(V):   And I feel it's you taking advantage of the military that are in harms way for your own ideological view.    

(V):   I don't see sympathy being shown.  I see something else at play here. 

All of this nonsense complaining over a comedy show.  Move on already.

(V):   Be offended then.  It was 5 insignificant people, several of whom are comedians (they make fun of stuff for a living) on a show that mocks everyone (including the US).  It's much to do about nothing at this point.  People have already apologized.  So for those of you still offended, it's not about you anyway so who cares that you are offended? 

(V):   It's no longer an issue because it's been dealt with.  That's all I meant by saying it's a non issue.   I will go even farther.  People who continue to make this an issue are exploiting the dead soldiers.  They are using this incident, and the death of the Canadian soldiers to score points. 

(V):The only way to lose one's undies over things like that is if there is a consistent pattern of that sort of thing.  You can be sure Red Eye won't tread on that topic again.  Some people hate Fox so much that they will pick out things like this and dwell on them until hell freezes over.  Well deserved if it were to continue.  But an apology and acceptance puts this one back in the drawer.  It's a non issue.

(V): I agree with you.  And you at least have made your own argument concerning the piece.  I've watched that show and they are very irreverent.  But so are The Simpsons and Family Man.  Both on Fox.  So what?  You have provided your view of the "so what" and that's what's needed more around here.  What matters is the context of the argument. 

On the other hand, what I saw was simply a group of people slamming the idea of the Canadian military taking a year off.  That idea does seem like fair game for criticism and even some sarcasm.  Red Eye is a satirical take on the news.  That's it.  And yes the host apologized.  But Red Eye approaches ALL TOPICS in this irreverent, lighthearted, humorous and ridiculous manner.  It's what they do.  Still, it was bad form as you say.  But keeping it in proper perspective, it was a five minute segment on a comedy show.  They make fun of the news.  It's not that huge.

Jim Dandy:You are now walking very close to the edge with me.  It has nothing to do with fox.  It has to do with what I said in the beginning.  Don't post a link and call that an argument.  If you can't accept that, then don't post here.  Now drop it with me. 

Jim Dandy:First of all, that link contained foul language.  That alone disqualifies it for posting.

Secondly, it's not a political post.  It is perhaps better posted on the TV board since your point seems to be against and entertainment/news organization.

Third, you didn't make an argument.  You can't assume to let a link "do the talking  for you." 

Finally, these apply here. 

*Quoting other sources is fine but do so in the context of your own argument.
----------
*Don't flood the board with quotes.  Quotes should support the argument you are making, not BE your argument.
----------

Quotes, links, whatever the source, all the same here. 

*Your freedom of speech here comes with responsibility, the responsibility to speak decently within the parameters of the rules.

Rules=guidelines. 

There is no point to your posts and ultimately it can go nowhere.  It's very old material and we've been down this path before and it's a dead horse. 

*Don't beat a dead horse. If the horse is declared "dead" by the moderator, let it lie.

This goes for everyone on this board.  Don't post a link and substitute it for an argument.  Don't use this board to vent your own personal gripes about something.  This board is no one's personal platform to air grievances.  It's a discussion board. 

Jim Dandy:   Read the guidelines of the board.  The video cannot speak for itself.  You must make the point, not just drop a link every now and then.   Any more like that will be deleted.

Jim Dandy:   These sort of flybyes aren't going to be allowed on this board anymore.  So if you have a legitimate point, make it.  Don't let the link make your argument.  I don't care what network/cable link you provide, make a legitimate point, give details with the intention of creating some dialogue over the issue.  But hit and runs will be deleted. 

Czuch:Hey, I like that song!   Group hug! 

The Usurper: I'll be a conservative Constitarianlibertarionalist.

hmmmm Conservative Constitutional Libertarian.  That's it!

(V):Related, but not relevant. 

In 1935 there was proposed legislation to criminalize lynching in the US and Roosevelt refused to give his approval to the bill even after a young man, Rubin Stacy, was lynched.  Even as recently as 1981, Michael Donald was lynched in Alabama.  He was lynched for allegedly murdering a policeman (he had been aquitted).  Turns out he was innocent. But even then, some whites hated blacks so much that even an accusation against a black was deserving of death.  Sad.  The Michael Donald case hasd an interesting twist.  Donald's mother sued the KKK for their complicity in her son's hanging.  An all white jury found the KKK responsible and they were ordered to pay 7 million dollars.  Sweet justice too as they had to hand over all their assets including their national headquarters in Tuscaloosa. 

