I feel this rant that I didn't read needs to be quoted.
>> ^RFlagg:

@bobknight33 I never said to tax the rich out their ass or take all corporate revenue. I think another 3% isn't going to hurt to hurt the top 1% or even the top 2% of wage earners (most of whom are not job creators anyhow, but lawyers and surgeons and the like, not a single real small business owner among them), and punishing the people who can't make a living wage isn't the solution, but it is the only one the conservatives consider. As @KnivesOut pointed out, and as I noted in the part you didn't quote, there is a huge military spending that the Republicans refuse to cut spending on. I don't know if I would cut 70%, but at the very least 50%. Last figures I saw we were spending more than the next 19 countries combined, and most of them are allies or neutral, that leaves China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and perhaps Brazil... Cutting out budget in half still leaves us spending more than the next 6 combined, and again, most are allies. Even as a percentage of GDP, we are far above and beyond what most countries spend, we'd probably have to get down to that 70% mark to get even close to the average of the top 20. Conservatives love to complain about NASA wasting money, but NASA's entire budget for a year is less than what we spend on air conditioning our troops in Afghanistan alone.
My only comparison to other countries had nothing to do with their finances, but with the fact that the US was the only industrialized country in the world that wasn't communist or Islamic to not let gays server openly.
How is Obama a liberal? What has he done that is remotely liberal? Did he give us the health care plan he promised, which was a single payer health insurance? No. We ended up with what the Republicans would allow, which was Mittcare on a national level. A program that favors Big Pharma and the Insurance Companies and while it does help some people, it does no where near as good for the vast majority of Americans that the single payer would have been. Sure the insurance companies would have gone from making hundreds of billions of dollars off people's suffering to just tens of billions or hundreds of millions at worst, and big pharma the same, but aside from that, for everyday people, they would be better off.
How did we turn our back on Israel? And even if we did, who cares? We should just leave the middle east alone. It isn't our business. That is why they hate us you know, not our so called freedoms that we gave up after the attacks, or any other such BS, it is because we interfear with their business.
As to Obamacare... I already stated, it isn't Obamacare. Obamacare would have been a nationalized health insurance, what we got is Mittcare on a national level which is a mandate to buy insurance from a for-profit insurance company. The only positives is that they can no longer deny people based on pre-existing conditions, extended coverage for children... this compares to what Obamacare would have done had it passed, which would create an insurance that is cheaper and just as good as and in many if not most cases better than the private insurance that most Americans had. It would have been cheaper, meaning far less money taken out of their paychecks and more money to spend. Millions of uninsured and under-insured workers would have finally have access to affordable health care, not just have to show up at the ER when things reach a level that could have been prevented had they been able to see a regular doctor and been able to cover any lab fees...they then end up not being able to pay said ER visits, which raises the cost of health care for everyone else, and many others file bankruptcy to get out of medical bills, which in the US is the number one reason for bankruptcy for individuals, which again adds to overall medical costs for everyone. Conservatives like to blame lawsuits, which do raise the cost of surgery, and is an issue, but the real cause of high medical costs, beyond greed, is the fact that so many people end up not being able to pay for what services they got the medical community then passes those costs on.
One of the primary reasons I am not a Christian anymore is because so many Christians spoke out against taking care of the sick and the needy. Even though Jesus' main commandment was love. Most Christians are full of hate for those who they don't like. They hate the gays and want to revoke the free-will god gave them, and not let them get married. They don't want to help the sick and the poor and want to give the money those sick and poor people earned and turn it over to the money lenders. They basically want to be the exact opposite of what Jesus taught. It is like Gandhi said, “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
Obama hasn't been allowed to put his economic policies in effect becaouse the Republicans have refused. What we have is a continuation of Bush's economic policies because the Republicans promised they would never negotiate and do everything they can to make his Presidency a failure. We have been running a Republican budget for years now... and we've been foolishly thinking it will trickle down for over 30 years now. The rich keep getting richer and richer at a faster and faster pace, while the poor get poorer and the middle class dissolves to the poor. Yet the Republicans still keep saying it will work. Yeah, it works for 2%, while everyone else suffers for it.
Know why jobs aren't being created? Because the rich don't care. They don't want to make jobs, they want private jets and mansions and will fuck over everyone to do it. The place I used to work at, in 2010 fired 350 people and then told everyone else they weren't getting raises because they said the cost of living went down. He then went out and purchased a private jet and another mansion in an exclusive gated community in town, already have the second largest there wasn't enough apparently... he could have closed his Miami Beach office, which is literally on the beach, he walks out the door he is on the beach, and there is only one employee there, but no, he destroyed the lives of 350 families and basically everyone else who worked for him to get his stuff. The next year, 250 more fired, and still no raises. This year, 350 more and still no raises, and just recently another 100 or so more fired. So over 1000 families put out, and those still working for him haven't had raises for 3 years just so he can have his stuff. He could have kept those people on and not have got that stuff, he could have closed the Miami Beach office and let one person go, he could have made other cuts (like not buying a $5 Million software that as I understand it after 4 years of work still doesn't work as promised, it wasn't working when I left and it was already 2 years of that money spent and was no where near working) but no, he chose to sacrifice the lives of people under his care. The so called job creators haven't been in the business of creating jobs simply because they choose to outsource, they choose to take for themselves rather than care for those under them. It isn't Obama's fault... hell it isn't even Bush's or Reagan's fault. It is the rich's fault. They could create jobs, but they choose not to. They choose to widen the gap between the haves and the have not's at a rate nobody has ever seen anywhere. The CEO of Wal-Mart could be given a total package of $250,000, then with that as the top line, drawing from the minimum wage workers (so the line would look like "/") and spending the same amount of money on all salary, HR expenses, compensation and all that jazz hire hundreds of thousands more, or give everyone more to live on, or actually provide health insurance... but no, they and nearly every company in America is setup to have a salary structure that looks like "˩". I firmly believe the owner should make a fair salary above and beyond everyone else, but it shouldn't be so far out of proportion to everyone else in the company that they sacrifice people under their care just so they can get ahead. The fact Republicans think that is okay is what is sickening. The fact Christians think that is okay is sickening.

