And why was it a military base? Because all those "founding fathers" who poured a butt load of money into PT were in danger of losing it all when Seattle got port status instead of us. Those "founding fathers" still had lots of pull in Washington DC, so they got the Fort put here to prop up the local economy. And now it is a State Park -- one of the few that actually doesn't need any tax funds to stay open -- it actually makes a profit.

Plus there are wonderful bunkers to play in. And walks to take through the woods.

Have you ever seen An Officer and a Gentleman, with Richard Gere and Debra Winger? That was filmed here. All the base scenes were filmed at Fort Worden. A couple of years before I got here. You could tell which buildings were used in scenes -- or rather, which SIDES of buildings were used in scenes. They repainted the buildings a pristine white -- if they were in camera view. So the backsides were all peeling and nasty.

That was before the Fort started making money, of course. All the sides of the buildings look nice now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1Ehz_cAMGc

You can see the Fort at :57, 1:05,1:52 and the iconic 2:06. All a brisk 15 minute walk from my house. Look out my kitchen window, and you can see the tree covered hill that is the Fort. (The jogging scene at :38 is on the other side of the hill - sheer bluffs to the water.)

It is indeed a very neat place. You watch that movie, come over here, and I'll give you a tour, okay?

Actually, @silvercord, it was Congress members who moved the barricades so the vets could enter. It wasn't the vets themselves -- they had more respect for the rule of "law."

This shutdown corresponds with thousands of middle schoolers going to Washington DC. Kids, some of the low income, who worked for a year to get the funds to go. They are certainly getting an education about how Congress works.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/10/01/hey-teabaggers-thanks-for-teaching-a-very-important-civics-lesson-to-8th-grade-students-at-st-mar
y-magdalen-in-everett

Aaron Swartz keynote - "How we stopped SOPA" at F2C:Freedom to Connect 2012, Washington DC on May 21 2012.

>> ^bmacs27:

Like Switzerland, right?
>> ^L0cky:
That's not an idealism, that's pretty much most of Europe.



Hence why I said most.

>> ^bmacs27:

What about swords? Should I be able to collect swords?


Personally I'm undecided. I think sword deaths and injuries may be rare; I can't find any statistical data on them, which in itself possibly supports that; or they just get thrown in with knives and other sharp objects; and a wholesale banning of sharp things would be highly impractical.

They are practically banned in Japan though; who would have thought?

They are also banned in Washington DC; and in the UK (unless you jump through lots of hoops proving you are a genuine collector).

Ultimately I don't have a strong opinion on it either way.

>> ^bmacs27:

You realize that they are ranked 129th and 99th in gun ownership per capita right? Further, you realized that those rankings put them well below just about every country in Europe? Did you have a point or were just assuming that poor people purchase expensive firearms instead of food in order to kill each other because the impoverished can't possibly be civilized?
>> ^L0cky:
You know, like Liberia or Mozambique.



I wasn't assuming anything, I was referring specifically to teaching children how to use firearms, which was done by both the NPFL in the Liberian civil war; and pretty much everyone in Mozambique's civil war, and those children (as young as 10) were actually used in the wars.

It's horrifying, and probably a bit of an extreme reference, but my point is we shouldn't need to teach children to use guns in the first place.

http://gotopless.org/topless-laws

According to the above link, there's a whole list of titty-friendly states, including my own!
The following cities are officially topless "tested"(lived in 3 of em!):

Asheville, NC
Austin, TX,
Boulder, CO
Columbus, OH
Eugene, OR
Honolulu, HI
Keene, NH
Key West, FL at Fantasy Fest
Madison, WI,
New Orleans, LA, at Mardi Gras
New York City
Portland, Or,
Santa Fe, NM
South Miami Beach, FL (on the beach)
Washington, DC

Moira is such a cool name! Best ideas for names for babies come from reading headstones in historic graveyards..

Well, despite your condescending tone, you at least have a quote and make a valid point. Nice work.

I'll try to wrap my tiny brain around these life-shattering ideas. I'm not sure how well I'll do after how soundly you made fun of my education, or lack thereof. I thought I had a pretty good public school education. Thank you for showing me the light, that I was obviously the victim of liberal elites who spent too much time getting us to read and think rather than indoctrinating us. We didn't focus too much on what religion early Americans subscribed to, we just learned what they did. They called this "history." Maybe I'll come to an epiphany and find that I too want to write a revisionist history showing how all the founding fathers were really ancient pre-neo-cons, who went on religious crusades to oust any shred of diversion from the One True Faith from this, God's greatest country of all time. Amen.

