Political stance

[wildcat69410]

I think its quite funny how everyone plays the government's game so well. Even those that think they are smart.

 

Its amazing the destruction of words. Tis a beautiful thing. - 1984.

"The duty of every patriot is to defend his country from his government." - Thomas Payne

 

Presidents aren't elected, the are Selected. Just look at the last joke election, Bush, Kerry, both members of Skull & Bones, AND they are cousins. Someone with mAd math skills tell me the probability of that. Oh, one in.... A billion? I MEAN COME ON!!! The stupid son of a {censored} was caught on tape SAYING HE WILL NOT LOOSE! And ADMITTING his agenda on meet the press! I mean really. COME ON!

 

And you all sit here and talk about 'issues' that some damned official in the 'government' comes up with to distract you from something else. Oh, im a member of this party, or that party?!?!?!? What about THE party! In 1984. So predictable. "Working across party lines??!?!?!" How blind can you be? One party! One OS! One world government! One agenda! One race! One mind! Remember the 1984 Apple AD!?!?!?! Most of you teenagers weren't around then, and most of you get fed the stupid propaganda {censored} that comes out of "public government schools". You get fed what they want you to get fed, and what they want you to have an opinion about. They give you options, and let you pick and choose. Either this or this. They GIVE YOU YOUR CHOICES. So you in reality HAVE NO CHOICE but what they GIVE YOU.

 

Talking about whos {censored}, and what {censored} wants this, and drugs being outlawed, and death penalties, and all this other {censored}, that doesn't matter. The government is gonna do what THEY WANT TO DO REGUARDLESS OF WHAT YOU THINK, OR WANT.

 

ANd for all you Bush / Skull & Bones supporting Neo Con suckers out there why do you support Nazi's? Why did you elect a man in the 90s that financed the Nazi party? ARE OUT OF YOUR {censored} MIND? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU? Supporting a damn oil war that kills millions of people? Fracking church reject two-faced hypocrites. You do NOT BELIEVE in Jesus you liers. You believe in DEATH, and MURDER, and your god is that of DEATH, and all that that is wrong with this world.

 

You do what the mass media tells you. You mow your lawn. You go to work. You watch MTV. You listen to music that the F500 put out for you to hear. You shop at Wal-Mart. You want the latest 52 inch HD-TV at Best Buy. So you can watch more {censored} on TV that doesn't matter. You want your "reality shows". You want your sports "games". You BELIEVE what the mass media tells you. The select, elite few that control the TV stations. You WANT TO BE CATTLE. You LOVE IT. You are so deep down in it that you can't even tell where UP is anymore. You ALLOW the F500 to CONTROL you with Copyright, and rubber stamped paid for laws like the DMCA. I'll strait up tell you, I SUPPORT PIRACY. SCREW THE F500. SCREW M$. SCREW APPLE. SCREW ADOBE. You believe in the rights of some artist or something or other. What about MY rights? Fair use? every heard of it? You support the false right of one to be a rich son of a {censored} off your dime to oppress you. You KNOW its the truth, and don't want to face it, or admit it, which one will reply with a predictable answer, and I can even guess who you are, because you ARE predictable branded cattle. I know EXACTLY who you are and what you will say, so don't even BOTHER to reply because I already know your propaganda speech.

 

Tis proved on this board a million times. You do NOT live in a free country. The US is NOT A FREE COUNTRY BECAUSE OF IT'S GOVERNMENT. If you think otherwise, you are either on a hallucinate drug, or you are totally brainwashed by the mass media, and have your head so far up your ass that you have turned into a quantum anomaly, and disappeared into a point of non-matter existance.

 

You are a SALVE. You are CONTROLLED. WAKE UP. You are in the Matrix. Don't believe a word of it? NATIONAL ID happens next year. Wait and see. You will get RFID tagged like cattle in your driver's license, and you won't even KNOW IT unless someone told you before hand. Oh yea, and its not in the mainstream "press" either. They don't want you to know how they are treating you. One member here knew it, and they called him crazy, and banned his postings. Watch it happen to me as well. Ive talked to him outside the board. I know what went on.

 

Watch this post be censored like a dictatorship just because someone "doesn't like it".

"I don't want to go on the cart!" - Monty Python _ Holy Grail

 

You want the truth? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE {censored} TRUTH.

 

I'm sorry OryHara, I've got a ton of respect for you and your postings, but I simply cannot find the logic in all of this.

 

Firstly, Bush and Kerry were 16th Cousins, thrice removed. Hardly what you'd call close blood. As for Skull and Bones, it's simply an influential club of elitists at Yale. There have been many many members of this "elite" group. Simply because both are members doesn't at all mean that suddenly Presidents are "selected", and the government's simply become a controlling conspiracy. Your opening statement here, by itself, is the only key substantial fact in this entire argument. The rest is conjecture based upon this argument. Quite clearly, this argument by itself signifies at best, pointless coincidence.

 

Moving on into your conjecture about governmental parties and public schooling. Seriously now, there is no hidden force behind everything, no all powerful government controlling everyone. This isn't 1984, nor will it ever be. Your theory about public schooling is simply insane, as the capability to hide this hidden "truth" from the world would be impossible even in this day and age. Your point about the parties, and how you "choose" sides on an issue preselected for you, is again incorrect. Assuming you're referring to government worldwide, not just in the United States, you're factually wrong. In Britain for example there are parties for virtually whatever series of issues you support. If you do not have a party supporting your issues, then you can create one.

 

Plus, select any issue, and you'll always find two basic sides. Simply because the parties align themselves on two different sides doesn't at all mean that the sides are preselected, and that we have no real choice. It simply means that there are only two sides to an issue. Plus, it's not like we don't have an affect on the Government at all. By electing those running it, we set a clear example on the agendas that we want to be established. Democrats in the House today passed a measure that would remove American troops by next August if passed. Don't act as if public impatience with the was hasn't had any impact on the government, because it has. And don't act as if elections are faked either, because that's just pointlessly incorrect.

 

As for the classically overused, and dramatically overstated ploy of the Bush funded Nazi argument, that point right there destroyed whatever serious credibility you had. Firstly, it was his father and not him. Secondly, time and time again facts have shown that these claims are simply rumors that have been multiplied under the magnification of political adversity. Simply, the facts show that Prescott Bush had some financial dealings with a Nazi Industrialist named Fritz Thyssen before the war. Once Fritz was arrested in 1938, Bush withdrew and the appropriate assets were frozen. Bush was neither a Nazi, nor a Nazi Sympathizer.

 

Onto your "oil war". Firstly, it's not an oil war, although many seem to think so. I know it's been overstated many times, but it was that whole WMD fiasco that started it all. There were no lies about WMD's, no treachery, the intelligence supporting the existance of WMD's (however false), were objectively confirmed by both Britain and Russia. There's no hidden conspiracy there either, before you pull out further conjecture saying so. Your ending statement was inflammatory, and utterly untrue and pointless. Once you begin to type in caps, you're in ranting mode, and it simply doesn't add up.

 

Moving onto your "media controls us". Seriously now, the way the internet is open to everybody, and with the advent of new communication services, almost nothing is truly "controlled" by the elite anymore. If there was some truth that we all are missing, some key news that everybody else was ignoring, then the internet would objectively reveal it. Now before you claim victory in your crusade towards bringing the truth to the world, listen for a moment. You claim that we are all simply sheep, controlled by the elites and the mass media, yet isn't that what you've literally become? Where did you get this "groundbreaking" information? How is it not "tampered" by the so called world governmental conspiracy? Your basic belief in an all powerful conspiracy renders your findings tampered with from the start, making your entire theory a logical fallacy. In order to accept your theory, it must be accepted that the media doesn't control what we see and who we are.

 

Onto the increasing rights debate. You do have rights, you do indeed. However I find it increasingly humorous how you whine and complain about "your rights", when you clearly infringe on the rights of others daily. In today's world, you have a right to what you've earned. If you haven't "earned" something, then legally you do not get it. It's a fairly simple system that is ultimately fair. If you'd thought of a groundbreaking idea, a piece of hardware or software that would change the way the world is run, wouldn't you want your rights to that? You created it, you earn the rights to it. This isn't all about the classic rich vs poor {censored}, it's much bigger.

 

Your next sentence is what I truly love, about the whole branded cattle argument, and how we're all so predictable. So ironic, especially considering you're not the first conspiracy crackpot to come up with this inherent nonsense. Do you have any idea how many times I've heard these arguments literally verbatim from others worldwide? I find it so funny in that by branding us all as predictable cattle you join another predictable group yourself. And again, ironically, it's your urging not to even bother to reply that you claim to be the problem with our nation. In a time where you say the "people" are losing their rights, you want to limit my right to respond simply because you think you can predict it?

 

Now I'm going to come out now and make this crazy prediction of my own before you respond. Firstly, I predict you will state that you knew my entire response was coming, and that it was entirely propaganda. Secondly, you'll most likely follow that with continued conjecture on how I'm a sheep following the mass media of the world, unaware to my surroundings. Thirdly, if we make it to this point, you'll declare that I'm some part of the conspiracy in it of itself, and that it's me that is blinding the world from the truth. Finally, you'll end on some rant capping off with an overused 1984 quote, or some other "shocker" intended to make me finally understand how we're all oppressed by a hidden matrix like organization.

 

I'm now accepting bets on that prediction, any takers?

[Forrest's_Cavalry_Corps]

At the risk of being discordant, it is very easy to make claims about freedom vs law, but if you're the owner of slaves, they're somewhat... attenuated.

 

Sigh, another of the historically illiterate. Ok, I guess that before anything else can be discussed this will have to be addressed.

 

First, before I move on to specifics, there are some general principles that you must understand. The first of which is that the victor in any war always write the histories, and they write the histories to justify what they did. Second, the real causes of any war are always either (1.) concealed, or (2.)hidden within the propaganda each side (or all sides should there be more than two countries involved) issues. Third, the root cause of every war is economic (yes, I know, wars are blamed on a variety of things, Religion, slavery, saving the world from some ruthless dictator, or just name whatever propaganda reason for a war you want). Now with those general principles in mind, we'll move on to some specifics.

 

Ok, now, if you can set aside you're political indoctrination camp (public school) "history", perhaps you will at least begin to see that you have only been taught a very small and select part of the story.

 

The first thing that has to be overcome is indoctrinated notion that the war was some noble quest by the yankee saint abraham to free the slaves. To begin with, consider the first proposed 13th amendment, which passed the House and Senate in late 1860, and which was ratified by three (two northern, and Maryland) states before the war broke out. This amendment (the yankees hoped) would cause the States that had seceded to return to the union. This proposed 13th amendment was even mentioned by saint abraham in his first inaugural address. The text of the proposed amendment is thus: "ARTICLE THIRTEEN, No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." Notice the language of this proposed amendment. Given the way this amendment was worded, it was not repealable. It states "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere"; now had this been ratified by the proper number of States, which had the seceded States rescinded their articles of secession, and returned to the union it would have, it would have made slavery a perpetual institution from that point on. Saint abraham's comments regarding the proposed amendment were "[H]olding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." Given just this, had all The South wanted were to preserve the institution of slavery, all the Southern States needed to do was to return to the union.

 

http://encycl.opentopia.com/term/Corwin_amendment

 

http://www.ah.dcr.state.nc.us/Archives////...h_amendment.htm

 

http://www.scv674.org/SH-4.htm

 

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

 

http://blueandgraytrail.com/event/Proposed_13th_Amendment

 

Now, that is just one piece of evidence, but the fact that the north was willing to make slavery a perpetual institution should at least (hopefully) begin to make you think. Now, some of saint abraham's own words:

 

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois" (September 18, 1858), pp. 145-146.

 

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.

 

"The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people." ~ Lincoln, on whether blacks, slave or free, should be allowed in the new territories in the west, October 16, 1854.

 

"I cannot make it better known than it already is, that I favor colonization." ~ Lincoln, in a message to Congress, December 1, 1862, supporting deportation of all blacks from America.

 

"President Lincoln may colonize himself if he choose, but it is an impertinent act, on his part, to propose the getting rid of those who are as good as himself." ~ America's preeminent immediate Abolitionist and advocate of free trade, William Lloyd Garrison.

 

"[Lincoln] had not a drop of anti-slavery blood in his veins." ~ William Lloyd Garrison.

 

To further show saint abraham's hypocrisy:

 

"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movements." ~ Lincoln January 12 1848, expressing the near-universally held Jeffersonian principle, before Lincoln unilaterally destroyed it, that no state could claim its inhabitants as its property.

 

And, some input from some observers of the conflict:

 

"Democracy broke down, not when the Union ceased to be agreeable to all its constituent States, but when it was upheld, like any other Empire, by force of arms." ~ The London Times.

