Official Democratic Party Thread

[Yankee4Life]

Why is it that the conspiracy theorists are often quick to assume everything is a conspiracy, yet the "normal" people are just as quick to assume conspiracies are crazy and impossible.

Could there not be some middle ground on this issue? Or did everything that happened that day make complete and total sense and there is no need for further questioning?

This really makes sense to me. I don't think there is any one of us here that knows for 100% certainty what actually happened on that day. And I am not referring to what we saw on TV. I am talking about the things that went on behind the scenes or when the cameras were not around. None of us will ever know and all I can hope for is that it never happens again.

I'm no admin or moderator, but these kind of topics should not be allowed on here. We all have our different opinions about everyone and everything. Religion and Politics spark the most controversy from friends (or in this case Internet buddies). For the sake of this site and all the members, these topics should be locked and never talked about again. Let's talk Baseball and not politics, please.

This may sound odd, but I agree and disagree with you at the same time. I have witnessed many fights on here because of politics. One guy says this, the other guy says that, and then before you know it, it gets blown out of proportion. I don't involve myself in politics in here because honestly it is not that interesting to me.

On the other hand though, because the members enjoy talking about this subject on this website, that is why threads like this exist. Because it is their forum to talk about what interests them. The same can be said for the guys who are interested in making sigs or wallpaper. That's something that they are into and there's a place for that on here too.

Do what I do evil1182, ignore the threads that you have no interest in. That's why I don't bother reading the Red Sox fan thread. I mean, what the hell for? :lol:

[AddisonClark]

This really makes sense to me. I don't think there is any one of us here that knows for 100% certainty what actually happened on that day. And I am not referring to what we saw on TV. I am talking about the things that went on behind the scenes or when the cameras were not around. None of us will ever know and all I can hope for is that it never happens again.

Thanks for the level-headed response! With the backlash against the conspiracy theorist, I didn't anticipate someone coming at me with some reason.

I offer no hypothesis as to why things happened that day, just questions about some of the more peculiar instances from that day. I certainly don't know the full extent of what happened leading up to and during those attacks, but I don't understand why some are so quick to jump on those who have questions when they themselves don't know the full extent of what happened that day, as well.

Certainly there's room for this topic to be discussed maturely and with reason.

[BigPaPa]

WOW Blades, i don't think there is any possible way for you to look like more of an idiot. I was in Manhattan on 9/11 i saw those two planes fly over, i saw the fighter jets that came after them, the fact is though none of that matters.

3000 people died, some of whom i knew, and many more are now extremely sick thanks to the toxic fumes that arose from that mess. People were just walking down the street crying. Ambulances and Fire companies flocked to the scene only to realize that there was no one to save because no one had survived.Have you ever smelled 3000 people's flesh and bones burn? Have you ever seen a thousand grown men cry? I saw the city i was raised in brought to its knees. People like you should be shot, people that trivialize that event to some conspiracy theory because they think its fun or they think they're smarter then the rest of the world. Leave it be, it doesn't concern you anyway and you do nothing but make yourself look like a fool.

[Padres67]

If anything bad happens during Bama's watch-it will still be Bush's fault. In fact, anything that happens 100 years from now when all of us on here are dead and gone-it will still be his fault. because we all know that nothing bad happens when a democrat is in charge. The fact that they tried to bring down the trade center during Clinton years with a van filled with explosives seems to escape most every bush hater. By the way I thought obama was for change-the list of possible cabinet appointments are mostly Washington insiders and Clinton hold overs, the very thing he said about hillary-being too tied to the status quo. Typical politician, talk a good game-change when you get elected. Already breaking promises. Now it's our turn to do the bashing. I can't wait. There is going to be so much material I won't be able to keep up.

[tywiggins]

If anything bad happens during Bama's watch-it will still be Bush's fault. In fact, anything that happens 100 years from now when all of us on here are dead and gone-it will still be his fault. because we all know that nothing bad happens when a democrat is in charge. The fact that they tried to bring down the trade center during Clinton years with a van filled with explosives seems to escape most every bush hater. By the way I thought obama was for change-the list of possible cabinet appointments are mostly Washington insiders and Clinton hold overs, the very thing he said about hillary-being too tied to the status quo. Typical politician, talk a good game-change when you get elected. Already breaking promises. Now it's our turn to do the bashing. I can't wait. There is going to be so much material I won't be able to keep up.

Who said that Obama won't be accountable if something bad happens on his watch?

How has he broken his promise for change? Even if all of his Cabinet members are Washington insiders, that doesn't break his promise.

He hasn't even announced any cabinet decisions yet. In your opinion, who should he appoint?

[Padres67]

Most people on here have for the last several years have only blamed Bush for all the problems. Congress has been in control of Dems for the last 2 years and unemployment has risen 2.5%. It was at 4% before the takeover. The short list is already out on many websites. If he wants real change-he should not give any jobs to anybody that is already a Washington insider. They are the reason we are in this mess-they pass the laws.

[BigPaPa]

Well "Many Websites" = hearsay AND in case you've missed the whole politics bus who you know can really help you in Washington so having a bunch of newcomers into his Cabinet would hurt his cabinet as for the Economy one of Obamas top advisers in forming his plans pre election was Warren Buffet, who is one of the brightest economic minds ever and is likely to remain a top economic adviser so i have no frigging clue what your talking about.

[Sean O]

Most people on here have for the last several years have only blamed Bush for all the problems. Congress has been in control of Dems for the last 2 years and unemployment has risen 2.5%. It was at 4% before the takeover. The short list is already out on many websites. If he wants real change-he should not give any jobs to anybody that is already a Washington insider. They are the reason we are in this mess-they pass the laws.

Correlation implies causation!

[Sean O]

I'm no admin or moderator, but these kind of topics should not be allowed on here. We all have our different opinions about everyone and everything. Religion and Politics spark the most controversy from friends (or in this case Internet buddies). For the sake of this site and all the members, these topics should be locked and never talked about again. Let's talk Baseball and not politics, please.

You're right, you're not a moderator. This is the Obama thread, not intended for debate. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who isn't an Obama supporter probably shouldn't be in here, which is why we have the mccain and debate threads. This is the partisan thread, not for bickering.

we're not going to censor topics because they cause tension, we're going to force people to act with maturity.

[tywiggins]

Most people on here have for the last several years have only blamed Bush for all the problems. Congress has been in control of Dems for the last 2 years and unemployment has risen 2.5%. It was at 4% before the takeover. The short list is already out on many websites. If he wants real change-he should not give any jobs to anybody that is already a Washington insider. They are the reason we are in this mess-they pass the laws.

Yeah, they blamed Bush for his decisions and for the result of his decisions.

I don't believe the lists that are on the websites are official. If they didn't come from Obama, then they are just guesses.

Remember when the Mitchell Report came out? Newspapers and websites had a list of players that were supposedly going to be on the Mitchell Report. When the Mitchell Report came out, several of the players that were named beforehand were not in the Mitchell Report.

Can you name any qualified people for the Cabinet positions that are not Washington Insiders?

By the way, I like Bill Richardson for Secretary of State.

Shared government doesn't work very well when the President and the Congress don't work together. And the high fuel prices didn't help.

4.6 % unemployment in Jan 2007.

4.9 % unemployment in Jan 2008.

5.0 % unemployment in Apr 2008.

6.5 % now.

Look at what gas prices have done since Democrats took control of congress.

[Kayxero]

I find it so idiotic that anyone who disagreed with blades automatically went to insult him. I did not see him fling one insult back at them though.

I understand both sides of the whole thing but if you need to insult someone while trying to state a point, then there is no need for you to be heard imo.

Anyways back to Obama.

I just started listening to 770 am WABC a few days ago, and I had NO idea that the station was so damn conservative. I love hearing them whine and try and attract Obama and the democrats all day. Its silly to hear them complain about him wanting to raise taxes on the 5% upper class when some of their hosts have the salaries they do.

btw Laura Ingraham is a big flaming 4 letter C-word imho. Excuse my language.

