What is going on in America and the rest of the world...

[downtown]

looking back at the causations and results of the american revolutionary war, it is really no surprise that the government has a mind of its own. the iraq war is unbelievably unpopular even among the most mainstream misinformed middle-aged white american house-wife, but its still continuing. understanding that the constitution was formed to allow the federal government more power to protect itself from the same forces which put down the previous regime.

American democracy is in a sense a tragedy. on one hand, the people of the US are afforded many rights and legal protections, the downside, however, is that the people themselves have had to (sometimes literally) fight the authorities for it. while most conservative americans believe the government is representing their best interests, the reality is that they're are and always have been a separate and bourgeois class of their own. even the wording of the constitution ensured that 1/3 of americans were to live in bondage, taking a war and several generations to change. the American people have shown time and time again that they have what it takes to take from their government as many rights and freedoms as they possibly can. after the civil war things were looking beautifully for them, even. however, after the civil rights movement there came a downturn of american liberalism and a shift towards a Regan-esq economic system. now we're seeing a resurgence of conservatism and a loss of a more socialist 'for the people' welfare state (not literally 'welfare').

this goes to show that throughout history, even dating back to the pre-revolutionary period, americans have been at constant odds with their governments. the situation is no different today. i place far more faith in the American People than the United States of America as a political and economic entity. its sad to have to think of the worlds biggest (and one of the most successful) democracy as having the state in antagonism with the people but its a hard reality. there are always exceptions, but they're exactly that. things'll get worse before they get better. but they will get better.

as for the conspiracy theories, nobody can say for complete certainty that we have been to the moon or that LHO shot JFK and to do so would be foolish. the likeliness of not having gone to the moon or a CIA conspiracy is extremely low, but i wouldn't rule completely out.

[JohnG]

as for the conspiracy theories, nobody can say for complete certainty that we have been to the moon or that LHO shot JFK and to do so would be foolish. the likeliness of not having gone to the moon or a CIA conspiracy is extremely low, but i wouldn't rule completely out.

Well looking at it that way, maybe you exist only to keep me distracted from seeing the truth. Maybe you are an artificial intelligence in a DoD facility somewhere, designed to sink conversations that get too close to the truth with giant college-essay thread-killer posts... I mean, "the likeliness is extremely low, but i wouldn't rule it completely out." Your phrase fits here just as well. I mean it is POSSIBLE, right?

Like I said before, once you concede an inch to the crackpot theories about no moon landing, the CIA/Mafia/Castro/Bell Helicopter/Johnson killed JFK, Fluoride in water is to control our minds, etc., - once you say, ok that MIGHT be true, you are up to your eyeballs in it. I mean, how do YOU know the American Revolution EVEN OCCURRED??? Because you READ it somewhere? Have you ever BEEN to Beijing? I haven't. Maybe it doesn't even exist. It's all cgi trickery from Pixar - under a super-secret government contract. Hell, maybe CHINA doesn't even exist - I haven't been there and I would have to rely on second hand information to believe that it exists - and how can I trust what other people tell me?

You see what I mean? Sounds ridiculous but using the logic of the conspiracy theorists I can produce ANY theory I want, and they are all EQUALLY VIABLE. And all they have to do to discredit me (in their own minds anyway) is say, "how sad, you are too scared to open your mind." And if you "open your mind" - i.e. actually listen to the "evidence" - they will bury you in a mountain of minutiae about missing letters, a guy who told a guy about a girder bent a way that couldn't have been that way, a "scientist" that says blah blah blah, complete with charts and graphs. All the time, ignoring the good sense God gave an ant - but they want to drag you into the details of stuff they read in a book (curiously not censored by the evil government) or the internet - because of course you can't respond because you have better things to do than go fill out Freedom of Information forms to get the data to refute them which they will only say "hah, that comes from the GOVERNMENT!"

Sigh. Hell, I would love to believe a lot of that stuff - it is much more theatrical and exciting than the boring truth. The whole world a giant Grisham novel! Cool! But the psychology of conspiracy theorists - that is a whole other topic...

[Fish]

One interesting aspect is that some U.S. media complains about anti-american propaganda on european media. Stories like "war on terror" are just not believeable to everybody any longer. Weapons of mass destruction in the Iraq were never found. But it is a known fact that Saddam Hussein was made the little emperor of Iraq by the U.S. and that he later became inconvinient and uncontrollable. Iran-Contra wasn

Edited August 12, 2008 by Fish

[JohnG]

... that doesn

[tenacious_b]

Come on dude it's not all like that; I said I wasn't firing those shots at you; just the first little bit. Unless you think you fit the bill of the worst case scenario person later in my email. I personally do not ascribe those attributes to you, because I don't know you well enough. Oh, and I'll never give up on any of my forum comrades, no matter how far gone. LOL

There it is again:

The loopty-loop logic: I don't agree that the evidence is compelling or even convincing. From THAT you can make the following assumptions:

I have a fragile world view and am just struggling to protect it (and myself from the trauma of waking up to the truth).

I have "blind faith" in the "state-run media" - whatever that is - and am incapable of seeking out and evaluating for myself the credibility of multiple sources for information.

If I disagree with you I am doing "the intellectual and philosophical equivalent of sticking [my] fingers in [my] ears and yelling " LA LA LA LA LA LA LA, I can't hear you!!!"

I could go on but hell, we all read the post... This is why I [try] not to get sucked into these things. It is always the same. You have the truth and we are too domesticated to see it.

Dude, congratulations of figuring it all out. Somehow I don't think I am ever going to, so you might as well give up on me right now.

[milsub5517]

throughout the history there are hundreds of cases when mass murders like this happened. why do you think this can not happen in 21st century? Do you think people have become more humane? Do you think we care more about others? LOL

Now, now, no one said that you are a "conspiracy idiot" if you are skeptical of politicians or the media.

But it is one thing to question (for example) the veracity of White House press releases or the administration's motives for invading Iraq (which were as varied as the actors involved) and it is quite ANOTHER to state that the administration orchestrated the mass murder of 3,000 Americans and THEN accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being a drone brainwashed by the "state run media."

It is not all or nothing despite the fact that characterizing these debates that way is a common tactic for some. I take into account the complex nature and motives of the American media and I also recognize it is not a monolithic block - there are many sources and a vast range of quality of coverage. I am extremely skeptical of what politicians say (even if I like them) and most media sources, though less so of others.

However, I also know how to exercise common sense. It was given to us for a reason.

[milsub5517]

nobody is accusing you. relax.

.. accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being a drone brainwashed by the "state run media."

..

However, I also know how to exercise common sense. It was given to us for a reason.

Edited August 12, 2008 by mil_sub

[JohnG]

throughout the history there are hundreds of cases when mass murders like this happened. why do you think this can not happen in 21st century? Do you think people have become more humane? Do you think we care more about others? LOL

I never said it can't happen. I never said it DIDN'T happen. OF COURSE it happened. Duh. I mean, that is all that is missing from this thread - someone to come in here and say the whole incident never happened and that the television coverage was faked and that the twin towers are still standing there. I mean this thread gets richer all the time.

What I said (or am saying now anyway) is that the idea that Bush ordered this is beyond silly - it is a little children's drama fantasy. Now I can't stand Bush - but I am perfectly capable of seeing him for the arrogant and incompetent puppet he is without losing my head about it and latching onto every crackpot 9/11 theory (and there are a LOT out there - yours is not the only show in town, sad to say). There are plenty of real reasons to hold him in utter contempt without making new ones up out of whole cloth.

It is amazing how badly some people WANT this to be true. I don't get it.

[tenacious_b]

Mil Sub,

Here is some information that is independently verifiable through research; don't know if you've seen these, but I'll bet you'd like them:

1. The false flag attack on the USS Liberty (Sure this is wikipedia, but do your own research on the contents of the last sentence of the third paragraph)

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

2. An award winning documentary about the history of the government secretly testing on member of the armed services and civilians:

http://www.beyondtreason.com/

watch it free here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5326824137117584395

-Bryan

nobody is accusing you. relax.

[JohnG]

The USS Liberty is a good one, but it doesn't make the top ten:

TOP TEN TRUTHS THEY ARE TRYING TO HIDE FROM YOU:

(If you don't believe me, Google it - the truth is out there!)

