«

[Microprose Veteran]

This has everything to do with 1984, Stroggy.</span> <span style=\'color:blue\'>Or: please Mods, do not close this down.

The reason Michael Moore is not standing trial and is still free is because the system in America is not perfect, thankfully. You can forget about the Democrats. They're just the other side of the same coin. Clinton has done more for the Republicans even though they continued to profess their hate for him. Clinton gave them NAFTA, he instituted the "3 strikes you're out" policy, he created millions of McJobs, his orders to bomb the Serbs in Kosovo caused more civilian casualties than the Serbs had done. But Clinton had charisma, it didn't matter what he did, people still loved him.

America, a nation of 270 million people has only two (2) viable political parties.

Moore is still a free man because he is at the center of attention. Perhaps in China they could get away with locking him up.

You did not reply to my above list of links of renowned public figures in America (who are not Michael Moore), who have serious doubts about the official "9/11" report.

The Bush government has introduced several pieces legislation that are typical of 1984 NewSpeak. The "Clean Air Act." Clinton already introduced the "Defense Of Marriage Act." Bombing targets in civilian areas is called "Surgical Strikes," innocent civilians being killed and maimed is dubbed "Collateral Damage."

You can forget about the Democrats and their so-called 'opposition.' If they're not into the game (as I suspect the high-ranking Democrats are) they're too afraid or too stupid to speak out against Bush.

It's a different matter if support for Bush within his own Republican party wavers: even Karl Rove will advise to ditch Bush if he continues to flunk. But I predict the next president, be he Republican or Democrat, will do little or nothing about the Patriot Act. Bush already has an heir to his throne: conservatives in America want to change the constitution so Schwarzenegger will be able to become president.

[Stroggy]

if moore was to die or be put in prison then people would suspect a lot so he will be left alone for now.

You know I was editing my post with a highlys arcastic remark about this, but decided not to psot it since it would be in bad taste. However I will write a plain version of it.
Sure, they won't put Moore in jail, eh is to popular... so are you suggesting that they are putting normal citizens who oppose Bush in jail for treason? That all those votes for the democrats were simulated and that all those protestors are just actors? because that is the way it would be if there truly was no freedom of speech.

EDIT: after reading Microprose Activist's latest reply I am stumped, when i was editing my previous post I also said I'm confident a conspiracy theorist will probably also claim the democrats are working for the republicans or are actors, and here you are saying that. it is simply amazing.

often you back bush stroggy

Not always, he recently did a few things I don't quite agree with, in fact I've disliked quite a few things he has done since his reelection, but that is beside the point.

and i sometimes think you just do it to be different to evryone else, and as an intelectual exercise

While I do sometimes enjoy playing the devil's advocate (even when watching a political debate I reason how the other party will reply eventhough I am against that party) this is not the case now. if it really was a charade I would have stopped a long time ago since it is an issue I disagree on with almost everybody I know (except for my brother and my dad, my mom doesn't like Bush either)
You have no idea how often I wished I could just "join the other side" on all those issues, join the popular stance on Bush, on the palestinian issue, but I can't. I can understand how the other side reasons and all that but I can't join them in their stream of thought eventhough that would be the easy choice.
And I am pleased to see you acknowledge that it is intellectually more demanding to oppose the crowd instead of joining them and at the moment I am the rebel, since most people seem to oppose me, those who style themselves as lone rebels aren't rebels, they are the ones with the numbers on their side, the media, europe, you name it.

As for the rest of your message, that has nothing to do with what I said so I'll just assume that wasn't a comment on anything I said.

[omg]

i was just staing my reosens for hatred of the man really with the rest of the post. i respect your view but i dont agree with it.

[Stroggy]

Originally posted by omg@Jul 1 2005, 10:24 PM
i was just staing my reosens for hatred of the man really with the rest of the post. i respect your view but i dont agree with it.

You know two days ago I was talking to my mother. I said: "Imagine if it all does turn out to be true, that Bush did stage 9/11 and that the US is now detaining anybody who speaks out against the government and is ethnically cleansing the US from Muslims. If that turns out to be true, we will be the modern day collaborators, we won't be able to say we didn't know because there are conspiracy theorists who spread those stories"
There are times I reasses my political point of view and that was one of those moments, it was difficult and disturbing, but eventually I must say: I do not believe in these conspiracy theories, period.

[TheVoid]

Originally posted by Stroggy+Jul 1 2005, 09:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Stroggy @ Jul 1 2005, 09:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MadMarius@Jul 1 2005, 09:44 PM
did this topic turned out to be a "i hate that politics and my reasom".

I believe this turned into a discussion about conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists, who style themselves as the modern day Marius standing on the barricades. [/b][/quote]
Just for the sake of clearing things up, I'd have to say that Stroggy's probably referring to the Marius of "Les Miserables" by Victor Hugo, and not to the MadMarius who posted above him.

[Stroggy]

You just ruined my little cultural riddle, for shame.

