The USA Political Thread

[lennco]

Here you can spout your USA political views.

Rules:
1. Keep it clean
2. No fighting
3. Respect the views of others.
4. US Political views, No Religious views
5. Have fun

:wave:

 

[Theo Goodman]

Use her definition. Simple question, do you agree with her?

To 9/11 she said:

“I’ve researched it for three years and every single thing that I uncover solidifies my belief that it was an inside job and that our government was complicit in what happened.”

Do you agree? Stop trying to act like you don't know what that means to avoid the question. Not going to keep going back and forth with you ducking it.

And you did it again, just saw your response below.

LOL
I am not avoiding the question, I am simply asking you what exactly you are asking. You asked me a direct question and I want to know what you mean by a term that has more than one definition depending on who you ask. This is an attempt to put people in a comparment, either you agree 100% the goverment narative or you are a "consipracy theorist", is this how debunkers work, in binary?

 

[Theo Goodman]

I think you added the quotes from her.
"complicit" yea that is pertty general but yes I agree, on many points the goverment was complicit.

Do you agree with Hiliary Clinton calling Putian --- > Hitler?

 

[GILSAN]

CAIR are very upset because of "Tyrant," the new hit TV show about the Islamic world.

Boo hoo... Excuse me while I go cry some crocodile tears

 

[verbster]

I think you added the quotes from her. "complicit" yea that is pertty general but yes I agree, on many points the goverment was complicit.

Please give a few examples of the complicity and your proof.

Do you agree with Hiliary Clinton calling Putian --- > Hitler?

At least get your accusations accurate. Clinton didn't call Putin Hitler; she compared Putin's issuing Russian passports to Ukrainians with ties to Russia with early actions by Nazi Germany before Hitler began invading neighboring countries."

But she also said that "while that makes people nervous, there is no indication that Putin is as irrational as the instigator of World War II."

 

[Theo Goodman]

Please give a few examples of the complicity and your proof.



At least get your accusations accurate. Clinton didn't call Putin Hitler; she compared Putin's issuing Russian passports to Ukrainians with ties to Russia with early actions by Nazi Germany before Hitler began invading neighboring countries."

But she also said that "while that makes people nervous, there is no indication that Putin is as irrational as the instigator of World War II."

Yes you are right! She compared Putin to the actions of Hitler preparing for an invasion. So you see that is pertty exact and clear. But terms such as "inside job" and "complicity" are very broad.
"
By Philip Rucker March 5 Follow @PhilipRucker
Former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday compared Russian President Vladimir Putin's aggression in Ukraine to actions taken by Nazi leader Adolf Hitler outside Germany in the run-up to World War II.

Making her first extensive comments about the crisis in Ukraine, Clinton said at a private fundraiser in California that Putin's campaign to provide Russian passports to those with Russian connections living outside his country's borders is reminiscent of Hitler's protection of ethnic Germans outside Germany, according to a report published overnight.

"Now if this sounds familiar, it's what Hitler did back in the '30s," Clinton said Tuesday, according to the Long Beach Press-Telegram. "All the Germans that were ... the ethnic Germans, the Germans by ancestry who were in places like Czechoslovakia and Romania and other places, Hitler kept saying they're not being treated right. I must go and protect my people, and that's what's gotten everybody so nervous.""

So do you guys agree with Clinton´s statement or not?

Here is one example of complicity, listen to: Lt. Col Anthony Shaffer ,maybe he is a nut?

 

[verbster]

The key statement is at minute 3:50.

 

[Theo Goodman]

Yes, this is a form of complicity, and we dont know how or why exactly the information was not shared, attempts to look at this issue have been dismissed,as he pointed out.

wiki says: "An individual is complicit in a crime if he/she is aware of its occurrence and has the ability to report the crime, but fails to do so"

This guy is pointing out that there was an ablity to prevent the crime but the goverment failed to do so. I am not a lawyer so if that is not complicit then I stand corrected.

