Some people get upset with the authoritarian explanation

[noise]

but it sure seems right on the money. There are all sorts of unanswered questions about 9/11. The only reason these questions remain unanswered is because government officials refuse to answer them. Then we have fascist propagandists like Glenn Beck who associate dissent (yes questioning 9/11 is a form of dissent) with anti-American conduct. He doesn't care that many aspects of 9/11 remain a mystery. He doesn't care that victims' families who sought answers were dismissed. In fact Beck was part of the crowd who ridiculed the victims' families for seeking to know why their family members were murdered. Only by way of authoritarianism could a fascist propagandist who mocks victims' families be considered a credible authority on 9/11.

[LARED]

1. Some people are amused by

authoritarian explanations based on someones else's propaganda.

I often get to hear Beck on the radio courtesy of some folks that I travel with. And Beck may be a propagandist for his own brand of dissent, but he is clearly not a fascist. Not even close.

Also your notion that only by authoritarianism can someone like Beck be considered a credible authority is just silly. Fist off does anyone even consider Beck an authority on 9/11? He has an opinion just like you. And as far as I can tell no one in the government in a position of power (ie the authority) is saying Beck is an authority. Beck simply believes that radical Islamists attacked America without the help of the US government. Just like most rational thinking people.

[BeFree]

2. beck is a bushco supporter

bush never did anything wrong, according to beck.
beck's credibility is zero with liberals and progressives.
beck is a damned fascist, racist, bushco whoremonger.

[LARED]

3. Tell us how you really feel

I would be even better if you actually know something about Beck, but hey don't let me stop you.

Also just to head off your forthcoming implication I am a Beck supporter, I simply find the guy interesting. I do not support his wacky ideas, I will not defend his wacky ideas. He's simply just interesting.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

6. Dude...

simply disagreeing with you doesn't make someone or something "authoritarian".

[BeFree]

8. The implication is....

...he knows beck and I don't. Authoritarian to the core.

[Ohio Joe]

9. That confusion you have with what words mean is showing again

"The implication is he knows beck and I don't. Authoritarian to the core."

Presumptuous perhaps but not any way related to authoritarianism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

[BeFree]

34. OK

From WIKI:

Authoritarian

* The following principles:

1) rule of men, not rule of law;
2) rigged elections;
3) all important political decisions made by unelected officials behind closed doors;
4) a bureaucracy operated quite independently of rules, the supervision of elected officials, or concerns of the constituencies they purportedly serve;
5) the informal and unregulated exercise of political power;<3>

* Leadership that is "self-appointed and even if elected cannot be displaced by citizens' free choice among competitors"
* No guarantee of civil liberties or tolerance for meaningful opposition;<3>
* Weakening of civil society: "No freedom to create a broad range of groups, organizations, and political parties to compete for power or question the decisions of rulers," with instead an "attempt to impose controls on virtually all elements of society";

As used on Wiki, the term pertains to a style of government. I use it to describe a style of thinking. So, the idea that I don't know beck and therefore am not entitled to hold an opposite opinion is authoritarian thinking.

[Ohio Joe]

38. ah.... so you simply make up definitions of words as you feel...

How interesting... :rofl:

[BeFree]

40. Not really

I agree with the term as used for governments. I am using it here to typify a way of thinking. Is that all right? Is it wrong to do so? If so, why?

Discussion may get to the bottom of this crucial matter. Not crucial to me, but I do like to discuss what seems so important to others.

[Ohio Joe]

42. So... anyone who disagrees with you is an authoritarian?

It must be nice to be perfect... :rofl:

[BeFree]

44. Good try at reframing...

...and distorting my words.

But no, that is wrong. Lots of people disagree with me. Mostly because we just see things different. Discussion is good at finding that out.

[SDuderstadt]

46. Dude...

do you honestly deny that you try to paint people who disagree with you as authoritarian??? Do you remember accusing Lared of throwing an "authoritarian punch"??

As I said before, your "who, me?" act is not working, dude. Y'know, for a movement that desperately needs new mwmbers, you guys sure pick strange recruiting tactics.

Why not take that pledge now, dude? Promise to cease the dishonest reframing. Oh, and by the way, OJ did not reframe your statement.