@bobknight33 I never said to tax the rich out their ass or take all corporate revenue. I think another 3% isn't going to hurt to hurt the top 1% or even the top 2% of wage earners (most of whom are not job creators anyhow, but lawyers and surgeons and the like, not a single real small business owner among them), and punishing the people who can't make a living wage isn't the solution, but it is the only one the conservatives consider. As @KnivesOut pointed out, and as I noted in the part you didn't quote, there is a huge military spending that the Republicans refuse to cut spending on. I don't know if I would cut 70%, but at the very least 50%. Last figures I saw we were spending more than the next 19 countries combined, and most of them are allies or neutral, that leaves China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and perhaps Brazil... Cutting out budget in half still leaves us spending more than the next 6 combined, and again, most are allies. Even as a percentage of GDP, we are far above and beyond what most countries spend, we'd probably have to get down to that 70% mark to get even close to the average of the top 20. Conservatives love to complain about NASA wasting money, but NASA's entire budget for a year is less than what we spend on air conditioning our troops in Afghanistan alone.

My only comparison to other countries had nothing to do with their finances, but with the fact that the US was the only industrialized country in the world that wasn't communist or Islamic to not let gays server openly.

How is Obama a liberal? What has he done that is remotely liberal? Did he give us the health care plan he promised, which was a single payer health insurance? No. We ended up with what the Republicans would allow, which was Mittcare on a national level. A program that favors Big Pharma and the Insurance Companies and while it does help some people, it does no where near as good for the vast majority of Americans that the single payer would have been. Sure the insurance companies would have gone from making hundreds of billions of dollars off people's suffering to just tens of billions or hundreds of millions at worst, and big pharma the same, but aside from that, for everyday people, they would be better off.

How did we turn our back on Israel? And even if we did, who cares? We should just leave the middle east alone. It isn't our business. That is why they hate us you know, not our so called freedoms that we gave up after the attacks, or any other such BS, it is because we interfear with their business.