1. Dinosauroid-like Alien Reptiles are dominating the World

2. Apollo 11 Moon Landings were faked by NASA

3. September 11 was orchestrated by the U. S. government

4. Barcodes are really intended to Control people (RFID chips is the latest step in this nefarious process)

5. Charlemagne never existed, he is a fictional character

6. The truth about Area 51

7. Microsoft sends messages on Wingdings Font

8. The Nazis had a Moon Base

9. The U.S. military caused the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami

10. RWG.cc is run by the NSA to keep you distracted with toy watches so you don't ask the HARD questions!

[tenacious_b]

well you make the Liberty sound plausible when you lump it in with all the crazy sh!+.

[chronoluvvv]

10. RWG.cc is run by the NSA to keep you distracted with toy watches so you don't ask the HARD questions!

this i DEFINITELY believe

ever since i've discovered rwg, i'm not as much on the other forums that subscribe to my interests and even less concerned with work

[milsub5517]

nobody said Bush ordered this, or [censored] Cheney or Alan Grinspan. These people are just faces. Bush is just a puppet and not the one pulling the strings.

What I said (or am saying now anyway) is that the idea that Bush ordered this is beyond silly - it is a little children's drama fantasy. ...It is amazing how badly some people WANT this to be true. I don't get it.

[JohnG]

nobody said Bush ordered this, or [censored] Cheney or Alan Grinspan. These people are just faces. Bush is just a puppet and not the one pulling the strings.

Ooops, sorry, I forgot, it was the Rockefellers.

[milsub5517]

agreed

It is not only the U.S. where things smell funny. And that doesn

[Pugwash]

as for the conspiracy theories, nobody can say for complete certainty that we have been to the moon or that LHO shot JFK and to do so would be foolish. the likeliness of not having gone to the moon or a CIA conspiracy is extremely low, but i wouldn't rule completely out.

It's as likely as the Scientologists being right.

[milsub5517]

i thought i should mention about georgia - osetia conflict here as well. i just watched CNBC report and they are portreying russia as an agressor. lol. they "forget" to mention the fact that agressor is georgia, they attacked south osetia first burned down the city and several villages. killed innocent people (using faschist methods btw) now, that russia pushed them back they are saying that all of this is because russia wants oil??? All russia did was protection of ossetians who would have beed exterminated otherwise.

they also forget to mention that usa sponsored georgia's millitary program for years, georgian troops have american equipment/weapons etc., also usa moved georgian troops from iraq to georgia to develop the conflict further.

if any of you know languages other than english go check local news, the information is 100% the opposite from what CNN, Fox etc tell us here! I cant believe this.

this demostrates us one more time how news here can lie.

[Pugwash]

this demostrates us one more time how news here can lie.

The best lie Fox made anyone believe is they myth of a Liberal Media bias. Disagree with Fox? Oh, the liberals control the media!

Read http://news.bbc.co.uk/ for news that's not paid for by a rich man with an agenda.

[JohnG]

i thought i should mention about georgia - osetia conflict here as well. i just watched CNBC report and they are portreying russia as an agressor. lol. they "forget" to mention the fact that agressor is georgia, they attacked south osetia first burned down the city and several villages. killed innocent people (using faschist methods btw) now, that russia pushed them back they are saying that all of this is because russia wants oil??? All russia did was protection of ossetians who would have beed exterminated otherwise.

they also forget to mention that usa sponsored georgia's millitary program for years, georgian troops have american equipment/weapons etc., also usa moved georgian troops from iraq to georgia to develop the conflict further.

if any of you know languages other than english go check local news, the information is 100% the opposite from what CNN, Fox etc tell us here! I cant believe this.

this demostrates us one more time how news here can lie.

So if things suck so bad in the U.S. - they are liars and manipulators, ALL the news sources are "state-controlled", the Rockefellers and Bush and Company attacked the Trade Center and then pinned it on poor innocent Osama Bin Laden, AND they are now trying to put a chip in your body to make you into a domesticated sheep... and if in Russia everything is the "opposite" as you put it... I am trying to figure out what you are doing in the U.S. (several of your comments lead me to believe you are in the U.S. so forgive me if I am mistaken).

I mean, given all you believe, I sure wouldn't want to be in that place. I would go back to Russia where Putin PROTECTS your rights and an independent media rather than trying to enslave them.

If I believed all the things about Spain that you believe about the United States, I would get my ass OUT OF HERE. It's a no-brainer man!

Or are you working to fix things from the inside?

[JohnG]

The best lie Fox made anyone believe is they myth of a Liberal Media bias. Disagree with Fox? Oh, the liberals control the media!

Read http://news.bbc.co.uk/ for news that's not paid for by a rich man with an agenda.

Sadly most people rely exclusively on the television for their news. Television coverage in the U.S. is the worst sort of processed and vacuous pulp imaginable.

There are many reliable sources of news. ALL news media have some bias because they are all comprised of human beings and it is impossible to completely eradicate bias from editorial decisions. WHAT news is reported reflects inherent judgments about what is important and what is not. It is certainly possible to acknowledge political bias and fallibility in a news source without twisting that into complicity in every silly cover-up theory that comes down the pike.

Nevertheless, there are fairly reliable English-language sources, easily accessible in the U.S., that have very high standards for the factual accuracy of the information they report:

New York Times

Washington Post

The Economist (UK publication, available anywhere in the U.S.)

The Wall Street Journal

Los Angeles Times

Chicago Tribune

National Public Radio

The International Herald Tribune (international publication edited in Paris, now owned by NYT, available in major U.S. cities)

Those are just a FEW - there are many more.

[Fish]

AND they are now trying to put a chip in your body to make you into a domesticated sheep...

Nobody would need a chip to turn citizens into domestic sheep. All that is needed is a credit card and a mortgage on their homes + getting them worried about their future, jobs, etc....

Concerning the "Why dont you go to Russia then?" -thing: When the GDR was still there this was a dead-beat argument if somebody claimed that there was something wrong with the society and political situation in Germany. Why don

Edited August 13, 2008 by Fish

[JohnG]

Concerning the "Why dont you go to Russia then?" -thing: When the GDR was still there this was a dead-beat argument if somebody claimed that there was something wrong with the society and political situation in Germany. Why don

[Pugwash]

The Wall Street Journal

Didn't Murdoch recently buy this and start seeding changes to the editorial direction?

[JohnG]

Didn't Murdoch recently buy this and start seeding changes to the editorial direction?

Yes and Yes.

He has a controlling interest in Dow Jones which owns the Journal. But I haven't read of any direct interference in editorial decisions. The Journal has always been a politically conservative publication and if he were to start tinkering in any important way with content, he would only sabotage the paper. He is not stupid and I don't think the Journal will change in any important way - if it does the paper's reputation for excellence and editorial independence will evaporate and consequently its profitability and influence as a respected conservative paper.

I did a little research and there has been a shift (slight) on the front page towards domestic and international politics and away from business issues.

This reflects decisions taken by the new editor who was editor of Murdoch's The Times (London). It also apparently reflects Mudoch's stated goal of taking on the NYT more directly. But that does not mean that the integrity of the content has been compromised. I would be surprised, shocked actually, if Murdoch did anything to alter the paper in a way that would rob it of its prestige. Turning it into a print edition of Fox News is out the question - and he already has the NY Post for that. And he will never take on the NYT (take customers away from the NYT) if the paper's reputation doesn't remain impeccable.

It will be interesting to watch. I don't read the Journal much anymore - there is a European edition but I live so far out in the boonies that I just get the Economist every week and read the online edition of the IHT. So I confess I was not up to date on the change in editor at the WSJ.

[milsub5517]

here you go. Your potential president and his crew. How can you trust these puppets and what they say on TV after this???

JohnG, are you still sure that usa politicians are not getting paid by large corporations to lobby their interests?

they even take money from 3rd world countries for gods sake!

McCain adviser got money from Georgia

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer 45 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - John McCain's chief foreign policy adviser and his business partner lobbied the senator or his staff on 49 occasions in a 3 1/2-year span while being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by the government of the former Soviet republic of Georgia.

The payments raise ethical questions about the intersection of Randy Scheunemann's personal financial interests and his advice to the Republican presidential candidate who is seizing on Russian aggression in Georgia as a campaign issue.

link on yahoo news

Edited August 13, 2008 by mil_sub