Decision 2004 and Yales Skull and Bones Society

[MrFun]

Originally posted by notyoueither


OK, so that there are oil companies making profits in the US and abroad while bush is president, and there are others who come from the oil industry within his administration makes him corrupt?

I'm waiting for the dots to be connected here.

Nope, that's not it either.

Excessively corrupt politicians tend to misuse their power with their assets, and in conjunction with the special interests of industrial leaders of any particular industry that politicians have invested in.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Excessively corrupt politicians tend to misuse their power with their assets, and in conjunction with the special interests of industrial leaders of any particular industry that politicians have invested in.

You've just offered the obviously accepted definition of 'corrupt politician'. Now were you making a point at all?

[Pax]

No, I simply cannot say I don't believe the President or anything like that.

Like I said, I'm very casual. I assume that I look at the same news as you. Read the same history.
I can trace wrongdoing on the part of the government back from the day I joined in June 1988 all the way past the Spanish American War. I know about the Tammany Hall Machine, The Daleys, The Kennedys and etc. I guess I just don't believe that the political machines just went away abruptly nor do I believe that the only that were around were the ones best documented.

Everything I learned was just from reading history in general, not looking for a conspiracy. That's what is so disturbing about it.

Most societies have had secret socieities or organizations with secrets involved politics. What makes you think that the U.S. is somehow different?

If you were to read 1984 and see how the main characters country changed the truth so effortlessly then see the same thing happen in Britain would that not disturb you?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I guess I just don't believe that the political machines just went away abruptly nor do I believe that the only that were around were the ones best documented.

Your problem is that IF S&B were a political machine, it's doing a piss poor job. Only really capturing the Presidency a few times in the long history of S&B? What about the mayors and governors and Congressmen, etc? There seem only to be a few S&B members there. Everyone who knows anything about political machines knows that you have to impermiate every level of politics from top to bottom.

S&B aren't even close.

[MrFun]

Re: Re: Re: Decision 2004 and Yales Skull and Bones Society

Yes, Imran -- my original point was in response to Jimmy's quote:

"Because someone is born into wealth doesn't necessarily make someone a bad person or unable to relate to "common people". Alot of times it does, but not necessarily."

this was my response:

Originally posted by MrFun


Exactly -- I'm more concered about the Bush family having such intimate ties with the oil industry than simply because they are wealthy.

I was basically just expressing my agreement with Jimmy, in that birth into a wealthy family does not automatically entail corruption -- it's how that wealth and industry connections are used or misused, that counts. I used the Bush family as an example.



I hope this is SIMPLE enough for you now.

[Imran Siddiqui]

birth into a wealthy family does not automatically entail corruption -- it's how that wealth and industry connections are used or misused, that counts. I used the Bush family as an example.

But you are still wrong. You are concerned about family X having intimate ties with industry Y, rather than because they are wealthy. But EVERY family has an intimiate tie with an industry. Even though family O has similar intimate ties with industry P, that doesn't concern you.

The Bush family has no more 'used or misused' it's industry ties than anyother wealth political family. So, naturally, we all (correctly, I might add ) assumed you were pilling on Bush and the oil industry.

[Ben Kenobi]

According to the bible

All have sinned and fallen short of the law. Hence, by that standard, all US presidents past and future are and will be morally corrupt.

So now you need to clarify what you mean by 'corrupt'. What is your standard?

[Pax]

If you really wanted to have a secret society you would probably organize them inside another organization.

The way the the Viet Cong were organized initially most members were not Communists but the ones controlling the Organization were. The decisions would come from that cell. Even if that group does not always seem to have a man on the spot they are still acting on the central authority will.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

birth into a wealthy family does not automatically entail corruption -- it's how that wealth and industry connections are used or misused, that counts. I used the Bush family as an example.

But you are still wrong. You are concerned about family X having intimate ties with industry Y, rather than because they are wealthy. But EVERY family has an intimiate tie with an industry. Even though family O has similar intimate ties with industry P, that doesn't concern you.

The Bush family has no more 'used or misused' it's industry ties than anyother wealth political family. So, naturally, we all (correctly, I might add ) assumed you were pilling on Bush and the oil industry.

I don't think it's too presumptuous, that if one has substantial investments and connections with a major industry, that the person is wealthy.

Bush's shoeshine boys on Apolyton will continue to hold the misguided notion that the Bush family is not corrupt, and thus, invalidate my example.

par of course, I guess

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

And that is an indictment on the US body politic.

Indeed it may be, but that's not the issue, now is it?

Uhhmmm, for this it is.

Different people at the very same time, elsewhere, were making different decisions about how to deal with Amerinds.

Indeed... but it really only the Canadians wasn't it? I mean, the French influence really hit home. The Spanish weren't that nice about dealing with Amerindians at the same time and neither were the Portugese.

Simply because the French and their offspring were a bit more enlightened doesn't mean the general morality of the time was what your little group did. If you don't believe me see what the Brits were doing in India at the time, and other evidence of colonial conquest.

Well, I wouldn't call the British Empire of 1830 to 1870 a 'little group', actually, but suit yourself.

Nice job of obfuscating by dragging in the Spanish. Are you now prepared to admit Yankee handeling of the Amerinds was on a par or worse than theirs?

Nice also to conflate French and British treatment of Amerinds. Makes it easier if it was just the French tainted British, doesn't it?

btw, how many 'tribes' of India were exterminated under the Raj?

it was European colonists that were driven out by the British

Not exactly. Look at the Pequod Wars and King James War to see where the Brits were driving out Native Americans from the 13 colonies.

I'll look it up, but I suspect that this involved tribes or bands that allied with the French when Britain was at war with France. How does that effect what the US did to practically defenceless people who were no enemies except of your own creation?

Saying that the US was seperate from the the rest of the world in morality would have the same basis that the German nation was seperate from all of us in 1943.

Yes, it is. And it was. I mean really, do you ACTUALLY think the German nation in 1943 had the same morality as Britain and France? Obviously it didn't. It had it's own morality at the time, which it justified to itself. I don't see why that is a horrible thing to admit. You may not like their morality (and I'm sure no one on this forum does), but you cannot deny it was a totally seperate morality.

The 'world' morality of the time (world being Europe for the context of the discussion, naturally) 1943 Germany was incorrect, but 1830 America was not. Like I said, colonies.

The rest of this if simply scarey. The worst part of what happened in Germany from 1933 to 1945 is just how many people knew it was wrong, but they went ahead and did it or watched it happen without comment or resistance. That is why most Germans cringe from this subject.

Historically speaking, it is what you SHOULD have known, and what you SHOULD have done or not have done, given what others were doing at the same time.

To argue that the US was some morally marooned island is to argue that early Americans were mental midgets who could not keep up with developments in London, Paris, and elsewhere.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


All have sinned and fallen short of the law. Hence, by that standard, all US presidents past and future are and will be morally corrupt.

So now you need to clarify what you mean by 'corrupt'. What is your standard?

I'm also casual on religion. That is a tough question.
I only used the bible as a point of reference for a situation in which everyone was doing it and it still was not an acceptable practice. Still, If you used the 10 commandments as your law, an obvious violation of a commandment would be morally corrupt. I consider killing obvious. Stealing is not so obvious. Committing one of these sends and not asking forgiveness would cement your corruptness if your rule is the bible.
If it's U.S. law then violation of that law in the treatment of another humans would make you corrupt.

If you are an U.S. politician and you claim to be a christian I feel you are bound by both laws and you have probably stated so publicly making you so corrupt I personally want to vomit when I think of it. Of course only if you have authorized anything that would violate these laws you claim to be defending.

Is that clear?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by MrFun




I don't think it's too presumptuous, that if one has substantial investments and connections with a major industry, that the person is wealthy.

Bush's shoeshine boys on Apolyton will continue to hold the misguided notion that the Bush family is not corrupt, and thus, invalidate my example.

par of course, I guess

I'm waiting for the evidence of corruption, beyond being tied into the oil industry.

[Pax]

I do not consider killing in self defense a sin. I define self-defense as defending yourself when attacked as in 9-11 or Pearl Harbor but not Eminent Domain over Indians.

[Ben Kenobi]

If you are an U.S. politician and you claim to be a christian I feel you are bound by both laws and you have probably stated so publicly making you so corrupt

Okay. So corruption is relative by this standard. "What measure you use, will be measured to you." If someone felt that killing and stealing were perfectly okay in his book, then you could not condemn such a person as corrupt.

Do you believe that breaking a law in the United states would make a politician corrupt? Is that the bare minimum standard that they must meet, or should there be additional standards?

[Pax]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Okay. So corruption is relative by this standard. "What measure you use, will be measured to you." If someone felt that killing and stealing were perfectly okay in his book, then you could not condemn such a person as corrupt.

Do you believe that breaking a law in the United states would make a politician corrupt? Is that the bare minimum standard that they must meet, or should there be additional standards?

These are tough questions.

I am not saying corruption is relative. I think that there should be universal laws. I only say that these politicians in the U.S. profess to be Christians and are supposed to be bound by U.S. law. That puts them under the bible and the U.S. legal system at minimum.

It's still complicated. Let's take the trail of Tears and Imran. If Imran is an Army Calvary Officer herding these Indians across America because he believes in eminent domain he's not necessarilly corrupt. But when he reads his bible, reads the law, how can he forget thou shalt not kill. How can he still justify his actions when he sees old women and children dying while he rides above them on a horse. He sees their tears. At that point I deem him corrupt.
Another good example is the My lai incident(read about it if you don't know) My Lai and the trail of tears were a century apart.
I think the point you make above goes directly to the question of Henry Kissinger who is wanted by the world court (Anyone interested should look up the details). In the vacuum of no universal law the only laws left are the religous ones and the secular ones. If you can be convicted of the laws that you claim to believe in you are morally corrupt.