Momopi, does this convince you that politics is staged?

[Winston]

See these clips and analysis. They strongly suggest that the elections and politics on TV is rigged and staged. And that the candidates running for president are merely actors, with the winner already known. Or are you a secret member of the Illuminati and covering for them? lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQBC-8FCmhQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV00bB8JpX4

[Winston]

Also consider the fact that the American people have no say in most of the decisions of the US government, both on domestic policy and foreign policy. For example, the government raises taxes against the majority's wishes, and goes to war against the majority's wishes. Such things right there should tell you that there is no true democracy in America or anywhere, and there never was.

We've all been duped, but only some of us dare to admit it and expose it for what it is. Most are conformists and afraid of the truth, even if confronted with hard evidence.

[momopi]

The US is a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy. A democracy is a government of the masses and its authority is derived through direct expression. A constitutional republic is a government run by public officials (elected or appointed) and its authority is derived from a set of fixed principles (Constitution).

This country was established as a Republic because its founding fathers were against direct democracy (rule by majority). A brief look at the history would show that the US was a dumping ground for unwanted minority groups that were pushed around by the majority in the old country (Europe).

Let me quote a few founding fathers:

James Madison: "A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

John Witherspoon: "Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state ? it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage."

Alexander Hamilton: "...a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. (but) Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity..."


The American "system" and mentality, which evolved from such thinking, produced the culture today where we value individualism over collectivism. Look at our courts -- a single vote from the jury will over-power everyone else and throw the case out the window. In Europe the culture is different and trial by jury is not as common outside the UK (overall). In some EU countries they use judges and not commoners for the jury, because they value civic rights over natural rights (Bill of Rights) in their thinking. The American system s protects and benefits minority interests over the majority to a certain point.

It is not necessary to "stage" elections and put actors in office, when you already know the super-majority will be retained by the 2 popular parties, and both exists to continue the current political system. To say that there's some conspiracy at work is about as stupid as saying that McDonalds and Carl's Jr. conspire to sell Hamburgers. Like, duh, of course they want to sell you burgers, in the same way that both Republican and Democrat party want you to vote for them under the current government system, instead of over-throwing it.

If you're looking for something closer to a direct democracy, try Switzerland:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Switzerland

[Winston]

Then why did you say before that America was a democracy?

I heard those arguments by the founding fathers before. But then why is there this propaganda that America is a democracy that is given to the masses? Do you admit that it's a mass fraud?

And what about elections being rigged? Did you see those clips I linked in the first post? If so, what did you think of them? Don't they show that McCain was not serious about trying to win and just playing a game all along? It is said that they all know who is going to win, and that the one who isn't going to win simply does little things to make himself look bad so he doesn't win.

[Winston]

Momopi,

Getting back to 9/11, I have several questions for you.

A friend recently told me that some people are open minded about most things, but very closed minded about a few core things, because studies showed that brains are hardwired to resist change in certain areas, no matter how much hard evidence is presented to refute their unchanging beliefs. Is this true?

Does this explain why you (perhaps), DiscoproJoe, and many other people who are generally open minded, rational, educated, knowledgeable, neutral, etc. are suddenly closed minded and dismissive when it comes to evidence that the official story of 9/11 is false or impossible?

I mean, I know we all have biases to some degree. But do you claim that you're open minded about everything? What are your biases?

The point I'm trying to make is this:

You said before that you do not think that 9/11 is an inside job, insinuating that you believe the official story, right?

But how much research have you done on this? This case is huge with hundreds of controversial facts, that most people are not informed about.

I am willing to bet that you are not aware of the facts and arguments that I am aware of.

What I am asking you is: Don't you think you should do some research first before jumping to a conclusion about 9/11? You are very smart and educated and you know that one should research and investigate all the facts to see the big picture, before jumping to conclusions. Right? Isn't that common sense?

So here's my challenge to you.

If you watched my top recommended films on 9/11, and the arguments in them convinced you to a high degree that the official story cannot be true, would you change your mind? If so, why don't you do so, and examine the evidence presented to you? Only then should you make up your mind, right?

Here are my first recommended films on 9/11. You can find them on YouTube or Google Video: (I know that you know how to find them)

9/11 Blueprint for Truth
Zero: An Investigation into 9/11

There are hundreds of films about 9/11 but these two are my favorites because they present a huge barrage of logical valid points and irrefutable arguments from many credible experts about why the official 9/11 story cannot be true. Not just a few, but A LOT of them. In other words, these films MAKE A LOT OF DAMN SENSE! And they do it in a very organized professional manner that leaves a lasting effect on you.

I would bet, Momopi, that if you watched these films with at least a 20 percent UNBIASED objective open mind, that you will be convinced of the case presented. What if I'm right? Are you willing to give it a chance? I know you may not have the time or interest, but wouldn't you at least like to be more informed about such a huge topic?

