SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (43603)4/23/2004 10:46:38 PM
From: SOROS  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
I'm no liberal on ANY issue, but I have yet to see a thorough and reasonable explanation as to how there was no response from air force planes to the hi-jacking of so many airlines on 9/11, and even those that did finally leave, why they flew at 1/3 to 1/2 speed. I've also never heard a reasonable attempt to explain way back at the OK city bombing how a retarded fellow that drives like a drunken maniac to get caught was struck with such an unbelievable amount of temporary genius in order to be able to construct a crude and unstable explosive to bring down a building from the outside against all odds. Also, can someone point me to a place where the accusations about the size hole in the Pentagon and the absence of plane parts has been dealt with and put to rest? Or where the arguments about how the airliners that hit the WTC made the maneuvers they did with the onboard systems in place are shown to be false and ridiculous claims? Or a logical explanation that logically explains how fellows who had limited flying experience in small planes mustered the ability to fly commercial planes in very difficult circumstances and have such accuracy?

I'm not saying any of these items are true. I am saying there have been a lot of accusations floating around, and I have not been able to read or find any logical and credible testimony by proven experts addressing these questions in detail and putting them to rest. When the only answer seems to be "that's ridiculous, do you know how hard it is for even one person to keep a secret. Do you honestly believe that any of that could be true?" Or the equal, "Do you think that if any of those accusations had any merit, then the major news media and dozens of reporters would be screaming about it?" Or finally, "We can't speak about matters of national security."

Again, perhaps someone can point me to where all of these questions have been shown to have no merit or any credibility. I've only heard variations of the three answers above so far on things like Fox radio, etc. Can anyone help in this area. I certainly do not want to believe the worst, but when no one addresses the questions because "they are ridiculous", that only makes me more curious.

I remain,

SOROS



To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (43603)4/24/2004 12:00:39 AM
From: American Spirit  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Yes all the racists from the Dem party are now Republicans.
I admit that. The party switch happened from 1970 on when the Dixiecrats all became GOP and turned the GOP into the all white party. Before that the GOP was almost liberal. Bush Sr. started out as a liberal. Zell Miller is the last of the dixiecrats and openly attacks all democrats. he's very senile and nutty but he's the last of the old dead breed.



To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (43603)4/24/2004 12:22:26 AM
From: lurqer  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Do you write these posts on a laptop that you take to the toilet. Because that post is surely full of it. Do you honestly believe there are any consistent readers of this thread that don't know what a load that was? In 1950, the Democratic Party was an amalgam of southern Dixiecrats, liberals and labor. Many of the Dixiecrats were racists - like Strom Thurmond. By the mid-sixties, there was no longer a home for the racists in the Democratic Party, so they left. But they were welcomed by the Republicans. Why do you think Thurmond left the Democratic Party and became a Republican? Why do you think Lott praised him as he did?

Are there still any shreds of racism in the Democratic Party? Well there is Byrd's past affiliation. And given its prevalence in this society, I would expect some other remnants. But you gotta search. After Nixon's co-opting the Wallace vote, little scrutiny was required to find the problem in the Republican Party - Thurmond and Helms were just two flagrant examples.

Each party would like a national majority. The real question is which party sacrificed that majority for the sake of moral principle, and which party sacrificed moral principle for the sake of a majority?

JMO

lurqer



To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (43603)4/24/2004 10:33:56 AM
From: TigerPaw  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
The Democrats had opposed previous efforts to pass such legislation, filibustering when necessary.

Of course nearly all those Democrats changed parties, to the Republicans in the 1970's and 1980s.

Or did you conveniently forget that?

TP