But, until I get to that, might as well spout my hippie babble…

First, I'm not going to do your little workbook assignment. I grant, and did grant in my previous posts, that many of the founders could be considered "Christians." I'll also grant that Washington, Jefferson and Adams all went to church regularly and, at the birth of our country, "going to church" was a common social activity.

In this way, religion was woven into the fabric of American society. This is why, in my previous posts, I never said that all the founders were deists or non-believers, but that they understood deism and let it inform their understanding of their own, personal religion. More importantly, they let deism inform how they set up American government.

It would be incredulous if I had suggested that these men outright rejected Christianity. They did not, nor is it the purpose of the establishment clause to reject any religious sect (the establishment clause, and Santorum's misinterpretation of it, you'll remember, is the main subject of this comment thread).

As I said, you cite some valid evidence that the concept of god has always been a part of our government. But, you also haphazardly claim long-dead men to be zealous Christians when there are plenty of primary source documents to suggest they were not. I'm saving my big quote for something that has to do with the establishment clause directly, so you'll have to do your own homework if you want to find the many instances where all of the men you reference criticize organized religion. They are there, and if you like, we can have a quote war in later posts.

Here's my long quote response to you, more on topic than yours, I think:

"Gentlemen,

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem."
-TJ 1802

I think this gets to the heart of the matter better than you or I ever could. For you, it shows that Jefferson wasn't shy about using religious rhetoric and proclaiming that he believed enough in Christianity to appeal to this group of clergymen on their home turf.

For me, it shows exactly (though more aptly worded than I could pull off) the point I and others have been making in this comment thread. Not that the founders were without religion, but that they realized the danger of letting religious "opinions" guide legislative policy. It speaks volumes of their intellect that these men, even when living in a society where being religiously aligned was the norm, even having attended seminary and church on a regular basis, still sought fit to vote against aligning their new country to any one religious sect.

This is why some of us get bent out of shape when Santorum proves his ignorance on this issue. He may understand the establishment clause, but if so, he presents his position as an appeal to ultra-religious citizens. When he addresses arguments against his stance, he interprets them as "a religious person cannot participate in government."

I'll say it again: Religious citizens have just as much right to participate in government as anyone else. But, their opinions, if they are to be considered in an official capacity, must stand on their own merit. Laws are not just if their only basis is: Jesus says so.

You're a smart guy, right? You have all that fancy schooling. So, tell me you get this.

Finally, if you would, please expand on your comment: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

I'm curious on who you consider "moral and religious" and what we should do with those heathens who aren't.



>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm sorry to tell you but you're a victim of poor public education. The government was never intended to be secular, it was intended to represent the people it served, people who were and still are predominantly Christian.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
John Adams
As far as Deism goes, go ahead and make your case. I'll just warn you that the evidence is not in your favor. Most of the founders were Christians, some of them even attended seminary.
Before you reply, try answering these questions if you can:
1) Why did the first session of congress open with a 3 hour prayer and bible study?
2) Why did George Washington make this proclamation honoring the constitution?
"By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.
Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.
Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be-- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.
and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions-- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.
Go: Washington"
3) If Jefferson intended for church and state to be seperate, why did he attend church every sunday..in the house of representitives?
4) If Jefferson intended for church and state to be seperate, why did he sign a treaty appointing federal funds to Christian missionaries to build a church and evangelize?
5) Why did Jefferson sign presidential documents "in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ"?
6) Why were there state churches, and why did many states have in their constitutions that only Christians could serve in high level offices?
7) Why didn't Jefferson change the policy of the bible as the primary read in public schools when he was head of the Washington DC school board?
>> ^LukinStone:
>> ^lantern53:
It wasn't a 'Christian' god? What is a 'generic' God?
Who was their God?
And our gov't is supposed to be Godless?
Santorum may believe that sex is supposed to be within marriage. That is the ideal, the one which causes the least grief.
If you don't know what grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside marriage.

