segnosaur

This has been touched on before... hopefully it doesn't derail things... There is nothing "unconservative" about supporting Carbon taxes as long as the overall tax burden on the country as a whole does not increase. From: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/its-a-rocky-tory-leadership-bid-for-pro-carbon-tax-michael-chong/article34087296/ ...his campaign will turn on his climate change plan: a huge levy that would reach $130 a tonne by 2030 – balanced by a massive, immediate $18-billion income-tax cut. Mr. Chong argues it is the conservative approach to climate change. It would replace other green regulations, shrinking government. It would be revenue neutral, financing deep income-tax cuts that he argues will stimulate the economy.... Now, I cannot say for sure whether I would vote for a party headed by Chong without seeing the rest of the platform.

And that is a significant issue that you should actually look at fixing. Occam's razor is valuable. It can help sort out the B.S. that we are presented with on a regular basis. Your unwillingness to actually engage in the type of rational, skeptic thinking is a problem. Yet you posted a video of someone trying to jam foot into a woman's mouth as somehow proof people were offered cake. You're right. They weren't celebrating the 9/11 attack. They were actually under the mind control ray of our alien overlords. All hail our masters from Planet Zorblax.

I don't think you quite understand what the word "Molten" means.

Seriously... The video was shot AT THE SAME TIME THE 9/11 Terrorist attack was occurring. One of the people was praising Bin Laden. If you think there was some other reason besides them celebrating the attack, then WHAT WOULD BE THE REASON. Again, look at Occam's razor... what would be more likely... that people were celebrating an attack on the U.S., (a country that isn't always viewed favorably in Palestine due to the U.S. support of Israel), or that there was some other cause for joyful celebration that just so happened to occur at exactly the same time as the attacks. As for people being offered money to dance... There has been no evidence that that is the case. I find it rather ironic that you reject the claims of multiple reporters and news agencies (both television and newspaper) that the video was an accurate assessment of the events of that day, yet you will desperately cling to any unsubstantiated story that tries to explain away the Palestinian celebration video, even one with no evidence.

The depths of the delusion. Pictures for you. https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf Seriously? Did you actually READ that article? It contains the following quotes: The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000C (1,800F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel. And: Temperatures in this region of the steel were likely to be in the range of 700–800C (1,290–1,470F). So even YOUR reference doesn't say that there was "Molten steel".

Ummm. seriously? Did you actually read the reference I provided? The video was shot in 2001. The claim was that the video was a decade or so old. Bin Laden was not a major player in the geo-political world at that time. The only reason some random person would be talking about Bin Laden is if he were somehow relevant at the time. Why would they? They were celebrating, not performing or being interviewed. I see... First you claim the video was a decade old when it was shown, then you say "they were enticed". The fact that you have to come up with multiple explanations to justify what was seen in the video should be a pretty good indication that you don't have much to actually stand on. And lets take a look at what's in your particular video... one person had some food shoved in their face. By someone holding a fork. ONE PERSON. Hardly explains the scope of the celebrations that you did see.

Nope, WTC7 didn't "Free fall". Collapse took > 5 seconds. A free-falling object would have taken < 4 seconds. Strike 1. It would certainly be suspicious if either of those things were found. Except of course there's been no evidence of molten steel. There are claims of molten steal. But there's never been any sort of metalurgical analysis of whever that was seen that was molten. (And no, some claim by a firefighter saying "there was molten steel" does not make it so, since its also possible that it was molten aluminum, which would be expected given the existence of the plane.) Strike 2. No, it wasn't. Strike 3. You're out. By the way, I seem to notice you missed something... I specifically asked you that if you think the official reports are wrong, Give a complete accounting of what you think happened, including who was involved, what they were doing, what they'd have to do to cover things up.I predict you won't, because you'll end up with something about as believable as Aliens and Sasquatch causing the collapse.

"News organizations confirmed it" is not a proof. News organizations always did/doing/do fake-false news. There is only one video, where is the videos of other "news organizations" ? Some of the other news organizations include newspapers (who would not have been shooting video). The Snopes reference I provided points to the Los Angeles times as having reporters who confirmed the Palestinian reactions (which included celebrations). It should also be pointed out that several other organizations that attempted to film Palestinian celebrations were prevented from doing so by Palestinian authorities. (This was also mentioned in the Snopes reference.) I don't speak the language, but the reference I provided earlier points to at least one of them praising Bin Laden. Now, the celebrations occurred on the same day, and at approximately the same time as the terrorist attacks. If you're claiming that they were celebrating for some other reason, that would be a very big coincidence, would it not?

