TPS Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 Show me where I used those words? You asked for one example, I gave you two. Some is under the table, some isn't. If you don't want to believe it for whatever reason then please don't make such posts. I don't have the time for it, our men and women of the armed services deserve better, as do our taxpayers at this time of budget crisis in Washington. There doesn't necessarily have to be a person or some people who control the strings. Peter Dale Scott uses the term "deep politics." There are enough vested (money) interests in maintaining the status quo, not just domestically, but globally. The MIC is one vested institutional interest that wields significant power. There are other institutionalized interests whose interests often coincide with the MIC, so there is a vested institutional structure that benefits from a particular outcome. I think it's naive to believe there aren't machinations "behind the scenes." Asking JtSP to prove there IS a conspiracy is no different than asking anyone on the other side to prove there IS NOT. One can choose the view that (most) economic/political (significant) actions are somewhat random, or one can take the view that (most) things happen for a purpose. I choose to believe the latter, and use that perspective to both analyze and predict events. So far, the evidence supports my continued belief in utilizing that perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 There doesn't necessarily have to be a person or some people who control the strings. Peter Dale Scott uses the term "deep politics." There are enough vested (money) interests in maintaining the status quo, not just domestically, but globally. The MIC is one vested institutional interest that wields significant power. There are other institutionalized interests whose interests often coincide with the MIC, so there is a vested institutional structure that benefits from a particular outcome. I think it's naive to believe there aren't machinations "behind the scenes." Asking JtSP to prove there IS a conspiracy is no different than asking anyone on the other side to prove there IS NOT. One can choose the view that (most) economic/political (significant) actions are somewhat random, or one can take the view that (most) things happen for a purpose. I choose to believe the latter, and use that perspective to both analyze and predict events. So far, the evidence supports my continued belief in utilizing that perspective. The difference, though, is the difference between systemic inertia (as you said, vested interests in maintaining the status quo) and directed action based on conscious intent (JtSP's nuttiness). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 (edited) There doesn't necessarily have to be a person or some people who control the strings. Peter Dale Scott uses the term "deep politics." There are enough vested (money) interests in maintaining the status quo, not just domestically, but globally. The MIC is one vested institutional interest that wields significant power. There are other institutionalized interests whose interests often coincide with the MIC, so there is a vested institutional structure that benefits from a particular outcome. I think it's naive to believe there aren't machinations "behind the scenes." Asking JtSP to prove there IS a conspiracy is no different than asking anyone on the other side to prove there IS NOT. One can choose the view that (most) economic/political (significant) actions are somewhat random, or one can take the view that (most) things happen for a purpose. I choose to believe the latter, and use that perspective to both analyze and predict events. So far, the evidence supports my continued belief in utilizing that perspective. I have no problem with someone asking for evidence to back up a position. That's fair. And there's plenty of anectodal evidence to support it's a pervasive problem, like the US military budget being more than 50% of the rest of the world's ... combined, and commentary from insiders like Roberts. But the "dude" asked for one specific example. Rather than challenging his "test", I gave him a clear example (Richard Perle) and be barfed all over it. Then I gave him another one (Duke Cunnungham) while pointing out his flawed "test", and he barfed all over himself. Edited March 6, 2011 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Show me where I used those words? You asked for one example, I gave you two. Some is under the table, some isn't. If you don't want to believe it for whatever reason then please don't make such posts. I don't have the time for it, our men and women of the armed services deserve better, as do our taxpayers at this time of budget crisis in Washington. First of all this is a discussion board so don't be so self righteous you're not saving the world here. What I simply put forth originally is a call for proof for those who agree with the meat heads in the video. You stepped up to defend the assertion of a all powerful oligarchic(from the video) star chamber rule, so I assumed you agree with it. I stand corrected I'm glad to see you are not one of those conspiracy nut cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 First of all this is a discussion board so don't be so self righteous you're not saving the world here. What I simply put forth originally is a call for proof for those who agree with the meat heads in the video. You stepped up to defend the assertion of a all powerful oligarchic(from the video) star chamber rule, so I assumed you agree with it. I stand corrected I'm glad to see you are not one of those conspiracy nut cases. He mentioned AIPAC and the defense lobby. He's right, they do have massive influence on US policy. Neither one is just "one person", they're both large bodies. So again your test is faulty. But if you want information on at least one of these bodies, here's a speech by Professor John Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 So again your test is faulty. But if you want information on at least one of these bodies, here's a speech by Professor John Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago. youtube.com/watch?v=1oAcbwScE6Y Thats because you have no answers to a very reasonable question. The burden of proof is with you not me. All the BS you have thrown at me are groups that are legal, open and not a secret. Until you have something other than innuendo and fear mongering to proof otherwise you are just another person of many with a religious belief in the occult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Thats because you have no answers to a very reasonable question. The burden of proof is with you not me. All the BS you have thrown at me are groups that are legal, open and not a secret. Until you have something other than innuendo and fear mongering to proof otherwise you are just another person of many with a religious belief in the occult. If they weren't, he'd have to invent groups that are legal, open, and not secret. That's kind of the point of conspiracy theories...though they know the same **** as the rest of us, they get to feel special about themselves because they think they know "secrets". Plus, JtSP suffers from the "Great Man in History" fallacy...between that and his conspiracy nuttiness, there's no curing him of his innate stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 (edited) If they weren't, he'd have to invent groups that are legal, open, and not secret. That's kind of the point of conspiracy theories...though they know the same **** as the rest of us, they get to feel special about themselves because they think they know "secrets". Plus, JtSP suffers from the "Great Man in History" fallacy...between that and his conspiracy nuttiness, there's no curing him of his innate stupidity. With all the groups in the world that plot evils things right in the open in front of you, why would any reasonable person waste resources looking for star chambers. I am actually open to the idea that there are powerful groups in high places with secret agendas. For as long as some of these groups that JtsP have mentioned have been around, you would have though by now someone would have infiltrated them and recorded one of their "secret meetings" with a hidden camera. Put in the proper context, I might consider this pretty strong evidence. Edited March 7, 2011 by whateverdude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 I am actually open to the idea that there are powerful groups in high places with secret agendas. Agendas...maybe. Plans...no. The idea that any small group of people is executing a plan for world domination is ludicrous, and can be believed only by intellectual children who've never had to plan anything more complicated than a grilled cheese sandwich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 (edited) Thats because you have no answers to a very reasonable question. The burden of proof is with you not me. All the BS you have thrown at me are groups that are legal, open and not a secret. Until you have something other than innuendo and fear mongering to proof otherwise you are just another person of many with a religious belief in the occult. Why do you keep inventing arbitrary criteria as a test if there's a military-industrial complex operating with excess influence in America? After your "show me the one man" test was soundly defeated, now you've moved onto "legal" as your binary criteria. Fact is what groups like AIPAC and the defense lobby do IS LEGAL in many cases. That doesn't mean they're not operating with excess undue influence that run counter to American interests. Prof Mearsheimer makes that very point in his speech on AIPAC. Did you bother watching? What's next out of you? "None of the people mentioned are women. Show me an example of a woman involved otherwise it's just man-hating BS and innuendo." But seriously, if you're comitted to one view and nothing will change your mind, then just say that. Attempting to have an honest exchange with you is really quite annoying at this point. Edited March 7, 2011 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted March 7, 2011 Author Share Posted March 7, 2011 Agendas...maybe. Plans...no. The idea that any small group of people is executing a plan for world domination is ludicrous, and can be believed only by intellectual children who've never had to plan anything more complicated than a grilled cheese sandwich. Right, Agendas are not secrete if you care look but they may not be commonly known or well understood- plans are often secrete. Communism was not a secrete agenda but there were many secrete plans in it's implementation in different countries. There are no heads or hierarchy as such but there is networks of influential people with intersecting interests, often these people have been to very similar schools, lead similar lives,and have similar outlooks. Neo-liberalism is a agenda not a conspiracy but there have been conspiracies to enable neo-libralism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Agendas...maybe. Plans...no. The idea that any small group of people is executing a plan for world domination is ludicrous, and can be believed only by intellectual children who've never had to plan anything more complicated than a grilled cheese sandwich. You need to get your head out of the sand stonecutters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Right, Agendas are not secrete if you care look but they may not be commonly known or well understood- plans are often secrete. Communism was not a secrete agenda but there were many secrete plans in it's implementation in different countries. There are no heads or hierarchy as such but there is networks of influential people with intersecting interests, often these people have been to very similar schools, lead similar lives,and have similar outlooks. Neo-liberalism is a agenda not a conspiracy but there have been conspiracies to enable neo-libralism. Think about it though: the national media and war mongers willingly sold us a WMD conspiracy theory on Iraq, and now they're doing it on Iran. Yet when their agenda and network is rightfully likened to a conspiracy, then you're labelled a "wacky conspiracy" theorist. Again worth repeating: these are the same people who sold us a bogus WMD conspiracy theory on Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Think about it though: the national media and war mongers willingly sold us a WMD conspiracy theory on Iraq, and now they're doing it on Iran. Yet when their agenda and network is rightfully likened to a conspiracy, then you're labelled a "wacky conspiracy" theorist. Again worth repeating: these are the same people who sold us a bogus WMD conspiracy theory on Iraq. Charlie? That you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 I have no problem with someone asking for evidence to back up a position. That's fair. And there's plenty of anectodal evidence to support it's a pervasive problem, like the US military budget being more than 50% of the rest of the world's ... combined, and commentary from insiders like Roberts. But the "dude" asked for one specific example. Rather than challenging his "test", I gave him a clear example (Richard Perle) and be barfed all over it. Then I gave him another one (Duke Cunnungham) while pointing out his flawed "test", and he barfed all over himself. Shouldn't you be shoveling the snow out of MacUngie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts