Decision 2004 and Yales Skull and Bones Society

[Pax]

NYE,
I'm not saying that 1. S & B would be the only group conspiring. 2. That secret societies are not exclusive clubs that allow membership by way of families.

To me,
"It's blatantly obvious to the most casual observer."
Believe me I am casual. What I find exasperating is when people are getting wet but refuse to see the rain.

Take wrestling. Why do so many people believe it's real.

Take a small thing like the world series or that quiz show. Easily rigged over relatively small dollars.

Take the actions of the men once they got into office. I am talking about every President after the Spanish American War. You can find some situation it which they behaved in a morally corrupt way. Are you saying that they were honest until they became President.

Why are so many people blind?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I am talking about every President after the Spanish American War. You can find some situation it which they behaved in a morally corrupt way. Are you saying that they were honest until they became President.

What about every President BEFORE the Spanish-American War. Can you name a single President who did not act in a 'morally-corrupt way' (whatever the Hell that is) in US history? Are you blaming the S&B for Lincoln abolishing habeus corpus? Politicians are politicians, unless you think that S&B and other secret societies are entangled with every politician.

Man, are you coo-coo or what? Playing too much Deus Ex?

[Pax]

I've never played Deus-Ex.

The truth is I can't name a President who did not act in a morally corrupt way.

"morally corrupt" breaking treaties, accepting bribes, bribing, ownining slaves, condoning/initiating genocide, endorsing the sale of harmful drugs, and etc..
You know people you would not want to marry your daughter.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Name a single political leader in world history who did not act in a 'morally corrupt' way as you define it.

Personally there are plenty of American Presidents I would not consider morally corrupt.

[Pax]

Once again, I choose the Spanish American War because it's known that the Spanish were not responsible for the Maine. Remember the Maine.

I think the war with Mexico in 1845 was also bogus.

I think that the Great White Fleet demanding Japan trade with us bogus.

I think the declaration of independence is ridiculous considered that they were slaves who had no liberty or pursuit of happiness. Only life to pick cotton.

I think supporting regimes that oppress people bogus.

I think that people who don't question they government are bogus

I think segregation, oppression, corruption, cronyism, favoritism and almost all other isn's are bogus.

But maybe I'm just strange when I read about how many people were killed in the phillipines because it was a strategic point in the pacific and I become disillusioned from what was only a paragraph in history class but was dramatic to some nameless body in a swamp.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Nice way to avoid the question... put on that tin hat again .

[Pax]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Name a single political leader in world history who did not act in a 'morally corrupt' way as you define it.

Personally there are plenty of American Presidents I would not consider morally corrupt.

Imran,
I don't know maybe Gandi. It does not matter if everyones doing it. Would you accept that from your child if you caught him with a crack pipe or whatever it happens to be that you are against.

Imran you and I are both from Georgia, So you must know about the trail of tears. How does that sit with you. After the trail of tears those people were no longer apart of Ga History but then what happened to them. How was Oklahoma formed? Is that justice. is that american way.
i simply would like to live in the america of ideals vs the one in which corruption goes unchecked

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
NYE,
I'm not saying that 1. S & B would be the only group conspiring. 2. That secret societies are not exclusive clubs that allow membership by way of families.

To me,
"It's blatantly obvious to the most casual observer."
Believe me I am casual. What I find exasperating is when people are getting wet but refuse to see the rain.

Take wrestling. Why do so many people believe it's real.

Take a small thing like the world series or that quiz show. Easily rigged over relatively small dollars.

Take the actions of the men once they got into office. I am talking about every President after the Spanish American War. You can find some situation it which they behaved in a morally corrupt way. Are you saying that they were honest until they became President.

Why are so many people blind?

Why do so many see things that are not there to be seen, but instead must be imagined?

S&B is one of many groups conspiring to control the American political process. This is an assumption that is backed only by an observation that 3 presidents have been S&B members, nevermind that 2 of those come from the same priviledged family, and that family can be observed to be more important to becoming president than membership in the S&B club; even though neither family nor the S&B club have kept Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, and Clinton from gaining the White House in the last 58 years.

As for getting wet, someone would have to be making a good case that it were raining, not simply observing that clouds sometimes inhabit the sky. 3 presidents were members of an elitist club at an elitist University. If class memberships were the criteria, I am sure one could then assume that Eton was a conspiracy to control British political power.

Regarding wrestling, it is not unreasonable to believe something that is displayed for your immediate experience. However, believing that wrestling is real because there are large, hairy men, and therefore wrestling must be real would be stretching things a lot, I agree.

World Series and quiz shows? There have been conspiracies and scams, therefore there must be conspiracies and scams... that is the first step into the line to get your tin foil hat. Not only was the World Series fixed, and the quiz show rigged among a relatively small number of people who should have been easy to control, but even those small numbers of people were not able to keep the secret. Thank you for discrediting the whole idea that thousands of people have been controlling American political power for the last 100 years and nary a whisper of real evidence beyond an observed coincidence has got out.

Deciding which presidents did something morally corrupt would be somewhat subjective wouldn't it? Just because you disagree with an act does not make the person who did it dishonest simply on that basis, does it? btw, how does any given president being dishonest with himself or the electors lend any credence to S&B coniving for political power? Have they been successful 100% of the time with their 'secret member' list, and are only S&B members corrupt?

Why are there so many people wearing tin foil hats?

[Imran Siddiqui]

It does not matter if everyones doing it.

It does if EVERY SINGLE PERSON is doing it, meaning your 'morals' are unattainable and don't matter at all.

Why are there so many people wearing tin foil hats?

It's striking to me as well

[Pax]

I think this is the right forum for discussing conspiracies.

Once again let me state that I am only saying the possibility exists. I have no intent to prove that it does.

1. Conspiracies in the form of secrets are kept me between many groups of people without anyone being the wiser. There are ways to hide a secret in plain sight for example:
On the day that OJ Simpson was found not guilty of murder the President revealed that the government had conducted radiation experiments on its citizens between the early 40's and 1974. I heard this because I was driving to school and I had NPR on. How many other people know about this? It was quite graphic. Peoples testicles were radiated and such.

Had you told me about this prior to that day I would have accused you of wearing a tinfoil.

I can agree that the edge of something like morally corrupt might be shaky but according to U.S. law stealing and murder is illegal. So I would have to say that any action that causes innocent loss of life or appropriation of another persons assets would be morally corrupt if you hold our leaders to U.S. law. If they are above the law then nothing is corrupt and everything is fine.
According to the bible EVERYBODY in Soddom and Gomorrah were doing IT and they were morally corrupt. If the ALL of Germans had thought it was okay to gas all the Jews it would still be wrong. It's really simple.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I am only saying the possibility exists

And yet it doesn't.

I can agree that the edge of something like morally corrupt might be shaky but according to U.S. law stealing and murder is illegal.

Murder is illegal killing, and the state defines what is legal and not. And I take it you've never heard of eminent domain? Aside from that, of course, the government can appropriate for 'public use'.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi




So it's okay to be rich, so long as it is not by drilling oil?

Wow -- this is a record. You, JohnT AND Imran all missed my point.


The point was not that being wealthy is ok as long it's not connected to the oil industry.

My point was that it matters to what extent a political leader is excessively corrupted because his wealth is tied to any one, particular industry.

[Pax]

Let's go back to the trail of tears
The United States made a treaty with the Cherokee Nation that made a portion of North Gerogia belong to the Cherokee for all time. Gold was discovered in the North Ga mountains. The U.S. exercised the right of eminent domain on a land that belonged to a foreign country forcing said foreigners to walk from Georgia to Oklahoma. The trip killed many I'm assuming legally. After it was decided that the government needed the Oklahoma Indian territory the right of eminent domain was again exercised so the lands became U.S. territory all well and good. I guess there's nothing wrong with that. Why do they call it the trail of tears?

[Imran Siddiqui]

My point was that it matters to what extent a political leader is excessively corrupted because his wealth is tied to any one, particular industry.

So basically we were right. Or do you think the most wealthy leaders have diversified industry ownership? Why do the people will oil bother you so much but those connected to other industies not so much.

I guess there's nothing wrong with that

At the time, no. With today's morality, yes... but you have the problem of putting the square peg of today's morality into the round hole of history... and no matter how much you force it... it don't fit.

And, of course the ends have justified the means.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by MrFun
Wow -- this is a record. You, JohnT AND Imran all missed my point.

The point was not that being wealthy is ok as long it's not connected to the oil industry.

My point was that it matters to what extent a political leader is excessively corrupted because his wealth is tied to any one, particular industry.

But you drop the allusion to the oil industry as if that were indictment enough.

btw, it is not common for one to become wealthy via many industries. People usually learn one thing and then do it well, and a lot, to get rich.

By your reasoning, the new PM of Canada is corrupt, because his family controls a lot of shipping.