Maybe you should do some research on "Deism" a popular philosophy many of our founders were exposed to and followed.
The reason I used the word "generic" is because, compared to the Christianity that's popular in America today, it would seem watered down. Basically, a deist doesn't support the supernatural claims of the Bible while still allowing for a god of nature and the universe. You might compare it to Unitarianism today.
Yes, our government was intended to be secular. That doesn't mean that religious people can't participate. It doesn't mean that some of the founders weren't traditional, god-fearing men. It just means, when elected officials attempt to legislate based on purely religious ideas, we should block such attempts, no matter what religion they are based on.
You can propose legislation based on a religious ideal of "good" but you must be able to defend that good in a secular manner.
As I said, Santorum can believe whatever he wants, but when he says he should be able to legislate based on his personal religious beliefs, he is wrong.
Your claim about sex within and without marriage is unfounded. Plenty of grief is caused by people who get married too young or stay in abusive marriages because they respect the sanctity of marriage over their own well being. Plenty of grief is caused by religious dogma teaching adolescents that their sexuality is an evil thing unless it occurs within the confines of marriage.
And, it's fine for you to believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong. But, it is not fine for a law to be passed that takes that assumption as its foundation. That's the purpose of the Establishment clause. You have to have some empathy and consider the spectrum of religions (and atheists too) that will be treated unfairly should such legislation pass.
What would you think if I said "Traditional marriage only ends in grief and divorce?"
Even though the divorce rate is at nearly half, that claim is unfounded. When you say something like "If you don't know the grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside of marriage" you show your hand. Using absolutes and straw man personal attacks are indicators of a poorly constructed argument.
Try again.

I'm sorry to tell you but you're a victim of poor public education. The government was never intended to be secular, it was intended to represent the people it served, people who were and still are predominantly Christian.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

As far as Deism goes, go ahead and make your case. I'll just warn you that the evidence is not in your favor. Most of the founders were Christians, some of them even attended seminary.

Before you reply, try answering these questions if you can:

1) Why did the first session of congress open with a 3 hour prayer and bible study?

2) Why did George Washington make this proclamation honoring the constitution?

"By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be-- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions-- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

Go: Washington"

3) If Jefferson intended for church and state to be seperate, why did he attend church every sunday..in the house of representitives?

4) If Jefferson intended for church and state to be seperate, why did he sign a treaty appointing federal funds to Christian missionaries to build a church and evangelize?

5) Why did Jefferson sign presidential documents "in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ"?

6) Why were there state churches, and why did many states have in their constitutions that only Christians could serve in high level offices?

7) Why didn't Jefferson change the policy of the bible as the primary read in public schools when he was head of the Washington DC school board?

>> ^LukinStone:
>> ^lantern53:
It wasn't a 'Christian' god? What is a 'generic' God?
Who was their God?
And our gov't is supposed to be Godless?
Santorum may believe that sex is supposed to be within marriage. That is the ideal, the one which causes the least grief.
If you don't know what grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside marriage.

Maybe you should do some research on "Deism" a popular philosophy many of our founders were exposed to and followed.
The reason I used the word "generic" is because, compared to the Christianity that's popular in America today, it would seem watered down. Basically, a deist doesn't support the supernatural claims of the Bible while still allowing for a god of nature and the universe. You might compare it to Unitarianism today.
Yes, our government was intended to be secular. That doesn't mean that religious people can't participate. It doesn't mean that some of the founders weren't traditional, god-fearing men. It just means, when elected officials attempt to legislate based on purely religious ideas, we should block such attempts, no matter what religion they are based on.
You can propose legislation based on a religious ideal of "good" but you must be able to defend that good in a secular manner.
As I said, Santorum can believe whatever he wants, but when he says he should be able to legislate based on his personal religious beliefs, he is wrong.
Your claim about sex within and without marriage is unfounded. Plenty of grief is caused by people who get married too young or stay in abusive marriages because they respect the sanctity of marriage over their own well being. Plenty of grief is caused by religious dogma teaching adolescents that their sexuality is an evil thing unless it occurs within the confines of marriage.
And, it's fine for you to believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong. But, it is not fine for a law to be passed that takes that assumption as its foundation. That's the purpose of the Establishment clause. You have to have some empathy and consider the spectrum of religions (and atheists too) that will be treated unfairly should such legislation pass.
What would you think if I said "Traditional marriage only ends in grief and divorce?"
Even though the divorce rate is at nearly half, that claim is unfounded. When you say something like "If you don't know the grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside of marriage" you show your hand. Using absolutes and straw man personal attacks are indicators of a poorly constructed argument.
Try again.

@NetRunner

You're as inflexible as Quantumushroom. Have fun wasting your vote on Obama again this year.

Sure Ron Paul is a radical neo-Confederate psychopath. But as least he's honest [about everything but bigotry].

Also, thanks for ignoring every point I made about how you yourself could bring progress to your local area and communities with a more decentralized federal government.

