Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

Rigged is the key word. He won't get nominated, no matter how popular he is.

 

[Einherjar86]

After watching the Republican debate here in Tampa, I seriously think that Ron Paul is the most level-headed, rational candidate up on that stage. His words about our presence in the Middle-East and our ideological views of Islam were spot on, and he had the balls to say what he thinks.

Furthermore, Santorum is a fucking moron. His speech on American exceptionalism was straight out of the traditional appeal-to-conservatives bag, and it was utterly despicable and even terrifying. He regurgitated the tired mantra that the Muslim world hates us because of our values of freedom and liberty (which I cannot fucking stand, I hate that bullshit). Paul replied by saying something like: "If we continue with these views [of American exceptionalism] and believe that all the Muslim world is out to get us, we will only invite more danger upon ourselves." And then he got booed. Fucking idiots.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

That's one things that makes democrats better than republicans. The democrats are merely ignorant, while republicans are just plain stupid.

 

[Matt]

I'm scared to death of what is to come in the next elections. If republicans control everything again we've got a huge problem.

 

[Dak]

Politicians being in control is the problem, regardless of party. I don't recall democrats ever fixing anything. Hell, we are in worse shape economically and the in more countries than ever before after 3 years of Obama and Dem Senate control, and 2 years of Dem House control. I thought they couldn't be much worse than the Bush administration but I was wrong.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

Don't forget that our disastrous economic policies started with Bush. He was the one who handed $1 trillion to Wall St. on a silver platter, after all. The fact her did it with only 2 months of his term left was actually a stroke of political genius.

 

[Dak]

I haven't. Obama and Bush have been a great one-two punch in finishing what Bush Sr started with NAFTA, etc. Destroying America economically. I said Obama wasn't change from day one, but what do I know

 

[Vimana]

At least he's not throwing around "spending cuts" like it's some magical solution that could fix everything easily.

 

[Dak]

Spending cuts are a big part of what is needed, but the Repubs are only paying them lipservice.

 

[Vimana]

Agreed. Though there are other things that the GOP is too stubborn to do that could help.

 

[skeptik]

The main thing voters are selecting during presidential elections is their preferences on superficial social issues. By and large, everything else about the major parties are nearly the same.

 

[Satanstoenail]

It's the same here. The large left and right parties have melded into one big horrible blob of mediocrity. They constantly fight with each other about nothing.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

I've never been "down under", but I see a lot of cultural and political parallels between the U.S. and Australia.

 

[Satanstoenail]

Yeah. We're like a cross between the USA and the UK.

 

[Vimana]

I remember reading some statistic that about 40% of Australians think that someone not born there has no business being there. Sound about right?

 

[Dak]

The rest of your post doesn't even apply to me, because I didn't state any of the things you seem to be responding to.

You said:

No, by my logic Santa Claus didn't exist because there wasn't substantiated proof. There was evidence, but not proof. You don't seem to know the difference. The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim, like you saying that there is a conspiracy. It'd be nice if you had any proof instead of just potential evidence, because it's getting boring already watching you say a bunch of things that fly in the face of contemporary wisdom yet never have any actual proof to support your arguments. Nice try tough.

The 'evidence' doesn't point to shit. What is known is that there were briefing memos that were more analyses than warnings about potential attacks. It's a stretch to say "the FBI and CIA knew about the plot to crash planes on American soil in a massive terrorist attack". The information that they had at the time was far more general than that, much of it was speculation, and, frankly, you're looking at everything with a hindsight mentality. So no, that's not "substantiated".

You know, I wrote a paper about OPEC wanting to abandon the US dollar and how that helped the US fuel its interest in invading Iraq. But to make the leap in logic to say that the US planned or assisted in the destruction of the twin towers and thousands of its citizens so that it could invade Iraq, which took a year and a half to get to, is, again, a really big stretch. Whether or not something presents a "golden opportunity" basically does not mean jack shit in terms of whether or not something actually happened in the manner that you choose to speculate.

.............I'm the one that is not making assumptions and following insubstantial evidence and calling it proof. The furthest that it's even reasonable to speculate, let alone believe, based on the evidence that is available, is that the US, to some degree, knew what might happen and failed to prevent it from happening.

My response:

.
As the video I posted pointed out, the official story is ridden with problems. Instead of focusing on that, you attempt a witchhunt against any possible conspiracy theory(other than the Al Qaeda conspiracy theory). You are asking the wrong questions, since you are questioning questions.

I'm not dogmatic on what did happen. Merely on what did not happen. Obviously, we will probably never know, since the evidence is either sealed or destroyed.

It makes me sick that I am surrounded by people that believe it's ok to kill and injure millions of people, purely based on their religion, government, or geographical location. Or to spy/molest/sieze/imprison anyone/anytime/anywhere for any reason. Because of appeals to status quo and authority. Which, incidently, you have wrapped yourself in.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

@Dak your last paragraph there is packed with pointless emotional arguments. You also lack logical integrity -- you write as if your statements build upon each other, but in fact they're never really consistent.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

Yeah. We're like a cross between the USA and the UK.

That was basically how I perceived things.

 

[Dak]

@Dak your last paragraph there is packed with pointless emotional arguments. You also lack logical integrity -- you write as if your statements build upon each other, but in fact they're never really consistent.

Probably would help if I wasn't replying on a smartphone in between doing things at work. Each paragraph is somewhat independent, although the train of thought is consistent. I would love for you to point out inconsistencies so that I may either refute or correct them.

"Pointless", though, is relative.

 

[Satanstoenail]

I remember reading some statistic that about 40% of Australians think that someone not born there has no business being there. Sound about right?

Racism is pretty widespread here, as it is in America I'm sure. I've never heard that stat before though. Asylum seekers are a big issue here also. We get a lot of boats filled with refugees trying to flee whatever shithole they're from. How to process them is debated constantly in parliament.