[Kccitystar]

NORAD should have been able to down those planes, where were the fighter jets? Why did it take 80 minutes for them to get airborne? There is an argument for everyone you have. It will be a never ending cycle. Because NORAD was doing a hijacker simulation, and didnt know if it was a drill or real life. Now tell me thats not coincidence? So many things went wrong that day, and nothing has been explained. The people who built those towers said they could withstand 10 jets flying into them. Thats coming from the guy who built the tower. I think he knows alot more about construction than we do. They were built to withstand that kind of abuse without falling, because of the amount of airtraffick in the area. The amount of jet fuel didnt spread evenly. Most of it should have fallen to the one side or the other. One side of the building should have been hotter than the other and if it were to have fallen, it would have fallen on a teter and crashed to the ground unevenly, not like the perfect demolition that happened to all 3 buildings. You know, the 2 that were smashed into, and the one that caught fire, or so was the excuse?

You have got to be kidding me with this. A long post is imminent.

[Kccitystar]

One of the main theories is that a single plane entering a building is not enough to cause it to collapse, especially as one as big as the WTC. This is untrue for the following reasons.

* The WTC was built using light-weight steel trusses. These trusses are usually large steel triangles, laid out in a grid, and interlocking into each other. Within the last few decades, Steel Truss construction has become more and more prevalent, because it is very simple to fabricate, very simple to erect, and much, much, MUCH cheaper than the more standard wooden structural members. While Steel Trusses are accepted by the International Building Code, they are much weaker when attacked by fire than wooden structural members, and tend to fail faster.

* In order to get the maximum amount of floor space possible, the company that built to WTC used a new type of rigid exoskeleton construction. Whereas the internal support structure, the "skeleton" of the building, is almost always on the inside of the building, the WTC was supported by large steel members on the outside of the building, then the floors were joined to the outer walls by high tension wires. This allowed the WTC to have an entire acre of floor space on each level, something that would not be possible if it was built "normally", and large columns had to be placed in the center of the floor space to support the building. When the planes hit, however, they each took out a large portion of the outer steel skeleton. With a chunk missing, the floors above the point of impact began to bear down, and the force of gravity caused the weight of the floors to be distributed around the point of impact, instead of going straight down like it normally would. Distributing the weight around the impact site caused the building to crumble.

* The fires from the jet fuel caused the fires to burn significantly higher than what the building could handle. Typical commercial jet liner fuel (JP200) burns much hotter than typical accelerants. This heat started to attack the aformentioned steel truss construction, making it warp and distort. When heated enough, steel elongates, about 9" for every 100'. This means that not only was the steel softening because it was melting, it was expanding and pushing out the outer steel walls of the building, making it impossible to evenly distribute the weight of the floors above the point of impact. JP200 burns at around 1,300-1,400 degrees F. Steel loses half of it's strength at 1,200 degrees F. Also, since the fuel was liquid, fluid dynamics would tell you that it would flow to the lowest point possible. So the fuel was able to get to places due to the impact it would not normally be able to, like inside the walls and floors. And where the fuel went, the fire went as well.

* The fire protection scheme of the building suffered catatrophic failure. Spray-on foam coating that covered all the steel trusses inside the floors and walls were not applied properly, so over the years this foam, which would act as a buffer against fire for a short time, became dry and flakey. When the planes impacted, this flakey foam was blown completely off, meaning that the fire could attack the steel trusses directly. The sprinkler system was pretty much completely destroyed during the impact, rendering it completly useless.

