Karl

But why ? Why go to all that trouble knowing that you would then have to hide even more things ? Why not use a suitcase nuke stolen from a terrorist ? It leaves only three options: 1. It really was exactly as it went down. A terrorist plot and jet fuel + impact damage. 2. Someone, somewhere made a pile of money out of the destruction. Maybe several someone's. 3. The world is run by real proper nut jobs, I mean real wackos, the kind that believes in black magic and satanic ritual. That this was ritual sacrifice and symbolic destruction. Either way, how does it benefit us to know ? What can be derived? Who would we blame ? The perpetrators will have long covered their tracks and all that will be left is patsies and the unwitting.

Well, until you come forward with proof I'm believing the official version and the sight of two planes hitting those towers. Even if I accept the premise it was a black op. Let's first consider the implications of weeks covertly spent rigging cutting charges in each of the buildings without detection. Then finding a way to remotely fly two/four passenger aircraft into those buildings without anyone knowing about it. None of that is impossible of course, just improbable. Let's say that's what happened, that they managed to do this all covertly without one single person saying anything. Then they killed several thousand people and cause a financial collapse. It even made the Government look incompetent, but never mind. They did all that because....? Wouldn't it just have been easier to send a task force to retrieve this dangerous information in WTC7 and then have another team assassinate them as 'foreign agents' ? It looks like a very complex, not to say risky kind of operation with a myriad of contractors, organisers, accomplices and loose ends. If you say the government did it, then fine, but so what ? If they did all that to cover up some documents, then imagine what lengths they would go to to cover up such an attack ? I think it suits them to have people think it's a conspiracy and keeps the spotlight off their incompetence. The biggest risk of a Government is to be seen as weak and incompetent, because then the people begin to consider their legitamacy, strength and resolve.

The aircraft may well have contained bombs. If the terrorists had prepared well, then something in the cargo hold might well have survived the impact and detonated later. Making evidence go away takes far less effort than flying two passenger aircraft into a building. Look at Hillary for evidence. All that is required is a delete button and friends in high places. Destroying the centre of New York is overkill.

I think it's valid to hate. It's only degrees of a fear of something that is potentially harmful given an emotional spin. I hate people pointing loaded guns at me, or sneezing into their hands then offering the shake hands. I hate people that decide they are deputised road police and then use their vehicle as a weapon in an attempt to stop me doing what they have concluded is contravening their authoritarian mentality. I hate squirty cream on my scones. after having it in mind I will be getting fresh clotted Cornish cream. I hate so many things it would be impossible to list them all.

And who's likeness was he created in ?

I don't think that would be particularly bad considering the other options. She was never a strong remainer and acted for more sensibly than Cameron, Osborne or Javid by doing a Wilson. We should never have required a referendum. If Conservatives had been proper Conservatives they would have taken us out anyway without the awful carnage of a split country. If Labour had still loved the people it would have listened to its core voters and their concerns about immigration. Instead they acted like the answer was less austerity-when we didn't have any Austerity to speak of. The Conservatives answer was to tell everyone how much immigration was doing for the economy and how tolerant and greatful we should be. May won't last long, because with a bit of luck the Conservatives will crack up the way Labour has-under Johnson I doubt they would have lasted more than a few weeks before pandemonium set in. At least it will be a controlled demolition under May, instead of a Big Bang under Johnson. It's interesting to watch the fallout from this referendum. The establishment are lost and confused, they no longer get the respect and no one listens to their propaganda. It's like Woolworths before it closed down-no one, including staff and owners, knew what it was for, or where it was going.

Let me attempt to boil down that long reply to see if I understand you. Are you talking about our first initial awareness of our own existence ? If you are, then are you trying to say that consciousness has primacy and therefore, because we are a consciousness then death is impossible ?

He doesn't understand economics either. The bankers and the rich tell him they are a bit short and can't cover their gambling debts, so Carney threatens to print a load of cash to help them out.