(V):
  You're the one of the few people I know that can take a simple statement like this:  "OH....a woman became premier....the first woman to be voted in in her own right....so history was made I guess ROFLMBO" and turn it into a discussion that isn't even related to the statement made!   

But then I don't know  much about your's and Bernice's government systems but I suspect most politicans are puppets to some degree (there's always a string attached yes?)

I remember when it was said that Obama was the first black president of the US someone replied that he wasn't fully black.  This of course is true but does it negate the historical significance of such a thing?  Especially since in my lifetime, blacks were hung from trees in some parts of this country, now a generation later we have a man with dark skin in the White House.  A step toward a woman president and perhaps beyond.  Something just to take note of, like a woman in the UK becoming premier. ;)

Vikings:hmmmm, maybe I'll be a Constitarian. Or Libertarionalist.  ;)

I think I'm becoming a Republitarian.  1/2 Republican and 1/2 Libertarian.  Is there such an animal?  And where exactly within the Republican continuum does Ron Paul fall?

(V):If a world government happens, the people's rights will not be part of the package.  People will have responsibilities, not rights. Any rights will be severely limited.

Bernice: This seems to be a reoccurring theme with politicians.  Make promises you can't pay for.  Then borrow and get the country into a financial fix for years to come.  Then blame someone else. 

The Usurper:As I understand it, the Bilderberg group started in the early 50's and did so to counter the anti-American sentiment in Europe.  As for secretive, that's true.  They do meet in secret.  But could it be that they don't want what they do say to be misconstrued (as the press does so well) and they don't want things taken out of context.  Also, since what is said in there could have international political ramifications, it's not surprising that they want to protect the need to speak freely without the fear that some reporter with a desire to break a big story will take their words and create an international crisis.

I'm just saying that there are several reasonable explanations for most situations.  Conspiracy is just one.  You may be right in your analysis.  But it's not an obvious conclusion. 

The Usurper:It's not obvious just by looking at the quote.  I've seen similar quotes regarding the nature of people and their attitudes toward freedom.  What's missing is a context to put things with and a bit of an explanation as to how you conclude these are his fellow conspirators.  I see nothing in that quote to indicate that. 

Czuch:So are you going to watch the 9/11 video?  If you do, I will and then we can compare notes. 

Czuch:  So do I.  But you need controlling Czuch   j/k

Bernice:  There is?  lol  Tell us more about the election. 

The Usurper:How exactly does it reveal that?

Everyone is free to post whatever they want.  Just keep the guidelines in view.  That is an expectation for everyone.  

The Usurper:

I've not declared the 9/11 discussion a dead horse.  I said that as long as there is a discussion about it it's fine by me.  For all I care, if the board wants to talk 9/11 stuff until the cows come home that will be ok.  But if it's a one-man-show, well then there is a limit to how long it should go.  No one is interested in having ideas shoved down their throats.

If you are mission-oriented, this is not the place to accomplish a mission.  We are few in number.  Try theologyweb.com.  The big boys hang out there.  There are other forums as well but theologyweb has many PhD's that participate. 

Post on any issue you want.  No one is saying you can't.  But don't be condesending, divisive, dominating, and if there is no interest in a particular topic, let it go.   There are a hundred other political topics to discuss.

I have always been in a position to block posts if I had good reason.  I have maneuvered nothing.  This board is still in its infancy.  I have rightly set up parameters so that no one person can dominate or push their agenda.  It's not a conspiracy.  I need no "excuse" to block posts if they are considered divisive or too aggressive.  I've always been in a positon to moderate posts. 

The guidelines are not an announcement that this board needs to be controled.  On the contrary, it's more an announcement that this board will be run in a way that is fair-minded and gives all participants equal voice.  It is also an attempt to head any and all problems "off at the pass."  As I said already, these guidelines can be found on many forums.  Check out the more popular fourms and you will find they all have posting guidelines.  Operate withing the parameters of the board and you have complete freedom.  There is no "control" over what is discussed.

You may not be interested in a controled board, but I'm less interested in any one person dominating the board, or forcing their agenda down the throats of others. 

I have no intention of using my authority to guide the debate.  I will bring things back within the parameters should things stray too far.  Any moderator worth his or her salt would do the same (or should).

There is no reason to "debate" the guidelines.  No one even knows how the board will be affected by the guidelines.  They are certainly not restrictive.  Is 9/11 the only topic in the world we can discuss?  Hardly.  If people are interested in it, chat away.  If not, drop it.  When will you be satisfied you've said enough of the subject?

If you want to provide links of interest, do it.  If you want to copy and paste items of interest, do it.  But if these links and copy/paste items are a substitue for an argument, then we have a problem.

I have items of interest I will post from time to time as well.  There are ways to do this that are in keeping with the guidelines.  I've put out ideas for discussion in the past.  If people ignored or didn't comment on the items I posted, I'd go on to the next one.

I'm not the umpire and I have no stake in which team wins.  The analogy doesn't fit here.  I haven't moderated anyone to silence them.  I've handicapped no one when a discussion was taking place.  That will never happen unless there is a flagrant violation of etiquette.

There is another alternative open to the board.  If people don't like the decisions I've made, go to the globals.  If they agree with you, they have the authority to remove me and find a replacement.  If they made that decision, I'd have no power to stop them.  I'd be out and someone else would take over.  That's the way the system works.

  Bwild:    you bad!  

awesome:Thanks for that.  You're right, it was Nov 22 1963. 

Czuch:This is exactly the problem with the entire conspiracy theory.  It's really just a bunch of doubts packaged together and sold as one thing.  Kennedy was killed in 73 and people are still debating it.  9/11 will suffer the same fate.  Unless something besides reasonable doubt surfaces.  And it's just as you say; a series of doubts doesn't necessarily add up to anything. 

Bernice: This statement hits the nail on the head with respect to convincing anyone about anything.  You have to have something you can chew on to get you started.  Glenn Beck calls it "The One Thing."  What is the "One Thing" about 9/11 that is worth thinking about? 

Most of the long videos (and they are worth watching if one has the time) give you so many details that it's enough to make your head explode.  Some of the ideas presented are connected to other "circumstantial evidence" and without the connection, they don't seem important.  But you don't need all the information at once to be convinced that "something is up."  You need "The One Thing."  The "One Thing" is like putting a stone in one's shoe.  It's there to irritate to the point that you have to deal with it.  Just a small stone is needed.  It is meant to be bothersome to the point that the person has to find that stone, and deal with it once and for all.

For me, the one thing is how the towers fell, and how building 7 fell.  In the history of skyscraper fires, never before 9/11 or after, has any building fallen due to fire.  The towers crumbled.  It's important to understand the construction of the buildings to see how this seems impossible.  You don't have to know the answer, you only have to arrive at the question: Why did the towers fall in the way that they did and why does WTC7 look exactly like a professional demolition?

In 2005, a skyscraper (In Madrid) burned for over 20 hours!  And after the fire burnt out, the skyscraper was still standing.  In fact, in any skyscraper fire, the building always stayed standing.  Only the towers fell.  Why?  Forget the official explanation, I want to know the science of it. 

Since the structural integrity of the lower part of the towers had 100% its strength, why did the buildings crumble all the way to the ground?  Each tower had a huge reinforced steel core that stretched from the top to the bottom of the building.  How did this huge core simply crumble.  It should have been left standing.

Finally, the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a plane.  One scientist said that if a plane were to hit the building, it would be like putting a hole into a steel reinforced netting.  Only the area around the hole would be compromised.  The rest of the netting remains at 100% its stength. 

That's the stone in my shoe.  That's my "One Thing."  And what is my conclusion?  Simply this:  Something's not right with the picture.  There's more to this story than we are being told.  If I can't get past why and how the building fell in the way that they did, that alone can be enough to make me start to question the rest of the story.

BTW, just because I have questions doesn't mean that there is in fact a conspiracy.  It could simply mean I don't know enough about the facts of building construction, particularly the construction of the towers or WTC7, to make any kind of judgment at all.  And in the end, my doubts prove NOTHING.  For example, just because fire has never brought down a building doesn't mean it's not possible. Some experts say it is possible.  Others disagree.  Some experts who have studied the 9/11 tragedy for years have concluded that the towers fell due to fire.  Other experts say this is impossible.  It could very well be that the official story is the correct one. 
;)

Czuch:No one said you can't post links.  In fact, I just said that if the people here want to discuss a certain topic, like 9/11, then discuss it.  But flooding the board week after week with more of the same isn't a discussion.  And telling people they need to wake up etc doesn't invite dialogue. 

