Is extrapolation a valid argument? - Forum - Skeptic Project

Page By Category

Forum - Is extrapolation a valid argument?

Looking for opinions

Tags: history, repeat [ Add Tags ]

[ Return to General Conspiracy Stuff | Reply to Topic ]

Posted: May 12, 2012 - 06:17

(0)

Level: 0

Just wondering what the people in here think about solid argumentation, when it is an extrapolation of historic events to the current time. Since it is quite clear that history has repeated itsself so many times, I believe looking at historic events and using them to interpret them on current days events, is valid.

A lot of conspiracy theories are based on interpretations of actual (historic) facts (not all CT's; but some at least).

For example, the conspiracy theory of bankers, forming a FED cartel and using it to control the economy to their own benefit. This theory usually brings up the battle of Waterloo (and the subsequent economic panic in Great Brittain), economic panics around the 1880's-1910's, the great depression, the Weimar republic etc. to explain what will happen in our current crisis (and then assumes yet another active role by the bankers to profit of the current crisis). Their explanation usually boils down to the bankers trying to acquire more wealth and especially control out of it. To me, looking closely at the historic events I mentioned, it is obvious there in fact IS a pattern and in the past, the bankers HAVE acquired more wealth and power. Also it is clear, the same pattern is showing itsself in the current time as well. Does extrapolation in this theory hold in your opinion?

Same could be said for the theory that USA is becoming a tyranny. Looking at history of political and legislative events (e.g. pre-French Revolution events, pre-WW2 events etc.), one could also argue this tyranny theory. Is this valid in your opinion?

I could add some extra examples and, if requested, documentation of the mentioned events. But since I feel most people in here have probably done sufficient research already, I assume my point (and question) are clear now. What do you think, is history a valid argument to use for (predictive) theories?

[ Top | Reply to Topic ]

Posted: May 12, 2012 - 11:40

(0)

Paid Disinformation Blogger

Level: 14
CS Original

Extrapolation of historical events to the current time can sometimes be a valid argument, but the problem is that conspiracy theorists always get history wrong.

For example, I had a nutter who believed in NWO/Illuminati insist to me that "the bankers" got the United States into World War I. He cited Woodrow Wilson's 1916 campaign pledge to keep the US out of the European war, and the about-face on that pledge, as "proof" that Wilson had been manipulated by some shadowy cartel.

Setting aside the fact that there was no evidence to prove the existence of this cartel in the first place, it was clear that he totally misunderstood the history he was presenting. He did not understand the true reasons for the US's entry into World War I. He did not understand that Wilson never pledged to keep the US out of the war; in fact his policy throughout the conflict was entirely consistent. He did not understand that the US economy would have benefitted far more from remaining neutral than it would have from entering the war as a belligerent--but conspiracy theorists, in their reductive and wrong understanding of history, are quick to jump to the unwarranted conclusion that war always equals profits.

A conspiracy nutter trying to tell you about history is like a conspiracy nutter trying to tell you about physics. Expect to hear a few statements that faintly resemble isolated bits of the truth, but totally distorted, warped and bastardized into a shit burrito. You can't even get to the question of whether "extrapolation from history" is a valid form of reasoning until you actually understand the history you're trying to extrapolate from.

Hope this helps.

[ Top | Reply to Topic ]

Posted: May 13, 2012 - 00:59

(0)

Level: 0

Quote from Damarauder

Just wondering what the people in here think about solid argumentation, when it is an extrapolation of historic events to the current time. Since it is quite clear that history has repeated itsself so many times, I believe looking at historic events and using them to interpret them on current days events, is valid.

It could be valid. I think some theories regarding the reasons why revolutions happen are based off of historical facts.
Quote from Damarauder
A lot of conspiracy theories are based on interpretations of actual (historic) facts (not all CT's; but some at least).

For example, the conspiracy theory of bankers, forming a FED cartel and using it to control the economy to their own benefit. This theory usually brings up the battle of Waterloo (and the subsequent economic panic in Great Brittain), economic panics around the 1880's-1910's, the great depression, the Weimar republic etc. to explain what will happen in our current crisis (and then assumes yet another active role by the bankers to profit of the current crisis).

I'm not sure how the battle of waterloo proves anything regarding bankers attempting to gain power. As for that being an explanation as to what will happen in our current crisis, I don't consider them as valid reasons or valid arguments explaining what will happen. In the past, the US has faced hard economic times, but that's attributed to the current economic system that we have now. Crises are bound to happen in capitalistic systems. The crises are then usually followed by times of repair until everything is right with the world. The heads of corporations and banks aren't interested in gaining any sort of political power over the nation anyway.

Quote from Damarauder
Their explanation usually boils down to the bankers trying to acquire more wealth and especially control out of it. To me, looking closely at the historic events I mentioned, it is obvious there in fact IS a pattern and in the past, the bankers HAVE acquired more wealth and power. Also it is clear, the same pattern is showing itsself in the current time as well. Does extrapolation in this theory hold in your opinion?

Acquisition of more wealth I can agree with. Gaining more power is something I'm going to need more convincing on.

Quote from Damarauder
Same could be said for the theory that USA is becoming a tyranny. Looking at history of political and legislative events (e.g. pre-French Revolution events, pre-WW2 events etc.), one could also argue this tyranny theory. Is this valid in your opinion?

I used to think this too, until I heard of Vladmir Putin and the Iranian Guardian council. There's also China and North Korea to keep in mind too.
There's no denying that historically the US has implemented policies that could be deemed "tyrannical". However these policies tend to fade away after a certain amount of time and typically happen in times of war. After a certain amount of time however, these policies end up in the trash can.

Quote from Damarauder
I could add some extra examples and, if requested, documentation of the mentioned events. But since I feel most people in here have probably done sufficient research already, I assume my point (and question) are clear now. What do you think, is history a valid argument to use for (predictive) theories?

I would try to avoid making predictions in general. You're best bet would be making a guess, and then check it with others to see if it is a good guess or not.

[ Top | Reply to Topic ]

Posted: May 13, 2012 - 08:11

(0)

Level: 6
CS Original

You can use extrapolation to come up with a hypothesis or speculative prediction, but you should find supportive evidence to make a solid point.

In the case of the bankers, what evidence is there to support the assumption that Wall Street is using its power to increase its control over the political process? Well, there's Obama clean pro-WS voting record, there's the minimal response against major banks in 2007 and even now there isn't any significant increase in effective regulation. A Glass-Steagall-equivalent, the vital piece of Dodd-Frank, is still not in place and the derivative regulations are so sloppy to be essentially useless.

So, looking at the evidence we have, the assumption that banks use their wealth and influence to gain more of the same seems to prove correct for the present. Note the difference between this type of reasoning and the popular tactic CTers will use, which consists of jumping straight from "Here's a vague trend supported by a few data points" to "This trend must be an accurate representation of what is going to happen".