"Common" including who? And if they come up with what has been said all along (multiple terrorists working with Al Quaeda hijacked and crashed multiple planes, causing some buildings to collapse), will the 9/11 conspiracy theorists actually finally shut up, or will they claim that the "common research commission" is somehow part of the conspiracy? Truth is, you don't need a "common research commission". You just need some common sense. And Occam's razor. Neither are pretty much all 9/11 Troothers. In fact, they tend to have no expertise in anything. The fact that it "doesn't make sense to you" doesn't mean that it won't make sense to an expert. And again, this is where you should start applying Occam's razor... What makes more sense: 1) That the vast majority of experienced engineers who have looked at the issue, and said "Yup, that's consistent with how the building would have responded to damage and fire" Or: 2) Almost all structural engineers were wrong, and somehow some shadowy organization managed to sneak bombs onto dozens of floors in the building, when nobody was looking (despite the building having, you know, security), and were able to hide the bombs from anyone who happened to be in the building, AND of all the people involved (people to plant the bombs, people to somehow get the planes to fly into the buildings), not ONE person has ended up feeling guilty after all this time. You don't need to melt all the columns equally. When one column looses strength, remaining columns end up having to take on more of the resulting load. Its not collapsing at free fall. How can you tell? Because you can see pieces of the building falling AHEAD of the rest of the collapse. Here's the thing... There may be things that the U.S. could be criticized for... Maybe they didn't help stabilize Afghanistan after the Russians pulled out. Perhaps they wrongly used 9/11 as a motivation for the Iraq invasion. Maybe they should be a bit more cautious in their support for Saudi Arabia. You don't need some sort of sooper secret conspiracy theory to level those criticisms however,

Yes I saw the video. This is disgusting. They used a video from 1990's which is the record of Palestinians celebrating peace agreement with Israel, claiming its Palestinians celebrating 9-11. The videos of the palestinians celebrating were taken on September 11, 2001. CNN (as well as other news organizations) confirmed it. And the original claim that it was old footage has been recanted by the person who made the original claim. (In addition to multiple news organizations, you can also tell that it was recent footage because of relatively recent cars that appeared in the video. So unless you want to suggest Palestinians invented time travel in order to transport 2000-Model civics back in time, you have to assume that the video was recent.) http://www.snopes.com/rumors/cnn.asp

Keep in mind that people don't believe that Al Qaeda carried out 9/11 just because "The government said so". We base our understanding on multiple sources... yes, the U.S. government is one source of information, but we also have private organizations (for example, professional engineering organizations are pretty much all in agreement that the impact and fires were the cause of the WTC collapse, not bombs or thermite). More importantly, we have Occam's razor. To paraphrase, Occam's razor basically says that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. We know that our information regarding 9/11 is imperfect. but the explanation of the official story (that hijackers caused several plane crashes, one of which lead to the collapse of the WTC) fits the evidence. Anyone attempting to assume there was some "inside job" conspiracy has to come up with a plausible explanation of what actually happened.... who was involved, how many people, how things "fit in" with the evidence. Most conspiracy theorists don't bother trying to do so,... why? Because if they did they would fail miserably.... they'd have to include more and more people to pull off the job. plus they'd have to explain how such a plan could be pulled off without anyone of the thousands of people ever saying "I was involved but now I want to come clean" For more reading, I would suggest: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