I doubt Gove will be leader, I would prefer it, but as I forecast many months ago, I think it's going to be May. I was interested in Hitchens viewpoint that what we are seeing is the emergence of two new parties-if they can ditch their respective corpses. He was very insightful. His comment was that the Conservatives are Blairites who hate Britain and Labour are Blairites that hate the people of Britain. I don't like socialism, or Corbyn, but it is a genuine revolution suffocating under Blairite politicians. The Conservatives haven't yet split that far, but Gove represents a return to social Conservatism and a love of Britain.

Drunker acts like a dick.

I believe he renounced his US citizenship when he realised the tax implications.

I know humans. I know there are good and bad actors. My friends aren't running around being the monkeys you claim are everywhere. Men can be moral because they feel good about being moral and bad about immoral behaviour. Few people enjoy conflict, fewer still deliberately, engage in the initiation of force against peaceful men. The people I know are kind. Not only do they not 'take all the bananas' but they give away the bananas they have earned through honest effort. Charities are full of volunteers giving away their bananas, homes are full of old age couples who have lived together in a monogamous relationship all of their lives and when one partner dies, then the other follows in short order. You need to find some better people if your experience is so jaded.

As you implied that you were personally not one of those. I countered your assertion with my own actions. If you wish to make sweeping generalisations then try at least to have evidence either philosophically, or empirically.

I neither grab as many bananas as I can, nor do I sleep with the most females. I earn my bananas and have had one gorgeous wife for the last 30 odd years and have never needed anyone else.

Now we have exposed the media through Brexit we can all see just how biased it really is. It's woken people up. We must watch the financial tricksters and political engineers who work in the dark to create conditions. Today Mark Carney of the BoE announced the possibility of QE in July. The pound was rising, the stock market was stable, inflation was nominal and employment at an all time high, yet, the BoE decides to print money. Let's get this straight, he wants to devalue the pound, increase asset prices, further destroy savings/pensions, increase debt, put more of our money into the pockets of the wealthy elite. He wants to print money when there is currently a low pound and high stock market ? That looks awfully like the 'punishment strategy' of George Osborne for the plebs who wouldn't do what they were told. I knew they would this. Osborne will tear his head to save the day when the poor are lying in the streets starving. We need to get this stopped.

I would prefer to state it in the positive. That the value of life is an end in itself. We already know that it's a primary value so anything that threatens it is bad, anything that enhances it is good. There may come a time when we no longer value our lives, if that time arrives we deal with it. Life isn't the absence of death as pleasure isn't the absence of pain. So let's enjoy life while we can and strive to achieve the values that make it so.

We don't fear life, though we might fear living. Life can be used equivocally, so it needs defining. Life is movement. Living is choosing when, where and how to move. We do not fear existence, but we may fear the ramifications of existing. Fear is natural. It is the precursor to loss of a value, pain is the loss of that value and pleasure the gaining of value. The other side of fear is anticipation. There is hope and despair. There is a point at which too greater loss, too much fear, too much pain and despair will upset the balance and life is no longer the highest value. At that point death is preferable. At any time death is possible. Death is always the ultimate end. This is different for everyone. We all have to weigh these things.

Death cannot die, it daft to try and make up things like that. What happens if the rain rained, or heat got hot ? Death is related to living organism. A rock is never alive so it cannot die, but an organism is required to. If there was no death, no fear of death, then there would be no purpose to life. One implies the other.

If you value your life then you will fear the loss of that value. So, the story goes of the student that told his master that he had lost all fear of death. The master asked the student to prove it. He made the student strip naked and swim out into the ocean a little way so could still see his master on the shore line. Once student was sufficiently far away, the master picked up the students clothing and called for some vagabonds to come to him, where upon he gave away all the students clothing. The student swam back to the beach to ask the master why he had given away his clothes. He was as mad as hell and chased the vagabonds trying to get back his clothing. The master only laughed. I thought I understood that story when I first encountered it, but I hadn't. The student said he no longer feared death, therefore he would hold no value for his life. All our values are predicated on our value of life as a primary. So, the loss of the clothes was proof that the student had convinced himself of something that had no basis in reality. He still valued his clothes and therefore he still valued his life. He was angry that he had lost a value (his clothes) so imagine how much more angry he would be had he had his life threatened. Fearing death is to value life. To value life is to be pro-life, to live fully. To have no fear of death is not to value life it is to be anti-life and to fear life itself. We cannot equivocate, it is a binary choice.

The fly in that particular ointment is that to have those thoughts you must first use 'I'. 'I'believe this, 'I' think that, 'I' feel the other. There is no one with which one can converse that is devoid of the identity 'I' So, when you say this is true, you are not able to prove it and you patently aren't experiencing it. I would suggest that zero proof plus zero experience means that you are acting on faith, not reality.

I think the conspiracy theories are covering reality: Saudi funding and Saudi involvement in US politics and the personal fortunes amassed by several high profile politicians. The complete failure of the US Government to defend its citizens from attack. The failure of the intelligence agencies to be effective in a country which prides itself on such work. The most powerful country in the world reduced to a helpless mess. An ineffective president. Bad foreign policy. Bad internal policy. The lack of security and safety for US passenger planes. Poor response to incidents by Government and its agencies. Every criticism should have been aimed at the Government, but instead it got diluted by the distraction of conspiracy theorists and the illegal war prosecuted against Iraq whilst allegedly searching for Bin Laden. That one man with a mobile phone living in a cave was able to attack the very heart of the most powerful nation on earth with impunity puts any Governments competency and legitamacy into question. It should have asked what was the state doing with all the money it gets from tax payers.

Its important to grasp that the fundamentals of stocks, bonds and currencies are global. The FTSE sliding downwards doesn't imply it has a direct causality but perhaps a necessary one. To understand what I'm saying requires some expertise. The reason the stock markets boomed is because of money printing. There is a direct correlation between stocks and monetary expansion and monetary tightening. In March of this year the BoE let out some of the air from the bubble by tightening the M4 (notes and coins in circulation) number and the gap between tightening and stock loss is around 3/6 months depending on market volatility. Brexit is something the markets don't understand, they can't figure out if it's good or bad, so they simply factor it in as volatility risk and so this helps to push down the market more quickly. It's also worth noting that these market movements are historically insignificant. The pound has been higher and lower, it means very little. Initially it causes the price of imports to rise, but, the market determines the price/supply. Hence, say fuel is £2 a litre, then people adjust their buying patterns. In the end, supply and demand must correlate at some point. If no one is buying any fuel then the price falls until people begin buying again. If the price fall is insufficient then the state is forced to cut fuel duty to stimulate the demand that it is choking off. I watched the PM answering questions from an MP who stated that a small builder had rung her to say that a number of projects had been cancelled due to Brexit fears. It's impossible to know the circumstances, but, it is true that when the possibility of fiscal and monetary tightening/interest rises (price of money stops being artificially reduced) begin to become reality, then the type of investment begins to alter. Austrian business cycle theory call the previous activity 'mal-investment'. This is because holding down interest rates produces the wrong market signal to entrepreneurs. It suggests that people are saving instead of spending because they have plenty of spare cash and so the businessman can invest more cheaply in the hope that he can get the saver to spend on some new product or service. Unfortunately this false signalling is responsible for a 'crack up' boom. The cheap money floods the market and causes investors to make errors, which, for a while at least create the illusion of a healthy market. Where the money pours from central bank spigots into the areas where it is first utilised it creates price inflation. Today, due to poor wages, low wage jobs, high debt, high tax, high energy/fuel/transport/higher education, the boom has settled into stocks and other assets such as property, classic cars, wine, paintings. Eventually all of that boom will have to be unwound. No one knows when, only that it will. Events like Brexit can often be the catalyst for the market unwinding back to reality, but it wasn't Britain in the EU that created the boom in the first place, it was Governments and Central Banks.

Dead-the end.

You might say that, but I could possibly comment. ;-)

Yes, of course it is, but this isn't the game being played. If we got the bloody politicians out of the way we could get on with freely trading with each other, but, as it is, from outside we may face a certain amount of reluctance because we have left the union. It won't last very long, but that's where we are. The politicians want their cut on any deal, they want their own electorate to see them as relevant and important in negotiations. It's all a big sham. We can leave, put their noses out for a bit, maybe pay a tiny tarriff which we can impose by return-which is essentially what usual occurs for those outside the block.