[ Top | Reply to Topic ]

Posted: May 19, 2012 - 05:19

(0)

Level: 0

In reply to emcada:

Quote emcada:
I'm not sure how the battle of waterloo proves anything regarding bankers attempting to gain power. As for that being an explanation as to what will happen in our current crisis, I don't consider them as valid reasons or valid arguments explaining what will happen. In the past, the US has faced hard economic times, but that's attributed to the current economic system that we have now. Crises are bound to happen in capitalistic systems. The crises are then usually followed by times of repair until everything is right with the world. The heads of corporations and banks aren't interested in gaining any sort of political power over the nation anyway.

It's quite evident that bankers in Great Britain acquired huge wealth (and thus power; money/property really is power, let's not forget that) at the time of the battle of Waterloo. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Mayer_Rothschild look for "His four brothers helped co-ordinate activities across the continent, and the family developed a network of agents, shippers and couriers to transport gold - and information - across Europe. This private intelligence service enabled Nathan to receive in London the news of Wellington's victory at the Battle of Waterloo a full day ahead of the government's official messengers")

You're right that the world has faced more crisis, but the current one, for me, resembles this one the most: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_of_the_Third_Century. Look for chapter "Economic impact". The current financial crisis (and the military situation in the world) all resemble the Roman situation almost perfectly. In other words, looking at history, I would predict a permanent downfall of the US economic hegemony.

Quote emcada:
Acquisition of more wealth I can agree with. Gaining more power is something I'm going to need more convincing on.

Wealth=power. But let's take the story of the Rockefellers as an example. Watch this http://www.history.com/videos/john-d-rockefeller-oil-money-and-power#john-d-rockefeller-oil-money-and-power, and you will see that power and wealth go hand-in-hand, and so does the ambition to acquire both. I think it´s a nobrainer, but if you need more proof. I reccommend reading some biographies ;)

Quote emcada:
I used to think this too, until I heard of Vladmir Putin and the Iranian Guardian council. There's also China and North Korea to keep in mind too.
There's no denying that historically the US has implemented policies that could be deemed "tyrannical". However these policies tend to fade away after a certain amount of time and typically happen in times of war. After a certain amount of time however, these policies end up in the trash can.

My point here is in fact that looking at current policies around the Western (and Eastern) world, seem to indicate that a major war is coming up.

In general, I believe simply looking at the donors for the presidential candidates in the US, tells us enough. Banks and major corporation do not donate money to a campaign 'for the fun of it'. One that thinks that, is really ignorant.

[ Top | Reply to Topic ]

Posted: May 20, 2012 - 03:35

(0)

Level: 0

Quote from Damarauder

In reply to emcada:

It's quite evident that bankers in Great Britain acquired huge wealth (and thus power; money/property really is power, let's not forget that) at the time of the battle of Waterloo. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Mayer_Rothschild look for "His four brothers helped co-ordinate activities across the continent, and the family developed a network of agents, shippers and couriers to transport gold - and information - across Europe. This private intelligence service enabled Nathan to receive in London the news of Wellington's victory at the Battle of Waterloo a full day ahead of the government's official messengers")

But how does this prove creating a FED cartel to manipulate the economy that you mentioned in your first post?

Quote from Damarauder

You're right that the world has faced more crisis, but the current one, for me, resembles this one the most: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_of_the_Third_Century. Look for chapter "Economic impact". The current financial crisis (and the military situation in the world) all resemble the Roman situation almost perfectly. In other words, looking at history, I would predict a permanent downfall of the US economic hegemony.

It does seem to be almost mirrored, however there are portions of the Crisis of the Third Century that don't make it so. As noted in your own source, the government began to not only devalue their own currency but then grabbed other currency and brought that into the market. Let's also not forget that Rome in that time was in an unstable environment too.

Quote emcada:
Acquisition of more wealth I can agree with. Gaining more power is something I'm going to need more convincing on.

Quote from Damarauder

Wealth=power. But let's take the story of the Rockefellers as an example. Watch this http://www.history.com/videos/john-d-rockefeller-oil-money-and-power#john-d-rockefeller-oil-money-and-power, and you will see that power and wealth go hand-in-hand, and so does the ambition to acquire both. I think it´s a nobrainer, but if you need more proof. I reccommend reading some biographies ;)

Remind me how much power Mark Zuckerberg has?

Quote from Damarauder

Quote emcada:
I used to think this too, until I heard of Vladmir Putin and the Iranian Guardian council. There's also China and North Korea to keep in mind too.
There's no denying that historically the US has implemented policies that could be deemed "tyrannical". However these policies tend to fade away after a certain amount of time and typically happen in times of war. After a certain amount of time however, these policies end up in the trash can.

My point here is in fact that looking at current policies around the Western (and Eastern) world, seem to indicate that a major war is coming up.

That doesn't relate to your original post.

Same could be said for the theory that USA is becoming a tyranny. Looking at history of political and legislative events (e.g. pre-French Revolution events, pre-WW2 events etc.), one could also argue this tyranny theory. Is this valid in your opinion?

Even so, Alex Jones has been claiming that the next major war would be coming up for the past couple of years. So far, nothing has happened.

#6

[ Top | Reply to Topic ]

Posted: May 20, 2012 - 07:20

(0)

Level: 0

My point with the Waterloo battle, is that there's a huge parallel to be drawn between for example 9/11 (also lots of speculation on stocks, few people earning loads of money) and what the bankers did in Great Britain at that time, which was: buying up half of the country, for cents on the pound! So in fact, using extrapolation here, it would appear that some people had knowledge prior to the planes hitting WTC. (So yea, the argument was perhaps a bit out of place here; but still a good example of what conclusions extrapolation could lead to). Best example of the FED cartel manipulating the economy is ofcourse the great depression. Ofcourse one can argue that 'they did not know what to do', but they sure as hell screwed up. Listen to Milton Friedman on that topic :)

The exact difference you point out that happened in the Roman empire (creation competing currencies), is what you will see next in the USA. Ron Paul is already pushing for it, and the other (GOP) candidates will probably move in his direction. Possibly Ron Paul could even become POTUS in 2012 or 2016. He advocates putting the dollar up with competition (gold+silver). This idea is getting more and more mainstream by the day. Devaluation of the dollar ofcourse has already been done. The dollar will fall, somewhere in this decade.

Mark Zuckerberg drinks tea with Obama. He has several billions. Obama wants several billions. That's power. One could call me a paranoid freak, but to me that would just proof ignorance :)

That did relate to my original post, since it was another example of extrapolation of history. Putting the 'Law of suspects', 'Reichtag fire decree' and 'Regulation 18b' in one line with the 'Patriot act/NDAA'. The legislation suggests war or revolution. You will see a very clear pattern throughout history looking a legislation like that.