 

"With what pretence of fairness, it is said, can you Americans object to the secession of the Southern States when your nation was founded on secession from the British Empire?" ~ Cornhill Magazine (London) 1861.

 

"The struggle of today is on the one side for empire and on the other for independence." ~ Wigan Examiner (UK) May, 1861.

 

"The Southerners are admired for everything but their slavery and that their independence may be speedily acknowledged by France and England is, we are convinced, the strong desire of the vast majority, not only in England but throughout Europe." ~ Liverpool Daily Post, 11 March 1862.

 

"The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states." ~ Charles Dickens, 1862

 

"Any reasonable creature may know, if willing, that the North hates the Negro, and that until it was convenient to make a pretence that sympathy with him was the cause of the war, it hated the abolitionists and derided them up hill and down dale. As to Secession being Rebellion, it is distinctly possible by state papers that Washington considered it no such thing and that Massachusetts, now loudest against it, has itself asserted its right to secede, again and again." ~ Charles Dickens

 

"But the mass of respectable Northerners, though they may be willing to pay, do not very naturally feel themselves called upon to give their blood in a war of aggression, ambition, and conquest; for this war is essentially a war of conquest. If ever a nation did wage such a war, the North is now engaged, with a determination worthy of a more hopeful cause, in

endeavouring to conquer the South; but the more I think of all that I have seen in the Confederate States of the devotion of the whole population, the more I feel inclined to say with General Polk----["How can you subjugate such a people as this?"] and even supposing that their extermination were a feasible plan, as some Northerners have suggested, I never can believe that in the nineteenth century the civilised world will be condemned to witness the destruction of such a gallant race." ~ Arthur J. L. Fremantle

 

"the Union government liberates the enemy's slaves as it would the enemy's cattle, simply to weaken them in the conflict. The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal

to the United States." ~ The London (England) Spectator

 

"The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty." ~ Karl Marx, 1861

 

Now, hopefully, those with the ability to think for themselves will at least realize that there was far more to this than the crusade of saint abraham to "free the slaves". If I can at least make that point I'll consider this post successful.

 

Regardless, now the question is what was the actual cause of the war. Before going any further though, let me say that there were many issues that caused tension between the north & The South, but the root cause of the war was alluded to in both the quotes of Dickens & Marx. To further expand upon them, I present these:

 

"They (the South) know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interest.... These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union. They (the North) are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto. They are as mad as hornets because the prize slips them just as they are ready to grasp it." ~ New Orleans Daily Crescent-1861

 

"Under Federal Legislation, the exports of the South have been the basis of the Federal Revenue. Virginia, the two Carolina's, and Georgia, may be said to defray three fourths of the annual expense of supporting the Federal Government; and of this great sum, annually furnished by them, nothing or next to nothing is returned to them, in the shape of Government expenditures. that expenditure flows in an opposite direction -- it flows north, in one uniform, uninterrupted and perennial stream. This is the reason why wealth disappears from the south and rises up in the north. Federal Legislation does this." ~ Senator Thomas Hart Benton

 

Those two quotes contain the root cause of the war. In order to even come close to beginning to understand what caused the war, you have to look at it from an economic perspective, and that is not taught in any political indoctrination camp (public school).

 

It also helps to understand how the government, as set up by The Founding Fathers, is/was supposed to work. As it was originally set up, the only source of income for the general (more often referred to as federal these days) government was a small tariff on imported goods. This was more than sufficient for the expenses of the general government when it was limited to it's Constitutional scope. Unfortunately, the ideological descendants of Hamilton had other ideas.

 

Hamilton, unlike most of the other Founding Fathers, was an aristocrat, and a monarchist. He had no problem with the idea of a class on "nobles" ruling over the people, and the only objection he had to a king was that he felt there ought to be an American king ruling over America, and not a British one. In fact he proposed that Washington be made king, which Washington wisely declined. Hamilton also believed in the British economic system, called mercantilism, which is often today confused with capitalism. One of the core doctrines of mercantilism is spending government money on private ventures, what they called "internal improvements", canal building, railroad building, etc. In other words, government subsidizing private business. This was outside the limits placed on the general government by The Constitution.

 

Mercantilism, in fact was a form of proto-fascism.

 

In order to fund their "internal improvements", the ideological descendants of Hamilton (Whigs & Republicans) relied on the income from the tariff which came almost exclusively from The South.

 

These monies, collected from the tariff, were spent almost exclusively in the north.

 

Until the northern states became greedy, The South did not complain, but as usual when there is money involved they did become greedy, and in the 1830's passed legislation which raised the tariff to nearly 50%. This was called the tariff of abominations, and South Carolina nearly seceded over that. A compromise was reached, however, that lowered the tariff, and put off the brewing crisis for about thirty years.

 

With the election of the yankee saint abraham (a lifelong whig, and when the whig party folded became a republican as did the other whigs), it was obvious to all in The South that the whig economic program would be implemented. This was confirmed by the passage of morrell tariff in 1860, which raised the tariff to a very high level. This would have a very negative impact on the economy in The South, and since there would be no relief from it (a northern-republican dominated legislature, and a president who had been pushing this agenda for his entire political career) The Southern States sought to exercise their right to withdraw from the confederation, and establish a new one that would represent their needs.

 

One further note on the question of slavery. Slavery was a legacy of the British empire, one which Jefferson, and others (mostly Southerners) sought to end once the Revolutionary War was over. Unfortunately, at the time, the majority of The Founding Fathers felt that it would cause too much economic disruption to end it at that time. Also, it was well understood by most of the political leadership of The South that slavery was a dying institution. The question was how to end it. Jefferson Davis, as did most, favored a gradual compensated emancipation as being the best approach. That was the approach taken by nearly every other country in the world where slavery existed, and it resulted in a peaceful orderly transition from slave labor to a totally free (at least of slavery) society.

 

There is far too much that must be taken into consideration to address in a single post, but hopefully, I've presented enough information to at least give those interested enough insight to realize that there was far more to the war than some noble crusade by the yankee saint abraham to "free the slaves".

 

For further reading on the economic (and other) causes of the war go to :

 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo-arch.html

 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods-arch.html

 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/wilson/wilson-arch.html

 

Had the founders known what we know now, they probably would have done things differently (such as made the constitution a little more straightforward).

 

The Constitution is quite straight forward. Try reading it sometime.

