Total Posts:106|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

CharlieSheen Confronts Obama on 911

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 10:33:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
http://www.infowars.com...

Charlie Sheen got to sit down with Obama for 20 minutes and presented him with the best evidence to prove the 911 conspiracy and suggested that he use the evidence to make a real change by addressing this.

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 11:02:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Scratch that. Apparently it hasn't happened yet. He did write a letter to him though requesting an investigation. I'm not really sure what's going on with that dialogue between them. Doesn't make sense, oh well.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 11:09:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 10:33:40 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
http://www.infowars.com...

Charlie Sheen got to sit down with Obama for 20 minutes

No he didn't.

I like Charlie Sheen. I find it very sad that he got involved in this nutcase business. I've yet to understand what compels people to throw away logic, reasoning and facts like that.
So prove me wrong, then.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 11:10:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 11:02:14 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Scratch that. Apparently it hasn't happened yet. He did write a letter to him though requesting an investigation. I'm not really sure what's going on with that dialogue between them. Doesn't make sense, oh well.

Dude, he is a "9/11 truther". Nothing any of them do or say when it comes to 9/11 ever makes any sense.
So prove me wrong, then.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 11:26:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 11:10:26 PM, regebro wrote:
Dude, he is a "9/11 truther". Nothing any of them do or say when it comes to 9/11 ever makes any sense.

Seconded.

But, regardless, it would be interesting to see what Sheen has to say to Obama, as well as Obama's response.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 11:46:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 11:26:02 PM, Volkov wrote:
But, regardless, it would be interesting to see what Sheen has to say to Obama, as well as Obama's response.

It wasn't very interesting, and in my opinion not worthy of a response. Just the same crazy stuff as always.
So prove me wrong, then.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 11:49:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 11:46:19 PM, regebro wrote:
It wasn't very interesting, and in my opinion not worthy of a response. Just the same crazy stuff as always.

Ah, but the crazy stuff is always the funnest! There is an academic, reasonable President in office right now - who doesn't want to see Obama destroy and refute these silly claims?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 11:51:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
On another note - Prison Planet is really milking the Charlie Sheen angle, aren't they? Why does it seem to me more and more that Alex Jones and these people are nothing but a bunch of opportunist...
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 11:56:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 11:51:41 PM, Volkov wrote:
On another note - Prison Planet is really milking the Charlie Sheen angle, aren't they? Why does it seem to me more and more that Alex Jones and these people are nothing but a bunch of opportunist...

Spencer Montag is a 9/11 truther, ever since The Hills wasn't 'cool' (This is all information from my sister)

http://www.radaronline.com...
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 11:59:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 11:56:00 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Spencer Montag is a 9/11 truther, ever since The Hills wasn't 'cool' (This is all information from my sister)

http://www.radaronline.com...

Boy, am I ever glad no one takes these people seriously.

....
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2009 12:01:58 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 11:59:21 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/8/2009 11:56:00 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Spencer Montag is a 9/11 truther, ever since The Hills wasn't 'cool' (This is all information from my sister)

http://www.radaronline.com...

Boy, am I ever glad no one takes these people seriously.

....

Except the 1 million+ girl watching The Hills
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2009 1:19:37 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 11:49:18 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/8/2009 11:46:19 PM, regebro wrote:
It wasn't very interesting, and in my opinion not worthy of a response. Just the same crazy stuff as always.

Ah, but the crazy stuff is always the funnest! There is an academic, reasonable President in office right now - who doesn't want to see Obama destroy and refute these silly claims?

You got a point there. That would be fun.

But it wouldn't help... In fact it would probably just make it worse.
So prove me wrong, then.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2009 1:34:28 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 11:10:26 PM, regebro wrote:
At 9/8/2009 11:02:14 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Scratch that. Apparently it hasn't happened yet. He did write a letter to him though requesting an investigation. I'm not really sure what's going on with that dialogue between them. Doesn't make sense, oh well.

Dude, he is a "9/11 truther". Nothing any of them do or say when it comes to 9/11 ever makes any sense.

Have you ever compared some of the official facts of the matter with physically observed reality? The two do not add up.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2009 1:37:51 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/9/2009 1:19:37 AM, regebro wrote:
At 9/8/2009 11:49:18 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/8/2009 11:46:19 PM, regebro wrote:
It wasn't very interesting, and in my opinion not worthy of a response. Just the same crazy stuff as always.

