Originally posted by CaptainObvious
there are MANY people in here that blame Bush, and many that do not. Who cares?
"Who cares" is fine, I see Griff's reference to the president now, but I don't want to try to have a discussion later just to be shrugged off as
the typical commie-liberal-jew-hater, or have any cheap cop-out like that.
I think "who cares" is exactly
the right attitude towards anything political. I consider myself a-political and there's not one
congressman, judge, president, governor, etc. that shares my views on every issue. The Party isn't your mom and dad. You can break from it if you
ever want to claim your mind for your own use and not the group effort, especially when somebody else started the group and it only benefits them,
Political parties use a lot of emotional appeal, so does the media. It's all sensational, as if you can just go with it and it will override the
facts of the issues for the moment, or a legitimate reality-check on the world's situation today. Like a big group trip or something, from current
event to current event. Should we still be in Iraq killing its angry citizens? No. Why are we still there? Probably more than anything, because
everyone is too distracted and divided amongst themselves to do anything about it. That
is the effect of political parties and the media.
The fact that you could split the entire country almost into two political parties today is disappointing. No one does their own thinking anymore
when it can be done for them by people they learn to trust. George Washington himself warned against political parties.
Besides you and a couple other close minded folks in here, I have constructive conversations and debates with most others. Putting words into
my mouth is also counterproductive.
Well, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. You pretty much follow the party line for the stereotypical JREF'er, so that's where I was
coming from. If you're really on the other side of the spectrum, that's fine. Sorry for confusing your brand of groupthink. I use my own head,
so it doesn't make much difference to me really, republican or democrat.
I actually talk to people!! I have had several conversations with ASCE members, FDNY members, FEMA members, Victims families, Elevator
inspectors/mechanics. ETC. As I find it necessary, I post the information I gather.
Talking to all of those people, you must just gather their opinions
as far as what I'm
concerned with. Focus on a narrow problem:
the mechanics of everything that happened to the structure as it collapsed. It can't work out on its own. No one has even ever done
dynamic model of the collapse that worked out to any accuracy.
Now when you talk to the elevator man about somebody suggesting such-and-such, and elevator man finds a problem, that's fine, but, for example, it
still wouldn't explain how an overpressure could travel down ~100 floors of shafts and neither dissipate nor blow out the shaft walls, or more
importantly, it wouldn't have anything at all
to do with that fundamental problem of the mechanics of the structure as it collapsed. That's
why, when you talk to people, you just gather opinions
and, if any facts, irrelevant ones, because all the important ones aren't going to
be answered very easily.
So, before this, you said:
I base my opintions on facts.
But what you said afterward didn't support that. Talking to people is collecting opinions
, or else the issues you're talking about aren't
critical. When you discuss physics and engineering principles and actual numbers regarding the internal physics of the collapses, and the physical
evidence that goes with it, then
you're talking facts
[edit on 28-9-2007 by bsbray11]