As to Obamacare... I already stated, it isn't Obamacare. Obamacare would have been a nationalized health insurance, what we got is Mittcare on a national level which is a mandate to buy insurance from a for-profit insurance company. The only positives is that they can no longer deny people based on pre-existing conditions, extended coverage for children... this compares to what Obamacare would have done had it passed, which would create an insurance that is cheaper and just as good as and in many if not most cases better than the private insurance that most Americans had. It would have been cheaper, meaning far less money taken out of their paychecks and more money to spend. Millions of uninsured and under-insured workers would have finally have access to affordable health care, not just have to show up at the ER when things reach a level that could have been prevented had they been able to see a regular doctor and been able to cover any lab fees...they then end up not being able to pay said ER visits, which raises the cost of health care for everyone else, and many others file bankruptcy to get out of medical bills, which in the US is the number one reason for bankruptcy for individuals, which again adds to overall medical costs for everyone. Conservatives like to blame lawsuits, which do raise the cost of surgery, and is an issue, but the real cause of high medical costs, beyond greed, is the fact that so many people end up not being able to pay for what services they got the medical community then passes those costs on.

One of the primary reasons I am not a Christian anymore is because so many Christians spoke out against taking care of the sick and the needy. Even though Jesus' main commandment was love. Most Christians are full of hate for those who they don't like. They hate the gays and want to revoke the free-will god gave them, and not let them get married. They don't want to help the sick and the poor and want to give the money those sick and poor people earned and turn it over to the money lenders. They basically want to be the exact opposite of what Jesus taught. It is like Gandhi said, “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

Obama hasn't been allowed to put his economic policies in effect becaouse the Republicans have refused. What we have is a continuation of Bush's economic policies because the Republicans promised they would never negotiate and do everything they can to make his Presidency a failure. We have been running a Republican budget for years now... and we've been foolishly thinking it will trickle down for over 30 years now. The rich keep getting richer and richer at a faster and faster pace, while the poor get poorer and the middle class dissolves to the poor. Yet the Republicans still keep saying it will work. Yeah, it works for 2%, while everyone else suffers for it.

Know why jobs aren't being created? Because the rich don't care. They don't want to make jobs, they want private jets and mansions and will fuck over everyone to do it. The place I used to work at, in 2010 fired 350 people and then told everyone else they weren't getting raises because they said the cost of living went down. He then went out and purchased a private jet and another mansion in an exclusive gated community in town, already have the second largest there wasn't enough apparently... he could have closed his Miami Beach office, which is literally on the beach, he walks out the door he is on the beach, and there is only one employee there, but no, he destroyed the lives of 350 families and basically everyone else who worked for him to get his stuff. The next year, 250 more fired, and still no raises. This year, 350 more and still no raises, and just recently another 100 or so more fired. So over 1000 families put out, and those still working for him haven't had raises for 3 years just so he can have his stuff. He could have kept those people on and not have got that stuff, he could have closed the Miami Beach office and let one person go, he could have made other cuts (like not buying a $5 Million software that as I understand it after 4 years of work still doesn't work as promised, it wasn't working when I left and it was already 2 years of that money spent and was no where near working) but no, he chose to sacrifice the lives of people under his care. The so called job creators haven't been in the business of creating jobs simply because they choose to outsource, they choose to take for themselves rather than care for those under them. It isn't Obama's fault... hell it isn't even Bush's or Reagan's fault. It is the rich's fault. They could create jobs, but they choose not to. They choose to widen the gap between the haves and the have not's at a rate nobody has ever seen anywhere. The CEO of Wal-Mart could be given a total package of $250,000, then with that as the top line, drawing from the minimum wage workers (so the line would look like "/") and spending the same amount of money on all salary, HR expenses, compensation and all that jazz hire hundreds of thousands more, or give everyone more to live on, or actually provide health insurance... but no, they and nearly every company in America is setup to have a salary structure that looks like "˩". I firmly believe the owner should make a fair salary above and beyond everyone else, but it shouldn't be so far out of proportion to everyone else in the company that they sacrifice people under their care just so they can get ahead. The fact Republicans think that is okay is what is sickening. The fact Christians think that is okay is sickening.

