Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Grizzle

  1. quote:

    Originally posted by aramike:

    OK. Conspiracy theories are typically the whacked-out creation of egomaniacs who have to continuously remind themselves that they're smarter than the rest of us. They tend to do so by creating ideas and connections that the rest of us WON'T see (because they usually don't substantially exist) and then assume that they are the smart ones because the rest of us DON'T see them.

    That's interesting, but it would seem to me that a cynical, skeptical and suspiscious mind, moreso than ego, would be the reasons why.


    Originally posted by aramike:

    Now, as far as your conspiracy theory goes, despite the fact that you have absolutely no evidence, I find it even MORE difficult to buy into because of the nature of our times.

    How in the HELL can an administration stage an election AND a WAR when it can't even keep Scooter Libby's name away from the NY Times? We have a non-stop barrage of leaks (with evidence, mind you) about damned near EVERYTHING and yet somehow the most vast and far-reaching conspiracy of our time remains hushed with only a few SPECULATORS GUESSING that something MAY have happened.

    An election doesn't have to be 'staged' especially with an electoral college, all one needs to do is focus on those few key states that could guarantee victory, play a little dirty politics and roll the dice. Great if they win, if not try, try again. What's so impossible about that?

    It is curious though, how the 2000 election was one of the most hotly contested in history...

    There is nothing illegal about a group of people getting together to share common ideas and attempt to implement them, it should only be a concern if those people have political power and could control the country and foreign policy. This ain't no group of power brokers planning a real estate deal.

    If the fact that the same men involved in PNAC end up in the highest of government offices, then world events happen to coincide with their publicy stated world views doesn't raise at least *some* suspicion in ones mind then they are either extremely naive or willfully foolish.

    The term is conspiracy theory, not conspiracy fact. No one has to believe any of it and it doesn't require proof. Regardless of any truth behind it, it's really just a reflection of the business of politics anyway.

    There's more handshaking and nepotism going on than is good for a healthy government, but that's exactly how our government operates. The idea that this administration is just a cabal of neo-cons who's own ideology failed them, is not outside the realm of possibility with the current state of politics in this country is it?

  2. It helps when presenting such ideas to back them up with at least some form of reason. Now you've all heard of PNAC (newamericancentury.org) from previous threads, and most of you have sloughed it off as totally irrelevant. However there is some evidence there that supports the original posters point, even if it is just suspicion and conjecture at this point, it's all at least a little bit more than coincidental.

    I urge everyone who hasn't done so to view the site, especially the letters and statements section. I do want to present the names of those known to be participants/supporters of this 'organization' in case some of you have forgotten.

    (There are more, but these are the most familiar)

    William J. Bennett

    Jeb Bush

    Dick Cheney

    I. Lewis Libby

    Dan Quayle

    Donald Rumsfeld

    Paul Wolfowitz

    Richard L. Armitage

    John Bolton

    Richard Perle

    Now any reasonable person could easily draw a correlation between the stance of this organization and the events that have happened since Bush has been in office, add to that the names listed above and it's not too hard to come to the conclusion that the Iraq war was not simply the logical extension of our fight on terrorism but was a foregone conclusion and intent before Bush was even elected.

    I don't think Horse's statement, as brief as it may have been, is all that far-fetched.

    Here's my conspiracy theory:

    This organization was desperate to usher in their vision of a new world order and needed a malleable, impressionable president in the White House, but who? How about that inarticulate son of a former president Dubya? He's got a grudge against Saddam for having tried to assassinate his dad and reason to finish the job his father started with the Gulf War.

    Now, this'll make you all think I'm crazy, but I remember to this day the first time I saw GW on tv during the primaries for the elections in 2000. I knew right then he was going to be president and that he was going to be railroaded into the White House. I don't know how, I'm not psychic, but my sense at that time was that this was a man being foisted on the voting population, though I didn't know the reasons for it.

    9/11 was the greatest gift PNAC could have wished for because now with their man in the oval office and their cronies in his cabinet, they didn't have to carefully plan a reason or justification for him to present their ideas to the country, they had a golden opportunity handed to them and took full advantage of it. They then proceeded to make a total frickin mess out of the situation and here we are today.

    I know, this is the stuff of novels right? Or is it? (Dun...dun...dahhhhhhh)

  3. Kal, There are lots of dental plans you can participate in if you don't have regular insurance. Just look them up on the web. I'm surprised your dentist didn't offer one either. They are much less expensive than regular insurance and typically pay from 50 to 100% of all procedures, with no limit. I now it's after the fact but just thought I'd mention it.

  4. quote:

    Originally posted by aramike:

    Holy crap. EVERY SINGLE TIME they were confronted with an allegation of wrongdoing by the "church", they would ask "what are YOUR crimes?"

    Good job attempting the "I know you are but what am I?" defense.

    As I tried to say before, don't be too quick to rush to judgement. For all we know this guy has harrassed and harangued these folks in the past. I'd even go so far as to say he did since they seemed to know him and for all we know he might very well have a criminal record... It should be obvious the camera man has a bone to pick with these folks and he was just looking to add fuel to the fire.

    As kooky as scientology and it's followers may be, they are not violent or evil so why bother to harrass them other than to make fun of them, and then what's the point?????

  5. Keep an eye on the Discovery/Animal Planet site. They will be posting links for donations if anyone cares to, I know I will.

    If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men. - St.Francis of Assisi

  6. As I said Mike, I have no problem with people of religion being in government. I think we are on the same wavelength but communicate differently.

    What I fear is the Church influencing government which is what I believe the amendment to be in place to prevent and I further believe this amendment was driven by the founders desire to prevent religious persecution in the form of government.

    My whole point of contention is if we let any Church of any religion get too comfortable and bold with the idea that they can sway politics (like an amendment stating the definition of marriage or prohibiting abortion) they will be too close to the precepts that the first amendment is based upon.

    The easiest way I can say it is that religion (and therefore Churches), being a *private* institution should have no place in promoting or making public policy. This is not the same as saying individuals of any particular race, creed or faith should be restricted from participating in government. Which of course is not a problem especially given the fact that nearly all (if not in fact all) presidents and politicians in our history have professed their faith in one form or another.

    As to Jag's point that it hasn't and will never happen, I would never be so sure, but I can say the reason it hasn't thus far is because the people (and the amendment) thankfully have kept it in check.

  7. quote:

    Originally posted by Jaguar:


    Originally posted by Grizzle:

    I think in the end the true intent is closer to what Mike said which is that religion is a private matter and the government shouldn't meddle with it

    That part is right....


    nor should we allow religion to exert undue influence over the government.

    That part is wrong....

    Don't you see the potential problem here? If we allow religion to exert too much influence isn't there a danger they will attempt to legislate? Wouldn't that be in violation of the amendment??

    I just don't think there is any way to uphold that amendment if we allow religion to become entwined with government.

    That being said, I have no problem with individuals in the government being religious or even letting their faith influence their decisions to some degree. I just fear if we give an inch they'll take a mile and that would be very problematic.

  8. I'm curious Jag, how you can go from emphatically claiming there is no separation between Church and State to a thumbs up, beer chug and "exactly right" in response to mike's post that starts out with "There IS a wall between a CHURCH and the state". Did you have a change of heart?

    This topic is far too heady and complicated to resolve in this forum, suffice it to say there are a myriad of "interpretations" of this particular amendment one of which came from Jefferson himself (as did the very words we disagree upon)

    I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. - Thomas Jefferson

    I think in the end the true intent is closer to what Mike said which is that religion is a private matter and the government shouldn't meddle with it nor should we allow religion to exert undue influence over the government.

  9. quote:

    Originally posted by Jaguar:

    Read the first amendment, then tell me if there is a "wall between church and state".

    There is a wall between the state and it announcing a state religion, or attempting to force people to be of a certain faith, but that is it.

    It's the way it works in the US.

    Read the constitution, and you will see EXACTLY how it is SUPPOSED to be interpreted.

    It means what it says, and says what it means, NO interpretation necassary.

    You are semantically correct, but ideologically wrong.

    So what you are saying is that it would be OK for the government to pass a law requiring us to pray to Jesus each morning before work? After all as long as they don't literally 'establish' the official religion of the US as Christianity, then it's ok? If you argue that point and say no they can't because that would be considered an establishment, then aren't you also interpreting the amendment?

    How about freedom of speech? Would it be ok for a law to be passed that stated those expressing dissent towards the government must be thrown into prison for life? I mean they aren't 'abridging' your right to speak freely because you can do so from prison too right?

    The constitution was *meant* to be interpreted, there is simply no way a single line or two can cover each and every permutation of a given idea.

    I know you claim to be a constitutionalist but taking such a literal interpretation is no different than those doing the same with the religious texts of the world. You won't find a single constitutional scholar that states there is no room for interpretation, not only is it impractical it's impossible because there isn't a language in existence that can communicate such ideas with absolute infallibility.

  10. quote:

    Originally posted by Darkling:

    Please, first of all those who TRULY believed they were doing the work of God were not out pillaging and raping, hell many were Warrier Monks.

    Erm... wasn't it the Knights Templar that were doing the dirty work for the Church? You know those guys who were paid by the Church and took riches from those they conquered to build even more wealth for themselves and the Church too? They were as much the Church's army as our own armed forces are our governments army.

  11. quote:

    Originally posted by Jaguar:

    BUT, no where in the constitution is it written that religion cannot have any dealings or control over the federal government, BUT, once that religion or belief system comes into power, constitutionally, it cannot declare itself the state religion. THAT IS unconstitutional.

    That's one *extremely* fine line you are walking there Jag. Isn't the idea behind that consitutional clause to prevent such religious zealotry influencing government to that degree in the first place?

    What difference does it make if it's declared or not if the damage has been done?

    I'd like to see how well that interpretation would fly if Islam (or any religion besides Christianity) was to exert itself on our government to the extent you describe...

  12. True. Ender's Game is an awesome book ( I recommend it every time the topic of great reads come up in conversation) and the two sequels Speaker For the Dead and Xenocide give it a run for it's money. Tried to read the other's in the series but couldn't get beyond the first couple of chapters for some reason.

    Anyhow, here's hoping they dont ruin it.

  13. Never saw it in theaters, but now that it's out on DVD it's a chance for everyone to catch it. Definitely an awesome film and I'm surprised it didn't get more attention when it was running in theaters. A must have for everyone's DVD collection.


  14. I could deal with privatization, provided that they pay out my SS balance in full

    Savings rates of any kind are just way too low now though. I remember back when I worked in Banking and the rates were much, much better then. How long have they been so low?

    If you really want to earn on your savings and prepare for retirement, you've got to play the stock market or resort to crime.

  • Create New...