You can't prove the things about torture and 9/11 (yet, I'm not close-minded, after all), and wars of choice aren't unconstitutional. Oh, and the government doesn't need to enter your home to bug you.
You can't prove the things about torture and 9/11 (yet, I'm not close-minded, after all), and wars of choice aren't unconstitutional. Oh, and the government doesn't need to enter your home to bug you.
Oh, and I don't like the fact that our Government's three branches are all controlled by the Republican party.
I can't? I have on several occasions. Wars of choice are UNETHICAL. You're right, they don't need to enter my home, but I was comfortable with the knowledge that they required a warrant in the past, and now they don't.Originally Posted by jetsetlemming
Unethical isn't unconstitutional, and you've got evidence, about the same amount for your idea as there is against. It isn't a resolved matter except by those who completely believe what you don't.
Except "my" evidence isn't based on lies, or created by those who would be considered a suspect.Originally Posted by jetsetlemming
You can't prove the evidence against your claim is baised on lies. Yes, they were put forth by those considered a suspect in your theory, but that doesn't automatically prove them wrong.
Yes I can, and have. They were put forth by those considered a suspect, period.Originally Posted by jetsetlemming
Tell me, who controls the United States military? The Executive Branch. Who is responsible for the security of our skies? The United States Military. The United States Military has standard operating procedures that gets a plane in the air between 9 and 16 minutes. It took 83 minutes to get a plane in the air on 9/11. Only the Executive Branch could make the United States Military not follow stand operating procedures. Therefore, they are suspect.
That is EVIDENCE, Gold, not proof. It sets up the government's ability to enact 9/11, it doesn't show that they actually did. I didn't argue that they weren't suspect in their actions. A suspect is not a convict, we here in America are innocent until proven guilty.
It proves that the alleged "hijackers" did NOT work alone, and points to the Bush Administration. They had the means, motive, and opportunity to pull off 9/11, and in any court in the land, they would most assuredly be found guilty.Originally Posted by jetsetlemming
It doesn't prove the hijackers had help besides anything other than luck at most. It's evidence, it points a certain way, but it is not that incriminating, it's not enough to even call Bush a suspect. Most of the rest of the world has decided that that Islamic terrorists who hate America commited 9/11 is a fact. This stuff isn't all that damning to everyone else, Gold. You need more than circumstance and ability.