What would it take for you to believe that there ISN'T a Vast Evil Conspiracy?

[1337m4n]

We've answered your "what would it take" question, (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139111) now it's time for all you conspiracy theorists to answer ours.

What would it take for you to believe that there ISN'T some elite cabal that secretly controls all world affairs and has numerous secret evil plans to build concentration camps and etc etc etc.

What counter-evidence would you accept? What would convince you that there is no all-powerful "NWO"?

Rational theories have falsifiability. If there is nothing in your infinite imagination that could possibly falsify your theory, then it is not a "theory" at all; it is superstition and religion.

[Elizabeth I]

Bump.

>>twiddles thumbs while waiting for an answer...<<

[bwinwright]

One would have to be incredibly drunk "and" under the influence of LSD, Heroin, cocaine, morphine, and a life threatening head injury to believe the Jesuits and their wealthy puppets are not calling the shots. Of course, the disinformation specialists in this forum do a wonderful job creating doubt, ridiculing the truth, etc. in order to make the ignorant and misinformed believe that everything that happens is just the result of random innocence.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

One would have to be incredibly drunk "and" under the influence of LSD, Heroin, cocaine, morphine, and a life threatening head injury to believe the Jesuits and their wealthy puppets are not calling the shots. Of course, the disinformation specialists in this forum do a wonderful job creating doubt, ridiculing the truth, etc. in order to make the ignorant and misinformed believe that everything that happens is just the result of random innocence.


So, in other words, "nothing". Nothing will ever convince you that there is no evil cabal running the world.

You're broken.

[Malkuth]

Have all the world's richest, most powerful and most secretive people and groups subject to 24 hour, intrusive, non-stop surveillance. All their phone calls, all their meetings, everything. Have ALL political and corporate meetings where big decisions are made live on the internet for everyone to see. If they have nothing to hide, why do we allow them to keep spending so much of our money hiding what they are doing from us? Why do we allow them to spend so much of our money on giving them the ability to watch us, not vice versa, since their argument for it is that if we have nothing to hide, we must have nothing to fear? Since they're deciding the broad stroke of all our fates, I think we're entitled to see the entire process through which they come to make the decisions they do. Since it's our collective wealth funding all their activities, we should be allowed to see and know exactly what they're doing with it.

Federal governments could voluntarily reduce their own size and power, returning decision making power to local authorities, who have a much better understanding of local requirements. This would allow thoughtful and intelligent citizens greater voice within the decision making processes in their own communities.

They could also refrain from rushing through 'emergency' legislation thousands of pages long, containing numerous provisions not related to the main thrust of the bill, without letting anyone actually read it first. That'd go a fair way towards proving to me that there is no culture of conspiratorialism within governments to extend their own power through trickery and threats to your elected officials responsible for vetting proposed legislation. See the congress being threatened with martial law if they didn't pass a bill they weren't allowed time to read?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaG9d_4zij8

They could also do things like, ummm, tell the truth. About everything. All the time. Y'know, like what a lot of people think representational governments are kind of supposed to do. That'd be a bit reassuring as well.

I've never bought right into the whole 'nwo master conspiracy' idea, though I think it's fairly obvious that rich and powerful people do work together to make sure that they collectively remain rich and powerful. I don't know exactly how common this type of behaviour is, nor how integrated and organised it may be.

I'm not entirely convinced that it's a bad thing, because I can see that they and their families have, through the generations, worked very hard to build their little private empires and maintain them. I don't begrudge them trying to protect what they feel they have earned.

On the other hand, I'm not entirely convinced it's a good thing to allow a tiny fraction of the population to have virtually complete private control over the broad direction of our common destiny. I don't think it's at all equitable to perpetuate a system that allows a tiny fraction of the population to control a large percentage of the world's funds and resources. There needs to be a hell of a lot more accountability in government and corporate actions, given that these are the only entities that can, and regularly do have profound effects on the lives of vast numbers of people.

There's a really long list of things that they could do, very easily, to show that conspiracy theories about government/corporate collusion, social engineering etc were unfounded. I just don't see them actually doing any of these things except for chuckling and saying it's not so. That's not enough for me, nor is it enough for many others.

The myriad efforts at debunking aren't entirely compelling either. Agreed, many conspiracy theory ideas are wild and over the top, but it's mostly the more fantastic ones that are debunked with such glee, then the entire field is thrown in a box and marked 'debunked' and henceforth ridiculed en masse. The common idea that if you've debunked a few, you've debunked 'em all is not satisfying.

[dtugg]

One would have to be incredibly drunk "and" under the influence of LSD, Heroin, cocaine, morphine, and a life threatening head injury to believe the Jesuits and their wealthy puppets are not calling the shots. Of course, the disinformation specialists in this forum do a wonderful job creating doubt, ridiculing the truth, etc. in order to make the ignorant and misinformed believe that everything that happens is just the result of random innocence.

LOL. It is almost as if you people are trying to go out of your way to make yourselves look bad. Normal people don't even have to do anything.

[Klimax]

One would have to be incredibly drunk "and" under the influence of LSD, Heroin, cocaine, morphine, and a life threatening head injury to believe the Jesuits and their wealthy puppets are not calling the shots. Of course, the disinformation specialists in this forum do a wonderful job creating doubt, ridiculing the truth, etc. in order to make the ignorant and misinformed believe that everything that happens is just the result of random innocence.

I see.You have experience,don't you.

[parky76]

The evil Satanic penis mutilating/sucking Jews are running the whole friggin' show. There is no doubt about it.

See how the UN keeps on passing resolutions against Israel? Its the damn Jews behind that one.

[malcolmxwarrior]

We've answered your "what would it take" question, (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139111) now it's time for all you conspiracy theorists to answer ours.

What would it take for you to believe that there ISN'T some elite cabal that secretly controls all world affairs and has numerous secret evil plans to build concentration camps and etc etc etc.

What counter-evidence would you accept? What would convince you that there is no all-powerful "NWO"?

Rational theories have falsifiability. If there is nothing in your infinite imagination that could possibly falsify your theory, then it is not a "theory" at all; it is superstition and religion.

The complete destruction of all the documents and evidence.

[malcolmxwarrior]

The evil Satanic penis mutilating/sucking Jews are running the whole friggin' show There is no doubt about it.

See how the UN keeps on passing resolutions against Israel? Its the damn Jews behind that one.

True. But that's nothing new. That's old news bro. People have been reporting that for thousands of years.

The zionist jews run the UN too! Why else can the jews break every UN resolution and get away with it? bAqzFxY2NqE&feature=related

Iran has bent over backwards for the IAEA and various Inspectors. Yet Israel has hundreds of nukes and are much more violent than Iran. That is just a fact. They have gone to war with lebanon twice and "war" with the palestinians for 60 years! Meanwhile the only war Iran has been in was when they were invaded by Iraq with Support from the United states. That is just common history.

I mean how would the United states feel if they were surrounded by the chinese the way the US is surrounding Iran?

[parky76]

The zionist jews run the UN too! Why else can the jews break every UN resolution and get away with it? bAqzFxY2NqE&feature=related


Does racism make you feel strong?

[malcolmxwarrior]

Does racism make you feel strong?

The leaders in Israel refer to themselves as "jews" don't they?

That is what they call themselves.

Are the jews a race? I don't know. Maybe they aren't. The nerve of golda meir to say there is no such thing as a palestinian makes me want to say well jews are not a race. There is no such thing as a jewish race. Just judaism.

For that matter, What makes a race? What defines a race? Is there really a white race? Is there really a black race? Are all people that define themselves as a race racists?

I never define myself as an african-american or spew black race pride BS.

I will call myself an American and that is it! That's a nationality. Not a race.

[defaultdotxbe]

Are the jews a race? I don't know. Maybe they aren't. The nerve of golda meir to say there is no such thing as a palestinian makes me want to say well jews are not a race. There is no such thing as a jewish race. Just judaism.
so your racist because of something one woman who died 30 years ago said?

[cwalner]

...
I mean how would the United states feel if they were surrounded by the chinese the way the US is surrounding Iran?

Yes, how would any country feel if they were surrounded by hostile countries that have repeatedly called for its destruction?

[Tomblvd]

Yes, how would any country feel if they were surrounded by hostile countries that have repeatedly called for its destruction?

Oh, and just what country would you call the Mediterranean, mister smarty-pants?

I mean, if everybody around Israel invades, they could always escape by swimming. (Or just destroy them like they've done many times before)

Oh, I forgot, jews don't like water (or something like that). ;-)

[Horatius]

Oh, I forgot, jews don't like water (or something like that). ;-)



So, your position is, "Drive them into the sea" is an acceptable solution to the Israel Problem?

[Ohnoes]

disinformation specialists

I know this has been talked about before, but how come everyone who disagrees with CT'ers is some government plant?

I mean I just feel like why would you say that in a place where a large percentage of the members don't believe in most conspiracies. I mean shouldn't the plants be working the tough crowds over at ATS and Prison Planet?

I have seen this across other boards...CERD employees were "supposedly" spreading disinformation about the LHC so they could get away with turning it on and creating a blackhole and then NASA is spreading lies about 2012 and Planet X. Each board I have seen members that disagree with CT'ers and are called insiders and disinformationist for just disagreeing.

Why can't we be just normal people who disagree with what you're saying? Debunkers...Sure, but government plants? Really? I mean I know egos flair on both sides but to assume I'm the bad guy because I don't agree with your theories is kinda sad. I mean I wouldn't know who is a CT'er when I'm not in my web world and I really could care less..I would still help you change your tire if you were stuck without a jack or help you up if you fell down or hold a door for you. I'm just saying I know it's Debunkers vs. CT'ers much like it's Democrats vs Republicans but in the end were all just people...Well I know I am, but not Parky!;)

[dtugg]

I know this has been talked about before, but how come everyone who disagrees with CT'ers is some government plant?

I mean I just feel like why would you say that in a place where a large percentage of the members don't believe in most conspiracies. I mean shouldn't the plants be working the tough crowds over at ATS and Prison Planet?

I have seen this across other boards...CERD employees were "supposedly" spreading disinformation about the LHC so they could get away with turning it on and creating a blackhole and then NASA is spreading lies about 2012 and Planet X. Each board I have seen members that disagree with CT'ers and are called insiders and disinformationist for just disagreeing.

Why can't we be just normal people who disagree with what you're saying? Debunkers...Sure, but government plants? Really? I mean I know egos flair on both sides but to assume I'm the bad guy because I don't agree with your theories is kinda sad. I mean I wouldn't know who is a CT'er when I'm not in my web world and I really could care less..I would still help you change your tire if you were stuck without a jack or help you up if you fell down or hold a door for you. I'm just saying I know it's Debunkers vs. CT'ers much like it's Democrats vs Republicans but in the end were all just people...Well I know I am, but not Parky!;)

The answer to your question is that CTs are stupid and extremely paranoid.

[Horatius]

Why can't we be just normal people who disagree with what you're saying?



I think it's a caused by their belief that the conspiracy is "so obvious". You can't really have an honestly different opinion, so you therefore must be an agent paid to disagree with them.

Consider how often the CTists have insisted that WTC7 is an "obvious CD". If you really believe that, the only possible reason that otherwise intelligent and educated people could disagree with you is, if they were part of the conspiracy.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

So, your position is, "Drive them into the sea" is an acceptable solution to the Israel Problem?


I'm pretty sure that was all tongue-in-cheek.

[Horatius]

The answer to your question is that CTs are stupid and extremely paranoid.



Well, yeah, that too! ;)

[Horatius]

I'm pretty sure that was all tongue-in-cheek.



Possibly. I'm a little drunk.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I know this has been talked about before, but how come everyone who disagrees with CT'ers is some government plant?


Because they need to believe that their imagined enemy is real, so they perceive "us" as the visible portion of that enemy. Because we exist, and oppose them, that means, by extension, their otherwise non-existent nemesis must be real.

[cwalner]

I'm pretty sure that was all tongue-in-cheek.

It was initially in response to me and I took it as such, which is why I declined to respond.

[DrMatt]

I'm pretty sure I'm not running the whole show. Maybe it's one of the cousins.

[mark4mark]

So, in other words, "nothing". Nothing will ever convince you that there is no evil cabal running the world.

You're broken.

He wasn't joking? WTF!?

The Jesuits? I've heard the "Black Pope" BS, but never actually encountered it.

I knew I should have made world domination my major at Fordham...

[abenja1]

Have all the world's richest, most powerful and most secretive people and groups subject to 24 hour, intrusive, non-stop surveillance. All their phone calls, all their meetings, everything. Have ALL political and corporate meetings where big decisions are made live on the internet for everyone to see.

It's stuff like that that prove truthers are no different than the people they purport to be against.

[Peace]

Yes, how would any country feel if they were surrounded by hostile countries that have repeatedly called for its destruction?

You might be hostile if I moved into your house, and made you live in the toilet.

[JoeyDonuts]

It's stuff like that that prove truthers are no different than the people they purport to be against.

Exactly. Are people like that no more deserving of a right to privacy simply because they make an awful lot of money, or are politically powerful? Or do they deserve the same standards of justice as everyone else. Usually the only time what Malkuth is proposing happens is when someone's being investigated for a crime.

And now we're back to having to prove that these people exist, pull strings, and are guilty of criminal behavior.

*Yawn.* I lose no sleep over this.

[LightinDarkness]

Have all the world's richest, most powerful and most secretive people and groups subject to 24 hour, intrusive, non-stop surveillance. All their phone calls, all their meetings, everything. Have ALL political and corporate meetings where big decisions are made live on the internet for everyone to see. If they have nothing to hide, why do we allow them to keep spending so much of our money hiding what they are doing from us?

Gee, where have we heard this kind of logic before.

"We're just rounding up the jews and investigating them to prove that they really aren't in a secret cabal to control the world. If they are really innocent they have nothing to hide, right?"

Who gets to decide who is rich and powerful? You? Is someone who makes $250k (Obama's definition of rich) enough for you to require stalking them? What about the Provost at your local university - he won't make $250k a year but he probably has a lot of power in academics. Is that powerful enough?

Why don't we monitor you? You surely have nothing to hide, right? You can start by putting up your full name, address, social security number, and credit card numbers. If you fail to do so then this is proof you are in a cabal bent on world domination.

Your logic is a spectacular failure.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Usually the only time what Malkuth is proposing happens is when someone's being investigated for a crime.


Apparently, being rich and powerful is a crime to some people...

[hamelekim]

A complete end to government secrecy, cleaning up of electoral laws on funding politicians. Term limits of politicians and not allowing people in the corporate world to move into political positions where they could influence their former industries.

Those are just a few to start.

Sadly the rich elite will always remain. There has never been a time when there hasn't been an elite and the masses. It doesn't matter what the name is, it will always exist.

I would also argue that the greater the inequality the more of a conspiracy there is.

[hamelekim]

Apparently, being rich and powerful is a crime to some people...

No, it's what people do when they are rich and powerful that is the crime.

Although, I have a strong opinion that anyone who is rich screwed many people over to get that rich. Hence anyone who is rich is inherently unethical, but then the economic system breeds amoral people, it's the basis of economic theory.

There's a reason why Jesus said that it was easier for a Camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven. Whether you believe in Christianity or not, it's a very good commentary on the rich.

[LightinDarkness]

Apparently, being rich and powerful is a crime to some people...

This is the root of many CT theories. The CTers are angry that someone has more money and power than them and refuse to accept any explanation except that said wealth and power was achieved through dubious means like global cabals and collusion. After all, if the world was fair the valiant truthers would all be the rich and powerful ones.

I didn't even read this before posting the above, but here is exhibit 1 which clearly demonstrates this from this very thread:


Although, I have a strong opinion that anyone who is rich screwed many people over to get that rich. Hence anyone who is rich is inherently unethical, but then the economic system breeds amoral people, it's the basis of economic theory.

[Malkuth]

Gee, you guys are really good at spinning things to make it sound like people are bad for making a suggestion. There was a lot of other things I talked about in my post, but you took that one little snippet and found an easy way to spin it and connect it to the jewish problem, like you guys do with so many other things here. It really is ALL about the jews for some of you guys isn't it?

I'm not saying we should round em up like jews, I never mentioned that, and I really wish you idiots would stop making every single thread anywhere all about that. I don't blame the arabs for hating the fact that a country was carved out of their desert to make Israel.

I repeat a question I asked in another thread, since it wasn't addressed by any of you there, and you all seem to insist on derailing this thread into that realm.. Why didn't all the jews go to Birobidzhan? It was already setup to be a place where the jews could govern themselves, it's not disimilar in size to Israel, there's a whole lot less people already there plus there's no arabs there for the jews to be threatened by.

You guys really should make a 'discuss the jews' forum so you don't have to derail every second thread everywhere else on this forum.

[LightinDarkness]

A complete end to government secrecy, cleaning up of electoral laws on funding politicians. Term limits of politicians and not allowing people in the corporate world to move into political positions where they could influence their former industries.

Those are just a few to start.

Sadly the rich elite will always remain. There has never been a time when there hasn't been an elite and the masses. It doesn't matter what the name is, it will always exist.

I would also argue that the greater the inequality the more of a conspiracy there is.

I have asked this before and I will ask this again: who are the elite. Name the names. The elite don't exist. Its a CT dichotomy created to explain why people have more than you.

Were anyone truly "elite" then those people would stay in power (instead of being routinely thrown from it), those people would always get wealthier (instead of losing much of it), and would remain in the public's eye (instead of being deemed irrelevant). There is not one family in existence which meets the CT definition of elite.

CTers love to name things like the Kennedy when I ask them this, but then I point out that they hold JFK as a savior for his "secrecy" speech that they take out of context and that ALL the most recent bids for power from the Kennedy family have failed in a speculator manner (Caroline Kennedy, anyone?).

CTers need "elites" to exist so that they can use them to create conspiracies on, but these are really figments of their feverish imagination.

[Malkuth]

No, it's what people do when they are rich and powerful that is the crime.

There's a reason why Jesus said that it was easier for a Camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven. Whether you believe in Christianity or not, it's a very good commentary on the rich.

I don't subscribe to christianity, but I think that comment is fairly spot on.

@Light - The whole "rich people always lose it, powerful people always get thrown out" shtick is reeeaaallllly old, get a new bs argument already.

[LightinDarkness]

Gee, you guys are really good at spinning things to make it sound like people are bad for making a suggestion. There was a lot of other things I talked about in my post, but you took that one little snippet and found an easy way to spin it and connect it to the jewish problem, like you guys do with so many other things here. It really is ALL about the jews for some of you guys isn't it?

No spinning required - it isn't just by chance that your thinking is extremely similiar to Hitler's - its because this fear of things you don't understand breeds fascist ideas like the ones you have proposed.


There's a reason why Jesus said that it was easier for a Camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven. Whether you believe in Christianity or not, it's a very good commentary on the rich.

Oh, and where did Jesus Christ say that its a good idea to punish people because they have more than you? The only thing this is a good commentary on is the ability of people to take the bible out of context and exploit it for their own purposes.


I'm not saying we should round em up like jews, I never mentioned that, and I really wish you idiots would stop making every single thread anywhere all about that. I don't blame the arabs for hating the fact that a country was carved out of their desert to make Israel.

My my, someone is throwing a temper tantrum and letting their antisemitic attitude seep through.


I repeat a question I asked in another thread, since it wasn't addressed by any of you there, and you all seem to insist on derailing this thread into that realm.. Why didn't all the jews go to Birobidzhan? It was already setup to be a place where the jews could govern themselves, it's not disimilar in size to Israel, there's a whole lot less people already there plus there's no arabs there for the jews to be threatened by.

You guys really should make a 'discuss the jews' forum so you don't have to derail every second thread everywhere else on this forum.