But how can a "truther chick" have someone on her own show that doesnt think it is a "conspiracy" as in noted point 3:50?

If simply questioning the goverment narative and the 911 commisons work makes me a " truther"then fine, please go back to the NSA snack room.

 

[verbster]

There are three scenarios available for complicity
1. Knowing a violent act was going to be done but doing nothing to stop it.
2. Helping individuals (or groups) commit the act.
3. Covering up the first two scenarios.

Minute 3:50 says #2 did not happen. #1 is questionable. I didn't hear anything specific on the video that proves 9/11 could definitely have been prevented at the time, not in hind sight, but at the time. The Colonel offers lots of hints and claims about odds and ends, but the dots are not connected, and much is 3rd party hearsay. Plus, he's simply trying to sell a book. On the off chance #1 is partially true, what would you like to happen? Put Bush in jail? This same scenario was said about Pearl Harbor, but what happened about it?

Questioning the government is a good thing, especially when there's proof the government has done or is doing wrong, but there's a difference between questioning and accusing, especially if there is no solid evidence

 

[Theo Goodman]

3. Covering up the first two scenarios.

that is what he is talking about

-

"especially if there is no solid evidence"
Solid evidence is what was lacking in the commsion report and goverment narative, but since things are top secret for national security we will not get this information. We should instead simply trust that the right thing is being done.

"especially when there's proof the government has done or is doing wrong, but there's a difference between questioning and accusing, especially if there is no solid evidence"


It is going to be pertty hard to get "solid evidence" of goverment wrong from goverment sources doing unless it is around 20 years after the fact.



"On the off chance #1 is partially true, what would you like to happen? Put Bush in jail? This same scenario was said about Pearl Harbor, but what happened about it?"

This is not the discussion, the discussion is basicly trying to label me, yet again, a "truther" or "conspriacy theorist" for simply not agreeing with someone elses opinon that is just as much based on herrsay and opinion as any other.

Just because nothing happened in regard to pearl harbor or any other past crime by any other person lends zero to any argument about 911 or trying to label people.

The whole reason this even came up is that there is yet another documentation of goverment IP addresses editing wiki, but any source besides wiki is frowned opon as being written by "nuts" unless of course it is a debunker written blog or website, which also write and sell books, collect ad revenue and have there own world view and agenda.

There are more than enough things that need to be taken another look at here, and not simply dismissed by knee jerk insults like "nuts".

There are three scenarios available for complicity
1. Knowing a violent act was going to be done but doing nothing to stop it.
2. Helping individuals (or groups) commit the act.
3. Covering up the first two scenarios.

Minute 3:50 says #2 did not happen. #1 is questionable. I didn't hear anything specific on the video that proves 9/11 could definitely have been prevented at the time, not in hind sight, but at the time. The Colonel offers lots of hints and claims about odds and ends, but the dots are not connected, and much is 3rd party hearsay. Plus, he's simply trying to sell a book. On the off chance #1 is partially true, what would you like to happen? Put Bush in jail? This same scenario was said about Pearl Harbor, but what happened about it?

Questioning the government is a good thing, especially when there's proof the government has done or is doing wrong, but there's a difference between questioning and accusing, especially if there is no solid evidence

 

[verbster]

3. Covering up the first two scenarios.

that is what he is talking about".

Can't be. He admitted at 3:50 that scenario #2 didn't happen.

"especially if there is no solid evidence"
Solid evidence is what was lacking in the commsion report and goverment narative, but since things are top secret for national security we will not get this information. We should instead simply trust that the right thing is being done.

"especially when there's proof the government has done or is doing wrong, but there's a difference between questioning and accusing, especially if there is no solid evidence"


It is going to be pertty hard to get "solid evidence" of goverment wrong from goverment sources doing unless it is around 20 years after the fact.

Just because it's hard to get is no reason to make stuff up, though. Just like in the news business, good reporters find a way to expose the truth and have evidence to back them up; others make stuff up.

