pm Link to this comment

Damn, the posts of LWM remind me of another imbicile who posts here, ITW, who suprisingly hasn’t shown up to sprew the very same rhetoric.

Now that Ron Paul has become a top tier Republican candidate and his momentum is growing, you can bet the organized media on all levels from editors on down will change the silent treatment he has been given into the same negative press reserved for first tier candidates, however, it will become much more intense as it challanges the status quo of our special relationship with Israel and the military industrial complex.

The toads will attempt to stifle any message of good comming from his campaign.

Report this

By LWM, November 25, 2007 at 12:03 pm Link to this comment

I, for one, will not be drawn into providing a paragraph extolling the virtues of either candidate for someone who regards the selection of a president of these United States as akin to selecting a paramour.  I post at Truthdig to elicit serious intellectual discussion.  I will pimp for no one.  What I will do is to provide you with the link where you can read up on where Mr. Kucinich stands on issues that truly matter.

So Ernest, what I find rather amusing is that you say you will “pimp for no one” and then go right ahead on “pimping” for Kucinich just like Tony is “pimping” for Obama and the Pauliacs are “pimping” for Paul. The sexist and misogynist subtext of this part, “someone who regards the selection of a president of these United States as akin to selecting a paramour” is all the more risible considering who is doing the “pimping” and who is not. Furthermore, it hardly seems worthy of someone who prides himself on “serious intellectual discussion”. Unless, of course, one thinks women should be excluded from “serious intellectual discussion” because they are just not serious enough or “intellectually” capable of it.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 25, 2007 at 11:33 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous, What you have chosen to label as adolescent “bickering” is in fact a serious intellectual collequy on the question of substance vs. image which goes to the core of how democracy functions in this nation—or more particularly, how dysfunctional the issue of candidate selection has become under the undue influence of the corporate media.  It is a discourse that has been carried out between two posters who have interracted with one another at Truthdig over the span of months on numerous issues and who both have the utmost respect for one another’s opinions.

I, for one, will not be drawn into providing a paragraph extolling the virtues of either candidate for someone who regards the selection of a president of these United States as akin to selecting a paramour.  I post at Truthdig to elicit serious intellectual discussion.  I will pimp for no one.  What I will do is to provide you with the link where you can read up on where Mr. Kucinich stands on issues that truly matter.

http://www//dennis4president.com/home/

The choice as to whether you want to assume the responsibility of citizenship by actively undertaking to ascertain where candidates stand on issues that truly matter is one only you can make.  Passive consumers who sit back, waiting for others to “sell” them a candidate by delivering a packaged image in a single paragraph are the problem, not the solution.

Report this

By LWM, November 25, 2007 at 11:33 am Link to this comment

Actually, Non Credo, you strike me as more of a LaRouchie than a Pauliac. Not really much of a difference.

grin

Report this

By LWM, November 25, 2007 at 10:29 am Link to this comment

America’s foreign policy is insanely destructive and suicidal.

Heh.

Actually it’s Israel’s foreign policy that is insanely self-destructive and this noncredo person is probably a virulent anti-semite. IOWs a Pauliac, Paulista whackjob and seeing the comparison to Paine is particularly amusing. America’s current foreign policy is just not in America’s interest. It isn’t even in Israel’s best interest. Our domestic and fiscal policy is far more suicidal. That would worsen under Ron Paul.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 25, 2007 at 9:47 am Link to this comment

Maybe Non Credo, but you ain’t no Thomas Paine.  Reading him is a joy.  I am certainly not a man-hater.  Disillusioned maybe by what I think men in general ought to be with respect to women, and actually each other, as the concept of brotherhood is a myth, but I certainly enjoy men.  Except most of them don’t have a brain, only penises.  The men-haters in the women’s movement were also women-haters and self-haters.  They were so angry with the state of the women’s world they just hated everything.  Even their cats.

