I find the telepanhandlers way more annoying than the people who actually want to sell me something-- I don't see why the "speech" of charities is somehow more worthwhile than the speech of corporations.
From what I've heard (that is to say, take this with a modest grain of salt) most of the money goes to the telemarketer when they are representing charities. If this is true then I have to ask, is this really charity? Or are you just paying someone to call up and annoy you?
Maybe if legeslation is passed authorizing the FTC to go through with this later they can add a provision that the majority of the money collected has to go to the actual charity in order for it to be considered a not-for-profit call.
One of the companies that brought the very compaint we are discussing has a big section on doing telemarketing for charities.
And not just telemarketers, but with a lot of charities the majority of the money goes to pay canvesers, to say nothing of CEOs of charities who get payed Millions of dollars. There are some good charities but you've got to be skeptical about how they are spending the money you give them.
Just had a nasty thought. I'm out of work. Why not get a job with them, find out the CEO's home number, and spend my work hours leaving messages on people's answering machines and saying "Fuck You! if you have any complaints, please contact our CEO at...."
No, can't do that. It would be WRONG.
btw, check out the scarry telephone about to attack some innocent children.
Also note that at least the first company does telemarketing for Charities. I remember hearing somewhere that when you give money to a telemarketer representing a charity that the telemarketing company gets most of the money. Think about this every time you get a call from a "charity."
Actually I believe war-dialers like that ARE in fact illegal regardles of DNC lists.
Regardless, war dialers are used, and with increasing frequency. Where I used to work they had blocks of phone numbers and I would hear the phones ring at the other desks, and then hear my phone ring and hear a pre-recorded message about how I've just won a discount vacation to Disney[tm]land or whatever.
I've noticed a sharp increase in pre-recorded messages to my home as well. From what I understand these are a big no no and at one time the gub'ment cracked down hard on them. I guess it has been too long since and now the scum sucking telemarketers are using them again. (I think there was even a Simpsons episode about it.)
One time I was pissed off and decided to call the phone company to ask if there is anything I could do about it. The person would only suggest that I contact the Attorney General's office.
I have caller ID and most of the time lately I just don't answer the phone if it says "Out of Area" or "Unavailable" or whatever. I'm starting to think it is time to start f*#@ing with them.
If we can't have our national do not call list and they insist on bugging us, then lets waste their time as well. See how long you can keep the person on the phone without buying or agreeing to anything. I've also thought of just doing nothing but Meowing at them. But if you can keep them on the phone for a while without buying anything then it really hits the profits of the telemarketing company. Maybe I'll keep them on the phone for a while and then start Meowing at them.
All I can see about the Dems is that they tell people whatever they want to hear just to get the vote...then go spend spend spend on their little pet projects to "make the world a better place."
You mean this isn't what politicians in general do?
Take two seconds on his home page to see that (Greg Palast) is not an unbiased source of information
It's been said before, everyone is biased. When it comes down it it, what really matters is are the allegations factual.
Maybe there were voters that were purged incorrectly- we will never know. But if it had been such a widespread problem, don't you think the USCCR could have found at least one person to testify that they were kept from voting because of the list?
It's funny, but in a beaurocracy as big as it took to compile the Felon's list you would think that there would have been at least one honest mistake even in the best of circumstances. For example, I get calls from dept collecters about twice a year for dept that is owed by someone with a similar name as me.
I base my arguments on the findings from the United States Commission on Civil Rights
In 2000, Florida contracted with DBT Online (Choicepoint) to purge the central voter list. The Commission found that the use of a private entity without clear and effective guidance from the highest state levels, coupled with the absence of uniform and reliable verification procedures, resulted in the disenfranchisement of countless eligible voters in 2000.
But it still does leave many questions. The report is very much a summary, and leaves out just about any detail.
Greg Palast claims to have 2 CDROMS with the complete felons' list. I suppose it would be a violation of privacy and stuff but it would be nice if they were published so we could look at them ourselves.
This Article on Greg Palast's website claims to detail how Choicepoint came up with the list. It would be nice to find an independent source to confirm the details that isn't just quoting from Palast or an associate.
The article said that the NAACP sued Katherine Harris' department and one, but didn't mention any details. I was able to find this page which seems to be the complaint and details specific incidents of people denied to vote. I'm not big on legalise and couldn't find a court case number. Anyone know how to look this up?
err.... I was trying to lookup something I had read before on Palast's website that I thought implied that he was published in the London Times reporting on the Felons' List. But now I can't even find that. Maybe he was refering to the Guardian instead of the Times. Anyone know what I'm talking about here?
