Slashdot Mirror

No. The one and only argument is (or ought to be), that the people don't want pot-growing to be illegal. This is not, however, the case.

Even if we buy that argument (which I don't: constitutional issues trump majority rule in the US), you still lose your argument:
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/may062009/mj_zogby_5-6-09.php
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/34651/most_americans_support_legalizing_marijuana

I braced myself. "How do you feel about the U.S. bombing this mosque?" I [asked the mosque's caretaker]. "I don't know," he said, as if he had never even pondered the question. "It's okay, I suppose. I am grateful. If they had not done it this place would still be a toilet."

As you see, the guy's attitude is almost one of indifference. As if bad things are going to happen no matter what, and he'll just keep doing his thing, whether it is because of Baathists or Al Qaeda or Americans, makes little difference to him.

Sure it makes sense. Most people have an over-inflated idea of how intelligent they are - the majority claim they're more intelligent than the average person - which simply can't be true.

Then again, the majority of Americans believe that God created human beings: 45% believe god did it within the last 10,000 years, and a further 38% believe that god guided it over the last million years (intelligent design). Only 13% believed in Darwin's theory of evolution.

Contrast that with what people believe just north of the border - only 22% agree that god created humans within the last 10,000 years. 59% believe in evolution.

In this set of findings Iceland, Denmark, Sweden and France, 80 percent or more of adults accepted evolution; in Japan, 78 percent of adults did. Turkey, on the other hand, had results akin to the US. Kind of telling, I would say ...

Actually, 43% of Americans believe there was a cover-up involving 9/11*. And even your link about Apollo states that only 6% believe that the moon landing was faked. The overlap could be 3-4%, not enough to be a significant part of the 9/11 Truth movement. Your strategy of linking people who believe that we don't know the whole truth about 9/11 to a insignificant minority of people who believe something entirely different is a nice distraction though. Also, calling them "a couple kids" then linking to lolloosechange and a YouTube rant for your rebuttal is pretty pathetic.

* Also see this poll which shows that only 16% believe Bush is telling the truth about 9/11.

You could also check out this presentation by Dr. Steven Jones, Physicist at UT Austin, where he first revealed evidence of the presence of thermite on debris samples recovered from an apartment building near Ground Zero. The peer-reviewed paper is forthcoming, and will prove once and for all that all 3 buildings that collapsed in NYC on 9/11 were demolished by explosives.

Finally, you can look to Pilots for 9/11 Truth for evidence that the flight data recorder data that they received from a FOIA request matches neither the animations they received, nor the downed light poles, nor the eyewitness testimony from Pentagon security officers of the flight path. One or more of those pieces of evidence were fabricated by somebody working for our government. Why would they do that if they were not covering something up? The flight recorder data ends at 180 feet altitude. The Pentagon is only 40 feet tall, and is 40 feet above sea level. How does a plane crash at about 100 feet above its target? The direction and pitch also do not match the other evidence. Watch it for yourself. Pilots for 9/11 Truth is just getting started. More videos and documents will be available soon.

The small groups of "Screw Loose Change" and other debunkers will be very busy over the next few months trying to debunk all these groups of professionals* with hard evidence. Good luck to them at getting more than their current fraction of web traffic that the 9/11 Truth sites get. They are helpful to people like you when you want to brush off the actual evidence though, no? So I guess they serve their purpose of distraction.

* Also see Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth for analysis of the actual blueprints which were recently leaked, and the variation between the blueprints and the data produced in the NIST and FEMA reports. And Journal of 9/11 Studies for peer-reviewed scientific papers and journals.

While what Adams says may be true for who you live with, his assumption doesn't hold when electing a President:

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseacti on/viewItem/itemID/11666 If a presidential candidate belongs to a political party you like and has many views which you like, would you be willing to vote for such a person if the person is...

An Evangelical - 64%

A Muslim - 63%

An atheist and does not believe in God* - 52%

*(not sure what an atheist who does believe in god would be)

Polling data: Utah U.S. Senate: Hatch 62%, Ashdown 25%

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseacti on/viewItem/itemID/13412

While I agree with Ashdown's position a lot more than Orrin's, the incumbent is looking pretty strong.

That is not the mainstream opinion of Bill Gates. Far from it. Most people view Gates as a glorious role model. According to a 2005 Gallup poll, Gates ties for second in the "Most Admired List In U.S." An Esquire poll of men that was published a few days ago rates Gates tying for second in "Most Popular Celebrity Dinner Companions." Gates ranks #1 in World's Most Admired CEOs of 2005.

a couple of things...

#1: YES! 3/4's of the people are of average intelligence or higher. Now obviously this isn't EXACTLY true it would probably be more like 3/5's. Or if you want a VEEEEERY simplified breakdown you would just say HALF. But the basic breakdown remains the same (25% are severely below average, 25% are enormously above average and 50% are close enough to average that you may as well call them average). Obviously none of this pans out exactly if you were to take the I.Q.'s of everyone in the world and plot them on a graph. In that case you would find that they were spread pretty evenly but there would be more of them that congregated near the "average" point than anywhere else after all that's what makes it average. So if you want to be a math-snob about it then the statement is grossly incorrect but it works pretty well for simplification purposes.

#2: now here's the part that i agree with you on. I am unable to find any poll numbers that suggest that any large amount of the population is calling for the impeachment of the president (although i wouldn't be surprised to find out that they are). In fact the only poll that i've been able to find regarding this subject is one that was released by Fox news (which gives it a little less credibility due to the network that it came from) which states that 62 percent of people polled did NOT feel that Bush should be impeached : http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseacti on/viewItem/itemID/11956. so...there's a bit of constructive criticism mixed with a bit of a pat on the back for not automatically assuming that what some /.'er said was correct.