[BeFree]

48. I did

It was an authoritarian way of thinking, the idea that I didn't have a right to attack beck because I did not know him as well as Lared did. Lared appeared to make an authoritative decision as to what BeFree does and does not know about beck. He tried, IOW, to tell me what to think about beck, because he knew better because he knows beck better, and did so, not through education, but using a one line blurb.

No big deal. Or is it?

[SDuderstadt]

51. Dude...how is someone disgreeing with your opinion for WHATEVER reason...

"authoritarian"???

Do you understand the defintion of authoritarian? Can you show any of us where Lared tried to suppress your opinion, dude? Jesus.

[LARED]

56. To borrow this term; Dude.....

are you losing it?

In what way did I make an authoritative decision about anything you do or say. I voiced an opinion. This is a discussion board. People express opinions all the time. If you have a problem with that you should go play somewhere else. Or was that too authoritative?

[BeFree]

61. Well

When you but in and quote me as saying something to you that I didn't. You fail.

[LARED]

64. your quote posted in # 48

"Lared appeared to make an authoritative decision as to what BeFree does and does not know about beck."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=281019&mesg_id=281325

[SDuderstadt]

65. More of your dishonest reframing, BeFree?

Why not take that pledge I spoke of earlier and help the forum develop some semblance of civility? (Hint, hint)

[Ohio Joe]

53. bwahahahahaha

You create new meaning for words and I am the one reframing? bwahahahahahahahahaha :rofl: you are too funny!

[SDuderstadt]

49. Jesus, dude....

therefore am not entitled to hold an opposite opinion is authoritarian thinking.

Can you point to ANYONE here who denies you can think whatever the fuck you want to think about beck? Anyone??

Yet, you manage to slip on the word authoritarian again, just like you accused Lared of throwing an "authoritarian punch". Is there no end to your smears, dude?

BTW, here's better definition of "authoritarian" from dictionary.com. I'd think about this before you describe someone or something as "authoritarian", dude.

au⋅thor⋅i⋅tar⋅i⋅an  /əˌθɔrɪˈtɛəriən, əˌθɒr-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation Show IPA
–adjective 1. favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom: authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.
2. of or pertaining to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.
3. exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others: an authoritarian parent.

You can try to downplay your accusations with a softer definition if you want, dude, but, once again, your "who, me?" act simply is not working.

[LARED]

55. Way cool

You make you your own definition for a word, apply it to me, yet you think in essentially the same way, yet the definition does not apply to you. Like I said way cool.

With clear thinking like that the truther movement must be on the cusp of unearthing a rational coherent theory.

I can hardly wait.

[BeFree]

57. Heh

You posted the Wiki link, right?
Are you now ashamed that you did?

[LARED]

58. Nope, and nope. Try and follow along nt

[BeFree]

60. Yeah you're right, it was Joe

Sorry 'bout that.

I am being hit by so many of you all at once, and it's almost like yall are a solid block with the same BS, that I messed up.

ETA: I See you replied to my reply to Joe.

[LARED]

10. Now I'm curious

Using your view that I am authoritarian to the core. Please tell me exactly how your authoritarianism is different from mine.

[BeFree]

13. Heh

Can't take the heat?

That, "Beck is simply interesting" is some goofy bullshit.

[SDuderstadt]

14. WTF?

I find lots of people that I totally disagree with "interesting". What is your point, dude?

I honestly think this is just more of your poisoning the debate, dude.

[BeFree]

15. Beck is an asshole

He's a damn pig. It is goofy bullshit to find him "simply interesting"
He is a lying sack of shit. That's all. Nothing more.

[SDuderstadt]

17. Really, BeFree?

You seem to know a lot about him. I despise him. I still find him interesting. Do you honestly think if someone finds someone interesting, that means they endorse him or something?

How is someone's personal opinion about someone "goofy bullshit"? Do you now feel you are in a position to tell us whom we can find interesting? How bizarre.

[LARED]

21. Not only is it bizarre it sounds very

authoritarian.

[BeFree]

22. heh

I know all I need to know about beck. He is not interesting to me.
He is a simple minded fool who fools other people.

But just wondering... what is it yall find interesting about beck?

[SDuderstadt]

23. What I find interesting about him is how...

he does manage to fool anyone at all. You just answered your own question. Duh.


What I find interesting about you is how you think you fool people, but fall flat on your face, dude. BTW, I'm still waiting for you explain precisely how you think I am "stalking" you. It would be simpler for you to just admit that you were just trying to fool people with another one of your despicable "debate" tactics (false accusations), dude.

[BeFree]

24. Eh?

He uses bullying and scare tactics. Same as bushco. That's not interesting to me. Same shit, different asshole.

Take away fox tv privileges and beck would have nowhere to spew but on freeperville.

[SDuderstadt]

25. Well, if he's not interesting to you....

why are you so focused on him? Surely there must be a better use for your time (hopefully, one that does not embarrass DU so much).

[BeFree]

26. Right

It is embarrassing that anyone does think he is not a fascist.

When they write that here, well, that does interest me.
Nice to know that you find me so interesting that you have advice for me on how to spend my time. You do find me interesting right? That's why you spend so much time replying to me?

[SDuderstadt]

27. Actually, I find your goofy claims and...

lack of critical thinking embarrassing to DU. I guess one could say that's "interesting", but it's not a good kind of "interesting".

More importantly, I'm amused when people throw labels like "fascist" and "authoritarian" around without really understanding what the terms actually mean. Obviously you've never lived under either a fascist or authoritarian regime. Beck, as well as "Bushco" is/was dangerous and certainly several steps in the wrong direction, but labeling either of them "fascist" is as silly as the teabaggers who label Obama "socialist".

I sincerely beg you to quit embarrassing DU with your goofy bullshit, dude.

[BeFree]

28. Heh

I find your nasty incivility and lack of critical thinking embarrassing to DU.

But you are right about beck, he's just an asshole. And an un-interesting piece of shit. Not really even worthy of mentioning except to destroy him.

[SDuderstadt]

29. Point to an example of my "lack of critical thinking", dude...

By name, please. You don't even know what critical thinking is, dude, or you wouldn't make such goofy claims.

[BeFree]

30. Now, now, dude

The idea that I haven't before, just shows the lack of skill.

But the incivility and nastiness is a fine example. Being nasty and uncivil is nowhere. It is just nasty and uncivil.

[SDuderstadt]

31. Dude...

if you could, it would be a cinch. Instead, you retreat into this bullshit, "well, there are so many examples, it's hard to identify a specific one" mode. If you're going to continue to make false accusations, you'd better back it up with some specifics, dude. Of course, we know the reason is because it's highly doubtful you can do more than parrot the name of a commonly known logical fallacy. Get specific, dude. Can you?

Of course, the funniest part of your post is where you whine about supposed incivility. dude. You're the king of it, as shown by your constant resorts to smears and innuendoes about our motivation. I'll state my motivation plainly: I think your brand of unsubstantiated goofy bullshit embarrasses liberalism, the Democratic Party and DU. I sincerely beg you to stop it. "Bushco is evil" doesn't prove 9/11 was an inside job. If you want us to accept your claim, then provide some fucking concrete evidence.

[BeFree]

32. I'm the king?

Whoa, dude.

You wrote:"I'll state my motivation plainly: I think your brand of unsubstantiated goofy bullshit embarrasses liberalism, the Democratic Party and DU."

In reply I say that my motivation is to destroy people and organizations like fox and beck. Individuals, OTOH, in my mind, should pretty much be free to express themselves except when they get mean and nasty.

But when I disagree with them, I try not to be mean and nasty like beck, or o'really are. Sometimes I fail at that. And get posts deleted as they should, here, on DU.

Frankly, tho, I do take some honor to know that my motivation does concern so many posters here, and to this extent. It affirms my reason for being here. It tells me I am being effective and not wasting my time.

[SDuderstadt]

33. Tell me something, dude....

how are you being effective by continually questioning the motivation of people here who do not agree with you on the facts? You have indirectly compared them to freepers, falsely accused them of being Bush supporters and suggested they are GOP, simply because they don't buy your goofy bullshit. Instead of attacking their arguments and claims with reason and Logic, you, instead, resort to smears, then whine about incivility. You presume to lecture us about "10 steps to honest discussion", then proceed to break every single one of those rules.