Ah, but the crazy stuff is always the funnest! There is an academic, reasonable President in office right now - who doesn't want to see Obama destroy and refute these silly claims?

You got a point there. That would be fun.

But it wouldn't help... In fact it would probably just make it worse.

He probably won't refute these claims due to basic morality, he does not strike me the sort of person willing to justify the neo-con lies.

He won't rebute them because the political costs of doing so would be horrific, he still represents the status quo.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2009 1:40:11 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/9/2009 1:34:28 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Have you ever compared some of the official facts of the matter with physically observed reality? The two do not add up.

Have you?
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2009 2:05:56 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/9/2009 1:34:28 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/8/2009 11:10:26 PM, regebro wrote:
At 9/8/2009 11:02:14 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Scratch that. Apparently it hasn't happened yet. He did write a letter to him though requesting an investigation. I'm not really sure what's going on with that dialogue between them. Doesn't make sense, oh well.

Dude, he is a "9/11 truther". Nothing any of them do or say when it comes to 9/11 ever makes any sense.

Have you ever compared some of the official facts of the matter with physically observed reality? The two do not add up.

I have and they do.
So prove me wrong, then.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2009 2:06:48 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/9/2009 1:40:11 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/9/2009 1:34:28 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Have you ever compared some of the official facts of the matter with physically observed reality? The two do not add up.

Have you?

Yes hence my post.

I suggest you start with the collapse of WTC-7. If you are entirely happy with it's observed collapse and the vague but suprisingly honest waffle from the 9-11 commission then so be it. But chances are good you will start to wonder that something is a little bit fishy.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2009 2:07:39 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/9/2009 1:37:51 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/9/2009 1:19:37 AM, regebro wrote:
At 9/8/2009 11:49:18 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/8/2009 11:46:19 PM, regebro wrote:
It wasn't very interesting, and in my opinion not worthy of a response. Just the same crazy stuff as always.

Ah, but the crazy stuff is always the funnest! There is an academic, reasonable President in office right now - who doesn't want to see Obama destroy and refute these silly claims?

You got a point there. That would be fun.

But it wouldn't help... In fact it would probably just make it worse.

He probably won't refute these claims due to basic morality, he does not strike me the sort of person willing to justify the neo-con lies.

He won't rebute them because the political costs of doing so would be horrific, he still represents the status quo.

I dont' follow you. What political cost would you get from proving that a bunch a crazy morons are wrong?
So prove me wrong, then.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2009 2:12:31 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/9/2009 2:06:48 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I suggest you start with the collapse of WTC-7.

I've checked it. That collapse is not a controlled demolition (if it is, it's completely bungled, as the collapse simply isn't controlled). Also, all controlled demolition theories must explain how you can prep a building without nobody who is in the building notices it without using magic.
So prove me wrong, then.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2009 2:18:05 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/9/2009 2:12:31 AM, regebro wrote:
At 9/9/2009 2:06:48 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I suggest you start with the collapse of WTC-7.

I've checked it. That collapse is not a controlled demolition (if it is, it's completely bungled, as the collapse simply isn't controlled). Also, all controlled demolition theories must explain how you can prep a building without nobody who is in the building notices it without using magic.

No I am not that interested in arguing this here, I've given you a suggested place were you can begin your research.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2009 2:44:29 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/9/2009 2:18:05 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
No I am not that interested in arguing this here, I've given you a suggested place were you can begin your research.

And he discredited your research already, which means it is time to get new proof.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2009 2:46:26 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/9/2009 2:18:05 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/9/2009 2:12:31 AM, regebro wrote:
At 9/9/2009 2:06:48 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I suggest you start with the collapse of WTC-7.

I've checked it. That collapse is not a controlled demolition (if it is, it's completely bungled, as the collapse simply isn't controlled). Also, all controlled demolition theories must explain how you can prep a building without nobody who is in the building notices it without using magic.

No I am not that interested in arguing this here, I've given you a suggested place were you can begin your research.