 

"I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize the musket and fight our battle, unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence, and that, or extermination" ~ President Jefferson Davis, Confederate States of America

 

"If they had behaved differently; if they had come against us observing strict discipline, protecting women and children, respecting private property and proclaiming as their only object the putting down of armed resistance to the Federal Government, we should have found it perhaps more difficult to prevail against them. But they could not help showing their cruelty and rapacity, they could not dissemble their true nature, which is the real cause of this war. If they had been capable of acting otherwise, they would not have been Yankees, and we should never have quarreled with them. ~ Judah P. Benjamin, Confederate Secretary of War

 

"Every one should do all in his power to collect and disseminate the truth, in the hope it may find a place in history and descend to posterity. History is not the relation of campaigns, and battles, and generals or other individuals, but that which shows the principles for which the South contended and which justified

her struggle for those principles." ~ Gen. Robert E. Lee

 

"All that the South has ever desired was the Union as established by our forefathers should be preserved and that the government as originally organized should be administered in purity and truth." ~ Gen. Robert E. Lee

[gwprod12]

Yes... I wasnt referring to the civil war at all, I was referring to Jefferson Davis' quote about freedom. I know all about the causes and justifications and underlying reasons for the civil war, and how they didnt have as much to do with slavery as history books make it out to be. That wasnt the point. I was only saying that for Jefferson Davis to decry a lack of freedom would be like Ted Haggard decrying sex outside of marriage, or George W Bush decrying big oil companies. Freedom is self-determination. I understand that Jefferson Davis was referring to people as a whole determining their course, and not individual people determining whether or not they work for no pay. It was just funny how ironic the quote is.

 

So, basicly, all that typing (or copy and pasting) was for nought.

 

Since Jefferson Davis lived on and owned a plantation (and, one assumes, didnt do all of the work himself), he most likely owned slaves. If this is untrue, then perhaps his quote isnt as ironic. But it's still ironic and contradictory to make broad claims about how people should have rights of self-determination and freedom to do as they will, while arguing that certain people shouldnt have those rights.

[OryHara]

I'm sorry OryHara, I've got a ton of respect for you and your postings, but I simply cannot find the logic in all of this.

 

I'm now accepting bets on that prediction, any takers?

 

Just three questions.

 

1. How hot does jet fuel burn?

2. What state is Bush from?

3. What color is the sky?

 

If it isn't an oil war, then why is the army guarding Exxon Mobil trucks in Iraq?

 

And yes, your post was predictable. Because you were the one I was referring to.

 

( Like he said. Hes NOT gonna loose, and he sounds very serious. )

( One world government. Read Revelations. This speech was made on September 11, 1991, do the math.)

http://cloudrunner.no-ip.org/CLProductions/Babylon.mp4 (Mine)

 

I suggest you watch all 3.

 

If what I say isn't the truth my friend, then why do have to 'plot' or 'plan' to debunk us so called 'conspiracy theorists'?

 

"To shatter your so called reality means to reveal the truth unto to you. The truth, although stranger than fiction, is 'the' truth, and there is only one of them."

 

so u can just....

Dream On Dream On Dream On

Dream until your dreams come true

Dream On Dream On Dream On

Dream until your dream comes through

Dream On Dream On Dream On

Dream On Dream On

Dream On Dream On

 

.... listens to pirated copy of Aerosmith in the background.

[Forrest's_Cavalry_Corps]

Yes... I wasnt referring to the civil war at all, I was referring to Jefferson Davis' quote about freedom. I know all about the causes and justifications and underlying reasons for the civil war, and how they didnt have as much to do with slavery as history books make it out to be. That wasnt the point. I was only saying that for Jefferson Davis to decry a lack of freedom would be like Ted Haggard decrying sex outside of marriage, or George W Bush decrying big oil companies. Freedom is self-determination. I understand that Jefferson Davis was referring to people as a whole determining their course, and not individual people determining whether or not they work for no pay. It was just funny how ironic the quote is.

 

So, basicly, all that typing (or copy and pasting) was for nought.

 

Since Jefferson Davis lived on and owned a plantation (and, one assumes, didnt do all of the work himself), he most likely owned slaves. If this is untrue, then perhaps his quote isnt as ironic. But it's still ironic and contradictory to make broad claims about how people should have rights of self-determination and freedom to do as they will, while arguing that certain people shouldnt have those rights.

 

 

Well, at least 9 out of 10 times when someone makes a comment like that it's usually refering to the war. As to Jefferson Davis, you should do some research on him. Yes, he owned a plantation, and slaves. In that period of time, if you were to have a chance of successfully operating a plantation you had no choice but to use slave labor. Davis though, understood that the era of slave labor was coming to an end, and was one of many who were seeking a means to bring it to an end. He had probably the best idea of the time on how to end it, and had employed it on his plantation. He began by educating his slaves, and allowing them to govern themselves so that they could learn how to become responsible citizens when slavery ended. His slaves had their own governmental system including courts in which they judged guilt or innocence, and set the penaltys for any offence in which they found guilt. Davis never interfeared with their decisions unless he felt that they had been too harsh in imposing a penalty upon one of their fellow slaves.

 

As to the post being for naught, I have to disagree. Regardless of the fact that you may not have been suggesting that the war was nothing but a noble crusade by saint abraham to "free the slaves" from the evil Southerners, someone eventually would/will do exactly that because that is what is taught in the political indoctrination centers (public schools). So, I do not feel that it was a wasted effort at all.

 

 

 

M.D. Hall, a prominent North Carolina Gentleman in the 1850s said, "A meddling yankee is God's worse creation, he cannot run his own affairs correctly, but he is constantly interfering in the affairs of others, and he is always ready to repent of everyone's sin, but his own."

 

"As to my own position, I hope to see the Union preserved by granting the South the full measure of her constitutional rights. If this can not be done, I hope to see all the Southern States united in a new confederation and that we can effect a peaceable separation. If both of these are denied us, I am with Arkansas in weal or woe. I have been elected and hold a commission of captain of the Volunteer Rifle Company of this place and I can say for my company that if the Stars and Stripes become the standard of a tyrannical majority, the ensign of a violated league, it will no longer command our love or respect but will command our best efforts to drive them from our state. I am with the South in life or in death, in victory or in defeat...... I believe the North is about to wage a brutal and unholy war on a people who have done them no wrong, in violation of the Constitution and the fundamental principles of government. They no longer acknowledge that all government derives its validity from the consent of the governed. They are about to invade our peaceful homes, destroy our property, and inaugurate a servile insurrection, murder our men and dishonor our women. We propose no invasion of the North, no attack on them, and only ask to be left alone." ~ Major General Patrick Cleburne, Arkansas, C.S.A.