As I said before I posted those guidelines, I gave it a lot of thought.  I looked at other forums and read their guidelines.  I took the ones that best fit here, and compiled them into one.   They are fair and they are reasonable. 

I also underlined guidelines to stress the fact that they aren't hard and fast rules, but only strong suggestions. 

It's really quite simple what I'm asking the board to do.  Make and argument.  Stick to one thing at a time.  Invite dialogue and consider the idea of others.  Be friendly about it.  Don't lecture.  Don't be condescending.  Don't bloviate. 

You aren't going to change the world here.  Like you said, there are maybe 10 regulars.  So keep that in mind when you post.  It's no one's "duty" to warn the world of the impending danger of things to come.   That' not the purpose of this board.  It's a discussion board.  And it's for everyone. 

As for the 9/11 discussions.  Personally I'm all for it if people participate.  But it's not the ONLY thing that could be of interest.  As for use of links/quotes.  Here is what I have suggested:

*Quoting other sources is fine but do so in the context of your own argument.

*Don't flood the board with quotes.  Quotes should support the argument you are making, not BE your argument.

*Keep the amount of quoted material down to a minimum.   The rule of thumb is "less is  better."  If an entire post is quoted material, it might get deleted.  Again, make your own arguments.

You'll find these kinds of guidelines on most forums.  The purpose is to keep discussions moving forward.  In the context of one's argument, links and quotes are more than acceptable.  I think it's pretty clear what is meant by all of guidelines I've posted.

Czuch: If people on the board want to continue the discussion, fine.  But most of the time it's not a discussion. 

As for "Learn to let go - don't keep harping on about the same thing, or harking back to previous arguments."   I've seen enough links on the 9/11.  Enough is enough.  If people want links, they can go back and read the ones already posted.  No new ones, ad nauseum, are needed. 

If on the other hand there is an ongoing discussion where people are engaged in a conversation, that's different. 

Bernice:There are probably some shorter videos on youtube that can satisfy your questions I would think.  How reliable those videos are is an open questions.  Suffice it to say, the topic of 9/11 is fast approaching this specific guideline and will likely be declared a dead horse soon:

* Learn to let go - don't keep harping on about the same thing, or harking back to previous arguments.

Some of the other "topics" presented here really fall under a single heading (One World Government).  At least it seems to me that this is the reoccurring theme.  Topics can only be addressed for so long before they get tedious and boring.  Unless there is a high interest in a particular topic, I see no value in revisiting old arguments again and again. 

Bwild:     perfect!~

Bwild:  When we say Americans we usually mean US of America.  When someone says "un-American" they are talking about the US.  That is clear from what Pelosi said.  There is no confusion as to what she meant.

Czuch:According to a recent "caught on camera" speech by Nancy Pelosi, illegal aliens are "American Patriots."  Those that are breaking the law, the Speaker considers patriots.  I'm not sure how she comes to that conclusion.  Breaking down her speech to its logical conclusion, it's "un-American" to observe and follow the law and "patriotic" to break the law.

This from one of our law makers.  Why not just change the law? 

Here are some further guidelines for this forum to follow.
----------
*Quoting other sources is fine but do so in the context of your own argument.  
----------
*Don't flood the board with quotes.  Quotes should support the argument you are making, not BE your argument.
----------
*Avoid the "cut and paste" response.  Simply give your personal analysis and perhaps a link to a supporting article.  "Cut and paste" dueling is a no-no.
----------
*Give proper citation when quoting the work of others.  Iinclude enough information that another person could track down the original source with ease.
----------
*Keep the amount of quoted material down to a minimum.   The rule of thumb is "less is  better."  If an entire post is quoted material, it might get deleted.  Again, make your own arguments.
----------
*Try to include a portion of the post to which you are responding so that people can follow the discussion more easily.
----------
*Keep in mind that people who post here may hold opposing worldviews.  Do not be one who is easily offended or one who insists upon Moderator-enforced politeness at all costs.  
----------
*Use discretion in your posts and and tailor responses appropriately.  
----------
* No 'flaming' - in other words, avoid personal attacks, pettiness, abuse. Respect other users, and if you disagree with them, explain why.  Posts that are considered aggressively offensive will be subject to moderation.
----------
* No personal disputes - if it gets personal, take it offline.
----------
* Learn to let go - don't keep harping on about the same thing, or harking back to previous arguments.
----------
* If someone else's post offends you, don't immediately fight back online. Consider whether they really meant to cause offense. It can be easy to sound rude without meaning to. However, if you really are troubled by the post, don't respond - take it to the moderator in private instead.  (But don't demand action.  If a moderator doesn't see things your way, accept it and move on).
----------
*Do not post in all caps.  This is equivalent to yelling.  Since I hate this sort of thing, it's likely I will delete such posts.
----------
*Avoid lecturing.

