The government lied to us...and they should have

reply to post by _Johnny_Utah_

I don't think you give the American people enough credit to handle the truth. In fact, given that the government seems to lie a lot to us (like WMD in IRAQ, Gulf of Tonkin, the Filipino monkey-Iran incident), most people have gotten to the point that the only time the government lies is when they open their mouths. When trust is gone, THAT is when people get up in arms.

reply to post by _Johnny_Utah_

Unwarrented panic, to start.

This can only be true, if you prescribe to the theory that the plane was shot down by terrorists. And if this was the case, the panic would not have been unwarranted. Think of how many people at airports might have seen something, or decided to say something, that may have prevented 9/11. This even inlcudes the professionals who obviously fumbled the ball. That is if you belive that 9/11 was NOT a conspiracy. Everyone from ticket agents to NORAD would have been more vigilant, knowing that another terrorist attack could happen.

Again, I do not see the possiblity of any unwarranted panic. Do you really think people would have gone rioting in the streets thinking the world had ended?

economic instability, which rides on the back of the panic, since there would be a fear of flying.

So you are justifying lieing to the American people, whom these people are elected to serve, and are paid to serve through enormous taxes. You are justifying that these people lie to maintain stability of airline profits?

This line of reasoning doesn't really fly anyway. Pardon the pun. People still fly after 9/11, and are more annoyed about having to take their shoes off than they are afraid of flying.

An emboldening or motivating tool for those who did it. it is never good to allow an enemy a moral boost.

I fail to see how this would be anymore emboldening or motivating to the perpetrators. If they did it, they know they did it. In fact, they got away with it without the US even bothering to come after them. Talk about emboldening.

Originally posted by Shedman

Originally posted by _Johnny_Utah_


Unwarrented panic, to start.
economic instability, which rides on the back of the panic, since there would be a fear of flying.
An emboldening or motivating tool for those who did it.
it is never good to allow an enemy a moral boost.

So what? So a few people freak out. You don't know that there would be economic instability, that's just your fear talking. And what makes you think an enemy was involved?
I say tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may.

You made my point...none of that happened. It may have, may not have...
By using the using the lie...we didn't have to find out. How was anyone harmed by that lie?

The last President who valued any semblance of truth was asassinated. That should tell you something right there.



[edit on 2/12/0808 by jackinthebox]

[edit on 2/12/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by _Johnny_Utah_

How was anyone harmed by that lie?

What about the three-thousand people who died on 9/11? And the million or so people who have died in the war on terror?


[edit on 2/12/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by _Johnny_Utah_
Mob rule sounds like something from a third world country, but yes that's what we are or should be, structured, acsessable control over the govt. instead of their unrestricted control over us which is what you are suggesting. The limitation of knowledge undermined the govt. along time ago. If you let them limit truth once they decide it's okay to do it when ever they want. It is an all or nothing kind of deal.

It sounds ridiculous to have a vote for every issue through the Rep. office, but the process needs to be slowed down considerably in some areas and not in others. One could easily discern the difference between the pressing issues and those everyone should be involved in and then enact this into policy. This issue is a progression towards advanced democracy and is totally plausable. Not everyone would go vote on all issues but it provides access severly needed. I certainly don't believe condoning the cover ups and conspiracies are the answer to an out of touch government, this is how monarchies and imperialistic nations function. This is how secret operations are justified.Why don't we just allow our Rep. lye to us the whole time they're in office and do what they want while they're there. We obviously don't need to have any knowledge of what's going on in our own country....pls!

reply to post by azblack
This argueument you make harms many millions of America, through blow back, terrorism, loss of involvement in democratic process, everything America stands for. This whole topic undermines and is a hypocracy of the American way of life, and is now officially supported by you. If you have any notion of democratic rule this notion destroys it's ability to exist. You can't have both true democracy and population supported denial and cover-up they are total opposites. This arguement doesn't even have logical possibility to exist when democracy is a prerequisite.

reply to post by jackinthebox

9-11 did cause a panic. More people stayed home, less people spent money...the economy slowed down. it wasn't just the airlines who suffered.
With flight 800, it didn't happen.
People rioting in the streets? Where did that come from?
There is no reason why the government should tell the American people everything. The people who want to know everything, WANT to know. There is no need in it.
Of course it would embolden the people who did it. What they want or covet or crave...is attention among other things. Why give them the satisfaction or the honor of recognition?
If you can rob them of that, isn't that a good thing? You can't undo what happened, but why give them a chance to pat each other on the back?

