That was actually another point I was going to make, a conjoining of the two theories. It being both an inside and outside job. Meaning working together and planning to make things happen. Doesn’t mean George was calling Osama and talking, but gov’t playing its cards right, and people scheming to make things work for them and there agendas.
Didn’t say this guy planned the blowing of it up. People in Gov’t talk. This guy had cash. He had to be talking to people in power. He could of talked to a person knowing about this, and bought it. By doing this, its a win win situation. If it doesn’t happen, he still makes some cash from the real estate business. But if it does happen, he hits the jackpot. Don’t know what rent was there, but I think he could make more quicker through this. Also, insurance fraud happens a nice amount. Family members killing family members for cash. Young people marry old people and wait for them to hit the can to make the money.
As far as the low profile one, its true. Less money is usually involved in those. The gov’t would only care about the big bucks going on. Martha was big bucks, famous, and an easy target.
As far as secrets, it is possible when money is involved. If it wasn’t true, we would know everything going on in Area 51.
I don’t like Bush much now (did not stick to his original views and promises), but he is hardly the only reason for problems with the Republicans. The Republicans are hardly even “Republicans” by typical norms with all of the spending taking place and social programs being funded. Even with the war troubles, the Democrats are probably not going to take the House (not surprised) because of their even great intra-party problems. If you want to see a long, propaganda filled documentary watch “The Corporation” (which I watched today for far too long). It’s a perfect example of somebody using a film with some pseudo-facts to push their viewpoint. I will give credit to this one as not having any apparent financial motive, yet (until the next doc is released in some film festival ).
Actually, I think the US needs another Democrat in office. When Clinton was in office, the country was doing good. When Republicans show up, this country takes a nose dive. Look at an economic chart. Funny how the line takes this HUGE dive (look at a chart, you will see for yourself), around the time Bush shows up. Democrats tend to care more about there country than sending and spending cash on other countries.
Of course the .com crash was Bush’s fault as much as it was Clinton’s success :rolleyes:. Presidents have minimal power over the economy and Clinton was handed a gold mine. Please do not try to say Clinton’s policies were responsible for the good economy. Interestingly enough, it wasn’t even a year after him leaving it tanked. That would be more of evidence for his failure than anything.
Democrats not spending cash on other countries? Please!
Working in a similar ways doesn’t mean working together
Maybe I wasn’t clear what I meant. The US, in order to know about what was done, had to talk to people. They then, let Osama do it, and do it in such a way so that they will benefit in the end. The individuals, such as the guy who buys the WTC, talk to people and find out from people talking. Doesn’t mean they were scheming to blow the building up, but after learning about Osama’s plan, move there chess pieces to profit from it.
Anyways, a lot happens in the dark world, so anythings possible.
Actually, presidents influence policies and spending. If a democrat is in the White House, that is one of the three parts of Gov’t taken. And make no doubt, Presidents do have power. If they didn’t, Bush wouldn’t be able to do things he has done.
I will say Clinton’s policies helped with a prosperous country. Look at a stock chart over the years. Bush enters, and magically economy take a nose dive. You can’t alone blame Bush, but he can take a nice chunk of it. And as far as cash spending to other countries, compare the spending under Clinton with Bush or Reagon. Bet you Clinton spends less to outside countries, with inflation taken into account (or even without it, bet you it is still less).
Oh yeah, and this country thought Democrats had the right thing going when they voted for Gore to White House. Gore did win the popular vote, did he not? 
Again, the power Presidents have over the economy is very minimal. Ask any economist worth a damn.
I will say Clinton’s policies helped with a prosperous country. Look at a stock chart over the years. Bush enters, and magically economy take a nose dive. You can’t alone blame Bush, but he can take a nice chunk of it. And as far as cash spending to other countries, compare the spending under Clinton with Bush or Reagon. Bet you Clinton spends less to outside countries, with inflation taken into account (or even without it, bet you it is still less).
Are you going to completely ignore the .com boom that Clinton was lucky to have going and leave just a few months before the beginning of the crash? Policies take many months and even YEARS to have the effects be apparent. If you’re going to bring up two Presidents (Bush and Reagan) who had far different circumstances for their presidencies than the gift Clinton was handed, then that’s fine, but it is apples and oranges. The fact you believe that Bush is responsible for the economic nose dive post-Clinton is ridiculous. The spending supported by the Congress is more at fault, though standard economic cycles will apply regardless of who is in power (in the democrat vs republican sense). If you don’t believe this, look up the raw data and see for yourself.
What are you defining as cash spending to other countries? War? Clinton didn’t have any so he didn’t have to spend any on it (at least, none that we can see). If you want to talk about actual numbers, look at what he did for China and Africa. I’m not complaining, just stating the amount of debt he let go.
If you want to get into conspiracy theories, look into all of the “mysterious” car accidents and odd “suicides” and “disappearances” that took place to MUCH of Clinton’s opposition and political baggage over the years.
Well, you want to say Bush won by slim margins over Kerry when he is the first since Reagan to win a MAJORITY vote (not even Clinton did that), but yes, Gore did cleary win the popular vote. I hardly though consider a California landslide much of a support for the argument. If you want to get into the point that the democrats target the poor in the cities, who tend to be liberal and densely population, then you can say “this country” thought the Democrats had it. Thankfully, our country is not owned by a few select cities (NYC, Chico, Boston) and a single state (Cali).
huh? during clintons presidency the economy went from its lowest dept to a large surplus. it only took a couple years of bush for it to go to the lowest the country has even seen, i believe two or three times as low. clinton didnt spend money on war cuz he didnt start any. comparing what clinton did for this country and what bush has done is completely laughable. just look at how we view china now.
Don’t you just love the internet; for its “relativeness” in information, and the abundance that ultimately forces people to think for them selves? I truly hope our future generation will grow up with an atomized medium like the internet as their principal source of information. Now, if only people would learn how to really utilize this freedom, then we might look at a rather bright future: We wouldn’t have as many people boasting about not looking at the source yet still making affective evaluations, – bragging about their own imbecility – nor would we have as many opinions confused with reality or arguments confused with labels.
The documentary was interesting. I’m not sure if I totally accept the answers given since (would need more information), although I certainly appreciate the questions. Indeed, the most valuable aspect for me was how it provokes one to ask more questions: Like how a plane can be completely vaporized or how two towers can collapse so symmetrically – that was my initial reaction when it happened live too! Perhaps the skyscrapers are built in a way that makes them collapse in such a way – I don’t know? If the plane that (perhaps allegedly) flew into the pentagon-building was indeed completely vaporized, then, if nothing else, that would be a serious blow to my belief in how well and safe the passenger planes are constructed in the first place. Damn… are we flying in tin cans?
Spending is in large part the responsibility of the Congress, the President can only ask and suggest things, not necessarily get them passed. Of course the country is going to have a surplus when the economy is great 
I don’t see your point here. Clinton did not create the .com and technology boom and Al Gore did not create the internet. This rapid economic expansion and development would have happened even if we had a Communist for a president.
Lay out some hard numbers pal. Firstly, add 911 to the dot COM bust as another reason for Bush’s economic woes. These two events alone technically put the US into mild recession. And guys remember that Bush was in office a total of eight freaking moth prior to the Trade Center attacks so common sense coupled with basic math skills would show that both events (dot com bust and 911) were planned during Clinton’s reign and executed on Bush’s watch. And let us not forget the attempt to bring down the towers in 1993 on Clinton’s watch…hmmmm?
With regard to Bush’s supply side economics:
· 5 years of consecutive growth
· 4.8 percent unemployment LOWER than the average over Clinton’s term especially if you subtract the skewed numbers from pre dot com bust
· Black home ownership higher that at any point in history (census bureau)
· Poverty rate as based on PERCENTAGE is less under Bush than Clinton
And all of this economic improvement is accomplished while Bush is spending like a made man on entitlements of which he has exceeded Clinton on as well. You name the entitlement—welfare, prescription drugs, etc. Bush has fulfilled every pinko’s wet dream. And with regard to education, Bush again has spent more money than any other president.
These are facts Comanch…leave your politics at the door. And although statistics can be manipulated in most cases to fit neatly the particular agenda, I tried to layout a few stats that are difficult to tinker with.
Also, I shall watch the aforementioned doc and then comment. But did anyone see the TLC (I believe TLC) special on the collapse of the towers? It was called, I think, Anatomy of the Collapse. This was an incredible show giving us insight from engineers including the Trade center architect himself as to why they fell as they did. The unique design and structure coupled with the massive amounts of burning fuel led to the pancake formation of collapse…not controlled explosions.
If one were to try and gain control or set an agenda for war or profit, 911 was executed more smoothly than did Redford and Newman in the movie The Sting. I find it hard to believe that a government/administration that bungled Hurricane Katrina was able to conspire in pulling off 911 to justify a war that any rational person could see was going to be a pain in the ass.
You guys need to read “Crossing the Rubicon” by Mike Rupert if you’re intersted in understanding this stuff. He’s a former Narcotics officer who investigated 9-11 like a prosecuting attorney would in a criminal trial. A sample of his stuff at the link below - the facts of gov’t involvement are too overwhelming.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/02_11_02_lucy.html
What a lot of people don’t know is there were wargame exercises going on the day of 9-11 along the NE US involving simulations of planes running into buildings. This is a fact and the gov’t admits as much. There were also false blips being inserted into airline traffic control radar screens, also verifiable.
Economic are very hard to argue. There’s no question that the colapse of the dot com boom erased huge piles of cash from the table. Likewise, Clinton’s policies didn’t help the middle class either. You can argue that institutionalising a tax cut at the top increases the burden on future generations.
I think it’s off-track to argue about the Gov’t in general. Rather, the question is about individuals taking advantage of their positions and the need to look outside what is offered by the mainstream media as “all the news”.
Ok, lets see. Why would Clinton want to bring the towers down? It wouldn’t benefit him in any way. If they were brought down in 1993, that would have screwed him probably for another election. The only benefit that could come out of a tower collapse is being able to push for war without resistance. There would also be money making for some individuals.
Now, I will say Clinton didn’t get Osama when he had the chance a few times, but that had to do with the fact that I dont think they were very worried about him. The country was doing good and everyone was happy. Why bring everyones happiness down with a war?
With regard to Bush’s supply side economics:
· 5 years of consecutive growth
· 4.8 percent unemployment LOWER than the average over Clinton’s term especially if you subtract the skewed numbers from pre dot com bust
· Black home ownership higher that at any point in history (census bureau)
· Poverty rate as based on PERCENTAGE is less under Bush than Clinton
Show me links, not just writing.
As for economy, here is a link to what the stock exchange looks like when Bush comes in:
http://www.frogpond.com/articlespics/g2.gif
Clinton’s time; rising economy; Bush in office, nose dive in economy. That debunks your claim of consecutive growth.
As far as Black home ownership. Personally I’m sick of hearing about race and tired of hearing stereotypes and categories of people. But if your going to do it, how can you not say Clinton had to do with it, like you claim he had to do with 9/11? Also, a rise in population for people could have to do with it, or the policies of Clinton helped whatever your talking about happen.
As far as poverty rate, please show me links. I have noticed America spends much much less money than it did during Clinton’s time.
And your second point, again, please provide links.
And all of this economic improvement is accomplished while Bush is spending like a made man on entitlements of which he has exceeded Clinton on as well. You name the entitlement—welfare, prescription drugs, etc. Bush has fulfilled every pinko’s wet dream. And with regard to education, Bush again has spent more money than any other president.
He is spending money he doesn’t have to spend. He is lowering taxes all the time, and spending more all the time. Any person can tell that isn’t a good thing.
Want to see something that will make you laugh, look at this:
http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm
Bush shows up, deficit takes an all new low.
As for Clinton, the deficit was actually getting better, and reached a point that it hasn’t reached in a good while, which was in the green.
These are facts Comanch…leave your politics at the door. And although statistics can be manipulated in most cases to fit neatly the particular agenda, I tried to layout a few stats that are difficult to tinker with.
Your facts don’t have links, and I have debunked quite a few of yours with facts and graphs.
Another possible way to look at it is that the first WTC attack is Al Quida’s best effort on their own.
Linking Wall Street to the good of the people in general is BS. The stock market rises when unemployment rises, cause desperate people work for less, increasing profits for the listed employers. Extremely low interest rates leave hurts middle class retirees and encourages borrowing to dangerous levels but make Wall Street happy because risky investments are the only game in town with any kind of return. So the retiree pulls the money out of the bank- and trusts it to Enron and Dot Coms.
Every disaster is a new opportunity for the connected to profit. The first legislation passes after Katrina? Lowering the minimum wage, so Halliburton (no bid contract again) can make more profit there a la Iraq.
That was my view anyways. Barron is the one making claims Clinton had something to do with the first attack.
Linking Wall Street to the good of the people in general is BS.
I was countering his claim to say that the economy was rising consecutively under Bush.
But, the stock market is a good indication as to how the economy is going. If business’s aren’t doing good, the employee’s will pay. If employee’s pay for it, then business’s will pay for it also. This is because the citizen’s will not be spending as much because of less pay or being fired from there former job, and effecting other business’s. This could be seen when the economy was taking a downslide. Less money was spent during Christmas times and other times as well then it had been in a long time.
I agree on problematic causality between governmental actions and economy in general. However, I think there’s no doubt the U.S. Gov’t could affect its national socio-political setting by reorganizing spending priorities.
The military economy is fairly opportunistic since it’s rather convenient to deflect public scrutiny on grounds of “national security” or whatever “homeland” principle. Such disregard of transparency would be substantially more difficult in another governmental area. On the other hand, if governmental resources would be directed towards some other entity – like education and social security – individuals would perhaps utilize their position of power anyhow? Who knows, but at least warmongering would end. I think herein lies the importance: an industrial/economic upswing in another areas of governmental and economic life, regardless of official misuse, would have much better residual effects than the horrendous residual effects an upswing in military-industrial economy – it would benefit more and kill less people.
Perhaps if the military-industrial complex was not allowed to butt-screw the majority, both directly and indirectly, and with the assistance of “public” media, there would be some real options (and meaningful discussions) about how The Government could organize spending?
As an outsider (not a U.S. citizen), it sounds rather odd to hear ravings against (and for) social programs, especially while the same nations defence budget eats over 420 billion dollars annually.
Perhaps a recollection of Eisenhower’s speech from 1961 would be in order?
I’m not quite positive what your post is trying to say, but this quote also confuses me. You say that people in the US are against and for social programs. Whats your point? Citizens are for and against a lot of things, such as abortion.
As far as defence spending, we are the top country in the world, of course we will spend high amounts on defending ourselves. The only issue I have with the spending is spending to other countries instead of ourselves. Also, the US needs to stop helping countries straighten there stuff out. Afganistan was called for, because that is where Osama was (side tracking from who is to blame for 9/11). Iraq was another thing that was a mistake. We have to finish it now, but I have yet to figure out why we are there in the first place.