*Don't waste time by intentionally being divisive.
----------
*Your freedom of speech here comes with responsibility, the responsibility to speak decently within the parameters of the rules.
----------
If you have a problem with a moderator's action, don't discuss it here.  Send a private message.  (But  again, don't demand.  If the moderator doesn't see it your way, let it go and move on).
----------
*Don't beat a dead horse. If the horse is declared "dead" by the moderator, let it lie.

----------
*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."

For the past couple of weeks I've been working on a set of guidelines for this discussion board.  After much consideration, I've finished what I still consider a work in progress.  Many of the ideas came from other sites that carry many forums, including a political discussion forum.

I'm not posting these for feedback.  I'll be frank.  It's not a democracy.  The guidelines are reasonable and consistent with the guidelines of many other political discussion forums.  They are first and foremost guidelines.  That isn't to say that you can ignore them.   But don't fill my box with complaints that so-and-so broke the rule etc.  I read every post.  I don't need advisers.  The globals watch the board very closely too and when then have seen a problem, they have PMd me.  I appreciate their feedback.  But I can't make everyone happy so I don't want an army of advisers.  I think you can understand why.  If  I see a problem, I'll act in what I think is the best interest of the board.

If you've been around since the beginning, you'll note that I have moderated very little.  Only a few posts (that were flamming) had to be zapped.  One off color joke got zapped too. 

The following post will contain the list of guidelines.  Every participant is expected to read them and follow them. 

Happy debating.

Vikings:hmmm, maybe.  But not all banks went to the extremes that some banks did.  And they weren't  forced to insure these bad loans like they did.  When the loans went sour, the insurer was liable and of course, they couldn't  pay.  It's a huge mess and I agree that the government screwed up big time.  But the "fat cats" also messed up and here they are almost out of money, so they get help from the govt and what do they do?  They give the fat cats millions in bonus money.  That stinks more than a pig farm! 

(V):   I totally agree.  They have squandered the bailout money too.  What  a waste.  And once again, the little guy is paying for it all. 

(V):I agree.  I think we have at least come through the door.  But I don't get the plastic bags the grocery stores continue to use.  Although those are recyclable and at our school, we are a drop off point for those.  But still, so many things are as you say, single use.  OTOH, we are finding new and unique ways to reuse old stuff.  Hopefully that trend will continue.

(V):Agreed.  we are just care givers for the next generations to come. 

Snoopy:  Here she is today.  She's a Yale grad.  No surprise there.  She founded the Environmental Children's Organization (ECO) at age 9)! 

additional information can be found here and here.

Snoopy:This is a very powerful message and one that's been ignored far too long.  Sure we've talked about these things, but when a person of the "future generations" speaks about it, it just seems to carry that much more weight.  In reality, we only pay lip service to the many points this young girl addresses.

I'm not a fan of the global warming scenario.  My view is that they (the global warming alarmists) utilize bad science and carry their conclusions too far even when using good science.  On the other hand, I totally favor being responsible for the health of the planet.  Pollution, in any form and any amount, is not ok.  I recycle.  Why?  It's the smart thing to do.  It saves resources and it's the most responsible thing to do.  Plastic bottles and be used and reused and reused.  It's totally irresponsible to put them in the garbage when a separate bin for recycling doesn't require much effort. 

Everyone should listen to this young girl's speech.  She speaks very forcefully, directly, and powerfully.  Her message bring total silence in the UN chambers - you can see it on their faces.  It is an indictment against all of us, particularly against the powers of government and the powers of industry.   She not only goes after the carelessness of our environmental attitudes, but also of the neglect of the needy.   I particularly like her comparison of how as children, we teach them to get along, to share, to be kind, to clean up their messes etc.  Then she asks, "Why do you go out and do the things you tell us not to do?"  The leaders just sit there in silence and I'm sure are convicted by her words.  I was.

Moderator Notice!


Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics. 

Bwild: