You want to buy one?

by Margaret Bassett (45 articles, 2919 quicklinks, 43 diaries, 1870 comments [100 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:12:09 PM

  (0+)

No, but there isn't any reason why your town can't take those houses, and use their values to keep the housing market stable.

For example, the town can re-sell those houses for a fixed price that is below the market-rate, with the condition that the house must be resold to the town at a  similar rate.  And, the townspeople can fund the mortgage at 0%, which would reduce the mortgage from 30 years to 10 years.

The reason the houses are empty is because we have made them too expensive.  Therefore, we have to make housing less expensive.  The government's solution of printing more money will just acerbate the problem.  

The belief that rising housing prices is good for the economy is fundamentally false.  Housing prices should be stable over generations.

by Steve Consilvio (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 185 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 18, 2008 at 6:55:51 AM

  (0+)

for the arrest of the wife and political party swappin, snitch, B rated senile sap, Ronald Reagan's "Freedom Fighter" the GOP "Greed & Oppression Party "who have re-labeled Osma Bin Laden a "Terrorist", by the FBI. Where is your proof Al-CIAda, a group with USA support from the Reagan administration and its "Treason" fomenting Iran-Contra weapons for cocaine scandle in the 80's, committed this heinous crime? Yes, the whole idea by the select few who control much of the world's wealth was to bring down the USA, so as to continue the NWO agenda, of subjugating the masses who will survive, forced into debt-slavery.

by Stanimal (2 articles, 229 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 1265 comments [237 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 18, 2008 at 4:00:39 AM

  (0+)

There certainly are paranoid elements in every society, and hubris.  The neo-cons Project for a New American Century was as silly as Hilter's Third Reich.  But their motivation for control and peace and a permanent perch for themselves does not make it a world-wide conspiracy, just stupid in the hands of power.

9/11 was not an inside job. 

 If it was, they would have sparked a riot in the inner city.  Nobody has anything to gain from the financial collapse, except for the person outside of our system.  There are suicide bombers all over the place.  The fact that 19 were in America just shows a continuation of the anger, and a longer reach.  You don't need a conspiracy to explain 9/11.

Don't be like Bush, seeing demons where there are none. 

by Steve Consilvio (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 185 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 18, 2008 at 6:48:04 AM

  (0+)

No one can convince me 3 steel buildings would collapse that rapidly and that symmetrically from heat failure, no matter how many PE's they pay to testify otherwise.  Arrange a counter demo with no possibility of pre-planted explosives and I'll shut up.  Everything else--box cutters, videos of hijackers, speculation about what really hit the Pentagon, competency of the federal government (and I don't even think the government per se did it)--is circumstantial.

Then there's the utter failure of the multi-billion dollar air defense system to as much as intercept/rendezvous the attacking planes.  It takes more than incompetency to achieve that.  But defense isn't something of which I have first-hand knowledge, physics is.

by Maxwell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 409 comments [85 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 18, 2008 at 1:31:39 PM

  (0+)

Too much circumstancial evidence and no subpoenas . What's up with that  paranoid , c'mon  ?  Clean  your shoes off again , sit down face the facts , it's time for a serious 'grown-up' talk.  There may still be some hope for you yet .  Forget apologizing for the genocidal actions by Bush and some in his Administration it's futile .  I care about  truth and the rule of law while you sound hysterical and detatched  from  both in  constructive dialog and  from a Constitutional perspective  . Oh that's right , I almost forgot that  G-d suspended the the natural laws of physics on 9/11 , which is why you can  say the things you do without giving it a 'second thought' and still pass as 'legit' in some circles ! I cannot help but question your true motives here or perhaps it is the cause for ;  denial  (and)  to avoid any further serious public debates on the subject . Opinions, opinions . We all have some just keep it brief , be honest, and you might even learn something especially if you keep reading OEN.

by yurizhi (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 18, 2008 at 1:53:42 PM

  (0+)

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1112 comments [57 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 18, 2008 at 7:55:41 PM

  (0+)

The alternative is to Buy Low-Sell Low.

 Of course, most people don't quite grasp what that means. 

Also, there is the problem of the existing deficit.  But as I wrote in the article, a good first step would be to get all the mortgages owned locally within each town.

 I proposed quite a bit, both here and on my site, (where I explain the math behind the problem,) but your inability to 'get it' isn't unusual.  New ideas are always tough the first time you hear them.

 Thanks for reading and commenting. 

by Steve Consilvio (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 185 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 18, 2008 at 8:55:17 PM

  (0+)

Careful orchestration of current events that will lead to their North American Union

by Sharon Roach (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 184 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 18, 2008 at 10:23:39 PM

  (0+)

I'll believe your 9/11 fairy tale, all you have to do is "Show me the videos". Are you telling me the only videos of the 19 hijackers is from the airport in Maine, showing two of them? Excuse me, but that's not one of the airport they supposedly left from.

Somebody steals a candy bar from 7/11 and there are 5 videos of the event. But on 9/11, we are supposed to believe that no videos exist of the hijackers at the airport. You can see video cameras at the check-in counter, security gate and boarding area. So where are they genius? You know if they were Arabs on the videos, they would plaster them all over the TV.

The truth is, they have the videos, but the hijackers are NOT Arabs. They are Israelis, that's why we can't see the videos.

by Roger Thomas (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 132 comments [10 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 18, 2008 at 10:08:39 AM

  (0+)

You are free to believe whatever you want, but that doesn't make it true.

There is certainly plenty of evidence of suicide bombers, messages from al qaeda, etc., as well as testament directly from Bin Laden himself.  When was the last time an Israeli blew himself up on a bus?

 Let's go through a few quick points:

One, if the government is so smart that they could plan your conspiracy, then couldn't they just as easily create the evidence you claim is missing? How is it that they are so clever and incompetent simultaneously?  (They're not.)

Two, why would you accept the evidence of the missing tapes?  Why would you trust anything the government says, and then say they have the evidence.  It was the bin Ladens that were allowed to leave the country on 9/11, not the bin Goldsteins.  Why do you accept some government evidence and not other evidence?  Your argument is like the OJ trial all over again.  

Third, as a point of logic, you are claiming a lack of evidence is proof.  Much akin to Nixon's 'silent majority' and other paranoid delusions.  It reminds me of the joke of the person on trial, who is confronted with witnesses that he robbed the store.  He says, "Your honor, I can produce 50 people who did not see me rob the store."  Your lack of evidence is not proof of anything. Yet, you ask me to provide proof.  Show me your Israelis.  You are the one making the claim, yet you have no evidence.

On a personal note: There is nothing more scary than the mirror. I have had to clean the vomit off my shoes many times.  You get used to it after awhile.  

Your hatred of America or Bush or whatever baggage you carry has clouded your reasoning.  Get rid of the hate festering within yourself, and you will be able to see things more clearly.  Love your enemy; he is just as screwed up as you.

 19 guys killed themselves.  It was a f'n brilliant attack.  Our government can't even screw in a lightbulb, in large part because of people like yourself, who can't tell the difference between a tree and a forest.  This has been going on for hundreds of years.

When Orwell was describing double-think, it was specifically meant for people like yourself, and the ability to hold two contradictory ideas simultaneously.  Like I said, you can believe whatever you want, but that doesn't make what you believe logically consistent or true.  It's good that you are thinking and are compassionate, but Work Harder!

There are many ways to be wrong, but only one way of being right. 2+2=4, but there are an infinite number of possible wrong answers.  

Saying Osama won the war does not put in on the majority, any more than your view does.  Terra'rists are not supposed to have a logical plan, much less be smarter than ourselves.

Do you even know that Osama quoted Ben Franklin, and why?  (Because Ben Franklin was wrong about things, too, particularly paper money.)

 "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." - Marcus Aurelius  

Let go of your chains.  Only you can free yourself. 

by Steve Consilvio (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 185 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:11:21 AM

  (0+)

I'll just make one point.  You imply offhandedly that "gov't can't screw in a light bulb...", or I guess, you are denigrating all Special Ops, PsyOps, etc...anywhere -- as incompetent bumbling fools.  How brazen and shallow is your implication!  Multiple Billion Dollar SYSTEMS of DEFENSE, and Time-Tested Engineering Marvels, Layers of Protocols were Brought Down on 9/11.  And you toss this off and proceed on your merry way.  Hmmmm.

Do you think the Firefighter Battalions who responded that day and went up the towers actually thought there was any chance the structures would Fail and Fall into their footprints killing hundreds?!  They were "on the point" assessing the danger.  You toss their experience and knowledge out of the building without so much as a thought?!  This is amazing!  To hear this kind of talk should start a fire that will bring down the edifice of Ignorance!

I-am-simply-astounded.

by boomerang (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 557 comments [215 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 18, 2008 at 7:11:20 PM

  (0+)

Wow. Gung Ho GI Joe.  How did 19 box cutters get by a million soldiers and destroy so many buildings so quickly and easily?

 You can wave your flag all you want, but it isn't a magic wand.  If you want to solve problems, then you need to take the time to understand them.

by Steve Consilvio (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 185 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 18, 2008 at 8:59:19 PM

  (0+)

It was us who handed him his prize.  It was deregulation. It was greed. It was American's at the top wanting to move the weath out of the hands of the middle class.

Irony:  It will backfire on Bin Laden in the long run because the events led to a new awareness in the middle class and to the election of Obama. The people will now insist on changes that should have been made long ago. Now there will be someone there to listen.  Much of this change can be attributed to 9-11 and to the Bush responses which have failed including our invasion of Iraq.

by Paul Kruger (39 articles, 1 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 304 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 18, 2008 at 1:02:59 PM

  (0+)

Steve's observation should give us all pause to consider all that was triggered by 9/11. I don't think Bin laden won much of anything. He's a fugative with a price on his head.

But the US has put itself into hock, sacrificed over 4000 of our bravest and best, surrendered some of our most cherished freedoms, alienated much of the free world, lived in fear of another attack, tolerated a culture of corruption, tapped out our military reserves, and more-- all because of a bold but limited and focused act of terrorism. Not in his wildest dreams could Bin Laden have hoped for all that America has done to itself in its rage of violent reacton to his attack. It is hard to imagine any non-nuclear weapon that would have as devistating or long-lasting an impact; and we did it to ourselves!

by Richmond Shreve (30 articles, 70 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 157 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 18, 2008 at 1:52:55 PM

  (0+)

9/11 was an inside job; false flag operation.

It did not involve Osama Bin Laden!

Let us remember the CIA created him, and his clan to fight the Russians.

by Rolland Miller (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 227 comments [78 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 18, 2008 at 2:11:08 PM

  (0+)

Former President Benazir Bhutto died about one month after telling David Frost on BBC that the intel ppl in Pakistan had proof that Bin Laden had been murdered by a local Sheik, well over a 2 years ago now (at 6:15 into the below vid).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIO8B6fpFSQ

Her murder may have been in part to cover that fact up, and while the MSM did talk at length about her assassination, no mention of that videotaped BBC Frost interview was ever made by our corporate-controlled msm.

Another reason she was assassinated is that she knows where all the bodies are buried regarding the U.S. government deliberately leaking nuclear weapons technology to Pakistan (starting back in the Clinton years...). This is also the main reason why Sibel Edmonds is forbidden to speak via the most draconian gag orders ever seen in history; and why her story is completely suppressed by the U.S. msm.

The video is spooky; a brave and brilliant woman speaking from the grave.

Bin Laden can never die... He is immortal, a permanent paper boogieman who can never be captured or destroyed... The means for continuing the bogus "war on terror" perpetually... The way to keep up the ridiculous fable of what really happened on 9/11 .  

by Steve Windisch (jibbguy) (17 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 362 comments [57 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 18, 2008 at 2:21:46 PM

  (0+)

So bin Laden is real, and still working for the CIA?  Does this really seem likely to you?  The CIA would want to cover-up how our anti-communist policy created the jihad movement, but that wouldn't mean they joined the jihad movement.

Osama felt betrayed, and turned against us, even though it was his own stupidity that got him involved in fighting the Russians.  

It is common for stupid to change its target.  Like 1984, take down one poster and put up a new one.  Your former friend is now your enemy.  Bin Laden's flip-flop makes sense, the claim that the government attacked itself does not.  

Changing from anti-communism to jihad is still fighting infidels from his perspective.  Once you have local control, you can focus on the foreign devil.  Why would the CIA do the opposite, and go from attacking foreigners to attacking Americans?

 Your claim makes no sense. 

by Steve Consilvio (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 185 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 18, 2008 at 3:07:26 PM

  (0+)

by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 18, 2008 at 4:34:03 PM

  (0+)

Hitler already played the 'Blame everything on the Jews' card.  Is that how low the 'progressive' movement has sunk too?  Regressive progressives are no so different than immoral moralists or authoritarian libertarians.  Hypocrisy and doublethink takes many shapes.  (I can show you the model, if you like.)

Yes Zeitgeist the Movie has a lot of miscellaneous facts about people talking about money.  Money has been a topic of conversation for thousands of years.  That does not make it a conspiracy.

How does somebody who is dead make it into a conspiracy in the present?  That is your delusion.  Or more specifically, your willingness to believe a lie.

 Why blame straw-men?   America brought this on themselves.  We reap what we sow, the same as everybody else.  

 Even by the twisted logic being used here, it cannot be BOTH an inside job of the CIA and of Israel simultaneously.  One or the other has to be wrong, but I think they are both wrong.

 Osama bin Laden set out to achieve exactly what he has accomplished. It worked perfectly.  More than that, he is right in a lot of his criticism.  He had to be, otherwise his plan would not have been so successful.  Forget about looking at one day and one event, and take a longer view.

 Osama's Letter to America reads just like the Declaration of Independence:  Violence is necessary, you are deaf, God says I have the right to kill you, I have rights, you are meddling in my country, etc.

by Steve Consilvio (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 185 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 18, 2008 at 7:02:29 PM

  (0+)

It is true that Bush bin Laden wanted, and is still in the process of destroying the U.S. economy.  We will be bankrupt soon enough with the massive debts we are running up.  Any reasonable person that cares about this country would stop the massive spending that is destroying it. 

$12 billion/mo. in Iraq

$2-5 trillion bailing out banks and cronies.  Money they are hording.

Neither one of the spending sprees above is doing any good for the U.S. economy while running up huge debts.  Whereas bailing out the U.S. automakers for mere $25 bil. in LOANS would help slow down the economic collapse.  But, that isn't what they want.  That is why no bailout at the moment. 

The economic collapse of the country is being engineered on purpose.  For what reason I am not sure.  Except to speculate that it might be something to do with creating a one-world financial system, the North American Union, or the super wealthy getting ready to buy everything at pennies on the dollar.  Bush bin Laden and his corporate puppetiers will make our like bandits. 

Go

by Goblue (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 70 comments) on Tuesday, Nov 18, 2008 at 7:40:51 PM

  (0+)

Grover Norquist was the real winner and soon he will destroy social security as well.  These fine examples of filth cleaned out Russia, Brazil, Chile, and Argentina as well.

by John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1763 comments [39 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 18, 2008 at 7:47:17 PM

  (0+)

Social Security was created because speculation destroyed the economy.  Today, people regularly speculate because 'social security is not enough to retire on."

The middle-class brought this upon themselves.  The managers that skim off the top would have nothing to skim if the middle-class did not play.  All the unions are 'invested' in Wall Street, which basically makes them slaves of themselves.

If you can make money without working, then somebody somewhere must be working without getting paid.  Working and investing is the dumbest way possible to 'manage' your money.

 Social Security is also a regressive tax, since the richer you are, the less you pay as a percentage of income.  

Social Security is a form of 'insurance' and as such, is a ponzi scheme (like all insurance is.)  There is no way anybody can give you back more than you gave them, without taking it from somebody else.

 Building an economy on a ponzi scheme will automatically condense the wealth, and then collapse.  Like I said in the article,  The attacks of 9/11 sped up the process, but the collapse itself was inevitable.  Social Security can't work either.

by Steve Consilvio (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 185 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 18, 2008 at 8:49:04 PM

  (0+)

A country that will let Presidents lie in their oath of office is a country that destroys itself. No systems of law are self enforcing - they require good stewards.  A participatory democracry requires a critical mass of good stewarts. American doesn't have that critical mass because from the President down opportunists outnumber honorable good stewarts. 

Pelosi didn't defend the Constitution against domestic enemies and neither did the Democratic Party - all they did was change the incumbents opportunistically.  

What holds up an economy (at least a modern one which uses money rather than barter) is confidence in the currency. What holds up confidence in a currency is confidence in the government (and institutions guaranteeing that currency).   

When people stop trusting the President and their (so called) representatives (for very good reason I might add - they are completely justified not to trust them on examination of the publicly available facts) then of course confidence flags.

What I find interesting is that the US dollar has risen against a lot of other countries currencies.  Probably what is happening is that money is seeking safety - its clustering around what seems to be the safest government and the best guarantee and that seems to people to be the US government.

What an irony! The US government doesn't even pretend to represent anything other than US interests. And not even US citizens believe US politicians anymore. 

A President Obama will take the oath of office and will promise to uphold the law of the land. He already has form though. He already approved with his vote on FISA immunity the closure of access to justice by victums of lawbreaking.

Any constitutional scholar (heck any legal student) worth a damn knows that making laws with retrospective effect will produce manifest injustice as it changes the rules of the game after the game is over. 

Intellectually Obama's Presidency will be born dead because Obama himself has shown that he will change the law retrospectively if he wants to - so what on earth is the point of him taking an oath in which he promises to faithfully execute it.

He should take an oath to do whatever the hell he wants to - that at least would be honest.

So why is the US dollar rising against many currencies - because most of the worlds western government are comprised of citizens and politicians as opportunistic as the Americans.  And in a world of might only the US government is the biggest meanest bully. You can have a sort of relative confidence in trying to be onside with the biggest meanest buller as opposed to littler meaner bullies but it is sure as heck a qualitatively different sort of confidence than one could have if one lived in world or a country where oaths taken could be expected to be kept. 

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Tuesday, Nov 18, 2008 at 8:25:20 PM

  (0+)

It comes down to whom do you believe.

On one hand we have 118 first responders on record as saying there were explosives in those buildings.

On the other hand you have the government telling us it was hijackers.

So, on one hand you have people that are experts in their field, that risk their lives to save property and people, heroes by any one's standard that have nothing to gain from simply giving their expert testimony of what they saw and heard that day.

And on the other hand you have self-serving, politicians that have everything to gain by presenting themselves as heroes, and that profit enormously from the subsequent wars and security industry.

Who would you believe?  

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:48:47 PM

  (0+)

Aren't the first responders portraying themselves as heroes, too?

 Hearing a loud noise is generally described as an explosion.  The sound of a building falling, a plane crashing, etc., would all be described as an 'explosion,' even if no explosive material were involved. 

 Like a car crash, everybody sees a different event.   In all likelihood, the person in the car has the least understanding of what occurred, too.  It's a little like asking Bernanke what's wrong with the economy.  He doesn't have a clue.

by Steve Consilvio (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 185 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 at 7:21:23 AM

  (0+)

Excuse me for being blunt.  Steve, either you have not researched 9/11 or you are in serious denial like so many brainwashed Americans.  You really have a problem thinking for yourself.  Are you telling me this is due to fires?  Would you like to buy a bridge?

http://www.911blogger.com/node/18358

Go

by Goblue (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 70 comments) on Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 at 8:02:43 AM

  (0+)

lol  You obviously have quite a few bridges to sell.  Did you build them or buy them?

No, I don't want to buy your bridge. 

by Steve Consilvio (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 185 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 at 8:17:32 AM

  (0+)

"The wisest man is deemed insane"

Early on those that doubted the official version of 9/11 were considered "insane."  Now they are the wisest for questioning people like Cheney and Bush while rest of us were cowarding over Arab terrorists.  The new boggy man to scare the masses into submission.  I see that you took it hook, line and sinker.

Go 

by Goblue (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 70 comments) on Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 at 8:43:00 AM

  (0+)

I am not afraid of the terrorists, but you are obviously afraid of the cabal that you think stealthily created the attack.  

Don't you know anything about stupid people?  They are bold.  They like to brag about how clever they are.  Look at Hitler and the neo-cons for example, shock and awe, etc.  

There is no way they could be clever enough to pull off the caper you suggest, and then be quiet about it.  Just like you can't hide your stupidity by claiming you have evidence that Mossoud and/or the CIA did it.

 Did the government know it was coming?  Could they have done things better? Sure.  But that doesn't make it a conspiracy to  plan or want it to happen.  It's just typical government incompetence.

I know Bush and the neo-cons are idiots, but some facts are not worth disputing.  You're an idiot too.  In some ways, a bigger idiot, since even simple facts present a challenge for you.  You might as well say it was an alien attack from outerspace, and their bombs were cloaked to look like airplanes.   Afterall, there was that big cover-up at Roswell that 'proves' it. :-)

 C'mon.  Wake-up. 

 Bush and others have created a conspiracy in their minds called the Al Qaeda, which is far more frightening in their imagination than they are in reality.  Islamists hate America which is far worse in their imagination than in reality.  You have created a similar conspiracy in your mind, but the target is different.  You have become that which you fear.

 George Bush and Osama bin Laden are each locked into their own little world of delusional paranoia, with a majestic sense that they are the only good in a world of evil.  Your view is that only one of them exists.  How strange is that?  Talk about turning a blind eye.  Whereas I can explain all three of your positions, and the motivations behind much larger events than 9/11.  This was not the first time a bank or government was attacked in history, just the first time they were attacked simultaneously.

Fear has always distorted people's understanding of reality.  Like them, the chains you hold are the ones you grasp.  You can believe whatever you want, but that doesn't make it true.  Fear always masquerades as commonsense.  Your 'commonsense' is the same as Bush's and al Qaeda's.  It is all based on suspicion of others, and a complete lack of self-awareness.

 I can't free you from your chains, only you can do that. 

Know thyself. -Plato 

 BTW, how do you explain the first attack on the World Trade Center, during the Clinton administration? Maybe the first explosion made it easier for the buildings to fall on 9/11.  In any case, 9/11 was not a 'new' attack, it is just part of an evolutionary process called history.

by Steve Consilvio (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 185 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 at 9:31:39 AM

  (0+)

Steve,

Prove it!  Prove to us that Osama bin Laden was behind 9/11.  Not accusations.  Actual proof.  Otherwise stop spreading lies. 

Go

by Goblue (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 70 comments) on Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:13:08 AM

  (0+)

How does anybody 'prove' anything?

 Does New York really exist? How about dinosaurs?  You can believe or disbelieve anything you choose.

 Like the three monkeys: See No evil, Speak no evil, Hear no evil.

Which monkey are you? Are you Nancy Reagan? JUST SAY NO!

:-)

 The mirror is a treacherous place.  The biggest fool you will ever meet is yourself.  But you can step through it, if you try. 

 Only you can release the chains that you hold. I can show you the door, but you have to step through it.

 My saying Osama won the war is very troubling for you, since you have been in denial that there even was a war.  There are others in denial that we lost, too.  Denial is not a river in Egypt. 

by Steve Consilvio (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 185 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:25:47 AM

  (0+)

You make this grand accusation that, "In case you didn't get the memo, Osama Bin Laden won the war. His objective was to destroy the world economy based on Interest and Usury. He succeeded. With $20 of boxcutters he changed the world, and will likely be hailed as the greatest strategist and General that the world has ever seen."   Yet you have NO EVIDENCE!!!!    Really smart!  Please do your homework before making anymore idiotic accusations.  You've lost all credibility! 

Go

by Goblue (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 70 comments) on Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:45:56 AM

  (0+)

What makes you think I care about having credibility with you?  You are not my master.

You posted earlier: The economic collapse of the country is being engineered on purpose.  For what reason I am not sure.

 Ben Franklin wrote the same thing in 1726, when describing the British Crown.  He was 23 years old at the time.  He grew up, witnessed the replacement of the crown, and advocated for the creation of paper money.  He got his way, and all the same problems returned.

Why?  Because he missed the point of his own essay.  He started off by saying that speculation was bad, but concluded that changing what money is made from would solve the problem.  It was illogical in theory, and illogical in practice.

Osama also quotes Ben Franklin, and similarly harangues against interest and speculation. Neither have/had a solution of what to do next after overthrowing the empire.

 I have plenty of proof to support my theory, but you can't hear anything with your head buried in the sand.  Sorry to be so blunt. 

 How old are you? You did well when you admitted your ignorance, but now you are consumed with blind certainty.  Good luck with your demons.

by Steve Consilvio (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 185 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 at 11:06:01 AM

  (0+)

This article's second paragraph, the lynchpin of the point you seem to be making, is resisting my repeated efforts to make sense of it.

Osama did this? Say what?

by editnetwork (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 73 comments) on Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 at 9:38:08 PM

  (0+)

The second paragraph says the collapse was inevitable, too.  People seem to be hung up on the Who, and not the Why.

This, of course, is Bush's and the rest of the world's problem, too.  Every crime must have a motive.  So even if it was an inside job (which it wasn't) the action must fill the needs of a motive.

 Like an old Perry Mason show, you know you caught the criminal only when you can explain the motive.  Today, all the shows are like the dumb NCIS, and suggest you can solve crimes just by using scientific evidence.  That assumption is flawed.

 History is a big long crime scene. Motives fall into a clearly defined pattern: either Fear, Pride or Greed is the dominate motive, with the other two playing a supporting role.  Find the motive matrix, and you find the criminal.  

Arguing the science of 'missing' videotapes and what an explosion should sound like is pretty poor science.  The evidence is all hearsay and innuendo, at best, and lacks any motive at all.

What is the motive for Massoud or the CIA to attack the pentagon, the Trade Center, and possibly the White House?  I have yet to hear any response.  Osama, in contrast, has a very clear and articulate motive, which, it turns out, he confirmed for me in his Letter to America.  I predicted everything in it, so I am pretty sure I am reading his motives (and confusion) correctly.  Just as I read the 911truth confusion accurately, too.

Isn't it funny how things are described as truth, when they are not?  Ring the bell, Orwell wins again. 

by Steve Consilvio (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 185 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:07:34 PM

  (0+)

Steve,

If you are so naive to believe that our government cannot kill its own citizens, either you are not well informed (relying far too much on mainstream media), or very naive.  For example, here is the footage from the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.  The local TV stations reported the truth while the national news blocked the incriminating evidence.  That is why you are not aware of the bombs found inside the Edward Murrah Federal Building.

The Oklahoma City bombing was very similar operation to the 9/11 attacks.   The exact same M.O.   We have a patsy, Timothy McVeigh (19 Arabs and Osama).  The decoy was Timothy McVeigh's truck bomb (airplanes).  But the real damage was done by the bombs planted inside the Edward Murrah Federal Building (just like the bombs inside the WTC buildings).  See any similarities?????  What happened to the unexploded bombs (most likely military grade C4) found inside the Murrah Federal Building??????  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWwrEEP8EBk

Go

by Goblue (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 70 comments) on Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:23:36 PM

  (0+)

So now the government attacked itself on 9/11 and in Oklahoma, too?

Just how far and wide does your conspiracy theory go?  What else is in their plan?  Did they put sugar on corn flakes to make people docile and dim-witted too?  Are supermarkets a front for mind-control experiments? Am I being drugged without my knowledge?

 You can make any claim you want, but that doesn't make it true.  Bush said Iraq had WMD.  He wanted to believe it, just like you want to believe your fiction.

The easiest person to deceive is yourself. 

by Steve Consilvio (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 185 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 at 11:35:45 PM

  (0+)

To wit:

In case you didn't get the memo, Osama Bin Laden won the war. His objective was to destroy the world economy based on Interest and Usury. He succeeded. With $20 of boxcutters he changed the world, and will likely be hailed as the greatest strategist and General that the world has ever seen. While I would argue the collapse was inevitable (just like it was in 1929) he has accelerated the demise of the economy as we knew it. Never underestimate your enemy.

This is the one not making sense to me. I'm not in on all this brouhaha about false-flags, new pearl harbors, etc., at the moment (I try to skip past those arguments because of how quickly they degenerate). I'm just trying to understand what connection the author of the article was intending to convey.

by editnetwork (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 73 comments) on Thursday, Nov 20, 2008 at 4:32:27 PM

  (0+)

The economy has swings of boom and bust, but every now and then there are devastating swings.  The Roaring 20's ended with the Great Depression, for example.  This is the nature of how the system is rigged, ie, the rules we play by.  The system has to collapse because the system is imbalanced.

Osama, being a good revolutionary, only sees the imbalance, and wants to 'end' it, but he really doesn't understand what caused it.  Osama, like all revolutionaries, thinks of himself as being compassionate while killing somebody.  (What Orwell called 'war is peace' doublethink.)  So while he succeeded in his attack, and the economy did collapse, he was more like Reagan at the wall.  The Soviet Russia collapsed from its own internal mathematical contradictions, and America will too.

 Of course, there is a better way, which is why I go on to describe what we need to do with the mortgages, etc. If we play by different rules, we can have a debt-free and inflation-free economy, without any swings of boom or bust.

by Steve Consilvio (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 185 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 20, 2008 at 5:03:05 PM

  (0+)

Many of us have objected to that new FISA law because it offers blanket immunity and no chance to place blame where it belongs -- on the telecoms illegally colluding with the government because the government told them to and said it was OK.

