So, I've noticed that quite a few of the members here seem to think that conspiracy theories aren't rational and that they don't make sense and that they're impossible to prove and that somehow it's all fiction. What's so hard to believe about conspiracy theories? The government does control your education. Yes, the government does try to control and federalize as much things as they can. Our government has factions within it that are constantly trying going over the edge of what is constitutional. There are secret elite groups within our government.
Lobbyists do have much if not all the power in our current government today. The elite do meet at least once every year... they meet at the bilderberg group and they also meet at the Bohemian Groove. Is it really that hard to believe that while it may be a natural tendency for governments to act this way- and for governments to be corrupt- that perhaps there is more to it and there is a government-wide conspiracy driving the country into the ground?
A conspiracy is really just two people meeting together to plot a crime. People talk about conspiracies in law all the time. In a lot of law related things a lot of the things you hear people talk about are "conspiracy theories". So people come together to conspire to commit a crime. What makes you think that the government isn't conspiring with the UN and its allies to make a new world order, to carry out Agenda 21, to implement global carbon taxes, to brainwash the populace with the mass media that filters their information to make both sides of the government look good... and that the government doesn't have an expansionist policy that has caused a lot of Anti-Americanism around the world? What makes it so hard to believe that the more powerful countries are trying to manipulate the smaller ones with the World Bank? What makes it so hard to believe that the government is perhaps now monitoring all your communications? What makes it so hard to think that Kennedy could have been assassinated in the result of a conspiracy (it doesn't have to be a shadow govt conspiracy but you get my drift)? What makes it so hard... to believe that the federal reserve was a ponzi-scheme created by Rockefeller interests, Morgan interests, Loeb interests, Paul Warburg, Rotschild agents etc?
What makes it so hard to believe that the government probably allowed 9-11 to happen- at least- they didn't take much time to stop it when they had a lot of intelligence regarding the attack before hand? Why is it so hard to believe that politicians cater to lobbyists and extremely rich people? What's so hard to believe about the fact that we're drifting more towards fascism as a nation?
I want to ask you... what's so hard to believe? Obviously there will be a lot of bunk conspiracies... but to think that two or more men or women in the government CAN'T conspire to do something evil like people do in every day life is a bit silly.
They usually don't make any sense, and even when they do, they take the focus of what is important. Moreover, they're just insensitive, thousands of people died in 9/11, speculating about whether the government did it for purposes of entertainment seems somewhat wrong in my view.
Whether or not you believe in the 9/11 conspiracy theories, I'd argue that focusing on some conspiracy scenario takes the attention off what really matters: that there are severe consequences that result from meddling where "we" shouldn't. A conspiracy theorist would tell you that we need to reform the government and get rid of special interest groups (usually be increasing the size of government), I think the important message is that we need to get the hell out of the middle east. Moreover, a reading of Higgs will tell you that the government doesn't need to plan such an event to benefit from it.
You write about the power of special interests, and you're correct. But it besides the point, you can the results of rent seeking every time you get in a taxi in a major city or everytime you're asked for a prescription when you buy the most harmless of drugs. You don't need to go around searching for conspiracies in disasters such as 9/11.
Most importantly, however, is the fact that more often than not they don't stand up to the facts.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Hitler was a conspiracy theorist
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
Natalie: Hitler was a conspiracy theorist
That's a strawman. That's like saying Henry Ford was a Jew-Hater, so, all car-sales manufacturers must be Jew-haters.
What strawman? He never said that.
scineram: What strawman? He never said that.
I think he was implying that all conspiracy theorists must be like Hitler, or, at least was saying that they can be bad people.
Moreover, they're just insensitive, thousands of people died in 9/11,
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
SilentXtarian:I think he was implying that all conspiracy theorists must be like Hitler
No
SilentXtarian:at least was saying that they can be bad people.
yes, some can be "bad" or delusional, as evidenced in Hitler's example.
SilentXtarian:at least was saying that they can be bad people. yes, some can be "bad" or delusional, as evidenced in Hitler's example.
Right, however I will make a counter-argument to that and I will argue for however many irrational conspiracy theorists I've encountered there are about an equal amount of rational conspiracy theorists out there that have a really good understanding about how bad things are- and they aren't delusional.
GilesStratton:They usually don't make any sense, and even when they do, they take the focus of what is important.
Examples? Try to avoid strawmen.
GilesStratton:Moreover, they're just insensitive, thousands of people died in 9/11, speculating about whether the government did it for purposes of entertainment seems somewhat wrong in my view.
Like this strawman.
GilesStratton:Most importantly, however, is the fact that more often than not they don't stand up to the facts.
Not all conspiracy theories are equal. A conspiracy theory, is a theory about a conspiracy, not a conspiracy about a theory, although many people have been socialized to believe the latter definition over the former. The oldest trick in the book, is declaring a truth teller or seeker as a kook or nut.
Historical revisionism in the style of the Austrian school has exposed a great many conspiracy theories as conspiracy fact.
SilentXtarian:Yes, the government does try to control and federalize as much things as they can. Our government has factions within it that are constantly trying going over the edge of what is constitutional. There are secret elite groups within our government.
What you mention here can be proven because we can observe it. This is not conspiracy. These things are labled by the majority as conspiracy, but that does not make it so. Conspiracy is in and of itself an army of strawmen. A conspiracy theory is the correlation equals causation fallacy. It usually starts with someone giving godlike powers to a single entity and goes from there.
Criminals, there ought to be a law.
Criminals there ought to be a whole lot more. Bon Scott.
Most conspiracy theories that I've seen involve a few facts, then numerous assumptions, and then an assertion that the theory (with all the assumptions it's based on) is true. Credibility is then lost. Why should I believe that someone is correct, when they are asserting a truth that it's based on assumptions that may be false? I would certainly consider their theory as a possible explanation (unless I know of some verifiable facts that proves it's either flawed, or completely incorrect), but I would in no way consider it to be the truth, when in reality it's assumptions haven't been proven to be true.
Let's look at this from a mathematical perspective. Let's say that x is "the truth", and we want to know what it is. It's value is determined by 3 variables, a, b and c. Let's say it's a proven/verifiable fact that the value of a is 8. We don't know the values of b or c, and we don't know what operations are done on a, b or c. The search space is literally infinite. There are an unlimited number of possibilities, until you know all the values, and then there may still be multiple operations to choose from.
Now someone comes along and asserts that the value of x is 42. They claim they know x because they assume b is 14 and c is 20, and that x is equal to a + b + c (they assume there are only additions). Someone else may agree that x is 42, but they assume or believe (blindly, just as the first person) that b is 2 and c is 17, and that x = a + b * c. Someone else may not agree that x is even 42, but asserts that it is 1337, and provides different values for the variables and operations on those variables. The problem is that each person is merely stating their [blind] beliefs, while asserting them as the truth...one of them could be correct, or none of them could be correct, yet each asserts that they are correct without the necessary facts to prove it.
I have no problem with someone stating their belief as their belief. If I know of any facts that shows their belief is either flawed or wrong, then I know that much of it is wrong (and may be kind enough to share that with them, and hopefully provide them with a way to verify what I told them)...the rest of their belief I consider a possibility, but not necessarily the truth. When more facts are discovered, such as b being equal to 23, and that the equation is known to be a + b / c, the number of possibilities are reduced, disproving none, some or all currently believed theories. But the truth is not know until all the necessary facts to determine the truth are discovered.
To assert that your belief is the truth, while there are other possible explanations only demonstrates that you are gullible or lack reasoning skills, and causes you to lose credibility among those that are less gullible and have better reasoning skills. Sharing your beliefs about something is fine (if you acknowledge them as beliefs and not necessarily the truth), but asserting your mere beliefs as the truth discredits you among those that can recognize the difference between truth and possibility.
I've made statements in the past where I asserted my beliefs as truth, and since seeing evidence that my belief was wrong, I feel quite stupid for making those assertions. I've since made it a point to try to assert only known facts, and not state my beliefs as anything more than beliefs. Many "conspiracy theorists" blur this line so incredibly badly, there's no practical way to determine which of their statements are known facts and which are beliefs/assumptions that are yet to be proven/dis-proven, let alone determine which can be verified or which are the most/least important to verify/prove/dis-prove. Most people have little time to even attempt verifying any of the verifiable facts, let alone separate fact from belief/assumption and do a thorough investigation to discover the truth.
Why should anyone blindly believe that some unproven assertion (not to mention from some unknown person on the internet) is the truth? It would be completely irrational.
Sorry I didn't mean to answer the question twice, it took me awhile to compose my reply.
SilentXtarian:So, I've noticed that quite a few of the members here seem to think that conspiracy theories aren't rational and that they don't make sense and that they're impossible to prove and that somehow it's all fiction. What's so hard to believe about conspiracy theories? The government does control your education. Yes, the government does try to control and federalize as much things as they can. Our government has factions within it that are constantly trying going over the edge of what is constitutional. There are secret elite groups within our government.
I have no problem with them except that most are outright BS, and I can't stand people who are true believers of outright BS based on twisted or misinterpretted facts and/or outright lies. The government did not blow the twin towers up. Time to give up the claim. The CIA didn't kill Kennedy, it is not impossible to fire off three well aimed shots with the rifle Oswald used, nor is a 'magic bullet' necessary to account for all wounds.
I have no problem with the search for motives throughout history. There's a big difference between searching for motives and postulating people were acting on those and the outright denial of verifiable facts most conspiracy theorists engage in, not to mention the amount of raw assumptions that find their way into the theories and which get treated as fact. The Oswald rifle is a good example. I can be fired in the time necessary and is pretty accurate as well, especially if one is familiar with the weapon. Of course you take a poster boy conspiracy theorist like Oliver Stone and he makes a movie, and in the movie as they're reenacting the shooting one of his investigators offers up a throw away line about the rifle being "the world's worst shoulder weapon," that crap becomes fact even though it's provably incorrect.
gcopenhaver:Why should anyone blindly believe that some unproven assertion (not to mention from some unknown person on the internet) is the truth? It would be completely irrational.
People do it all of the time with religion and state.
SilentXtarian: What makes it so hard to believe that the government probably allowed 9-11 to happen- at least- they didn't take much time to stop it when they had a lot of intelligence regarding the attack before hand? Why is it so hard to believe that politicians cater to lobbyists and extremely rich people? What's so hard to believe about the fact that we're drifting more towards fascism as a nation? I want to ask you... what's so hard to believe? Obviously there will be a lot of bunk conspiracies... but to think that two or more men or women in the government CAN'T conspire to do something evil like people do in every day life is a bit silly.
Nothing makes it hard to believe. This is not the question at hand. What are the facts and what conclusions can be "reasonable" drawn out of them.
Can conclusions be wrong? Certainly. Is it therefor a uselesss endeavour to look afterthe facts? Certainly not.
My take on the whole conspiracy issue is, is the proposed conspiracy worth to be looked into or not. To say that conspiracy theorists are maniacs is not really helpful unless we would argue that never in human history conspiracies had happen. Trust me they have.
I always hear the argument about the state and the beauraucracy to be to dumb to coordinate and execute such things, I would tend to say that, for most of the time, this is correct, but there are well known historical events that show this is not true all the time.
Regarding 9/11 I been suspicious from day 1 (because of my former job) that the reason for the buildings to collaps was some tons of cerosin burning in some of the floors. I am not saying that it is impossible but it sure was against everything engineers knew about the effects physics can render to a building. Yet, this is a statement that is build from experience without having the "whole" data at hand.
Bottom line, there are a lot of open questions on the pro and the con side.
At least enough to make me curious.
In the begining there was nothing, and it exploded.
Terry Pratchett (on the big bang theory)
xahrx: The CIA didn't kill Kennedy, it is not impossible to fire off three well aimed shots with the rifle Oswald used, nor is a 'magic bullet' necessary to account for all wounds.
But maybe a magic bullet would be necessary to account for the video that shows that the shot didn't came from behind, or at least didn't seem to come from behind?
And btw. saying that Oswald would have not been a 1st grade suspect in a common murder because the evidence pointed into another directions is miles away fromsaying that the CIA did it.
Just as a last remark, ad hominem arguments usually backfire :-)
liberty student: gcopenhaver:Why should anyone blindly believe that some unproven assertion (not to mention from some unknown person on the internet) is the truth? It would be completely irrational. People do it all of the time with religion and state.
I was asking why, as in, asking for a reason. There isn't one (at least not a rational/logical one), which is why I said it would be irrational.
I always hear the argument about the state and the beauraucracy to be to dumb to coordinate and execute such things,
While I don't necessarily agree with 9/11 truthers, this could shed some light on the topic at hand
Conspiracy Theory of History
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
It hasn't having a conspiracy hypothesis that makes people (like me) attack. It's unwavering believing it as fact in that hypothetical state and polluting forums relentlessly propagating it as fact.
They seriously need to
The problem with government conspiracy theories is the government is massively incompetent. They cannot do basic things right let alone pull off hoaxes involving thousands or millions of government employees.
Bullshit - Conspiracy Theories (30min)
"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises
According to conspiracy theorists, governments are incompetent at everything except conspiracies. Of course, they're also very "competent" at hiding the said conspiracy as witnessed in Watergate and similar scandals ;)
Natalie:According to conspiracy theorists, governments are incompetent at everything except conspiracies.
So true.
Some of the biggest conspiracies are total nonsense, like JFK.
The Kennedy Assassination: Beyond Conspiracy (Video) (1hr 28min)
Conspiracy theorists are not interested in what happened but what they want to have happened. They don't know how to research and analyize anything. They jump to conclusions based on outright misinformation. It is a shame so many people are this gullible.
Caley McKibbin: It hasn't having a conspiracy hypothesis that makes people (like me) attack. It's unwavering believing it as fact in that hypothetical state and polluting forums relentlessly propagating it as fact. They seriously need to
Right back atcha, er, dude!
For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].
Poptech:The problem with government conspiracy theories is the government is massively incompetent.
But that's simply not true. It just betrays a lack of understanding about the true nature of government.
Government's greatest con is their ability to manufacture consent. They know precisely how to motivate people through fear, idealism and patriotism. An incompetent government would not be able to convince people that taxation was legal, or that the elections are valid. An incompetent government would not be able to convince people to send their sons and daughters to far away countries they can't find on a map, to kill people who can't find America on a map. It certainly would not convince people to pay their speeding tickets or that pot is a dangerous drug.
If they were incompetent, they would not have been able to force through the bailouts, or outwit the Constitution. If they were incompetent, then Sibel Edmonds testimony would be the equivalent of Watergate squared but instead, isn't even a leaky faucet.
Keep believing the government is dumber than you. Every time you pay your taxes. Every time someone you know comes home in a body bag. Every time an off duty cop shoots an unarmed civilian and gets acquitted. Every time a coke shipment enters the US.
You believe they are too dumb to be so evil, and you believe the conspiracists are too crazy to be right. At the end of the day, you do what you're told, directly and indirectly. You're the front line of their propaganda machine. You believe exactly what they want you to believe and you disbelieve exactly what they want you to disbelieve, about them, and about people who dissent.
What problems do conspiracy theorists have with us?
The reason government is able to do what it does is because too many people are also incompetent. While I do not support taxation and want it repealed, it is "legal". Why would the elections not be valid? In a volunteer military it is YOUR choice to join and deal with where they send you. If you don't like it, don't "volunteer". I only have a problem when they force you to join (draft). Pot is dangerous, it causes brain damage.
Memory, speed of thinking get worse over time with marijuana use (American Academy of Neurology)
And testicular cancer
Marijuana Use Linked to Increased Risk of Testicular Cancer (Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center)
But I am all about letting you choose to cause as much brain damage to yourself as you want. The big lie is that pot is safe. I am not surprised that many conspiracy theorists are weak minded pot heads because one of the side effects of pot is paranoia and delusional behavior.
The conspiracy theorists are crazy because none of their nonsense holds up to reality. Being anti-government or anti-big government has nothing to do with believing in delusional conspiracy theories.
Poptech:In a volunteer military it is YOUR choice to join and deal with where they send you. If you don't like it, don't "volunteer". I only have a problem when they force you to join (draft).
How many people were drafted to serve in Iraq again?
Face it, you're looking at a volunteer military right now, paid for by not-so-voluntary taxes.
Get over your blind love affair with the state.
Be it voluntarily recruited soldiers, voluntarily killing innocents half a world away, financed by stolen money or a police officer imposing the doctrine of his monopolist employer at home; coercion has no place in society.
Can somebody please post a link to a conspiracy theory that is rational? After watching Zeitgeist I and II on youtube I have become more interested in conspiracy theories that make sense. Not to take them as fact entirely, but to have a wider point of view than the official stories and "facts" presented in status quo education and media.
It is true that basing everyday life on conspiracy theories that cause more damage to a person and society than protect them is a bad idea.
It also a bad idea to take knowledge about the way the world and government works for granted, and shutting oneself up to new information just because it has not become obvious to the common academic.
Alan Riedel: Can somebody please post a link to a conspiracy theory that is rational? After watching Zeitgeist I and II on youtube I have become more interested in conspiracy theories that make sense. Not to take them as fact entirely, but to have a wider point of view than the official stories and "facts" presented in status quo education and media. It is true that basing everyday life on conspiracy theories that cause more damage to a person and society than protect them is a bad idea. It also a bad idea to take knowledge about the way the world and government works for granted, and shutting oneself up to new information just because it has not become obvious to the common academic.
Careful with Zeitgeist, most of the crap in it, is just that; crap. Quite to the contrary, most so-called 'conspiracy theorists' actually reject a lot of material.
Poptech:Some of the biggest conspiracies are total nonsense, like JFK.
Don't forget about the fake moon landings (absolutely all of them).
Poptech:Conspiracy theorists are not interested in what happened but what they want to have happened.
Exactly. I remember talking to a guy right after 9/11 who claimed that Bush was behind everything. "How do you know?" "Because Bush is eeevil!" "Do you have any evidence?" "Something will come up". And that was months before the Commission report.
Poptech:They don't know how to research and analyize anything.
Did you read al Qaeda books by Peter Lance, the investigative journalist? I listened to his interview so I'll try to buy his books to get more details. He's also critical of the official investigation, but for different reasons and has come up with something far more interesting and probable that any truthers ever could.
Following the 9/11 attacks Lance began investigating the origins of the FBI's original probe of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Ahmed Yousef. After visiting Yousef's former bomb factory in the Philippines, he came away with 100's of pages of classified documents proving that Yousef had set the 9/11 plot into motion as early as 1994. Lance then went back and examined the FBI's original efforts to stop Yousef in 1992 as he built the first WTC device. The result is his acclaimed investigative book from Harper Collins 1000 YEARS FOR REVENGE.
Lance followed that book with COVER UP in 2004. In it he established evidence that federal officials entered into an “ends/means” decision in 1996 that buried a treasure trove of al Qaeda-related intelligence in order to preserve a series of Mafia-related cases in the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn).
Lance presented probative evidence in the book that a senior Organized Crime Supervisory Special Agent in the FBI’s New York Office (NYO) may have been in a corrupt relationship with a Colombo Family killer. It was the FBI’s desire to prevent this potential scandal from tanking the mob cases, that led, Lance determined, to the al Qaeda evidence suppression.
A year after COVER UP’s publication the Brooklyn D.A. commenced a grant jury investigation inspired, in part, by Lance’s revelations about the Supervisory Special Agent: R. Lindley DeVecchio. On March 30th, 2006 DeVecchio was indicted on four counts of second degree murder stemming from that D.A.’s investigation.
In TRIPLE CROSS, the final book in Lance’s 9/11 investigative trilogy, he provides stunning evidence that senior FBI and Justice Dept. officials may have obstructed justice in their failure to monitor Ali A Mohamed, Osama bin Laden’s principal spy inside the United. States.
Just reading the timeline on his website is illuminating.
He even claims that there was a connection between the OKC bombers and Yousef and suspects that TWA Flight 800 crashed in 1996 because of the explosives smuggled on board (found by FBI on the crash site but later they claimed it was spilled by the K-9 officer during the test - how lame is that?)
In other words, of all the strange events prior or after 9/11 the truthers have to come up with the craziest scenarios without any real evidence.
What's so hard to believe about conspiracy theories?
It's so hard to believe in conspiracy theories because they either have no evidence for them or they only have false evidence supporting them. e.g. The 9/11 "Truth" Movement actually claims that the WTC towers free fell, against all evidence.
Political Atheists Blog
Seph:How many people were drafted to serve in Iraq again?
Zero people were drafted. Millions volunteered. If you don't like where they send you don't "volunteer".
Seph:Face it, you're looking at a volunteer military right now, paid for by not-so-voluntary taxes.
These are two separate issues. Being mad about paying taxes has nothing to do with the military being voluntary.
Seph:Get over your blind love affair with the state.
Please explain my "love affair" with the state, this should be interesting.
krazy kaju: What's so hard to believe about conspiracy theories? It's so hard to believe in conspiracy theories because they either have no evidence for them or they only have false evidence supporting them. e.g. The 9/11 "Truth" Movement actually claims that the WTC towers free fell, against all evidence.
Actually, almost all truthers I have ever heard, have stated virtual free fall speed.
Also, building 7 is far more quoted in this context than the towers. Nice try with the straw man though. That's what happens when you google search: "9/11 debunked", instead of becoming informed on both sides of the issue.
Seph: krazy kaju: What's so hard to believe about conspiracy theories? It's so hard to believe in conspiracy theories because they either have no evidence for them or they only have false evidence supporting them. e.g. The 9/11 "Truth" Movement actually claims that the WTC towers free fell, against all evidence. Actually, almost all truthers I have ever heard, have stated virtual free fall speed. Also, building 7 is far more quoted in this context than the towers. Nice try with the straw man though. That's what happens when you google search: "9/11 debunked", instead of becoming informed on both sides of the issue.
I actually have researched both sides, and from what I've seen and read, most claim that the buildings fell at free fall speed. If you look at the video, it does not even support the "virtual free fall" claim. Here is the refutation of the WTC 7 conspiracy theories.
Poptech:Zero people were drafted. Millions volunteered. If you don't like where they send you don't "volunteer".
Exactly my point. The Iraq war fits your standards for a just and acceptable war; that is, its entirely a volunteer army.
You really dont see anything wrong with this view?
Poptech:These are two separate issues. Being mad about paying taxes has nothing to do with the military being voluntary.
How are these soldiers going to get paid?
Unless its via a magic fairy, then the issues of taxation and the military are related.
Poptech:Please explain my "love affair" with the state, this should be interesting.
You're a soft communist, that's why.
Since you advocate the state, I assume you advocate some form of forceful exchange of money, from the people, to the government.
Forceful exchange implies that the government and not the individual is the supreme owner of all land within its arbitrary jurisdiction. If you don't agree with its rules, it has the right to take away your property. A minarchy may have less rules, but the ability of the government to confiscate your property should you not abide by these rules is no less prevalent.
I submit that someone who has the authority to confiscate your property, should you refuse to patronize it, is, not you, the ultimate owner of the property. Anything you do on your property, you do not because you have the authority to do so, but because the government has made no law prohibiting it.
Total Communism simply has more rules sent down on high from the state, telling the individual what he is permitted to do with property. Under minarchy, the state is still the ultimate owner of all property, it's just a 'better' owner, because it allows the individuals to have more freedom, under its ultimate domain.
krazy kaju: Seph: krazy kaju: What's so hard to believe about conspiracy theories? It's so hard to believe in conspiracy theories because they either have no evidence for them or they only have false evidence supporting them. e.g. The 9/11 "Truth" Movement actually claims that the WTC towers free fell, against all evidence. Actually, almost all truthers I have ever heard, have stated virtual free fall speed. Also, building 7 is far more quoted in this context than the towers. Nice try with the straw man though. That's what happens when you google search: "9/11 debunked", instead of becoming informed on both sides of the issue. I actually have researched both sides, and from what I've seen and read, most claim that the buildings fell at free fall speed. If you look at the video, it does not even support the "virtual free fall" claim. Here is the refutation of the WTC 7 conspiracy theories.
That video has been destroyed once and for all the by the testimony of the now deceased Barry Jennings, who reported:
-Massive explosions in WTC 7
-Dead bodies
-Huge fireballs
All before the collapse of either WTC 1 or 2.
striecx:Can somebody please post a link to a conspiracy theory that is rational?
This is an oxymoron.
striecx:After watching Zeitgeist I and II on youtube I have become more interested in conspiracy theories that make sense.
Well not much in Zeitgeist makes sense.
Zeitgeist The Movie: 911 - Critical Analysis - Flight Manifests (Video) (4min)Zeitgeist The Movie: 911 - Critical Analysis - WTC7 (1/2) (Video) (10min)Zeitgeist The Movie: 911 - Critical Analysis - WTC7 (2/2) (Video) (6min)Zeitgeist The Movie: 911 - Critical Analysis - Cut Column (Video) (6min)
Seph:Exactly my point. The Iraq war fits your standards for a just and acceptable war; that is, its entirely a volunteer army. You really dont see anything wrong with this view?
I don't see anything wrong with your strawman argument? Of course I do it is called a strawman argument for a reason.
Seph:How are these soldiers going to get paid?
Do volunteer firemen get paid?
Seph:You're a soft communist, that's why.
ROFLMAO!!! This has to be the most idiotic comment yet on this forum. You are a clueless fool who needs to study the definition of words.