no one ever said taxing the rich would solve the debt problem...nothing individually will solve the debt problem. It's a strawman argument.

taxing the rich is more about making those freeloaders pay their fair share and having a fair and just society. The wealthy have a bigger stake in gov't services far more than the average citizen ever will. That's why a progressive tax is the only fair way to go. The wealthy have far more at stake when it comes to gov't negotiating trade agreements and diplomacy. they rely on the military more to keep the seas safe for commerce. they have more to lose if the gov't doesn't invest in health care, infrastructure and education since that's where they get their labor force from.

toning down military spending would probably make the biggest impact on the budget. but it can't be just one thing.

Most of all, private money needs to be removed from elections..period. money is not free speech.

@bobknight33 you're absolutely right about the debt issue. The only real solution is to end the 2 endless wars and cut military spending by 70%. Unfortunately military spending has never been part of the discussion, because neither side is willing to offend the military/industrial complex.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

I got to 1:48 where he said, "Liberals say tax the rich and that will do it."
Umm...I don't remember ANYONE saying that that is enough. It's not.
Cut military spending DRASTICALLY!! AND tax the rich and corporations.
To be fair @surfingyt doesn't say if he thinks this is true, he (she?) just posted a video.
@GenjiKilpatrick -- No, he hasn't stopped his "self-help" racket.
He's helping himself to a big ol' bag of PAC money.
Downvote.


I agree that cutting military spending is an area that does need to be addressed quite seriously, not sure what it is now, but last i heard it was more than 2 Trillion a year (correct me if wrong).
If the military is still contracting out to those $$companies that suck up the funding and do stupid wasteful stuff like buying/building new trucks instead of repairing few-month old trucks because they make a bigger profit, then that needs to stop immediately.. military's should not be privatized like that.

In saying that I also think it's unwise to take out all the government armed forces funding as a country still needs to defend itself for it's citizens security, especially if they've pissed off a bunch of other nations. But the extent of the funding the US engages in is well past an obsessive degree and needs to be pulled into line.

Large corporations being taxed at low rates and in a lot of cases not even being audited for tax evasion (as TYT mentioned recently) is disgusting when the poor get smashed by taxes and audits.

I got to 1:48 where he said, "Liberals say tax the rich and that will do it."

Umm...I don't remember ANYONE saying that that is enough. It's not.

Cut military spending DRASTICALLY!! AND tax the rich and corporations.

To be fair @surfingyt doesn't say if he thinks this is true, he (she?) just posted a video.

@GenjiKilpatrick -- No, he hasn't stopped his "self-help" racket.
He's helping himself to a big ol' bag of PAC money.

Downvote.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^ghark:
Some incorrect information near the start where he says "the vast majority of expenditure goes to medicare, medicaid" etc.. More than half of each tax dollar is going to the military/defence, certainly far and away more than health expenditure.
http://videosift.com/video/53-of-each-American-tax-dollar-going
-to-the-military

Not to totally sidetrack things, but that number requires a lot of dubious decisions about what "counts" as spending.
Since I had this argument not all that long ago with blankfist, here's the thread where I did all the research & response to it.
Basically the short version is to get military spending above 50% you have to a) not count social security, medicare, or medicaid outlays as "spending" and b) count the entire interest payment on the national debt as "military" even though our present debt mostly comes from Reagan & Bush tax cuts.
Too much of our taxes goes to defense & war, but it's more like 20% than 50%.


i'll check that out when I get some time, cheers.

>> ^ghark:

Some incorrect information near the start where he says "the vast majority of expenditure goes to medicare, medicaid" etc.. More than half of each tax dollar is going to the military/defence, certainly far and away more than health expenditure.
http://videosift.com/video/53-of-each-American-tax-dollar-going
-to-the-military


Not to totally sidetrack things, but that number requires a lot of dubious decisions about what "counts" as spending.

Since I had this argument not all that long ago with blankfist, here's the thread where I did all the research & response to it.