The question is, are you biased or unbiased regarding 9/11? Are your views about it purely logical based or emotional based? If you are unbiased and logical, then I urge you to watch these films and give me your analysis of the arguments and points made, honestly and without fear.

You asked me once to hold a poll here to see how many believe that 9/11 was an inside job. Well I would agree to do that IF everyone here agrees to watch those films above. And that's because you gotta get informed first before making up your mind. Otherwise you are just guessing or drawing conclusions based on faith. Agreed?

[momopi]

Then why did you say before that America was a democracy?

I heard those arguments by the founding fathers before. But then why is there this propaganda that America is a democracy that is given to the masses? Do you admit that it's a mass fraud?

And what about elections being rigged? Did you see those clips I linked in the first post? If so, what did you think of them? Don't they show that McCain was not serious about trying to win and just playing a game all along? It is said that they all know who is going to win, and that the one who isn't going to win simply does little things to make himself look bad so he doesn't win.

The US Federal government is not a direct democracy. They sell Consitutional Republic as "Representative Democracy" which you can debate for what it is. But ultimately the basic value system of our government is based on the Constitution, in which the people's will have a limited effect through amendements.

At the State government level, you'd find more examples of direct democracy. One example is ballot initiatives and propositions. Here in CA we vote on everything from tax increases to gambling. It's a dual edged blade where you have direct democracy on one hand, but on the other you have proposition overload. In 1960's CA State had 9, by 1990s it climbed to 61. I know I didn't study each and every one of them in detail before I voted. So make your own opinions on what works.


As for the Presidental elections, there is no need to "rig" anything when you pull up to the drive through and you only see combo #1 and combo #2. You could complain that the burger joint conspires to limit your choices, and order a spicy chicken sandwitch a la carte in protest. But in the end you're still ordering from the same menu and paying toward the upkeep and profits of the same burget joint. Republicans and Democrats compete but in the end they support and upkeep the SAME political system. People who want to believe that their obviously limited choices are "rigged" are the type looking for an outlet in life to blame others for their own problems.

You might decide to say "screw this" and go across the street to order a fish sandwitch (Ron Paul). But realistically, the number of people who'd go order the fish sandwitch is so small, that the established powers can care less if you want a fish or vegetarian burger (plus it may have the same owner of different franchises). Those who understands this and wish to "opt out" go to places like Slab City.

I do not admit to or deny any government conspiracies. If I were in a position where I knew exactly what was going on, I'd be part of the conspiracy & profiting from your burger order, and I definately wouldn't tell YOU about it.

[Winston]

Nice analysis. But did you see those clips? Can you comment on them directly and address their arguments?

Jesse Ventura (former Minnesota Governor) and Mike Rupert (LAPD Officer) made similar arguments about politics being staged. And they are credible people.

And what about the 9/11 arguments and films I mentioned? Aren't you curious about the truth? It's such an important event, why don't you have an interest in seeing those two films? They will probably change your mind if you seriously analyze and consider what they have to say. Trust me on that one. I would not strongly recommend something without a very good reason.

[momopi]

Nice analysis. But did you see those clips? Can you comment on them directly and address their argum

If you're really bored, you can collect a bunch of gaffs made by Obama and make a similar video. Quote from the man:

"...we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states. I think one left to go." -- last I checked, we have 46 states and 4 commonwealths in the US.

The videos that you posted completely missed the BIGGEST gaff (or gamble) that McCain made -- his choice of VP. The American people are actually OK with over-the-hill Presidents with Alzimers and wives that consult astrogy for national policy. We can care less if our politiicans engage in secret rituals with the Yale Skull and Bones society, but we're completely ruthless when it comes to Sarah Palin.

Statistically speaking, if you want to conspire against someone to lose a Presidental election, all you need is to suggest that they take a female running mate. Last time when Walter Mondale took the gamble, he won what, 13 electroal votes out of 538'ish?

============

Conspiracy theorists running around proclaming some secret world-dominating cartel should look closer to home. In a Constitutional Republic, the highest power actually resides with the Supreme Court. Do you know how our US Supreme Court judges work? Twice a week during session, the Justices meet in a sound-proof conference room to discuss and vote on cases. The contents of these meetings are completely confidental. The only people permitted in the room are the 9 Justices. These 9 people are the highest authority of the land and YOU, are NOT allowed to review their discussion records or process. You can only receive their final verdict.

And the people who are complaining about Alan Greenspan's comment on being above the law? Did they like not look at their own judicary system where legal immunity is doled out like candy? Anyone missed the fact that judges on the job have ABSOLUTE LEGAL IMMUNITY from lawsuits? So when you represent the law, you're above the law.

[Winston]

So are you saying that McCain was seriously trying to win or not? Or do you not know?