* What brought the building down the quickest, however, was the fact that the WTC was built COMPLETELY WRONG. When you build a building in America, you must adhere to something called the ICC Building code. This code dictates every possible thing about a building: who can occupy it, how tall it can be, what it can be constructed of, where it can be placed, everything. One of the earliest provisions in the ICC Building code was a statute that stated that all FEDERAL buildings are completely exempt from the building code. So if a building was built using FEDERAL, not state or county money, it did not have to adhere to the building code. Now, the WTC is owned by the Port Authority Commission of New York and New Jersey, a bi-state commission that regulates all travel between the two states (they own the bridges, the tunnels, the bus and train depots, etc). Since it is a bi-state agency, by law and by act of congress, it is a federal agency. This means that when they built the WTC, it was considered a federal building, meaning that IT DID NOT HAVE TO ADHERE TO THE BUILDING CODE AT ALL, NOT EVEN IN THE SLIGHTEST. It they wanted to build a 10,000 story tall building out of silly putty and styrofoam, they could do it and no one on Earth could stop them. What does this mean for the WTC? Well, instead of having 6 stairwells like a building it's size should have, it only had 3. Instead of putting sprinklers everywhere in the building like it should have, they only installed them on certain floors. Instead of using certain types of lumber and structural members that had a 4-hour Fire rating (meaning that under laboratory conditions, they burned for 4 hours before they failed), they used lumber with a 1-hour Fire rating. Instead of building a building housed around a strong, internal support system, they used a rigid outer skeleton support system. The Port Authority got away with many things that, if it were a normal building, would have been illegal. It is interesting to note that the Port Authority has refused to show the structural plans of the new "Freedom Tower" to be built on the site of the former WTC, and they are still under no obligation whatsoever to adhere to the building code.

So it wasn't one of these factors that caused the towers to collapse, it was all of these factors working together in concert that made the towers collapse like they did.

[krawhitham]

3 buildings collapsing perfectly straight down?

[BigPaPa]

I dont know about the third but the World trade towers were designed to implode like that in the event that they would ever need to be demolished.

[AstroEric]

I too, for some reason, like the thought of Bill Richardson as SoS. Is his name on any of the supposed "short lists"?

[vbprogjoe]

He only understands dumba$$, so you have to forgive him. Just like the radio call in shows here on the local 1100. I didnt know Obama was gonna have Ayers and Wright as cabinet members? Makes you question the intelligence of the people that live around you. When all else fails, b*tch and complain and give unwitty banter and whatever diatribe they choose to spit.

If you look back on the Bush family tree, Prescott was involved in money laundering for the Nazis. Bush senior and Junior were in the fraternal order of the skullz, so now who is elitist?? Calling Obama one is ouright bullsh*t.

Go ahead I could use a laugh and maybe expand my IQ too I know what I have lived through these last 8 years. Nothing anyone can say or do will make me believe anything our former president has done was best for this country. Starting an illegal war with Iraq on the premise of WMD? Demolitioning 3 buildings killing 3000 Americans, and having planes that were "hijacked" and flown into them by "terrorists"? If you dont believe me, look at the videos again. Sure the planes went into the towers, but look at everything in between, from beginning to end. Look at the interviews on site, that they dont want you to see. When asked for the video tapes of the Pentagon, our former president wouldnt allow them to be viewed, and every interview our former president had with the 911 commission, our former VP had to be there. God I just look back and cringe at this whole outrageous presidency.

Its gonna be tough going for the first couple of years, so Obama will have his hands full. I wonder what he will try and get through early? People were reporting that it may be the tax cuts, but that might be way to early to determine.

Blades, since this is the P-E Obama/Democrat thread, and I'm a conservative, I'll keep it short and sweet. Plus, I'll be cordial. You, obviously, know I didn't vote for Barack Obama, I don't really trust Barack Obama, and I think he was the wrong choice. However, I will give him a chance, and even if and/or when he proves my view or outlook of him right, I would and will NEVER question his patriotism or base humanistic integrity. I may question his decision making, associations, and political dignity - but never get as vile or infantile as you.

Your man WON, can't you just be happy and cool, and just stop the conspiracy theories and Bush hatred. You don't like him, we get it. You seem like you hate him worse than liver paste. Ok, we get that too. In 2.5 months he'll be gone, you'll be happy - us conservatives will be sad. Life goes on. If you want to question his decisions, plans, associations, what he named his dog - FINE, just quit the personal jabs. It is getting old now!!!

Thanks,

--- vbprogjoe (Joe W.) :?

[Kayxero]

3 buildings collapsing perfectly straight down?

And that is why we have to take both sides of the situation with a grain of salt. As someone previously said, the general public will NEVER know what exactly happened. So those jumping on Blades for his thought process have a process that may be just as skewed. At least imo. I think everything that has been said is somewhat plausible, both sides.