Oh one more thing to ask: Supposedly there were lots of roadblocks out on the streets on Election Day 2000. Did anyone get pictures of these? Anyone know of any websites with pictures or specific details on this?
Documentation and sources are a good thing.
I was able to find this Salon article that says 173,000 names were removed from the voter roles, and that 8,000 of them were people who were convicted for misdemeanors, not felonies.
As to media bias, I think the mainstream media is biased, but not according to "liberal" or "conservitive" slant but towards the status quo. Rather than a bias of disinformation, it is underreporting that is the problem. In other words stories that would reflect badly on advertisers or the parent company go unreported. In this case challenging the legitamacy of the current administration would be upsetting to the status quo and bad for business in general. Too bad the economy is in the crapper.
Are Salon and The Guardian unbiased sources?:)
For the record, I didn't vote for Al Gore and was extremely frighten
How is it that in America, the land of Democracy(TM) people can be excluded from voting? If Im a convicted felon, and i do my time (or not for that matter), why is it "ok" to not let me vote?
Actually, it depends on which state you are in. In the state I live in, after a person has served their time, they regain the right to vote. I did a web search and found one source stating that this is the case in 32 states. Only 9 states have absolute lifetime bans on voting for convicted felons.
I suppose one option for convicted felons is they could move to a state that allows them to vote after they have served their time. However, you still have the problem in Florida where allegedly many were convited by The Department of Pre-Crime.
A lot of people happen to like "mindless punk rock by kids who can't play the guitar." not to mention politically oriented punk rock by kids who can't play the guitar.
These days I prefer to listen to tape loops and vacuum cleaners and other experimental music.
I'll tell you what. I won't be happy until they execute spammers by removing all of their organs one at a time live on television. On Fox! (Right after The Simpsons.) I won't be happy even when I eat chocolate or even if John Zorn were to put the entire Tzadik cataloge on emusic.com.
However, there is a difference between having the feds regulate communications, and streamlining the legal system for civil action against commercial entities who abuse the system (and commit fraud) to such an extent that it renders the communication medium useless.
Actually, the fraud alone should be enough. If spammers were just required (and nailed to the wall if they didn't) not to forge their headers so that we could effectively filter then I would be happy.
I think the point he was trying to make (maybe not, maybe I read too much into stuff) was that if you are inventive just about ANYTHING could be used as a weapon. So why can't we just be realistic about that and let us bring our rassin frazzin finger nail clippers and nail filers back on the airplanes again!!!!! No one is going to get away with hijacking a plane with a freaking nail file! Sheesh! As long as I got a couple hours to kill I want to file my nails. What's wrong with that?
(Well, the nail file thing was probably not part of his point but um.... anyway....)
(However, I'm all in favor of banning perfume. People who wear too much cologne/perfume smell worse that the bums who sleep in the gutter.)
(Yet another rambing post brought to you by posting randomly through meta-moderation.)
I remember in the mid-90s Garth Brooks became a part of the "movement" to stop used CD sales, or at least keep used CDs separate from new CDs. (The Warehouse was just starting to sell used CDs in addition to new CDs.) Anyway, he was speaking out against used CD sales, and the record companies were giving less money for advertising to record stores that also sold used CDs. A record store in Eugene, Oregon (where I lived at the time) had a Garth Brooks BBQ.
Ironically, Garth Brooks is probably one of the very few people who actually make a decent living off of the music industry.
(And I was going to get off topic at this point talking about how I hate Garth Brooks and not because I hate all country music. I do dislike most of it but some stuff is good like Johnny Cash, the Dixie Chicks and Mojo Nixon. Buuuuut that would be getting pretty off topic so I won't mention it.)
There was *no* problem with "hanging chads". The voter's selection had a stick pointed in it. The stick made an indentation, or a partial hole, or a complete hole, or no impression whatsoever. The chad may or may not have been detached. Big woof if not.
Have you ever read the original version of Murphy's Law ? I didn't know this until just recently myself. Instead of "If anything can possibly go wrong, it will." it was actually "If there are two or more ways to do something, and one of those ways can result in a catastrophe, then someone will do it."
Murphy was an Engineer, and the real moral of his law was to if at all possible to engineer whatever it is you are designing to have only one way of doing things. For instance, if there is a part that if you put it on backwards would FUBAR the machine you make that part asymetrical so that there is only one way to put it on.