 

"The rank and file were chiefly farmers and small merchants, comparatively very few were owners of slaves; but they were all

descended from ancestors whose fortunes and blood had been freely spent in the war of the revolution; they volunteered in obedience to the call of their state to resist invasion; they came with a firm determination to do their full duty." ~

Capt. Wm. H. S. Burgwyn, 35th Regiment, North Carolina Troops

[gwprod12]

Well, it was for naught in convincing me of anything, anyways.

 

I was already aware of it all. Though, granted, most people probably arent.

 

The civil war is 140 years in the past. We should all get over it =]

[OryHara]

The civil war is 140 years in the past. We should all get over it =]

 

But thing about this gwprod12, its about the principal of the war, and what the war stood for in the majority, which is freedom from overtaxation. This is happening NOW, today, in the states, all the states. They are trying to tax everyone out the ass, and it has become absurd. Now im not against paying taxes, I believe a government may need dough to function, but I don't appreciate them taking %20 of my earnings, and spending it on genocide. Im sure you feel the same.

[jgrimes80]

But thing about this gwprod12, its about the principal of the war, and what the war stood for in the majority, which is freedom from overtaxation. This is happening NOW, today, in the states, all the states. They are trying to tax everyone out the ass, and it has become absurd. Now im not against paying taxes, I believe a government may need dough to function, but I don't appreciate them taking %20 of my earnings, and spending it on genocide. Im sure you feel the same.

 

I think you're confusing the Civil War with the Revolutionary War... I don't recall any references to taxes . If I'm wrong, please enlighten me.

[gwprod12]

I'm all for the government taking as much money out of my paycheck as they need to efficiently do what is necessary for the government to do.

 

My tax money should be spent on reasonable collectivist projects and on me. I shouldnt be paying to subsidize Haliburton or Peanut growers or bridges to nowhere in alaska. The military, usable to defend our country and nothing else, social programs like social security and education. Otherwise, the money should go back to me.

 

I'm not against taxes, I'm against taxes being spent unwisely. If the government really needed 50% of my income to keep society functioning, I'd be for that.

 

I dont see taxes as being too high. I see spending as being too rediculous.

 

Traditional Fiscal conservatives want to cut taxes and spending. Traditional liberals want to increase spending (and taxes). The current administration cuts taxes and increases spending. How anyone can think it makes sense to spend more money while taking in less, I dont know.

 

Taxes in general should be correlated to the actual spending needs of the government. And the spending needs of the government sshould be directly connected to the needs of society.

[killbot1000]

I think you're confusing the Civil War with the Revolutionary War... I don't recall any references to taxes . If I'm wrong, please enlighten me.

 

 

You're right, he's confusing them. However the civil war did NOT start over taxes, it was more like policies (policies that benefited the North and left the South high and dry [shipping, trade, slaves and the like]).

[Paranoid Marvin]

What country is this refering to?

Having a political stance in one country can mean something completely different in another

[killbot1000]

What country is this refering to?

Having a political stance in one country can mean something completely different in another

 

The US if I'm not mistaken.

 

Parties are {censored}ed up in my opinion though, one should be voting for people instead of a rigid set of morals which may or may not mesh with the way one thinks...

[wildcat69410]

Just three questions.

 

1. How hot does jet fuel burn?

2. What state is Bush from?

3. What color is the sky?

 

If it isn't an oil war, then why is the army guarding Exxon Mobil trucks in Iraq?

 

And yes, your post was predictable. Because you were the one I was referring to.

 

( Like he said. Hes NOT gonna loose, and he sounds very serious. )

( One world government. Read Revelations. This speech was made on September 11, 1991, do the math.)

http://cloudrunner.no-ip.org/CLProductions/Babylon.mp4 (Mine)

 

I suggest you watch all 3.

 

If what I say isn't the truth my friend, then why do have to 'plot' or 'plan' to debunk us so called 'conspiracy theorists'?

 

"To shatter your so called reality means to reveal the truth unto to you. The truth, although stranger than fiction, is 'the' truth, and there is only one of them."

 

so u can just....

Dream On Dream On Dream On

Dream until your dreams come true

Dream On Dream On Dream On

Dream until your dream comes through

Dream On Dream On Dream On

Dream On Dream On

Dream On Dream On

 

.... listens to pirated copy of Aerosmith in the background.

 

For your first three questions, but primarily your first, I will direct you to a website. As you directed me to three videos, which I dutifully watched, I will offer Debunking 9/11. It systematically takes you through the events of the collapsing towers, and proves the absolute lack of any outside government funded "conspiracy".

 

As for the oil war, troops are guarding Exxon trucks, as well as everything else in Iraq, simply because it's become their responsibility to do so. Once you invade a country, and insurgencies arise, it becomes the troops responsibility to defend all third party assets. So, when third party Exxon stupidly decided to enter the warzone, it became the U.S. responsibility to defend them in some way shape or form.

 

Moving on, I find it ridiculously difficult to believe that you were thinking of me when posting that argument, especially considering how I hadn't posted or even visited the site for months until I posted that original response. There was no prediction, it was simply utter bull.

 

Uhm, who said I had to "plot" or "plan" to debunk conspiracy theories. I'm just exhibiting facts. Plus, what exactly are you doing? Plotting and planning these conspiracy theories. You're spending endless amounts of time trying to find even the smallest of instances not 100% provided for via facts, and then meticulously twisting these results into a "conspiracy theory". When conjecture outweighs facts, you have a problem.

[Forrest's_Cavalry_Corps]

Oh my god, stop reading this David Icke {censored} already - didn't you know that conspiracy theorists were a bunch of idiot crackpots? I read that massive piece of {censored} "The Biggest Secret," by David Icke and that nut says pretty much everything you are saying - though he also thinks that the world is controlled by fourth dimensional Lizard men... You WAKE UP jackass, you have not one shred of empirical evidence to back up your claims - Extraordinary claims require extraordianary evidence - talk about intellectually lazy... And for god's sake, lay off the dope.

 

The truest sign of a paranoid dope head is that they over quote 1984 and the Matrix waaaaay to much, it's such a common disease - honestly...

 

To the degree that I agree that David Icke (and his lizard people) is someone to be totally ignored, I agree with you. However, the rest of what you have to say, I could not disagree with more.

 

As far as evidence goes, there is plenty of it. To give you a starting point on something that is easily researched, start by either getting this: http://www.freedomtofascism.com/ or watching it here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198

 

As for you're comments about paranoid dope heads goes, well I spent 20 years in police work (part of that time working undercover narcotics), and I can assure you that people strung out on crystal meth to the point that they are paranoid, don't pay any attention to what the govt. is doing other than to worry about someone snitching them out, an undercover narc buying from them, or one of their buddies getting busted, and rolling over on them.

 

I can also tell you that, while I used to believe in this so called drug war, and did work undercover for awhile, I learned better. The only reason there is a *war on drugs* is because there are a *lot* of politicians making a *lot* of money off of it.

 

By the way, you might try reading 1984, you might learn something. I'd also suggest The Prince by Machiavelli, you can be sure there are plenty of people in politics that not only study it, but employ Machiavellian strategy/tactics every day.

 

I think you're confusing the Civil War with the Revolutionary War... I don't recall any references to taxes . If I'm wrong, please enlighten me.

 

There were plenty of references to taxes:

 

tariff

n : a government tax on imports or exports; "they signed a

treaty to lower duties on trade between their countries"

[syn: duty]

v : charge a tariff; "tariff imported goods"

 

 

 

 

"The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naive and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair." ~ H.L. Mencken

 

"[The] assumption that it is the aim of the [American] public school to fan the intelligence and to produce large numbers of alert and curious youths of both sexes is foolish. The state maintains its control of elementary education, not primarily to reduce illiteracy and turn the eyes of the plain people toward the stars, but to make sure that they are not taught anything that is subversive. Public education is thus a police measure. The goal it moves toward is perfect standardization, perfect discipline, perfect imbecility." ~ H. L. Mencken

 

"And what is a good citizen? Simply one who never says, does or thinks anything that is unusual. Schools are maintained in order to bring this uniformity up to the highest possible point. A school is a hopper into which children are heaved while they are still young and tender; therein they are pressed into certain standard shapes and covered from head to heels with official rubber-stamps." ~ H. L. Mencken

 

For your first three questions, but primarily your first, I will direct you to a website. As you directed me to three videos, which I dutifully watched, I will offer Debunking 9/11. It systematically takes you through the events of the collapsing towers, and proves the absolute lack of any outside government funded "conspiracy".

 

And, I'll suggest you do some research here: http://stj911.org/ and read this paper here: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2006...elyCollapse.pdf

 

 

"Learning carries within itself certain dangers because out of necessity one has to learn from one's enemies."

~ Leon Trotsky (1879-1940); Russian revolutionary.

 

"Of course the people don't want war. . . that is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country. "

~ Hermann Goering, Adolf Hitler's Deputy Chief and

Luftwaffe Commander, at the Nuremberg trials, 1946.

From "Nuremberg Diary" by GM Gilbert

 

"The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth." ~ H. L. Mencken

[OryHara]

For your first three questions, but primarily your first, I will direct you to a website. As you directed me to three videos, which I dutifully watched, I will offer Debunking 9/11. It systematically takes you through the events of the collapsing towers, and proves the absolute lack of any outside government funded "conspiracy".

 

As for the oil war, troops are guarding Exxon trucks, as well as everything else in Iraq, simply because it's become their responsibility to do so. Once you invade a country, and insurgencies arise, it becomes the troops responsibility to defend all third party assets. So, when third party Exxon stupidly decided to enter the warzone, it became the U.S. responsibility to defend them in some way shape or form.

 

Moving on, I find it ridiculously difficult to believe that you were thinking of me when posting that argument, especially considering how I hadn't posted or even visited the site for months until I posted that original response. There was no prediction, it was simply utter bull.

 

Uhm, who said I had to "plot" or "plan" to debunk conspiracy theories. I'm just exhibiting facts. Plus, what exactly are you doing? Plotting and planning these conspiracy theories. You're spending endless amounts of time trying to find even the smallest of instances not 100% provided for via facts, and then meticulously twisting these results into a "conspiracy theory". When conjecture outweighs facts, you have a problem.

 

You didn't answer any of my other questions, and like your friend Bush, you like to avoid the questions entirely. If none of them were controlled demolition then why did they fall FLAT. A FLAT fall needs a PERFECT set of charges laid out in a pattern that will ignite at the same instance. Otherwise the 2 main towers would have fallen sideways, and caused more destruction.

 

And on your link it shows the idiot trying to debunk the BBC report, that was quite funny. Its talking about another building, the bankers trust building. Below it, it says "As you can see, the building never caught fire so it was never in any danger of collapse." And it SHOWS THE BUILDING RIGHT THERE, BURNED TO A CRISP." Its like holding up a book, saying as you can see, I am not holding up a book, and the dumbass people standing there will believe it. DoubleThink.

 

As for the pancaking theory, that is just plain retarded, Alex Jones debunked that myth with 8 experts, and firemen that were AT the WTC collapse who said they heard a series of explosions.

 

"A look at a possible explanation for what some people saw and heard." Now hes just making stuff up. How pathetic.

 

As far as Exxon indeed, the are 'just there'? That makes a lot of sense. They are "just there". Applying the costs incurred, The price at the pumps can be $1.09 and they can still make a fortune. The cost is artificially inflated, and at least... ILLEGAL.

 

 

What about the Bush's New World Order? Explain that wildcat. You avoided that as well. Tell me why your loving dictator wants one world government? Relations with China? Oil War? Both Bushes? WMD? HAHAH. SHOW ME!!! I WANT TO SEE THE WMDs !!!! Where is BIN LADEN? REMEMBER HIM? THEIR PATSY! What better way to strike control than to insert fear into the population? Damnit wildcat, you are so full of {censored} that its spewing from your mouth and hitting the fan.

 

As far as you finding it SO HARD to believe... The trap was set for you to reply because you are predictable. Just like Bush expects you to be. Like most of the US population, you want to carry on your 10 minute hate towards anyone who challenges your big brother government. Why would you support a sick satanic {censored} that likes to torture people? Why do you have torture in your heart? If you do, then you CANNOT be a christian as you claim. Would Jesus torture someone? I think not. If you call yourself a christian, you better RETHINK yourself. Instead of others telling you what to do, you may want to think about What would JESUS do? Would Jesus start a war against Iraq that kills his brother? I think not. Would he make false claims against his brother? I think not. Would he send his brothers, and sisters off to their death to fight for his agenda? I think not. You better re-evaluate yourself wildcat.