Basically the short version is to get military spending above 50% you have to a) not count social security, medicare, or medicaid outlays as "spending" and b) count the entire interest payment on the national debt as "military" even though our present debt mostly comes from Reagan & Bush tax cuts.

Too much of our taxes goes to defense & war, but it's more like 20% than 50%.

talk about wasteful (delicious, but wasteful) military spending!

Congress does not have a century of a generally poor track record. The US has been the most prosperous country in the history of the planet the last century, and it's not even close. And much of what has made the US so economically prosperous had a lot to do with gov't decisions on where to spend money such as creation of the Fed, FDIC, etc., funding the industrial/military complex which led to things like NASA, computers, the internet; federal grants, scholarships, and funding for public universities; nuclear technologies that led to things from nuclear reactors to home microwaves, electrification with programs like the TVA and the Hoover Dam which developed entire regions economically, medical funding, I could go on and on and on.



Private citizens are responsible for quite a number of things you've mentioned, and their success.

but it's lunacy to say federal gov't spending didn't play a major role



Agreed. Why did you say that? No one is arguing that point. Government revenue should be spent on these things. My argument is about who is making those decisions and if they can be better made by those who experience these things firsthand.

Have you looked at the kind of financial decisions we Americans are making?



Yep. Personal savings has been bad only for the past decade or so. Economic growth in the US is primarily driven by consumer demand.

So let's talk about those million voters. Have you looked at the kind of financial decisions we Americans are making. With all the talk about how banks screwed consumers in mortgages, who were the idiots who agreed to said mortgages? Way too many Americans, even during the boom, were a paycheck or two away from being broke, had virtually no savings, overpaid for houses, weren't investing/saving for retirement, etc. I'm sorry, but the general public, including voters, are god awful at handling money. Even some people who are generally financially responsible are this way because of hardline rules they refuse to break like never using credit to buy anything other than a house or MAYBE a car. Can you imagine how many businesses would exist if loans weren't taken out to start them? Such people have no idea how to be entrepreneurial and borrow money to increase productivity.



Now you're just making gross generalizations. You've given good examples of how government funded programs in the last century helped lead to economic prosperity, but cited one poor example within the last 5 years of how a minority (yes. minority) of the population made bad financial decisions. By that logic, *my* money management is bad because of someone in Nevada bought a house and couldn't afford it.

I know you're upset at my tiny, detailless post, but I think it's you who needs to get perspective before so obviously jumping the gun.

Everyone, including the president, says that "we have to work together blah blah" but time and time again it does not happen. Then comes the proof that lobbyists pay congressmen to speak on their industry's behalf, completely undermining the voters who placed them in office in the first place.

As a result of narrow mindedness and rigidity, the US is performing average in reading and science, and below average in math. College tuition is rising much faster than home prices. Gas is higher. Food is less quantity but more expensive. Healthcare costs are exhorbitant. Social security is dying a slow death thanks to Reagan. Medicare is always on the chopping block because it's costs are absurd. Unions are losing their rights. Meanwhile, the military industrial complex is doing very well, and corporate entities have cleaned up their books and are in the best financial position in decades *but refuse to hire people*.

You can have your opinions on why things are the way they are; republicans do this, democrats do that. The president did this, Bush did that. None of that matters because NOW..NOW you're unemployed,and/or your house is in foreclosure, and/or your kids won't be able to goto college because it's too expensive. And those jobs that were lost during the crisis? They're gone. They are not coming back. It's a mathematical reality.

Let's do some numbers now.

US tax revenue: 2.3 trillion
Currently 535 people in position to control budgetting = 4.3 billion worth of financial leverage each.
130 million people = popular vote in 2008 election
So hypothetically, if voters controlled federal budgets, each voter would have ~17500$ worth of financial leverage.

Every year, each person elects where they think all US revenue should be allocated. This, in essence, gives each voting citizen of the united states direct control of the united states federal budget. Also, each state could give their population voting control of their state budgets. For those people who elect to not make their allocations, either congress and state congress will allocate for them as usual, or the leverage they had is transferred into the remaining pool.

Why do this?

1. Because the people, the majority, know best. Congress by nature of their numbers is incapable of providing the best decisions because this country is a huge melting pot of cultures. Each state has different problems and different benefits, and the local citizens deal with them firsthand everyday. The representative system of governance worked a century ago because the population was a fraction of what it is today.

2. The entire us lobbying institution would literally collapse overnight. Lobbyists exist to manipulate congress into moving money into their direction. Since the budgeting decision has been given to millions instead of a couple, money spent lobbying is rendered ineffective to produce their desired outcome.

3. No more blame game since you now have a piece of how the pie gets sliced. Do you support the military? Allocate money to military spending. Support stem cell research? Allocate money to science and R&D. Want to get off foreign oil? Allocate the money to alternative energy sources. Worried about social security? Allocate more to the fund. Worried about our country's ability to compete? Allocate the distribution to education. Worried about debt? Pay it down. People always hate the government because of the financial decisions they make. Not anymore.

4. The internet can be the primary vehicle of how people cast their tax allocation and educate themselves on this important decision. For those who do not have access, they can cast their allocation at designated locations such as their local library or post office.

5. There are times when emergency funds are needed for disasters; Economic, weather, unforeseen events. Congress shall have control over that as time is of the essence. But if the money exceeds a set amount, the voting power shall be delegated to the people (for example, bank bailouts).

Look, it's just an idea and it doesn't deserve to be insulted. But if you feel better, then GO FOR IT! I'd like constructive feedback though.

>> ^quantumushroom:

If Cain is such a non-threat, why is this regime's loyal media trying so desperately to sink him (while actively covering up Obama's many gaffes as well as the regime's failures of the last 3 years)?
Which just goes to show...something...about conservatives in the US. It hurts my head to try to figure out what.
Success, jobs, prosperity, national pride. Yeah, they'll remain distant memories as long as socialists are in power.

>> ^TheFreak:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Wow, this obviously proves Cain is not up to the job.
It took 3 (now almost 4) years of failure and the left still doesn't know Obama isn't up to the job.

And yet Herman Cain, the man aspiring to be President who is uninformed about Medicare issues...the man who wants to be leader of the free world who fears China may develop nuclear capabilities...the man who's strongest held beliefs, he has "no facts to support"....THAT man, is still rising in the GOP presidential polls.
Which just goes to show...something...about conservatives in the US. It hurts my head to try to figure out what.



because success, jobs, prosperity, and national pride did so well under a recent Republican President?
lol

now don't get me wrong, I realize alot of American's have national pride... its just too bad what they have pride in just doesn't jive with reality...

"We're #1" is only applicable to 3 things in regards to America...

military spending, national debt, and rate of transfer of wealth from poor/middle class to the rich

go unfettered capitalism!!!

I find it interesting that most of the people opposed to more progressive taxation wouldn't be hurt by it themselves - I actually think there's more support for taxing rich people among rich people than there is among poor people (especially poor people who think they're middle class).

Me? I think every American should pay less taxes. And they could, easily, just by cutting military spending (and redirecting some of that to job creation - ideally a new energy program). BTW, I'm Canadian.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
One thing that's never mentioned in these cases is that the majority of our taxes goes to militarism, nation-building, corporate welfare and wars.
I haven't actually read all the comments on this thread yet, but I already see you've repeated this line twice here, and recently aimed it at me elsewhere, so let me just step in and point out that it's "never mentioned" because it's utterly and completely false.
Here's a breakdown of what our taxes go to. You'll notice that the slice of the pie for defense (including the wars) is 20%. That's not a "majority".
If you add together Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and other safety net programs, you get 55%. That happens to actually be a majority.
Also keep in mind that the Republicans don't want the defense budget cut at all, while the Democrats are putting most of their proposed cuts in defense.

The great thing about statistics is they change depending on where you get them. Here's one that claims defense spending is 25%.
But then there's this piechart which not only accounts what they claim to be 36% current defense spending budget (based on 2009), but also the past military expenses plus interest on that debt. That brings the percentage up to a majority of money spent on militarism. As I said.


