"A day we’ll never forget. Inside the room only they saw. Watch the Apple Original documentary narrated by Emmy Award winner Jeff Daniels, streaming now on Apple TV+ and free without a subscription on September 11 in honor of the 20th anniversary."
Free to stream on September 11, no subscription required, 4K available.
Do you have any trump merch
If you want to watch a great documentary on 911 then watch “9/11”. It is a done by two French brothers who were doing a documentary on a rookie firefighter that got caught up in 911. The footage is amazing and they got the shot of the first plane hitting the first building.
yes it is very good, it has been shown a few times over the years but may be some that havent seen it yet
where can I watch it?
Maybe not this one, but SBS is usually the starting point…
Also found https://iview.abc.net.au/show/beyond-the-towers very good, without too much political narrative (readers of The Australian eat your heart out!)
I have the DVD. It is astonishing. Because they had permission to follow the rookie they have footage of the command centres, from inside the foyer of the buildings, after the planes hit. They have footage running from one building to the other whilst the first building was collapsing above one of them. And the booming noise of suicide jumpers hitting the ground outside the buildings. They are sensitive not to show some of the more horrific images they must’ve seen. Because the brothers are French it is more politically dispassionate. However it has an emotional kick because the brothers have split up following different fireman so they are frightened that the other one might’ve died. At all times the focus is on the amazing job the firefighters did.
I haven't seen it either
Where can I find this French one? I tried searching, to no avail. Thanks
I have the DVD for it.
I’ve found it on the Amazon sites but it seems to be very expensive. Maybe you can Google around to see if you can find it cheaper.
This is a review
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2002/sep/12/september11200…
Thanks mate.
@Tea2Tango-Australia: Best of luck finding it. With any luck, with the anniversary, they will replay it on the TV.
Try searching "Naudet brothers 9/11 documentary" or something on YouTube
Try searching "Naudet brothers 9/11 documentary" on YouTube
I have seen that French documentary multiple times.
A documentary that started out as an insight into life within a NY Fire station and ended up as a harrowing account of the bravery and sacrifice of men over a few short hours. They were filming a rookie assisting in removing a street mains cover when the noise of a plane flying low overhead has the cameraman swing his camera upwards to capture the first plane hitting the North Tower.
What follows is an account of utter horror as they follow the crews on to the Twin Towers site. What I found most tormenting was the sound of bodies hitting the roof above them on the Twin Towers concourse. The doco ends with them walking back to their station exhausted and reunions between firefighters who made it back - brothers forever.
I have just finished watching this AppleTV doco and it really offers up nothing that I haven't seen before. There is a series currently screening on Netflix called 'Turning Point: 9/11 and the War on Terror review: A timely examination of an atrocity' which gives a far better insight into events leading up to and subsequent to the Twin Towers attack which I think is much better. And our ABC is also running a series on a similar theme that is free to watch on iview which is pretty good as well.
Good show.
It’s on BBC iPlayer now if anyone wants to watch it before then.
Thanks OP i was looking where to stream after reading a Guardian review of this "astonishing and petrifying" doco
Building 7.
I see a New World Order coming into view.
Building 7.
What about it? The building was damaged hard. One column fails and the dominoes begin. Fire is never usually allowed to burn uncontrolled for hours, so it was a furnace inside. Much more than office furniture was overcooked that day. Steel is great… until it fails.
How tf can a plane hit the pentagon. It's the most secure building in the world. Inside job?
I love the conspiracy nutters. The biggest reason that this wasn’t an “inside” job is there is no way that this wouldn’t have leaked out by now. I think “someone” might’ve noticed people planting enough explosive and jet fuel to simulate a plane hitting the Pentagon. What happened with 9/11 is some of the most investigated incidents in the world.
What is interesting is that the vast majority of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, and none from Iraq, but the Americans decided to invade Iraq. It seems some countries are “protected species”.
I agree on Pentagon and towers, but Building 7 doesn't make sense.
I’m not a civil engineer; but there was a lot of burning debris from the towers. I would leave that discussion to people with more technical knowledge than my own. Whichever way Building 7 ran, on the day, it would’ve, eventually, been brought down in a controlled explosion as part of clearing the site.
The interesting thing is they are still finding human remains on nearby buildings.
