Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Agent0range

Conservatives vs Liberals

570 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Bama13

fascism.jpg

Come on Yamato. You are better than this. I agree with the sentiment but Sinclair Lewis never uttered nor wrote that quote. This "quote" ranks right up there with "Let them eat cake". Often used, but not historically accurate.

Edited by Bama13
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

I didnt read any of the convo leading up to this, just for the recorded.

But just to answer the highlighted part. The government spying on everyone and collecting everyone info use to be a conspiracy :tu: . They straight up lied to everyone about it when asked the first time.

That was just the conspiracy theorists making you think it was a conspiracy spartan. Some things look very much out in the open to me.

Come on Yamato. You are better than this. I agree with the sentiment but Sinclair Lewis never uttered nor wrote that quote. This "quote" ranks right up there with "Let them eat cake". Often used, but not historically accurate.

How do you know what was never uttered? How about Isoroku Yamamoto's alleged quote about the rifles and blades of grass? I could say you're better than that and maybe I am too, I'm still going to use the quote to get the point across. I don't need a babysitter of history to tweak my accuracy until it's anal. Let them eat cake is often used, and should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No Censorship

People tend to go for names they recognize. That is why businesses work so hard to establish and protect brand names. It is silly and in my opinion just another of the weaknesses of democracy and ends up as you say with dynasties or famous people getting elected to office when they have no other qualification.

I think that's part of it. The "brand names" might go all the way back to Adams or Taft. There's even a corollary of this in which voters choose the most "normal" surnames on ballots. That's providing that they don't know the candidates' positions. Characteristics, like appearance and height, play roles in elections too. Short, ugly politicians often lose to tall, handsome politicians, all things being equal. Of course, this kind of superficiality is not limited to politics. It's human nature.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No Censorship

Heck I'll believe almost anything can happen, eventually. Yet I'm still looking for a single conspiracy to believe in. Haven't found one yet.

You might find one among "33 Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True". Google that sucker and thank me later. ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No Censorship

The state is fascist with two faces which it presents depending on which party wins. It would matter little to the outcome if Obama was there or not, the details might be slightly different but the ultimate outcome is the same. The American system was designed from the outset to offer no real choice about the direction of the country. I will bet that whichever president gets into power he gets a little prep talk about what he can and cannot do and if he steps over the line like Kennedy did - he ends up dead. Few Presidents have considered it worth their while sacrificing their life for rocking the boat - so you always get more of the same.

Fascism is by definition a state run for selected companies, the nastier aspects fall into place because that doesn't favour the needs of the population and so "systems of control" are introduced to ensure that the people never get out of place. You have a surveillance system, you have unlimited detention, you have state sanctioned torture. All of these things have been strengthened by Obama so i really have to question the wisdom of calling him a progressive President, he is a tool of the Fascistic state and he could never have been anything else.

Let me just remind you that the Soviets claimed to offer free elections to the Dumar, did that make them any less communist ?

Br Cornelius

That's why I put "progressive" in quotes. Most politicians are puppets of corporations and/or lobbies. Sometimes, one source controls two parties. It doesn't matter what labels are used. I think that you and I agree on that point. However, there are exceptions to the rule. I'm not pessimistic enough to think that all politicians are owned. It's just the ones in the Establishment Party, which has members in both major American political parties. Is it like this in Ireland too? It seems like there might be more diversity in some European and Asian countries. Our ruling class wants even more homogenization! They act like honest differences are not welcome in the halls of Congress. :rolleyes:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

You might find one among "33 Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True". Google that sucker and thank me later. ;)

It seems to to be more a collection of conspiracies than a collection of conspiracy theories. If just accusing someone of conspiring and it sometimes turning out to be true is all it takes, I see that in my day to day life. I'm not surprised if he could come up with 50 with a brush that broad. I believe in conspiracy and in the evidence of conspiracy. The accusations and proposals from there are incidental and offer nothing inherently believable outside of their own evidence, and sometimes they're downright sloppy yet they're prerequisite for a conspiracy theory to grow at all. And the theories seem to manufacture themselves when they start with the conclusion and work backwards from there. In every instance I've ever encountered one, the contemporaries if you will, they ignore the evidence that doesn't match their conclusion and they even replace it with evidence that does. Maybe that's how the "theory" gets added to the "conspiracy". We should start with the evidence and move forward from there, so long as the evidence isn't theoretical.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Accepting conspiracy theories seems like acid to a persons ability to discern reality. Where it all goes badly wrong is when people accept one conspiracy and then subscribe to the notion of a grand conspiracy ala NWO. At this point everything is game for inclusion in the grand scheme no matter how lacking in evidence or internally contradictory. From there on everything is interpreted through the Prism of the Grand theory. Add to that the ultimate cop out that they planted evidence to cover their conspiracy and you have a raving loon who is not able to discuss any subject without reference to the NWO. We have all met them, and I saw myself going that way until I spotted one of the internal inconsistencies.

I now am skeptical of all conspiracies by default. I accept that there are conspiracies all around us - but they must be supported with evidence rather than speculation.

Br Cornelius

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No Censorship

It seems to to be more a collection of conspiracies than a collection of conspiracy theories. If just accusing someone of conspiring and it sometimes turning out to be true is all it takes, I see that in my day to day life. I'm not surprised if he could come up with 50 with a brush that broad. I believe in conspiracy and in the evidence of conspiracy. The accusations and proposals from there are incidental and offer nothing inherently believable outside of their own evidence, and sometimes they're downright sloppy yet they're prerequisite for a conspiracy theory to grow at all. And the theories seem to manufacture themselves when they start with the conclusion and work backwards from there. In every instance I've ever encountered one, the contemporaries if you will, they ignore the evidence that doesn't match their conclusion and they even replace it with evidence that does. Maybe that's how the "theory" gets added to the "conspiracy". We should start with the evidence and move forward from there, so long as the evidence isn't theoretical.

Well, they were reflexively dismissed by many people before they were shown to be true. That was the main point of the article. I'm fine with skepticism, but I don't care for vehemently disagreeing with all "conspiracy theories" as a matter of course, lumping all claims into the same crazy batch. I do agree with your comment about how many "conspiracy theorists" start with a basic statement and then try to make all information fit that basic statement. That's why one should look at the facts before they make such a declarative claim. The same holds true for our alphabet agencies when they leave out facts and evidence that contradict their initial claims. We were pushed into the Iraq War with that kind of cherry-picking. Some people might say that my comment is a conspiracy theory, which shows that it would improve our understanding if we could decide what defines a conspiracy theory as opposed to an observation of actions that may lead to conspiracy theories.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

The motivation for the war on Iraq was a simple conspiracy cooked up by Bush and bought into by Tony Blair and the media. Its easy to show the actual aspects of conspiratorial behaviour that took place going back to the fact that the plan to invade Iraq was in place well before Bush even came to office. This then connects with the agenda of the NeoCons who set out to "transform" the middle east and that plan seems to be progressing along at a fair old pace. However to tie it to any greater conspiracy (ala the Rothchilds NWO) is where the evidence peters out and the speculation takes over - so there is a conspiracy I will not accept until the documentation is revealed.

Its that simple - there are conspiracies which have evidence trails and their are conspiracies which have fantasy trails of the mind.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No Censorship

The motivation for the war on Iraq was a simple conspiracy cooked up by Bush and bought into by Tony Blair and the media. Its easy to show the actual aspects of conspiratorial behaviour that took place going back to the fact that the plan to invade Iraq was in place well before Bush even came to office. This then connects with the agenda of the NeoCons who set out to "transform" the middle east and that plan seems to be progressing along at a fair old pace. However to tie it to any greater conspiracy (ala the Rothchilds NWO) is where the evidence peters out and the speculation takes over - so there is a conspiracy I will not accept until the documentation is revealed.

Its that simple - there are conspiracies which have evidence trails and their are conspiracies which have fantasy trails of the mind.

Br Cornelius

I can't argue with that. They obviously massaged the information and the intelligence to fit their plans. They excluded what hurt them, and they included what helped them. It was the epitome of cherry-picking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

Bush Jr. wanted to destroy Saddam because he tried to assassinate his father, besides being a brutal dictator and an active threat to the world who looked to be developing mass destruction weapons and interfered with efforts to check.

So he used the emotions naturally generated in the States by 911, which Saddam probably had nothing to do with but who did not condemn it as did other Muslim countries for his excuse. That's kinda the way the world works. You have an objective and you use what happens for leverage to achieve the objective. I thought it was pretty smart and had the desired effect in the long run, although because of some mistakes it took longer than expected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No Censorship

Bush Jr. wanted to destroy Saddam because he tried to assassinate his father, besides being a brutal dictator and an active threat to the world who looked to be developing mass destruction weapons and interfered with efforts to check.

So he used the emotions naturally generated in the States by 911, which Saddam probably had nothing to do with but who did not condemn it as did other Muslim countries for his excuse.

He was no threat to us. There was no good excuse or explanation to attack and invade Iraq. It made a bad situation worse. Saddam Hussein definitely was not involved in the 9/11 attacks. Bush started the war at the worst time. Neoconservatives wanted hegemony in the region. They found their "Pearl Harbor event". Thousands of people died as a result of revenge and vengeance. Thousands of American lives were destroyed. Iran gained more power in the region. We gained more enemies and threats. We lost the moral high ground.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Well, they were reflexively dismissed by many people before they were shown to be true. That was the main point of the article. I'm fine with skepticism, but I don't care for vehemently disagreeing with all "conspiracy theories" as a matter of course, lumping all claims into the same crazy batch. I do agree with your comment about how many "conspiracy theorists" start with a basic statement and then try to make all information fit that basic statement. That's why one should look at the facts before they make such a declarative claim. The same holds true for our alphabet agencies when they leave out facts and evidence that contradict their initial claims. We were pushed into the Iraq War with that kind of cherry-picking. Some people might say that my comment is a conspiracy theory, which shows that it would improve our understanding if we could decide what defines a conspiracy theory as opposed to an observation of actions that may lead to conspiracy theories.

Still I think evidence of conspiracy and the resulting valid belief in a conspiracy is discredited both in treatment and in rhetoric ("conspiracy theory") . A rush to disbelief is folly that's true, but so is errant analysis inflating evidence with theory, and even worse blind faith. Feeding peoples' inherent need to believe in something doesn't sound like a good servant of truth. When there's an agenda to get us to believe in something, it's not always a righteous one. Government lies to us all the time. Policemen lie to us all the time. Govt officials are allowed to lie to us all the time. There's lies from the top all the way down to the bottom. To actually expect government to tell people the truth? That would be the conspiracy theory that I'd catapult.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

The motivation for the war on Iraq was a simple conspiracy cooked up by Bush and bought into by Tony Blair and the media.

Br Cornelius

Who could ever forget Tony "45 minutes" Blair? He's the man you need to get somethin goin'!

article-1114405-030BC884000005DC-586_468x368.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Who could ever forget Tony "45 minutes" Blair? He's the man you need to get somethin goin'!

article-1114405-030BC884000005DC-586_468x368.jpg

The fact that he is subsequently the middle east envoy tells you a lot about the Zionist influence on American foreign policy.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

The world is so much better that Saddam Hussein was removed that I find the rest of the conversation nothing but noise.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

The world is so much better that Saddam Hussein was removed that I find the rest of the conversation nothing but noise.

Saddam Hussain was facilitated by the States until he went rough and was then well contained within his country after the first Gulf war. I do not feel that the price of removing him was worth 1/2 Million or more innocent Iraq citizens. These things are far to easy to say Frank until you have to count the bodies. You should know that from your own countries history.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

Personally I think the fear and panic felt after 9/11 (remember terrorism feels quite different when it takes place at home) fueled the Bush Administration to go after Saddam. In retrospect we can see it was probably not a great decision...hindsight is 20/20.

As to the general question, both liberals and conservatives have their moments and their foibles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Personally I think the fear and panic felt after 9/11 (remember terrorism feels quite different when it takes place at home) fueled the Bush Administration to go after Saddam. In retrospect we can see it was probably not a great decision...hindsight is 20/20.

As to the general question, both liberals and conservatives have their moments and their foibles.

At best I think you can say that Bush used that as an excuse. He had already laid plans to invade Iraq well before the 9/11 attacks. It was a smoke screen and he fabricated a connection between Saddam and the bombers to justify it. No evidence has ever been found to link the 9/11 attacks to Saddam - NONE.

Br Cornelius

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

At best I think you can say that Bush used that as an excuse. He had already laid plans to invade Iraq well before the 9/11 attacks. It was a smoke screen and he fabricated a connection between Saddam and the bombers to justify it. No evidence has ever been found to link the 9/11 attacks to Saddam - NONE.

Br Cornelius

Really? I always remembered WMDs and non-compliance as the reason to attack. I also remember Bush saying he'll make no distinction between terrorists and the countries that willfully harbor them. Terrorists weren't required to be involved in 9-11 to fit the bill. Did Iraq harbor no terrorists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2

I had no problem with us taking Saddam out. The problem I had is that we decided to stay for years and nation build, as we try to root out guerrilla fighters which never works out. I think we should of took Saddam and his army out called it a day then left.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Really? I always remembered WMDs and non-compliance as the reason to attack. I also remember Bush saying he'll make no distinction between terrorists and the countries that willfully harbor them. Terrorists weren't required to be involved in 9-11 to fit the bill. Did Iraq harbor no terrorists?

Also demonstrated to be fabrications. However there was a widely put out rumour that Saddam was linked to the bombers and Bush voiced this himself.

Saddam was on shaky ground himself and was very afraid of terrorists himself - so no he did not harbour terrorists. There is certainly nothing to link his regime to Al-Quida.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

The US did indeed stay too long and made several other mistakes (such as a blanket ban on former Baathist) that led to the extended fighting. The bloodshed will go on there for eons. It is no different from many other Muslim countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

I had no problem with us taking Saddam out. The problem I had is that we decided to stay for years and nation build, as we try to root out guerrilla fighters which never works out. I think we should of took Saddam and his army out called it a day then left.

They went in to secure access to their oil - what would have been gained by destabilizing the country and then withdrawing ? The plan was occupation and installing a client government from the start. If that had not been the plan the US would never have attacked Saddam.

It was also a clear (if somewhat misguided in light of the outcome) signal not to attempt to resist American interests.

There was a lot of softening up of public outrage before the attacks on Iraq and almost nothing that was said at the time was accurate.

The Levinson enquiry is still rumbling on nearly a decade after the invasion and the main impediment to it been finalized is that the US is attempting to have some of the more unsavour communications between the UK and the USA redacted from the final report. It should tell you something about how toxic the reality could still be to the Bush dynasty and the Blair mission.

Unfortunately I predict it will be another 100years before a truly honest history of Americas involvement in the middle east will be written.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2

They went in to secure access to their oil - what would have been gained by destabilizing the country and then withdrawing ? The plan was occupation and installing a client government from the start. If that had not been the plan the US would never have attacked Saddam.

It was also a clear (if somewhat misguided in light of the outcome) signal not to attempt to resist American interests.

There was a lot of softening up of public outrage before the attacks on Iraq and almost nothing that was said at the time was accurate.

The Levinson enquiry is still rumbling on nearly a decade after the invasion and the main impediment to it been finalized is that the US is attempting to have some of the more unsavour communications between the UK and the USA redacted from the final report. It should tell you something about how toxic the reality could still be to the Bush dynasty and the Blair mission.

Unfortunately I predict it will be another 100years before a truly honest history of Americas involvement in the middle east will be written.

Br Cornelius

I have alot of issues with our foreign policy, I think we mess with other countries government too much to make sure that the people we want are in charge.

But with that being said Saddam did have to be taken out. He has a horrible track record. An calling someone evil is a relative term but in my opinion he was a evil SOB. Lets look at some of his track record.

- * In February 1988, Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their home villages in the Anfal campaign. An estimated 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds were killed.

- * On March 16, 1988, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja. About 5,000 Kurds died. Townspeople continue to suffer from numerous birth defects.

- * On September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran. This started an 8-year war during which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops and ballistic missiles against Iranian cities.

- * In April 1993, Iraq orchestrated a failed plot to assassinate former President George Bush during his April 14-16, 1993 visit to Kuwait.

http://fcnl.org/resources/newsletter/mar02/saddam_hussein_a_dismal_track_record/

​And the list continues. Not to mention the fact that everyone gives crap about how we never found any WMD, well the thing is Saddam acted like he did, he wanted the world to believe it. When we interviewed some of the officers all of the captains assumed the WMDs where in the other guys squad. Thats how much Saddam wanted people to believe it. He wanted to invade Kuwait and genocidaly killed people. I did not want someone like him having nukes.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.