Have you ever noticed how often it seems you are squared off against multiple people in the thread and many of those people complain that you are putting words in their mouths? Why do you think that is, dude?

Why don't you simply take that pledge to cease the dishonest reframing, dude?

[BeFree]

35. I never...

...suggested they were GOP. IIRC?

I have noticed that I do square off with several posters here at times. The more the merrier? It makes for better discussions.

I am good at reframing, aren't I? It takes critical thinking skills to do that, eh?

[SDuderstadt]

36. Dishonest reframing is, essentially....

constructing a "strawman" argument, dude. If you had the slightest idea what you were talking about, you wouldn't make patently stupid statements like, "I am good at reframing, aren't I? It takes critical thinking skills to do that, eh?".

You're also being more than disengenuous when you deny suggesting your opponents are GOP. And, of course, you failed to answer my question,once again. If you're so good at reframing, why do so many people complain that you are putting words in their mouths or otherwise mischaracterizing what they've actually said? Do you take pride in being a divisive force here, dude?

[BeFree]

37. Divisive?

Nah, more of a go along to get along except when someone spreads goofy bullshit about how beck is simply interesting. Or bush didn't have a clue, or that the government is incompetent and therefore failed to catch the hijackers. That goofy bullshit pisses me off.

Anyway, when someone posts here, if they are not perfectly clear, and even sometimes when they think they are, their words are open to interpretation.

And so questions develop that are an attempt at getting to the core of what a poster might really be saying, or what their motivation is.

And then a discussion ensues. Ain't it great?

[SDuderstadt]

39. Please point to anyone here who...

maintains Bush did not have a clue about the 9/11 attacks, dude. Be specific.

And, yes, reframing what people have actually said until it bears no resemblance to their actual words, then attacking their motivation is divisive, dude. Your "who, me?" actis fooling no one.

[BeFree]

41. I know

For a long time, it was a question as to who might think that bush had no clue.
Only recently have we come to a consensus that bush indeed, did know that hijackers were going to attack the US. We are making progress. Ain't it great?

[SDuderstadt]

43. Dude....please point to anyone who maintained Bush had no clue...

EVERYONE has known about the 8/6/01 PDB very early on. This is just you trying to cloud the issue and give yourself an out. It isn't working, dude.

[BeFree]

45. well

I have a thread here where there was some disagreement. So check it out.
Title: What Happened.

I am so glad we are past that. What's next? Lets keep making progress, is my idea.

[SDuderstadt]

47. Dude....NO ONE in that thread maintained that Bush had no clue...

the issue was whether the warning was specific enough to act directly to thwart the attack.

More of your dishonest reframing, dude.

[BeFree]

50. Well

Good way to reframe the bushco response. " wasn't specific enough" bushco quotes.

In my view, it had more than specific enough to do something.

And that's why I think he lihoped it.

[SDuderstadt]

52. Dude...

the issue was whether Bush has warning of 9/11. If I say, that he had a warning, but it was not specific enough to directly stop the attack, are you honestly interpreting that to mean I am saying Bush had no warning????

Dude, your critical thinking skills are non-existent.

[LARED]

54. Well obviously you either don't know

Beck or you don't understand the meaning of Fascist. Maybe both.

Not that I know a great deal about Beck, but I have heard enough to know he is not in the least a Fascist.

Also I don't appreciate your authoritarian tone (using your seemingly odd definition of the word).

[BeFree]

59. Awww

Yeah, I don't know beck as well as you. Good for me.
But he is fascist in many ways. Maybe not a total fascist, but he tends fascist. What would you call him besides interesting?

As for authoritarian thinking think of it this way as used in this sentence...
As a believer in the OCT, I am an authority on 9/11 because I believe in the authorities.

Does that make it easier to understand where I am coming from?

[SDuderstadt]

62. No, it shows you have the words "authoritarian" and....

"authoritative" totally mixed up, dude.

[LARED]

63. Please

explain how Beck tends fascist.

As a believer in the OCT, I am an authority on 9/11 because I believe in the authorities.

Make no sense whatsoever. Nor does it reflect my beliefs.

Maybe this might help

As a believer in the reality, I am an authority on reality because I believe in the reality.

Perhaps not very philosophically sound, but a whole lot more sensible than what you posted.