Predictions based on historic extrapolation are ofcourse always hard, since conditions are never exactly the same. But calling a (wide) prediction a faillure, because it has not happened yet, is ofcourse not valid. On the historic timeline, one decade more or less is irrelevant.

[ Top | Reply to Topic ]

Posted: May 20, 2012 - 16:30

(0)

Level: 0

Quote from Damarauder

My point with the Waterloo battle, is that there's a huge parallel to be drawn between for example 9/11 (also lots of speculation on stocks, few people earning loads of money) and what the bankers did in Great Britain at that time, which was: buying up half of the country, for cents on the pound! So in fact, using extrapolation here, it would appear that some people had knowledge prior to the planes hitting WTC. (So yea, the argument was perhaps a bit out of place here; but still a good example of what conclusions extrapolation could lead to).

That seems odd to compare the Battle of Waterloo with 9/11. Nathan Rotschild did what anyone with that kind of status and money could do. 9/11 was an unpredictable event. I guess you're trying to tie the rise of oil stocks like Haliburton to bankers knowing beforehand about 9/11 which doing so would be wrong. In fact any stock that increased post-9/11 is seriously coincidental. It would be similar to investing in IBM stocks back in the 80s when PCs first came out.

Quote from Damarauder
Best example of the FED cartel manipulating the economy is ofcourse the great depression. Ofcourse one can argue that 'they did not know what to do', but they sure as hell screwed up. Listen to Milton Friedman on that topic :)

Ben Bernarke agrees with Milton Friedman on that too btw. Friedman and Bernarke both agree that the FED's poor policy is what triggered the collapse of the Great Depression. I fail to see how a FED cartel manipulated the economy for a purposeful collapse anyways.

Quote from Damarauder
The exact difference you point out that happened in the Roman empire (creation competing currencies), is what you will see next in the USA. Ron Paul is already pushing for it, and the other (GOP) candidates will probably move in his direction. Possibly Ron Paul could even become POTUS in 2012 or 2016. He advocates putting the dollar up with competition (gold+silver). This idea is getting more and more mainstream by the day. Devaluation of the dollar ofcourse has already been done. The dollar will fall, somewhere in this decade.

I also pointed out that the Roman Empire during the collapse had an unstabe environment too. I heard about Ron Paul wanting to have a second currency to compete with the current currency we have now, though I didn't know he was still on that bandwagon. I thought he jumped ship and just stayed on the gold standard auto fix of his. Nevertheless, the US will never have competing currencies. For one thing Paul has 0 to no chance of actually getting elected in 2012 and from what I heard he decided he wouldn't want to run for the 2016 bid. Secondly, the idea of gold+silver competition only appears to Paul's followers anyways. They are already a fringe bunch of people with insane ideas that the majority of the US have acknowledged by this time. Even if by some chance that this idea did catch on, economists would immediately respond with various reasons why this is a horrible idea. This is one of the benefits of having an expert dependent society.

Quote from Damarauder
Mark Zuckerberg drinks tea with Obama. He has several billions. Obama wants several billions. That's power. One could call me a paranoid freak, but to me that would just proof ignorance :)

I'll admit you have a point, though just to be stingy, wouldn't that mean that every other US citizen would also have power too since we have the votes and Obama needs those votes?

Quote from Damarauder
That did relate to my original post, since it was another example of extrapolation of history. Putting the 'Law of suspects', 'Reichtag fire decree' and 'Regulation 18b' in one line with the 'Patriot act/NDAA'. The legislation suggests war or revolution. You will see a very clear pattern throughout history looking a legislation like that.

The legislation doesn't suggest war or revolution at all. the US is in a time of war at the moment so chances are when the war's over that these two legislations would disappear. If you're going to extrapolate, I'd advise you to look back to the Civil War. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus till the war's end. Just an FYI, the NDAA allowed for the military to spend on military related projects like building new bases, veterans' benefits, etc.

Predictions based on historic extrapolation are ofcourse always hard, since conditions are never exactly the same. But calling a (wide) prediction a faillure, because it has not happened yet, is ofcourse not valid. On the historic timeline, one decade more or less is irrelevant.

Actually it is valid to say so. There is no need for a world war, and there are enough roadblocks to prevent a world war from erupting anyways. Alex Jones has been constantly saying since perhaps day one that WWIII would be happening soon, but we still have yet to see that actually happen. Looking at what's going on in the world it is impossible and highly unlikely for another world war to happen.

[ Top | Reply to Topic ]

Posted: May 21, 2012 - 07:28

(0)

Level: 0

That seems odd to compare the Battle of Waterloo with 9/11. Nathan Rotschild did what anyone with that kind of status and money could do. 9/11 was an unpredictable event. I guess you're trying to tie the rise of oil stocks like Haliburton to bankers knowing beforehand about 9/11 which doing so would be wrong. In fact any stock that increased post-9/11 is seriously coincidental. It would be similar to investing in IBM stocks back in the 80s when PCs first came out.

You misunderstood my point here. I am not talking POST 9/11 trade, but PRE 9/11 trade. I can give you numerous sources for this, but I assume CBS is something you consider reliable. Check http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/19/eveningnews/main311834.shtml and if you still are not convinced, check the archives of financial papers etc. A similar thing happened PRE-Napoleons defeat. Rumor was spread in Great Britain, that Napoleon was winning. Stocks plummeted, bankers (particularly Rothschild) bought cheap, Napoleon lost after all, stock rose again.

Ben Bernarke agrees with Milton Friedman on that too btw. Friedman and Bernarke both agree that the FED's poor policy is what triggered the collapse of the Great Depression. I fail to see how a FED cartel manipulated the economy for a purposeful collapse anyways.

Well, it is simple. Also in the great depression (like during the crisis nowadays), everyone suffers, except for the few top CEO's and bankers. Sure, they get a bit of opposition, sure, they in some cases get less money than they used to get, but at the end of the day, they still profit. Profiting is ofcourse very easy, if you can do what normal people cannot do, which is, predicting with quite good accuracy, what the markets will do, when. If you also happen to control the interest rates (and thus, the flow of money), it becomes even easier to not only predict what will happen, when, but even to stear events into a certain direction. The great depression was, like all economic crisis, also todays, caused by a bubble. The stock bubble. Guess who sold the populus the stocks? There were even stock-products back then, similar to the worthless derivatives nowadays. Derivatives created by the same people that are on the FED board, just like some of the stock products back in the 20's.

I am not saying that this is a 'conspiracy', by a few bankers that are executing some evil masterplan of depopulation and to achieve world dominance. I am saying that it should be no surprise, if personal profit/benefit, of some of the people in power, back then AND now, accelerate, create, cause and catalyse events in such crisis. I have no definite proof of this, but common sense tells me that chances of things like this occurring are > 50%.