Now which is easier to read, a punchcard with a chad poked out, or a scantron with a bubble filled in? With chads accidents will happen, but a filled in bubble is unambiguous. At worst someone will change their mind, erase one bubble and fill in another. But if the manual counters in a recount do not have a pencil then there can be no aligations of cheating. With a scantron it is possible to poke out a chad with your fingernail.
Is this paranoid? Maybe. But if otherwise the mechanics of both systems are equal, why not go with the one that is both computer friendly and more human friedly?
I think scantron type ballots are the way to go. I live in Oregon where the ballots vary by county but most of the counties have scantron type ballots, including the one I live in and I like them. They are easy to fill out, easy for computers to read, and easy for humans to read.
And as most/. readers should know, computers can have a myriad of problems. A physical paper trail is neccessary if we want to have true accountability. Not just for cheating but the reality that computers crash and lose data.
(Yet another post brought to you by the fine people at random posting through meta-moderation. Not just everything in Moderation, everything in Meta-Moderation.)
Orthidox and Hasidic Jews, as well as Orthidox Christians do the same thing and probably the same reason. I thought it would be something in Leviticus, did a search and found it....
"You shall not shave around the sides of your head, nor shall you disfigure the edges of your beard" (Leviticus 19:27); and, "They shall not make any bald place on their heads, nor shall they shave the edges of their beards nor make any cuttings in their flesh" (Leviticus 21:5).
I think that those that do not shave for relgious reasons (of the Abrahamic religions) do so because they follow the many rules listed in Leviticus.
This guy plead GUILTY to the charges against him - not lesser charges - not pleading out of fear. He made a full admission of guilt, and as part of such he would have had to allocute to his crimes in court. That is, tell in his own words, what he did. Noone forced his hand, noone pulled his strings and put words in his mouth.
Yes and no. He plead guilty to One of the charges against him. One of the lesser of the charges against him.
Personally, I am a bit skeptical about the whole thing, owing a lot to the violation of Habeas Corpus, and the current political situation. From what I understand there are still thousands of people being held as "material witnesses" without charges being filed. I think the main reason they bothered to file charges against Hawash is that he had a bunch of friends who made a big fuss.
So what "Conspiracy Theory" am I proposing? That he was somehow threatened and told to plead guilty. Why? Because the "gubment", err the politicians are afraid of looking foolish nowadays and they need to convict someone, and a No Contest plea wouldn't cut it for the political side of things. I think part of plea barganing is that he had to plea Guilty and not just No Contest.
OK, I have the 11pm news on and they just quoted someone (I think Ashcroft) saying they hope this guilty plea will restrain critisism of the FBI. (Or something to that effect.)
Anyway, hypothetically let's assume that he really is guilty. If he was really a Political Islamist Terrorist he would be prepaired to die or to spend the rest of his life in jail for his beliefs. Therefore if he really is a terrorist then he is unlikely to cooperate in any way, let alone testify against his "fellow conspirators."
He just doesn't seem to fit the profile. He has a family and a good job at Intel. He had a happy life and a lot to loose.
Another thing that's bugged me about the "Portland Six/Seven" conspiracy theory is this: Supposedly their plan was to fly/travel all the way to Afganistan to fight American troops. Now, considering that they were already in the USA, wouldn't it have been a lot simpler to attack Americans in America if that was really their goal? or that they would travel to one of the most remote (and particularly hard to get to at the time) regions in the entire world.
Until I see/hear real evidence I will remain skeptical of the "gubment" thank you very much.
From Portland's Newspaper The Oregonian here the full legalese:
http://www.oregonlive.com/metro/oregonian/index. ss f?/base/news/1057234000272203.xml
I checked the Portland Tribune but didn't see anything on their main site. They are a twice weekly newspaper. I wonder if they will get this in tomorrows printing.
Slashdot Mirror
I find the telepanhandlers way more annoying than the people who actually want to sell me something-- I don't see why the "speech" of charities is somehow more worthwhile than the speech of corporations.
From what I've heard (that is to say, take this with a modest grain of salt) most of the money goes to the telemarketer when they are representing charities. If this is true then I have to ask, is this really charity? Or are you just paying someone to call up and annoy you?
Maybe if legeslation is passed authorizing the FTC to go through with this later they can add a provision that the majority of the money collected has to go to the actual charity in order for it to be considered a not-for-profit call.
