Who's Next to Host ABC's The View -- David Duke?

[larry]

Do the conspiracy nuts include any qualified investigators

I think it does. Everyone who has tried to raise public awareness has been attack. Rossie is just an example of what others have been subject to from the start.

[MissusDe]

I don't think Rossie did anything wrong. All she really ask for is a real investigation.

Larry - a real investigation would, by necessity, be an impartial investigation.  Do Rosie's words indicate that she possesses an open mind?  Or has she already decided the outcome and is seeking validation?

[Plane]

Do the conspiracy nuts include any qualified investigators

I think it does. Everyone who has tried to raise public awareness has been attack. Rossie is just an example of what others have been subject to from the start.

Would a qualified inestigator discount the testimony of thousands of eyewitnesses ?

[Michael Tee]

<<"Because I think Rosie O'Donnell is a no-talent tool.  If her blog wasn't evidence enough, her willingness to join the Conspiracy Lemmings ought to prove it.">>

So you proved your point by quoting from a conspiracy lemming of a different stripe?

[Amianthus]

So you proved your point by quoting from a conspiracy lemming of a different stripe?

Well, it helps that Rosie's quoted "facts" are not true.

[Michael Tee]

<<Well, it helps that Rosie's quoted "facts" are not true.>>

I wasn't defending Rosie, I was attacking the anti-Rosie source quoted.  The guy's a fucking nut-case.

[larry]

I don't think Rossie did anything wrong. All she really ask for is a real investigation.

Larry - a real investigation would, by necessity, be an impartial investigation.  Do Rosie's words indicate that she possesses an open mind?  Or has she already decided the outcome and is seeking validation?

Missusde, I agree Rossie has made up here mind on the issue. I believe what she did was to use her celebrity status to support people she believes have provided evidence. The film footage shown on the view that day does raise some serious questions. I did not see any fire from the building and I did not see any damage to the building that would suggest the building was struck by falling Debris from the twin towers. I think there is credible evidence that warrant an investigation by someone other than government agents.

No one should be above suspicion just because of who they are. All credible evidence should be investigated.

[Amianthus]

I did not see any fire from the building and I did not see any damage to the building that would suggest the building was struck by falling Debris from the twin towers. I think there is credible evidence that warrant an investigation by someone other than government agents.

The fire was inside in the basement. There were a number of large fuel tanks inside that building to power the emergency backup generators. In addition, there are a number of photos taken after the first two towers fell and before building 7 fell that show a large section of one corner of building 7 scooped out by falling debris.

Both of those facts were brought up here in this forum several times.

[Lanya]

Why some people I know first thought that building's falling was fishy:
1.They could see no damage (but they weren't at the scene)

2. The Saudi citizens, some of them bin Laden family members, were gotten out of the country  quickly after the Towers were hit.  (I don't remember the date but I think it was about 3 or 4 days later.) 
This, I think, led people to be extremely suspicious of the government.  So they worked backward and came up with a conspiracy theory.  It's just as bad, logically speaking I mean,  as when Cheney cherry-picked intel to work backward to come up with a conclusion he's already formed. 

[Amianthus]

So they worked backward and came up with a conspiracy theory.  It's just as bad, logically speaking I mean,  as when Cheney cherry-picked intel to work backward to come up with a conclusion he's already formed. 

Or like when some people look at a small group that is against mandatory vaccinations and concludes "all Republicans want women to die of cancer," mostly because that person had already concluded that all Republicans are bad.

[Lanya]

Ami, I know that not all Republicans actually want women to die of cancer.  My point in making that statement was that this powerful group, the FRC (which Ohio's crooked former Sec. of State just joined) is very influential and yes, can cause future cancer deaths.  Simply because they don't want girls to become sexually active, as if having a vaccine against genital warts is going to make teens any more sexually active.

[Amianthus]

My point in making that statement was that this powerful group, the FRC (which Ohio's crooked former Sec. of State just joined) is very influential and yes, can cause future cancer deaths.

I know of no one who votes based on the FRC's recommendations.

So, they can't be all that powerful a group.

I guess I'll renew my criticism that "Democrats want US soldiers to die" because Kerry relied on political contributions that were gathered by fund raisers that also supported the terrorist organizations fighting against the US in Iraq.

It's just as valid a criticism.

So, how do you feel about supporting a group that wants US soldiers to die?

[Michael Tee]

<<I know of no one who votes based on the FRC's recommendations.>>

What is the FRC and what does it matter that no one you know votes on their recommendations?  I bet you don't know anyone who voted on Don Imus' recommendations either, but that doesnt' detract from the power that he had to influence people.

I would suspect from the nature of the dialogue that FRC is some kind of organization that gives aid and cover to legislators who vote for what would otherwise be unsuppportable legislation or fail to vote for what would otherwise be obviously essential legislation.  Permits them to make legislative decisions directly in opposition to the public good and yet shields them from the voters' wrath for so doing.  Some kind of fact-falsifying or fact-obscuring organization useful to Republicans zealously working for corporate interests and pretending to be serving "the people."

In which case they (FRC) would have a lot of power whether or not anyone you know votes on their recommendations.

OTOH I could be talking right out of my ass, and FRC could be something entirely different.  But this looks like it is shaping up to be a very busy day and I might nothave the time to ask what FRC is, wait for the answer and then respond, so I'm just gonna go out on a limb here and take my best shot at it.  Apologies in advance if I mis-gauged the issue.

[_JS]

Missus,

I agree that Rosie is a talentless hack. She is a member of the "New Left" and I don't much care for that on principle. Yet, comparing her to David Duke and Holocaust deniers? I don't think that's very fair or for that matter, reasonable.

[Amianthus]

What is the FRC and what does it matter that no one you know votes on their recommendations?

The FRC is the "Family Research Council" and they're a rather small group of religious wackos. Last time I checked, this lobbying group controlled about 10 million dollars in funds, which is a drop in the bucket in current political races. Yeah, they might be able to influence a few races nationwide, but nothing major, like the big groups can.

It matters because Lanya claimed it to be a "powerful group," which "is very influential and yes, can cause future cancer deaths."