I also pointed out that the Roman Empire during the collapse had an unstabe environment too. I heard about Ron Paul wanting to have a second currency to compete with the current currency we have now, though I didn't know he was still on that bandwagon. I thought he jumped ship and just stayed on the gold standard auto fix of his. Nevertheless, the US will never have competing currencies. For one thing Paul has 0 to no chance of actually getting elected in 2012 and from what I heard he decided he wouldn't want to run for the 2016 bid. Secondly, the idea of gold+silver competition only appears to Paul's followers anyways. They are already a fringe bunch of people with insane ideas that the majority of the US have acknowledged by this time. Even if by some chance that this idea did catch on, economists would immediately respond with various reasons why this is a horrible idea. This is one of the benefits of having an expert dependent society.

Just want to mention that competing currencies is no novelty at all. In fact, many economy scholars would advise this. You can say of Ron Paul whatever you want, but he has a vastly better understanding of economics on both a macro- and meta-level, than any other politician or secretary out there. Also, I would not count on Ron Paul being a 'fringe' candidate, not getting any support except for some nutjobs and anarchists. I saw his rallies on major university campusses all receiving crowds of 2.000-10.000 enthusiastic students. No way you can deny that his ideas are a force to be reckoned with in the near future. You're probably right in will not be 2012, but revolution never occurs within several years. They have always taken several decades to pick up momentum (which is what is happening now with Ron Paul; or better: his ideas). Also, most revolutions, after picking up momentum, have seen resistance of the establishments of their times. This always leading to legislation like I mentioned before (check the Reign of Terror period prior to the French revolution: an EXACT mirror of USA today). So yea, even Ron Paul fits into a historic extrapolation perspective.

The legislation doesn't suggest war or revolution at all. the US is in a time of war at the moment so chances are when the war's over that these two legislations would disappear. If you're going to extrapolate, I'd advise you to look back to the Civil War. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus till the war's end. Just an FYI, the NDAA allowed for the military to spend on military related projects like building new bases, veterans' benefits, etc.

Yes, you're right that this type of legislation does always appear in times of war and usually is repealed after the war. There's just 2 things that make me doubt your subsequent conclusion that today 'nothing is wrong' and there is no 'hidden agenda'...
1) Since 9/11 there has been a constant proliferation of war. The legislation is being extended continuously. In fact, think about it. When WILL the government succeed in making all of us save against terrorism? Will this moment ever occur? Do you seriously believe that they can abolish terrorism, with actions that only instigate more hatred, and thus extremism, and thus terrorism. So tell me, when will the war of terror end? Capitulation, which has historically always been the end, will not happen.
2) The surrounding events do not spell anything good. Civil unrest. Economic crisis. Wars. Freedom-infringing legislation. These are all ingredients for a pretty good revolution! And I am not even talking about FEMA camps here, since they're probably quite controversial on this site (the controversiality strikes me as odd to begin with... http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.645:)...

Actually it is valid to say so. There is no need for a world war, and there are enough roadblocks to prevent a world war from erupting anyways. Alex Jones has been constantly saying since perhaps day one that WWIII would be happening soon, but we still have yet to see that actually happen. Looking at what's going on in the world it is impossible and highly unlikely for another world war to happen.

Well, I am no Alex Jones fan, but as you can see from my earlier text, I do agree with some of his findings. I simply interpret them in a bit more rational way.

[ Top | Reply to Topic ]

Posted: May 21, 2012 - 15:40

(0)

Level: 0

Quote from Damarauder

That seems odd to compare the Battle of Waterloo with 9/11. Nathan Rotschild did what anyone with that kind of status and money could do. 9/11 was an unpredictable event. I guess you're trying to tie the rise of oil stocks like Haliburton to bankers knowing beforehand about 9/11 which doing so would be wrong. In fact any stock that increased post-9/11 is seriously coincidental. It would be similar to investing in IBM stocks back in the 80s when PCs first came out.

You misunderstood my point here. I am not talking POST 9/11 trade, but PRE 9/11 trade. I can give you numerous sources for this, but I assume CBS is something you consider reliable. Check http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/19/eveningnews/main311834.shtml and if you still are not convinced, check the archives of financial papers etc. A similar thing happened PRE-Napoleons defeat. Rumor was spread in Great Britain, that Napoleon was winning. Stocks plummeted, bankers (particularly Rothschild) bought cheap, Napoleon lost after all, stock rose again.

If you're going to refer to pre-9/11 stock trade, then you're best bet would be to look at the prices of stocks before 9/11, and what the airline companies were doing around that time. Your source makes mention of the fact that there were those who guessed that the stocks would fall. To tell if this is true or not, you'd have to look back on the times exactly and see what was going on that would cause that to happen. Maybe the airline companies were making a risky deal, spending cash on outdated machinery, etc.

Quote from Damaraude
Ben Bernarke agrees with Milton Friedman on that too btw. Friedman and Bernarke both agree that the FED's poor policy is what triggered the collapse of the Great Depression. I fail to see how a FED cartel manipulated the economy for a purposeful collapse anyways.

Well, it is simple. Also in the great depression (like during the crisis nowadays), everyone suffers, except for the few top CEO's and bankers. Sure, they get a bit of opposition, sure, they in some cases get less money than they used to get, but at the end of the day, they still profit.

Tell me exactly how they profit. Make it detailed.

Quote from Damarauder
Profiting is ofcourse very easy, if you can do what normal people cannot do, which is, predicting with quite good accuracy, what the markets will do, when. If you also happen to control the interest rates (and thus, the flow of money), it becomes even easier to not only predict what will happen, when, but even to stear events into a certain direction. The great depression was, like all economic crisis, also todays, caused by a bubble. The stock bubble. Guess who sold the populus the stocks? There were even stock-products back then, similar to the worthless derivatives nowadays. Derivatives created by the same people that are on the FED board, just like some of the stock products back in the 20's.

I am not saying that this is a 'conspiracy', by a few bankers that are executing some evil masterplan of depopulation and to achieve world dominance. I am saying that it should be no surprise, if personal profit/benefit, of some of the people in power, back then AND now, accelerate, create, cause and catalyse events in such crisis. I have no definite proof of this, but common sense tells me that chances of things like this occurring are > 50%.

It sounds as though you're saying that the only reason people get rich is if they play (or rather control) the stock market and can manipulate the currency. Sounds very conspiratorial too me.