That's why you have to pay attention to what you're looking at. My link and your first link are pretty much doing the same thing -- looking at the actual budget, and rolling things up into broad categories, while still telling you how the categories are comprised. Both show military spending to be sizable, but far less than a "majority" of spending. They both show a majority of spending going to social saftety net programs, too.

Your second link does claim military spending is a majority of government spending, but to do that they have to really twist the numbers. For example, they refuse to count outlays from "Trust Fund" programs as spending. That means they don't include Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid in their pie chart at all. Add that back in, and even their doubled figure for military spending still falls short of 50% of all spending.

The majority of our taxes go towards social safety net programs, not the military.

>> ^aurens:

There's an old Jewish proverb that runs something like this:

"A fool can throw a stone into the water that ten wise men cannot recover."

Your stones, fortunately, aren't irrecoverable. I'll offer some counterpoints to a few of your claims, and I'll leave it up to you to fish for the truth about the others.
Kinda like a jet plane's black boxes aren't irrecoverable... no wait, they were. FBI: "None of the recording devices from the two planes that hit the World Trade Center were ever recovered." But this defies reason. Black boxes are almost always located after crashes, even if not in useable condition. Each jet had 2 recorders and none were found? Anonymous source at the NTSB: "Off the record, we had the boxes,"
Conspiracy? I think so.

>> ^aurens:

I don't know what you mean by "produced,"He means if you have evidence that implicates a suspect of a crime, then you indict that person. You then find and arrest that person, charge them, and follow the rule of law. The FBI admits they have no "hard evidence" that OBL was behind the 9/11 attacks, yet he was immediately blamed for it. The Taliban offered extradition if we provided evidence and we refused. Instead we invaded Afghanistan and started waging war against the same people we trained and armed in the 80s, the same people Reagan called freedom fighters. Now we call them terrorists for defending their own sovereignty.
Conspiracy? I think so.

>> ^aurens:

The North Tower was struck at 8:46 AM, the South Tower at 9:03 AM, and the Pentagon at 9:37 AM. By my math, the Pentagon was hit fifty-one minutes after the first plane hit the WTC and thirty-four minutes after the second plane hit. The 9/11 Commission estimated that the hijacking of Flight 11, the first plane to hit the WTC, began at 8:14 AM. It's misleading, in this context...
You're talking about the Department of Defense. The Pentagon is the most heavily guarded building in the world and somehow over an hour after 4 planes go off course/stop responding to FAA and start slamming into buildings, that somehow one is going to be able to fly into a no-fly zone unimpeded and crash into the Pentagon without help on the inside? Never mind the approach the pilot took makes no sense. If your target is the Pentagon, you can cause the most damage and most causalities by doing a nose down crash in the top. Instead the amateur pilot does a high precision 360 degree turn, descending 7,000 feet in the last 2 minutes to impact the Pentagon in the front, the only spot with reinforced steel. He spends an extra 2 and half minutes in the air exposed and ends up hitting the exact spot that has been reinforced and also where the bookkeeping and accountants were. Day before 9/11: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announces that the Pentagon has lost track of $2.3 TRILLION DOLLARS of military spending.
Conspiracy? I think so. (Bonus: WeAreChange confronts Rumsfeld)
>> ^aurens:

Three videos, not one, were released.
And at least 84 remain classified. Why?
And how did two giant titanium engines from a 757 disintegrate after hitting the Pentagon's wall? They were able to find the remains of all but one of the 64 passengers on board the flight, but only small amounts of debris from the plane?
Conspiracy? I think so.

>> ^aurens:

I don't fault you, or others like you, for wanting to "think twice" about the explanations given for certain of the events surrounding 9/11. I do fault you, though, for spending so little time on your second round of thinking, and for so carelessly tossing conspiracy theories to the wind.
First you need to acknowledge what a conspiracy is. When two or more people agree to commit a crime, fraud, or some other wrongful act, it is a conspiracy. Not in theory, but in reality. Grow up, it happens. If you spent anytime at all "thinking" or looking at the evidence, then you would recognize government lies for what they are. You don't have to know the truth to recognize a lie.