Just so you don't confuse the different people here: I'm the one who HAS done the research. :-)

I do agree that this is not the place to debate the topic. The place to discuss these things is with a shrink.
So prove me wrong, then.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2009 8:25:26 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
That doesn't sound like what little I've heard of the way Barack Obama speaks. It sounds more like something from a bad novel.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2009 9:17:36 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/9/2009 2:44:29 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/9/2009 2:18:05 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
No I am not that interested in arguing this here, I've given you a suggested place were you can begin your research.

And he discredited your research already, which means it is time to get new proof.

I've not presented any research, in my experience no one who has looked into this believes the official version.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2009 9:39:24 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/9/2009 9:17:36 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I've not presented any research, in my experience no one who has looked into this believes the official version.

I would like you to think about and explain why you feel such a strong emotional need for the conspiracy theories to be true. Consider for example, how you would feel if they were all totally and utterly wrong, and only somebody who is bonkers could believe them. How would that make you feel? Why is it important to you that they are not wrong? Why is it important to you that the "official version" (a very fuzzy concept) is wrong?
So prove me wrong, then.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2009 11:19:39 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/9/2009 9:39:24 AM, regebro wrote:
At 9/9/2009 9:17:36 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I've not presented any research, in my experience no one who has looked into this believes the official version.

I would like you to think about and explain why you feel such a strong emotional need for the conspiracy theories to be true.

I have never expressed that I have a strong emotional need for the conspiracy theories to be true, (you don't by the way even know what conspiracy theories I actually hold to are).

Consider for example, how you would feel if they were all totally and utterly
wrong, and only somebody who is bonkers could believe them. How would that
make you feel?

I would certainly feel a little foolish, but my views are based on reason and logic. I am clearly not bonkers, as bonkers suggests someone incapable of getting by in society and instead relegated to a small padded room. I am at least lucid.

Why is it important to you that they are not wrong? Why is it important to you that :the "official version" (a very fuzzy concept) is wrong?

It is to me simply a case of 2+2 does not equal 3, nor 5.
And the official version is a pretty precise concept.

The simple fact of the matter is that the official story and the official reaction is/are not an acceptable explanation for the events of the day. Now if you are willing to, allow me a few days and I will even prepare this as a debate topic. However I infer a pretty clear desire on your part to consider the matter purely in light of the psychology of conspiracy theories, which is a fairly bemusing approach I have seen before. But if you want an actual debate on the real truth of the matter I will be happy to oblige.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2009 11:41:46 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/9/2009 9:17:36 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I've not presented any research, in my experience no one who has looked into this believes the official version.

That is "research," you know. And its clear you already have two here who do not agree with that perspective, which is why I wanted to see if you had any evidence for us to see (assuming that you've thought this through).
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2009 11:56:52 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/9/2009 11:41:46 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/9/2009 9:17:36 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I've not presented any research, in my experience no one who has looked into this believes the official version.

That is "research," you know. And its clear you already have two here who do not agree with that perspective, which is why I wanted to see if you had any evidence for us to see (assuming that you've thought this through).

As I say, in my experience those who have looked into the matter are conspiracy theorists, those who have not are understandably dubious of such things. But yes, I have read up on this quite a bit, debated it a fair amount, and I believe there is convincing evidence to dissuade me from assuming that the official canon is valid.

I have quite a large body of evidence, even if I am very selective and cut it down to the bare basics so if you really want to argue it here, or in a debate you will need to give me a couple of days.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2009 1:41:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/9/2009 11:19:39 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I have never expressed that I have a strong emotional need for the conspiracy theories to be true, (you don't by the way even know what conspiracy theories I actually hold to are).

I know of at least one, and thats enough. You have also already shown string indications that you ignore everything that doesn't fit into the conspiracy theories. That's enough for me. There has to be a string emotional basis for that sort of cognitive filtering to be in place.

I would certainly feel a little foolish, but my views are based on reason and logic.

It is of course completely possible, but I have yet to find one conspiracy theorist who is as assertive in his belief as you are that can be converted by reason, logic and facts. I would be happy for you to be the first one, but I do not have high hopes.

I am clearly not bonkers, as bonkers suggests someone incapable of getting by in society

No, that would be clinically insane. That's different from bonkers. :-)

and instead relegated to a small padded room.

No, that would be somebody who is violently (self-)destructive.

It is to me simply a case of 2+2 does not equal 3, nor 5.
And the official version is a pretty precise concept.