I also pointed out that the Roman Empire during the collapse had an unstabe environment too. I heard about Ron Paul wanting to have a second currency to compete with the current currency we have now, though I didn't know he was still on that bandwagon. I thought he jumped ship and just stayed on the gold standard auto fix of his. Nevertheless, the US will never have competing currencies. For one thing Paul has 0 to no chance of actually getting elected in 2012 and from what I heard he decided he wouldn't want to run for the 2016 bid. Secondly, the idea of gold+silver competition only appears to Paul's followers anyways. They are already a fringe bunch of people with insane ideas that the majority of the US have acknowledged by this time. Even if by some chance that this idea did catch on, economists would immediately respond with various reasons why this is a horrible idea. This is one of the benefits of having an expert dependent society.

Just want to mention that competing currencies is no novelty at all. In fact, many economy scholars would advise this.

Are you telling me that competing currencies is a good thing. Please tell me that's a typo.

Quote from Damarauder
You can say of Ron Paul whatever you want, but he has a vastly better understanding of economics on both a macro- and meta-level, than any other politician or secretary out there. Also, I would not count on Ron Paul being a 'fringe' candidate, not getting any support except for some nutjobs and anarchists. I saw his rallies on major university campusses all receiving crowds of 2.000-10.000 enthusiastic students. No way you can deny that his ideas are a force to be reckoned with in the near future. You're probably right in will not be 2012, but revolution never occurs within several years. They have always taken several decades to pick up momentum (which is what is happening now with Ron Paul; or better: his ideas). Also, most revolutions, after picking up momentum, have seen resistance of the establishments of their times. This always leading to legislation like I mentioned before (check the Reign of Terror period prior to the French revolution: an EXACT mirror of USA today). So yea, even Ron Paul fits into a historic extrapolation perspective.

Whether or not Ron Paul's understanding of economics is better that other politicians' is up in the air as I have my doubts on the Austrian School of Economics.

Ron Paul is in fact a fringe candidate with hardly any supporters at all. Even his personal attacks on the other candidates didn't get him a significant increase in numbers at all. I saw those rallies to and have to wonder why in the hell UCLA and Berkeley were actually in support of this guy anyways especially Berkeley. I thought the 60s have yet to end there. If that's the case why support a racist, mysoginisit homophobe? UCLA didn't really surprise me as I heard the students there are as dumb as door nails. Even then though they ought to have some sort of liberal ideas instilled in their brains, and should still realize that their school is facing drastic budget cuts and electing Ron Paul won't help anything at all. Even so, these turn outs haven't helped him get anywhere near the nomination anyways.

His ideas aren't a force to be reckoned with at all. They're literally a copy and paste of Right Wing Christian Fundamentalism masked as libertarianism mixed with Austrian economics which from what I can understand is shit economics in general.

Finally, the Reign of Terror is nothing like the USA at all. The President isn't a monarchy at all. If you seriously think things are bad in the USA though, then you seriously have no knowledge of other governments in the world.

Quote from Damarauder
The legislation doesn't suggest war or revolution at all. the US is in a time of war at the moment so chances are when the war's over that these two legislations would disappear. If you're going to extrapolate, I'd advise you to look back to the Civil War. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus till the war's end. Just an FYI, the NDAA allowed for the military to spend on military related projects like building new bases, veterans' benefits, etc.

Yes, you're right that this type of legislation does always appear in times of war and usually is repealed after the war. There's just 2 things that make me doubt your subsequent conclusion that today 'nothing is wrong' and there is no 'hidden agenda'...
1) Since 9/11 there has been a constant proliferation of war. The legislation is being extended continuously. In fact, think about it. When WILL the government succeed in making all of us save against terrorism? Will this moment ever occur? Do you seriously believe that they can abolish terrorism, with actions that only instigate more hatred, and thus extremism, and thus terrorism. So tell me, when will the war of terror end? Capitulation, which has historically always been the end, will not happen.

Well we did just kill bin-Laden. As for stopping terrorism overall, that may either not happen at all or may take a long time to finally stamp it out. I can't say for certain.

2) The surrounding events do not spell anything good. Civil unrest. Economic crisis. Wars. Freedom-infringing legislation. These are all ingredients for a pretty good revolution! And I am not even talking about FEMA camps here, since they're probably quite controversial on this site (the controversiality strikes me as odd to begin with... http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.645:)...

The surrounding events don't spell out any type of revolution. There are several theories for why revolutions actually happen and I'd advise you to research them.
FEMA camps aren't controversial at all. They're shit.
http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/fema/camps/
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/fema-concentration-camps-militia-goo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dP-7I7BNms
^^ It's a video I made debunking the camps. It also covers HR 645.

Quote from Damarauder
Actually it is valid to say so. There is no need for a world war, and there are enough roadblocks to prevent a world war from erupting anyways. Alex Jones has been constantly saying since perhaps day one that WWIII would be happening soon, but we still have yet to see that actually happen. Looking at what's going on in the world it is impossible and highly unlikely for another world war to happen.

Well, I am no Alex Jones fan, but as you can see from my earlier text, I do agree with some of his findings. I simply interpret them in a bit more rational way.

Interpreting his findings in a rational way is impossible. How do you even go about doing that anyways?

[ Top | Reply to Topic ]

Posted: May 23, 2012 - 15:00

(-2)

Level: 0

Well, my goal here was not to start a debate over the interpretation of facts.

It is clear that you are a lot more gullible in explaining certain events and giving them a context. I am a very rational guy and I want proof before I assume a fact to be true, but I also have the attitude best described in 2 clichés:
1) If it walks like a duck, it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck. Even though there will be people arguing it also might be also be a small goose with an awkard sound.
2) If there's wagonloads of circumstancial evidence/facts, that point to a certain conclusion, I will assume that it is very likely that this conclusion is correct. Even without the conclusive DNA evidence.

Now, with those 2 things in mind, let's have a look at your response and more in general, the events I mentioned.

9/11
I do not know what exactly happened, who were exactly responsible and how events exactly took place, and in what order. What I do know, is that there are some really strong alarm bells going off, looking at the official investigation. For example. When woman is murdered and I find out her husband took out a $1M dollar life insurance shortly before, the husband will be suspect number 1 in my book. Even more, when he does not have a credible alibi. Even more, if he unwittingly mentioned facts that he could not have known, without being involved in the crime. No solid proof. Probably too little to convict him anyways, but at least a very strong incentive to put all my investigative efforts on it.

Now, let's look at 9/11.

Exibit A
Fact: Larry Silverstein took out a huge insurance, with a low downpayment on the WTC complex, earning him a nice sum after the buildings failed.
Debunking theory: Well, it is quite normal for such huge investment, to insure it. Besides that, the amount paid is not enough to rebuild.
My response: Yes, rationally this is a credible thing. I would insure my property too.

Exibit B
Fact: Larry Silverstein visited WTC every day to have lunch, except on 9/11, since he had a doctors appointment.
Debunking theory: Coincedence. One has to visit the doctor occasinonally. He just got very luckily.
My response: Yep, this could very well be a coincedence, he indeed could have been very very lucky.