I was in Atlanta when 911 happened; it was an interesting time to be in America. I’d taken my mother to the top of the twin towers in September the previous year. The most poignant part was watching footage of people who could see safety but couldn’t get to it.
@try2bhelpful: Burning debris doesn't cause a "near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building". While a plane crash demolishing a lot of the strucutre and subsequent fire from jet fuel can weaken steel to the point of complete failure and collapse (as with the towers) - that argument doesn't hold water with building 7.
https://canada.constructconnect.com/dcn/news/others/2020/05/…
If you watch footage of it happening then I'm sure you can see how it appears to be a controlled demolition.
@EightImmortals: Oh wow, a tiny group of engineers and architects believe it was an inside job. About as relevant as the tiny group of doctors that think HCQ helps treat or prevent covid.
The UofAF study that they funded has already been rejected.
Of course EightImmortals believes in 9/11 conspiracies. Is there any major conspiracies that you don't believe?
@DogGunn: Those doctors put up with over a year of their careers being tarnished and being kicked off social media platforms while the treatment they advocated for, Ivermectin, is now getting a lot of institutional awareness:
"Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin."
https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/…
The doctors have been vindicated already yet you still spout the corporate talking points against them?
@studentl0an: Did I say Ivermectin?
P.S. thanks for the low quality meta analysis. I'll wait for high quality randomised clinical trials.
@DogGunn: It's the exact same argument.
Just because there's a maverick group of people going against what is the accepted 'group think', doesn't mean they are incorrect.
lf you think that a medical journal article that found that Ivermecin administration causes a significant decrease in death iis a low quality analysis then I don't know what to say.
We've known it for a year that it works, but because of people like you advocate for censoring 'wrong think' people are dying that could have had a chance to be saved. That's evil IMO. I can't believe you would discount information that could save lives in a pandemic - that is what I would expect from an evil dictator who wanted people to die and also wanted others to not have access to information.
@studentl0an: lol it's low quality because it's a meta analysis of lots of retrospective studies. So yes it is low quality.
Also I remember lots of these same arguments bring used for HCQ, and yet nobody except for the loud ones promoting it uses it anymore due to limited use.
@DogGunn: Why preface your comment with lol? Are you actually laughing at this?
When I said evil, I didn't think you would actually be laughing talking about this but here you are, laughing that you're correct and saying that scientists who don't conform to your views are wrong and that their work is "of low quality", even though it's a new meta analysis that sources all of it's arguments with primary research.
Perhaps you could do some primary research yourself and study why it won't work, or is that amount of experimenter bias too on the nose even for someone like yourself?
People really need to be more pragmatic about Ivermectin and stop advocating for censoring it just because their thought leaders told them too. It's saving lives as we speak.
@studentl0an: It's lol because you're so sure that there's some conspiracy theory trying to supress IVM (and other treatments) as viable, when there isn't - actually the conspiracy goes the other way around if anything. Multiple large studies into IVM have been retracted, just one for example:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-s…
Your meta analysis includes the study that was withdrawn due to fraud, and uses it as its main underpinning throughout the paper.
The paper is junk, and has been rubbished because of its low quality, and the authors constant pushing of the drug. And further, because the main study has been retracted due to fraud, it no longer has any relevance as it is impossible to use.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/jun/30/what-know-abo…
There are high quality trials ongoing:
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-06-23-ivermectin-be-investiga…
Wait until they are out.
@DogGunn: It's what happened, not a conspiracy theory. Scholars/doctors/virologists such as Brett Weinstein, Pierre Cory, Robert Malone, Mobeen Syed and more were all kicked off their platforms at one time or another for talking about Ivermectin saving lives.
1 out of the 25 has been removed. If you are the pragmatist you believe you are, would you not take that discounted study out of the equation but still look at the other 24 as valid? Why discount every study apart from the Oxford ongoing one? Is it because it fits your political narrative?
If the Oxford study finds what all those doctors knew from first hand treating patients, that it is an effective treatment for covid, would you think of your advocating of censorship of Ivermectin to have been not just incorrect, but contributing to covid deaths?
If it turns out to be an effective treatment would you think that the censorship of those touting it's benefits was still the right thing to do? Would you think about you laughing about it as being in incredibly bad taste?