I don't really care why you hate jews, but you should really stay on topic. As it has been demonstrated, your "proof" for showing a conspiracy doesn't exist is the equivalent of creating a fascist state to monitor and suppress those with more than you. You'll have to excuse me if I don't support your desired elevation to such status.

[LightinDarkness]

I don't subscribe to christianity, but I think that comment is fairly spot on.

@Light - The whole "rich people always lose it, powerful people always get thrown out" shtick is reeeaaallllly old, get a new bs argument already.

And its just so sad that you have yet to provide the name of 1 elite that has not lost it. That would be because you know its true and the only thing you can do is try to dismiss it. Sorry, truth still remains: the elite is a CT creation.

Your hatred of people with more than you will never change the facts. Come on, if its sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo easy to show the elites exist, name just one elite family.

[Malkuth]

Not a single point I've raised so far properly addressed, not a question answered with anything other than ridiculous accusations having nothing to do with the questions.

You guys are getting boring with all your rhetoric.

[LightinDarkness]

Not a single point I've raised so far properly addressed, not a question answered with anything other than ridiculous accusations having nothing to do with the questions.

You guys are getting boring with all your rhetoric.

Right, you've been debunked systematically and your response is complete denial.

How..completely usual for a CTer.

[Malkuth]

Name just one elite family.

Rockefeller. But that was obvious. Are you really sure you've been paying attention to this forum, or are you being intentionally dense?

And will somebody please answer my question about why the jews chose to colonize palestine instead of move to Biribidzhan? Where they would have been welcome?

[Malkuth]

Right, you've been debunked systematically

Whaaaaaat? You guys spun a tiny section of my post into an irrelevant torrent of incoherent abuse about a totally unrelated topic, yet have the nerve to suggest you've "systematically debunked" it?

That's so ....... totally unexpected from a less than average debunker.

[LightinDarkness]

Rockefeller. But that was obvious. Are you really sure you've been paying attention to this forum, or are you being intentionally dense?

Thanks for playing, but I'm afraid you've lost -

Nelson Rockefeller lost as the Republican Presidential Nominee 3 times: 1960, 1964, 1968.


You see, the elite once again is proven to be nothing more than a CT construct. Even the epitome of CT hysteria - Rockefellers, whom supposedly have all the power in the world - can't even win the Presidential election after three tries. Definitely not an elite. Oh, and their family fortune? Took a huge hit when the oil bubble popped - not possible were they actually elite.

Try again.


And will somebody please answer my question about why the jews chose to colonize palestine instead of move to Biribidzhan? Where they would have been welcome?

Stop trying to troll the thread and throwing it off topic.

[LightinDarkness]

Whaaaaaat? You guys spun a tiny section of my post into an irrelevant torrent of incoherent abuse about a totally unrelated topic, yet have the nerve to suggest you've "systematically debunked" it?

That's so ....... totally unexpected from a less than average debunker.

Your still whining. You've been debunked. You can offer evidence against all the evidence that has been used to debunk you, or you can keep whining. As your a typical CTer, I expect you'll just continue whining :)

[Malkuth]

I see, it's fine for you to derail the thread with squealing accusations of anti-semitism, but when I ask a legitimate counter question, you say I'm trolling. Standard procedure for you huh.

[LightinDarkness]

I see, it's fine for you to derail the thread with squealing accusations of anti-semitism, but when I ask a legitimate counter question, you say I'm trolling. Standard procedure for you huh.

Please stop trolling the thread. If you wish to troll, perhaps start a off topic thread? Your fascist ideology is your own, not mine - you advocated for the creation of a fascist state surveillance system in order to assure you that a diabolical cabal is not out to get you. That was your own idea, not mine. I am sorry you do not like it when people point out the implications of your ideas.

I'm still waiting on 1 elite family. Just one. So far the only one you've named was so elite they failed to get elected to the Presidency not once but three times. I guess that makes Ron Paul an elite too, eh?

[Malkuth]

I advocated a system that would ensure that it's impossible for politicians and corporate leaders to collude in any meaningful way against the best interests of the public. Not a "fascist state surveillance system" but a system that would ensure the state never became fascist and over controlling.

[LightinDarkness]

I advocated a system that would ensure that it's impossible for politicians and corporate leaders to collude in any meaningful way against the best interests of the public. Not a "fascist state surveillance system" but a system that would ensure the state never became fascist and over controlling.

Um, I'm not sure what plane of reality your on, but exactly how is using 24/7 surveillance on people that you (or anyone) deems to be wealthy or powerful not a fascist state? Its so ironic because CTers claim to be champions of freedom and liberty, yet they advocate extreme measures that are the epitome of oppression and fascism.

By the way, the "its for your own good" and "its for the public" is a classical line used by those who are trying to take away freedoms. Why don't you start by posting your full name, address, and credit card number. You've got nothing to hide, right? You want the government to stalk people who you deem to be rich or powerful so surely you don't mind giving up a few details about yourself? Its for the security of the public, you see. We have to make sure you aren't colluding.

[Malkuth]

So you think your rabid defence of government's keeping things hidden from the public is a great way to protect the public from the advance of fascism in government? You compare my desire to see more openness and accountability in government to fascist tyranny itself?

All I see you doing is putting more stupid words between the few relatively on target posts so far in this thread.

[Miss_Kitt]

...
What would it take for you to believe that there ISN'T some elite cabal that secretly controls all world affairs and has numerous secret evil plans to build concentration camps and etc etc etc.

What counter-evidence would you accept? What would convince you that there is no all-powerful "NWO"?


Several grains of common sense, and experience with trying to a group of more than two people to keep a secret for more than two days.

[Malkuth]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPh7sUvhZ3E

These guys, their fathers and grandfathers etc etc have kept their secrets fairly well.
Questioned many times about it, none have ever blabbed that I know of. Try actually finding out more about these things instead of using these tired old debunker canards like "Rich people always lose it" and "There's no way they could keep it secret". Really, it's all getting very tatty and is NOT proof of anything. It's naysaying, pure and simple.

[JoeyDonuts]

Hey, you're talking about The Guy That Signs The Checks.

I can't be seen talking in this thread. The local Freethink Suppression Cell will get the wrong ideas.

[Miss_Kitt]

Malkuth, quite seriously: You think that because there's a prevalence of Presidential candidates from expensive, exclusive schools that turn out good lawyers and political science majors, that's somehow proof of a Ruling Elite that has been pulling strings behind the scenes for centuries?

Evidence, please.

It's true that there are more Ivy League graduates in national politics than from other schools; but that's largely because those are the schools that the ambitious tend to try to attend. The West Coast equivalents are Stanford and USC (or UCLA). Again, these are the places where graduating from the program there lends you an automatic cachet, since the schools are selective of whom they accept, and demanding in terms of their course work and grades.

You will also find more noted doctors coming out of places like Johns Hopkins, Creighton, Washington University in St. Louis; and more 'name' scientists coming out of Cal Tech, MIT, Harvey Mudd, Renesslauer (sp?)...schools where if you're not dedicated and gifted, you don't make the grade, especially in their areas of focus.

Just because I'm curious, which of the "elite" families did Barack Obama come out of? How about Sam Walton? Bill Gates? Warren Buffett? These are some of the most influential people in the U.S, and they're all self-made men.

It is certainly true that wealthy, educated, influential people try to make sure that their children have the best schools, tutors, experiences and training available to give them (the kids) the best possible start in life. Of course, I give my child the best schools, tutors, experiences and training I can afford and/or find for her, too. That's because I love my kid. Does that make me a NWO member in training? Or just a caring parent.

There was, in the 19th century/early 20th century, an old adage: "Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations." This referred to the common path of a family where the poor, dedicated, hard-working founder would build up a business; send his son(s) to college and train them up to take over the business; then the son's son would grow up thinking that the business just happened on its own, and existed to support his lifestyle--and run the business into the ground; and the great-grandson would grow up having to do hard, menial work, with no family money behind him. You still see that pattern today.

BTW, I don't remember now which poster it was that was spouting the "fixed sum game" fallacy--saying that the only way someone can get wealthy is by taking others' wealth. This is demonstrably not so. There is immensely more wealth in the world--even in just the US--today than there was 100 years ago, and that is orders of magnitude above what there was 1000 years ago. That could not be true if the only way to get wealth was to steal it. The vast majority of wealth is created.

Just my thoughts, Miss Kitt

One more thought: The royalty and nobility of Europe used to run the world; now they're largely extinct, or their descendants are living in the sole remaining family estate, renting most of it out to tourists and trying to not have to sell the family portraits to meet the tax bill. Or are they just "playing poor" and have secret vacation homes at NWO-protected locations??

[Redtail]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPh7sUvhZ3E

These guys, their fathers and grandfathers etc etc have kept their secrets fairly well.
Questioned many times about it, none have ever blabbed that I know of. Try actually finding out more about these things instead of using these tired old debunker canards like "Rich people always lose it" and "There's no way they could keep it secret". Really, it's all getting very tatty and is NOT proof of anything. It's naysaying, pure and simple.


.... Ok, wait, did you just post a youtube vid about a "secret" organization, which has had documentaries, books, and even mainstream movies made about their secrets... As proof that they can keep secrets?

[LightinDarkness]

So you think your rabid defence of government's keeping things hidden from the public is a great way to protect the public from the advance of fascism in government? You compare my desire to see more openness and accountability in government to fascist tyranny itself?

Talk about a logical fallacy. Can you please explain how being against your fascist state idea of monitoring everyone 24/7 that you deem to be wealthy or powerful equates to a defense of government secrets? First you presume that just because someone is wealthy or powerful that they must be doing something wrong and secret. Second, you presume that secrets are evil, yet you refuse to tell us your full name or address. Which is it?

Its laughable that you think government surveillance promotes openness and accountability. Again, if thats the standard, please post pictures of where you live. Whats good for everyone else is good for you right? Why is it that you refuse to volunteer any of this information but believe

It is hypocritical and indeed characteristic of a fascism to believe that everyone YOU deem to be a threat should be monitored by the government and that somehow this is perfectly OK. I bet you screamed and went nuts over the patriotic act, didn't you? But its perfectly ok to use patriot act like measures against people who have more money than you and thus must be in a plot against you?


All I see you doing is putting more stupid words between the few relatively on target posts so far in this thread.

In other words you know you've been debunked and are now on the run and resorting to elementary ad hominem attacks as you flay about trying to defend your fascist ideas.

[LightinDarkness]

.... Ok, wait, did you just post a youtube vid about a "secret" organization, which has had documentaries, books, and even mainstream movies made about their secrets... As proof that they can keep secrets?

Spot on.

And for a organization to be so elite, how is it that CTers seem to know all about it and what it does? And why is it that when we look at the publicly available roster of this group which has been available since the 1980s, only a handful of members stand out as having any sort of power or fame?

If the Skull and Bones were truly an elite group as CTers want to Believe, they would not among their ranks have countless failed political candidates and countless others who, though they were members, made no noticeable mark upon the world.

Yet again, more proof the elite is simply a CT construct used to create a false dichotomy.

[Malkuth]

Which 2nd rate debunking books are you cut and pasting all this from? "Logical fallacy" and "false dichotomy" are like magical talismans to you aren't they? Words of power.

[timhau]

I'm pretty sure I'm not running the whole show.

True. I just checked the NWO shift list, and you've got the night shift on Tuesday.

[LightinDarkness]

Which 2nd rate debunking books are you cut and pasting all this from? "Logical fallacy" and "false dichotomy" are like magical talismans to you aren't they? Words of power.

Oh just the oldest academic discipline in the world - philosophy. But hey, who needs reason or logical analysis when you can just believe that the evil rich are plotting against you?

Is the public education system seriously in such a bad shape that you can't understand the importance of reason and what it means when you arguments are riddled with logical fallacies?

Answer the question, again: Are you for the patriot act or - like most CTs - have you railed against it? If so, why are you advocating for oppressing and spying on people in the very same manner that the patriot act uses?

[Malkuth]

I know why you're focussing on this question, it's the only thing in any of what I've said than can be twisted to make is sound like I'm the bad guy.

All I've done is advocate a system that would reduce the scope of any government's ability to collude against the public interest in any way, and increase the public's confidence in the benign image the governments desperately attempt to project. If you refuse to take seriously the mountains of evidence in history that this type of activity does indeed take place in governments, then I can't help you. I don't know what or who can.

[fullflavormenthol]

So basically he is advocating a system that will monitor all wealthy people and politicians themselves? So....no more trade secrets and no more national security secrets? Basically businesses go under because they cannot keep secret what needs to be kept secret, and anyone in the world will know about everything our military is doing. Including technological secrets? How is crime enforcement going to happen when you are monitoring the Sheriff's office or the District Attorneys office?

[LightinDarkness]

I know why you're focussing on this question, it's the only thing in any of what I've said than can be twisted to make is sound like I'm the bad guy.

No see thats what you don't get: everything you've said makes you the bad guy. You want to punish those who dare make more than you. Stalk those who have more power than you. It is this essential desire to harm others based on the idea that anyone with wealth or power is evil or up to something that makes you the bad guy. Period.


All I've done is advocate a system that would reduce the scope of any government's ability to collude against the public interest in any way, and increase the public's confidence in the benign image the governments desperately attempt to project. If you refuse to take seriously the mountains of evidence in history that this type of activity does indeed take place in governments, then I can't help you. I don't know what or who can.

Yet again, since your so for openness what is your name? Address? Credit card numbers? Why is it that you want a system of organized surveillance against people you think are plotting against you but don't hold yourself to the same standards? How do we know that you arent secretly plotting against us? Why is it we can't monitor you 24/7?

The only evidence you've shown is that you are paranoid and think anyone with more than you must have gotten that way through devious plots.

[Malkuth]

"Professor Quigley outlined in his books how the Rhodes-Milner network acquired control of much of the press decades ago — and ruthlessly wielded this control to advance its covert agenda. This insidious relationship was underscored at the 1991 meeting of the secret Bilderberg Group at Sand, Germany. The annual Bilderberg meetings have provided an important vehicle by which the European Union and other globalist schemes of the network have been advanced over the past 40 years. The French periodical Lectures Francaises managed to obtain the address by David Rockefeller, longtime chairman of the CFR and leader of the American Establishment, to this coterie of elite one-worlders:

We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during these years. But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government which will never again know war, but only peace and prosperity for the whole of humanity. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in the past centuries. It is also our duty to inform the press of our convictions as to the historic future of the century."
http://usnationhood.com/europeannightmare.html

In Tragedy and Hope (1966), Quigley writes:

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements, arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank, in the hands of men like Montagu Norman of the Bank of England, Benjamin Strong of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, Charles Rist of the Bank of France, and Hjalmar Schacht of the Reichsbank, sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

I have a copy of and have read some of Quigley's book too. You should read it to get a better idea of the forces really in control of your country and much of the western world.

[dtugg]

I would rather live in a world where governments and rich people sometimes get away with doing bad things than a fascist state where one's constitutional rights are suspended for being rich or powerful.

Also, if this system is supposed to include having classified documents and meetings online for everybody to see, it is extremely stupid in addition to being fascist. The reason these things are kept secret isn't to subjugate the masses or whatever. It's because if the public knows so do our enemies and potential enemies. The secrets of the United States are very valuable would definitely be used against the country, and perhaps the world if it fell into the wrong hands.

[Malkuth]

You guys using the word fascism to describe my idea of keeping an eye on the gov is like, wow loopy, fascism is pretty much the collusion of government and corporate interest against that of the general public. I'd like to see the possibility for that whole range of potential for misuse of power diminished. If there's a better way to do it than the public surveilling the politicians, as they are currently surveilling us, then by all means provide an explanation of it.

[Malkuth]

Regarding "elite" families

Augur

Another interesting 'coincidence' along these lines; apparently many (most?) US presidents are related/descended from European aristocracy:

http://hubpages.com/hub/Nearly-all-U...Royal-Families
http://genealogy.about.com/od/royalty/

Interesting answer as to 'why' on Yahoo answers here!

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question...3145255AA32WR8

And that's just the famous ones. I'd be willing to be that a lot of their other 'cousins' etc were similarly lofted to well paid, if less publicised positions in history.

I won't even start on the celebrity ties to some of these families.

[JoeyDonuts]

I won't even start on the celebrity ties to some of these families.

Ties 'ruling elite' conspiracy to current cast of Dancing With The Stars in 5...4...3...

[abenja1]

Not a single point I've raised so far properly addressed, not a question answered with anything other than ridiculous accusations having nothing to do with the questions.

You guys are getting boring with all your rhetoric.

I properly addressed your point of 24-hour spying on the rich/elite and how makes it you a fascist hypocrite. Here are my questions for you point by point:

1. Who are the elite? Names, names, names.

2. As a truther who I bet claims to love the constitution and probably hates Bush 43, why do the double standard when it comes to surveillance of individuals you simply are jealous of?

3. What constitutes someone as elite?

4. What should happen to the elite? Trial, death penalty, jail, etc?

[dtugg]

You guys using the word fascism to describe my idea of keeping an eye on the gov is like, wow loopy, fascism is pretty much the collusion of government and corporate interest against that of the general public. I'd like to see the possibility for that whole range of potential for misuse of power diminished. If there's a better way to do it than the public surveilling the politicians, as they are currently surveilling us, then by all means provide an explanation of it.

There is nothing wrong with keeping an eye on the government and corporations. What makes your ideas fascist is the idea that it is OK to have an entire group of individuals under 24hr/day surveillance. That satisfying your extreme paranoia is more important than their rights. I don't know what country you live in, but in the United States, we have a constitution, and I have a huge problem with anybody that is OK with throwing it out the window because they have a problem with a group of individuals.

Also I must wonder, how is this supposed to work? How is it decided who needs the surveillance? Who is in charge of all of this surveillance and where do they derive their power? I assume that this must be some sort of super-government that governs the government/corporations because otherwise they would be powerless to do anything. How do you prevent the super-government from being corrupted? A super-super government that watches the super-government? Where would it all end?

What happens if somebody that the super-government decides needs surveillance decides its BS and doesn't go along with the fascist plans? Is he thrown in jail because he values his personal privacy? Does the super-government strip him of all his money?

[Dave Rogers]

I think Malkuth is getting an unwarranted rough ride in this thread. He's made it clear that the only thing that would convince him that there isn't a vast evil conspiracy is 24-hour surveillance of everyone who might possibly be part of any such conspiracy, with the results of such surveillance made available for anyone to scrutinise. The entire concept may be bordering on insane for various reasons, many of which haven't even been touched on in this thread, but for the purposes of the OP it is at least a useful answer. In effect, it's an admission on Malkuth's part - by specifying a criterion for falsification that is a practical impossibility - that his beliefs are unfalsifiable, and therefore worthless in understanding the nature of reality.

Perhaps we could move on to the next answer?

Dave

[Malkuth]

If you'll reread my post, I didn't say that was the only thing that would convince me. I said it was one of many things that could. I also said specifically that I don't buy the whole grand conspiracy idea.

My assertion is that much more open scrutiny of political process would go a long way towards convincing me and many others that a culture of conspiratorialism is not prevalent within the halls of power.

These jokers just picked out that one thing to make a huge fuss about because it's the one thing they could possibly twist to make it sound bad.

90% of all the criticism of my idea in this thread has been based upon things I never referenced, while 90% of my original post has been ignored. As I've said before and most likely will say again, people read the first line, get outraged and post the first maniacal idiocy that springs to mind.

[timhau]

I think Malkuth is getting an unwarranted rough ride in this thread. He's made it clear that the only thing that would convince him that there isn't a vast evil conspiracy is 24-hour surveillance of everyone who might possibly be part of any such conspiracy, with the results of such surveillance made available for anyone to scrutinise. The entire concept may be bordering on insane for various reasons

'Bordering on insane'? What would a clear case look like?

[dtugg]

If you'll reread my post, I didn't say that was the only thing that would convince me. I said it was one of many things that could. I also said specifically that I don't buy the whole grand conspiracy idea.

My assertion is that much more open scrutiny of political process would go a long way towards convincing me and many others that a culture of conspiriticism is not prevalent within the halls of power.

These jokers just picked out that one thing to make a huge fuss about because it's the one thing they could possibly twist to make it sound bad.

90% of all the criticism of my idea in this thread has been based upon things I never referenced, while 90% of my original post has been ignored.

If didn't spew insane ideas like the first paragraph of your post, nobody would feel the need to call you on it. And no twisting was necessary to make you sound bad, you did that all by yourself.

[Malkuth]

Ahh yes, next comes the mocking. moooo mooooo

[LightinDarkness]

I have a copy of and have read some of Quigley's book too. You should read it to get a better idea of the forces really in control of your country and much of the western world.

Actually, were you interested in doing that you would study political science and other academic fields that actually examine systems of power. You would read peer reviewed research instead of conspiracy books.

But you see, when you do that the answer isn't so simple: the REAL research and the REAL evidence about how the world works is complex and difficult to understand.

Its much easier to think that anyone with money or power simply get involved in organized plots bent on world domination and that this explains everything.

[LightinDarkness]

Regarding "elite" families



And that's just the famous ones. I'd be willing to be that a lot of their other 'cousins' etc were similarly lofted to well paid, if less publicised positions in history.

I won't even start on the celebrity ties to some of these families.

You have yet to define what elite means or even give an example of an elite family. The examples you have given are littered with numerous examples of spectacular political and social failures that - if the "elites" really existed - would not be there.

And yet even though you can't define who these people are nor give one example of them, you are hell bent on the promotion of a 24 hour monitoring system of them so that you can ensure they are not plotting against you.

Ultimately Dave Rogers is right here (although I would agree the proposed solution isn't bordering on insane - it is insane). It was asked what it would take for CTs to believe that there was no diabolical conspiracy going on. A CTer answered in a way that offers evidence that CTs are deliberately set up to be non-falsifiable and that CTers are extremely large hypocrites (Patriot Act BAD for them, Patriot Act GOOD for anyone they think is rich or powerful). That we would need to essentially establish a CT run fascist state where anyone making too much money or had any level of power would have to be stalked by the government for them to no longer believe in these delusional conspiracies says absolutely everything that needs to be said.

[Malkuth]

Quigley was in with these guys, he wanted exactly the same things 'the elite' want. The only thing he didn't agree with them about was the fact that they wanted to keep it all secret. He wanted to come out with it in the open. It's not 'a conspiracy book' as you use to term disparagingly.

"I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies...but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known."

Thus, unfortunately, Tragedy and Hope was pulled from bookshelves nationwide and recalled faster than an exploding Easter Bunny, never to be published again, except for a highly abbreviated edition. But if you can pick up a copy of this book, you'll find how things often worked behind the scenes of government and the worldwide ambitions of "the network."

http://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-Hope-History-World-Time/dp/094500110X

[LightinDarkness]

Quigley was in with these guys, he wanted exactly the same things 'the elite' want. The only thing he didn't agree with them about was the fact that they wanted to keep it all secret. He wanted to come out with it in the open. It's not 'a conspiracy book' as you use to term disparagingly.

"I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies...but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known."

Thus, unfortunately, Tragedy and Hope was pulled from bookshelves nationwide and recalled faster than an exploding Easter Bunny, never to be published again, except for a highly abbreviated edition. But if you can pick up a copy of this book, you'll find how things often worked behind the scenes of government and the worldwide ambitions of "the network."

http://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-Hope-History-World-Time/dp/094500110X

Exhibit 1 in CT "Scholarship":

- Make fantastical claims about "the man" pulling the book to get CTers to believe you and buy the book.
- Offer no primary or secondary evidence.
- Ensure book never gets subjected to scholarly peer review.

And most importantly...

- Tell CTers what they want to Believe.

[Malkuth]

I never claimed anything fantastic. I've said several times already read stuff and make up your own mind. I've said several times that I've not yet entirely made up my own mind on this issue.

You guys are getting really ugly trying to force the stereotypical 'idiot ct'er' label on me.

[JihadJane]

This is the root of many CT theories. The CTers are angry that someone has more money and power than them and refuse to accept any explanation except that said wealth and power was achieved through dubious means like global cabals and collusion. After all, if the world was fair the valiant truthers would all be the rich and powerful ones.



Can you point to any research to back up this hypothesis or is it the debunker equivalent to the Freud's penis envy theory?

(Posted at a time when the biggest financial heist is history is occurring the OP is kinda funny.)

[Malkuth]

It's conspiracy denial fantasy. He just can't bring himself to admit the world isn't rosy and perfectly fair for everyone, nor can he admit that human history has been one long sordid story of groups of people screwing over other groups of people, repeatedly.

He seems to think that anyone who even remotely suspects that the people in charge don't 100% have all our best interests at heart in every little thing they do, then that person must be insane and must be killed for the betterment of the species.

Can you say 'eugenics apologist'? I've been called worse here for suggesting far less.

[Aidoneus]

Where on Earth have you got that idea from, Malkuth? Because it sure as hell isn't from any post I've seen in this thread.

Exhibit 1 in CT "Scholarship":

- Make fantastical claims about "the man" pulling the book to get CTers to believe you and buy the book.
- Offer no primary or secondary evidence.
- Ensure book never gets subjected to scholarly peer review.


You missed a key point, which should come just after claims of "the man" pulling the book- Point the reader to Amazon, where apparently the book is readily available.

[Malkuth]

(Posted at a time when the biggest financial heist is history is occurring the OP is kinda funny.)

It is sad, and rather amazing to see the lengths some people will go to in order to avoid admitting the reality of the whole situation.

There may not be 50 guys with official "NWO" dogtags, but that certainly isn't stopping the world's richest and most powerful 1% of people from dragging the rest of us along in their power game insanity.

[abenja1]

It is sad, and rather amazing to see the lengths some people will go to in order to avoid admitting the reality of the whole situation.

There may not be 50 guys with official "NWO" dogtags, but that certainly isn't stopping the world's richest and most powerful 1% of people from dragging the rest of us along in their power game insanity.

You still haven't answered who these people are as in names.

[Malkuth]

You still haven't answered who these people are as in names.

Another interesting 'coincidence' along these lines; apparently many (most?) US presidents are related/descended from European aristocracy:

http://hubpages.com/hub/Nearly-all-U...Royal-Families
http://genealogy.about.com/od/royalty/
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question...3145255AA32WR8

That's not all of them, but it's a good overview.

Try reading all the links given in a thread before asking already answered questions.

[Aidoneus]

What's funny is that none of the links work.

The top one gives me a "hub not found" error, the second is just another page of links; I assume the most pertinent one is 'Catalogue of Royal Family Lineage' which also doesn't work.

The final link produces "the URL cannot be displayed".

[dtugg]

According to ancestory.com (http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library/article.aspx?article=3349) 150 million Americans, or about 50% are of royal decent. So many or most US presidents having royal decent means nothing at all. In fact, it is to be expected.

[dafydd]

I advocated a system that would ensure that it's impossible for politicians and corporate leaders to collude in any meaningful way against the best interests of the public. Not a "fascist state surveillance system" but a system that would ensure the state never became fascist and over controlling.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Malkuth View Post
'I advocated a system that would ensure that it's impossible for politicians and corporate leaders to collude in any meaningful way against the best interests of the public. Not a "fascist state surveillance system" but a system that would ensure the state never became fascist and over controlling.'



To quote John Lennon
'You say you've got a new solution,well you know,we'd all love to see the plan.....'

[Malkuth]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

A couple hundred million people on the net is what I had in mind.

[abenja1]

Another interesting 'coincidence' along these lines; apparently many (most?) US presidents are related/descended from European aristocracy:

http://hubpages.com/hub/Nearly-all-U...Royal-Families
http://genealogy.about.com/od/royalty/
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question...3145255AA32WR8

That's not all of them, but it's a good overview.

Try reading all the links given in a thread before asking already answered questions.

Try give me all the links in a thread that actually work rather than broken links that probably had no evidence in the first place.

[Malkuth]

What's funny is that none of the links work.

The top one gives me a "hub not found" error, the second is just another page of links; I assume the most pertinent one is 'Catalogue of Royal Family Lineage' which also doesn't work.

The final link produces "the URL cannot be displayed".

Strange, all 3 worked for me when I found them on the other forum I got the links from.

ETA: Mistakenly only copied the text of the quote, not the entire url's.

http://hubpages.com/hub/Nearly-all-US-Presidents-are-descendant-from-the-British-and-French-Royal-Families

http://genealogy.about.com/od/royalty/

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080223145255AA32WR8

[dtugg]

A couple hundred million people on the net is what I had in mind.

Who decides who needs the 24/7 surveillance? Who is in charge of the systems needed to run your fascist system? Who is in charge of those people? What happens if one of the "elites" decides not to comply? Where does your fascist system derive it's power?

[Malkuth]

Enough with the 'fascist' nonsense, naysayer.

[dtugg]

Enough with the 'fascist' nonsense, naysayer.

Why? It is. At least for lack of a better word.

Notice you didn't bother to answer any of my questions. Didn't think your fascist state out too well did you?

[dafydd]

A couple hundred million people on the net is what I had in mind.
Yes that sounds simple,pracitcal and easy to organise.Who would choose these people? What power would they have to do anything about anything
?
Dream on.

[fullflavormenthol]

Why? It is. At least for lack of a better word.


Yeah.

fascism |ˈfa sh ˌizəm| (also Fascism)
noun
an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
• (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.
The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43), and the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also fascist. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach.
DERIVATIVES
fascist |ˈføʃəst| noun & adjective
fascistic |faˈ sh istik| |føˈʃɪstɪk| |-ˈʃɪstɪk| adjective
ORIGIN from Italian fascismo, from fascio ‘bundle, political group,’ from Latin fascis (see fasces ).

Seems to be the best descriptive for what is being proposed.

[LightinDarkness]

Can you point to any research to back up this hypothesis or is it the debunker equivalent to the Freud's penis envy theory?

(Posted at a time when the biggest financial heist is history is occurring the OP is kinda funny.)

I know, the financial "heist" is an excellent example of hating people because they make more money than you. OH MY GOD! SOMEONE WORKS FOR A BANK! HATE THEM! GRAB THE PITCH FORK!

Unlike you, I do actually have evidence for my claims and its peer reviewed - something that no CTer ever has. The connection between conspiracy theory and rage-against-the-rich populism is far older than the youtube videos that you believe are truth:

In August 1890, E.Z. Ernst, a Kansas Populist, warned of an impending crises. During the Civil War, Ernst explained, "rogues" "conspired" with "English capitalists to get possession of this wonderfully productive American nation," and that there plan was nearing completion. Earlier, Ernst had recommended a pamphlet called Seven Financial Conspirices Which have Enslaved the American People....

Ostler, J. (1995). The Rhetoric of Conspiracy and Kansas Populism. Agricultural History, 69(1).

Real researchers have long noted the relationship between radical populism and conspiracy theory. Indeed, the above is the exact same conspiracy propaganda that you Believe in today even though it goes back many years and has been debunked many times.

I await your peer reviewed research which says anything to the contrary.

But I won't be holding my breath.

[LightinDarkness]

It's conspiracy denial fantasy. He just can't bring himself to admit the world isn't rosy and perfectly fair for everyone, nor can he admit that human history has been one long sordid story of groups of people screwing over other groups of people, repeatedly.

He seems to think that anyone who even remotely suspects that the people in charge don't 100% have all our best interests at heart in every little thing they do, then that person must be insane and must be killed for the betterment of the species.

Can you say 'eugenics apologist'? I've been called worse here for suggesting far less.

Another worthless post from you - and your still projecting. You are in complete denial that there isn't some sort of massive plot out there against you and you cannot comprehend of a complex world where things are not the simple black and white conspiracy would have you Believe.

And please, stop with the endless logical fallacies and strawman arguments. You are getting very frantic and hysterical. Take a break and go lay down, your blood pressure isn't worth this even if it means believing in fantasies.

[UNLoVedRebel]

I know, the financial "heist" is an excellent example of hating people because they make more money than you. OH MY GOD! SOMEONE WORKS FOR A BANK! HATE THEM! GRAB THE PITCH FORK!

If Atlas were here, I would tell him to shrug.

[cwalner]

It's conspiracy denial fantasy. He just can't bring himself to admit the world isn't rosy and perfectly fair for everyone, nor can he admit that human history has been one long sordid story of groups of people screwing over other groups of people, repeatedly.
Wrong. we acknowledge both of these points. We just don't understand why a vast conspirancy is neccesary to eplain these facts of human existence.

[Malkuth]

For the last time, I NEVER posited a vast conspiracy to "eplain" these facts of modern existence.

I suggested that some of those who work in government sometimes conspire with others in order to increase their own power. Anyone who would deny this is simply unobservant at best, an apologist for it at worst. This would happen far less frequently if the general population, who pays for most government, were more able to oversee it.

I'm not suggesting any stupid 'super-government' only that "the people" should be able to see everything their government does. The fact that they hide so much is suspicious enough, without adding in all the times throughout history they have been caught doing bad things.

[Malkuth]

Take a break and go lay down, your blood pressure isn't worth this even if it means believing in fantasies.

I've actually been a little worried about that vein bulging in YOUR temple lately.

[defaultdotxbe]

This would happen far less frequently if the general population, who pays for most government, were more able to oversee it.
this isnt what you had suggested before though:

Have all the world's richest, most powerful and most secretive people and groups subject to 24 hour, intrusive, non-stop surveillance. All their phone calls, all their meetings, everything. Have ALL political and corporate meetings where big decisions are made live on the internet for everyone to see.

you suggest corporate meetings as well as government, and you suggest a 24-hour surveillance, so not only their business and political lives, but personal as well

why corporate meetings? why monitor private citizens 24 hours a day? whats the cutoff for "world's richest" or "most powerful" or "most secretive"

your life seems pretty secretive to me, would you subject yourself to this "24 hour, intrusive, non-stop surveillance?"

[Malkuth]

this isnt what you had suggested before though

It's exactly what I suggested all along, reread my first post if you don't believe I said words to that effect in it.

[Dave Rogers]

For the last time, I NEVER posited a vast conspiracy to "eplain" these facts of modern existence.

Then why, exactly, having (presumably) read the title, did you post your reply in this thread?

Dave

[Malkuth]

Then why, exactly, having (presumably) read the title, did you post your reply in this thread?

Dave

I'm not entirely certain now. I should have expected it would descend into another "ct'er" bashing exercise. There's been a couple of responses to the OP, followed by pages of bile filled, overblown tripe bashing the responses.

I just don't see why it has to be so polarised, so violently either/or. It's like every dictator's ultimatum, you're either with us, or against us.

Why can't some of you bring yourselves to admit that sometimes, the rich and powerful do indeed conspire together to increase their own wealth and power? It's been shown a million times in history, but you all so vehemently deny that it's even remotely possible it's happening today. I don't get that. I've tried to define my position on the issue as having one leg either side of the fence, but none of you will allow that possibility. You've decided I'm a 'stoopid troofer' and have proceeded to bash and abuse me at every turn, because to you, there is no middle ground in this war.

How rational, how 'friendly and lively' of you all.

[Dave Rogers]

Why can't some of you bring yourselves to admit that sometimes, the rich and powerful do indeed conspire together to increase their own wealth and power? It's been shown a million times in history, but you all so vehemently deny that it's even remotely possible it's happening today. I don't get that.

Nobody's denying it. There are well-documented cases where rich and powerful people have conspired together to increase their own wealth and power, and well-documented cases where government officials have conspired to circumvent the law or deceive public opinion. As I understand the OP, the question is what it would take to persuade the strong-case conspiracy theorists that either (a) there isn't a single overarching conspiracy that has existed throughout history, or (b) there have been events in history that didn't arise from a conspiracy by the rich and powerful.

Dave

[Malkuth]

And I answered the OP by giving more than a few examples of ways that the governments and corporations of the world could, if they chose, help to assure people that there isn't one.

Do you see them doing any of those things?

No, you see them all getting together in meetings in secret all over the world where 30 or so people decide the fate of nations, you see them all putting up more and more cctv cameras in all public places all over the world, you see more draconian, privacy-encroaching laws passed in every country in the world. You see international organisations making 'recommendations' that are then passed as law in most countries in the world, you see half the countries in the world recently calling openly for world governance and a world currency. You see government and corporate officials getting paid obscenely more than anyone else in the world etc etc etc ad infinitum.

I don't know about you, but none of these things make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. None of these things scream out to me that the richest and most powerful 1% of humanity are really looking out for the rest of us.

This may sound like a populist rant to some of you, and maybe it is. I just want the world to be more equitable for everyone, I don't want 99% of people's lives being held in the other's hands, when it's been proven again and again that when they work together, they can do big things, but that they really can't, nor should they be blindly trusted.

[LightinDarkness]

And I answered the OP by giving more than a few examples of ways that the governments and corporations of the world could, if they chose, help to assure people that there isn't one.

Do you see them doing any of those things?

Yes, because clearly only people not involved in a massive plot would rush to sign up to be monitored 24/7 by people like you. Anyone who doesn't agree to such treatment clearly is conspiring against you.

You don't really believe this do you?


No, you see them all getting together in meetings in secret all over the world where 30 or so people decide the fate of nations, you see them all putting up more and more cctv cameras in all public places all over the world, you see more draconian, privacy-encroaching laws passed in every country in the world. You see international organisations making 'recommendations' that are then passed as law in most countries in the world, you see half the countries in the world recently calling openly for world governance and a world currency. You see government and corporate officials getting paid obscenely more than anyone else in the world etc etc etc ad infinitum.

But you see this isn't whats happening - this is what you want to believe is happening. No one is meeting where "30 or so people" decide the fate of nations. That is what you need to Believe because it makes the world simpler and easier to understand. The truth is no one has that much power, never has, and never will.

Please link to empirical evidence that the number of CCTV cameras per capita has increased over time. There is none.

Just because a international body makes a recommendation that someone passes as law doesn't mean its a bad idea. Many nations have enacted human rights laws based on United Nations recommendations - why is this evil and bad? Please give specific empirical evidence that using good ideas from a international recommendation body is bad.

No one is calling for one world government, its CT fantasy. CTers like you think that every time the phrase "new world order" is uttered that it means one world government. It doesn't and it never has. The recent use of the term "new world order" by the media only refers to the changing political and economic climates. The end.

Please give specific empirical evidence why people getting paid large sums of money is bad. I would expect and hope that the leaders of international corporations and world superpowers would get paid lots of money, they have tough jobs.


I don't know about you, but none of these things make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. None of these things scream out to me that the richest and most powerful 1% of humanity are really looking out for the rest of us.

Its not the job of the richest 1% to do anything. I don't want them to look out for me. I look out for myself. They also have better things to do than to plot against you.


This may sound like a populist rant to some of you, and maybe it is. I just want the world to be more equitable for everyone, I don't want 99% of people's lives being held in the other's hands, when it's been proven again and again that when they work together, they can do big things, but that they really can't, nor should they be blindly trusted.

It is, of course, a populist rant. You are enraged that people make more money and have more money than you. You do not want to believe that this could be possible because someone earned it, worked harder for it, and simply deserves to have more than you. It must instead be some sort of international plot to keep the poor down - it couldn't possibly be because someone worked for it. I don't even care if they didn't work for it and inherited it - at some point someone worked for it and its not mine. I refuse to get angry because someone has more money than I do.

It has never been proven that the richest 1% work together to do anything - good or bad - in fact they don't do so at all in anywhere except your imagination.

[Malkuth]

Dude, you are obviously on their payroll, popping veins screaming out in defence of/ denial of something that is quite obvious.

Give specific empirical evidence!!! -fart

[LightinDarkness]

Dude, you are obviously on their payroll, popping veins screaming out in defence of/ denial of something that is quite obvious.

Give specific empirical evidence!!! -fart

Yes thats right, anytime you are systematically debunked just ignore everything and result to ad hominem attacks.

What, you don't have any evidence what so ever for anything you say?

How surprising.

Not really. You've got nothing..and it shows.

[defaultdotxbe]

It's exactly what I suggested all along, reread my first post if you don't believe I said words to that effect in it.
i did read your first post, in fact i quoted it, your suggesting much more than simply a transparent government, you suggest spying on the personal lives of people who work in the government, as well any private citizens who you deem "wealthy" "powerful" or "secretive"

so i ask again, would you subject yourself tot he 24 hour monitoring?

[Malkuth]

i did read your first post, in fact i quoted it, your suggesting much more than simply a transparent government, you suggest spying on the personal lives of people who work in the government, as well any private citizens who you deem "wealthy" "powerful" or "secretive"

so i ask again, would you subject yourself tot he 24 hour monitoring?

In many respects, you and I and everyone reading this already is.

[timhau]

Not really. You've got nothing..and it shows.

Not exactly true -- there was a reference to expelling flatus.

[HawksFan]

I've always wanted this question answered, but I never get one. What, exactly, defines the "rich elite". If I win a couple hundred million in some lottery, does that automatically put me in the "rich elite" category? Do I suddenly lose all my morals and sense of decency? Does just having a ton of money qualify?

What if I'm the CEO of some small obscure corporation making a couple hundred grand a year? Some corp that I built from the ground up starting with basically nothing? Am I now evil and corrupt? I probably have friends that I "collude" with in order to make us both more money, but is that nessessarily bad? Does that automatically mean we're screwing over the "little guy"?

[Vermonter]

Another interesting 'coincidence' along these lines; apparently many (most?) US presidents are related/descended from European aristocracy:


So what? My mother's side can trace their roots to William the Conqueror and barons of Normandy. I'm a struggling college student. As shown earlier, half of the American population is somehow related to European and English royalty. Some connections may be fresher than others, but the links are there.

[defaultdotxbe]

So what? My mother's side can trace their roots to William the Conqueror and barons of Normandy. I'm a struggling college student. As shown earlier, half of the American population is somehow related to European and English royalty. Some connections may be fresher than others, but the links are there.
i wonder if any CTers have ever been to a family reunion

whenever my family gets together we cant go one evening without a few first cousins trying to kill eachother, the unwavering loyalty the "elite" supposedly show to their 5th cousins 3 times removed astonishes me

[cwalner]

i wonder if any CTers have ever been to a family reunion

whenever my family gets together we cant go one evening without a few first cousins trying to kill eachother, the unwavering loyalty the "elite" supposedly show to their 5th cousins 3 times removed astonishes me

Kind of like how through much of the reign of the royal families throughout European history, Regicide was not an uncommon means of gaining power.

Don't know much about Asian, African, and PC American dynasties, but would not be surprised to learn the same was true there.

[timhau]

i wonder if any CTers have ever been to a family reunion


At the family's request, no.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

There's a reason why Jesus said that it was easier for a Camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven. Whether you believe in Christianity or not, it's a very good commentary on the rich.


Not really. It says nothing about the goodness or the evilness of the rich. I find it extremely bizarre that you would choose a passage that promotes the idea that the rich can only be "good" people by completely giving up their wealth.

Which brings us right back to the fact that some people see the rich as inherently evil, untrustworthy, or unworthy.

[JihadJane]

Bolding indicates quotes used in subsequent posts.

Have all the world's richest, most powerful and most secretive people and groups subject to 24 hour, intrusive, non-stop surveillance. All their phone calls, all their meetings, everything. Have ALL political and corporate meetings where big decisions are made live on the internet for everyone to see. If they have nothing to hide, why do we allow them to keep spending so much of our money hiding what they are doing from us? Why do we allow them to spend so much of our money on giving them the ability to watch us, not vice versa, since their argument for it is that if we have nothing to hide, we must have nothing to fear? Since they're deciding the broad stroke of all our fates, I think we're entitled to see the entire process through which they come to make the decisions they do. Since it's our collective wealth funding all their activities, we should be allowed to see and know exactly what they're doing with it.

Federal governments could voluntarily reduce their own size and power, returning decision making power to local authorities, who have a much better understanding of local requirements. This would allow thoughtful and intelligent citizens greater voice within the decision making processes in their own communities.

They could also refrain from rushing through 'emergency' legislation thousands of pages long, containing numerous provisions not related to the main thrust of the bill, without letting anyone actually read it first. That'd go a fair way towards proving to me that there is no culture of conspiratorialism within governments to extend their own power through trickery and threats to your elected officials responsible for vetting proposed legislation. See the congress being threatened with martial law if they didn't pass a bill they weren't allowed time to read?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaG9d_4zij8

They could also do things like, ummm, tell the truth. About everything. All the time. Y'know, like what a lot of people think representational governments are kind of supposed to do. That'd be a bit reassuring as well.

I've never bought right into the whole 'nwo master conspiracy' idea, though I think it's fairly obvious that rich and powerful people do work together to make sure that they collectively remain rich and powerful. I don't know exactly how common this type of behaviour is, nor how integrated and organised it may be.

I'm not entirely convinced that it's a bad thing, because I can see that they and their families have, through the generations, worked very hard to build their little private empires and maintain them. I don't begrudge them trying to protect what they feel they have earned.

On the other hand, I'm not entirely convinced it's a good thing to allow a tiny fraction of the population to have virtually complete private control over the broad direction of our common destiny. I don't think it's at all equitable to perpetuate a system that allows a tiny fraction of the population to control a large percentage of the world's funds and resources. There needs to be a hell of a lot more accountability in government and corporate actions, given that these are the only entities that can, and regularly do have profound effects on the lives of vast numbers of people.

There's a really long list of things that they could do, very easily, to show that conspiracy theories about government/corporate collusion, social engineering etc were unfounded. I just don't see them actually doing any of these things except for chuckling and saying it's not so. That's not enough for me, nor is it enough for many others.

The myriad efforts at debunking aren't entirely compelling either. Agreed, many conspiracy theory ideas are wild and over the top, but it's mostly the more fantastic ones that are debunked with such glee, then the entire field is thrown in a box and marked 'debunked' and henceforth ridiculed en masse. The common idea that if you've debunked a few, you've debunked 'em all is not satisfying.




It's stuff like that that prove truthers are no different than the people they purport to be against.




Exactly. Are people like that no more deserving of a right to privacy simply because they make an awful lot of money, or are politically powerful? Or do they deserve the same standards of justice as everyone else. Usually the only time what Malkuth is proposing happens is when someone's being investigated for a crime.

And now we're back to having to prove that these people exist, pull strings, and are guilty of criminal behavior.

*Yawn.* I lose no sleep over this.



Apparently, being rich and powerful is a crime to some people...





No, it's what people do when they are rich and powerful that is the crime.

Although, I have a strong opinion that anyone who is rich screwed many people over to get that rich. Hence anyone who is rich is inherently unethical, but then the economic system breeds amoral people, it's the basis of economic theory.

[B]There's a reason why Jesus said that it was easier for a Camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven. Whether you believe in Christianity or not, it's a very good commentary on the rich.[B]




Apparently, being rich and powerful is a crime to some people...

This is the root of many CT theories. The CTers are angry that someone has more money and power than them and refuse to accept any explanation except that said wealth and power was achieved through dubious means like global cabals and collusion. After all, if the world was fair the valiant truthers would all be the rich and powerful ones.

I didn't even read this before posting the above, but here is exhibit 1 which clearly demonstrates this from this very thread:

Although, I have a strong opinion that anyone who is rich screwed many people over to get that rich. Hence anyone who is rich is inherently unethical, but then the economic system breeds amoral people, it's the basis of economic theory.





Can you point to any research to back up this hypothesis or is it the debunker equivalent to the Freud's penis envy theory?

(Posted at a time when the biggest financial heist is history is occurring the OP is kinda funny.)



I know, the financial "heist" is an excellent example of hating people because they make more money than you. OH MY GOD! SOMEONE WORKS FOR A BANK! HATE THEM! GRAB THE PITCH FORK!

Unlike you, I do actually have evidence for my claims and its peer reviewed - something that no CTer ever has. The connection between conspiracy theory and rage-against-the-rich populism is far older than the youtube videos that you believe are truth:



Ostler, J. (1995). The Rhetoric of Conspiracy and Kansas Populism. Agricultural History, 69(1).

Real researchers have long noted the relationship between radical populism and conspiracy theory. Indeed, the above is the exact same conspiracy propaganda that you Believe in today even though it goes back many years and has been debunked many times.

I await your peer reviewed research which says anything to the contrary.

But I won't be holding my breath.




There's a reason why Jesus said that it was easier for a Camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven. Whether you believe in Christianity or not, it's a very good commentary on the rich.


Not really. It says nothing about the goodness or the evilness of the rich. I find it extremely bizarre that you would choose a passage that promotes the idea that the rich can only be "good" people by completely giving up their wealth.

Which brings us right back to the fact that some people see the rich as inherently evil, untrustworthy, or unworthy.



Which brings us right back to the fact that "it's fairly obvious that rich and powerful people do work together to make sure that they collectively remain rich and powerful" (Malkuth) and the question of whether "it's a good thing to allow a tiny fraction of the population to have virtually complete private control over the broad direction of our common destiny. ... to perpetuate a system that allows a tiny fraction of the population to control a large percentage of the world's funds and resources." (Malkuth)

[Comment on LightinDarkness' "OH MY GOD! SOMEONE WORKS FOR A BANK! HATE THEM! GRAB THE PITCH FORK!" post to follow ------>]

[LightinDarkness]

Bolding indicates quotes used in subsequent posts.

Did you think slapping together randoms posts would do anything for you except further show that you have no point?


Which brings us right back to the fact that "it's fairly obvious that rich and powerful people do work together to make sure that they collectively remain rich and powerful" (Malkuth) and the question of whether "it's a good thing to allow a tiny fraction of the population to have virtually complete private control over the broad direction of our common destiny. ... to perpetuate a system that allows a tiny fraction of the population to control a large percentage of the world's funds and resources." (Malkuth)

While you may want to hate people for having more than you and seek to create and believe in CTs in order to explain why people have more than you (instead of them simply earning it), it doesn't change reality. Its fairly obvious that there is absolutely no evidence or reason to believe that just because someone has money or power that they are colluding against you.

Its much easier to believe in fantasies in order to remove yourself from responsibility. But no matter how bad you want it, no one is colluding to control the world's resources. People have more than you because they worked for it or inherited it, not because of a conspiracy against you.

[JihadJane]

Did you think slapping together randoms posts would do anything for you except further show that you have no point?

They are not random posts. One follows on from the other, following an interesting trajectory.



While you may want to hate people for having more than you and seek to create and believe in CTs in order to explain why people have more than you (instead of them simply earning it), it doesn't change reality. Its fairly obvious that there is absolutely no evidence or reason to believe that just because someone has money or power that they are colluding against you.

Its much easier to believe in fantasies in order to remove yourself from responsibility. But no matter how bad you want it, no one is colluding to control the world's resources. People have more than you because they worked for it or inherited it, not because of a conspiracy against you.

I will respond to this section fully when I respond to your "GRAB THE PITCH FORK!" post.

A couple of points to consider in the meantime:

- Why are assuming that I want any more than I already have?

- Why are you personalizing rich people's collusion as being directed against me?

[Malkuth]

A couple of points to consider in the meantime:

- Why are assuming that I want any more than I already have?

- Why are you personalizing rich people's collusion as being directed against me?

Because he has to target the person who's interested in the truth behind this topic and describe them as being irrationally motivated by personal hatred, instead of a desire for parity, for his argument to hold any weight.

It's the same as many other topics. Some want to discover the truth of an event, others scream insults at them and accuse them of irrational and dangerous hatred in order to create an air of disrespectability about asking questions.

[stilicho]

- Why are you personalizing rich people's collusion as being directed against me?

At what point in their lives do these people decide they are rich enough to engage in this collusion you say they're involved in? Is there a threshhold? Some criteria? A club you apply to?

I ask this because three rich people I can name, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and Bill Cosby, all come from different backgrounds, were not born into privilege, and appear to engage in collusion fairly publicly when announcing philanthropic projects. What machines of scrutiny ought to be brought to bear on these three people that have not been provided?

Or are these the wrong rich people? Are there good rich people and evil rich people? Can you provide examples of each?

[stilicho]

It's the same as many other topics. Some want to discover the truth of an event, others scream insults at them and accuse them of irrational and dangerous hatred in order to create an air of disrespectability about asking questions.

That's not really what the reaction has been, Malkuth. A lot of your critics are alarmed by your proposal for 24/7 intrusion into the private lives of individuals. It's not too late to redraft your proposal for fresh scrutiny.

[1337m4n]

Have all the world's richest, most powerful and most secretive people and groups subject to 24 hour, intrusive, non-stop surveillance. All their phone calls, all their meetings, everything. Have ALL political and corporate meetings where big decisions are made live on the internet for everyone to see. If they have nothing to hide, why do we allow them to keep spending so much of our money hiding what they are doing from us? Why do we allow them to spend so much of our money on giving them the ability to watch us, not vice versa, since their argument for it is that if we have nothing to hide, we must have nothing to fear? Since they're deciding the broad stroke of all our fates, I think we're entitled to see the entire process through which they come to make the decisions they do. Since it's our collective wealth funding all their activities, we should be allowed to see and know exactly what they're doing with it.

An utterly absurd idea, for all the reasons that previous posters have stated and implied. I suggest you retract this.


Federal governments could voluntarily reduce their own size and power, returning decision making power to local authorities, who have a much better understanding of local requirements. This would allow thoughtful and intelligent citizens greater voice within the decision making processes in their own communities.

There are already historical examples of this, namely the late Soviet Union.


They could also refrain from rushing through 'emergency' legislation thousands of pages long, containing numerous provisions not related to the main thrust of the bill, without letting anyone actually read it first.

Seeing as how this doesn't actually happen, I believe this condition is already satisfied.

You will probably counter by accusing me of being in denial, not realizing that the burden of proof for this particular claim is yours. All you need to prove it is a single example.


They could also do things like, ummm, tell the truth. About everything. All the time. Y'know, like what a lot of people think representational governments are kind of supposed to do. That'd be a bit reassuring as well.

Fails for assuming that governments are singular, monolithic, self-aware entities. They aren't. Rather, they consist of thousands of individuals with their own individual personalities, ideas, interests, families, friends, problems, etc. Statistically, it's extremely unlikely that you could get all of them to tell the truth all the time. Actually, if the entire government told the truth about everything all the time, it would be evidence that collusion IS occurring.

In a representative government, if the people vote for a liar, a liar will gain a seat in office. The only way to guaruntee that there will be no liars in office is to eliminate free voting, which necessarily means that there will be SOME individual calling the shots.

[LightinDarkness]

Because he has to target the person who's interested in the truth behind this topic and describe them as being irrationally motivated by personal hatred, instead of a desire for parity, for his argument to hold any weight.

It's the same as many other topics. Some want to discover the truth of an event, others scream insults at them and accuse them of irrational and dangerous hatred in order to create an air of disrespectability about asking questions.

Oh I'm sorry but...you have failed yet again. See that you I just used? Its called the "editorial you" and doesn't refer to you specifically. Of course in your case it is rather clear that your motivated by hysterical populist rage over the fact that people have more than you, so in this specific case I am talking about you personally.

I have shown the research that links this sort of hysterical populism to CT. Where is your evidence to the contrary? Oh wait..you don't have any. The truth is simple: you want to hate people with more than you. Its not about asking questions, because there are none to be asked - its about you seeking desperately to find a reason to explain why someone has more than you that removes the cold hard reality and responsibility from your shoulders.

"Nah..couldn't be because someone worked harder than me..or that someone inherited money from someone who did work hard for it..it must be because there is a global conspiracy."

[LightinDarkness]

I will respond to this section fully when I respond to your "GRAB THE PITCH FORK!" post.

A couple of points to consider in the meantime:

- Why are assuming that I want any more than I already have?

- Why are you personalizing rich people's collusion as being directed against me?

The research - and by that I mean real peer reviewed research and not youtube videos and Alex Jones links that CTers call research - has shown a specific and irrefutable link between conspiracy theory and radical populism. There is nothing to respond to on this because all the evidence is against you. You are free to deny it but unless you cite peer reviewed evidence - which you won't because there is none and if CTers use peer reviewed evidence they wouldn't believe in CTs to begin with - then there is no question on this.

- If you didn't want more than you already have then you wouldn't seek so desperately believe in theories that say people have more than you solely based on diabolical collusion against you.

- Again, please learn about the "editorial you".

[stilicho]

There are already historical examples of this, namely the late Soviet Union.

Pol Pot's governing style is the closest recent approximation to the proposals set forth by JihadJane and Malkuth. The people will voluntarily accept the arrangements set out by statute and enforced by the outward appearance of friendliness and sustainability.

[fullflavormenthol]

My question is how many people will be monitored based on family origin alone? What about the people who are not rich at all, but since they are the 8th cousin of the Queen thrice removed? Are they going to be monitored based on "relation" to a powerful family?

[Travis]

So we'd be getting live video feeds of corporate exec's showering and having amorous relations with their spouses? Are we also getting these live video feeds of their 16 year old daughters? I mean they might be in on it too you know.;)

[Malkuth]

1337m4n

Seeing as how this doesn't actually happen, I believe this condition is already satisfied.

In responding to the economic crisis, Congress has let emotion overrun reason. There has been little accountability or transparency in this process, despite continued promises from the Administration.

When it comes to today’s proposal, Congress has let expediency override common-sense. We have had no debate, no hearing, no witnesses, and no real evaluation of this bill.
http://lamarsmith.house.gov/read.aspx?ID=1154

When CNSNews.com asked members of both parties on Capitol Hill on Thursday whether they had read the full, final bill, not one member could say, "Yes."
http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43478

“We like to say we are the world’s most deliberative body,” DeMint reminded his colleagues, but “on the largest [and most expensive] bill we have ever considered…we don’t even know what is in the bill.” Yet the Senate moved forward on the legislation with blinders on, literally. “We don’t even have the desk copy,” DeMint complained.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24092

We’ve all been taught never to sign any document we haven’t read. But that doesn’t apply to the economic stimulus bill President Obama is signing today in Denver.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/02/17/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4806147.shtml

"Here we are with 1100 pages, 1100 pages that not one member of this body has read. Not one."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvnwOjDjnH4

readthebill.org spokesperson on the Nooooze
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cn4dEsP_tTw

Hidden Provisions

If the Obama administration’s economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later.

The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).

Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs

The only hitch is that no members of the House or Senate have been willing to sponsor this legislation, which would, after all, curb their own power and result in additional duties.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/03/25/business/econwatch/entry4893482.shtml

If ever there was a case where Congress should have given more time and listened closer, this was it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-blumenthal/how-congress-rushed-a-bil_b_181926.html

"...the vote on the SAFE Act seems unusually rushed. It's not entirely clear that the House Democratic leadership really meant this legislation to slap new restrictions on hundreds of thousands of Americans and small businesses who offer public wireless connections. But they'll nevertheless have to abide by the new rules if senators go along with this idea"
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9829759-38.html

The push to get the bill through before the holiday weekend was so frantic, members of Congress didn't have a chance to read all 1,071 pages of the document before they could vote.
"In a perfect world it would have been nice to have had more time to process it," said Ilan Kayatsky, a spokesman for Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY).
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02152009/news/nationalnews/whats_the_rush__155255.htm

For the Flying Spaghetti Monster's sake, guys, at least google a term used a little bit before you go off on a rabid tirade calling it ridiculous and saying it doesn't exist.

It's been all over the web and the news for many weeks. I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that some people here take extreme positions against anything they feel like simply because they can.

There's a protest website that lists a lot more examples and calls for people to petition their elected representatives to "READ THE BILL".

Feeds from OpenCongress on Rushed Bills
To help you track which bills were rushed through the legislative process, we've created this page. This is a continually-updating list of bills in Congress for which the time from the full text being publicly available to the point of consideration is less than 72 hours.
http://readthebill.org/rushed/

and
http://readthestimulus.org/
is good too, it has links to download the laws in question so the public can read it too. After the fact.

http://www.downsizedc.org/


Actually, if the entire government told the truth about everything all the time, it would be evidence that collusion IS occurring.

That would be the one kind of collusion I could respect, collusion to tell the truth. Pity it's the only type of collusion that doesn't seem to be occuring.

[abenja1]

In responding to the economic crisis, Congress has let emotion overrun reason. There has been little accountability or transparency in this process, despite continued promises from the Administration.

When it comes to today’s proposal, Congress has let expediency override common-sense. We have had no debate, no hearing, no witnesses, and no real evaluation of this bill.
http://lamarsmith.house.gov/read.aspx?ID=1154

When CNSNews.com asked members of both parties on Capitol Hill on Thursday whether they had read the full, final bill, not one member could say, "Yes."
http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43478

“We like to say we are the world’s most deliberative body,” DeMint reminded his colleagues, but “on the largest [and most expensive] bill we have ever considered…we don’t even know what is in the bill.” Yet the Senate moved forward on the legislation with blinders on, literally. “We don’t even have the desk copy,” DeMint complained.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24092

We’ve all been taught never to sign any document we haven’t read. But that doesn’t apply to the economic stimulus bill President Obama is signing today in Denver.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/02/17/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4806147.shtml

"Here we are with 1100 pages, 1100 pages that not one member of this body has read. Not one."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvnwOjDjnH4

readthebill.org spokesperson on the Nooooze
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cn4dEsP_tTw

Hidden Provisions

If the Obama administration’s economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later.

The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).

Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs

The only hitch is that no members of the House or Senate have been willing to sponsor this legislation, which would, after all, curb their own power and result in additional duties.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/03/25/business/econwatch/entry4893482.shtml

If ever there was a case where Congress should have given more time and listened closer, this was it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-blumenthal/how-congress-rushed-a-bil_b_181926.html

"...the vote on the SAFE Act seems unusually rushed. It's not entirely clear that the House Democratic leadership really meant this legislation to slap new restrictions on hundreds of thousands of Americans and small businesses who offer public wireless connections. But they'll nevertheless have to abide by the new rules if senators go along with this idea"
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9829759-38.html

The push to get the bill through before the holiday weekend was so frantic, members of Congress didn't have a chance to read all 1,071 pages of the document before they could vote.
"In a perfect world it would have been nice to have had more time to process it," said Ilan Kayatsky, a spokesman for Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY).
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02152009/news/nationalnews/whats_the_rush__155255.htm

For the Flying Spaghetti Monster's sake, guys, at least google a term used a little bit before you go off on a rabid tirade calling it ridiculous and saying it doesn't exist.

It's been all over the web and the news for many weeks. I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that some people here take extreme positions against anything they feel like simply because they can.

There's a protest website that lists a lot more examples and calls for people to petition their elected representatives to "READ THE BILL".

Feeds from OpenCongress on Rushed Bills
To help you track which bills were rushed through the legislative process, we've created this page. This is a continually-updating list of bills in Congress for which the time from the full text being publicly available to the point of consideration is less than 72 hours.
http://readthebill.org/rushed/

and
http://readthestimulus.org/
is good too, it has links to download the laws in question so the public can read it too. After the fact.

http://www.downsizedc.org/




That would be the one kind of collusion I could respect, collusion to tell the truth. Pity it's the only type of collusion that doesn't seem to be occuring.

You're about to be owned Malkuth. While no doubt the articles might or might not support your theories. I want you to square you're sourcing of numerous media articles to what you said in the thread "What would it take for you to believe?"

I think a lot of people have skipped the rational open-minded thinker stage and gone straight from bright eyed young idealist to mass media spoon-fed apologists for the status quo.


I await your excuse... I mean response with open eyes and ears.

[Malkuth]

Am I apologising for the status quo? No, I'm questioning it.

[abenja1]

Am I apologising for the status quo? No, I'm questioning it.

Ah I see so it's okay for you to quote a mainstream news article because you're "questioning the status quo," but if a debunker was using a mainstream news article they would be "apologising for the status quo." Do tell if that is what you're saying.

[Malkuth]

/sigh

I quoted some msm and some non-msn for an impartial view of the full spectrum of argument and report on this topic.

The dubunkers ONLY quote msm and ruthlessly deride anything that isn't paid for by the very people I am questioning.

[abenja1]

/sigh

I quoted some msm and some non-msn for an impartial view of the full spectrum of argument and report on this topic.

The dubunkers ONLY quote msm and ruthlessly deride anything that isn't paid for by the very people I am questioning.

I see so I was right. When debunkers do it, they are brainwashed apologists, when you do it, it's okay. Forgive me if I sound too harsh, but don't forget your ticket on the Hypocrisy Express 101.

[Malkuth]

I forgive you, my deluded child

/sarcasm

[JihadJane]

I see so I was right. When debunkers do it, they are brainwashed apologists, when you do it, it's okay. Forgive me if I sound too harsh, but don't forget your ticket on the Hypocrisy Express 101.

Have you (not editorial) only got one tape?

[Malkuth]

My guess is it's a bad mix tape from the early 80's.

[abenja1]

/sigh

I quoted some msm and some non-msn for an impartial view of the full spectrum of argument and report on this topic.

The dubunkers ONLY quote msm and ruthlessly deride anything that isn't paid for by the very people I am questioning.

The above means "I, Malkuth, am a hypocrite."

[Malkuth]

How is showing arguments and examples used by both sides being hypocritical?


The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity, but the one that removes awareness of other possibilities, that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable, that removes the sense that there is an outside.
—Allan Bloom

[abenja1]

How is showing arguments and examples used by both sides being hypocritical?

It's this:

The dubunkers ONLY quote msm and ruthlessly deride anything that isn't paid for by the very people I am questioning.

So when you quote the "paid for" MSM, it's okay. When debunkers do it they are pleasing the status quo. You can do it, but debunkers can't. That's hypocrisy.

[JihadJane]

Comment pending.....

[Malkuth]

So when you quote the "paid for" MSM, it's okay. When debunkers do it they are pleasing the status quo. You can do it, but debunkers can't. That's hypocrisy.

I never said they couldn't do it, I said it's all they do.

I never said that the msm is all wrong, I never said that i's paid for in it's entirety. If that were my position I would only ever quote it to show examples of what I think is wrong.

Here I've used it to confirm my points, alongside independant views which do the same.

[JihadJane]

Can you point to any research to back up this hypothesis or is it the debunker equivalent to the Freud's penis envy theory?

(Posted at a time when the biggest financial heist is history is occurring the OP is kinda funny.)


I know, the financial "heist" is an excellent example of hating people because they make more money than you. OH MY GOD! SOMEONE WORKS FOR A BANK! HATE THEM! GRAB THE PITCH FORK!

Unlike you, I do actually have evidence for my claims and its peer reviewed - something that no CTer ever has. The connection between conspiracy theory and rage-against-the-rich populism is far older than the youtube videos that you believe are truth:


In August 1890, E.Z. Ernst, a Kansas Populist, warned of an impending crises. During the Civil War, Ernst explained, "rogues" "conspired" with "English capitalists to get possession of this wonderfully productive American nation," and that there plan was nearing completion. Earlier, Ernst had recommended a pamphlet called Seven Financial Conspirices Which have Enslaved the American People....
Ostler, J. (1995). The Rhetoric of Conspiracy and Kansas Populism. Agricultural History, 69(1).

Real researchers have long noted the relationship between radical populism and conspiracy theory. Indeed, the above is the exact same conspiracy propaganda that you Believe in today even though it goes back many years and has been debunked many times.

A historian's interpretation of history is influenced by the historian's own beliefs. Analysis offered by Ostler cannot be verified by "peer review" in the way that facts in a scientific paper can.

You appear to be arguing that because certain political conditions or movements (or mental pathologies?) encourage conspiratorial thinking it therefore proves that political conspiracies do not to exist.

This is self-evidently, logically, rubbish.

Furthermore, other analysts have argued that Kansas laborers' conspiracy theories were more than half right, e.g.:

from 'The Road to Rebellion' by Scott G. McNall, Chapter Five, p154:

"Much has been made of the irrational fear and general xenophobia of those who made up the Populist movement. They have been accused, by Hofstadter for one, of being racists, antiprogressive and of believing in conspiracy theories. However they did understand that America was moving forward on the backs of immigrant workers, and that the life of the small artisan would be crushed out as a result.

Many Kansas laborers were independent 'businessmen,' or worked in very small enterprises where they had control over the flow of their work. They were not merely protesting against the use of immigrant labor but against the changed definition of work that occurred when cheap foreign labor was employed. About conspiracy, they were more than half right. Though there was not an active, or conscious, decision made to work in concert to do so, capitalists did consistently favor foreign immigration as a way of driving down wage rates. They had been aided since the Civil War by a state that first helped them bring in new laborers, and then gave them protective tariffs.

The problem with conspiracy theory, however, is that is restricts the field of vision. For workers, it meant that a change in leadership, in individuals, rather than an alteration is the system of capitalism itself, was seen as the 'solution'. Like farmers, workers in Kansas fell into a pattern of supporting a system and asking that the government make modifications to control the rapacity of individual capitalists."

It is also likely that Sarah E. Van De Vort Emery's pamphlet 'Seven Financial Conspiracies Which Have Enslaved the American People'

http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/emery/emery_index.html

contains more than a grain of truth about the activities of the government, financiers and bankers of her day.

You hailed my comment about the "biggest financial heist is history" as "an excellent example of hating people because they make more money than you." Do you reduce all politics to bland psychobabble?

In a recent interview with Bill Moyers, Bill Black, the senior regulator during the S&L crisis, one of America's top bank fraud experts and now a professor of economy and law at University of Missouri, describes how collusion between the US government (several administrations) and the banking/finance industry created the contemporary US financial meltdown and how the truth about it is being covered up.


Moyers asks:

"Are you saying that Timothy Geithner, the Secretary of the Treasury, and others in the administration, with the banks, are engaged in a cover up to keep us from knowing what went wrong?"

Black replies: "Absolutely."

Later in the interview:

Moyers: This wound that you say has been inflicted on American life. The loss of worker's income. And security and pensions and future happened, because of the misconduct of a relatively few, very well-heeled people, in very well-decorated corporate suites, right?

Black: Right.

Moyers: It was relatively a handful of people.

Black: And their ideologies, which swept away regulation. ..."


'Moyers Journal: Maddoff Was A Piker -- America's Big Banks Are a Far Larger Fraudulent Ponzi Scheme'

http://preview.tinyurl.com/de8g8m


I await your peer reviewed research which says anything to the contrary.

But I won't be holding my breath.

[abenja1]

I never said they couldn't do it, I said it's all they do.

I never said that the msm is all wrong, I never said that i's paid for in it's entirety. If that were my position I would only ever quote it to show examples of what I think is wrong.

Here I've used it to confirm my points, alongside independant views which do the same.

Yes you did say it.
mass media spoon-fed apologists for the status quo.

By saying that, you're saying that people who use MSM articles are "spoon-fed apologists." There is a reason why some publications are mainstream and others not. Like those rich people you are jealous of, newspapers like the NY Times, LA Times, Atlanta Journal Constitution earned their credible reputations. Are independent sources necessarily bad? No, however, their credibility is nothing compared to mainsream press.

Plus you said before The dubunkers ONLY quote msm and ruthlessly deride anything that isn't paid for by the very people I am questioning. . By saying that you're saying the MSM is paid for by the elites (which by the way you still have not listed any names.) So why are you using articles which the elite are paying for to be published in the first place?

[timhau]

Am I apologising for the status quo? No, I'm questioning it.

... along with reality.

Nothing to see here folks, move along.

[JihadJane]

By saying that, you're saying that people who use MSM articles are "spoon-fed apologists."

No, he/she isn't. That's just you attempting to manipulate the meaning of someone's words, (not for the first time) so you can squeeze them into one of your silly soundbites.

There is a reason why some publications are mainstream and others not. Like those rich people you are jealous of, newspapers like the NY Times, LA Times, Atlanta Journal Constitution earned their credible reputations. Are independent sources necessarily bad? No, however, their credibility is nothing compared to mainsream press.

The NY Times, for one, was the major mouthpiece for uncritically disseminating Bush regime warmongering lies about Iraq. As a unbiased news source, it has very little credibility left.

Please provide evidence that Malkuth is "jealous" of rich people. Otherwise, apologize.

[cwalner]

The NY Times, for one, was the major mouthpiece for uncritically disseminating Bush regime warmongering lies about Iraq. As a unbiased news source, it has very little credibility left.


This reminds me of when my aunt, who lives near Boston, was complaining about how rediculously conservative her senators are (specifically her senior senator). This spoke much more about her politics than those of her senators.

[abenja1]

No, he/she isn't. That's just you attempting to manipulate the meaning of someone's words, (not for the first time) so you can squeeze them into one of your silly soundbites.

Yes he is saying that. Before you start insulting me, let's not forget that I'm talking to the person who says it's okay for truthers to advocate violence.


The NY Times, for one, was the major mouthpiece for uncritically disseminating Bush regime warmongering lies about Iraq. As a unbiased news source, it has very little credibility left.

Please provide evidence that Malkuth is "jealous" of rich people. Otherwise, apologize.

The NY Times at the start of the war supported it, just as about every other newspaper. They supported getting Saddam Hussein out of there. I bet in your little truther world Saddam is one helluva guy. In reality the guy was a dictator who should've been dethroned years ago. When the war got out of hand, financially and militarily, many newspapers realized their mistake and and didn't support the war.

As for my proof JJ, I believe post #5 best reflects Malkuth's resentment of those better off than him. The fact that he suggests that they be watched for 24/7 implies a crime for being rich and powerful, something that Malkuth I'm guessing is not. An envious person would desire a need to scrutinize those who he or she is not fond of.

Now I ask you for proof that the NY Times was "major mouthpiece for uncritically disseminating Bush regime warmongering lies about Iraq." And before you cite that Judith Miller article on the yellow cake, do realize the NYT apologized for that article and asked Judith Miller to leave her position. Otherwise, apologize.

[JihadJane]

Yes he is saying that. Before you start insulting me, let's not forget that I'm talking to the person who says it's okay for truthers to advocate violence.




The NY Times at the start of the war supported it, just as about every other newspaper. They supported getting Saddam Hussein out of there. I bet in your little truther world Saddam is one helluva guy. In reality the guy was a dictator who should've been dethroned years ago. When the war got out of hand, financially and militarily, many newspapers realized their mistake and and didn't support the war.

As for my proof JJ, I believe post #5 best reflects Malkuth's resentment of those better off than him. The fact that he suggests that they be watched for 24/7 implies a crime for being rich and powerful, something that Malkuth I'm guessing is not. An envious person would desire a need to scrutinize those who he or she is not fond of.

Now I ask you for proof that the NY Times was "major mouthpiece for uncritically disseminating Bush regime warmongering lies about Iraq." And before you cite that Judith Miller article on the yellow cake, do realize the NYT apologized for that article and asked Judith Miller to leave her position. Otherwise, apologize.

How about "JihadJane thinks Saddam Hussein is one helluva guy"?

[abenja1]

How about "JihadJane thinks Saddam Hussein is one helluva guy"?

Are you going to be continously intellecutally disingenuous or are you going to provide evidence? Remember: evidence or apologize.

[stilicho]

You hailed my comment about the "biggest financial heist is history" as "an excellent example of hating people because they make more money than you." Do you reduce all politics to bland psychobabble?

Are you a property owner, JihadJane? Do you know anyone who is? Anyone who operates a business? How did you or they accomplish this feat without resorting to dealing with a bank?

When you walked in and spoke with the bank manager, can you explain your conflicts? You were in there (or your entrepreneur friends were) to use other peoples' money for your own benefit. How did you feel about that?

If you have never employed the benefits of credit, explain how that has helped you to achieve your goals.

I, for one, am terribly interested in this. You may use fictional characters like they do in the "did-he-touch-you-here" police interrogations if you're a little embarrassed about sharing your experiences.

[JihadJane]

Are you going to be continously intellecutally disingenuous or are you going to provide evidence? Remember: evidence or apologize.

I remember it well. I remember "Abenja1, withdraw your unfounded allegations or there can be no civilized conversation between us."


Are you a property owner, JihadJane? Do you know anyone who is? Anyone who operates a business? How did you or they accomplish this feat without resorting to dealing with a bank?

When you walked in and spoke with the bank manager, can you explain your conflicts? You were in there (or your entrepreneur friends were) to use other peoples' money for your own benefit. How did you feel about that?

If you have never employed the benefits of credit, explain how that has helped you to achieve your goals.

I, for one, am terribly interested in this. You may use fictional characters like they do in the "did-he-touch-you-here" police interrogations if you're a little embarrassed about sharing your experiences.


What have my personal experiences with banks got to do with massive, State-assisted financial fraud?

[Tippit]

We've answered your "what would it take" question, (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139111) now it's time for all you conspiracy theorists to answer ours.

What would it take for you to believe that there ISN'T some elite cabal that secretly controls all world affairs and has numerous secret evil plans to build concentration camps and etc etc etc.



Since this seems to be a sincere enough question, I'll bite. First of all, as much as you and other so-called debunkers would like to believe it, there is no consensus among conspiracy theorists. There are as many theories that I find as ridiculous as you would likely find mine. The likelihood of any one theory can often be a matter of semantics with regard to how the theory is proposed. For instance, it's ridiculous to propose that there is some elite cabal that secretly controls "all world affairs", for some reasonable definition of "world affairs". Obviously we live in a world where chaos and order conflict, and even given a highly organized social structure there will always be an element of randomness and chaos. It's possible that there are many cabals which have various powerful spheres of influence in controlling many "affairs", and given this possibility it follows that there may be one most powerful, for some definition of power.

With regard to concentration camps specifically, there is plenty of evidence that the US government has made some extra-constitutional continuity of government plans, for instance, Rex 84, Directive 51, Shadow government, FEMA, et al. Depending on your worldview, this can be a positive or negative development. If there just so happens to exist a cabal that wields extraordinary power over the US and/or the world, it's not inconceivable how a coup could be executed by creating a disaster in order to invoke such plans.

Videos like this one of Oliver North's testimony before congress (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPQcia3__Bw&feature=PlayList&p=DC2206DFA0E0E0CD&index=8) don't inspire much confidence, and don't speak much for the transparency and accountability that should involve such a grandiose plan.



What counter-evidence would you accept? What would convince you that there is no all-powerful "NWO"?



For me, the most glaringly obvious evidence that the "NWO" exists is the modern banking system, epitomized by the Federal Reserve and other central banks, particularly their role in the current economic crisis, and past crises. In order for me to be disabused of my assumptions about how the real world works, I would have to be shown why my carefully researched and thought-out conclusions about how the banking system works and who it benefits are wrong.

As it turns out, none of any of the "debunkers" here have succeeded in this regard, nor even come close. After all of the bluster, argument, insults, and hyperbole, they have failed to convince me that the Fed isn't an instrument of supreme usury and fraud. This isn't to say that I'm right, merely that I remain convinced that I am. I've been assured that the Fed is a beneficent and necessary institution for our economic survival, however, the underlying philosophical truth is that the legal right to create fiat money is the right to plunder the existing holders of that currency, and it always involves a transfer of wealth. The modern banking conspiracy explains the phenomenon of Wealth Condensation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_condensation) in no uncertain terms for those who understand its history and undertakings. In order for me to question my beliefs, I would first have to be shown that everything I know about economics, and the history of modern banking (and it's colorful proprietors) is false. It should be obvious to which history I lend the most credibility, and I don't believe anyone in this forum is qualified to re-educate me.



Rational theories have falsifiability. If there is nothing in your infinite imagination that could possibly falsify your theory, then it is not a "theory" at all; it is superstition and religion.

No, you have a misunderstanding of falsifiability as it applies to conspiracy theories. I addressed this in an earlier thread where Gravy was similarly wrong. Falsification is a "criterion of demarcation" used to distinguish scientific from unscientific theories:


(emphasis mine)

The criterion of demarcation

Popper uses falsification as a criterion of demarcation to draw a sharp line between those theories that are scientific and those that are unscientific. It is useful to know if a statement or theory is falsifiable, if for no other reason than that it provides us with an understanding of the ways in which one might assess the theory. One might at the least be saved from attempting to falsify a non-falsifiable theory, or come to see an unfalsifiable theory as unsupportable.

Popper claimed that, if a theory is falsifiable, then it is scientific.

]The Popperian criterion excludes from the domain of science not unfalsifiable statements but only whole theories that contain no falsifiable statements; thus it leaves us with the Duhemian problem of what constitutes a 'whole theory' as well as the problem of what makes a statement 'meaningful'. Popper's own falsificationism, thus, is not only an alternative to verificationism, it is also an acknowledgement of the conceptual distinction that previous theories had ignored.

[edit] Verificationism
Main article: Verificationist
See also: Abductive reasoning

In the philosophy of science, verificationism (also known as the verifiability theory of meaning) holds that a statement must be in principle empirically verifiable in order to be both meaningful and scientific. This was an essential feature of the logical positivism of the so-called Vienna Circle that included such philosophers as Moritz Schlick, Rudolf Carnap, Otto Neurath, the Berlin philosopher Hans Reichenbach, and the logical empiricism of A.J. Ayer.

Popper noticed that the philosophers of the Vienna Circle had mixed two different problems, that of meaning and that of demarcation, and had proposed in verificationism a single solution to both. In opposition to this view, Popper emphasized that there are meaningful theories that are not scientific, and that, accordingly, a criterion of meaningfulness does not coincide with a criterion of demarcation. Verifiability came to be replaced by falsifiability as the criterion of demarcation.

Falsificationism strictly opposes the view that non-falsifiable statements are meaningless or otherwise inherently bad.[1]



The wiki also makes the distinction between theoretical and practical falsifiability:


Not all statements that are falsifiable in principle are falsifiable in practice. For example, "it will be raining here in one million years" is theoretically falsifiable, but not practically.


Many conspiracy theories fall under the domain of theoretically but not practically falsifiable, for instance the idea that some other than Lee Harvey Oswald shot John F. Kennedy. While we can conduct scientific experiments that may falsify various propositions made by conspiracy theorists or their debunkers, the event itself is not subject to scientific experiment, it's history. We can only make assumptions about the authenticity of the facts surrounding what happened. JFK assassination theories are often unscientific, but they are far from meaningless.

Some 9/11 theories are similar in this regard. For instance, the theory that the twin towers were subject to explosives because they fell at free fall speeds is practically falsifiable - and in fact, was proven false! This doesn't preclude the idea that explosives were used, only one falsifiable aspect of the theory, that the towers fell at "free fall" speeds. 9/11, much like the JFK assassination, was not a scientific experiment that can be repeated. We can only make some basic assumptions about the authenticity of facts as they were reported.

I view conspiracy theorists more as alternative historians - people who take issue with the mainstream historical timeline and record, then as crazy people with a collective axe to grind. I found the idea of a "NWO" ridiculous initially, until I read a book called "The Creature from Jekyll Island". The book details the history of banking, and some of the most powerful names behind it, like Rothschild and Rockefeller. I don't conceive of the NWO as a bunch of shadowy overlords giving orders in smoke-filled rooms, but rather financial enablers who control the monetary printing press. They don't have to give orders, they merely enable people using their vast wealth who are naturally sympathetic to their aims.

If you use the Principle of Charity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) in attempting to understand CT arguments rather than assuming you're performing the noble task of setting crazy people straight, you may find some rational worldviews other than your own.

[dudalb]

If you use the Principle of Charity in attempting to understand CT arguments rather than assuming you're performing the noble task of setting crazy people straight, you may find some rational worldviews other than your own.

Sorry, but I can't buy the principle of charity. The idea that you have to treat clearly irrational ideas as rational is simply stupid.

[Malkuth]

Sorry, but I can't buy the principle of charity. The idea that you have to treat clearly irrational ideas as rational is simply stupid.

That's probably because you have the irrational idea that ALL conspiracy theories, in every detail, are totally irrational.

They are not.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

That's probably because you have the irrational idea that ALL conspiracy theories, in every detail, are totally irrational.


That would be a strawman...

[stilicho]

What have my personal experiences with banks got to do with massive, State-assisted financial fraud?

Proof please.

[stilicho]

[There] is no consensus among conspiracy theorists.

I've noticed that too. Any idea why?

[Malkuth]

That would be a strawman...

How so? How have I misrepresented his position?

Are you asserting that dudalb does indeed believe that there is some merit to conspiracy theory?

I'm not certain how dudalb would react to it if you are.

[Chaos]

How so? How have I misrepresented his position?

Are you asserting that dudalb does indeed believe that there is some merit to conspiracy theory?

I'm not certain how dudalb would react to it if you are.

He is asserting that dudalb does not dismiss all conspiracy theories out of hand. Instead, he asserts, dudalb dismisses the specific conspiracy theories presented by assorted loonies, such as MIHOP, the moon landing "hoax", Holocaust denial, the Kennedy assassination conspiracies, chemtrails and whatnot. He also assert that dudalb would accept (tentatively, at least) any conspiracy theory that whas presented with some real - heavens, no! - evidence to support it. Real evidence, not the bat crap insane nonsense you and others here spout.

[JihadJane]

Proof please.


What a pretty please!

Proof would require an investigation along the lines of that into the S&L scandal.

Bill Black, in the interview I linked to above (post #149) calls it fraud and, unless you are one of the world's top financial fraud experts, he is in a better position than you or I to judge.


He is asserting that dudalb does not dismiss all conspiracy theories out of hand. Instead, he asserts, dudalb dismisses the specific conspiracy theories presented by assorted loonies, such as MIHOP, the moon landing "hoax", Holocaust denial, the Kennedy assassination conspiracies, chemtrails and whatnot. He also assert that dudalb would accept (tentatively, at least) any conspiracy theory that whas presented with some real - heavens, no! - evidence to support it. Real evidence, not the bat crap insane nonsense you and others here spout.


Are there two dudalbs posting on this forum?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

How so? How have I misrepresented his position?


Chaos nailed it. Unless you, or dudalb himself, can provide proof that dudalb does dismiss "all conspiracy theories, in every detail", you have indeed misrepresented his position.

[cwalner]

What a pretty please!

Proof would require an investigation along the lines of that into the S&L scandal.

Bill Black, in the interview I linked to above (post #149) calls it fraud and, unless you are one of the world's top financial fraud experts, he is in a better position than you or I to judge.



I'm sorry, but how exactly is Bill Black in a better position to judge. Yes, he is a fraud expert, which means that he has the skills to know what to look for and properly analyze what is found when investigating the crime of financial fraud. Now all you need to do is show that he has actually investigated this particular allegation of fraud. Without doing such an investigation, his skills offer him no real insight into this case and reduces your argument to an appeal to false authority.

Your argument is analogous to a claim that every homicide detective everywhere in the world is qualified to render an opinion on the guilt of a suspect in every single case of alleged murder. This simply is not the case. Thier expertise is in investigation methods, and therefore do not count as experts in specific cases until they have actually investigated that specific case.

[Chaos]

Are there two dudalbs posting on this forum?

I think there are two JihadJanes on this forum. One of them reads what other people write, and thinks about it. The other posts here. And I have a feeling the two of them are not on speaking terms.

[Malkuth]

Chaos nailed it. Unless you, or dudalb himself, can provide proof that dudalb does dismiss "all conspiracy theories, in every detail", you have indeed misrepresented his position.

That's a pretty fine line to tread. I've read a fair bit of this section of the forum and not seen a single dudalb post giving a shred of credence to any conspiracy theory idea. From my point of view, he's been one of the more violently oposed to it here.

I don't think I've misrepresented his position, at least not the popular perception of it. I'll wait for dudalb to clarify, if he will, rather than accept your assertion.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

That's a pretty fine line to tread.


And with good reason. Do you honestly think it's acceptable to claim that dubalb dismisses "all conspiracy theories, in every detail" without having heard his opinion on each and every conspiracy theory that's ever existed?

I'm treading a fine line where you seem to be painting with a broad brush.

I've read a fair bit of this section of the forum and not seen a single dudalb post giving a shred of credence to any conspiracy theory idea.


But not all conspiracies, right? Only the relative few that have graced this forum with their presence and which you've personally seen dudalb comment on, right?

From my point of view, he's been one of the more violently oposed to it here.


That's irrelevant to your assertion that he dismisses "all conspiracy theories, in every detail". He could be very calm about his opposition, too.

I don't think I've misrepresented his position, at least not the popular perception of it.


You made an absolute statement (that dudalb dismisses "all conspiracy theories, in every detail"), but now you're trying claim that you're arguing from "popular perception"? Absolutes and popular perception are mutually exclusive. Not to mention that I can't even imagine whose perception you are deeming "popular". You're certainly not in a majority around here, in case you haven't noticed.

[JihadJane]

I'm sorry, but how exactly is Bill Black in a better position to judge. Yes, he is a fraud expert, which means that he has the skills to know what to look for and properly analyze what is found when investigating the crime of financial fraud. Now all you need to do is show that he has actually investigated this particular allegation of fraud. Without doing such an investigation, his skills offer him no real insight into this case and reduces your argument to an appeal to false authority.

Your argument is analogous to a claim that every homicide detective everywhere in the world is qualified to render an opinion on the guilt of a suspect in every single case of alleged murder. This simply is not the case. Thier expertise is in investigation methods, and therefore do not count as experts in specific cases until they have actually investigated that specific case.

Black is not just any financial fraud expert anywhere in the world ("every homicide detective everywhere in the world ")

Black is the former Director of the Institute for Fraud Prevention. During the savings and loan crisis, it was Black who accused then-house speaker Jim Wright and five US Senators, including John Glenn and John McCain, of doing favors for the S&L's in exchange for contributions and other perks.

He is considered one of the foremost experts on financial regulation and white collar crime in the US.

The current round of bank fraud grew out of a failure to follow regulations and laws that Black, as a regulator, had put in place to prevent a repeat of the S&L fraud.

Read the interview with Black that I linked to. He describes in detail how the current fraud was perpetrated:

Moyers Journal: Madoff Was A Piker -- America's Big Banks Are a Far Larger Fraudulent Ponzi Scheme

One of America's top bank fraud experts explains the financial industry's "liar's loans" and wholesale greed that got us in this mess.

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/135161/moyers_journal%3A_maddoff_was_a_piker_--_america%27s_big_banks_are_a_far_larger_fraudulent _ponzi_scheme/?page=entire

[cwalner]

Black is not just any financial fraud expert anywhere in the world ("every homicide detective everywhere in the world ")

Black is the former Director of the Institute for Fraud Prevention. During the savings and loan crisis, it was Black who accused then-house speaker Jim Wright and five US Senators, including John Glenn and John McCain, of doing favors for the S&L's in exchange for contributions and other perks.

He is considered one of the foremost experts on financial regulation and white collar crime in the US.

The current round of bank fraud grew out of a failure to follow regulations and laws that Black, as a regulator, had put in place to prevent a repeat of the S&L fraud.

Read the interview with Black that I linked to. He describes in detail how the current fraud was perpetrated:

Moyers Journal: Madoff Was A Piker -- America's Big Banks Are a Far Larger Fraudulent Ponzi Scheme

One of America's top bank fraud experts explains the financial industry's "liar's loans" and wholesale greed that got us in this mess.

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/135161/moyers_journal%3A_maddoff_was_a_piker_--_america%27s_big_banks_are_a_far_larger_fraudulent _ponzi_scheme/?page=entire

I read the article and still no evidence that Mr. Black did any actual investigation into this matter. Again, I am not disputing his qualifications to investigate this, they are completely solid. However, being an expert in investigating a particular type of crime does not make you an expert in a particular incident of the alleged crime unless one does the investigation.

My analogy to homicide detective holds. When a person is accused of murder, who does the state call to the stand? Do they call the world's foremost expert on investigating homicides? No, they call the detective that did the actual investigation into the particular alleged murder.

I recall the S&L scandal (I was a bit young, but I remember it in the news). Specifically I recall the media playing up what they called the Keating 7, specific senators that were accused of conspiricy in this bank fraud. In that case, Mr. Black investigated and had solid evidence upon which he made accusations against specific individuals for specific acts which enabled the S&L fraud.

In the interview, Mr. Black does not specify any specific evidence or make any specific accusations as to what individuals within the government to conspire to make this current crisis happen. The only accusations he makes are vague ones against Paulsen and Gheitner which amount to nothing more than 'They should have known better and had the position to cover it up, therefore they must have covered it up.'

I stand by my original position. Black did not do the investigation on this, so using him as an expert for this case is an appeal to false authority.

[JihadJane]

Black justifies his use of the phrase "liar loans".

Do you think there was no fraud; just a bit of an oops-a-daisy, perhaps, and a how did that happen??

[cwalner]

Black justifies his use of the phrase "liar loans".

Do you think there was no fraud; just a bit of an oops-a-daisy, perhaps, and a how did that happen??

Yes, he does justify the phrase, but who is being referred to as the 'liar' in it? If you are going to accept this phrase as proof of a conspiracy, then the conspiracy is between the banks and the borrowers, not the banks and the government.

[JihadJane]

Yes, he does justify the phrase, but who is being referred to as the 'liar' in it? If you are going to accept this phrase as proof of a conspiracy, then the conspiracy is between the banks and the borrowers, not the banks and the government.

It's not proof of anything.

Government acted as an enabler.

Do you think no fraud has been committed?

[Elizabeth I]

It's perfectly possible that fraud was committed without there having been a world-wide conspiracy behind it.

Just because a crime took place doesn't mean there's a shadowy group that caused it.

Bernie Madoff, for example.

Meditate upon this: Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.

[JihadJane]

It's perfectly possible that fraud was committed without there having been a world-wide conspiracy behind it.

Just because a crime took place doesn't mean there's a shadowy group that caused it.

Bernie Madoff, for example.

You think Madoff acted alone?

Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.

Why not?

[Elizabeth I]

It is highly unlikely that Madoff acted alone. That doesn't mean he had a global cabal behind him.

Why should you more often ascribe people's activities to stupidity rather than malice? Because stupidity is so common.

[cwalner]

It's not proof of anything.

Government acted as an enabler.

Do you think no fraud has been committed?

Honestly, I don't know. I don't have enough knowledge of what legally constitutes fraud to begin to evaluate. I don't have enough information about what individuals did or did not do to evaluate it against a definition of fraud.

This is why I will rely on experts who do have that knowledge and have done that investigation.

So far the only person accused of fraud by such experts experts is Madoff, and he pled guilty, so I will agree that he committed fraud. Others, I simply don't have the information yet to determine.

ETA: as to government acting as an enabler, that is not neccesarily fraud. If anybody in government enabled it because they thought it was the right thing to do, then they were monumentally wrong and that officials constituants should show thier displeasure by voting him/her out of office. If it is shown that the official enabled as a means of gaining personal advantage, then that would be fraud and the official should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and have the right to challenge the evidence against them as would any other individual according to the rules of our legal system.

[Chaos]

Why not?

Because, if we attribute everything to malice, we will have to believe that you and Malkuth and all the other CTers are intentionally and maliciously annoying us and wasting our time with nonsense you intentionally and maliciously pulled out of your collective asses, and that you intentionally and maliciously make false accusations of criminal behavior against a vast number of people you know perfectly well to be innocent of what you accuse them of.

In short, because, if you do indeed act out of malice, you´re the most disgusting scum I have come across in a long, long time.

[JihadJane]

Why should you more often ascribe people's activities to stupidity rather than malice? Because stupidity is so common.

And malice isn't?

Or is it only foreigners who are malicious?


Because, if we attribute everything to malice, we will have to believe that you and Malkuth and all the other CTers are intentionally and maliciously annoying us and wasting our time with nonsense you intentionally and maliciously pulled out of your collective asses, and that you intentionally and maliciously make false accusations of criminal behavior against a vast number of people you know perfectly well to be innocent of what you accuse them of.

In short, because, if you do indeed act out of malice, you´re the most disgusting scum I have come across in a long, long time.

Thanks for your sweet words!

You appear to be taking things to extremes by now claiming that "everything" must be attributed to malice. Why?

[Tippit]

It's perfectly possible that fraud was committed without there having been a world-wide conspiracy behind it.

Just because a crime took place doesn't mean there's a shadowy group that caused it.

Bernie Madoff, for example.



It's funny you mention Madoff, because plenty of mainstream financial analysts, including a Congressman from New York (http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-us&vid=aec2b5c1-30ff-4c1c-97d6-3b4cd71de355&from=) contend that there is no way Madoff acted by himself, and was definitely a part of a conspiracy, however "shadowy".



Meditate upon this: Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.

I've never understood the appeal of Hanlon's razor, because it so utterly fails to explain the modern world. People, and especially criminals, are more intelligent than other people typically want to give them credit for, and incompetence is used as a cover for malice more often than not. If police departments used Hanlon's razor as principle of investigation, they would be out of business.

Grey's law much more accurately sums up human behavior:



"Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice."

[Chaos]

Thanks for your sweet words!

Oh, don´t mention it.

You appear to be taking things to extremes by now claiming that "everything" must be attributed to malice. Why?

No I don´t. Read again what I wrote. I described the hypothetical opinion I would have to told if I considered everything you CTers spout the result of malice, rather than considering it the result of stupidity as I actually do.

[cwalner]

It's funny you mention Madoff, because plenty of mainstream financial analysts, including a Congressman from New York (http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-us&vid=aec2b5c1-30ff-4c1c-97d6-3b4cd71de355&from=) contend that there is no way Madoff acted by himself, and was definitely a part of a conspiracy, however "shadowy".



I've never understood the appeal of Hanlon's razor, because it so utterly fails to explain the modern world. People, and especially criminals, are more intelligent than other people typically want to give them credit for, and incompetence is used as a cover for malice more often than not. If police departments used Hanlon's razor as principle of investigation, they would be out of business.

Grey's law much more accurately sums up human behavior:

I think you misunderstand our criticism. Speaking for myself, I agree that it is likely that Madoff did not act alone. However, his help was probably a small number of people (less than 10) close to him personally, not a vast conspiricay throughout the US government. The problem is as it stands now, Madoff pled guilty, effectively stopping the investigation. It is possible, even likely that he did so to protect those who assisted him. However, without evidence linking anybody else to him, we can't really bring them to justice.

As to the financial crisis, this was brought about by the actions and inactions of thousands of different people, most of whom received no direct benefit from the role they played. I agree that there were probably a few investors, who were able to forsee what thier actions would have on the economy and still continued what they were doing. They did in fact act out of malice. The vast majority of investors, however, likely only saw the opportunity to make money themselves and did not even consider, much less see the consequences on the larger economy. While this was greedy, they would not have seen this as harming others. The harm that they caused would therefore be incompetence, not malice.

For the government officials, both lawmakers and regulators, malice just seems unlikely. One would have to show that such an official knew that they were passing legislation or regulating in a way that was harming the overall economy. It is not enough to argue that they should have known. If they should have known, but did not, that is practically the defenition of incompetence. One thing that would go along way to establishing malice is showing that such a government official personally profitted from the crisis. While this will still not be definifite proof, it would be strong evidence in favor of malice.

This is what I mean when I attribute such things to incompetence instead of malice. Others may have different takes, but I will let them explain those themselves.

[abenja1]

I remember it well. I remember "Abenja1, withdraw your unfounded allegations or there can be no civilized conversation between us."

Are you going to provide evidence that the NY Times was a mouthpiece for the Bush admin or am I going to have to rightly assume you have no evidence and are instead making up stuff like you always do?

[JihadJane]

Are you going to provide evidence that the NY Times was a mouthpiece for the Bush admin or am I going to have to rightly assume you have no evidence and are instead making up stuff like you always do?

Yawn.

[UNLoVedRebel]

You appear to be taking things to extremes by now claiming that "everything" must be attributed to malice. Why?
Is there any reply that won't result in your putting random words in quotations?

[Elizabeth I]

And malice isn't?

Or is it only foreigners who are malicious?

No dije ni una cosa sobre ningún extranjero. A little xenophobia showing through there, JJ?

Actually, given standard distribution, I'm sure foreigners have the same percentage of stupid people as anyone else. Especially since everybody is a foreigner to somebody.

[UNLoVedRebel]

No dije ni una cosa sobre ningún extranjero. A little xenophobia showing through there, JJ?

Actually, given standard distribution, I'm sure foreigners have the same percentage of stupid people as anyone else. Especially since everybody is a foreigner to somebody.

No pienso que JJ puede leer español.

[Elizabeth I]

No pienso que JJ puede leer español.

¡Qué lástima!

[Tippit]

I think you misunderstand our criticism. Speaking for myself, I agree that it is likely that Madoff did not act alone. However, his help was probably a small number of people (less than 10) close to him personally, not a vast conspiricay throughout the US government. The problem is as it stands now, Madoff pled guilty, effectively stopping the investigation. It is possible, even likely that he did so to protect those who assisted him. However, without evidence linking anybody else to him, we can't really bring them to justice.



You're really claiming that Madoff controlled the scope of the investigation, and that the investigation being stopped was dependent on his guilty plea?

"We've got our man boys, no need to investigate anyone else, Madoff said so!"



As to the financial crisis, this was brought about by the actions and inactions of thousands of different people, most of whom received no direct benefit from the role they played. I agree that there were probably a few investors, who were able to forsee what thier actions would have on the economy and still continued what they were doing. They did in fact act out of malice. The vast majority of investors, however, likely only saw the opportunity to make money themselves and did not even consider, much less see the consequences on the larger economy. While this was greedy, they would not have seen this as harming others. The harm that they caused would therefore be incompetence, not malice.

For the government officials, both lawmakers and regulators, malice just seems unlikely. One would have to show that such an official knew that they were passing legislation or regulating in a way that was harming the overall economy. It is not enough to argue that they should have known. If they should have known, but did not, that is practically the defenition of incompetence. One thing that would go along way to establishing malice is showing that such a government official personally profitted from the crisis. While this will still not be definifite proof, it would be strong evidence in favor of malice.

This is what I mean when I attribute such things to incompetence instead of malice. Others may have different takes, but I will let them explain those themselves.

The root cause of the current crisis began and will end with the Federal Reserve system. Bankers can't make risky loans to unworthy borrowers without capital, and that came from the Fed inflating the money supply over the last two decades. Without the egregious monetary inflation (funny, no one seems to complain about it when their stocks and home equity soars), none of the other myriad schenanigans on Wall Street could have taken place. It takes money to lend money. It's just that simple. Malice as well as incompetence abound on Wall Street, but if you want to understand the systemic risk, take a hard look at the monetary system.

The point about Grey's Law, is that malice and incompetence are indistinguishable, thus, incompetence is a wonderful cover for criminal behavior. A gullible, apathetic, and ignorant public is also big plus.

[abenja1]

Yawn.

I take it then you have no evidence and lying once again. Of course I should of expected that from someone who has called for the death of debunkers and anyone who disagrees with you. In other words a hypocritical coward.

[cwalner]

You're really claiming that Madoff controlled the scope of the investigation, and that the investigation being stopped was dependent on his guilty plea?

"We've got our man boys, no need to investigate anyone else, Madoff said so!"

no but it will be much more difficult to find evidence without somebody inside the conspiracy cooperating. By taking his lumps and pleading guilty he removed his own incentive to cooperate.


The root cause of the current crisis began and will end with the Federal Reserve system. Bankers can't make risky loans to unworthy borrowers without capital, and that came from the Fed inflating the money supply over the last two decades. Without the egregious monetary inflation (funny, no one seems to complain about it when their stocks and home equity soars), none of the other myriad schenanigans on Wall Street could have taken place. It takes money to lend money. It's just that simple. Malice as well as incompetence abound on Wall Street, but if you want to understand the systemic risk, take a hard look at the monetary system.

The point about Grey's Law, is that malice and incompetence are indistinguishable, thus, incompetence is a wonderful cover for criminal behavior. A gullible, apathetic, and ignorant public is also big plus.

I've read and reread this bit, but I still cannot find any description of what you mean by malice? If you want to make a case for systematic malice, you first need to (at a minimum) describe how the system is designed specifically to harm some for the benefit of others. To claim malice the harm must be intentional, not simply an obvious result in hindsight as it is now.

[JihadJane]

No dije ni una cosa sobre ningún extranjero. A little xenophobia showing through there, JJ?

Actually, given standard distribution, I'm sure foreigners have the same percentage of stupid people as anyone else. Especially since everybody is a foreigner to somebody.

My question was rooted in a more general speculation.

I’ve noticed that those who habitually seek refuge in Incompetence Theories have no problem seeeing foreigners (e.g. Arabs) as malicious.


No pienso que JJ puede leer español.

Edited for civility

Keep it civil please


I take it then you have no evidence and lying once again. Of course I should of expected that from someone who has called for the death of debunkers and anyone who disagrees with you. In other words a hypocritical coward.

Changer le disque.

[abenja1]

Changer le disque.

Have you changed your "It's okay for truthers to call for the cold-blooded murder of anyone who disagrees with us" disque. Oh wait, nevermind. You haven't.

[JihadJane]

That was never mon disque, abenja1. It's just a fantasy cowboy soundtrack playing exclusively in your own head (with you as John Wayne).

[Elizabeth I]

My question was rooted in a more general speculation.

I’ve noticed that those who habitually seek refuge in Incompetence Theories have no problem seeeing foreigners (e.g. Arabs) as malicious.



Have you noticed that about me? Have you noticed me saying anything derogatory about anyone not of my nationality, race, ethnic background?

For that matter, have you noticed anyone on this forum, except our resident anti-Semites, making such derogatory remarks?

Links to posts, please.

[abenja1]

That was never mon disque, abenja1. It's just a fantasy cowboy soundtrack playing exclusively in your own head (with you as John Wayne).

I guess you don't remember the Hate Mail thread where you refused to refute comments by truthers calling for violence against others. By the way, have you found your evidence that the "NY Times was a major mouthpiece for the Bush admin" like you said it was?

[JihadJane]

Have you noticed that about me? Have you noticed me saying anything derogatory about anyone not of my nationality, race, ethnic background?

For that matter, have you noticed anyone on this forum, except our resident anti-Semites, making such derogatory remarks?

Links to posts, please.

It was a general question providing you with an opportunity to further explain your stance on malice being less common than stupidity.

I didn't say anything about "derogatory remarks". Military actions against the US and friends are routinely seen as malicious rather than logical.

[JihadJane]

I guess you don't remember the Hate Mail thread where you refused to refute comments by truthers calling for violence against others. By the way, have you found your evidence that the "NY Times was a major mouthpiece for the Bush admin" like you said it was?

Why would a sensationalist fantasist like yourself require evidence of anything before forming an opinion?

[abenja1]

Why would a sensationalist fantasist like yourself require evidence of anything before forming an opinion?

Like I asked, where is your evidence "NY Times was a major mouthpiece for the Bush admin?" If you don't have any, then you should just come right out and admit you lied, like you always do.

[JihadJane]

Like I asked, where is your evidence "NY Times was a major mouthpiece for the Bush admin?" If you don't have any, then you should just come right out and admit you lied, like you always do.

I answered that, until you retract your unfounded allegations, you cannot expect a civilized conversation between us. Stop wasting your time and find someone else to play with.

[abenja1]

I answered that, until you retract your unfounded allegations, you cannot expect a civilized conversation between us. Stop wasting your time and find someone else to play with.

I gave my evidence. Now where is yours? Oh wait. You have none.

[cwalner]

It was a general question providing you with an opportunity to further explain your stance on malice being less common than stupidity.

I didn't say anything about "derogatory remarks". Military actions against the US and friends are routinely seen as malicious rather than logical.

Military actions have as thier intent to injure and kill, so yes, they are generally considered malicious. However, even with this, this is not always the case, as in 'friendly fire'. See the various threads about the USS Liberty to see a case where a direct military attack against a US vessal was not considered to be an act of malice against the US.

As I said in a previous post, malice implies intent to harm. While many actions our government takes does cause harm in many people's views, for it to be attributed to malice the harm must be the intent of the action, not an unintended consequence of it. In the liberty example, the malice against the ship is clear. The malice against the US is not clear as many accept the explanation that the ship was not identified as US at the time of the attack.

To use another issue popular with CT to clarify this, think of 9/11. Nobody doubts that the individuals who hijacked and crashed the planes acted in malice. The organization who supported and ordered the attack acted in malice. The intelligence agencies that failed to identify and stop the plot did not act in malice. Only CT proponents believe that they did because they don't like the idea that a government that should be there to protect us against such an attack failed in its mission in this case.

[Elizabeth I]

It was a general question providing you with an opportunity to further explain your stance on malice being less common than stupidity.

I didn't say anything about "derogatory remarks". Military actions against the US and friends are routinely seen as malicious rather than logical.


Good, so no evidence then?

It's my experience that nothing is more common than stupidity.

[JihadJane]

Only CT proponents believe that they did because they don't like the idea that a government that should be there to protect us against such an attack failed in its mission in this case.

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

[cwalner]

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

Shall I break it down for you into small ideas so they each can fight inside your brain?

1. Some random person, lets call him JJ, because I liked Good Times and want to honor JJ Walker, believes that people in the US government acted in malice and not out of ignorance in regards to the 9/11 attacks.

2. Because those people acted in malice, by defenition, they wanted the attack to happen and therefore intentionally and willfully set up the conditions for the attack with the full knowledge that the result of the action would be this attack.

3. In order for this attack to succeed, thousands of people in the US government had to each in thier own way take specific action or fail to take specific action that they should have to allow this to happen.

4. Because in part 1 we have ruled out ignorance, then every one of those thousand people must have acted in malice.

5. When a group of people each take a small part to commit a crime or intentionally allow a crime to happen that is a conspiracy.

6. Therefore JJ holds a theory that the attacks of 9/11 were a government conspiracy. This makes JJ a conspiracy theory(CT) proponent.

7. If at any point JJ acknowledged that the government officials just simply failed to do what we expected of them out of ignorance, lack of imagination, or shortsightedness, instead of malice, then the official story makes sense and there is no reason to support a theory that it was a conspiracy inside the US government.

8. Therefore, beleif in widespread malice over widespread failure is neccesary to uphold a Conspiry Theory and be a CT proponent.

This is summarized by my statement which you did not previously understand.

Only CT proponents believe that they did because they don't like the idea that a government that should be there to protect us against such an attack failed in its mission in this case.

[Peace]

3. In order for this attack to succeed, thousands of people in the US government had to each in thier own way take specific action or fail to take specific action that they should have to allow this to happen.



I would like to know how come up with thousands?

[JihadJane]

Shall I break it down for you into small ideas so they each can fight inside your brain?

1. Some random person, lets call him JJ, because I liked Good Times and want to honor JJ Walker, believes that people in the US government acted in malice and not out of ignorance in regards to the 9/11 attacks.

2. Because those people acted in malice, by defenition, they wanted the attack to happen and therefore intentionally and willfully set up the conditions for the attack with the full knowledge that the result of the action would be this attack.

3. In order for this attack to succeed, thousands of people in the US government had to each in thier own way take specific action or fail to take specific action that they should have to allow this to happen.

4. Because in part 1 we have ruled out ignorance, then every one of those thousand people must have acted in malice.

5. When a group of people each take a small part to commit a crime or intentionally allow a crime to happen that is a conspiracy.

6. Therefore JJ holds a theory that the attacks of 9/11 were a government conspiracy. This makes JJ a conspiracy theory(CT) proponent.

7. If at any point JJ acknowledged that the government officials just simply failed to do what we expected of them out of ignorance, lack of imagination, or shortsightedness, instead of malice, then the official story makes sense and there is no reason to support a theory that it was a conspiracy inside the US government.

8. Therefore, beleif in widespread malice over widespread failure is neccesary to uphold a Conspiry Theory and be a CT proponent.

This is summarized by my statement which you did not previously understand.

Your list does does not explain how you are able to perceive what "CT proponents" like or don't like ("they don't like the idea"). You are simply expounding your own an abstract theory.

[cwalner]

I would like to know how come up with thousands?

When you take into account everybody who drafted and enforced the regulations regarding airport security, The military officials who drafted and implemented the policies regarding when we can and cannot intercept a passenger plane in US airspace, the people who work for the intelligence agencies analyzing data that failed to catch the threat in time to stop it, etc. I think thousands is a reasonable estimate.

[JihadJane]

When you take into account everybody who drafted and enforced the regulations regarding airport security, The military officials who drafted and implemented the policies regarding when we can and cannot intercept a passenger plane in US airspace, the people who work for the intelligence agencies analyzing data that failed to catch the threat in time to stop it, etc. I think thousands is a reasonable estimate.

Don't forget the cleaners.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Don't forget the cleaners.

:troll::troll::troll::troll::troll:

[The_Animus]

Have all the world's richest, most powerful and most secretive people and groups subject to 24 hour, intrusive, non-stop surveillance. All their phone calls, all their meetings, everything. Have ALL political and corporate meetings where big decisions are made live on the internet for everyone to see.It's stuff like that that prove truthers are no different than the people they purport to be against.

Your logic is a spectacular failure.

His answer was about as realistic a request as the answer given in "What would it take for you to believe thread."

Just as asking for evidence of current top secret military operations and technology is never going to happen, asking for evidence of a group of highly powerful individuals who would be even more powerful and secretive than the military, if they exist, is never going to happen. Just like secretly monitering the richest most powerful people is never going to happen. So my personal opinion is if you intend on calling this request ridiculous so should the requests in the other thread.

It's like asking for evidence that jesus existed, and evidence that he did not. You might be able to drudge up something, but nothing on either side will ever really be convincing.

[theprestige]

Look, it's one thing to speculate, assume, guess, imagine, hypothesize that some specific thing exists, even though you have no evidence for it.

It's another thing to believe as fact that some specific thing exists, even though you have no evidence for it.

And it's another thing entirely to reject as fact the possibility that some specific thing exists, because you have no evidence for it.

I speculate that unspecified aliens with unspecified technology and other characteristics, exist.

I do not believe as fact that specifc aliens with specific technology and characteristics, doing specific things here on earth exist, because so far there's no good evidence for these specifics.

Indeed, I reject as fact the specific claims about aliens that people have made over the years (abductions, mutilations, UFOs, etc) because the evidence provided does not adequately support these specific claims.

Malkuth believes without evidence, and demands contrary evidence (and sets an impossible standard of evidence, at that) to justify renouncing his belief.

I, on the other hand (and, I imagine, abenja1 and LiD), do not believe without evidence, and require supporting evidence (which, admittedly, might be impossible to obtain) to justify embracing a belief.

The military may have alien antigravity technology. If they did, they might try to keep it pretty secret. But I'm not going to believe they have such technology until I see some evidence for it. To me, this is very different from assuming they do have such technology, unless I see evidence otherwise.

[JihadJane]

I, on the other hand (and, I imagine, abenja1 and LiD), do not believe without evidence, and require supporting evidence (which, admittedly, might be impossible to obtain) to justify embracing a belief.


Your imagination is mistaken.

[stilicho]

The root cause of the current crisis began and will end with the Federal Reserve system...

The root cause of all financial crises, Tippit, is the tendency of human beings to gravitate towards the most attractive return on investment. If I offer you 10% return on your investment, I'm going to get more business than the Bank Of JihadJane that offers you a 3% return of investment.

That's just how the world works. Doesn't require any conspiracy whatsoever.

You also explain that none of this is possible without a regulated money supply--without the egregious monetary inflation. That simply isn't true. If it were true then there never would have occurred speculative bubbles prior to the establishment of a regulated money supply. Yet, as we know, speculative bubbles traditionally wracked the economies of the Americas and Europe on a regular basis and in cycles that were predictable almost down to the degree of severity and the year in which they would occur.

[Chaos]

Your imagination is mistaken.

So, because they do not accept your sorry excuse for an argument, they do not accept any kind of evidence at all?

[theprestige]

Your imagination is mistaken.
Do you object to any other part of my post?

[stilicho]

Bill Black, in the interview I linked to above (post #149) calls it fraud and, unless you are one of the world's top financial fraud experts, he is in a better position than you or I to judge.

If I were a financial fraud expert pandering to an audience eager to blame others then I would agree with Bill Black.

What we have sensed before in some of your rare lucid posts is that greed is not peculiar to the wealthy.

That Moyers interview is wealthy with hot-button buzzwords and very little substance. Moyers doesn't even bother to ask for sources for some of the allegations. The hot-button buzzwords include bonuses for executives of failed firms which have absolutely nothing to do with the firms' failures. Neither the host nor the interviewee make that clear. They are colluding (conspiring?) to mislead their subject audience.

I am apparently in a much better position than you to evaluate the pandering mush from an after-the-fact 'expert'.

You would do well to set your sententious sights on villains who pander to base human emotion instead of to honest people supplying financial services to the needy or desirous.

[abenja1]

Look, it's one thing to speculate, assume, guess, imagine, hypothesize that some specific thing exists, even though you have no evidence for it.

It's another thing to believe as fact that some specific thing exists, even though you have no evidence for it.

And it's another thing entirely to reject as fact the possibility that some specific thing exists, because you have no evidence for it.

I speculate that unspecified aliens with unspecified technology and other characteristics, exist.

I do not believe as fact that specifc aliens with specific technology and characteristics, doing specific things here on earth exist, because so far there's no good evidence for these specifics.

Indeed, I reject as fact the specific claims about aliens that people have made over the years (abductions, mutilations, UFOs, etc) because the evidence provided does not adequately support these specific claims.

Malkuth believes without evidence, and demands contrary evidence (and sets an impossible standard of evidence, at that) to justify renouncing his belief.

I, on the other hand (and, I imagine, abenja1 and LiD), do not believe without evidence, and require supporting evidence (which, admittedly, might be impossible to obtain) to justify embracing a belief.

The military may have alien antigravity technology. If they did, they might try to keep it pretty secret. But I'm not going to believe they have such technology until I see some evidence for it. To me, this is very different from assuming they do have such technology, unless I see evidence otherwise.


You are correct. Evidence (substantial supported evidence from reliable sources) is something abide. Unfortunatly, in the world of people like JJ, there is no evidence, only CT propaganda. And when you ask for evidence (like I did in the case for JJ to provide that the NY Times was a major mouthpiece for the Bush admin), all the CTers do is play games and don't provide anything. In other words, she never had the evidence.

[JihadJane]

Do you object to any other part of my post?


Your post didn't really address The_Animus' point about the absurdity of demanding evidence about current top secret military operations and technology or about a group of highly powerful individuals more powerful and secretive than the military.


So, because they do not accept your sorry excuse for an argument, they do not accept any kind of evidence at all?


It's more a matter of habitually inventing "evidence" that never existed.

[stilicho]

...a group of highly powerful individuals more powerful and secretive than the military.

Highly powerful! Wow! And whose military? Uruguay's?

Well...KFC does have a man with the rank of colonel...very...secretive...too. And what's with that Hamburglar? You've blown the lid off the whole thing, JihadJane. Way to go.

[theprestige]

Your post didn't really address The_Animus' point about the absurdity of demanding evidence about current top secret military operations and technology or about a group of highly powerful individuals more powerful and secretive than the military.
Hrm. I was pretty sure it did. Let me try again.

I don't believe things without evidence. If it's unlikely that I'll get the necessary evidence, then it's unlikely that I'll believe a thing. If asking for the evidence is absurd, then believing without evidence is similarly absurd. With me so far?

You say that there is "a group of highly powerful individuals more powerful and secretive than the military". Naturally you have no evidence that such a group exists. Indeed, you think it would be absurd to seek out such evidence. And yet, even without any evidence, or any possibility of finding evidence, you still believe. Why? And why should I join in your belief?

[JihadJane]

Hrm. I was pretty sure it did. Let me try again.

I don't believe things without evidence. If it's unlikely that I'll get the necessary evidence, then it's unlikely that I'll believe a thing. If asking for the evidence is absurd, then believing without evidence is similarly absurd. With me so far?

You say that there is "a group of highly powerful individuals more powerful and secretive than the military".

No, I don't.

[theprestige]

No, I don't.
I'm pretty sure you do:

Your post didn't really address The_Animus' point about the absurdity of demanding evidence about current top secret military operations and technology or about a group of highly powerful individuals more powerful and secretive than the military.
But that's actually beside the point. Twice now I've addressed the issue of absurd evidentiary requirements: Just because it's impossible to get evidence, I don't see that as a valid excuse for believing without evidence. Do you?

[Elizabeth I]

I'm pretty sure you do:


But that's actually beside the point. Twice now I've addressed the issue of absurd evidentiary requirements: Just because it's impossible to get evidence, I don't see that as a valid excuse for believing without evidence. Do you?

Ah, but you forget that the fact that there's no evidence proves that They are suppressing it. And that's your evidence right there.

[The_Animus]

I'm pretty sure you do:


But that's actually beside the point. Twice now I've addressed the issue of absurd evidentiary requirements: Just because it's impossible to get evidence, I don't see that as a valid excuse for believing without evidence. Do you?

No. Nonetheless it is ridiculous to ask for something which is impossible to provide.

It would be like starting a thread: What would it take for you to believe there is a God, and then saying the only way is if I bring him to meet you. I'm actually an atheist, but you get the idea.

I think I might have a good analogy that would sum up the different views.

Let's say you have a puzzle, and there are 100 pieces (of evidence or information) to it. Unfortunately 50 of those pieces have been lost, stolen, whatever, the pieces (evidence or information) are impossible to recover.

All the pieces that are left are put into their correct places as best they can be, likely with a few that don't connect to anything else because of the missing pieces.

One group of people will look at this and leave it. They will not hypothesize as to what the missing pieces are, how they fit with the others, and what the overall picture will look like.

Another group of people will. They look at one piece (Hank Paulson, the treasury secretary who designed the bailout for goldman sachs used to be the CEO. He left goldman to take the secretary job.) and another piece (Goldman was paid off 100 cents on the dollar of taxpayer money for risky bets they made with AIG) and another piece (Edward Liddy, a man who ran AIG, was a former member of Goldman's board) and another piece (Robert Ruhman, the man who planned the entire financial industry deregulation that allowed Goldman sachs to get into this position, preceded Paulson as Goldmans CEO) and they say "I bet the piece we are missing that connects all these other pieces is that they worked together, either beforehand, or during the economic issues leading to Goldman's bailout."

The above is the daily show video I linked you to in the other thread btw. That is the gist of what was said at least, though Jon stewart says it better.

The first group would look at this and say until they see said piece they will not believe it. The second group decides to believe it even without the final piece. Now is this cold hard fact? Is it proof? No, it certainly isn't. But neither is it an unfounded belief. And of course should that piece somehow come to light it may very well be that the second group was completely wrong. This is just an imperfect analogy to compare how the 2 different camps think about a similar situation.

[LightinDarkness]

Your imagination is mistaken.

Actually he was quite correct, and said very succiently the difference between rational thinking and conspiracy thinking. You and Mal demand that evidence be shown to prove you wrong at every turn when you have yet to present any evidence yourself that lends any credence to any claim.

Your thought process is this:

1) If it involves a conspiracy, it must be true.
2) It continues to be true until someone offers evidence against it.

This allows you to believe just about every conspiracy on the planet because you ignore the fact that - if a conspiracy is really not true - that people will not be able to prove it not to be true. Here is your logic:

I propose the NWO is aligning with the Boy Scouts in order to get them to like Lucifarian occult rituals. Prove me wrong.

[JihadJane]

No, I don't.

I'm pretty sure you do:

Your post didn't really address The_Animus' point about the absurdity of demanding evidence about current top secret military operations and technology or about a group of highly powerful individuals more powerful and secretive than the military.


But that's actually beside the point. Twice now I've addressed the issue of absurd evidentiary requirements: Just because it's impossible to get evidence, I don't see that as a valid excuse for believing without evidence. Do you?

I was referring to The_Animus’ post in which the group is hypothetical:


Just as asking for evidence of current top secret military operations and technology is never going to happen, asking for evidence of a group of highly powerful individuals who would be even more powerful and secretive than the military, if they exist, is never going to happen. Just like secretly monitering the richest most powerful people is never going to happen. So my personal opinion is if you intend on calling this request ridiculous so should the requests in the other thread.

As The_Animus says “it is ridiculous to ask for something which is impossible to provide”. Believing in and investigating possibilities is part of the scientific method.




Actually he was quite correct, and said very succiently the difference between rational thinking and conspiracy thinking. You and Mal demand that evidence be shown to prove you wrong at every turn when you have yet to present any evidence yourself that lends any credence to any claim.

Your thought process is this:

1) If it involves a conspiracy, it must be true.
2) It continues to be true until someone offers evidence against it.

This allows you to believe just about every conspiracy on the planet because you ignore the fact that - if a conspiracy is really not true - that people will not be able to prove it not to be true. Here is your logic:

I propose the NWO is aligning with the Boy Scouts in order to get them to like Lucifarian occult rituals. Prove me wrong.

To be honest, I've lost track of which claim I'm supposed to have demanded evidence for. My comment was a general one about my dealings with your good self and the unsavory abenja1 in the past.

Your post, above, in which you pretend to be able know my thought processes, provides a good illustration. You’d make a good Tarot card reader.

[stilicho]

Another group of people will. They look at one piece (Hank Paulson, the treasury secretary who designed the bailout for goldman sachs used to be the CEO. He left goldman to take the secretary job.) and another piece (Goldman was paid off 100 cents on the dollar of taxpayer money for risky bets they made with AIG) and another piece (Edward Liddy, a man who ran AIG, was a former member of Goldman's board) and another piece (Robert Ruhman, the man who planned the entire financial industry deregulation that allowed Goldman sachs to get into this position, preceded Paulson as Goldmans CEO) and they say "I bet the piece we are missing that connects all these other pieces is that they worked together, either beforehand, or during the economic issues leading to Goldman's bailout."

Isn't Goldman Sachs raising equity to help repay its share of the bailout money? Maybe that's the missing piece of your puzzle. They've planned to repay it.

[LightinDarkness]

To be honest, I've lost track of which claim I'm supposed to have demanded evidence for. My comment was a general one about my dealings with your good self and the unsavory abenja1 in the past.

Your post, above, in which you pretend to be able know my thought processes, provides a good illustration. You’d make a good Tarot card reader.

Further proof you are here to troll and haven't a clue what you are talking about.

I didn't know using logic and analysis was the same as woo tarot card reading? Well, I suppose for someone who doesn't know anything about reason - like you - the use of said reason would appear to be magical. Its a sad statement about the education you've received from the public education system.

[stilicho]

Further proof you are here to troll and haven't a clue what you are talking about.

I didn't know using logic and analysis was the same as woo tarot card reading? Well, I suppose for someone who doesn't know anything about reason - like you - the use of said reason would appear to be magical. Its a sad statement about the education you've received from the public education system.

If I might add, it's indicative again of JihadJane's peculiar form of ad hominem attack. When confused or trapped, the most common response is: "Are you Kreskin?" or something similarly clever.

The latest JihadJane deception is a full on woo slalom away from abenja1's demand for evidence that the New York Times was the mouthpiece of the Bush Administration. Although most of us would probably take such an allegation as a joke post, abenja1 did what some of us have tried before, which is to get JihadJane to admit there is no evidence or to apologise for making stuff up.

You are on the verge of becoming "unsavory" like abenja1 or "rude" and "unpleasant" as I have become. In JihadJane's world, this generally occurs right after you've nailed it.

[The_Animus]

Isn't Goldman Sachs raising equity to help repay its share of the bailout money? Maybe that's the missing piece of your puzzle. They've planned to repay it.

I don't think any of the companies who received bailout money will pay it back in full. I guess we will just have to wait and see. Or just wait long enough until no one cares anymore and essentially forgets about it.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Wasn't the New York Times one of the mainstream newspapers to take the most potshots at the Bush Administration? Heh. Was that just reverse psychology?

[stilicho]

I don't think any of the companies who received bailout money will pay it back in full. I guess we will just have to wait and see. Or just wait long enough until no one cares anymore and essentially forgets about it.

Or you can read the New York Times here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/15/business/15goldman.html

Maybe their CFO is a big fat liar but every indication is that they are raising equity to do just what you suggested they weren't.

Have we now completed the puzzle?

[richman2112]

I think at least goldman sachs will pay the money back because they are the pimary investor in the company I work for and my company makes bank baby.

[stilicho]

I think at least goldman sachs will pay the money back because they are the pimary investor in the company I work for and my company makes bank baby.

Welcome to the forum.

What's lost in all this is the possibility that the Treasury Department won't agree to accept the cheque. Naturally, if that happens, the conspiracists will insist that it's an "inside job" or a "missing piece of the puzzle".

It isn't.

If they accept Goldman Sach's money and release them from stipulations such as bonus limits and other such legislation, then they won't be justified in enforcing such limitations on anyone else. Either way, Goldman Sachs is a special case and will always be in the crosshairs of the conspiracy-inclined.

Regardless, all this bankers' conspiracy or "rich people" conspiracy is utter nonsense. If only your neighbourhood grocer was forced to advertise his markup over wholesale then you'd realise that even old Ma and Pa are "in on it". Somehow, the banks and financiers are held to a different standard in this nutty world of ours.

[The_Animus]

Or you can read the New York Times here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/15/business/15goldman.html

Maybe their CFO is a big fat liar but every indication is that they are raising equity to do just what you suggested they weren't.

Have we now completed the puzzle?

No. I'm so glad the CFO said they are raising equity to pay back the money. People never lie about their companies. Like what was it, CNN Money, or MSNBC, or some major business and economics news group, that interviewed several CEO's like those of AIG, and Bear Sterns, and such. I believe they told them and the entire nation that their companies were doing just fine, and then shortly thereafter declared bankruptcy and wanted tons of bailout money.

May as well just ask a suspect in a murder case whether he did it and just go with his word.

[stilicho]

No. I'm so glad the CFO said they are raising equity to pay back the money. People never lie about their companies. Like what was it, CNN Money, or MSNBC, or some major business and economics news group, that interviewed several CEO's like those of AIG, and Bear Sterns, and such. I believe they told them and the entire nation that their companies were doing just fine, and then shortly thereafter declared bankruptcy and wanted tons of bailout money.

May as well just ask a suspect in a murder case whether he did it and just go with his word.

OK, The_Animus. Which particular conspiracy are we talking about here? You brought up Goldman Sachs. You included names and suspicions. I answered those.

The equity issue is not a prospect or a guess but a reality, The_Animus. They have issued it already. Vaniar is not lying about that.

So let's settle your Goldman Sachs "puzzle" first and then we can discuss other things that have just sprung into your mind.

Fair enough?

[The_Animus]

OK, The_Animus. Which particular conspiracy are we talking about here? You brought up Goldman Sachs. You included names and suspicions. I answered those.

The equity issue is not a prospect or a guess but a reality, The_Animus. They have issued it already. Vaniar is not lying about that.

So let's settle your Goldman Sachs "puzzle" first and then we can discuss other things that have just sprung into your mind.

Fair enough?

You answered that the CFO said he would pay it back. None of the money has actually been paid back yet. What is it you believe you answered?

I think you misunderstood something. If you reread my post you'll see there is nothing to settle. It was an example used to illustrate different perspectives on this topic.

[LightinDarkness]

I really wouldn't argue with someone who is so misinformed they think any of the banks who received TARP funds declared bankruptcy. Your just talking to someone who wants to hate the "eeeeeeeeeeeeeeevvvvvvvvvvvvvvviiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii illllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll rich, fatcat bankers" because populism is fashionable.

Why look for realistic explanation about how the world works when you can blame everything - including your own personal failures - on people that you want to hate because they have more than you?

[JihadJane]

Further proof you are here to troll and haven't a clue what you are talking about.

I didn't know using logic and analysis was the same as woo tarot card reading? Well, I suppose for someone who doesn't know anything about reason - like you - the use of said reason would appear to be magical. Its a sad statement about the education you've received from the public education system.

Do you know what I'm supposed to have demanded evidence for?

From this side of the screen it appears that you are living in your own private fantasy world populated mostly by comfortably predictable eeeeeeeeeeeeeeevvvvvvvvvvvvvvviiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll devil populists. What you call logical analysis I'd call mindless abuse detached from reality.

What information, for example, is your sentence "Its [sic] a sad statement about the education you've received from the public education system" based on besides your own fantasy?

[UNLoVedRebel]

Still playing the tired old "are you psychic?" card with more pointless quotations and stupid questions, I see. This **** gets old.

[stilicho]

You answered that the CFO said he would pay it back. None of the money has actually been paid back yet. What is it you believe you answered?

I think you misunderstood something. If you reread my post you'll see there is nothing to settle. It was an example used to illustrate different perspectives on this topic.

I think you should re-read your own post. You specified Goldman Sachs and four individuals, explaining that they were the known knowns, to paraphrase the great philosopher Donald Rumsfeld.

If you meant a different set of known knowns, why don't you specify them as an example and we'll get together and analyse them too.

Worse than that, you haven't read the article that I posted, nor probably know anything more about Goldman Sachs than what conspiracists have put together for your consumption. I know you haven't since otherwise you would know that Goldman Sachs didn't want the bailout money in the first place, and that the plan to repay was hatched in February, and that the equity has already been issued.

There is an obvious reason why Goldman Sachs (and several of the other financial institutions) would plan to repay their bailout money and it's something you probably haven't considered. It's called competitive advantage. Not only will your shareholders and customers place more faith in your ability to honour your commitments, but you may be able to claim an exemption from any "re-regulation" of the financial industry.

Anecdotally, I am most sympathetic to your dismay with the current economic turmoil, as I have followed some of your consistent threads elsewhere on JREF. I typically asked people at my office who bragged about their investments around the water cooler, and long before the most recent stock market dip, to tell me the story of their worst decision and not their best one. That usually shut them up pretty quickly since it's human nature to want to look smart and not look foolish.

Since the downturn, though, I just get icy glares when I ask about their most recent wins in the market.

[LightinDarkness]

Do you know what I'm supposed to have demanded evidence for?

From this side of the screen it appears that you are living in your own private fantasy world populated mostly by comfortably predictable eeeeeeeeeeeeeeevvvvvvvvvvvvvvviiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll devil populists. What you call logical analysis I'd call mindless abuse detached from reality.

What information, for example, is your sentence "Its [sic] a sad statement about the education you've received from the public education system" based on besides your own fantasy?

More sound and fury signifying nothing. Unlike you I'm not here to troll, so yes I'm aware of exactly what you are supposed to be providing evidence for. Like everything else though, you have provided nothing. That you can't even remember this just shows your nothing but a troll in your CT fantasy world. I'm not going to do you a favor by reminding you because you have no interest in anything but trolling as your every post shows.

Does it make you feel good to hate people with more than you? Does it make your world seem more easy to understand when your weave elaborate conspiracies about them to explain how it is they got more than you?

[theprestige]

Another group of people will. They look at one piece (Hank Paulson, the treasury secretary who designed the bailout for goldman sachs used to be the CEO. He left goldman to take the secretary job.) and another piece (Goldman was paid off 100 cents on the dollar of taxpayer money for risky bets they made with AIG) and another piece (Edward Liddy, a man who ran AIG, was a former member of Goldman's board) and another piece (Robert Ruhman, the man who planned the entire financial industry deregulation that allowed Goldman sachs to get into this position, preceded Paulson as Goldmans CEO) and they say "I bet the piece we are missing that connects all these other pieces is that they worked together, either beforehand, or during the economic issues leading to Goldman's bailout."
So let me see if I understand: In this scenario, you're saying that evidence that these guys may have worked together is evidence that these guys may have worked together?

Well, alright, then. I even agree with you, as far as this analogy goes: Evidence of something is, in fact, evidence of something.

The first group would look at this and say until they see said piece they will not believe it. The second group decides to believe it even without the final piece. Now is this cold hard fact? Is it proof? No, it certainly isn't. But neither is it an unfounded belief. And of course should that piece somehow come to light it may very well be that the second group was completely wrong. This is just an imperfect analogy to compare how the 2 different camps think about a similar situation.
I don't think your analogy shows what you think it shows. You're arguing in favor of making reasonable assumptions based on substantial but incomplete evidence. And I agree with you: where there is evidence, I'm happy to make assumptions based on the evidence. But here's the thing: The key concepts here are evidence and based on.

The more mundane the assumption, the more evidence there will be to base it on, and the shorter the leap from one to the other. Ordinary claims require only ordinary evidence. Is the military working on a new generation of stealthy combat drone? All signs point to yes.There's a lot of evidence for it, it's consistent with a lot of things we already know about the world we live in and the people we share it with, and it's just a short step from there to the conclusion.

Is the military working on a new generation of antigravity biotank designed around a core of magical pixie dust and unicorns? Probably not. There's not much evidence for it. It's not consistent with anything we already know. I don't know about you, but I don't think I can make the leap necessary to assume this claim is true.

So it really comes down to how much evidence there is, and what kinds of assumptions could be reasonably based on that evidence. The more evidence, the more reasonable the belief. The less evidence, the less reasonable the belief.

And no, it's not scientific to explore any and all possibilities. It's scientific to build on what we already know, in reasonable directions. You don't see a lot of funding for research into the possiblity of tiny magical golden monkeys that can cure cancer.

For the life of me I still can't figure out what you think is so unreasonable about not believing without evidence.

Is there anything that you believe without evidence? Why?

And what about your atheism? Isn't that essentially you choosing not to believe in god, because there's no evidence to justify your belief? Aren't you being absurd to demand evidence? Shouldn't you just go ahead and believe anyway, since you're not going to get the evidence?

[abenja1]

Do you know what I'm supposed to have demanded evidence for?

From this side of the screen it appears that you are living in your own private fantasy world populated mostly by comfortably predictable eeeeeeeeeeeeeeevvvvvvvvvvvvvvviiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll devil populists. What you call logical analysis I'd call mindless abuse detached from reality.

What information, for example, is your sentence "Its [sic] a sad statement about the education you've received from the public education system" based on besides your own fantasy?

As I am now back from my hiatus and have given you enough time to find evidence for your claim that "the NY Times was a major mouthpiece for the Bush administration." Where is your evidence JJ? Or are you going to admit you're an unsavory liar who likes making stuff up?

[The_Animus]

Based on the responses I think we are actually largely, though not completely, in agreement and I think some of the disagreement is due to difficulty with semantics. In any case this was a good discussion, and so was the contra-thread to this one.