Comments Posted By Jon
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 12 Comments


The thing I find interesting is that the US Department of Agriculture spends 67% of their budget on nutrition assistance (WIC and school lunches). Only 17% of their budget is slated to be spent on Farm Programs...

Comment Posted By Jon On 11.07.2009 @ 14:39


I'm confused guys. Do you all believe war is necessary to protect the USA from other countries? Or is war a form of national expression?

I ask because any reference to history, be it this or the last century or the one before that and so on, is and was always about the prevailing super power invading otherwise unstable local disputes or even peaceful places for control of profit or gain for the invading super power.

Any glance at military history reveals who was the super power of that period.I mean hey you guys now have bases in Cuba as did the Spanish before you(but the Cubans don't want either of you there) and Japan as did the British and Chinese before them (strange and ungrateful lot they have become towards the US) and the Philippines as did the Spanish before you and Iraq (the British had their turn(enough said as to what the 'locals' believe is in their interests).

The US even has a whole lot of spy bases in friendly countries like Australia, Turkey and Italy.

Places where if you ask the ordinary citizen of these countries if they feel safer or even want the USA military to be there, most would say resolutely: No!

The history of the USA in this and certainly the last century is that of the aggressor and the invader.

So I guess I'm with Melanie on how war is a perpetual expression of (useless) human activity (if you remove the nationalistic bias) that impacts upon families through time.

War is perpetuated by the nation who has the most military might at any given time in history. A national process that predestines the poor (either in education or money) to die for the super rich and the power welding elites of any nation.

It is an imperfect world made less imperfect by calls to false notions of righteousness and honor. As the dead, wounded and maned in body and mind attest, war by any nation is a messy, painful and very unintelligent form of foreign policy. So be sentimental towards the dead soldiers conned by the inequalities of their respective nations. But please keep the factual context in its proper place.

Oh and for the record, I am not anti-war per se. But I am most definitely pro-life and mindful of super power ruthlessness in the pursuit of some higher order of 'at all costs' imperative!

Comment Posted By Jon On 16.12.2007 @ 23:40


When it comes to domestic support for the war, or the lack thereof, I don't think what matters most is the suicide bombings and how many Iraqis are dying. It's how many Americans are dying. Suppose that right now, everything about Iraq were the same, except that the number of US casualties every month was 20 instead of 90. Support for the war would be a lot higher. If the surge is ever accompanied by a steep, sustained decline in the US casualty rate, I think you will see a significant change in US public opinion. In the short term, US troops are still getting killed at the pre-surge rate or higher, because the new strategy involves taking troops off the large, heavily protected bases, and placing them in more vulnerable positions out in the neighborhoods. But that could change, if the greater vulnerability of US forces is eventually more than offset by the greater attrition of enemy forces.

Comment Posted By Jon On 29.04.2007 @ 19:46


Oh sorry, her name is Prof. Judy Woods. Why are my sources flaky and yours aren't? And why can't you have good debate on this instead of being such a smart ass?

Comment Posted By Jon On 15.07.2006 @ 23:42


Another question. Is the only "CREDENTIALED AND VERIFIABLE proof in sufficient context to make a coherent arguement" that you will accept have to come from a government source or will you accept qualified opinions from other sources? Or, like so many others, have you already made up your mind to beleive what the government says and ignore any other evidence regardless of it's validity, content or source?

Comment Posted By Jon On 15.07.2006 @ 14:03


What is so anonymous about the websites? Is not the government version of what happened on 9/11 a conspiracy theory? Sure it is. It is one of many conspiracy theories out there. I don't understand why they don't investigate the possibility that terrorists got into all 3 buildings and planted charges. If they would consider that theory and investigate the evidence available, maybe they could prove that theory false. But, not investigating that theory just puts fuel on the fire of the alternative conspiracy movement.

I look at it this way. 19 terrorists take over 4 planes and do their damage. they had to jump through a lot of hoops to pull it off. Why couldn't there have been another 19 or so terrorists who jumped through similar hoops and wired the buildings. Is that so unbeleivable? The first part is strange enough, so it not much of a stretch to add the second part.

The government theory fails to recognize the speed at which the buildings came down and they claim they're not sure how WTC 7 collapsed, therefore they fail to investigate the possibility that planted charges may be responsible for the speed of collapse. All I want is a more thorough look and explaination of the evidence that reputable scientists are bringing to the table.

Thanks for the dialog.

Comment Posted By Jon On 15.07.2006 @ 13:47

Interesting thing to discover that the testimony you just watched, via my last link, never made it into the 9/11 Commission Report.

Comment Posted By Jon On 15.07.2006 @ 00:47


Here is the proof of "authenticity and context" with regard to your comment to John, "As for your comment #24, please post the source so it can be reviewed for authenticity and context. There is no use in addressing a random quote. Is it easier for a conspiracy theorist to hang on a random quote than a pleathora of facts?"

Comment Posted By Jon On 15.07.2006 @ 00:39

Scientific Fact: A solid object, billiard ball, let's say, dropped from the top of the WTC would take 9.2 seconds to hit the ground with only air for resistance.

Scientific Fact: The towers took between 10 and 12 seconds to completely fall to the ground.

Scientific Fact: If it took each floor of the WTC one second to fall upon the floor below it, then it would have taken 110 seconds for the towers to completely collapse.
Speed that up a bit and say it only took half a second per floor. 55 seconds to total collapse. Faster still, quarter second per floor, 27.5 seconds.

My point? The governments theory of the collapse is one of pancaking floors, one on top of another, all the way down to the ground. With their theory it would be physically impossible for the towers to have fallen at the speed they did. There was an immense amount of resistance from the undamaged lower 2/3 of both buildings.

Finally, considering the miles of video footage documenting the fall of these buildings, why has the government refused to consider investigating the possibility that terrorists could have infiltrated those buildings and planted demolition charges? After all, they tried in 1993 to blow it up with bombs, why not look into it this time. No good investigation team looks at just one theory, they look at every theory, no matter how remote. Remember, before 9/11, no steel high rise ever fell due to damage/fire. Since 9/11, no steel high rises have fallen due to damage/fire. 3 in one day?????

A quote from my source: "In conclusion, the explanations of the collapse that have been given by the 9/11 Commission Report and NIST are not physically possible. A new investigation is needed to determine the true cause of what happened to these buildings on September 11, 2001. The "collapse" of all three WTC buildings may be considered the greatest engineering disaster in the history of the world and deserves a thorough investigation."

Source Link;

Comment Posted By Jon On 15.07.2006 @ 00:26


I really appreciated your piece "Mine eyes have seen the glory", but in the first paragraph after Dr. King's quote you use the term reverse discrimination. What do you mean, discrimination is discrimination and when the term reverse discrimination is used, it is implied that the only race that is capable of discrimination is the whites. I agree that minorities in the USA have been and still are discriminated against. But, so have women of all races, and so have homosexuals, and so have numerous others and to use the term reverse discrimination and imply that the only discrimination that occurs is whites on blacks is irresponsible and uncalled for and only helps keep the racial divide that exists in this country that we should all love and be thankful for alive.

Comment Posted By Jon On 16.01.2006 @ 23:29

Powered by WordPress


Next page »

Pages (2) : [1] 2

«« Back To Stats Page