Kansas Crimson

pdub wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:55 am Yea -- I think it begins with the right candidate/leader who isn't driven to divide.

Maybe? The problem is that there is not presently any reason to believe (perhaps on either side, but come on, really more on the right) that good faith efforts to unite won't be responded to with bad faith.

Merrick Garland.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 11:27 am

pdub wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:55 am Yea -- I think it begins with the right candidate/leader who isn't driven to divide.

Maybe? The problem is that there is not presently any reason to believe (perhaps on either side, but come on, really more on the right) that good faith efforts to unite won't be responded to with bad faith.

Maybe?
As opposed to a leader who is driven to divide?
The people you look to every day, your leaders, should be the first people setting the example.
That shouldn't be too difficult to ask for - they should be the best amongst us.

pdub wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 12:05 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 11:27 am

pdub wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:55 am Yea -- I think it begins with the right candidate/leader who isn't driven to divide.

Maybe? The problem is that there is not presently any reason to believe (perhaps on either side, but come on, really more on the right) that good faith efforts to unite won't be responded to with bad faith.

Maybe?
As opposed to a leader who is driven to divide?
The people you look to every day, your leaders, should be the first people setting the example.
That shouldn't be too difficult to ask for - they should be the best amongst us.

i’ve said many times that the “best among us” want nothing to do with politics, even though they might be the best at that job

I think there are candidates out there but the money needed to bring those candidates to the forefront isn't there -- which is a problem in the system that I bet lobster could get on my wavelength with.

pdub wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 12:05 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 11:27 am

pdub wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:55 am Yea -- I think it begins with the right candidate/leader who isn't driven to divide.

Maybe? The problem is that there is not presently any reason to believe (perhaps on either side, but come on, really more on the right) that good faith efforts to unite won't be responded to with bad faith.

Maybe?
As opposed to a leader who is driven to divide?
The people you look to every day, your leaders, should be the first people setting the example.
That shouldn't be too difficult to ask for - they should be the best amongst us.

Should be, of course. Yes, absolutely. And it's very easy to ask for!

What it's hard to do is get. And, as things presently sit, any leader on the left who tries to extend an olive branch, be the bigger person, give benefit of the doubt, etc....is going to get trampled over by people on the right who have no problem responding to good faith with bad faith.

"is going to get trampled over by people on the right who have no problem responding to good faith with bad faith."

There will be people on the right or left that will have no problem responding to good faith with bad faith. The point is to get to more of the people who aren't like that, and there are more on the right than I think people on the left think there are.

With the issue being, it seems people who aren’t like that are drowned out of the conversation by the people who are.

Correct.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 9:07 am This thread makes me sad. And also is instructive in understanding how we're at where we're at.

Me too. No one has debunked any of my arguments backed with facts, yet some pretend that they have. I've received poor sources where I can easily expose lies right there in plain site ("no explosions heard" for example from that NIST article).

One of the things people must remember is that governments are not some magical authority -- they are just people. Same for lawyers, musicians, rich business men, etc.

pdub wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:33 am I can believe that the government acted on unverified info to charge into a war they wanted. That would be easy to do and with not much risk if they were wrong.

The risk that “they” would take for murdering their own people with explosives is very high. The difficulty of success without being discovered also very high.

It’s not that I don’t think there are people in power that would say yes to an attack on their people if it meant they could stay in power—it’s just I don’t think they could pull it off.

Contrary to what most think, there are some intelligent people in the CIA and other parts of our government. Not all governments have DMV employees. They pulled off the WMD lie with 95% of Americans buying into it. I was one of the few that could tell it was a lie, simply by it not adding up, and also by watching the body language of Bush and Rumsfeld. All the CIA had to do is communicate with Mossad and look the other way when they knew what was about to happen. Just stay tuned. In the future, more will be revealed, and the ones still afraid to look into the possibility that 911 was a lie, will have the comfort of being part of the majority when it's accepted as the mainstream view. BTW, I used to think the people who questioned 911 were idiots and conspiracy people. That was before I actually started looking into the overwhelming evidence. I didn't even know that tower 7 collapsed until well after 911.

Also, one last important point to mention: It's not that hard to pull off a cover up when you consider how dumb the average American is. I mean, just look around you and you know what I mean. A large portion of our population still doesn't know that tower 7 collapsed.

Also, interesting fact for the day: MSNBC was one of the few news stations that actually reported that the anthrax from 2001 was actually traced to the US government. This no longer "conspiracy" but now is accepted as a fact.

lobster wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:24 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 9:07 am This thread makes me sad. And also is instructive in understanding how we're at where we're at.

Me too. No one has debunked any of my arguments backed with facts, yet some pretend that they have. I've received poor sources where I can easily expose lies right there in plain site ("no explosions heard" for example from that NIST article).

One of the things people must remember is that governments are not some magical authority -- they are just people. Same for lawyers, musicians, rich business men, etc.

I dont believe 100% the story from 9/11. However, you're on an island with a lot of this stuff lobster. No one has debunked your arguments with facts?? Japhy broke down your entire argument about the collapse of the tower backed with facts and very informative analysis froma structural engineers point of view. You should've learned something from those posts, I (as most I assume would) certainly did. If you didnt then you arent actually reading what he posted or you are unable or unwillingly to grasp the analysis.

Also, I dont think you are interpreting jfish' post correctly. Mirror.

As I said, I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt as I distrust a pot of the information distributed about 9/11. I distrust the government and I'm not ruling out some sort of involvement in it *more indirectly, I dont believe the government said kill 3000 people and being down the towers* but you have to have some ability to be grounded in reality. You cant swing incessantly from lala land and expect to be taken seriously.

TDub wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:59 pm

lobster wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:24 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 9:07 am This thread makes me sad. And also is instructive in understanding how we're at where we're at.

Me too. No one has debunked any of my arguments backed with facts, yet some pretend that they have. I've received poor sources where I can easily expose lies right there in plain site ("no explosions heard" for example from that NIST article).

One of the things people must remember is that governments are not some magical authority -- they are just people. Same for lawyers, musicians, rich business men, etc.

I dont believe 100% the story from 9/11. However, you're on an island with a lot of this stuff lobster. No one has debunked your arguments with facts?? Japhy broke down your entire argument about the collapse of the tower backed with facts and very informative analysis froma structural engineers point of view. You should've learned something from those posts, I (as most I assume would) certainly did. If you didnt then you arent actually reading what he posted or you are unable or unwillingly to grasp the analysis.

How funny is it that you and I have something in common for once? Even though you don't see eye to eye with me on everything, I applaud your courage to challenge the mainstream media and our government.

Paul1 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:18 pm Weather forecast for today was Sunny. That's it. Simply Sunny. From sunrise to sunset.
Well, not only is it cloudy right now but there is a severe thunderstorm watch and I see a big storm brewing to the northwest.
Once again, (for the 1,000th+ time in my life) the weather forecaster/s are proving a person can pay a lot for an education and not learn shit.

I guess it turns out we can't even trust the National weather service, and what lobster has been trying to tell us about the government is true.

/thread

I'll add that I broke down the credibility of the NIST source. The last sentence in the report read that "no one heard explosions, and that there were no explosions". I provided video proof that there were indeed explosions (you can hear them on the video) and dozens of witnesses. NIST loses their credibility when they deny the obvious facts.

Here's an alternative view from an architect of the NIST reports (debunks them easily):

JFC

Another video on the explosions that NIST covers up.