No, it's a very diffuse concept. Already here you show logical problems. That there may be errors, omissions or unknowns in the "official version" (of what?) for example does not mean that any of the conspiracy theories are correct.

The simple fact of the matter is that the official story and the official reaction is/are not an acceptable explanation for the events of the day.

No, you see, it isn't a simple fact. Far from it.

Now if you are willing to, allow me a few days and I will even prepare this as a debate topic. However I infer a pretty clear desire on your part to consider the matter purely in light of the psychology of conspiracy theories, which is a fairly bemusing approach I have seen before.

Yes, debating the actual theories have long since lost it's charm to me. It's quite clear that nobody who actually knows enough about the theories to be able to try to defend them, also is completely incapable of being moved by, or even understanding, the arguments against them.

What fascinates me now is why people chose to believe things that are clearly bonkers. That's what I want to know. WHY do you feel that they HAVE to be true? Because it is an emotional reason, it has nothing to do with logic or facts.

But if you want an actual debate on the real truth of the matter I will be happy to oblige.

Then you first have to convince me that you not only understand logic and physics, but that you are willing to be convinced that you are completely and utterly wrong, and admit it. That is a LOT to ask, I know.
So prove me wrong, then.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2009 2:14:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/9/2009 1:41:24 PM, regebro wrote:
At 9/9/2009 11:19:39 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I have never expressed that I have a strong emotional need for the conspiracy theories to be true, (you don't by the way even know what conspiracy theories I actually hold to are).

I know of at least one, and thats enough. You have also already shown string indications that you ignore everything that doesn't fit into the conspiracy theories. That's enough for me. There has to be a string emotional basis for that sort of cognitive filtering to be in place.


Pardon? So before we have even had any sort of argument on any level with regards this issue you assume that I will just ignore everything that does not fit into views? That is utterly and disturbingly prejudiced.

I would certainly feel a little foolish, but my views are based on reason and logic.

It is of course completely possible, but I have yet to find one conspiracy theorist who is as assertive in his belief as you are that can be converted by reason, logic and facts. I would be happy for you to be the first one, but I do not have high hopes.

I am clearly not bonkers, as bonkers suggests someone incapable of getting by in society

No, that would be clinically insane. That's different from bonkers. :-)

and instead relegated to a small padded room.

No, that would be somebody who is violently (self-)destructive.

It is to me simply a case of 2+2 does not equal 3, nor 5.
And the official version is a pretty precise concept.

No, it's a very diffuse concept. Already here you show logical problems. That there may be errors, omissions or unknowns in the "official version" (of what?) for example does not mean that any of the conspiracy theories are correct.


Logical problems how so? The existence of errors, omissions or unknowns in the official version does not preclude the fact that the existence of an official version is a precise (as in defined) concept. It makes no comment on the quality or nature of such an official version.

The simple fact of the matter is that the official story and the official reaction is/are not an acceptable explanation for the events of the day.

No, you see, it isn't a simple fact. Far from it.

Now if you are willing to, allow me a few days and I will even prepare this as a debate topic. However I infer a pretty clear desire on your part to consider the matter purely in light of the psychology of conspiracy theories, which is a fairly bemusing approach I have seen before.

Yes, debating the actual theories have long since lost it's charm to me. It's quite clear that nobody who actually knows enough about the theories to be able to try to defend them, also is completely incapable of being moved by, or even understanding, the arguments against them.

What fascinates me now is why people chose to believe things that are clearly bonkers. That's what I want to know. WHY do you feel that they HAVE to be true? Because it is an emotional reason, it has nothing to do with logic or facts.


Again I have addressed this. 2+2 = 4. I don't get excited by that, I don't get passionate about arguing it. It is for me purely facts and logic.

But if you want an actual debate on the real truth of the matter I will be happy to oblige.

Then you first have to convince me that you not only understand logic and physics, but that you are willing to be convinced that you are completely and utterly wrong, and admit it. That is a LOT to ask, I know.

Well I have shown that I do not dismiss people or arguments without first reviewing the evidence and I have corrected the logical error in your post. So half of that is covered. As for physics I will generally defer to physicists which I consider acceptable.

In any case I don't need to debate this with you, it just might be interesting. I will probably initiate one next week regardless. If I do debate you it will on the actual facts, not on personal assumptions or unworthy tangents.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.