One of the companies that brought the very compaint we are discussing has a big section on doing telemarketing for charities.
And not just telemarketers, but with a lot of charities the majority of the money goes to pay canvesers, to say nothing of CEOs of charities who get payed Millions of dollars. There are some good charities but you've got to be skeptical about how they are spending the money you give them.
Just had a nasty thought. I'm out of work. Why not get a job with them, find out the CEO's home number, and spend my work hours leaving messages on people's answering machines and saying "Fuck You! if you have any complaints, please contact our CEO at...."
No, can't do that. It would be WRONG.
btw, check out the scarry telephone about to attack some innocent children.
Also note that at least the first company does telemarketing for Charities. I remember hearing somewhere that when you give money to a telemarketer representing a charity that the telemarketing company gets most of the money. Think about this every time you get a call from a "charity."
Congress now needs to make a law authorizing the FTC to implement a Do-Not-Call registry.
OK everyone!
Time to call your Congress-Critters!
(Is this what they mean by Karma Whoring?)
(Is asking about Karma Whoring Karma Whoring?)
(Must not start recursion here.)
Actually I believe war-dialers like that ARE in fact illegal regardles of DNC lists.
Regardless, war dialers are used, and with increasing frequency. Where I used to work they had blocks of phone numbers and I would hear the phones ring at the other desks, and then hear my phone ring and hear a pre-recorded message about how I've just won a discount vacation to Disney[tm]land or whatever.
I've noticed a sharp increase in pre-recorded messages to my home as well. From what I understand these are a big no no and at one time the gub'ment cracked down hard on them. I guess it has been too long since and now the scum sucking telemarketers are using them again. (I think there was even a Simpsons episode about it.)
One time I was pissed off and decided to call the phone company to ask if there is anything I could do about it. The person would only suggest that I contact the Attorney General's office.
I have caller ID and most of the time lately I just don't answer the phone if it says "Out of Area" or "Unavailable" or whatever. I'm starting to think it is time to start f*#@ing with them.
If we can't have our national do not call list and they insist on bugging us, then lets waste their time as well. See how long you can keep the person on the phone without buying or agreeing to anything. I've also thought of just doing nothing but Meowing at them. But if you can keep them on the phone for a while without buying anything then it really hits the profits of the telemarketing company. Maybe I'll keep them on the phone for a while and then start Meowing at them.
With the CA recall election now slated for Oct 7th, he will do whatever he can to appeal to "the people." Even if it's with empty legislation.
And I was really hoping that Gary Coleman would win the election. Oh Well.
a zealous group of vigilantes, killing spammers.
the punishment for annoyance is death? hm.
But but but but but..... Please????? Can't we just kill the spammers a little?
How about bumper stickers: Visualize Dead Spammers
All I can see about the Dems is that they tell people whatever they want to hear just to get the vote...then go spend spend spend on their little pet projects to "make the world a better place."
You mean this isn't what politicians in general do?
It's been said before, everyone is biased. When it comes down it it, what really matters is are the allegations factual.
Maybe there were voters that were purged incorrectly- we will never know. But if it had been such a widespread problem, don't you think the USCCR could have found at least one person to testify that they were kept from voting because of the list?
It's funny, but in a beaurocracy as big as it took to compile the Felon's list you would think that there would have been at least one honest mistake even in the best of circumstances. For example, I get calls from dept collecters about twice a year for dept that is owed by someone with a similar name as me.
I base my arguments on the findings from the United States Commission on Civil Rights
Is this the report you are refering to? I didn't read the whole thing but here is a quote that seems to corroborate Greg Palast's allegations:
But it still does leave many questions. The report is very much a summary, and leaves out just about any detail.
:)
Greg Palast claims to have 2 CDROMS with the complete felons' list. I suppose it would be a violation of privacy and stuff but it would be nice if they were published so we could look at them ourselves.
This Article on Greg Palast's website claims to detail how Choicepoint came up with the list. It would be nice to find an independent source to confirm the details that isn't just quoting from Palast or an associate.
The article said that the NAACP sued Katherine Harris' department and one, but didn't mention any details. I was able to find this page which seems to be the complaint and details specific incidents of people denied to vote. I'm not big on legalise and couldn't find a court case number. Anyone know how to look this up?
err.... I was trying to lookup something I had read before on Palast's website that I thought implied that he was published in the London Times reporting on the Felons' List. But now I can't even find that. Maybe he was refering to the Guardian instead of the Times. Anyone know what I'm talking about here?
