greetings to all!

(Im wondering if Ive already posted this, sorry if so! I dont think so though cos I cant find it).
To be honest I really dont have all that much knowledge of all sorts of political matters, present and past; though I find it very interesting to read everyone's points of view and their own personal responses to government matters and conspiracies.
Its really intriguing to hear all opinions from many people. Though because Ive heard so many differentiating views...from all sides of the political equasion... it makes me wonder sometimes, how each individual who claims that they have all the correct info, how do they KNOW what they have learnt is right? How does anyone who presents all sorts of 'factual' information know that their sources are of complete truth? Regarding historical, political, confidential information....from what source can the confidence you may have in your own 'facts' stem? How do you know that whatever source you heard to be 'correct' be completely confirmed?
Im not actually making any kind of point here cos I really dont know either way - I simply wonder how and why peeps are so confident in their own 'facts' when everyone else's 'facts' seem to differ so much.
I only want to learn more of these issues and trust what I hear. In a way I think personally that as civilians, or.........normal people or whatever you wanna call us....none of us know about everything exactly that controls us, never completely.
(Ive read so many articles on the net about USA corruption for instance, though Im English myself, but where did they come from exactly and what is to prove that those net articles were all true and other documents aren't?

Well, if I understand what your statement/question is, One can never actually know anything, except in matters of pure logic, but even then, logic is based entirely on our observations and those of others, and, in an infinite universe, we cannot possibly know if what we "know" is true, or if it is simply a series of events, or, in some cases, a single event, which leads us to an incorrect conclusion.

I suppose, to actually know anything, one would have to be an immortal, omnipresent being capable of prossesing and and storing an infinite amount of information in an infinitely short period of time, store and consider all of that information for an infinite amount of time, and exist since the beginning of time itself with a complete understanding of all that is and shall be for all time.

There are, of course, so many impossiblilites in this that it isn't even worth considering. But then, since I cannot know anything, I could not know if this is possible or not, or if it would even allow you to know anything.

However, there is the Newtonian theory that if one could determine the velocity and location of every atom in the universe, as well as every property of every energy wave in existance, that one could then know everything by determining the future and past interactions of all atoms and energy.

But one also must consider the Quantum mechanical principle that if the closer to the true velocity of an atom one determines, the less accurate their determination of the location is.

Or, if you are refering to the opinionation that all information invariably will suffer from, humans are sentient, and are thus incapable of being unopinionated, making all information, even that which you gather yourself, unreliable.

I may have missed the subject entirely, and, if so, I am sorry.

GOOD ANSWER--But you did misspell a coupla words--I THINK!! LOL

well, its something they teach you in college called fact checking. you learn to do your own research and cross reference sources to determine accuracy. for example, today there was an article about one of Harry Truman's diaries being discovered at his library. in the book was something about Jews being selfish and blah, blah, blah. well, most of the history books ive read state that Truman was the first "non-racist" president (not literally but they often cite his record on civil rights and use it to back up this claim) because he tried to do a little for civil rights after WWII. this evidence would seriously change the way history regards Truman if its true.

my point is that a lot of the things in the other history books about Truman may be false because maybe there was some interest in covering up his true racist views. maybe not. you have to read a lot and determine what YOU believe is the truth based on all the other sources of 'facts'.

Although what I'm about to say has nothing to do with politics, it is based on fact, or more accurately, what one determines to be fact.

Anyway, I know for a fact, just as my profile has said for more than year, that I'm into chicks, being cool, and kickin' ass

One can do all the fact finding they want, and reference and cross reference my statement, but it won't change the fact that it's a fact.

I think you can all agree with that

Homer is cool

Oh I definitely agree with Homer, he's the coolest!

And Phantom....what did you have in mind? (I mean I already like you, but
if there's something in particular.....)

KC, you know me... I have no moral standards...

Try me...

...that's soooo tempting.