[OnTheOtherHand]

5. I'm lost

I'm happy to agree that Glenn Beck isn't "a credible authority on 9/11." What does that have to do with anything that actually matters?

There are all sorts of unanswered questions about 9/11. The only reason these questions remain unanswered is because government officials refuse to answer them.

How do you know? Doesn't it stand to reason that some questions about 9/11 are unanswered because nobody knows the answers? I suppose it depends on the questions you have in mind.

[BeFree]

7. How do we know?

We know government officials refuse to answer them because they have closed the records to public scrutiny. Ever read the transcript of bush and cheney's testimony to the 9/11 commission? Me neither. The government officials refuse us.

[OnTheOtherHand]

11. sometimes it's as if you didn't read the posts you reply to

Your answer has almost nothing to do with my questions.

[SDuderstadt]

12. You're setting the bar way too high for...

BeFree. The reality is that you ask a question and he chooses to answer a totally digferent question and usually one that no one asked. That's if you're lucky. His usual MO is to reframe what you've said until it bears no resemblance to your actual words. It's a truly offensive racket.

[BeFree]

16. You really are lost., eh? eom

[SDuderstadt]

18. No, you are....

dude.

[BeFree]

19. Nah

But thanks for thinking of me. But isn't there a rule about stalking?

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

67. Let me make sure I get this straight....

you believe WE "diluted the topic" but you didn't??

[noise]

68. Definitions

Authoritarian followers usually support the established authorities in their society, such as government officials and traditional religious leaders. Such people have historically been the “proper” authorities in life, the time-honored, entitled, customary leaders, and that means a lot to most authoritarians. Psychologically these followers have personalities featuring:

1) a high degree of submission to the established, legitimate authorities in their society;
2) high levels of aggression in the name of their authorities; and
3) a high level of conventionalism.*

*Conventionalism. By conventionalism, the third defining element of the rightwing authoritarian, I don’t just mean do you put your socks on before your shoes, and I don’t just mean following the norms and customs that you like. I mean believing that everybody should have to follow the norms and customs that your authorities have decreed. (page 20)

The Authoritarians, Chapter 1

The left is viewed as an illegitimate authority. Scapegoating the left is key aspect of fascist propaganda.

14 identifying characteristics of fascism:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause.
4. Supremacy of the Military.
5. Rampant Sexism.
6. Controlled Mass Media.
7. Obsession with National Security.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined.
9. Corporate Power is Protected.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption.
14. Fraudulent Elections.

The 14 characteristics of Fascism by Dr. Lawrence Britt

None of these apply to Beck? The 9/12 movement where we all get along and stop questioning Big Brother? The pro torture stance?

[LARED]

69. OK, Thank goodness I'm not an authoritarian follower

I looked up the 9/12 movement and these are the principles and values they list.

I could not tell you if their words and deeds match each other, but if they hold true to the list below, I find nothing offensive or Fascist.

http://www.the912project.com/the-912-2/

9 Principles, 12 Values
The 9 Principles

1. America Is Good.

2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
God “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.” from George Washington’s first Inaugural address.

3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
Honesty “I hope that I shall always possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider to be the most enviable of all titles, the character of an honest man.” George Washington

4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
Marriage/Family “It is in the love of one’s family only that heartfelt happiness is known. By a law of our nature, we cannot be happy without the endearing connections of a family.” Thomas Jefferson

5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
Justice “I deem one of the essential principles of our government… equal and exact justice to all men of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political.” Thomas Jefferson

6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
Life, Liberty, & The Pursuit of Happiness “Everyone has a natural right to choose that vocation in life which he thinks most likely to give him comfortable subsistence.” Thomas Jefferson

7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
Charity “It is not everyone who asketh that deserveth charity; all however, are worth of the inquiry or the deserving may suffer.” George Washington

8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
On your right to disagree “In a free and republican government, you cannot restrain the voice of the multitude; every man will speak as he thinks, or more properly without thinking.” George Washington

9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.
Who works for whom? “I consider the people who constitute a society or a nation as the source of all authority in that nation.” Thomas Jefferson

The 12 Values
* Honesty
* Reverence
* Hope
* Thrift
* Humility
* Charity
* Sincerity
* Moderation
* Hard Work
* Courage
* Personal Responsibility
* Gratitude

[noise]

70. Do the teabaggers come across as principled?

Isn't Beck one of their cheerleaders?

