>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^ponceleon:
Actually I have no problem with motive. I heard Ron Paul say at the debates that we are spending 20bil to air-condition tents for soldiers in Afghanistan... that 20bil is making SOMEONE really rich, so there is definitely a LOT of profit to be made in war.
I guess I should've been more clear. I agree that there's a full array of means, motive, and opportunity for Bushclan/Templars/Majestic 12, etc. to conspire to make the whole 9/11 attack happen in the first place.
What I don't understand is the way that suspicion has transformed into a decade-long attempt to prove that demolitions brought down the various WTC building. I simply can't fathom why anyone would do that, especially if you were a super-capable secret cabal concocting the entire scenario to manipulate people.
If it was an evil organization who could secretly wire the building with explosives, then why wouldn't they just pop the explosives and blame Al Qaeda for it? Why would they hire/manipulate Al Qaeda into flying airplanes into the building, and then demo the building Hollywood style? It seems like it'd be a huge risk (what if someone found the explosives early or evidence of them after?) for no apparent reward.
The buildings fell because of the planes that got flown into them. The real questions to be asking if you're looking for a conspiracy would be "did anyone seem to know about it in advance who shouldn't have?" or more damningly, "did anyone seem to disregard advance information about it who shouldn't have?"
You know, like someone who ignored intelligence briefings with titles like "bin Laden determined to strike in the US"...


Netrunner, what's your thoughts on Operation Northwoods?

Northwoods was a false-flag operation plan by the CIA in 1962. It called for terrorist attacks like hijacking planes, disguising US fighter jets as Cuban MIG fighters, and killing US citizens.

Journalist James Bamford summarized Operation Northwoods in his April 24, 2001 book Body of Secrets:
"Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war."


The plan was on the desk of JFK and he refused. JFK was later assassinated. The following year LBJ used the staged Gulf of Tonkin incident to go to war in Vietnam. The people that questioned that incident were called conspiracy nuts. But the truth eventually came out, and it will for 9/11 also.

The point is false-flag attacks and government manipulation of evidence is nothing new. And is certainly nothing our government hasn't done before.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Barseps.

From YouTube:




"In 1964, Lyndon Johnson needed pants, so he called the Haggar clothing company and asked for some. The call was recorded (like all White House calls at the time), and has since become the stuff of legend. Johnson's anatomically specific directions to Mr. Haggar are some of the most intimate words we've ever heard from the mouth of a President.

"

I especially enjoyed the sound effects that LBJ uttered and did not apologize for.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'pants, animation, lyndon b johnson, lbj, president, slacks' to 'pants, animation, lyndon b johnson, lbj, president, slacks, bunghole' - edited by dystopianfuturetoday

Tags for this video have been changed from 'pants, animation' to 'pants, animation, lyndon b johnson, lbj, president, slacks' - edited by blankfist

It is a bit surprising to me that LBJ, a guy synomis with the JFK murder and Vietnam, did do something as positive as this. Always something to learn, eh

Despite the title, nothing as high-brow as the word "collectivism" is ever spoken in this clip.

They fail to even mention that under the evil Stalinist collectivist Kennedy and LBJ, the Cold War was really just a struggle between the world's two largest communist dystopias!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'music video, flying, jet, beautiful, daisy girl, lbj' to 'music video, flying, jet, beautiful, daisy girl, lbj, fat boy slim' - edited by rougy

I know you disagree, but I'm here to say I hate Kronkite and consider him a traitor for his one-sided reporting on Vietnam. Yes, the article said he was 'pro-war' up until '68 and obviously his personal bias would creep in, but finally whatever he said yielded this:

When LBJ heard of Cronkite’s comments, he was quoted as saying, “That’s it. If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost middle America.”

The US won every battle in Vietnam but lost the war due to the warping of public opinion by media that wasn't then tagged as liberal, and wouldn't be challenged in any serious way until the 1990s when the other HALF of the country had forums (cable news and intertubes) that couldn't be rigidly controlled.

Though I said I hated the bastage (for his perceived misdeeds) ultimately hatred is a waste of time and depending on your views, Kronkite is now either worm food and Nothingness or being karmically judged and Elsewhere. I personally am glad to see the age of the "Single Most Trusted ANYBODY" in media gone for good.

I know you disagree, but thanks for the forum.

WALTER CRONKITE IF THERE IS A HELL, YOU BELONG IN IT.

During the Vietnam War, Cronkite was responsible for a massive disinformation campaign to turn America’s victories into defeats (the Tet Offensive) and fabricate out of whole cloth Viet Cong victories that were used to demoralize the American public. He should be remembered as one of the great traitors of American history, right there along with Benedict Arnold.

He was worse than Arnold because he was lying to so many more people. Good riddance to him. He can spend his time now in hell with Robert Strange McNamara.

Walter Cronkite betrayed every one of the 58,000 men who died in Viet Nam. He betrayed every man and woman wounded in Viet Nam. He betrayed every man and woman who served in Viet Nam and he betrayed the people of South Vietnam. He stabbed the Viet Nam vet in the back.

Cronkite went to Hue during Tet '68 fairly late in the battle and saw what he wanted to see, but refused an invitation to see the massacred victims the communists had killed and tossed in a mass grave. He chose the side of the enemy and his reports of lies affected his buddy LBJ in his decision making as well.

When LBJ heard of Cronkite’s comments, he was quoted as saying, “That’s it. If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost middle America.”

Cronkite was a self-serving bastard.

WALTER COMMIEKITE IF THERE IS A HELL, YOU BELONG IN IT.

News link: http://www.txcn.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/tv/stories/wfaa090629_wz_constablechase.1bc95a22.html

GARLAND — A pursuit that lasted 90 minutes and stretched through at least three cities ended with a violent collision at a Garland intersection Monday afternoon.

The chase began in Mesquite following a traffic stop by Dallas County Constables. It was not immediately clear what triggered the decision to pursue the driver, but there were indications that the man was wanted on felony warrants.

The Nissan's sedan eluded a phalanx of squad cars at speeds up to 100 mph on a back-and-forth route that included Interstate 30, LBJ Freeway and local streets. The suspect has been named as Shane Michel.

At one point, the he skidded out of control on a highway exit ramp and struck a highway sign head-on. The sign flipped over the car and shattered the car's rear window, but the driver kept going across a grassy median and resumed his flight.

Later, the car crashed through lowered gates at a DART light rail crossing in Garland.

A Dallas police helicopter and at least eight squad cars from several agencies were involved in the pursuit, which ended abruptly at the corner of Plano Road and Buckingham Road in Garland when Michel pulled in front of a pickup truck.

His sedan was struck on the driver's side door and skidded to a stop about half a block away. Paramedics used equipment to extricate him from the wreckage. He survived, but was injured. His condition at present is critical.

The driver of the pickup truck did not appear to be seriously hurt.

I wish I could take this video back ~40 years in time and ask JFK and LBJ if trying to prevent this was worth the lives of 60K American GIs and god knows how many Vietnamese.

From Media Matters.

Fact: GOP Presided Over the Largest Expansion of Government Since LBJ's Great Society. The Wall Street Journal noted the GOP's complicity in the largest of government since LBJ. "President Bush and the GOP Congress continue to preside over the largest expansion of government since LBJ's Great Society. Economic growth fueled by the Bush tax cuts created a 22% surge in federal revenue over the past two years. But even that flow is barely keeping pace with spending, which went up by 8% in 2005 and is set to increase by 9% in 2006. When the good times slow down, no one expects it will be easy to slam the brakes on spending." [Wall Street Journal, 1/30/06, emphasis added]

And you never said a word about it, QM, true to your lying-ass, pissy-pants form.

The Bush Administration and the Republican Party have single-handedly made us hated across the globe with their needless wars, bloodshed, coups and disregard for the Geneva Convention. Anti-war, pro-labor and respect for the world we live in is the mantra of the Democrat Party, and the Republicans could take a cue from some of our presidents: LBJ, JFK, Truman, FDR and Woodrow Wilson.

Really? You must not have read any history books on the period then. Or clicked on the link I gave, and scanned the page.

I'm well aware of where the logo comes from...so what? If Democrats decide to start using Obama's logo from now on, does that mean Obama founded the Democratic party?

As for this:

>> ^blankfist:
I don't think anyone said if the platform is different, then the party is different. Not sure where you got that.

It came from this:

>> ^blankfist:
And there is a huge "break in the identity of the party between Jefferson's party" and the other big government, interventionist presidents you mentioned above (FDR, LBJ, Clinton, Obama). Jefferson believed the government that governs best is the government that governs least. Thomas Jefferson extended Washington's ideas in his March 4, 1801 inaugural address: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." (cited) None of the recent presidents in either party have been very Jeffersonian.

That's either a non-sequitor, or it's your only substantiated assertion. Otherwise you're just answering my references with a denial of the existence of the references I already provided, and calling sources like Encyclopedia Britannica revisionist.

I meant "identity" in a more superficial sense. The Colony of Virginia was very different from the State we now call Virginia -- but it's still Virgina. Today's Virginia still carries a thread of identity from its colony days that hasn't been broken, that didn't change when West Virginia split off, and that wouldn't change if they decide tomorrow to change the name of the state to Virg. Its history would still start with being founded as an English colony.

Now, if West Virginia, instead of remaining a distinct entity decided to just merge with Ohio, it wouldn't make Ohio's origins become the same as Virginia's, but the acquisition of that territory would certainly be an important chapter in Ohio's history. That's analogous to the situation we have with the Whigs and the Lincoln-founded Republicans.

Now, you revisionist fucker of pigs, do you have a single source that starts the history of the Democratic party with Andrew Jackson, that never mentions the Democratic-Republican party?

I know you love Jefferson, and hate Democrats, but the former begat the latter, even if you don't like it.