1 out of the 25 has been removed. If you are the pragmatist you believe you are, would you not take that discounted study out of the equation but still look at the other 24 as valid? Why discount every study apart from the Oxford ongoing one? Is it because it fits your political narrative?
It is literally the underpinning of the whole study. If it has been revoked due to fraud, it is kinda hard to use that study given it makes the comparison to that revoked study.
The reason why the Oxford study is worthwhile waiting for is that it is being set up in a manner which can get high quality results (large sample, control, randomised), unlike many of the ones used in the meta analysis paper (which are often retrospective).
If it turns out to be an effective treatment would you think that the censorship of those touting it's benefits was still the right thing to do? Would you think about you laughing about it as being in incredibly bad taste?
No I wouldn't. We saw the nonsense from the promoters of HCQ (which includes some of the people that you've listed in your post), and it turned out to have limited effect on COVID-19.
And now due to people like those promoting IVM, we're seeing stupid idiots overdose on it including taking cattle based IVM products.
@DogGunn: I've had a look at the analysis and the referenced studies. How is that single study underpinning the entire meta analysis?
The other studies seem fine, and they find a statistical significant result that Ivermectin prevents death from Covid.
I'm really sorry to hear that you would stick to your guns, I believe that to be evil that you would think of all those people's deaths that could have been saved by Ivermectin as just the path we had to take for you to be sure about it as a treatment.
I at least would have given them the choice - you seem to be content to condemn people to death and not even give them the choice of trying Ivermectin.
I've had a look at the analysis and the referenced studies. How is that single study underpinning the entire meta analysis?
It is used in both components of its meta analysis, and is used as a comparison for the non-RCTs used in the meta analysis. It was also the only randomised clinical trial in the meta analysis. With it being retracted, it now has a total of 0 RCTs, reducing the quality of the paper even further.
I at least would have given them the choice - you seem to be content to condemn people to death.
Turns out people are idiots. If idiots cannot determine what is misinformation and what isn't, it might be worth to help them help themselves.
@DogGunn: Alright on that point I'll concede that the randomized control in the Egyptian trial did affect the overall statistics. However it doesn't change that it's been more than a year of doctors being censored about they found Ivermectin to be very effective for their patients and to fight the censorship to the point enough widespread discourse took place so that Oxford is looking at it rather than just outright saying it's "for idiots" as you succinctly put it.
"Turns out people are idiots. If idiots cannot determine what is misinformation and what isn't, it might be worth to help them help themselves."
If you got covid and you're about to die in hospital - would you prefer to be an idiot with a chance to live by given the choice of Ivermectin or would you rather be condemned to death by 'experts' who wouldn't even give you the chance because they think of you as an idiot?
I think if Oxford finds it to be effective, that you should do some real soul searching when it comes to advocating for censorship. If it finds it to not be effective, then by all means keep laughing at people dying.
@studentl0an: Nobody is being censored from publishing pre-prints describing the benefits of IVM. What people are being censored for is spruiking the benefits of IVM on things like Twitter and Linkedin when the benefits aren't yet established to a good quality. Because of that nonsense, we're seeing people try and help themselves to IVM like they did with HCQ. Thankfully IVM isn't nearly as deadly in an overdose as HCQ can be.
Would you prefer to be an idiot with a chance to live by given the choice of Ivermectin or would you rather be condemned to death by 'experts' who wouldn't even give you the chance because they think of you as an idiot?
This is a question of medical ethics. It's impossible to determine to a high degree if drugs are effective without there being clinical trials.
If it finds it to not be effective, then by all means keep laughing at people dying.
At no point have I laughed at people dying.
@DogGunn: Censorship is censorship. Science and politics are downstream from culture. We study things we find, and if our culture censors things to study - we potentially lose a year of RCT taking place as has been the case with Ivermectin.
If in our culture we censor a facebook post, youtube video or twitter post as you seem to be advocating for (correct me if I'm wrong) then:
1) It creates more of a cult of personality around those being censored (if you believe it to be wrong to tell others of how effective Ivermectin has been in your own therapy). This further creates a divide between health authorities and people.
2) It pushes back actual study such as taking 1+ year to initiate a robust RCT analysis at Oxford, potentially causing many deaths who could have otherwise been saved.