[Fruit Pie Jones]

Oh come on, from what you've typed about enormous towers collapsing you're basically saying the only way for them to fall is straight in on itself, in a vertical fashion.

Show me a reason for them to collapse any other way! I believe I already called you out on this, but I sure haven't seen a meaningful response from you. Once again: How should a skyscraper collapse, and why? Go as far into the physics as you please; I'll keep up.

And WTC 7 collapsed too but it wasn't even hit by an airplane! The Millennium Hilton that was nearer to the crashes did catch fire but it never collapsed.

Um...hello? We covered this already too. Remember my last post? The link to the photo of Ground Zero? Yeah, the one that indicates the original positions of the buildings. That's right, the one that showed beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Millennium Hilton was farther away. Are you even reading what I write, or am I just wasting my time? Perhaps your own personal definition of "farther" is the same as everyone else's definition of "nearer." In that case, at least post your definition of the word so I'll know why you won't concede that point when it's staring you right in the face.

What were those fighters supposed to do about those hijacked airliners? Duh, shoot them down of course. They had had warnings that terrorists would probably use hijacked planes as missiles against targets like the WTC etc.

Note your use of the word "probably" up there. Let's continue:

I will explain why they would shoot those airliners, full of passengers down. Knowing they would use the airliners as missiles, they could regard those poor passengers as dead already.

Knowing they would use airliners as missiles? Really, you think that receiving a warning that a particular event might happen at some undetermined time is the same as knowing when and where it will happen? Or maybe that practicing for a similar event grants you the ability to predict that event? Please explain to me how NORAD knew that those planes were hijacked in order to be flown into buildings. I don't expect to get a straight answer from you, in that you've been rather less than forthcoming so far, but I thought I should give you a chance.

You know what, though? This is the last chance. I'm tired of wasting my time on this thread when it is apparent that you are not even reading half of what I post. Instead of responding to points I've made, you simply dodge them and continue to spout the conspiracy-theory party line. Review my last few posts and come up with some kind of a response to the points you've skipped over, or I am out of the thread. You may consider that a victory. I do not care.

I'll leave you with one thing more: I find it patently ridiculous that you are in Holland, thousands of miles from the US, telling me how it is a police state where anyone who dares to utter a dissenting opinion is immediately thrown into prison or shipped off to Gitmo, while I'm sitting here right smack in the middle of the US enjoying every damn personal freedom I've ever had!

[TheVoid]

Originally posted by Stroggy@Jul 1 2005, 11:11 PM
You just ruined my little cultural riddle, for shame.

I solved it first, there's a difference my dear Thénardier.

[Microprose Veteran]

Fruit Pie Jones, you are wrong. There are no victors in this debate. The reason I do not go too deeply into the demolition issues, the NORAD standing down issue etc., is because the debate will turn into an argument over petty details.

I'm sorry if I offended you by not replying in detail to your excellent points, but since you seem to think 9/11-conspiracy theorists are nuts, what about those former team members of the Reagan and Bush administrations?

David Schippers, the former Chicago mob-busting attorney who was selected by Congress to head the Clinton impeachment also believes the official story of "9/11" is not the correct one. Then there's the former MI-5 agent's story. These are hardly paranoid nuts, are they? Furthermore, since the first two are Republicans and Schippers prosecuted Clinton, this is not a partisan issue. For links, see my previous posts.

Stroggy, regarding the Democrats: you are aware that Al Gore, when he ran against Bush II in 2000, had almost exactly the same points on his agenda? Pro-gun, pro-big corporations, anti-environment (he got a nuclear plant in his home state). Democrats, although voicing dissent on most occasions, continue to vote with the Republicans.

Then there's John Kerry: wealthy, like Bush, Ivy League Yale graduate like Bush, Skull & Bones fraternity member like Bush, pro-war like Bush. Sure, he openly voiced his criticisms of Bush's handling of the War in Iraq, but he stated that if he was elected he would not recall the troops either. He's also pro-gun by the way.

Clinton: what has Clinton ever done for the working poor? He tried to get a health care plan through congress, but it failed. He increased funding for right wing talk radio shows (why?). NAFTA, Defense Of Marriage-act, bombed Sudan and Kosovo to divert attention away from national politics. Any conservative Republican president wouldn't have done better than Clinton. Perhaps that's why they hated his guts: with Clinton in charge, who the hell needs Republicans?

[Stroggy]

Originally posted by TheVoid@Jul 1 2005, 11:35 PM

I solved it first, there's a difference my dear Thénardier.

I always prefered Javert myself, but you could have guessed that.

As for Microprose Veteran

he got a nuclear plant in his home state

So? You can't just tear a nuclear plant down in one day and suddenly replace it with a new energy source. Seriously that's just nitpicking!

anyway are you saying that:
a) the democrats just have more or less the same stance on US-policies
b) the democrats are controlled by the republicans
c) the deomcrats don't even exist and are a figment of our imagination, an illusion induced by a special drug found in McDonalds hamburgers.

The two big parties have always been more or less the same, that is no reason you need to suspect a conspiracy.