OT: US Pres election

[Skirmisher]

[quote=Gandalf Parker;641562]

Originally Posted by Agema

We as americans in general did not get nearly as ticked off at Bush about it as I wish we had.

Very good point here. Richard M Nixon was impeached for far less. George W Bush may be the worst US president ever.
He took a robust ecomony left by Bill Clinton and utterly ruined it. Now he's trying to ruin it more by passing that 700 billion dollar bail out. Why should ordinary people have to foot the bill for stupid decisions made by financial firms?
I'm glad they didn't pass it.

[capnq]

Originally Posted by HoneyBadger

Even the Vietnam War didn't usher Nixon out of office.

But it did force Johnson not to run for re-election.

[Azselendor]

One of this things this country needs is a law, preferably an amendment that states no elected office can be held for more than a certain amount of terms and none of them can be consecutive terms. America suffers amid stagnation of the political body

[HoneyBadger]

I completely and totally agree, Ich. Declairing war on Iraq as an act of aggression was one of the worst, most shameful things we've ever done as a country. Whatever the provocation may have been, it's something we've never done, and we could be proud of that.

[Edratman]

I am voting for Obama both with my checkbook and ballot.

Does he impress me as the absolute ideal candidate? No. But he is very intelligent and we have spent eight years with a president who is not intelligent. As for McCain, he strikes me as a man of mediocre intelligence who has skated through life using charisma, a broad smile, money and bluster.

Palin is not even worthy of standing in Hillary's shadow.

But my big question is, FDR where are you now that we need you again?

[Skirmisher]

George W Bush has been using fear on the american people ever since 9/11.

If you carefully look at all the evidence suurounding 9/11 ,it makes you wonder if it was really a terrorist attack. Those buildings seemed to come down in a controlled fashion. Like they were demolished along the main support beams.

Now he's using fear of economic collapse to attempt to pick our pockets.

[Azselendor]

Oh no, not this.

In a city full of sky scrapers, you don't want buildings tip over like dominoes. Builders have known this for over a century. All modern skyscrapers (I'd say mid-60's and on) are designed collapse in upon themselves in case of catastrophic structural collapse and fall in on their own supports instead of outwards. Ask any engineer who's designed a skyscraper.

[Skirmisher]

The jet fuel that was supposed to have caused the failure all went up in a big fireball upon impact. So how could it have caused that to happen?

[Azselendor]

First off you have heat from the fires which weakened the steel enough to allow the weight above the area of damage to push down enough to bend the remaining supports. Once the damaged steel gave an inch, gravity took the rest.

The next thing is that the plane didn't need to take out the supports, merely damage them enough to let gravity do the rest.

And this was damage caused by the sudden and quick halt of a jet liner slamming into a fix, immobile building.



We are a spoiled people, seeing so many big budget special effect films thrust upon us, we forget that the energy needed to destroy something is often far less then hollywood makes us think.

[Tifone]

Actually, I think if the big CIA wanted us to think that 9/11 was a terrorist attack to cover their "terror for 8 years plan", they would have made it much more hardly spottable that a simple "jet fuel wasn't hot enough to make the skyscrapers collapse". Just my opinion of course. Or maybe they did so, so now I think they wouldn't have... oh, never mind.