Aircraft crashes and fires are chaotic events, and its almost random what might survive and what might not. No, the passport would not have to be made of titanium to survive... At the time of the impact, parts of the plane and its contents would have continued to have forward momentum, which would have carried it away from the resulting explosion and fires. Its not all that uncommon for passports to survive plane crashes... for example, from: http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/11/plane.crash/index.html?PHPSESSID=56392fb5960cd7d3a7b46e052d982f42 Yankees pitcher Cory Lidle and his flight instructor were killed Wednesday when the 34-year-old ballplayer's plane crashed into a high-rise apartment building in New York, city and baseball team officials said...Two bodies and Lidle's passport were found in the street, Granted, this was a smaller plane, but it did spark a few fires. It should also be pointed out that it wasn't the only such debris located in the area of the WTC... things like credit cards were also found. (See: http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/08/31/washington.911.exhibit/) The whole conspiracy claims seem so bizarre... U.S. government: We have evidence Al Quaeda did it Bin Laden: Al Quaeda did it! Other governments: Yeah we pretty much agree Al Quaeda did it The majority of academics: Pretty much everything points to Al Quaeda Conspiracy theorist: Even though most people have absolutely no expertise in the area that we're making claims about, we're going to propose some sort of mass government conspiracy, even though none of us can actually come up with a coherent explanation of what we think actually happened that doesn't involve Bigfoot and space aliens. We know that terrorist were involved because of reports that were received from at least one of the planes. We know the identities because of things like letters that were left behind, and admissions from Al Quaeda. To assume that the people involved weren't the accused hijackers, it would involve getting volunteers to actually crash at least one plane (United 93, where we have multiple reports on board of hijackers), as well as somehow getting a bunch of dupes to be patsies (yet people who still bothered to go through flight training.) If you want to be believed then fine: Here's your task: Tell us exactly what happened on 9/11. Who was involved, how things were accomplished.

Which actually, is an argument that supports the existence of the Christian God. No, no it doesn't. It would only be an argument supporting existence of god if there were no other explanations for those restrictions. Anyone with any real knowledge of biology or anthropology (i.e. not a creationist) would find a more likely alternative. We have those restrictions on killing/stealing because of a combination of evolutionary biology and sociology. Our ancestors became cooperative because being cooperative aided in survival. Any ancestors that we would have had that failed to aid the group (or who engaged in killing) would be less likely to pass their genes on to the next generation. Thus, we developed empathy. As our civilization grew our basic empathy morphed into a series of cultural rules that were adopted in large part because they worked. (If a hypothetical society existed where murder or theft was accepted and common, it would fail to prosper because internal conflicts would limit the ability of that society to grow.) Thousands of years ago, a group of near-illiterate, scientifically ignorant goat herders decided to write down these rules and assign them to a made-up god, because we didn't exactly have the philosophical underpinnings to look at things in a rational way. Thousands of years later, a bunch of people looked at the writings of these goat herders and somehow decided that these near-illiterate goat herders somehow knew more than modern scientists. No need for an invisible sky daddy to make any of that happen.

You are making 2 fundamental mistakes: 1) You are incorrectly assuming that these laws (e.g. against stealing, killing, etc.) are rooted in Judeo-christian values. Restrictions on activities like those are actually common in many cultures, and many of the other things you mentioned (e.g. freedom of speech, fair trial, etc.) come not from Judeo-Christian values but from more secular activites (such as the Magnacarta, which more of a political document than a religious one.. 2) You are ignoring all of the restrictions that supposedly exist in the Judeo-christian culture (e.g. thou shalt not commit adultary) that are NOT part of our legal system Ultimately, I think your biggest mistake is that you are assuming all of western culture is "Judeo-Christian" without actually defining what that term actually means. Just because some of our ancestors may have lived in a part of the world controlled by the catholic church does not mean all elements of our law and culture are traced back to biblical ideals.

I think the bigger questions are... why did they stop him, and why did Comey actually volunteer to do so after so effectively torpedoing Clinton's campaign.

Why would I need to? You've convinced me... Jebus is an immoral monster who only cares about his own believers and thinks everyone else should suffer. I think its an immoral stance. Millions of Christains think its an immoral stance. But hey, Jebus said so, and nobody ever misinterpreted Jebus before, have they.

So, you basically claim that Jebus is an immoral monster like hitler or stalin, who is quite happy if non-believers suffer, someone points out that that is morally wrong, and you pretend like you are some saint by "turning the other cheek". Here's a suggestion... rather than worrying about turning the other cheek when someone points out how immoral you are, perhaps you should, I don't know, try to be a better person by actually helping others in true need, regardless of their background, (And the first thing that you can do about that is opposing Trump.)

Hey, I get it. You're honest in thinking you are quite happy and satisfied with the idea of Christians being thought of as basically evil, immoral people, who are expected to have no compassion towards any individual who doesn't have the same beliefs. By your logic, the guy who shot up the mosque in Quebec city was not doing anything that Jebus would have disapproved of, because you claim that hey, Jebus only cared about his own followers. Screw the other guys. So Jebus is up there with such moral authority figures as Hitler and Stalin.