Exibit C
Fact: First thing Larry Silverstein did after acquiring the WTC complex, was hiring Securacom. The Bush family was quite prominently involved in this company.
Debunking theory: It's a small world. One can always find a connection between 2 businessmen somewhere.
My response: Yes, those types of powerfull, wealthy businessmen, almost certainly are tied somewhere, which is nothing suspicious.

Exibit D
Fact: First thing Larry Silverstein did after acquiring the WTC complex, was hiring Securacom. This company also provided security services at 2 of the relevant airports. The Bush family was quite prominently involved in this company.
Debunking theory: It's a small world. One can always find a connection between 2 businessmen somewhere. Securacom is simply a succesful company, securing many many more premises.
My response: Yes, those types of powerfull, wealthy businessmen, almost certainly are tied somewhere, which is nothing suspicious. Same for a succesfull company, involved in more than just the 'relevant' airports.

Exibit E
Fact: Silverstein mentioned in an interview, they decided to 'pull' WTC 7.
Debunking theory: Slip of the tongue. Extremely creative interpretation of wording by conspiracy theorists.
My response: Yea, words are very subjective when chosen and interpreted. However a strange choice of words, yet nothing too suspicious.

Exibit F
Fact: WTC was approaching billions worth of renovation, including the removal of asbestos.
Debunking theory: That is hardly an argument to bomb and demolish buildings with people in it.
My response: Even though Silverstein saved billions with the current flow of events, which could be a motive, this still does not proof anything.

Exibit G
Claim: There was tons of proof of several huge scams in WTC 7. There was tons of gold in the basement of WTC. The pentagon office that was blown up, held all paperwork regarding an investigation into a trillion dollars that had gone missing. All destroyed in the events.
Debunking theory: Proof it!
My response: Yes, show me some proof. Sounds quite incredible.

Exibit H
Fact: There was no debri of anything that should resemble a commercial airliner at the pentagon crash scene.
Debunking theory: It was already cleared and the rest of it got vaporated.
My response: Highly improbable, but could be.

Exibit I
Fact: It is no secret that the Bushes and co had been planning to attack Iraq for years already. After 9/11, the US attacked Iraq, with absolutely only lies as arguments. 9/11 was very convenient for the 'hawks'.
Debunking theory: Sadam was a dictator! He used gas on his own people! WMD's or connections to al quaida are irrelevant, the guy simply had to go!
My response: Bullshit reasoning. If they wanted to get Sadam out, they should have done it in the 80's when he committed most of his horrendous crimes. Yet, the US was big buddies with him then, sold him the gas and never seriously made a stance against him back then.

I can definitely create a list going all the way to Z here. I could have mentioned Susan Lindauer, Kurt Sonnenfeld, Barry Jennings, connections between Osama and Bush, witnessed thermite symptoms and explosions, tons of experts opposing the conclusions presented (http://www.ae911truth.org/). Heck, I could even explain why mossad involvement is not that unlikely, and go into some more history extrapolation, referring to the USS Liberty. I could add to this, the fact that the government does absolutely not want to reinvestigate, added to the fact that so many witnesses claim exactly the opposite of the official explanation, added to the fact that the invasion of Iraq made Halliburton and some other corporations very much money, added to the fact the US simply thrives by war (have a look at when the US finally got out of the great depression, into a solid pattern of growth).... etc. etc. Even if some of the suspicious things turn out to be not suspicious at all, I have a hard time believing SO many things can all be wrong and so many people can all be complete retards.

I am not saying it's an inside job. Not saying it's an outside job. I am not saying I know what happened, but sorry, I am just not ignorant enough to swallow all these suspicious things, that are either unmentioned in debunks and/or official report, or most of the time are debunked involving the word 'coincedence'. I have read the official report and it simply has too many holes and is disputed on too many areas. And especially, I am not ignorant enough to swallow this from a government that has a PROVEN trackrecord of lying, more than once, for their own benefit or the benefit of some narrow interest. I will bet you $100 that in, let's say, 50 years, the truth will come out and it will be different from the 'truth' given to us now. This, in fact, is simply another extrapolation of history (I hope I don't have to go into all the lies that came out).

But ofcourse, suit yourself, if you prefer the rose-colored view of you government and the powerbrokers behind it, go ahead. You cold be right, but history has proven that you're probably wrong :)

In response to your other questions/remarks:

Tell me exactly how they profit. Make it detailed.

The fact that those few families usually counted as part of the 'banking cartel', still are in power, and have continued to grow (wealth and influence) should be sufficient proof. Perhaps look at the graph found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPMorgan_Chase, under "Acquisition history". You can also simply have a look at the current crisis. Are the CEO's suffering? Only a very few and certainly not the 'conspiring' banking families. Glass-steagal has conveniently been removed, so the banks and corporations can dump debt on our (regular 99% peoples) shoulders. This was no different in the 30's. Politicians haven't got a clue what they're doing and take advise from the same people that profit from the policies.

It sounds as though you're saying that the only reason people get rich is if they play (or rather control) the stock market and can manipulate the currency. Sounds very conspiratorial too me.

Let me tell you again: I am not a conspircacy believer. Not in the sense that there's some monolithic group, with evil intentions, committing all horrors that exist in the world. My interpretation can be best summarized by quoting Julian Assange: "This is not a sophisticated conspiracy, controlled at the top. There's a vast movement of self-interest by thousands and thousands of players, all working together... and against eachother". The fact that money and especially the power to create money, gives power over policies, does not require additional proof I hope? Or are you really that gullible in thinking sponsorship of corporations and banks, to presidents and politicians, are done without any personal interest?

Are you telling me that competing currencies is a good thing. Please tell me that's a typo.

Yes, I do believe competing currencies CAN BE a good thing. Want to debate me on that?

Whether or not Ron Paul's understanding of economics is better that other politicians' is up in the air as I have my doubts on the Austrian School of Economics.

Ron Paul is in fact a fringe candidate with hardly any supporters at all. Even his personal attacks on the other candidates didn't get him a significant increase in numbers at all. I saw those rallies to and have to wonder why in the hell UCLA and Berkeley were actually in support of this guy anyways especially Berkeley. I thought the 60s have yet to end there. If that's the case why support a racist, mysoginisit homophobe? UCLA didn't really surprise me as I heard the students there are as dumb as door nails. Even then though they ought to have some sort of liberal ideas instilled in their brains, and should still realize that their school is facing drastic budget cuts and electing Ron Paul won't help anything at all. Even so, these turn outs haven't helped him get anywhere near the nomination anyways.

His ideas aren't a force to be reckoned with at all. They're literally a copy and paste of Right Wing Christian Fundamentalism masked as libertarianism mixed with Austrian economics which from what I can understand is shit economics in general.