American foreign policy has most certainly been insane for the last seven years, but I remember Jimmy Carter and Eisenhower, both of whom had an inkling of what to do about America and the world.  Then Reagan came along and blinded the star-struck and for whatever good came out of his relationship with Gorby obviously didn’t stick as we witness the insanity of Putin now and the deteriorating relationship between Russia and the United States.

Furthermore, since I’m on my high horse, the bickering over Kucinich and Obama ought to really stop. It appears so adolescent.  Just to help us undecideds out, Ernest and Tony darling ought to make lists for their respective political paramours that shows all their virtues then write a paragraph or two why they should become the president of the United States.  With only one requisite: that they leave out nothing.  Actually after that the boys ought to say succinctly and precisely the difference between their boy and the girl who’s whooping their pants off.  Duh, facts are facts.  After that they should compare exactly point for point their candidate with those of the Republican party who ought to be the real targets because only with that kind of enlightenment will we be able to see that the Republicans are the real bogeymen.  That will in turn help us to know who to vote for in the primary, by default.  What is this, a pissing contest?

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 25, 2007 at 8:54 am Link to this comment

Non Credo #115696
No, Non Credo, you ought not to put words into the mouths of others.  Bad.  I would be thrilled if Jefferson were alive today, and thrilled that he would most likely be completely uninvolved with the fate of Israel.  Your constant mantra about Israel does show a pathology though.  Get a grip.  That anti-Jew smoke screen that is so contrived to cover any real criticism is getting ho hum, yawn.  Screeching gets humans no where, only owls.  Fact is there is no religion better than any other, they are all rather poisonous and have blood on their hands since their inceptions, except Buddhism, but then they are the ones that get bloodied.  Dogmatic belief systems will do that.  Thank the insight of the founding fathers the first amendment is as you say.  Like Jefferson would do, build libraries, not churches!

Report this

By cann4ing, November 25, 2007 at 8:26 am Link to this comment

Tony:  I am absolutely baffled by your suggestion that Kucinich is less capable of uniting the Democratic Party when measured against Obama or any of the other candidates.  The plain and simple fact is that Kucinich holds positions on policies that are supported by a vast majority of Democrats and, in fact, a majority of Americans.  Take, for example, the impeachment of one Richard B. Cheney.  Polls reveal that 54% of Americans and 70% of Democrats favor impeachment, yet Kucinich stands alone amongst Democratic Presidential candidates in proposing impeachment.  Then there is the war in Iraq.  Americans gave the Democratic Party both houses of Congress last November precisely because they thought the Dems would bring the war to an end.  Instead, the “do-nothings” in the Democratic leadership have rolled over time and again, handing over huge chunks of our national treasury to the fascists in the White House and their war profiteer allies at Halliburton and Blackwater.  This is precisely why the Congress has a lower approval rating than dubya.  That’s uniting?

This non-sensical corporate mantra that we have to always select from Democrats who supposedly represent the middle has us always running to the middle of nowhere. 

Rather than offer a substantive justification for Kucinich supporters to come over to the Obama camp, you have offered up an illogical rationalization for your failure to come over to the Kucinich camp.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 25, 2007 at 7:51 am Link to this comment

In a news insert, the Washington Post today is carrying a blurb on Ron Paul and his appeal to about 5%, and climbing, of likely Republican voters and his appeal to a certain segment of the praetorian college bunch.  In cute journalistic style, they give a pseudo-urbane definition of the word libertarian, none of which comes close to the definition it means today nor that it has implications for left-brainy politics.  Often called the party that champions the individual, it is incongruously named in the current vernacular, as it should be called, the party of the tight-wadded, isolationists, anti-civil liberties reactionary, who parade politically as a Republican because they can’t get any political traction as a third party. 

Just as an aside there is also a left-libertarianism that is egalitarian about natural resources and would redistribute the wealth.  But because of the red-necked parsimony of the right-libertarian views, I would not want to be identified in any way shape or form with the word libertarian.  Thomas Jefferson may be said to be a Republican libertarian, however, he founded what we call the Democratic party today, and was wholly concerned with education free from religious influences. The meaning of the word Republican was different for Jefferson, a Deist, than it has these days. And he was most democratic believing in the inalienable rights of humankind and that we have these rights by natural fiat and while he held anarchist society works well in some cases, it does not work for large populations. He also was vehement about the separation of church, in particular the Christian church, and the state, and that government is a necessity for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people.  None of these political virtues can be found in any measure in Ron Paul.

Report this

By LWM, November 25, 2007 at 5:57 am Link to this comment

Good Morning, Shenonymous.

Fortunately for us, I don’t think the 21st Century Jefferson has even been born yet.

Tony,

My goal is to stop Republicans, not most other fellow Democrats, unless they are Joe Lieberman. My goal is to get Mo’ Better Democrats elected because usually even the worst Democrat is better than the best Republican. Lieberman was Obama’s mentor in the Senate, wasn’t he?

Report this

By LWM, November 25, 2007 at 5:48 am Link to this comment

The suggestion that 9/11 wouldn’t have happened if the pilots had been armed is downright STUPID.

Stupidity is the hallmark of the average Pauliac. It just is and everyone on the intertubes knows it by now. Having said that. I’m not opposed to pilots being armed if they are rigorously trained, it’s just most security experts realize that simply arming pilots is totally ineffectual as a security measure. Multiple trained and armed agents need to be in the passenger cabin, undercover, as well. El Al has at least two on every flight. The fact that airline pilots usually have a “military background” is irrelevant. The high level of training required CQB with handguns on a crowded aircraft is not something that “military background” provided. They might as well have been cooks, mechanics or quartermasters.


Politically, however, he is not in a position to unify the party and stop Clinton.

So that is your goal, to stop Clinton?

Report this

By 1drees, November 25, 2007 at 5:42 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Comming to Mr Ron Paul, i hear many many Americans think of him as the leader that they been seeking since long BUT then it wasn’t long ago when people were saying the similar things about George Bush.

So GOOD LUCK AMERICANS. and check HIM well before you make a decision by voting.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 25, 2007 at 3:55 am Link to this comment

Good morning, don’t you guys and gal ever sleep? 
In a world of all possibilities LWM, it is possible for Ron Paul to be considered the early 21st century Thomas Jefferson, but it is highly unlikely.  There are not, at least to my knowledge, any abstruse essays on the virtues of governing a nation about that he wrote.  He does pontificate that is true, and he has acolytes who could ghostwrite for him, but he wouldn’t do well on the Dr. Phil Show.  And besides he’s an old fart and won’t be around too too long.

The-empire-crumbling set has arrived, eh Tony?  Well…funny thing, Americans are getting smarter, I mean just look at you!  (Which by the way is why the conservatives and ultra conservatives and religious conservatives don’t want to fund ejumacashun).  We had one big revolution and many tiny ones since and the will of the people can be a tidal wave.  There’s an old saying, “Water Seeks Its Own Level,” and scum rises to the top, which is then skimmed off.  The country will right itself up by the efforts of the left.  It jes takes tahyme son.  Jes be strong.

Nomascerdo, en passant, what is the root cause of terrorism?

And actually, Cyrena, the calculated culture of fear brainwashed many, many, many people.  For the fearmongers, 9/11 was a dream come true.

Report this

By Nabih Ammari, November 25, 2007 at 3:50 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Ron Paul,his statistics and his candidacy for President
have been the core,essence and details of the article
written by Mr.Robert Scheer.Many of you have grossly
deviated from the content of the article.I really care less to read any post that deviates of what Mr.Scheer
specifically wrote.Will you please stick to the content
of the article,if you have anything to say about its
content.PLEASE,PLEASE,PLEASE….......
Sincerely,
Nabih Ammari
An Independent in Ohio

Report this

By cyrena, November 25, 2007 at 3:21 am Link to this comment

#115660 by Nomascerdo on 11/24 at 11:45 pm
Couldn’t resist…
•  I tend to trust the opinions of these people who are commercial airline pilots:
Me too. (tend to trust them that is) Or, maybe I should qualify that. I tended to trust the ones that were properly trained, and had the ability to utilize a measure of common sense.


•  All of that said, the ideal solution would be to address the root cause of terrorism but I can tell you that as scary as armed pilots might sound to some I would rather have well trained armed pilots than hijacked planes.  You already trust your life with a pilot every time you fly but you are unwilling to trust them with the defense of their cockpit?  That seems like a strange contradiction to me.

Maybe so, except that I am a pilot, and was employed as a commercial pilot for over 2 decades. So, this isn’t at ALL a matter of not trusting my colleagues or myself with the defense of whichever cockpits we might be in. It just doesn’t require a fire arm to do that, when proper security measures are followed. As a pilot, I have NEVER been comfortable with any firearms on board, and despite the little link that you posted, MOST pilots are not.

The truth is that the creation of 9/11 has brainwashed many, many, many, people, leaving us far more vulnerable NOW, to accidents based on hysteria. I would provide a list for you, of all of these sorts of ‘accidents’ (shooting dead innocent and unarmed passengers) except that it is far too long. I can say that nothing of the sort ever occurred between 1977 and 2001. And, if you would like to research “highjackings” of US air carriers during the same period of time, you’ll learn that none of them happened either, even though we all maintained accurate lists of potential ‘terrorist highjackers’ based on data from outside the US.

As for this:

•  Which mechanisms?  Do you define ‘unruly passenger’ as suicidal mass murderer? ‘Should something like that occur’?  Hasn’t it already occurred?

I’m not gonna bother with the mechanism. Who knows, you may be a terrorist waiting to hijack me.

I don’t define ‘unruly passengers’ as suicidal mass murderers, and no…I don’t believe that has occurred. I don’t believe that suicidal mass murderers took over 4 cockpits manned by a total of 8 pilots, and did it with boxcutters.

I know that 4 commercial jet liners disappeared on 9/11/2001, along with their crew and passengers. I believe that two of them crashed into the WTC, if only because we all saw it on TV. The rest is speculation. OR…if you want to, you could call it the ‘official conspiracy’. That any 1,2 or 3 terrorists were able to overcome two pilots with boxcutters is patently stupid, and I think you’d be hard pressed to come up with an experienced airline pilot who believes that could happen. I don’t know any.

That said, I certainly agree with you that we might check into discovering the root causes of terrorism. It’s definitely NOT because “they hate our freedoms.”

And maybe, someday, we can find out what actually happened on 9/11/2001. Because, there is no question in my own mind, that GUNS for pilots would not have helped them.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 25, 2007 at 1:22 am Link to this comment

Re #115653 by Ernest Canning on 11/24 at 10:16 pm

You will not get an argument out of me on the policies of Obama versus Kucinich. Kucinich is the most progressive candidate and from the standpoint of pure policy I agree with you that the Kucinich postitions are generally the best, on the war, on health care, on impeachment, etc. and his long record shows his commitment to those positions.

Politically, however, he is not in a position to unify the party and stop Clinton. Obama is the only one who can do that, in my opinion. The question for me is therefore not whether Kucinich’ policies are better than Obama’s but whether Obama’s are better than Clinton’s. I say the country would be substantially better off with an Obama presidency. So if you want to argue policy, let’s compare Obama with Clinton, not with Kucinich.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, November 25, 2007 at 12:58 am Link to this comment

Their mission statement pretty much sums it up for me:

http://secure-skies.org/mission.php

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 25, 2007 at 12:51 am Link to this comment

Re #115656 by Ernest Canning on 11/24 at 10:53 pm
(1169 comments total)

Incredible! I remember that show. To what levels of low comedy have we sunk?

Report this

By Nomascerdo, November 25, 2007 at 12:45 am Link to this comment

Couldn’t resist…

I tend to trust the opinions of these people who are commercial airline pilots:

http://secure-skies.org/Arming_Pilots.php

“…there is absolutely no need for anyone to be armed while in flight. EVER. There is NO NEED for any commercial airline pilot to be armed either. There are mechanisms on board to deal with unruly passengers, should something like that occur.”

Which mechanisms?  Do you define ‘unruly passenger’ as suicidal mass murderer? ‘Should something like that occur’?  Hasn’t it already occurred?

The following is from a pro-gun advocate but the facts remain the same:

“HARDLY EXPERIMENTAL

Despite all the concern about hypothetical risks, arming pilots is not some new experiment. About 70 percent of the pilots at major American airlines have military backgrounds, and military pilots flying outside the U.S. are required to carry handguns with them whenever they flew military planes.

Until the early 1960s, American commercial passenger pilots on any flight carrying U.S. mail were required to carry handguns. The requirement started at the beginning of commercial aviation to insure that pilots could defend the mail if their plane were to ever crash. In contrast to the current program, there were no training or screening requirements. Indeed, pilots were still allowed to carry guns until as recently as 1987. There are no records that any of these pilots (either military or commercial) carrying guns have ever caused any significant problems.”
******

All of that said, the ideal solution would be to address the root cause of terrorism but I can tell you that as scary as armed pilots might sound to some I would rather have well trained armed pilots than hijacked planes.  You already trust your life with a pilot every time you fly but you are unwilling to trust them with the defense of their cockpit?  That seems like a strange contradiction to me.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 24, 2007 at 11:53 pm Link to this comment

cyrena:  Your response to Nomascerdo brought to mind a comedy skit for the 1970s show “All in the Family” in which Archie Bunker proferred his hair-brained idea that they way you could put a stop to hijackings would be to give all the passengers handguns as they boarded their flights.  What drew a good laugh then would perhaps be taken by Nomascerdo and his ilk as a serious solution.

Report this

By cyrena, November 24, 2007 at 11:22 pm Link to this comment

#115641 by Nomascerdo on 11/24 at 8:28 pm


•  Pre 9-11 FAA regulations PROHIBITED private domestic airlines from arming their pilots.  If the airlines were allowed to arm their pilots, the attack likely wouldn’t have happened.

Nomascerdo,

You’re scary. REALLY scary. FAA regulations do now, always, and hopefully always will, prohibit the ‘arming’ of pilots or anybody else. These is one exception, and most commercial airline pilots aren’t comfortable with it, but generally ‘go along’.

The exception is federal employees such as the FBI, ATF, DEA, INS and maybe a few others, though for the most part, these are the only federal employees that travel with firearms on commercial airline transportation. When they do, the bureaucratic paperwork is extensive, as is the whole process of notifying all concerned parties that these individuals are in fact traveling with firearms. Pre-911, any captain of any commercial airline flight COULD – if he or she chose to – deny passage to that federal employee, or insist that he or she check their firearms in the cargo section of the aircraft, just like any other passenger.

Why would a pilot do that? BECAUSE…there is absolutely no need for anyone to be armed while in flight. EVER. There is NO NEED for any commercial airline pilot to be armed either. There are mechanisms on board to deal with unruly passengers, should something like that occur. So, regardless of whether or not the FAA prohibited the arming of pilots, the risk of having ANY firearm in the passenger cabins, (or cockpit) is far, far, far greater than any potential threat that could ONLY be contained by shooting somebody, at 30,000 feet.

The suggestion that 9/11 wouldn’t have happened if the pilots had been armed is downright STUPID. Do you believe that the pilots were taken out by BOXCUTTERS? And, if the pilots had firearms, they could have whipped them out before the box-cutter wielding terrorists could get to them? Or, maybe Ron Paul could have galloped down the aisle with his own firearm to save the day?

•  I can assure you that many airlines would have followed the model of El-Al if they weren’t PROHIBITED from doing so by the FAA

This is a LIE!! The FAA doesn’t prohibit China Airlines, Al Italia, Singapore Air Lines, Lufthansa, Air France, etc, etc, (I could go on) from arming their pilots. The FAA can’t tell these carriers what to do on their own routes, and especially in their own airspace. And YET…they DON’T!! So, El Al is the ONLY airline that flies their state owned airline with armed pilots. Philippine Airlines doesn’t do it, and neither do the Iranians or the Egyptians.

Nope…Just Israel’s El Al. They’re the only ones. Why do you suppose that is?

Please don’t ‘assure’ us of any more LIES!! The reason for not having firearms available to anyone in the air is simple enough. They don’t need them, and the risk of one or more of them going off at 35,000 or so feet is too great.

And, at least for us here in the U.S. there’s never been ‘trend’ of airline hijackings. We don’t have the same security concerns that Israel has, for obvious reasons.

So, armed pilots could not have prevented 9/11. An entire arsenal wouldn’t have helped them, and not because of Arabs with boxcutters.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 24, 2007 at 11:16 pm Link to this comment

TW—the fact that decent progressives with integrity, like yourself, have worked inside the Obama campaign does not make Obama a progressive.  Don’t tell me what you think of Obama’s supporters or whether you buy into his carefully erected image.  Place his policies alongside those offered by Dennis Kucinich.  Show me where Obama has proferred positions on issues that truly matter—e.g. single payer vs. universal coverage, neoliberal free trade vs. fair trade, media reform, ending the war in Iraq, taking on the military industrial complex, impeachment.  If you can’t demonstrate superiority of policy you have failed to demonstrate superiority of candidate.  And, frankly, you haven’t so much as offered substance on a single policy position.  To the contrary, you have asked that Kucinich supporters like myself forget all about substance and blindly follow the Obama band wagon.

I submit to you that if you cannot demonstrate substantive superiority, it is you who needs to re-examine the validity of your support for Obama.  If you are to really be true to where you personally stand on policy, it is you and the other decent progressives in the Obama campaign who should come over to Kucinich.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 24, 2007 at 11:07 pm Link to this comment

Re #115645 by LWM on 11/24 at 8:37 pm
(64 comments total)

Tony,

“This is silly season. It bores the hell out of me. It would be nice if we had publicly funded elections to one degree or another, like most other industrialized social democracies do. It would be nice if we could do something about the electoral college and a few other structural and institutional impediments to real representative democracy that we have here, enabling all the candidates, and other parties, to have a fair shakebut we have to do that first. In the mean time, I’m afraid I just can’t get excited as some of you about this process. As it is I’ll just wait until the dust settles and the real mudslingling starts.”
—————————————————————————
LWM,

So in other words you are just going to sit there and let the corporations and the Israel Lobby nominate Clinton, then back her against the Repugs? That sounds really boring to me. The empire is crumbling, you know. This is our best chance to make progress in generations. You should be getting excited.

Report this

By LWM, November 24, 2007 at 9:41 pm Link to this comment

No, you didn’t, you fraud.

Yes I did. Not that it is any of your damn business.

Let’s see how you twist this into something completely irrelevant, unrelated, and lacking understanding.  On second thought, I’m not going to bother… I actually have a life to attend to! 

over and out

Weapons that would have gotten into the hands of the hijackers because federal regs didn’t require armored cockpit doors. Too expensive for the “poor” airlines. Thanks, Reagan. I stopped flying years ago.

Ron Paul weenies give me agita.

Report this

By LWM, November 24, 2007 at 9:37 pm Link to this comment

Tony,

This is silly season. It bores the hell out of me. It would be nice if we had publicly funded elections to one degree or another, like most other industrialized social democracies do. It would be nice if we could do something about the electoral college and a few other structural and institutional impediments to real representative democracy that we have here, enabling all the candidates, and other parties, to have a fair shakebut we have to do that first. In the mean time, I’m afraid I just can’t get excited as some of you about this process. As it is I’ll just wait until the dust settles and the real mudslingling starts.

Shenonymous,

I just hope that future generations don’t look back and think Ron Paul was our Thomas Jefferson. I’d rather they found Snoop Dog and gave him the title.
wink

Report this

Page 4 of 7 pages « First  <  2 3 4 5 6 >  Last »

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook