Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Bush Administration's Media Manipulation--MediaGate? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PartyTime who wrote (798)	3/3/2005 9:55:51 PM
From: SiouxPal	Respond to of 9838

That's the Post 'O The Day here IMO. Thanks for your in-depth thoughts. You must be a Democrat. :•)

To: PartyTime who wrote (798)	3/4/2005 2:14:52 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9838

I'd like to make some corrections to the below post, posted last evening [Note--changes are in brackets]. I was responding to SiouxPal an excerpt of which he wrote is below: >>>The more important thought I have is that Bush & Co. knew we were going to be hit somewhere, and they also did not realize it's extent would be so catastrophic.<<< What's an actuary do? What's risk analysis all about? How do auto makers and insurance adjusters pick their odds? One would have to think questions like these enter into the mindsink at the top of a presidential administration[, especially one] that cares so little for truth, social justice and self-determination of people. [So let's say there was a calculation that the World Trade Center could get hit by terrorists, but even so that Bush would come out of it looking good.] Playing along with a [theoretical] worst-case-scenario, what could be a possible calculation? Downside analysis: -- [ ] planes hit [the] towers and a between one hundred and three hundred people die. Upside analysis: -- Between one and three hundred people die, but Bush shakes [the] monkey of[f his back, as to] how he got [s]elected (sic) [, and by going to war [he becomes] a war president (war presidents[,] historically[,] [ ] always [got] reelected in American politics. With control of the presidency, both houses of congress and good odds control of the courts [--] billions of dollars can be made for anyone within the insider food chain. [read: presidency preserved [for reelection]/[inside] money made vs. a few hundred deaths, i.e., [like the Ford Pinto!] Didn't Ford make a calculation like this with the Pinto? safetyforum.com researchnews.osu.edu [Would a presidential administration consider same before going into war? Or how to get into one?] Could this also be so of the neocon GOPwingers, especially since other [important and self-serving] benefits could be achieved as well? And perhaps none of the scheming parties [Al Qaeda or, theoretically, the Bush Administation insiders] thought so many would die from the incidents, and that it might [all, somehow,] have seemed worthwhile [to do--like Ford ignoring the needed recall?] Bad things have happened before; bad things could happen again. I mean how could they ever have [arrived at that fateful] Pinto decision? Is this what you're getting at, SiouxPal? Regarding the conspiracy theory as to how exactly the twin towers came down? Is there a fit for this in any of the above? By the way, just out of curiosity, anyone got any good videos of buildings being demolished under controlled conditions?