Oh one more thing to ask: Supposedly there were lots of roadblocks out on the streets on Election Day 2000. Did anyone get pictures of these? Anyone know of any websites with pictures or specific details on this?
Documentation and sources are a good thing.
I was able to find this Salon article that says 173,000 names were removed from the voter roles, and that 8,000 of them were people who were convicted for misdemeanors, not felonies.
As to media bias, I think the mainstream media is biased, but not according to "liberal" or "conservitive" slant but towards the status quo. Rather than a bias of disinformation, it is underreporting that is the problem. In other words stories that would reflect badly on advertisers or the parent company go unreported. In this case challenging the legitamacy of the current administration would be upsetting to the status quo and bad for business in general. Too bad the economy is in the crapper.
Are Salon and The Guardian unbiased sources?
For the record, I didn't vote for Al Gore and was extremely frighten
How is it that in America, the land of Democracy(TM) people can be excluded from voting? If Im a convicted felon, and i do my time (or not for that matter), why is it "ok" to not let me vote?
a sp ?ref=/comment/comment-lampo050202.asp
Actually, it depends on which state you are in. In the state I live in, after a person has served their time, they regain the right to vote. I did a web search and found one source stating that this is the case in 32 states. Only 9 states have absolute lifetime bans on voting for convicted felons.
I suppose one option for convicted felons is they could move to a state that allows them to vote after they have served their time. However, you still have the problem in Florida where allegedly many were convited by The Department of Pre-Crime.
http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.
A lot of people happen to like "mindless punk rock by kids who can't play the guitar." not to mention politically oriented punk rock by kids who can't play the guitar.
These days I prefer to listen to tape loops and vacuum cleaners and other experimental music.
or really hate freedom.
This reminds me of A patriot's guide to debating the war on terror for some reason.
I'll tell you what. I won't be happy until they execute spammers by removing all of their organs one at a time live on television. On Fox! (Right after The Simpsons.) I won't be happy even when I eat chocolate or even if John Zorn were to put the entire Tzadik cataloge on emusic.com.
However, there is a difference between having the feds regulate communications, and streamlining the legal system for civil action against commercial entities who abuse the system (and commit fraud) to such an extent that it renders the communication medium useless.
Actually, the fraud alone should be enough. If spammers were just required (and nailed to the wall if they didn't) not to forge their headers so that we could effectively filter then I would be happy.
(But lots of experimental music would help too.)
I don't blame you. In this day and age Satire is often redundant.
Alas and forsooth yadda yadda yadda.
razor-like Flash memory cards
I think the point he was trying to make (maybe not, maybe I read too much into stuff) was that if you are inventive just about ANYTHING could be used as a weapon. So why can't we just be realistic about that and let us bring our rassin frazzin finger nail clippers and nail filers back on the airplanes again!!!!! No one is going to get away with hijacking a plane with a freaking nail file! Sheesh! As long as I got a couple hours to kill I want to file my nails. What's wrong with that?
(Well, the nail file thing was probably not part of his point but um.... anyway....)
(However, I'm all in favor of banning perfume. People who wear too much cologne/perfume smell worse that the bums who sleep in the gutter.)
(Yet another rambing post brought to you by posting randomly through meta-moderation.)
I remember in the mid-90s Garth Brooks became a part of the "movement" to stop used CD sales, or at least keep used CDs separate from new CDs. (The Warehouse was just starting to sell used CDs in addition to new CDs.) Anyway, he was speaking out against used CD sales, and the record companies were giving less money for advertising to record stores that also sold used CDs. A record store in Eugene, Oregon (where I lived at the time) had a Garth Brooks BBQ.
They were literally burning the CDs.
Ironically, Garth Brooks is probably one of the very few people who actually make a decent living off of the music industry.
(And I was going to get off topic at this point talking about how I hate Garth Brooks and not because I hate all country music. I do dislike most of it but some stuff is good like Johnny Cash, the Dixie Chicks and Mojo Nixon. Buuuuut that would be getting pretty off topic so I won't mention it.)
no hopes were dashed, I was just being funny in the first place. Or trying. Whatever.
There was *no* problem with "hanging chads". The voter's selection had a stick pointed in it. The stick made an indentation, or a partial hole, or a complete hole, or no impression whatsoever. The chad may or may not have been detached. Big woof if not.
/. readers should know, computers can have a myriad of problems. A physical paper trail is neccessary if we want to have true accountability. Not just for cheating but the reality that computers crash and lose data.