People need to stop being so close minded to other viewpoints. Because our government always tells us the complete and honest truth, right =/

[Sean O]

https://pol.moveon.org/shepstickers/leposte...006-uG4FEvx&t=6 Shepard Fairey poster on sale now, go quick.

[piratesmvp04]

I must say that Obama has impressed me just a little over the past few weeks. So far, he looks way more centrist than many believed him to be. Two thumbs up for the selection of Hillary and Robert Gates for cabinet! 8)

[Sean O]

I must say that Obama has impressed me just a little over the past few weeks. So far, he looks way more centrist than many believed him to be. Two thumbs up for the selection of Hillary and Robert Gates for cabinet!

The insane belief propagated solely by places like the (formerly respectable) National Review and conservative blogs that Obama was a radical liberal largely cost the Republicans any hope in the election. Most everything he said during the election was based around policy wonkery instead of hackjob politics, even the hackjob politics stuff.

The fact that so many progressives are rankled up is probably a good sign for the immediate future, as Obama has done exactly what he said he'd do. Even if I understand his reasoning on topics such as punishment for those involved in the torture program, I still think someone needs to be held accountable. But, he's sticking to his guns.

Nothing has happened since the election that has surprised me.

[piratesmvp04]

Well, I wouldn't say he's not a radical liberal. His voting record is the most liberal in the whole senate (Biden's is #3 FYI). I think what's happened is that, just like John McCain, he made statements during his campaign with a limited amount of information. But, after meeting with President Bush and hearing more of the national secrets, he's starting to realize that he needs to adjust some of his policies. John McCain would have done the same thing. That's why we say that presidential candidates never keep their promises to the letter.

But, here's my standpoint. Obama can take this country and do whatever he wants with it. As long as he doesn't institute the freedom of choice act (which will force me to perform abortions whether I want to or not when I get my doctor's degree), the fairness doctrine (which will take away my enjoyment of talk radio), and the Free Choice Act (which will screw my family friends who have chosen not to join the unions at their job), I'll be okay.

[SeanRobinson]

"which will force me to perform abortions whether I want to or not when I get my doctor's degree"

Pretty sure it won't. I've got lots of doctors in the family--including an OB/GYN or two--and everything I've gathered from them indicates that even if FOCA passes, you're still going to have the liberty to refer women wanting abortions over to other doctors more willing to perform them. Nobody's going to walk into your office and force you to perform an abortion--there might be certain limited circumstances, but generally not so much.

[Sean O]

Well, I wouldn't say he's not a radical liberal. His voting record is the most liberal in the whole senate (Biden's is #3 FYI).

He's really not, though. There are plenty of other measures that have him between 10-20 in the senate. I wish he was more liberal than he is, but sadly, it's not happening.

I don't see which policies he's reconsidered since he was elected, personally. He always said 16 mos. out of Iraq was his goal, depending on what the Pentagon said was realistic. Otherwise, he's scaled back some plans for social programs due to the massive debt he's inheriting, while expanding others to help us get out.

Like I said, no surprises. If he voted for that atrocious FISA plan, he's not a radical liberal. nuf ced.

[piratesmvp04]

He's really not, though. There are plenty of other measures that have him between 10-20 in the senate. I wish he was more liberal than he is, but sadly, it's not happening.

I don't see which policies he's reconsidered since he was elected, personally. He always said 16 mos. out of Iraq was his goal, depending on what the Pentagon said was realistic. Otherwise, he's scaled back some plans for social programs due to the massive debt he's inheriting, while expanding others to help us get out.

Like I said, no surprises. If he voted for that atrocious FISA plan, he's not a radical liberal. nuf ced.

Well, I don't want to start an argument, but he did change his tax cut range from under $250,000 to under $150,000 the day after the election. And, yesterday, he seemed a little less confident when he restated his 16-month withdrawal plan, but that's just my opinion.

Bottom line for me is that I'm glad that he's wise enough to listen to the advice he's been recieving ever since the election, and I'm glad he's not gone full-blown on his idea of getting rid of "old Washington politics" (which is why he's picking a bunch of Clinton people). If he's really as moderate as it's looking so far, I can put up with him for 4 years as long as he doesn't pass any bills that threaten the good of me and my family as I've mentioned in my previous post.