warmonger1981 wrote:Its easy to vote if all you need is a person to vouch for you. Why is it a person can vote without an ID but you cant buy cigarettes or alcohol? Anyone in their right mind would protect the integrity of voting. Hell if you don't have an ID on you a person can get in trouble. If you cant afford an ID one will be given to you issued by the state. The system we live in is made to keep us all on the hamster wheel never to get off. Pulled in so many directions and fighting so many fronts. The deck is stacked kids. Believe it.
warmonger1981 wrote:In Minnesota you would of been able to vote without an ID. Apply for one and the state will issue one free. come back prove you are who you say you are and your vote will count. But that was shot down. A person can still vouch for another at the booth without that person having an ID. So your telling me its ok to have no checks in the system as it will disenfranchise people? So in other words I should be able to vouch for my buddy to buy liquor or go to the club. Well what if my friend is underage? That seems less of an impact on the whole as a society as to false voting. I feel as serious as voting is you better prove you are a citizen. Otherwise if most countries has laws like that I could fly around and vote in those countries on the I'm vouching method.
BigBallinStalin wrote:_sabotage_ wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:_sabotage_ wrote:1. I don't believe that the government is incompetent, I just believe that their competence revolves around their own interests, and that their interests aren't tied to the peoples.
2. Didn't need tens of thousands, needed a few. All they had to do was let a threat take form and add a few touches.
3. The NYTimes released info on the 6 warnings Bush received, and yet this thread states that anyone who thinks Bush had advanced knowledge is a conspiracist.
4. It's not a select few, it's millions of people and many major media has reported great doubts on the official story internationally, though seldom in the US.
5. CIA provided Bush with six warnings, FBI reports that they were impeded from doing their job, DoD were the folks saying it was a hoax to deflect attention from Saddam.
And yes, my position remains that until the laws of physics are changed to fit the scenario, then reality will just have to do.
If I only led creationist books and refused to read science books--cuz they're propaganda, then the "evidence" of creationism would seem strong, wouldn't it?
Have you read The New Pearl Harbour? How about Shock Doctrine? I never said I haven't read any books about the official account, I just choose not to read any more. Have you read any of the literature pointing to an inside job?
Again, this thread holds the simple premise that Bush having advanced knowledge is a conspiracy theory, and yet him receiving six warnings has been verified. So what's your take, you seem to enjoy taking a dig at mine.
The underlined reminds me of the problem with The Day of Deceit, which makes similar claims about FDR being aware of an attack on Pearl Harbor and allowing it to happen. I'm not too interested in this conversation, so I'll make it short. Basically, there's a time-lag in intelligence reports--from the moment the intelligence (and not the raw information) is produced and when the relevant decision-makers actually read it--or some watered-down version. Then there's a range of reports which state contradictory claims, so there's an uncertainty about what may happen. But the conspiracy theorist can ignore this uncertainty and that time-gap at the time of the decision-maker by only referring to 20% of that range of intelligence reports. They can make it seem like the decision-maker knew what would happen because the CT simply failed to mention the other 80% of the reports and their conflicting warnings/concerns.
So, if either Shock Doctrine or The New Pearl Harbour make the underlined claim, then my above concerns are valid. This would require cross-referencing the various intelligence reports which were made available to the president at that time. Hopefully, the FOIA and that process would allow for such a time-consuming endeavor. I would not be surprised if either book did similar research to The Day of Deceit's, thus have failed in supporting the claim that Bush received six warnings. Perhaps, Bush received six warnings, but each one was vague, and the authors neglected to mention the other 20 or so warnings pointing to other places other than NY and were referring to different means (trucks, instead of airplanes). Maybe you can comment on these concerns of mine, and how those books handle that issue.
AndyDufresne wrote:BBS, all those Nor Do's are you going to make you hard.
warmonger1981 wrote:George Bush Sept. 11 1991. New world order. No conspiracy. Its just how we get there will be the conspiracy.
Users browsing this forum: Timminz and 4 guests