Have you ever read the original version of Murphy's Law ? I didn't know this until just recently myself. Instead of "If anything can possibly go wrong, it will." it was actually "If there are two or more ways to do something, and one of those ways can result in a catastrophe, then someone will do it."
Murphy was an Engineer, and the real moral of his law was to if at all possible to engineer whatever it is you are designing to have only one way of doing things. For instance, if there is a part that if you put it on backwards would FUBAR the machine you make that part asymetrical so that there is only one way to put it on.
Now which is easier to read, a punchcard with a chad poked out, or a scantron with a bubble filled in? With chads accidents will happen, but a filled in bubble is unambiguous. At worst someone will change their mind, erase one bubble and fill in another. But if the manual counters in a recount do not have a pencil then there can be no aligations of cheating. With a scantron it is possible to poke out a chad with your fingernail.
Is this paranoid? Maybe. But if otherwise the mechanics of both systems are equal, why not go with the one that is both computer friendly and more human friedly?
I think scantron type ballots are the way to go. I live in Oregon where the ballots vary by county but most of the counties have scantron type ballots, including the one I live in and I like them. They are easy to fill out, easy for computers to read, and easy for humans to read.
And as most
All the meeting and arrangements that would need to be made make it seem like a drug deal or something.
You're just saying that because of this link from the main page.
(Yet another post brought to you by the fine people at random posting through meta-moderation. Not just everything in Moderation, everything in Meta-Moderation.)
Excuse? Did you forget about Quebec?
"I hear people they got French people in that there Quebec!
Won't somebody PLEASE think of the Freedom Fries!!!!!!!1!"
I sent an email to Bill Gates.
It read "Hey Bill! You Suck! Ha Ha."
I haven't received a reply yet.
I've been thinking of sending a similar email to Fearless Leader. He was in town today.
Hmm, I hope someone will actually hack into a voting machine and do something similar...
What if the "hacker" was a fan of Bill Gates instead of Linus?
Be careful what you wish for.....
The Portland Tribune did have an article the next day. Two actually. They had other articles and probably will have future ones too so here is a search for all articles on Hawash.
I think that those that do not shave for relgious reasons (of the Abrahamic religions) do so because they follow the many rules listed in Leviticus.
Yes and no.
He plead guilty to One of the charges against him. One of the lesser of the charges against him.
Personally, I am a bit skeptical about the whole thing, owing a lot to the violation of Habeas Corpus, and the current political situation. From what I understand there are still thousands of people being held as "material witnesses" without charges being filed. I think the main reason they bothered to file charges against Hawash is that he had a bunch of friends who made a big fuss.
So what "Conspiracy Theory" am I proposing? That he was somehow threatened and told to plead guilty. Why? Because the "gubment", err the politicians are afraid of looking foolish nowadays and they need to convict someone, and a No Contest plea wouldn't cut it for the political side of things. I think part of plea barganing is that he had to plea Guilty and not just No Contest.
OK, I have the 11pm news on and they just quoted someone (I think Ashcroft) saying they hope this guilty plea will restrain critisism of the FBI. (Or something to that effect.)
Anyway, hypothetically let's assume that he really is guilty. If he was really a Political Islamist Terrorist he would be prepaired to die or to spend the rest of his life in jail for his beliefs. Therefore if he really is a terrorist then he is unlikely to cooperate in any way, let alone testify against his "fellow conspirators."
He just doesn't seem to fit the profile. He has a family and a good job at Intel. He had a happy life and a lot to loose.
Another thing that's bugged me about the "Portland Six/Seven" conspiracy theory is this: Supposedly their plan was to fly/travel all the way to Afganistan to fight American troops. Now, considering that they were already in the USA, wouldn't it have been a lot simpler to attack Americans in America if that was really their goal? or that they would travel to one of the most remote (and particularly hard to get to at the time) regions in the entire world.
Until I see/hear real evidence I will remain skeptical of the "gubment" thank you very much.
I'm not sure, but I think the post you are replying to was being sarcastic.
I'm not sure. It's getting harder to tell all the time.
As Tom Tomorrow said, Satire has become redundant.
From Portland's Newspaper The Oregonian here the full legalese:
. ss f?/base/news/1057234000272203.xml
http://www.oregonlive.com/metro/oregonian/index
I checked the Portland Tribune but didn't see anything on their main site. They are a twice weekly newspaper. I wonder if they will get this in tomorrows printing.