I'm sure those wealthy people who own everything in Washington DC will continue enacting policies, like Universal Health Care and Election Reform, that are clearly in the best interest of everyone else in the country.

lantern wrote" "She is 100% right. Why do we need federal bureaucrats in Washington DC set any kind of policy for people in Oklahoma? Don't the people in Oklahoma have enough brains to do it themselves?"

The fact that we largely fought a Civil War over the rights of states to continue the practice of slavery should be enough evidence that local governments are not always able to govern objectively or fairly in accordance with our Constitution.

She is 100% right. Why do we need federal bureaucrats in Washington DC set any kind of policy for people in Oklahoma? Don't the people in Oklahoma have enough brains to do it themselves?

I bought it on release and I've been lucky enough not to suffer more than the occasional crash and some minor weirdness. And while there was a lot of things going wrong in the game, I think it must be difficult to cover a game of this size with only a week or so of playtime and a five minute review, he could have easily spent all that time praising it or condemning it, but he took the middle road instead.
And maybe we wouldn't be so eager to come out with a child killing mod if they didn't make practically every kid in Skyrim / New Vegas / Washington DC such obnoxious little twats. I swear they must all know subconsciously that I can't do shit to them and act accordingly.

the tea party viewed government as being the intruder while OWS views wall street but i submit they are one in the same

I agree. There are some areas of real common ground that exist between these two very different groups. I have always maintained that OWS - as a group - is simply mad at the wrong target. They really should pull up thier camps right now and decend on Washington DC.

But the problem is as I stated above. The Tea Party is comprised of 'average people' that go across the spectrum. OWS is composed mostly of college students who favor leftist causes. Mixing 'average america' with 'angry, left-wing college students' it is like mixing oil and water. They may have a couple points of commonanlity, but they are very different in many other respects and start diverging rapidly. For example - OWS is being supported by the Communist Party as well as National Socialists (yeah Nazis). The average american can't and does NOT want to have anything to do with such radicals, but the OWS crowd seems OK with them.

I hope those who rallied with the tea party will join hands with those in wall street (and italy,greece and ireland) and make such a ruckus that they make politicians pee themselves in fear.

That is simply going to be impossible when the OWS guys keep behaving badly. The Tea Party wants nothing to do with the hedonism, radicalism, and other shenanigans that OWS accepts as par for the course. That's what I mean when I say OWS is never going to go anywhere until they clean up thier act.

Winstonfield, what you're saying about MLK's tactics is simply wrong. Read MLK's biography by Eric Dyson. MLK wanted to use non-violent "industrial sabotage" to clog up industries and highways in Washington DC, to bring things to a halt until democratic socialist reforms were put into place. He wanted to do this by clogging places up with people so that even "innocent bystanders," as you put it, would have no choice but take notice.

Also I believe MLK supported "sit ins" where black people came in and sat in white-only restaurants, filling them up with black customers. This drove away white customers from stores, and I'm sure owners were annoyed that they were losing so much business to this tactic. Plus, at the time, I'm pretty sure white owners had the legal right to only serve white customers, thus the private property rights of white owners were being violated by MLK's black supporters.

If you disagree with the Occupy Wall Street end goal, OK that's fine. But don't criticize the tactics in the belief that MLK Jr. was not a supporter of the tactics here, because he used them himself.

@marbles:

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.

Thanks for the vocabulary lesson, but I used the term conspiracy theory, not conspiracy. Conspiracy theory has a separate and more strongly suggestive definition (this one from Merriam-Webster): "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators."

I openly acknowledge that the government of the United States has and does commit conspiracies, as you define the word. (You mentioned Operation Northwoods in a separate comment; a post on Letters of Note from few weeks ago may be of interest to you, too, if you haven't already seen it: http://www.lettersofnote.com/2011/08/possible-actions-to-provoke-harrass-or.html.) The actions described therein, and other such actions, I would aptly describe as conspiracies (were they to be enacted).

Definitions aside, my problem with posts like that of @blastido_factor is that most of their so-called conspiracies are easily debunked. They're old chestnuts. A few minutes' worth of Google searches can disprove them.

It may be helpful to distinguish between what I see as the two main "conspiracies" surrounding 9/11: (1) that 9/11 was, to put it briefly, an "inside job," and (2) that certain members of the government of the United States conspired to use the events of 9/11 as justification for a series of military actions (many of which are ongoing) against people and countries that were, in fact, uninvolved in the 9/11 attacks. The first I find no credible evidence for. The second I consider a more tenable position.


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?