"On the off chance #1 is partially true, what would you like to happen? Put Bush in jail? This same scenario was said about Pearl Harbor, but what happened about it?"

This is not the discussion, the discussion is basicly trying to label me, yet again, a "truther" or "conspriacy theorist" for simply not agreeing with someone elses opinon that is just as much based on herrsay and opinion as any other.

Just because nothing happened in regard to pearl harbor or any other past crime by any other person lends zero to any argument about 911 or trying to label people.

I haven't called or labeled you anything, have I? You're wrong about past actions having no impact on current events.

The whole reason this even came up is that there is yet another documentation of goverment IP addresses editing wiki, but any source besides wiki is frowned opon as being written by "nuts" unless of course it is a debunker written blog or website, which also write and sell books, collect ad revenue and have there own world view and agenda.

What makes you think the government edits aren't legitimate? There are two million government workers. I'm sure at least a few enjoy patrolling Wiki while at work just like other wiki editors. Wiki keeps records of content changes. Incorrect stuff gets added and changed by all kinds of people. Do you have any specific evidence of systemic wrongdoing, or evidence that any government agency has been tasked with altering Wiki to cover stuff up?

There are more than enough things that need to be taken another look at here, and not simply dismissed by knee jerk insults like "nuts".

Who decides what to look at? Who investigates? Do you expect any agency, private or government, to open its doors and files to anyone who thinks there may be a possible conspiracy or other hard to prove belief?

We're all a little nuts to be wasting our time here.

 

[Theo Goodman]

Can't be. He admitted at 3:50 that scenario #2 didn't happen.


Just because it's hard to get is no reason to make stuff up, though. Just like in the news business, good reporters find a way to expose the truth and have evidence to back them up; others make stuff up.




I haven't called or labeled you anything, have I? You're wrong about past actions having no impact on current events.


What makes you think the government edits aren't legitimate? There are two million government workers. I'm sure at least a few enjoy patrolling Wiki while at work just like other wiki editors. Wiki keeps records of content changes. Incorrect stuff gets added and changed by all kinds of people. Do you have any specific evidence of systemic wrongdoing, or evidence that any government agency has been tasked with altering Wiki to cover stuff up?


Who decides what to look at? Who investigates? Do you expect any agency, private or government, to open its doors and files to anyone who thinks there may be a possible conspiracy or other hard to prove belief?

We're all a little nuts to be wasting our time here.

He is talking about trying to look into how eveything could have been prevented, he is not allowed to do this ie. cover up.

"Just because it's hard to get is no reason to make stuff up, though. Just like in the news business, good reporters find a way to expose the truth and have evidence to back them up; others make stuff up."

If the goverment has a monoply on the hard evidence since we would need to audit them, it is kinda hard to get said evidence. So i guess "good" reporters just shut up and repeat the narrative.

What stuff is being made up? So basicly because you can not get evidence or access to evidence then it is simply "making stuff up" to even question what happened? Sorry I disagree.


No you did not label me, that is true.
I dont mean that the past has no effect on today, I mean that it is a distraction and not relivant that nothing happened in regard to pearl harbor, so lets say nothing ever happens, and? So what?

"What makes you think the government edits aren't legitimate?"

A goveremnt IP address edited abby martins wiki to say something like "russian propganaist" as well as editing snowdens wiki entry to say something like "traitor".
These are not exaclty examples of the goverment editing things to help people because the info is wrong, (like if a goverment IP edited the population of a city that was listed wrong)but instead usnig the internet for propganda.

EVEN IF the edits are "legitimate" it shows that wiki is no way indypendent, but rather able to be edited by the goverment, as long as things are advertised like that on their donation page, fine.
It also shows that it is possible that wiki reflects the goverment narrative and is not an indypendent or subjective source.
-
On August 2, 2013, an editor linked to the US senate with the IP 156.33.241.5 edited the Wikipedia page of whistleblower Edward Snowden to change his description from "dissident" to "traitor".[14]-



The next screenshots are from the site infowars, I am sure that alone will discredit them, im sure that you can find the info by going through wiki though

So are these the kind of legit edits you are talking about? Are these not policaly fueled edits of a non-goverment website?!