 

"Brother Peter, Put down thy sword, for he who taketh up the sword shall perish by it."

"An 11th commandment I give unto you. Love they neighbor as theyself." "Who is my neighbor lord?" "Everyone"

You better think about that because the troops on the mailbar front, and in the flying fortress, in Iraq obviously have not. You are not eternal. But your soul is.

 

If I missed / innadvertantly avoided something. Tell me.

 

 

ARTHUR: Whoa there!

[clop clop]

 

GUARD #1: Halt! Who goes there?

ARTHUR: It is I, Arthur, son of Uther Pendragon, from the castle

of Camelot. King of the Britons, defeator of the Saxons, sovereign

of all England!

GUARD #1: Pull the other one!

ARTHUR: I am. And this my trusty servant Patsy.

We have ridden the length and breadth of the land in search of knights

who will join me in my court of Camelot. I must speak with your lord

and master.

GUARD #1: What, ridden on a horse?

ARTHUR: Yes!

GUARD #1: You're using coconuts!

ARTHUR: What?

GUARD #1: You've got two empty halves of coconut and you're bangin'

'em together.

ARTHUR: So? We have ridden since the snows of winter covered this

land, through the kingdom of Mercea, through--

GUARD #1: Where'd you get the coconut?

ARTHUR: We found them.

GUARD #1: Found them? In Mercea? The coconut's tropical!

ARTHUR: What do you mean?

GUARD #1: Well, this is a temperate zone.

ARTHUR: The swallow may fly south with the sun or the house martin

or the plumber may seek warmer climes in winter yet these are not

strangers to our land.

GUARD #1: Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?

ARTHUR: Not at all, they could be carried.

GUARD #1: What -- a swallow carrying a coconut?

ARTHUR: It could grip it by the husk!

GUARD #1: It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple

question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a 1 pound

coconut.

ARTHUR: Well, it doesn't matter. Will you go and tell your master

that Arthur from the Court of Camelot is here.

GUARD #1: Listen, in order to maintain air-speed velocity, a swallow

needs to beat its wings 43 times every second, right?

ARTHUR: Please!

GUARD #1: Am I right?

ARTHUR: I'm not interested!

GUARD #2: It could be carried by an African swallow!

GUARD #1: Oh, yeah, an African swallow maybe, but not a European

swallow, that's my point.

GUARD #2: Oh, yeah, I agree with that...

ARTHUR: Will you ask your master if he wants to join my court

at Camelot?!

GUARD #1: But then of course African swallows are not migratory.

GUARD #2: Oh, yeah...

GUARD #1: So they couldn't bring a coconut back anyway...

[clop clop]

GUARD #2: Wait a minute -- supposing two swallows carried it together?

GUARD #1: No, they'd have to have it on a line.

GUARD #2: Well, simple! They'd just use a standard creeper!

GUARD #1: What, held under the dorsal guiding feathers?

GUARD #2: Well, why not?

[wildcat69410]

You didn't answer any of my other questions, and like your friend Bush, you like to avoid the questions entirely. If none of them were controlled demolition then why did they fall FLAT. A FLAT fall needs a PERFECT set of charges laid out in a pattern that will ignite at the same instance. Otherwise the 2 main towers would have fallen sideways, and caused more destruction.

 

And on your link it shows the idiot trying to debunk the BBC report, that was quite funny. Its talking about another building, the bankers trust building. Below it, it says "As you can see, the building never caught fire so it was never in any danger of collapse." And it SHOWS THE BUILDING RIGHT THERE, BURNED TO A CRISP." Its like holding up a book, saying as you can see, I am not holding up a book, and the dumbass people standing there will believe it. DoubleThink.

 

As for the pancaking theory, that is just plain retarded, Alex Jones debunked that myth with 8 experts, and firemen that were AT the WTC collapse who said they heard a series of explosions.

 

"A look at a possible explanation for what some people saw and heard." Now hes just making stuff up. How pathetic.

 

As far as Exxon indeed, the are 'just there'? That makes a lot of sense. They are "just there". Applying the costs incurred, The price at the pumps can be $1.09 and they can still make a fortune. The cost is artificially inflated, and at least... ILLEGAL.

What about the Bush's New World Order? Explain that wildcat. You avoided that as well. Tell me why your loving dictator wants one world government? Relations with China? Oil War? Both Bushes? WMD? HAHAH. SHOW ME!!! I WANT TO SEE THE WMDs !!!! Where is BIN LADEN? REMEMBER HIM? THEIR PATSY! What better way to strike control than to insert fear into the population? Damnit wildcat, you are so full of {censored} that its spewing from your mouth and hitting the fan.

 

As far as you finding it SO HARD to believe... The trap was set for you to reply because you are predictable. Just like Bush expects you to be. Like most of the US population, you want to carry on your 10 minute hate towards anyone who challenges your big brother government. Why would you support a sick satanic {censored} that likes to torture people? Why do you have torture in your heart? If you do, then you CANNOT be a christian as you claim. Would Jesus torture someone? I think not. If you call yourself a christian, you better RETHINK yourself. Instead of others telling you what to do, you may want to think about What would JESUS do? Would Jesus start a war against Iraq that kills his brother? I think not. Would he make false claims against his brother? I think not. Would he send his brothers, and sisters off to their death to fight for his agenda? I think not. You better re-evaluate yourself wildcat.

 

"Brother Peter, Put down thy sword, for he who taketh up the sword shall perish by it."

"An 11th commandment I give unto you. Love they neighbor as theyself." "Who is my neighbor lord?" "Everyone"

You better think about that because the troops on the mailbar front, and in the flying fortress, in Iraq obviously have not. You are not eternal. But your soul is.

 

If I missed / innadvertantly avoided something. Tell me.

ARTHUR: Whoa there!

[clop clop]

 

GUARD #1: Halt! Who goes there?

ARTHUR: It is I, Arthur, son of Uther Pendragon, from the castle

of Camelot. King of the Britons, defeator of the Saxons, sovereign

of all England!

GUARD #1: Pull the other one!

ARTHUR: I am. And this my trusty servant Patsy.

We have ridden the length and breadth of the land in search of knights

who will join me in my court of Camelot. I must speak with your lord

and master.

GUARD #1: What, ridden on a horse?

ARTHUR: Yes!

GUARD #1: You're using coconuts!

ARTHUR: What?

GUARD #1: You've got two empty halves of coconut and you're bangin'

'em together.