What's wrong with picking a female running mate? Since 51 percent of the US population is female, wouldn't that get their votes?

It's true that the Supreme Court isn't fair or accountable to anyone.

But many government officials have already confessed to the New World Order plans. You know about the North American Union right? And what it would do to US sovereignty. And the Amero too? This has been reported on CNN several times.

The NWO is no longer a theory but a discussed reality by the elite.

Do you think a one world government is a good thing?

See these clips about the NWO already being discussed in the mainstream media:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRLPG_HplrA

[Winston]

Momopi,
Since you didn't respond about 9/11 and the films I recommended, let me get your take on these points then, which were made in the film "Zero: An Investigation into 9/11" and other films.

1. Regarding the Pentagon crash, many Airline and Airforce pilots have said that not was the reported maneuver on a 757 near impossible, but that one cannot train on a small Cessna plane and then suddenly fly a 757 like an ace as the government claims. Captain Russ Wittenburg, a 30 year veteran of United Airlines (or American Airlines), said that it would be like "learning how to carve a turkey and then using that skill to do a heart transplant... there's not one chance in a thousand".

How do you respond to that? Do you know any real Airline pilots that you could talk to about this? Can you ask them if it's possible to train on a cessna plane and then fly a 757? What's your take?

2. Also, aviation experts have said that the maneuver of AA77, doing a 270 degree turn and then descending 7000 feet in two minutes, is near impossible on a 757. Only an air force jet fighter could do that. In fact, one of them in the film said that even the BEST pilots have only a 1 in 10 or 20 chance of making such a maneuver on a 757.

Now, if the best pilots have a 1 in 20 chance of making that maneuver, what are the odds that a guy who couldn't even fly a small plane (according to people who trained with him in the flight school) could pull off that maneuver? What would your estimate be? Close to zero?

What's your take on that? Momopi, you are a smart educated guy. So what's your take on that?

3. How do you explain how the WTC could fall at nearly free fall speed? What could remove the resistance of millions of tons of steel and concrete, just like that?

If you believe in the pancake collapse theory, which FEMA already abandoned, where is the "stack" of floors at the bottom and where are the inner core columns?

Plus a pancake collapse cannot occur at near free fall speed.

4. Do you see nothing suspicious that never before 9/11 had large airliners crashed with no debris, and then suddenly on 9/11, it happened twice? Or that never before had steel highrises collapsed from fire before 9/11, and then suddenly on 9/11 it happened three times?

What's your take on Building 7, which collapsed in 5.5 seconds into its own footprint, even though it was never hit by a plane?

None of this raises an eyebrow?

Or are you in emotional fear of taking the position that 9/11 may have been an inside job, based on all the HUNDREDS of evidence pointing to that hypothesis?

Do you claim to be 100 percent objective and unbiased?

Can you please answer all these specific questions, since I took the time to type them out, instead of avoiding them or changing the subject? Aren't you a logical truth seeker too?

[momopi]

Can you please answer all these specific questions, since I took the time to type them out, instead of avoiding them or changing the subject? Aren't you a logical truth seeker too?

None of your sources, facts, and questions can change the fait accompli. I have no interest in debating any 9/11 conspiracy theorists and give them unwarrented credibility. 9/11 had largely ceased to be relevant to me by 2004 (alea iacta est). The 75% who believe whatever the government feeds them may be sheeple, but so are the other 25% sheeple who'd believe in any nut job conspiracy based on unexplained anomalies.

If you want to blame the government for 9/11, it's as simple as pointing out that US foreign policy pissed off a group of 1+ billion people known to blow themselves up when angered. There's no need to make some elaborate plot with high chance of failure in front of tens of thousands of witnesses. And if I had such capability to master a plot on that scale, I sure wouldn't have my suicide attackers show up alive and well 2 weeks later, my attack drone with 3 missiles would actually look more like an airliner, I'd leave more airliner luggage with underwear around the Pentagon, and the planted explosives would include New Year's fireworks, complete with multi-colored laser show, then aim my falling columns to hit another building 400 yards away for a 3-pointer.

Today I can care less if Obama is an alien lizard from Mars. The ONLY thing that matters to me about this whole event is Obama's exit strategy (or lack of) in the Middle East. Our military is trained to blow things up and shoot people, not prolonged occupation and "nation building". Wrong mission and wrong tools for the job. Geez, we can't even pacify Somalia, and people think we're some Pax Americana?

But many government officials have already confessed to the New World Order plans. You know about the North American Union right? And what it would do to US sovereignty. And the Amero too? This has been reported on CNN several times.
The NWO is no longer a theory but a discussed reality by the elite.
Do you think a one world government is a good thing?

Foreign policy based on UN decisions.. trade policy based on the WTO... international financing and greenhouse gas emission trading provided by the World Bank... European Union and NAFTA... what else is new? Some people will benefit from globalization, others will be f*cked up the arse from it. Choose which side you want to be on.