[LARED]

71. I'm not sure how to answer that question

Principled about what?

[noise]

72. Beck and the teabaggers appear to be all about

scapegoating the left. They like to pretend all the economic problems are due to Obama's socialist/communist policies when in reality the economic policies that caused the problems were right wing, crony capitalist. They like to pretend they are all about "restoring America" when in fact they champion criminal, anti-American police state counterterrorism policies.

[LARED]

73. Ok, now I'm even more confused

What does all that have to do with whether they are principled?

[noise]

75. Definition

principled: having high moral principles

Beck and teabaggers are full of it. Their lofty principles=support for fascism, especially their scapegoating of the left.

[LARED]

80. A quote and a question

"Politics, n. Strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles." Ambrose Bierce


Are you as upset about the left scapegoating the right as much as the right scapegoating the left?

[noise]

81. No

The left doesn't scapegoat the right. The Bush administration's policies were awful. They were corrupt. They should be investigated by the DOJ.

I don't put all the blame for 9/11 on the Bush administration. I have read the history of the Clinton administration's conduct in relation to al Qaeda and there are unanswered questions there. For example, the original withholding of information about al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar took place during the Clinton administration. Clinton administration holdovers like Tenet and Clarke have never explained what happened. Clarke got a lot of praise from Democrats for calling Rice out. That isn't the same thing as explaining what happened.

[LARED]

82. Oh please

"The left doesn't scapegoat the right."

Of course elements of the left scapegoat the right, the same way elements the right scapegoats the right. Politics is a blood sport. To think otherwise is remarkably naive.

[noise]

83. In a fascist context

scapegoating is a right wing deal. Run of the mill blame game stuff is par for the course.

[LARED]

84. Scapegoating

is a run of the mill practice mastered by both sides of the isle. Long before the meaning of fascist was modified for use as a form of scapegoating by the left.

[SDuderstadt]

74. Let me suggest a better subject line...

"Some people get upset with being labeled or described as 'authoritarian' for disagreeing on the facts with 'truthers' "

There, I fixed it for you.

[noise]

76. Altemeyer's analysis is right on

3) a high level of conventionalism.*

*Conventionalism. By conventionalism, the third defining element of the rightwing authoritarian, I don’t just mean do you put your socks on before your shoes, and I don’t just mean following the norms and customs that you like. I mean believing that everybody should have to follow the norms and customs that your authorities have decreed. (page 20)

As in everybody should stop questioning the government in relation to 9/11. Tom Kean has spoken. John Farmer has spoken.

These are the people we aren't supposed to question:

On 20 August 2004, 9/11 Commission Co-Chairs Kane and Hamilton encouraged the Archivist of the United States "...to conduct a systematic review of the records that are not currently available to the public with the goal of releasing to the public as much information as is allowable by law and regulation on January 2, 2009, or as soon thereafter as possible." This request was a direct result of deliberations by the Commissioners at a http://www.archives.gov/legislative/research/9-11/meeting-notes.pdf">21 July 2004 meeting. The result was a vote to allow public access to these records, to the fullest extent of the law, beginning January 2, 2009, or as soon thereafter as is possible. NARA was able to process a significant portion of the collection to be made available to the public on Wednesday, January 14.

http://www.archives.gov/legislative/research/9-11/faqs.html">911 Commission FAQs

[SDuderstadt]

77. Please point to ANYONE who has tried to keep you from "asking questions"

the prooblem is "truthers" keep asking the same fucking stupid questions, then totally ignoring the answers. It's quite embarrassing.

Here's a simple tip. Don't remotely suggest I am an authoritarian or that I even have authoritarian tendencies. It's just more smears from the "truther community" and quite odd when I think about the volunteer work I do with the ACLU.

[noise]

78. Does anyone have a legitimate reason to question 9/11? n/t

[SDuderstadt]

79. Why don't you try reading my posts?

I have said repeatedly that the Bush administration lied about the intelligence available before 9/11 and their reaction to it/ How much more do I need to say?

That does not, however, mean that "9/11 was an inside job".