"Pedal your crazy theories elsewhere."

Its Peddle. Not Pedal by the way. And yes, terrorists did kill those that we knew. Anyone who commits such an act is a terrorist. That is by the definition of a terrorist. Whether it be someone from this country or beyond. A government can terrorize. Just look at Darfur. The problem we have these days with our government is the definition for what a Terrorist really is.... is so broadly defined that is has practically lost its meaning. There are militants.. and there are militants who terrorize. There are political factions, and there are political factions who terrorize. A terrorism is not a group or organization. It is a tactic.

I am not insinuating a massive scale conspiracy tying in every single damn person in the government. That would be plain idiotic. But apparently we still have no explanation why bombs were reported in the basement levels. Neither do I, but I do ask questions at least. To question is a principal right of every citizen in a Democracy. Aren't you even curious what was going on there? Who cares WHO put them there at this stage in inquiry. The question is whether the images and reports from individuals IN THE BUILDINGS at the EVENT ITSELF did in fact happen. Unfortunately such details were left completely out of the 9/11 commission report, including ALL details regarding WTC7 and why/how its structure failed resulting in a near free-fall collapse. If such events are recorded on video/audio and through testimony, I would have expected a truly thorough investigation would have at least brought it up. But it did not. But I guess we can dust it under the carpet.. clap our hands clean.. and walk away content.

Why demolitions? I guess that is a question that should be asked AFTER the government acknowledges the video/audio/testimonial evidence. The motive for the entire 9/11 event can only be two possibilities. Politically motivated, financially motivated, or both.

And yes, political motivations include religious motivations. Check the definition for the term in your favorite dictionary.

This is the great thing about the US and the Western world in general. We can debate our hearts out and share our opinions .., whether we agree or not ... and do so without fear of retribution. Well... at least not usually. LOL. Whether our opinions make a difference is another matter completely.

That is ... unless you say something bad about some powerful organization. Want to experience this first hand? Try calling the Church of Scientology a Cult in a major public forum or create website critical of Scientology, and watch how quickly your life will turn to hell.

@ Yuki

I'll start off by saying I agree with you on the UN. It's basically a charade.
Also, your point about having two mainstream candidates is nice, I just don't know if it's realistic. In order to win the primaries the candidates have to pander to the base, especially on the right. The only one talking about unity these days is Obama, but I guess you wouldn't vote for him.

Now a few points of contention:
"Clinton Years: one bombing at home, uss cole, 3 embassies, and more. Clintons reaction? Nothing."

As I mentioned in my earlier post, Clinton didn't do enough to stem the tide of Islamic extremism, he failed the American people in that respect. But don't you think the magnitude of the attack and where it happens affects the magnitude of an appropriate response? The attacks that occurred under Clinton, while tragic and heinous, weren't nearly on the scale of 9/11. Its a false comparison. Even Bush is quoted as saying that he wouldn't really do anything in response to the Cole bombing. His quote was something like "we shouldn't waste time swatting at flies." Look up the USS Cole on Wikipedia. Clinton did too little, but Bush has done too much, IF you include Iraq in that equation which brings the next point:

"Bush: 1 Major attack, nothing on our soil since that point. Bushs reaction: Direct war with the middle east, specificly in iraq."

I think you forgot to finish that sentence so I'll do it for you "... specifically in Iraq ... which had nothing to do with 9/11 (which Bush & co. knew at the time)." You probably should have said Afghanistan, that would have bolstered your point --- but you didn't, you said Iraq.

"1 major attack, nothing on our soil since that point" Actually there was only one attack on our soil when Clinton was president and he went longer than Bush has without an attack on our soil so far, so he has Bush beat in that category. The 1993 WTC bombing doesn't compare to 9/11. If 9/11 would have happened back in '93 do you really think that Clinton would have done nothing? Scale matters. What if there is another attack on "our soil" before Bush leaves office? What will you say then?

"Bushs reaction: Direct war with the middle east, specificly in iraq." Yeah, the thing about Iraq, besides all the trumped up intelligence, is that Bush probably would have gone there anyways. That's what the Bill Kristol of the conservative and reliably pro-Bush Weekly Standard said. If that's true, which I think it is, then Iraq really doesn't qualify as a response to 9/11, even though Bush presented it that way. So, essentially Bush's response to 9/11 was Afghanistan at first, which again I believe was a proper move, and then to move on to an unrelated war before Afghanistan was finished. Doesn't make much sense as a response to 9/11.

"Either way, my point as that had kerry been pres, we might not be in iraq, but only cause dems, as a matter of record, do not do anything when the US was attacked."

Again, a Democratic president hasnt faced anything on the scale of a 9/11. You can't base Kerry's or another Democrat's likely response to a 9/11-type attack based on what happened in the 90s. They don't compare. And of course your ignoring all of the Democrats who voted to authorize Bush's military expeditions. I also disagree with the idea that if kerry was president we would be out of Iraq. The course of war would have been changed because the Bush "strategy" clearly hasn't worked. But I think we would still be there. Of course if you want to talk about the history of the Democratic party and its response to an attack on our homeland, I think full entry into WWII and nuking the country responsible for the attack probably exceeds your criteria for an adequate response. But you were probably just talking about very recent history I hope.

Finally, it seems you took exception to me calling you an idiot. Sometimes that happens when I read inane comments like this:
"While we might not be in iraq, we’d probably have had 3 or 4 more 9/11’s with no retaliation had kerry been prezident, least, if you look at democrats in the past anyway."

That's just a dumb statement, that's why I thought you might be joking. That's something Ann Coulter might say for shock value to get attention for her next book. Run that statement by some of your co-workers or whatever and see how they react. Unless they are nuts, I kinda doubt too many people would see that as a rational, intelligent thought. That's a charge that would even be below Rove to make.











Yeah, uh huh, having hard time picking whats worse, Clinton sitting back and letting our solders be killed without fighting back, or bush getting into a fight and then failing to use proper force to finish it.

Either way, my point as that had kerry been pres, we might not be in iraq, but only cause dems, as a matter of record, do not do anything when the US was attacked.

Yuki Says:
"Bush: 1 Major attack, nothing on our soil since that point. Bushs reaction: Direct war with the middle east, specificly in iraq."

That sure showed Bin Laden.

"Yeah, uh huh, having hard time picking whats worse..."

I can answer that for you: getting us involved in costly (in both money and lives) war with no tangible goal, which allows countries like North Korea and Iran to wave nukes in our face while our troops are stuck in Iraq is WORSE.

Gary Says:
"Why did WTC7 freefall when it was not struck by any airplanes? It was the furthest from the central WTC site. The twin towers also fell at freefall speed."

Not this crap...

I love you little liberal children talking about politics like you have some context on it your probably less then four years of caring about anything political. This NeoCon label cracks me up. Just to give you some history, this is the label that liberals came up with to try and counteract the liberal label which became such a political slur. Grow up and quit thinking everday in America is another episode of X-Files. Spoiled, soft, brats who come up with contrived suffering to justify their total cake walk of a life...

"Implying that Bush is responsible for 911 is simply despicable and shows what kind of character you have as a human being. ”

I may bounce around here a bit topic wise.. please bear with me.

This gaming rights issue is nothing compared to a violation of our Constitutional rights through unrestricted/unregulated government surveillance currently allowed by the so-called Patriot Act. Games will continue to exist. They will not go away. Its a smokescreen to distract you from the real issues out there. (in my opinion) The tactic is to occupy the public with partisan unresolvable/circular issues such as abortion rights, while your constitutional rights are being secretly eroded behind the scenes. I don't mean 'right to bear arms', or 'right to play violent video games'. The constitutional rights are deeper, primarily your right to privacy. The government has invaded the home with unrestricted/unregulated wiretaps without suspicion. This is proven by the ATT network spying scandal where the NSA was caught filtering ATT's complete data stream. The investigation continues to this day, thanks to the Democrats (though i don't trust the Democrats either)

Anything is possible. Right? Many people, especially Conservative Republicans, take a concept on faith alone without substantive proof and live by it. I am fine with that. That is their prerogative. Whatever makes them happy. Why not take a moment to research some of the more mainstream theories out there, with an open mind, and debunk them point by point yourself. Debunking something without first understanding what you are debunking is simply naive. It is also naive to assume every conspiracy theory is correct. They are often based on a smidgen of truth. Often intermixed with falsehoods and lies. Just like anything else out there with an agenda. The scary thing is.. even the true points are often enough to scare the crap out of you.

Why completely deny the possibility (even if slight) that a conspiracy theory tying Bush to Bohemian Grove (Skull and Bones society), and the NeoCon NWO (new world order) ideology?

Bush #1 actually mentioned the NWO in his presidency during a nationally broadcast speech .. which is publically available via a NeoCon manifesto document, clearly stating that a 'pearl harbor' like event is required to speed along their goals.. must be a fabrication. Right? I wonder why both CNN, PBS, and the Associated Press mentioned it?

Conspiracy theorists question how the twin towers and WTC7 managed to fall at near free-fall speed. Anyone who actually learned some high school or early college physics should understand that no building, especially a solid steel frame structured building.. of which one has NEVER collapsed throughout history due to fire (even multiple days of ongoing fire).. managed to have a sudden and catastrophic failure, in a matter of hours, at all critical points resulting in a 'near zero resistance free-fall collapse'. A professional demolitions expert would tell you that it is totally impossible, except in a controlled and planned demolition. Why did WTC7, and the twin towers mind you, freefall when it was not struck by any airplanes? It was the furthest from the central WTC site. The other WTC buildings were heavily damaged, were next to the towers, but their core frames did not collapse. Mind you. The basements of these buildings just happened to blow out so the debris conveniently went there, rather than outward and destroying everything in the surrounding area. The building next to WTC7, a hotel, was in near perfect condition after WTC7's collapse.

Why was WTC7 not mentioned in the 911 report?

Why did Silverstein, the lessor of the WTC buildings on 9/11 state he 'pulled' building 7. Pulling means to demolish in terms used by demolitions companies. John Kerry, recorded on film(!), slips and makes a statement confirming WTC7 was demolished by choice. Why question this? Well, it takes days to weeks to prepare a large steel structured building for demolitions. The ~6 hours between the attacks and WTC7's collapse is barely enough time to demolish an apartment complex. That fact alone is the largest loose stone in the foundation of the government's story.

Democracy is about questioning authority. That is our right. If suspicions are proven wrong. All the better!

"3 or 4 more 9/11s"

someone needs to stop watching fox news.

@bladow

SO, lets think back.

Clinton Years: one bombing at home, uss cole, 3 embassies, and more. Clintons reaction? Nothing.

Bush: 1 Major attack, nothing on our soil since that point. Bushs reaction: Direct war with the middle east, specificly in iraq.

Yeah, uh huh, having hard time picking whats worse, Clinton sitting back and letting our solders be killed without fighting back, or bush getting into a fight and then failing to use proper force to finish it.

Either way, my point as that had kerry been pres, we might not be in iraq, but only cause dems, as a matter of record, do not do anything when the US was attacked.

As for the UN? That worthless bunch of cowards should be disbanded and kicked out of new york, but thats how i've felt about them since the 80's so thats how I see it.

My point is, we need someone who isn't hard left, or hard right, but somewhere in the middle of the road. Reps tend to do better with economic s and bussines, have lower taxs, least most of the time, and understand the military better, dems tend to have better skills when it comes to social programs, domestic concerns, and spending control, although recently that seems to not be the case. Either way, what needs to happen now is for someone to come in and bring some balance back to washington. Kerry wouldn't have done that, bush didn't either.

Oh, and don't go calling me an idiot when you can't seem to form a an intelligent argument.

I don't like any of the dems running for the office and few of the reps impress me either.

@ Gary

"People who write long responses as if they are texting (too many misspellings and abbreviated words) should be ignored. Write fully and coherently and you’ll get a lot more attention and respect. Try writing like that in the professional world.. you won’t get far."

I agree with that. I just posted a long response to what I THINK "Zippy" said and right after I sent it I felt like a fool to direct my post at somebody who writes so sloppily. Not that I'm a good writer or anything, but I do try to clean up spelling and (some) grammar mistakes. I'm sorry if I offend "Zippy" but I think from now on I'm just going to reply to those who can write at least semi-coherently. Of course that probably means I'll be posting less, which I'm sure almost everyone on the board would be grateful for.

Gary
me thye already know zippy naws on his tinfoil hat and dances in thunderstorms why would they want to waste their time on mew =^^=

Marius
thats my point bush pulled "iraq is teh evil they mades 911 and we must smite them with police actuation" BS ,and because of it the US has lost clot and power in the world,sure it will make the crazies think twice over starting sht with us since we will go rape their sister.....country and them too over anythign they might have done all in all we would have been better off saving all that time money and lives and put them to work on securing the boarder and revamping the intel system and not over haul half of the internal agneties to work worse at thier uqnie jobs.. quality over quantity as they say.

Hmmm... What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? Oh, right. Nothing.

People who write long responses as if they are texting (too many misspellings and abbreviated words) should be ignored. Write fully and coherently and you'll get a lot more attention and respect. Try writing like that in the professional world.. you won't get far.

A lot of people are gamers, politicians are probably not excluded. Good news to see that games may continue to exist in the supposed 'new world order' they are trying to create.

Simply put, the two party system in the US is a farce. A joke. Its a game coordinated by both parties to foster votes and create a semblance of Democracy. The core underlying agenda of both parties are the same. All the rest is a smoke screen. The ultimate goal of the US Plutocracy is to keep the financial elite in power and in control, while doing anything it possibly can to maintain that power. That is the gist of it, simplified... though there are many other layers to this cake of greed. The basic fundamental differences between individual parties is nothing more than sprinkles/jimmies on that cake.

That doesn't mean there aren't good people in government. There are. But as we see all too often, they don't get too far up the ladder. If they do, their careers are often short lived. The nice guy will get walked on.

These people at the core are extremely smart and sly, and most of all...they are patient. Unlike the 2 minute attention span most people tend to have these days. The proof is in the pudding as they say... our election system is based completely on 1 minute sound bytes and first impressions. Find a voter of pure substance that researches ALL the facts, and you may find yourself standing in someone else's country.

The war in the middle east is simply defined. A unified middle east is a greater threat to the western financial elitists (note I did not say Democracy) than a broken, chaotic, divided middle east. Thus you have the western policy of divide and conquer. Old tactics shrouded in a modern cloak. Make sense now?

In the mind of the elite and those in control. People live. People die. What matters is survival of the fittest, and feeding -their- status quo. Note, I did not say the status quo of the general public. That ebbs and flows.

The government does depend on the people. But remember. We are the peasants in their kingdom. We are the gears for their machine.. they control the cogs, gears, the on/off switch, and the funding that keeps the clothes on our backs and feeds our children.

All the more reason for us to play our games and live in our imaginary worlds where we do hold some sway. If only for a few hours.

Peace..

So, I suppose this means he'll be voting to ban Blackberries or video games soon then? Like that time in 2004 he went hunting for a photo op to assure the gun nuts he was one of them. Only to fly back to DC the next day to vote for a law banning the duck gun he was holding in the pics..

/me waits for the other shoe, err, flip-flop to drop

@ Zippy

The thing about the Democrats, though is that I think they just want to keep kids from buying these games. They have more respect for the rights of adults to purchase these games. That's what I'm interested in. I don't think Republicans have that same respect, unless maybe the game is military-based. I think some of your Christian Right Republicans (i.e. Jack Thompson) would like to see certain games banned entirely, for adults and kids. Realizing this is a difficult, proposition, however, Thompson has been crafting laws recently that just affect minors.

@ Yuki

"... we’d probably have had 3 or 4 more 9/11’s with no retaliation had kerry been prezident, least, if you look at democrats in the past anyway."

Yeah, that's right, it would have been 9/11s all over the place if Kerry was president. 9/11s every year ... with no retaliation! It would have become an American tradition like Thanksgiving. Unless you were joking, you are an idiot Yuki. We've only had one 9/11, and that was under Bush. Number of 9/11s under Bush: 1, number of 9/11s under Clinton or other Democrats: 0. That's the fact. 9/11 didn't happen on Bush's first day, or even his first 100 days, it happened eight months in, during which Bush spent almost half that time on vacation. Yes, I know about the 1993 WTC bombing, and the attack on the USS Cole in 1999 that happened under Clinton. He failed to do more to stop Islamic extremism and terrorism, when the warning signs were obviously there. But those weren't 9/11s. The fact is that the Bush team had ample time to do something, and they did nothing, so clearly they weren't taking the threat seriously either. And this time it was more consequential. They ignored the memo about Bin Laden being determined to strike the U.S. They even ignored the outgoing Clinton team's warnings! They thought they were just going to have fun in power, make money for their friends, and get Saddam. That's what Bush & co. set out to do. The old line about Republicans being tough on terror is BS. Tough on terror would have been to go after those responsible for 9/11 one-by-one, Mossad-style. That would have been the appropriate response, and one that I would trusted Gore or Kerry to make over Republicans. You know, instead of just bombing the crap out of countries and innocents who had nothing to with 9/11 or terrorism. And BTW, I think the initial response to 9/11 was appropriate, and both Democrats and Republicans agreed that taking out the Taliban in Afghanistan was a good strategic move. Not capturing Bin Laden, however, is inexcusable, and we only have the Republican Bush team to blame for that.

Whats with the political crack, GP?

"Too bad Kerry didn’t make more of the right moves in 2004. How different would the world look today…"

Depnds I think. While we might not be in iraq, we'd probably have had 3 or 4 more 9/11's with no retaliation had kerry been prezident, least, if you look at democrats in the past anyway.

Then again, theres no way to know, maybe Flip flopping Kerry would have picked a strong national defense board and things would've been better. All I know is, come 2008, only 2 of the republicans and 0 of the democrats even mildly earn my confidence as far as things like Border security, Taxes, law enforcment, education ((see also "Indoctrination")) and other big issues.

Ironicly, the reps don't really fair any better. I swear, both sides are putting up extremists for the job of prezident. We need someone who isn't hard left or right in that spot.

@jabrwock

While I may not be the most erudite of political scholars, it seems to me that Bush hasn't really bothered to put forth any signifigant effort to do anything other then cover his own ass this term, and his first term was spent riding the 9/11 bandwagon for as far as it would take him.

Honestly: How could you possibly do any worse then you have with GWB?

Hahaha.

This tempts me to vote him in. I'm completely sold but still we finally see a canidate whos HUMAN....

...and not as dumb as Gorge Bush (I know i spelled his name but i don't care!!)

@Yuki
GP said "how different would the world look today," not be better off if Kerry were "prezident." Don't be so touchy.

Krazywalrus Says:
Now if he were on the Halo 3 beta or something a bit more…social this might matter a bit more >.>

How about the next party debate being a Halo tournament? ;)

Now if he were on the Halo 3 beta or something a bit more...social this might matter a bit more >.>

"GP: Too bad Kerry didn’t make more of the right moves in 2004. How different would the world look today… "

The world wouldn't look any different if kerry was in office.

gah 5 hours past 2AM and no sleep...
its simple if Kerry was predz there would be no iraq,Afghanistan would have been dealt with and we would probably be there helping the UN cock things up ,we would have no goverment wire taps on the public and habeas corpus would still be alive and kicking however with the dems you trade one freedom for another I could see them creating a law enforced rateings board like the some of the socialist loving Europe has where selling M rated marital to a minor is a crime this wold create fear in the industry and gore,violence and sex would be heavily censored at elast in gaming, Hollywood has more than enough power to wing by with lesser restrictions.

As for as the boarder is concerned he'd be no worse than "let them eat green cake" Bushy.

All in all Kerry would have been better for us no iraq alone is worth the triffling squabbles over "censorship" the rest of it would be no different.

So he plays games on his Blackberry, big deal. There are grandmothers who play Windows Solitaire. There are people from all walks of life who play cell phone games. This doesn't necessarily mean he's "one of us." Seriously, let's not read too much into this.

While it is nice to know the the guys up high can have a soul, i dont really see this as something necessary to put in the news...

Not like it could have gotten any worse, had he been elected.

I don't think this qualifies as news, but it would have been interesting nonetheless to see how this played during the elections. "OMG Kerry wants your kids to kill!!!!!"