"Who decides what to look at? Who investigates? Do you expect any agency, private or government, to open its doors and files to anyone who thinks there may be a possible conspiracy or other hard to prove belief?"

Of course not. Do you really think people should be satified with the "investigation" that took place?

Here are the wiki links, we can see if they differ from the infowars ones
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=616945699&oldid=616944246
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=616958230&oldid=616839647

 

[GILSAN]

 

[Theo Goodman]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ents-directly-involved-us-terror-plots-report

 

[verbster]

You left out "idiot," which seems to be used a lot around here.

 

[verbster]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ents-directly-involved-us-terror-plots-report

What's your point?

 

[Theo Goodman]

My point is that it is an interesting article.

 

[RogueWriter]

Welfare Cash For Weed In Colorado...

Gee, who could possibly have anticipated that (asides from every conservative republican) .

 

[verbster]

Welfare Cash For Weed In Colorado...

Gee, who could possibly have anticipated that (asides from every conservative republican) .

The issue is not the withdrawal of welfare funds from the weed shops, it's the spending of the withdrawn cash for weed that's the issue.

Just like I don't believe food stamps should be used to buy cigarettes, welfare money shouldn't be used to buy pot. Having said that, the headline you quoted was misleading and unsupported. it implied that welfare cash was approved to purchase marijuana, which is not true.

According to the source quoted, Since pot was legalized six months ago, there have been over 500,000 cash withdrawals using the EBT card. A total of 259 withdrawals were at pot retailers. The article also states that it's impossible to know how much of the withdrawals [if any] were used to buy pot. I would go further and wonder if the card users were the legit owners, and I would like to see numbers of withdrawals in liquor stores, bars and casinos, but that wasn't reported by the article.

If the spending of $23,000 out of millions is really going to be considered a major issue, the simple solution is to add coded restrictions to cash access points in "potentially inappropriate venues" like bars, liquor stores, gambling establishments and marijuana shops that prevent the dispensation of cash.

 

[RogueWriter]

The issue is not the withdrawal of welfare funds from the weed shops, it's the spending of the withdrawn cash for weed that's the issue.

Just like I don't believe food stamps should be used to buy cigarettes, welfare money shouldn't be used to buy pot. Having said that, the headline you quoted was misleading and unsupported. it implied that welfare cash was approved to purchase marijuana, which is not true.

According to the source quoted, Since pot was legalized six months ago, there have been over 500,000 cash withdrawals using the EBT card. A total of 259 withdrawals were at pot retailers. The article also states that it's impossible to know how much of the withdrawals [if any] were used to buy pot. I would go further and wonder if the card users were the legit owners, and I would like to see numbers of withdrawals in liquor stores, bars and casinos, but that wasn't reported by the article.

If the spending of $23,000 out of millions is really going to be considered a major issue, the simple solution is to add coded restrictions to cash access points in "potentially inappropriate venues" like bars, liquor stores, gambling establishments and marijuana shops that prevent the dispensation of cash.

Well, that's just the start of it, just suggesting they might want to....nip it in the bud. :P Sorry, had to go there. I wou ld agree with you, it is something that has ticked me off for years. I know of examples where people have used the money for tanning. Misuse of the program is widespread, but relatively unsupervised. I recall one study that suggested as much as 2 billion each year from the SNAP program is used on soda pop and candy. Our government could require reporting of that, but they do not, because stores that accept SNAP cards whine that giving out that information about their sales gives their competitors am advantage. The real reason, imo, is that the soda and snack lobby do not want the American populace to be aware of how much tax money is being funneled into their industry. The EBT cards are just another venue for abuse, a good idea that has become an unsustainable entitlement.

 

[Theo Goodman]

From a pragmatic point of view the ammount of money saved from not putting weed smokers in jail and prison outweighs sometimes using welfare money to buy weed at a regulated shop.