"Seon Ferguson" gmail.com> wrote:
>>> But it doesn't mean God killed him, death is an escape FOR EVERYONE
>> How do YOU know? What happens next?
> Well we suffer from cancer and die. Either we rot in a coffin under the
> ground or we go towards the light and who knows. Either way it is an escape.
What if it gets worse?
>>>>> if the BATF didn't start the fire who did? Do we have any evidence?
>>>> We? There's plenty, Look it up.
>>> I'll try, the main thing for me was footage of the tank. And a few other
>> Good luck. It was 17 years ago.
> Well there has to be videos debunking it on the web somewhere. If the video
> of the tank was faked then there would have to be evidence out there.
There is, or there was. It was a woman lawyer (Linda something) who put
out the video tht looked like a flamethrower. Someone else put out the
unedited video that showed a few more seconds when the tank backed out further
and you could see a sheet of sheetrock slide off the turret to the ground. The
tank was punching a hole in the wall, the sheetrock landed on it and caught
the sun creating a flare in the camera.
>>> Since when is calling the president of America a socialist considered
>>> unbiased reporting?
>> Since we elected a socialist.
> And the evidence is? Do you even know what a socialist is?
> Let me educate you:
> (does that look like what America has become?)
Not yet, but he's only been in office a year.
> Most socialists share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power
> and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and
> derives its wealth through exploitation, creates an unequal society, does
> not provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potential
> and does not utilise technology and resources to their maximum potential nor
> in the interests of the public.
> (if those views make Obama a socialist maybe I am a socialist as well)
Maybe you are.
> Henri de Saint-Simon one of the founders of early socialism (Utopian
> Socialism), Friedrich Engels, and Karl Marx, writer of The Communist
> Manifesto advocated the creation of a society that allows for the widespread
> application of modern technology to rationalise economic activity by
> eliminating the anarchy of capitalist production. This would allow for
> wealth and power to be distributed based on the amount of work expended in
> production, although there is disagreement among socialists over how and to
> what extent this could be achieved.
> (does it look like that is what Obama is doing?)
It sounds like what he wants to do.
> Socialism is not a concrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and programme; its
> branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic
> rationalisation (usually in the form of economic planning), but sometimes
> oppose each other.
Like bailing out GM and running it, closing down dealerships et al. Like
bailing out banks, then telling them how much they can pay executives and
where they can and can't invest?
> (Obama has done nothing but try to control the banks)
JUST the banks? Oh, and General Motors. It's only been a year. He also
wants to 'redistribute the wealth, remember? Joe the plumber?
> Modern socialism originated in the late 18th-century...
People who cut and paste entire sections of the encyclopedia to a post
are really annoying.
> (again how does this apply to Obama?)
It's only been a year. I didn't say he was working on a coup to eliminate
the Constitutional government we have in his first year in office. When did
you become such a literalist?
> Vladimir Lenin, drawing on Karl Marx's ideas of "lower" and "upper" stages
> of socialism defined socialism as a transitional stage between
> capitalism and communism.
>>> Ok big spending for instance.
>> Virtually everyone in government spends too much.
>>> In 2008 republicans in congress voted for the bailout. Last year no
>>> republican did.
>> If memory serves those were two different 'bailouts.'
>>> Most republicans refuse to audit the federal reserve bank...
>> You think the Democrats want to? Why don't they do it then? It's not
>> like the Republicans have them outnumbered.
See? You make these blithering accusations but can't answer a simple
question about them.
>>> and that is what I and some people in America believe
>>> to be the cause of this mess and auditing it and ending the unfair income
>>> tax and replacing it with Huckabee's fair tax would be good for America.
>>> Members of both parties don't do that.
>> NObody does that. I asked you what twofaced actions by the Republicans
>> compare to the ones of the Democrats. I was all for Huckabee and the
>> (one word and it's not Huckabee's) until he started talking about
>> rewriting the Constitution "the way God wants it." I likely still would
>> have voted for him if he'd won the primary.
> Wow he said that?
> It's a shame I would have voted for the fair tax.
How? You're in Australia, remember? You're welcome to vote for it down
> after listening to a Consitutionalist radio host I realise the dangers of
> changing the constitution. I think politicians should keep their religious
> beliefs out of government and this applies to all countries.
>>>> It's a separate issue. Getting the government to cut spending is like
>>>> getting a junkie to quit crack.
>>> But it can be done. Just vote for independents or third party candidates.
>>> least I hope that will work otherwise unless there is another revolution
>>> your screwed.
>> It's probably too late. We're screwed already.
> I know your in so much debt it's not funny. I don't know how you can get out
> of this, even if you vote for politicians who will only vote for small
> government and small spending and vote based on the way your founding
> fathers would.
>>>>> So why didn't Bush think "hmmm maybe we should get out of here" and
>>>>> have you read the downing street memo?
>>>> Out of where, and not lately. I recall mention of it but it's been
>>> Try looking it up. Wikipidia has a unbiased article. It shows that Bush
>>> actually considered blowing up a UN plane over Iraq and blaming it on
>>> Saddam. He also tossed around other ideas.
>> I looked it up and now I know why I don't remember much about it. It
>> debunked as a fabrication a long time ago.
> That didn't actually provide any link but after googling I found this:
It should have provided a lot of links.
> This and other excerpts have caused a furor on the American Left. Ralph
> Nader is calling for impeachment (again), and John Kerry has vowed to bring
> the matter to the Senate floor. Of course, the memo simply contains the
> impressions of an aide of the impressions of British-cabinet officials of
> the impressions of unnamed people they spoke to in the United States about
> what they thought the president was thinking. It is sad when hearsay
> thrice-removed raises this kind of ruckus, especially since a version had
> been reported three years ago. As smoking guns go, it is not high caliber
> It doesn't actually debunk it.
No, but many of the links I sent you did.
> All it says is it's the opinion of what the
> staffers thought Bush wanted and what purpose would they have to lie? Now I
> know how you felt with me and the SWIFT BOARD debunking.
Except I've yet to refer to it as the Darning street memo. Why would they
lie? That depends on who lied.
> Also slightly on topic, it did also make me realise the democrats supported
> regime change in Iraq. It is not an issue of Bush cheating on the election
> and America suddenly deciding to invade Iraq. The Democrats voted for it and
> even as the article says supported it as far back as 1998. Once the leftists
> wake up to that fact maybe there can be real change.
When leftists wake up they will no longer BE leftists.
>>>>> Those don't sound as bad as the "Obama is a socialist" line or "Obama
>>>>> is a Muslim" or other lies about Obama.
>>>> Except those are not so provable a lie. And it wasn't his opponent
>>>> saying it on stage to win an election.
>>> Well it's pretty provable when Obama says he is a Christian and was even
>>> attacked for attending rev Wrights church. By the way I think he was too
>>> slow to distance himself from Right but I digress.
>> He lied about that, too. He's on video saying he never heard those
>> controversial rants of Wright's, and he's also on video saying he did.
> Did he say he heard of those rants AFTER he was on video saying he didn't
> hear of them?
> In 2004 I could honestly say I hasn't even heard of Wrights
> rants but in 2010 I can honestly say I have and think he is a insane
> American hater.
So what? You're in australia! He was IN THE CHURCH!
>>>>> Ok McCain ran a nice campaign and I think
>>>>> that was one of the reasons he loosed. If he had Carol Rove maybe he
>>>>> would be able to have defeated Obama.
>>>> He "loosed"? "Carol" Rove?
>>> Obviously I meant Lost but didn't double check my email (as this thread
>>> is really long) and I was referring to McCain not hiring Rove.
>> You mean Karl Rove. I don't know any Carol. Portrayals of Rove as the
>> Great Satan don't impress me.
> I meant Carl not carol. But yes I should have said Karl Rove. They are funny
> though but he was responsible for a lot of the right wing smear campaign.
You'll notice you're the only one calling it that here.
>>>>>>> Afghanistan was a result of 911. It
>>>>>>> is logical that when your country is attacked by terrorists you take
>>>>>>> down the government of the country that harbors them and chase them
>>>>>>> to the end's of the Earth. But Iraq is different.
>>>>>> Not very.
>>>>> If the official story is true then no. But it is rare when official
>>>>> stories are true. As I said the downing street memo makes me question
>>>>> that and David Kelly's murder.
>> But then, the Downing Street Memo wasn't true.
> Like Kerry's SWIFT BOATing there is enough evidence to keep it out in the
> open. But that doesn't make it true or not.
Washington DC is a city of lies!
For instance, did you know that
the "Air & Space Museum" is full
of all kinds of things?!