[Winston]

Momopi,
You've dodged all my questions again. Why can't you just answer them point by point? I have no trouble answering specific questions or responding to specific points, so why do you? Come on, you are supposed to be smart.

It looks like what my friend said is true. Many smart open minded people refuse to examine the evidence and facts about 9/11 because something is hardwired in their brain to prevent them from evaluating it objectively.

Yeah your speculations are sensible. But there are HUNDREDS of GOOD VALID arguments against the official story of 9/11. Aren't you even curious about them? My God. I thought you were an intellectual? Why are you closed minded?

I told you, if you watch the films I told you about, you will be convinced. But you haven't.

It's obvious you have no interest in this subject.

But I thought you were smart? Why can't you look at lots of crucial data that MIGHT change your mind?

Do you fear the truth?

I know you have common sense. And common sense says that if A LOT of credible experts and people disbelieve or challenge the official 9/11 story, then there PROBABLY are some very GOOD REASONS for doing so.

You know that right?

Glance at this for lists of highly credible experts and people that challenge the official 9/11 story. Just take a few minutes to look this over, ok?

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com

Can you stop being closed minded and just examine the evidence? I'm not asking you to debate. I'm asking you to analyze specific evidence, arguments and points and give your opinion on them. Why is that so hard? Aren't you an intellectual?

Logic tells me that since you are not answering any questions here, then you must have something to hide, even subconsciously.

Otherwise, you should just say "I don't know" and remain undecided. It's not logical for you to take a position on this, when you haven't really done the research.

Why can't more people be open minded and objective like me? My God.

So what do you do about the HUNDREDS of VALID arguments, facts and data against the official 9/11 story? Does your mind just erase them from your head and ignore them? Isn't that illogical and not the mark of a good learner or investigator?

Why are you so subjective and closed about this? You're making quick subjective speculative conclusions about 9/11 and NOT examining any of the data. Highly illogical, don't you think?

[momopi]

When Caesar has crossed the Rubicon, I don't debate his intentions. Long after Caesar and came and went, sheeple are still going to conspiracy advocates, repating the same conspriacy mantra as if it's gospel.

Every major 9/11 conspiracy theory has already been debated up and down the digestive tract thoroughly to the point of "yes but what if". If you wish to entertain yourself, feel free to google for 9/11 discoussions ("conspiracy" and "debunking") and cut and paste. You might have a good time debating with yourself. If I had to engage in this discussion, I'd have just cut and pasted other people's postings anyway, because I don't really care.

It's obvious you have no interest in this subject.

I'd have more interest if someone were to pay me $100/hr to beat over a dead horse (9/11, death penalty, abortion, gay marriage...). How about a discussion on the cost of paying off all the people involved in giant conspiracies to maintain their silence? Would it be cheaper to build a giant pyramid and bury them under it?


======


Here's a bit of truth for you: do you know what the difference between American and Taiwan's government is?

In Taiwan the two opposing political parties stand at opposite ends of ethnic nationalism and genuinely hate each other. After elections they do not shake hands, and when Chen Shui-Bian goes to jail for money laundering, Ma Ying-Jeou wouldn't give him a pardon. Ma should probably expect the same treatment from any future DPP Presidental elects.

In America, the two opposing political parties consider themselves to be members of the same HOUSE. Even after the election, the two sides will shake hand and continue to run the government instead of getting into fist fights. They give to each other, and maintain absolute Presidental immunity, and the power of full and unconditional pardons:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... idents.jpg

Even if you're caught doing something wrong, if you're summoned to give Congressional testimony, you'd probably get legal immunity anyway (see: Oliver North).

[Winston]

This has nothing to do with any gospel.

This is about a whole barrage of VALID GOOD arguments from many CREDIBLE EXPERTS.

Where is your common sense Momopi?

Are you blinded by some emotional block?

You do know that your behavior on this matter is most illogical and irrational, don't you? Even Mr. Spock would raise an eyebrow. Seriously.

Yeah there are many arguments on both sides. I've studied them. I've spent months studying them. You haven't. I definitely am MORE INFORMED about this topic than you.

So why can't you humble yourself and LEARN something?

You still are not explaining your logic clearly. But it appears you have on logic on this issue, correct?

The bottom line is that you are NOT addressing the arguments nor are you informed of them.

Therefore, you should not take any position on this, since you have done no research.

You are dodging every question and saying irrelevant things that have nothing to do with the topic.

You have an encyclopedia of knowledge inside your head, so you must like learning new info right? I guess reasoning and out of the box thinking aren't your forte.

Why can't you answer these points straight up instead of saying irrelevant things? It can only be that you have an "emotional block" on such issues. That must be one of your weaknesses.

[momopi]

I don't care. Been there and done in 2001-2002. Irrevelent by 2004.