Once again, much of what you mention can be attributed to poor communication between the FAA and the government agencies responsible for responding to the attacks (and, for that matter, between the various levels of government agencies). And again, this is one of the major criticism levied by the various 9/11 investigations. From page forty-five of the 9/11 Commission: "The details of what happened on the morning of September 11 are complex, but they play out a simple theme. NORAD and the FAA were unprepared for the type of attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001. They struggled, under difficult circumstances, to improvise a homeland defense against an unprecedented challenge they had never before encountered and had never trained to meet."

Furthermore, it seems to me that one of the biggest mistakes made by a lot of the conspiracy theorists who fall into the first cateory (see above) is that they judge the events of 9/11 in the context of post-9/11 security. National security, on every level, was entirely different before 9/11 than it is now. That's not to say that the possibility of this kind of attack wasn't considered within the intelligence community pre-9/11. We know that it was (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_debate). But was anyone adequately prepared to handle it? No.

In any event, when's the last time you looked at a map of Washington, DC? If you look at a satellite photo, you'll notice that the runways at Ronald Reagan airport are, literally, only a few thousand feet away from the Pentagon. Was a no-fly zone in place over Washington by 9:37 AM? I honestly don't know. But it's misleading to suggest that planes don't routinely fly near the Pentagon. They do.


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?

In truth, I don't know enough about ballistics to speak for how well a titanium engine would withstand an impact with a reinforced wall at hundreds of miles an hour. But, if you're suggesting that a plane never hit the building, here's a short list of what you're wilfully ignoring: the clipped light poles, the damage to the power generator, the smoke trails, the hundreds of witnesses, the deaths of everyone aboard Flight 77, and the DNA evidence confirming the identities of 184 of the Pentagon's 189 fatalities (64 of which were the passengers on Flight 77).

Regarding the debris: It's misleading to claim that only small amounts of debris were recovered. This from Allyn E. Kilsheimer, the first structural engineer on the scene: "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box ... I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts." In addition, there are countless photos of plane wreckage both inside and outside the building (http://www.google.com/search?q=pentagon+wreckage).


Black boxes are almost always located after crashes, even if not in useable condition. Each jet had 2 recorders and none were found?

You help prove my point with this one: "almost always located." Again, I'm no expert on the recovery of black boxes, but here's a point to consider: if the black boxes were within the rubble at the WTC site, you're looking to find four containers that (undamaged, nonetheless) are roughly the size of two-liter soda bottles amidst the rubble of two buildings, each with a footprint of 43,000 square feet and a height of 1,300 feet (for a combined volume of 111,000,000 cubic feet, or 3,100,000,000 liters). (You might want to check my math. And granted, that material was enormously compacted when the towers collapsed. But still, it's a large number. And it doesn't include any of the space below ground level or any of the other buildings that collapsed.) Add to that the fact that they could have been damaged beyond recognition by the collapse of the buildings and the subsequent fires. To me, that hardly seems worthy of conspiracy.


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.

Here, finally, we find some common ground. I couldn't agree more. You'd be hard-pressed to find a more ardent critic of America's foreign policy.

>> ^marbles:
First you need to acknowledge what a conspiracy is ...

Koch funds many right wing think tanks in addition to the Reason Foundation. It's not a secret. You can find this information on a number of websites. I just picked sourcewatch because it was the first link in my search return. If you have some evidence to suggest that this is incorrect, I'd be more than happy to hear you out. >> ^blankfist:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
ReasonTV isn't a news outlet, it's a corporate conservative front group. It's subscription and ad revenue are miniscule, sustaining itself almost entirely by donations from corporate benefactors - most notably war profiteer and Tea Party funder, David Koch.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Reason_Foundation>> ^Enzoblue:
Top YT comment: Dear "reason.tv" - Stop hiring reporters based on whether you'd fuck them, and start hiring them based on whether they can perform a coherent interview.


Is sourcewatch.org a fair source? I think so with the news stories that pop up on their homepage. Top stories like "Milton Friedman's Little Shop of Horrors" and "The Koch Connection" I could almost wonder if you could be webmaster.
And let's compare the sourcewatch "wikipages" of Center for American Progress (your Democratic org) vs. Reason Foundation. Read the top summary first: CAP and Reason.
CAP's summary hits all the beats. It's rich with info, points out the things that kind of organization would like as publicity, and even going so far as to pimp their email subscription. Wow. Reason's summary is written like a rap sheet. They're a "self described" think tank instead of "Washington, DC-based" think tank like CAP. They point out some affiliation with a donor like Koch - incrimination by association. And then it finishes by showing their reported income losses for some reason. No mention anywhere of CAP's funding.
No, total credible source you got there. Looks legit. Let's go with your link.