If a year ago authorities came out and said that Ivermectin was potentially harmful yet will study it with a large RCT because of all the promising studies so far - that would have been fantastic. However they didn't. Authorities spent a year denigrating those advocating for it and censoring them across many outlets. People in the media are denigrating those who take it as 'taking horse drugs'.
As is, censorship in culture is a terrible way to conduct public health and only going to cause distrust and a further the rift between public health authorities and the populace.
@bardlee: What's like telling people to not get vaccination? No one here has said anything like that at all.
Get vaccinated or don't, I don't care. I care about people having access to information so they can make up their own mind, and not have politicians censor information they don't want people having access to.
@studentl0an: Trying to have this conversation seems impossible with most people.
In my experience those from non-western countries seem more open and understanding to the danger of censorship.
I commend you for trying but truth be told it's like trying to squeeze blood out of a stone.
If we focus on AU and US, people are so disconnected and trusting of their government it escapes me. If I had to take a guess, they have never experienced what the rest of the world does or a struggle in their life time like generations before us.
We don't appreciate what we have until it's gone. Perhaps it's a hard lesson that we need to learn once again. It's always paid in blood but rarely appreciated by those who didn't shed it or make the sacrifices to endure it.
Well the way those buildings crumbled, it did seem like a controlled demolition though..
Have a look at the reports on how the buildings were constructed and the effect of the heat generated by burning all the flammable items in the buildings. It isn’t surprising that the floors, effectively, pancaked.
@try2bhelpful: lol, thats what the 9/11 commission stated in their brief and findings report..
it was quickly debunked by experts after..
The problem isn’t that more and more people are aware of these things. Its the fact that the media wouldn’t support content that goes against the public sentiment.
Look at Faucci right now, we all know the truth and yet everyone is sliding it under the carpet. Same sh*t every year.
@Gervais fanboy: Debunked by which experts?
Funny how everyone who “knows the truth” has trouble finding the facts to back this up.
If this was the “truth” then someone like Trump would’ve had no trouble throwing the whole thing under a bus to distract from what he was doing. If you “know” about these things you don’t think he wouldn’t?
@try2bhelpful: lol, you didn’t ask me for a source. I thought you were intentful enough to even try to look it up for yourself but all you wanna do is bite at what I have to say and then be spoon fed
Anyways, ‘loose change’ is a perfect compilation of some great findings and debunking many of the government claims. It used to be on YouTube but you know, the liberal media.. its not there anymore. Let me know if you are genuinely curious, I’ll send you a torrent link somehow.. I am not on my laptop right now..
Anyways
https://watch.the-west.com.au/show/1025
Is another good dig into the whole thing. Watch it with an open mind .
Btw you are kinda right about the Trump claim though, I was just as surprised by how he didn’t dig into so many of these hot subjects..
I was more keen on him discussing Area51, and the ufo body that America has in its possession. Which was Ofcos made public by the government agencies not so long ago.
Ps Trump to his credit didn’t seek diversion stories to distract people of his critics.. he use to face media everyday. Unlike Biden who wouldn’t even answer questions at press conferences anymore. Just walks off like a gangster
@Gervais fanboy: Trump facing his critics, everyday? That is a joke isn’t it? Trump suppressed and rigged the Press Conferences.
If there was any truth to any of this Trump would’ve used it against people like George W. Absolutely, Guaranteed.
The most likely scenario for Area 51 is it started as some sort of experimental craft and, now, it provides a really good distraction for the conspiracy theorists. However, I love watching the X Files as much as the next person.
@try2bhelpful: You still didn’t tell me if you were keen on ‘loose change’
Anyways I’ll take that as a no. Just stay tuned to cnn, that’ll serve you well
Btw https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/ufo-report-pentagon-…
Us government does have spaceships in its possession.
Hopefully they’ll make more of their findings public in the near future.
@Gervais fanboy: I have no idea if there is Alien life out there, the odds are there probably is. However, I find the concept they came this far, crashed in the US desert, and then did nothing else a tad bizarre.
However I do like the concept of the “teasers” from Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy.
“Teaser
Teasers are usually rich kids with nothing to do. They cruise around looking for planets that haven't made interstellar contact yet and buzz them, meaning that they find some isolated spot with very few people around, then land right by some poor unsuspecting soul whom no one's going to believe and then strut up and down in front of him wearing silly antennas on their head and making beep beep noises.”
The concept of teasers was explained to Arthur Dent by Ford Prefect. Ford had arrived on planet Earth fifteen years prior to its demolition by hitching a lift with a teaser.
@try2bhelpful: Just to add to your point there brother
There has been several Alien spottings as reported
But the government followed by its sheep has always refuted those claims as ‘conspiracy madness’
Bob Lazar spent most of his life in that situation.
But then the government/Pentagon comes out to allude to UFO findings and seeks funding to support these research units. Which have been kept classified thus far.
I don’t know whats true and whats not.. but when one side just dismisses the other side as a ‘nutter’ on such unknown and unsure topics without even a single discussion or debate.
Its really peaks my interests. Coz most often its the establishment keeping us from knowing things that aren’t in there best interests..
Not really relevant to our discussion but a fascinating watch still
https://youtu.be/7fcqhU-23TA
Content like this helps me realise how the ‘truths’ of today could be clarified as the falsehoods they always were..
@Gervais fanboy: Of course the US needs to investigate UFOs. Anything, unidentifiable, flying over US airspace is, probably, of concern to them. This doesn’t mean it is from another planet it just means they don’t know what it is.
When things are proven, scientifically, then we can believe the facts. Doubt is, OK, but we need to provide logic to it. Look at the possibilities and probabilities.
sounds like u r peddling a conspiracy yourself
Not a conspiracy, just a comment on how America applies a filter on its treatment of some countries over others.
Is there an explanation on why there's no debris of an airplane to be seen, and if the theory is that the plane went completely inside the pentagon, then the visible hole is not large enough for a plane that size.
And yet they were able to find passports in perfect conditions 🤷♂️
I'm not one of those conspiracy nut cases but i just find some things odd.
the media and government never lie. even if they did then it would be for the greater good
There are always “odd” things associated with plane crashes. We can never be “certain” of everything that happens but the balance of probability is hijacking rather than a giant government conspiracy. It would probably suit my purposes to run with a thread that it was an inside job by the right wing military machinery but that “dog won’t hunt”. The risks would be just too great if it got out; and it would get out.
Yes you are one of those conspiracy theorists because you are peddling utter non-scientific nonsense.
If it was a inside job do you think they would let that leak out?
There’s always loose ends. The fact that they can pull this off despite bits and pieces already been leaked out is the true achievement…
@Gervais fanboy: LOL. Yeah of course it was an inside job and a government conspiracy.
But for some silly reason the conspiracists forgot to plant a single shred of evidence somewhere within Libya that might have justified the decision made by the US (and Australia) to invade Iraq??
Nah, they forgot to do that and so we have Bush, the US Government, John Major and our own ex-PM John Howard looking like ignorant fools for doing what they did in Iraq.
Billions spent on a coordinated secret conspiracy to take down major buildings and killing thousands of US citizens to justify invading Iraq - but when they got to Iraq and took control of the country they forgot to smuggle in a fragment of nuclear material or equipment to justify the invasion and the 'war on terror' in the first place???
Use your brains and a bit of logic and you realise this conspiracy/false flag theory makes zero sense and is the refuge of brain dead nutters.
@FitzChivalry Farseer: Wait a minute
Lets just deal in facts here
America justified going to Iraq on the ‘suspicion’ on the existence of ‘WMD’,
Fact- There were no weapons of mass destruction found.
They said they wanted to setup a democracy
Fact - They setup a puppet government, Economically Iraq is drastically worse now than what it was under Saddam Hussein.
Fact - They extracted their oil resources,
Fact - American tax payers shelled out over $4 trillion to fund the war.
Another Fact - Dick Cheney, vice president at the time. Was a majority shareholder in the weapon companies that got the tenders to supply ammunition for the war
You put two and two together ?
You alright son ?
@Gervais fanboy: Yup, and that provides not one shred of evidence that the US Government was responsible for 911. It just means they took advantage of it.
Are you alright son?
@try2bhelpful: You are so frustrating to talk to
I responded to ‘Farseer’ , about his claims about the motives about the us government going to Iraq… I didn’t discuss the 9/11 plane crash with him..
Him and I only had a back and forth about Iraq.
Even though I have made some great points on the topic.. you not for once in your stubborn mind even tried to consider them.. but instead you agreed and liked his comment ? Despite everything that I have pointed out since In my response.
All I can think now is —
it's hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person
- Bill Murray
I give up, you win brother
@Gervais fanboy: Quoting Bill Murray. Yeah, go for it son. Let’s bring out the intellectual big guns.
I’m not your brother, mate, I’m not even your sister.
@Gervais fanboy: BTW
This is the first line from Farseer’s post just before yours.
“LOL. Yeah of course it was an inside job and a government conspiracy.”
Which was a response to wizard saying
“If it was a inside job do you think they would let that leak out?”
I wonder why I thought this might be continuation of the discussion on the 911 conspiracies and how this might be a justification for the US to invade Iraq?
@try2bhelpful: 100% Correct. And blindingly obvious I would have thought, especially given the topic of this particular OzBargain deal.
But we need to remember that context is never the strong point of conspiracy theorists, whose preference is only to highlight those cherry-picked 'facts' that align with their chosen narrowly defined narrative.
@FitzChivalry Farseer: Not just me then.
Frankly I do think the US used 9/11 as a justification to invade Iraq, I just think they didn’t blow up a bunch of their own buildings to do it.
@try2bhelpful: Agree.
Bush's deliberately ubiquitous 'War on Terror' campaign that sprung from 9/11 provided the open ended 'justification' to invade Iraq even when the WMD evidence was paper thin. The impact on Iraqi peoples was devastating and lead to consequences for Middle East peace (including the creation of Islamic State) that even now we are still yet to fully comprehend. It also took emphasis off the search for Bin Laden and Al Qaeda within Afghanistan that confused coalition goals in that country as well.
Perpetrating rubbish nonsense about 9/11 conspiracies takes the focus off the real evil of the past 20 years. And allows the perpetrators of those evils, including former Australian political leaders, to escape the harsh criticism they deserve.
You under estimate the power of main stream media and censorship.
Exactly, why would the main stream media censor this? What is in it for them? Why hasn’t something like “Wikileaks” not uncovered evidence of this? This is where all this falls down. It is too big a conspiracy and too elaborate to maintain the cover.
It is much more likely to be a bunch of fanatics using slack security to turn aircraft into missiles. A more interesting question is what did security forces suspect and what did they do about it? Was the “sin”more about omission rather than commission. It is much easier to write off turning a blind eye as incompetence. However, I’m not sure they would’ve even done that.
@try2bhelpful: Haha plenty of evidence plenty of people have come forward. Just because it wasn't covered in the mainstream media it didn't happen right?
@pipe: So now the mainstream media is part of this giant cover up? Yeah, right. Journalists were interested in Nixon ordering the break in at Watergate but aren’t interested in the biggest story ever?
What you guys are proposing just isn’t credible. An enormous amount of effort is required to plant explosives in buildings to create a controlled explosion. That this could be done in such public buildings as the Twin Towers, without any of the security people, or general public, being aware, is highly improbable.
The Feds could’ve found much less “risky” targets if this was their agenda.
How tf can a plane hit the pentagon. It's the most secure building in the world. Inside job?
I guess you're trolling or absent brain matter. Kamikaze passenger airliners weren't a thing until 9/11. There weren't even locks on the cockpit doors back then. The Pentagon wouldn't be ready to shoot down nearby passenger planes. Their defense strategy would have been to monitor non-commercial and unauthorised aircraft. Even today, their strategy is to prevent passenger airlines being hijacked in the first place, rather than how to shoot them down.
9/11: False flag operation by Mossad and US intelligence to propel invasions of Middle Eastern countries and install puppet governments.
Look at the world now, that didn't happen overnight.
Using invisible kamikaze flying monkeys to deliver the payload.
Mossad involvement is controlled opposition. It's a diversion to dilute the actual actual perpetrators (U.S. Military Industrial Complex along with the Saudi hijackers), as some anti-Israel conspiracy theory.
next thing i know they will release a virus in 2019
easnt it funny how the arab spring/ refugee influx happened just after the gfc as europe was heading to the left politically to regulate banking. making ppl vote for right wing anti immigration parties…
The left wanted to regulate banking? Like Obama did while the GFC and Occupy Wall Street happened? You mean he didn't bail out the banks and provide limitless credit to wall street while the working poor in America defaulted on their loans as their jobs were being offshored and their kids had to compete with immigrants for the remaining lowest paying jobs that only get lower paying with inflation being out of control from government spending?
The Left bailed out the banks, not the Right. The Left are the Right you seem to be against.
Truth is, Left and Right don't mean anything anymore. A more apt divide would be between Elitists and Populists with most politicians from all the major political parties around the world being part of the Elite along with all most the richest CEOs around the world too. It's the Elitists who are selling our futures for Cheap Chinese imported goods, from all political parties.
I think you need to start by looking up the, true, definition of “elite”.
I think you need to start by looking up the, true, definition of “elite”.
A (not the) definition that suits who?
@try2bhelpful: So politicians and all the major conglomerate/corporations are not elite? Just because they wave pride flags and talk woke talking points doesn't discount from the fact they lobby against wage increases and better working conditions. They are the elite and they fooled you into thinking they care about you because they talk like you do while they gut working conditions and strive for profit over people at every turn.
I can't imagine making that faustian bargain with big corporations. My price would be higher than just waving the flag of what ever group I align with. I would need actual tangible policies rather than politician theater. It's not like they are known to lie or deceive to get what they want.
In Australia, the same in the USA we don't have Right / Left major political parties. We have the single unaparty who gives us the illusion that when we vote we are actually making a difference.
Even though you and I have opposing Right/Left views, we are much more similar and alike than we are to say Scomo and Albanese - who are very similar to eachother.
I think you'll come around eventually to realising the Left/Right divide is a theatrical diversion while the elite smash the populists. We're all getting poorer and are worse off while they get richer and better off.
@[Deactivated]: Elite - a select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society.
I don’t think the people you are whining about are “elite”. I just think the have money, power and influence.
@try2bhelpful: So exactly what I said then, politicians, lobbyists and heads of multibilion dollar conglomerates such as wall street bankers and pharmaceutical companies.
I don't know why you told me to look up the definition, when I spelt it out and you reiterated it.
@try2bhelpful: Billionaires, conglomerates, lobbyists and the politician class with all their property portfolios aren't elite?
Because they seem to be elite by your own definition above.
Like I wrote earlier, you and I have a lot more in common despite being opposing Left/Right. The divide is between the elite and normal people, it's just the elite figured out how to disarm the Left - by waving pride flags and talking about diversity as they institute policies that make them richer and us poorer.
The elite politicians are hurting you and I to make them and their backers richer and it doesn't matter what political affiliation they have. It's all elitist theater with their control over all media while the populists on the right and left keep losing opportunities, getting poorer and encouraged to fight each other rather than stand up to the elite unaparty.
@studentl0an: Dude, Jesus could come down and spell it out for him and this guy will still not even consider a viewpoint different from his.. he’s too ‘proud’ for it as it seems
I have given up explaining stuff to him, you should too. Not worth all the mindfckery..
@Gervais fanboy: They make a lot of good points in other threads. I'd rather appeal to their rationality and have them realise they have been fighting on behalf of the elites and the Faustian bargain they made with them to do so.
I've seen a lot of people on the Left and Right come together this year as populists - against the elites who legislate against us. I'd rather keep that ball rolling and stop the Left/Right fighting which I now come to see as like pro-wrestling that the elites have pushed on us so we don't unite against them.
Fact is, Left/Right will always have their differences but we are both being smashed by elitists policies that keep the richest richer and the poorest from having opportunity to climb the fiscal ladder. If we can unite against the elite then we can actually get stuff done rather than a slow move towards becoming Serfs in a satellite CCP State.
@studentl0an: Frankly they aren’t elites, based on the, literal, definition. I don’t consider them superiors. I have no trouble with you calling them out for their behaviour but I don’t consider them elites. It is the problem with using emotive “labelling”.
Try to address the behaviour rather than trying a lazy shortcut.
The divide is between the people who are using their power and influence to further their aims at the detriment to others and the people who are being exploited. That doesn’t make the first group “superior”.
By saying they are “elite” you are implying they are superior. By what definition are they “superior”? I don’t think having a shit load of money, or influence, and using it to exploit others makes them “superior”.
That was my, actual, point.
Garagesale on 04/09/2021 - 11:11 Comment score below threshold.