No, it hasn't. It really hasn't. I pointed out specific problems with Trump, his personality, and most importantly his policies which were non-christian (at least with the way that most people think Jebus would have wanted... be kind to your fellow man, help others, don't lie, don't steal, etc.) What you did was make up some bunk about how "we're all sinners" (which is irrelevant, because I'm not claiming anyone is perfect, but knowing someone is spouting non-christian ideals and voting for him anyways is not addressed by the "we're all sinners" argument... instead, its addressed by the "evangelical christians are raging hypocrites" argument. Well, at least I used to think that, until you explained that christians don't actually believe in being kind, helping others, not lying/stealing. In which case, us non-christians can definitely classify christians as immoral. Actually if you can't recognize that the question hasn't been answered, then you're the one with the problem.

Exactly. And in addition... it doesn't explain why a self-styled christian would support someone who's policies involved things that were supposedly non-christian (such as cutting foreign aid and banning refugees.)

So, what you're saying is that Jebus didn't believe in love, tolerance, and helping your fellow man. And that Jebus would be totally fine with bigotry, fraud, lying, and being abusive to others rather than helping them. I'm an atheist, and I know bigotry, fraud, and abusing your fellow man are wrong, and that helping others is good. I guess I can assume christians believe the opposite. So, why exactly should we consider christians to be moral in any way, shape or form?

The only good part of this? Many ardent Trump supporters are now complaining, demanding Trump veto the bill. https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/03/29/trump-supporters-on-r-the_donald-demand-veto-of-house-internet-privacy-rule-repeal/22017215/ ...some of Trump's harshest criticism, and boldest ultimatums, regarding internet privacy can be found in online spaces that normally function as a refuge for Trump supporters. On /r/The_Donald alone there are right now over 15 independent threads calling for the president to veto the bill — and that number seems to be climbing by the minute. " I like it... the more Trump supporters realize that they've been conned, the more chance that the Republicans will loose future elections. Just another sign of how stupid Trump supporters can be... vote for an idiot with a background of running scams (see: Trump University) and an excessive compulsion to lie (see: Promises to bring back manufacturing and coal jobs) and this is what you get.

You keep suggesting that there is this devastating evidence against the FBI/NSA/Obama. How do you know? Nunes hasn't revealed anything. And the president (despite having the authority to access and even declassify documents) hasn't actually released anything. You would think that if such evidence existed that it would have been revealed. More likely scenario is that no such evidence exists, and what you are claiming as "evidence" is basically pointless claims based on absolutely nothing echoed back and forth between Trump supporters as they hope for a miracle, some tiny little thing that they can take out of context and lie about to say something that it doesn't. The reason the Democrats want Nunes kicked out have been well established... Nunes met with Trump officials on certain issues before meeting with the intelligence committee, something that should not have been done, and even Nunes admits it was a mistake. This makes the Democrats wary that Nunes isn't acting as an impartial investigator. Its a reasonable claim to make... You'd be suspicious of a cop who gives all the evidence to the criminal before he brings it to the prosecuting attorney. And it may not just be the Democrats... at least one republican has also suggested that Nunes should no longer be heading the investigation. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/28/rep-walter-jones-becomes-first-republican-to-call-on-nunes-to-step-aside-in-russia-probe.html North Carolina Rep. Walter Jones on Tuesday became the first congressional Republican to call for fellow party member Rep. Devin Nunes to step aside from leading the House Intelligence Committee’s probe into alleged ties between Russia and Donald Trump’s successful presidential campaign.

Yes they do. But the Republicans control the house, senate and presidency. Trump claimed he knew the system better than anybody. If he were really a "good dealmaker" like he claims he is, he shouldn't have needed an ultimatum. Yes they do. Of course, Trump also wasn't able to get a rather large group of moderates on his side either, nor was he able to get any support from the Democrats. So much for Trump the "deal maker".

Oh, I know exactly what you meant. But my point was "accusing people with untrue things" is a rather broad topic, and includes things such as political satire (which shouldn't ever be forbidden), which often involves making up stuff which is false for comedic effect. (e.g. nobody thinks Trump is literally a baby, but photoshopping Trump's face on a newborn's body is a form of satire that pokes fun at Trump's mentality. Technically its "false" since its making something up.) As for being "oversensitive", again that's an issue of "let the punishment fit the crime", since as I pointed out before, usually Libel laws require people to illustrate actual harm if/when something fake is said about someone.