Well, among the democrats I would prefer Biden but it's probably too late for him to surge. Hillary would be my second choice, I can barely tolerate her but at least she is better than Barack Hussein Obama. I did warm up to Hillary a little when she acknowledged that NAFTA may have been a mistake. But her health care plan sucks and the position of all democrats on immigration terrifies the crap out of me. At any rate I have no doubt in my mind that the next president will be a republican so I am paying more attention to the republican race. Among the republicans I have a marginal preference for Huckabee but I'd be comfortable with Rudy, Romney and McCain. Don't make any mistake about it, I disagree with them on most issues, especially economic ones but anyone of them will be way better than Bush. Huckabee does appeal to me as a populist but even though he is a preacher, in order to get the nomination he'll have to sell his soul to the [corporate] devil, which makes his populism a moot point.
Are you serious or? Nevermind, you are too dumb to actually be facetious. You only requoted the conversation where Larry says "maybe the smartest thing is to pull it". Does that sound like an order? Why do you think he then said "they made a decision". Do you really think it's 100% Larry decision. You are just too dumb, a perfect example of a sheeple. You are the type of retard that will be part of a scheme without the slighest clue of what goes on. You are the moron fall guy the real sheisters count on to do what you do best, be a total moron, and when the scam gets uncovered to stand there with a dumbfounded look on your face saying "duhhhhh! I made a terrible mistake, it was all a screw up, we made an honest mistake". The best part about it is that your type would actually be honest about it. It's just so predictable, many stories of this occuring at corporations & large non-profits. I never discredited anything, whether Larry knew anything above what he was being told is not important. Same goes for the fire chief, we don't know exactly what went on behind the scenes, who really gave the order at the highest level and what info even the fire chief was getting & from whom. All we know is that the building was demolished, confirmed by Larry's interview, firefighters on video coming out stating that the building going down, the BBC report, delivering the news 15 minutes ahead of the event, and the actual footage of the building going down. Every single ambiguous detail of 9/11 comes with some far-fetched rationalization combined with "conspiracy nut" rhetoric. The sad part is that it works, cause 80-90% of the people are just that predictable to be dumbed down sheep, just like you. Your political choices confirm that fact.
No I don't think it was his decision as I don't think the building was demolished. I don't think that Larry or the chief of police would be involved knowingly or not in a high-level, high-risk high-stake government conspiracy to kill 3000+ americans. It's absurd to even suggest that during a major CIA/Mossad/WhoEver operation Larry and the fire chief would be discussing and deciding whether the key part of the conspiracy (demolition of WTC 7) should be carried out.
while i disagree with just about everything you said in the above answer... i actually appreciate that you answered it seriously. something ZZZzzzzz refuses to do.
You go mate...the world needs more of you! Here's friend of mine..... http://www.aci.net/kalliste/ Two peas in a pod.
Other 'conspiracies' Sinking of the Lusitania - Got the US into WW1 Pearl Harbor 'unprovoked' attack - Got the US into WW2 Gulf of Tonkin - Got the US (deep) into Vietnam 9/11 - Conquest of the Middle East The first 3 events were false flag, governement induced, world banker pressured lies which precipitated US involvment in global wars (which are very profitable for the top of the economic pyramid)...
Oh goody, another conspiracy thread. Yay!!! Fact is, the relevant authorities knew the risks in each of these scenarios, via the political or military climate, or via actual direct info which in a bureacracy, is always discounted. A conspiracy of incompetence, and political cowardice. So, what does this have to do with ron paul? Would his bureacracy be somehow, magically, more competent, or would the pressing concerns of democracy in fact be more conveniently ignored under the guise of constitution waving and alleged freedom, rather than flag waving after the fact? Not that its relevant, he is a lame duck, a cooked goose, race is run, put to stud, in the long paddock, a paper tiger, a museum piece in the making. He could win-but it wouldnt matter.