A deeper problem with retroactive immunity is that such provisions are wannabe "ex post facto" laws, which the Constitution forbids. Striking down the laws offending telecoms violated only immunizes people who in the future might do the same deeds that are no longer illegal, if you'll pardon my clumsy attempt to put it into words; those earlier crimes remain. (No legal scholar, me.)

As for violating oaths, I think those soon taking office really will have a substantially different view of both government and the rule of law than we've known the past 8 years. Our new leaders may struggle with the same shadow government, serving the same entrenched corporate interests who will stop at nothing to safeguard increased profits. We can hope they are leaders of principle who will struggle with integrity and win a few for the people, and it's up to us by the millions to make it clear what we expect and demand of them and to find creative ways to put down their masters (the corporocrats) when they need it.

Informative and inspirational reading:

Give Me Liberty, by Naomi Wolf

JFK and the Unspeakable, by James Douglass

We the People: A Call to Take Back America and Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights, by Thom Hartmann

by editnetwork (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 73 comments) on Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:14:16 PM

  (0+)

This was in reply to Brett Paatsch, far above.

Sorry for confusing references.

by editnetwork (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 73 comments) on Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:15:51 PM

  (0+)

I disagree.  A government that is always in pursuit of revenge never has time to make anything right,  We sacrifice today and tomorrow in a fruitless attempt to change the past.  The past cannot be changed.  It is better to be merciful and move on.

By definition, only the merciless have need of mercy.  The righteous do nothing wrong.  If you withhold your mercy from the merciless, then there is nobody else to give it to.  This is the crux of religion that always gets misunderstood.  When you love your enemy then you have no enemies.  To create a brotherhood of man, you must trust and forgive one another.

 Religion, democracy and communism are all based on the same ideal: a state of equality and tranquility and peace.  They cannot be separated from one another.  So why does both communism and democracy exclude religion?  Or religion exclude communism and democracy?  They all share the same goal.

For example, how do you punish a corporation?  Any fee they pay they will simply pass on to their employees or customers.  The corporation cannot be punished, it is just an abstraction; a charter on a piece of paper.  The money flows through it.  It is impossible for them to 'pay' anything.

 Whatever you do to others, you do to yourself.  If you give love, you get love.  If you give hate, you get hate. If you punish others, you punish yourself.  If you enslave others, you enslave yourself.

 To have a moral and wise government, we must have moral and wise people.  One cannot exist without the other. Justice is just another word for revenge.  Social justice, economic justice, that is what we already have.  A constant stream of punishment, tit for tat, is a cycle of revenge.  It will never end.

 A better world is possible. 

 Corporate charters shouldn't even exist, but trying to punish them just doubles the absurdity.  Osama's attack, within that context, makes more sense.  Just as the colonies attacked the tea companies, this is an ongoing battle with an economic absurdity.  Corporations are a slave system by proxy, yet people both own stocks and work in public corporations, thus making them slaves of themselves.

 For somebody to make money without working, there must be somebody working without getting paid. All revenue is somebody else's expense.  The money system can't work, which is why the collapse was inevitable.  9/11 just sped it up.

by Steve Consilvio (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 185 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:44:34 PM

  (0+)

I don't think I was going on about -- revenge (?!).

I think I'll wait for another day to try to carry on a dialog. Thanks.

by editnetwork (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 73 comments) on Thursday, Nov 20, 2008 at 6:40:55 PM

  (0+)

I was replying to Mr. Consilvio's answer (revenge?) to my question about his answer to my question about the 2nd paragraph of the article.

Something is weird with the comments protocol or something.

by editnetwork (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 73 comments) on Thursday, Nov 20, 2008 at 6:43:04 PM

  (0+)

"Many of us have objected to that new FISA law because it offers blanket immunity"

If you don't forgive, then you punish.  Punishment is revenge.

The government is based on revenge, which is why it is incompatible with religion, which is based on forgiveness.

Bush wanted revenge for 9/11, and used the government as an instrument of revenge.  In doing so, he made many mistakes.  Now you want the government to take revenge on the telecoms.  The cycle of revenge can only end by giving forgiveness.

If we forgave all the debts, instead of trying to enforce them with foreclosures, evictions, etc, we would not be having any problems. We have to forgive everybody, the strong as well as the weak.  Forgiving one group and not the other accomplishes nothing.  That is the basic format of all hypocrisy and doublethink.

by Steve Consilvio (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 185 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 21, 2008 at 7:23:46 AM

  (0+)