You can have your prefered economic system. If you endorse Keynesianism, than I assume you accept and are ok with the fact that we have to have bubbles, and a we have to have collapses. Personally, I think all economic systems based on debt, interest and the (consequential) need for economic growth are flawed and destined to fail, also the Austrian approach. A laissez faire economy does however sounds better than what we have now. Matter of opinion I guess; there's no absolute truth here.

As for Ron Paul being a fringe candidate, without any substantial support.... Well sorry, but you have really not been paying attention. Libertarianism WILL have a huge impact in the decades to come in the US. Almost an entire generation (students) is gathering behind this guy. Just have a look here: http://www.squidoo.com/ron-paul-crowd-pictures, I personally like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9iEtZnrb3M. Also compare his 2008 votes to the ones he got in 2012.... that's called exponential growth my friend, mostly in your young generation. I can see from your (quite uncivilized) choice of words you're no Ron Paul supporter and are swallowing some lies and prejudices about the guy (which you can easily debunk by doing some investigation). But make no mistake, he is popular for 2 reasons, which make him truely unique. No other candidate in the past decades, or perhaps ever, had this. Not because all his supporters agree on all his views, but merely because:
1) He is completely open and honest AND he can proof this.
2) He has been consistent in his views AND has lived up to them AND can proof this too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sok0oU8R-uU

I bet you will argue that all his supporters are weed-smoking, tinfoil-hat-wearing idiots.... But if that is true, than you country has a much more serious challenge, because it seems you got an entire generation of those types of people.... Good luck with that! (Not to mention his support from the military; which is more than any other politician)

To be honest your stance and wording on Ron Paul were quite disappointing from a self-proclaimed 'objective' guy, studying facts, debunking nonsense... Would not expect this much bias from somebody like you.

Finally, the Reign of Terror is nothing like the USA at all. The President isn't a monarchy at all. If you seriously think things are bad in the USA though, then you seriously have no knowledge of other governments in the world.

That's what extrapolation is all about. Applying the same principles, to a different set of surrounding conditions. And sure, there's people much worse off in the world (ironically in a lot of cases, thanks to the US).

Well we did just kill bin-Laden. As for stopping terrorism overall, that may either not happen at all or may take a long time to finally stamp it out. I can't say for certain.

Trust me, you will never root out terrorism with your current foreign policy. It will only get worse. It's quite strange that you say 'you killed bin laden'. Have you seen proof of that? I thought you are a guy that needs proof.

Interpreting his findings in a rational way is impossible. How do you even go about doing that anyways?

I would like to refer back to my quote of Julian Assange, earlier in my post to answer this question. I simply evaluate events and connections between events differently. Pulling off a 1000+ people conspiracy, running for over 1 century, what is in fact what Alex Jones is claiming, does not seem likely to me :)

[ Top | Reply to Topic ]

Posted: May 23, 2012 - 18:58

(0)

Level: 0

Quote from Damarauder

Well, my goal here was not to start a debate over the interpretation of facts.

Isn't that the whole point in deciding whether or not extrapolation is a valid argument?

It is clear that you are a lot more gullible in explaining certain events and giving them a context. I am a very rational guy and I want proof before I assume a fact to be true, but I also have the attitude best described in 2 clichés:
1) If it walks like a duck, it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck. Even though there will be people arguing it also might be also be a small goose with an awkard sound.
2) If there's wagonloads of circumstancial evidence/facts, that point to a certain conclusion, I will assume that it is very likely that this conclusion is correct. Even without the conclusive DNA evidence.

Now, with those 2 things in mind, let's have a look at your response and more in general, the events I mentioned.

9/11
I do not know what exactly happened, who were exactly responsible and how events exactly took place, and in what order.

>Planes highjacked
>Planes crash into buildings, pentagon, and some open field
>Conspiracy theorists go nanners.
Now you know.

What I do know, is that there are some really strong alarm bells going off, looking at the official investigation. For example. When woman is murdered and I find out her husband took out a $1M dollar life insurance shortly before, the husband will be suspect number 1 in my book. Even more, when he does not have a credible alibi.

I didn't realize alibis needed credibility.

Even more, if he unwittingly mentioned facts that he could not have known, without being involved in the crime. No solid proof. Probably too little to convict him anyways, but at least a very strong incentive to put all my investigative efforts on it.

Now, let's look at 9/11.

Exibit A
Fact: Larry Silverstein took out a huge insurance, with a low downpayment on the WTC complex, earning him a nice sum after the buildings failed.
Debunking theory: Well, it is quite normal for such huge investment, to insure it. Besides that, the amount paid is not enough to rebuild.
My response: Yes, rationally this is a credible thing. I would insure my property too.

Exibit B
Fact: Larry Silverstein visited WTC every day to have lunch, except on 9/11, since he had a doctors appointment.
Debunking theory: Coincedence. One has to visit the doctor occasinonally. He just got very luckily.
My response: Yep, this could very well be a coincedence, he indeed could have been very very lucky.

Exibit C
Fact: First thing Larry Silverstein did after acquiring the WTC complex, was hiring Securacom. The Bush family was quite prominently involved in this company.
Debunking theory: It's a small world. One can always find a connection between 2 businessmen somewhere.
My response: Yes, those types of powerfull, wealthy businessmen, almost certainly are tied somewhere, which is nothing suspicious.

Exibit D
Fact: First thing Larry Silverstein did after acquiring the WTC complex, was hiring Securacom. This company also provided security services at 2 of the relevant airports. The Bush family was quite prominently involved in this company.
Debunking theory: It's a small world. One can always find a connection between 2 businessmen somewhere. Securacom is simply a succesful company, securing many many more premises.
My response: Yes, those types of powerfull, wealthy businessmen, almost certainly are tied somewhere, which is nothing suspicious. Same for a succesfull company, involved in more than just the 'relevant' airports.

Exibit E
Fact: Silverstein mentioned in an interview, they decided to 'pull' WTC 7.
Debunking theory: Slip of the tongue. Extremely creative interpretation of wording by conspiracy theorists.
My response: Yea, words are very subjective when chosen and interpreted. However a strange choice of words, yet nothing too suspicious.

Exibit F
Fact: WTC was approaching billions worth of renovation, including the removal of asbestos.
Debunking theory: That is hardly an argument to bomb and demolish buildings with people in it.
My response: Even though Silverstein saved billions with the current flow of events, which could be a motive, this still does not proof anything.

Exibit G
Claim: There was tons of proof of several huge scams in WTC 7. There was tons of gold in the basement of WTC. The pentagon office that was blown up, held all paperwork regarding an investigation into a trillion dollars that had gone missing. All destroyed in the events.
Debunking theory: Proof it!
My response: Yes, show me some proof. Sounds quite incredible.