I want the truth ..... no matter what !!!!!

and I got chill bumps listening the JFK

he was de man !!!!

Wish we had another one of him right now
in our country. We wouldn't be in this mess.
But I fear ..... an honest person can't get elected.
Look what happened to Ron Paul !!!!

Sen John McCain called him the most honest man in congress.
It's almost as if Americans WANT to be lied to. So every
election they elect the best liar for the job.

What is wrong with that picture ???


[edit on 12-2-2008 by SimonSays]

reply to post by _Johnny_Utah_

9-11 did cause a panic. More people stayed home, less people spent money...the economy slowed down. it wasn't just the airlines who suffered.

So, are you saying then that we would have seen the same results with Flight 800. if it was indeed shot down by terrorists? And again, 9/11 might have actually been prevented if we had known that the terrorists had already declared war on us by shooting down a plane. Why did our leaders wait to take action, until after 9/11 was allowed to happen? Why didn't they take action right then? The answer is clear. Because they wanted 9/11 to happen.

The people who want to know everything, WANT to know. There is no need in it.

There most certainly is a need. Even in a representative democracy. If Flight 800 had been shot down by terrorists, it would have likely altered the political landscape accordingly. People would have chosen to vote differently. What is the point in even voting if we don't have the facts necessary to decide who to vote for?

You can't undo what happened, but why give them a chance to pat each other on the back?

They were already patting eachother on the back. Do you really think they care if the truth was reported to the infidel enemy people in their Main Stream Media? As I already stated, the fact that there were no reprecussions for what they did would embolden them more than any recognition of what they had done in the American press.

Originally posted by azblack
reply to post by _Johnny_Utah_

 

Mob rule sounds like something from a third world country, but yes that's what we are or should be, structured, acsessable control over the govt. instead of their unrestricted control over us which is what you are suggesting. The limitation of knowledge undermined the govt. along time ago. If you let them limit truth once they decide it's okay to do it when ever they want. It is an all or nothing kind of deal.

It sounds ridiculous to have a vote for every issue through the Rep. office, but the process needs to be slowed down considerably in some areas and not in others. One could easily discern the difference between the pressing issues and those everyone should be involved in and then enact this into policy. This issue is a progression towards advanced democracy and is totally plausable. Not everyone would go vote on all issues but it provides access severly needed. I certainly don't believe condoning the cover ups and conspiracies are the answer to an out of touch government, this is how monarchies and imperialistic nations function. This is how secret operations are justified.Why don't we just allow our Rep. lye to us the whole time they're in office and do what they want while they're there. We obviously don't need to have any knowledge of what's going on in our own country....pls!

This is a question not on anything. What does "pls" mean?

Anyway...
We are not a democracy.
Our founding fathers had the wisdom to see that a democracy doesn't work. plato even called democracy an abomination of government.
We elect the President too...should we then find a way to make sure he does the same thing?
I am in no way endorsing unresticted reign of officials. Everyone knows they do not have that.
Do i think there should be limited knowledge, yes. If the American people have total access to everything...so do our enemies and future enemies.
It is not responsible to the entire of the nation, having it any other way.

reply to post by jackinthebox


Oh yeah, I forgot...Bush and Cheney are trying or they do to rule the world.
they roll around naked in the woods of California too, right?

reply to post by _Johnny_Utah_

How can you put 9/11 and the flight 800 on the same level? The sheer magnitude of 9/11 dwarfs flight 800. To make the implication that people would panic if they knew the truth about 800, is absurd. When Russia shot down KAL007 in 1983, people didn't panic, even though there were famous Americans on board, such as the chairman of the John Birch Society.
Democracy needs to be open with its people, to BE a democracy. In fact, when it DOES LIE to us, we usually find out anyway, and then all trust is destroyed. Look at George Bush, and his WMD's, or Bill Clinton and his "I did not have sex with that woman", or Nixon's "I am not a crook".
Your attitude is what encourages fascism. Hitler has Goebbels, a full-time liar-in-chief. Is that what you WANT for America? I certainly DO NOT.

Originally posted by SimonSays
I want the truth ..... no matter what !!!!!

and I got chill bumps listening the JFK

he was de man !!!!

Wish we had another one of him right now
in our country. We wouldn't be in this mess.
But I fear ..... an honest person can't get elected.
Look what happened to Ron Paul !!!!

Sen John McCain called him the most honest man in congress.
It's almost as if Americans WANT to be lied to. So every
election they elect the best liar for the job.

What is wrong with that picture ???