ARTHUR: So? We have ridden since the snows of winter covered this

land, through the kingdom of Mercea, through--

GUARD #1: Where'd you get the coconut?

ARTHUR: We found them.

GUARD #1: Found them? In Mercea? The coconut's tropical!

ARTHUR: What do you mean?

GUARD #1: Well, this is a temperate zone.

ARTHUR: The swallow may fly south with the sun or the house martin

or the plumber may seek warmer climes in winter yet these are not

strangers to our land.

GUARD #1: Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?

ARTHUR: Not at all, they could be carried.

GUARD #1: What -- a swallow carrying a coconut?

ARTHUR: It could grip it by the husk!

GUARD #1: It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple

question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a 1 pound

coconut.

ARTHUR: Well, it doesn't matter. Will you go and tell your master

that Arthur from the Court of Camelot is here.

GUARD #1: Listen, in order to maintain air-speed velocity, a swallow

needs to beat its wings 43 times every second, right?

ARTHUR: Please!

GUARD #1: Am I right?

ARTHUR: I'm not interested!

GUARD #2: It could be carried by an African swallow!

GUARD #1: Oh, yeah, an African swallow maybe, but not a European

swallow, that's my point.

GUARD #2: Oh, yeah, I agree with that...

ARTHUR: Will you ask your master if he wants to join my court

at Camelot?!

GUARD #1: But then of course African swallows are not migratory.

GUARD #2: Oh, yeah...

GUARD #1: So they couldn't bring a coconut back anyway...

[clop clop]

GUARD #2: Wait a minute -- supposing two swallows carried it together?

GUARD #1: No, they'd have to have it on a line.

GUARD #2: Well, simple! They'd just use a standard creeper!

GUARD #1: What, held under the dorsal guiding feathers?

GUARD #2: Well, why not?

 

Let us again begin with your first assumption. The towers did not fall PERFECTLY flat. If you watch the collapse closely, you'll notice the part of the tower above the impact of the plane tilted over slightly during its fall. Clearly, it did not collapse within itself, but the weight of the upper tower in free fall upon the lower half creates enough force to pancake the rest of the structure. There were no set charges, period.

 

Moving on to the photo, you're entirely misreading the photo. Take another glimpse for me. The whitened color on the sides of the building isn't fire, it's dust and debris scattered upon it from the other collapses. Notice how other buildings in the same area are colored the same. They obviously didn't all catch fire, so the common conclusion is that they're coated in a layer of dust, NOT BURNT. Analyze the entire picture.

 

Thirdly, Alex Jones didn't even begin to disprove the pancaking theory. If you at all examined that website, it further showed how those firemen were misquoted beyond belief for Jones to get his own conclusion. Do you think your average NYC fireman would know the difference between a set explosion, one floor collapsing upon another, or an electric explosion in a hectic situation? Further still, if you examine two videos on This page, you'll see the audio comparison between the collapse of the towers, and a large scale demolition. Even in the case of the demolition, being farther away, and being overpowered audio-wise via the rotors, you can still clearly hear the sound of explosions. In the case of the WTC, in a far closer situation, no such explosions can be seen or heard.

 

Jones is making up more {censored} than anybody else. When you misquote somebody to further your own proof, you are seriously asking for trouble. Now that's pathetic.

 

Okay... Exxon is artificially inflating prices. I don't support that, but that has absolutely nothing with the Bush presidency. Simply protecting their trucks there isn't paramount to the Bush Administration supporting the illegal inflation of prices.

 

The New World Order is simply another three word quote blown out of proportion by a series of "government conspiracy theorists" like yourself, that find nothing better to do than extrapolate something from absolutely nothing. By God, it was a freaking phrase the man used to describe an era of peace. Did Ronald Reagan's Star Wars Defense system have anything to do with the Death Star? Hell no! The simple use of a phrase to describe an event or era by no way correlates to any negative conspiracy {censored}. Furthermore, you again bring in "strike fear into the population", but how paranoid can you get? How many times can you insanely believe that everyone is out to get the people, and that "the government is our enemy". How utterly devoid of logic and thinking.

 

As for the WMD's, obviously there weren't any, but that wasn't some Bush disguise. The false belief in the existence of WMD's was justified and agreed upon by three objective intelligence agencies in three different major world powers. The United States, Britain, and Russia agreed that Iraq had WMD's. Using that incorrect information, Bush made the decision to invade Iraq. It was poor intelligence for God's sake! Not a conspiracy.

 

And you call me predictable? You continually believe that being different suddenly makes you less predictable. Just because you believe in the "real truth", you're not predictable at all. Do you have any idea how many idiots out there throw out the Professor Jones' arguments as if they are scripture themselves. Simply assuming that his conclusions were based on solid objective facts, and not simple manipulations of misinformed opinions is ludicrous, and predictable itself!

 

As for the reevaluation of myself and Christianity, you are continually misinforming yourself. I agree that Jesus himself was a peaceful man, and would not have supported a war of any kind. However, throughout the Bible, there are wars of protection, wars of retribution. God told the Israelites to to attack Amalek, to destroy the Cannanites, to wage war. Being a Christian isn't simply standing down and being walked upon, there are moments that require absolute action. Does this mean that God supports all wars? Of course not, but its important to realize that this isn't a war of evil aggression, it's a war of defense. All options of diplomacy were exercised before war was ascertained. We analyzed our intelligence, approached the UN, and questioned our allies. We spoke to Saddam, tried to gain his compliance, but he offered none. Therefore, we attacked. But still, I ask you, who was struck first?

[Zealot]

I voted other .

 

BTW:Next time you should specify the country that you are talking about,if you are going to base the whole argumentation in just one country s point of view.

 

 

greetings

[gwprod12]

Conquering another country isnt a war of aggression? What IS a war of aggression?

 

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

 

If you'll notice, in the definition... The US has done all of those things except permitting other states to use territory:

 

Armed invasion or attack.

Bombardments.

Blockades.

Armed Violation of Territory.

And the employment of armed irregulars or mercenaries to carry out acts of aggression.

 

The only war that is not aggressive is a war in which one nation is attacked and responds. We werent attacked by Iraq. Period.

 

Maybe, Might, Could, Were, Planning... Those arent attacks.

 

Yes, sometimes our interests are more important than international law... but there were no legitimate interests at stake in this conflict.

 

Bush is a war criminal. I hope one day he's dragged to The Hague to answer for his crimes.

[oregano]

I am very, very liberal