[edit on 12-2-2008 by SimonSays]

What you want?

ha, JFK turned into a legend after he was killed

I will never submit to fascism or socialism/communism because it is only the best interests of the minority. For whatever insane reason this charade has come out into the open at a time when nothing can be done to stop it really chaps my @$$. But it is what it is and I am fully prepared to be marched off to a camp with my soul intact. The powers that be will have to take from me and murder me- which I am sure they intend to do.

There is freedom in the truth and enslavement in lies. I am no one's slave- they will have to do their own damn dirty work!

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by _Johnny_Utah_

 

How can you put 9/11 and the flight 800 on the same level? The sheer magnitude of 9/11 dwarfs flight 800. To make the implication that people would panic if they knew the truth about 800, is absurd. When Russia shot down KAL007 in 1983, people didn't panic, even though there were famous Americans on board, such as the chairman of the John Birch Society.
Democracy needs to be open with its people, to BE a democracy. In fact, when it DOES LIE to us, we usually find out anyway, and then all trust is destroyed. Look at George Bush, and his WMD's, or Bill Clinton and his "I did not have sex with that woman", or Nixon's "I am not a crook".
Your attitude is what encourages fascism. Hitler has Goebbels, a full-time liar-in-chief. Is that what you WANT for America? I certainly DO NOT.

A few pages back...maybe at the start...I never tried to put them on the same level. I coould not agree with you more they are nothing alike. I think people slid in and out of the thread and I lost track of where things were going...my bad.
I started talking about 9-11 when others said absurd things which needed and required a reply.
Why do you keep saying we are a democracy...we are not.

Originally posted by dk3000
I will never submit to fascism or socialism/communism because it is only the best interests of the minority. For whatever insane reason this charade has come out into the open at a time when nothing can be done to stop it really chaps my @$$. But it is what it is and I am fully prepared to be marched off to a camp with my soul intact. The powers that be will have to take from me and murder me- which I am sure they intend to do.

There is freedom in the truth and enslavement in lies. I am no one's slave- they will have to do their own damn dirty work!

You really think "they" are after you and want to kill you?


whatever you say there, buddy

reply to post by _Johnny_Utah_

From Webster:

Main Entry:
de·moc·ra·cy Listen to the pronunciation of democracy
Pronunciation:
\di-ˈmä-krə-sē\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural de·moc·ra·cies
Etymology:
Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos + -kratia -cracy
Date:
1576

1 a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

Republic according to Webster:
republic (definition)
(all of republic, there are 4 more in this node)
(definition) by Webster 1913 (print) Wed Dec 22 1999 at 2:37:56

Re*pub"lic (r?-p?b"l?k), n. [F. r'epublique, L. respublica commonwealth; res a thing, an affair + publicus, publica, public. See Real, a., and Public.]

1.

Common weal.
[Obs.]

B. Jonson.

2.

A state in which the sovereign power resides in the whole body of the people, and is exercised by representatives elected by them; a commonwealth. Cf. Democracy, 2.

⇒ In some ancient states called republics the sovereign power was exercised by an hereditary aristocracy or a privileged few, constituting a government now distinctively called an aristocracy. In some there was a division of authority between an aristocracy and the whole body of the people except slaves. No existing republic recognizes an exclusive privilege of any class to govern, or tolerates the institution of slavery.


This is the 21st century,not ancient Greece. In the 21st century, we call what Greece was an aristocracy.

reply to post by _Johnny_Utah_

Oh yeah, I forgot...Bush and Cheney are trying or they do to rule the world. they roll around naked in the woods of California too, right?

Obviously you have run out of anything useful to say. I would add you to my respected foes list, but you do not have my respect.

I am beginning to think that your "screename is new" because you were thrown out of here previously.

EDIT to add:

Thank you for proving that I am right, and that I have denied ignorance yet again. Yes, you have been DENIED.





[edit on 2/12/0808 by jackinthebox]

I don't usually post so please be tolerant while I learn to navigate this site.

“….think how it could have shut the nation’s economy down…”
I don’t think that an act of terrorism would shut down the economy for any length of time.

“there would be a panic.”
I have enough faith in the general public that after the initial panic of an incident they buckle down and get done what needs to get done.

… What if the leaders don’t know who did it?
I think that if government leaders don’t know who did something they should say that. The initial information let out by news agencies is just speculation at first anyways. The public is often underestimated by the government.

“is it not better to have the country believe that the tragedy of Flight 800 was an accident”
It may be “better” or easier for the government when people are left uninformed but it is still wrong.

“Why worry about something which we have no control over?”
When people worry about things they educate themselves. With education comes action.