Exibit H
Fact: There was no debri of anything that should resemble a commercial airliner at the pentagon crash scene.
Debunking theory: It was already cleared and the rest of it got vaporated.
My response: Highly improbable, but could be.

Exibit I
Fact: It is no secret that the Bushes and co had been planning to attack Iraq for years already. After 9/11, the US attacked Iraq, with absolutely only lies as arguments. 9/11 was very convenient for the 'hawks'.
Debunking theory: Sadam was a dictator! He used gas on his own people! WMD's or connections to al quaida are irrelevant, the guy simply had to go!

You can't seriously be telling me that as debunkers we immediately defend Bush's decision to attack Iraq do you? If I lead you to somehow believe this then point me where I did.

I can definitely create a list going all the way to Z here. I could have mentioned Susan Lindauer, Kurt Sonnenfeld, Barry Jennings, connections between Osama and Bush, witnessed thermite symptoms and explosions, tons of experts opposing the conclusions presented (http://www.ae911truth.org/). Heck, I could even explain why mossad involvement is not that unlikely, and go into some more history extrapolation, referring to the USS Liberty. I could add to this, the fact that the government does absolutely not want to reinvestigate, added to the fact that so many witnesses claim exactly the opposite of the official explanation, added to the fact that the invasion of Iraq made Halliburton and some other corporations very much money, added to the fact the US simply thrives by war (have a look at when the US finally got out of the great depression, into a solid pattern of growth).... etc. etc. Even if some of the suspicious things turn out to be not suspicious at all, I have a hard time believing SO many things can all be wrong and so many people can all be complete retards.

Long paragraph though it seems to me that you're stating how the US citizens could just accept that 9/11 wasn't an inside job, or at least consider the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job with some history that looks as though it fits perfectly and can be used to explain what was going on. The fact of the matter is that all of these claims have been debunked already, and that there is not only an abundance of resources debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories but an abundance of experts that can all state with assurance why these theories are all false. If you want to convince the public to buy into something, you have to take into account the experts as well as any skeptical people that have done background research. Convincing experts of anything is obviously difficult just ask anyone trying to get a PhD. Finally, we generally don't accept 9/11 conspiracies as truth as when the evidence to counter these theories are presented, the conspiracy theorists tend to have difficulty responding back to them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwAhEXxwVGY
not to mention that they have yet to actually provide any other evidence to counter the counter evidence that actually makes sense.

Just because the US got out of the Great Depression via entering war doesn't mean that the US relies solely on war for profits. What it does mean is that the world market plays a vital role in US economics. post WWII america was thriving because of no competitive markets on the world market from any other country. That era is usually called the Golden Era if memory serves me.

I am not saying it's an inside job. Not saying it's an outside job. I am not saying I know what happened, but sorry, I am just not ignorant enough to swallow all these suspicious things, that are either unmentioned in debunks and/or official report, or most of the time are debunked involving the word 'coincedence'.

Already told you what happened. What more do you want?

Just because it hasn't been mentioned in debunks doesn't necessarily mean that it holds truth. Not every debunk is going to house every claim made by conspiracy theorists as they typically tend to make up claims as they go along hoping that it would fit into their theory and that no one would notice that they totally made it up themselves.

I have read the official report and it simply has too many holes and is disputed on too many areas.

Then write a summary on the official report. Prove to me that you did. Conspiracy theorists always tend to say that they have read the report when in fact they haven't. Their whole basis for their 9/11 was an inside job conspiracy theory comes from YouTube videos coupled with bad science.

And especially, I am not ignorant enough to swallow this from a government that has a PROVEN trackrecord of lying, more than once, for their own benefit or the benefit of some narrow interest. I will bet you $100 that in, let's say, 50 years, the truth will come out and it will be different from the 'truth' given to us now. This, in fact, is simply another extrapolation of history (I hope I don't have to go into all the lies that came out).

I won't deny that the government has lied to it's people. Is it for their own benefit? Well yes to them and in fact in benefit to us. If we were to know everything the government knows, we'd most likely hate the government for even telling us.

But ofcourse, suit yourself, if you prefer the rose-colored view of you government and the powerbrokers behind it, go ahead. You cold be right, but history has proven that you're probably wrong :)

Conspiracy theorists love to tout these words at debunkers for not accepting 9/11 conspiracy theories or any other conspiracy theory. No my government isn't perfect and no it doesn't cater to my every need. if it did, I'd have 30 women that i can have sex with whenever I want, a death ray to kill my enemies with, and I'd have control over Texas.

In response to your other questions/remarks:

Tell me exactly how they profit. Make it detailed.

The fact that those few families usually counted as part of the 'banking cartel', still are in power, and have continued to grow (wealth and influence) should be sufficient proof.
In other words, you can't tell me exactly.

Perhaps look at the graph found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPMorgan_Chase, under "Acquisition history". You can also simply have a look at the current crisis. Are the CEO's suffering? Only a very few and certainly not the 'conspiring' banking families. Glass-steagal has conveniently been removed, so the banks and corporations can dump debt on our (regular 99% peoples) shoulders. This was no different in the 30's. Politicians haven't got a clue what they're doing and take advise from the same people that profit from the policies.

It sounds as though you're saying that the only reason people get rich is if they play (or rather control) the stock market and can manipulate the currency. Sounds very conspiratorial too me.

Let me tell you again: I am not a conspircacy believer. Not in the sense that there's some monolithic group, with evil intentions, committing all horrors that exist in the world. My interpretation can be best summarized by quoting Julian Assange: "This is not a sophisticated conspiracy, controlled at the top. There's a vast movement of self-interest by thousands and thousands of players, all working together... and against eachother". The fact that money and especially the power to create money, gives power over policies, does not require additional proof I hope? Or are you really that gullible in thinking sponsorship of corporations and banks, to presidents and politicians, are done without any personal interest?

You ARE saying that the only reason people get rich is because they control everything. That's false. Gates didn't get rich by having power over policy. Neither did Steve Wozniak, Zuckerberg, and Thomas J Watson.

Are you telling me that competing currencies is a good thing. Please tell me that's a typo.

Yes, I do believe competing currencies CAN BE a good thing. Want to debate me on that?

You previously stated that the Third Century's collapse was due in part by competing currencies and even showed some concern over this happening in the US. Now you're telling me it's a good thing. Who's not looking at history now?

Whether or not Ron Paul's understanding of economics is better that other politicians' is up in the air as I have my doubts on the Austrian School of Economics.

Ron Paul is in fact a fringe candidate with hardly any supporters at all. Even his personal attacks on the other candidates didn't get him a significant increase in numbers at all. I saw those rallies to and have to wonder why in the hell UCLA and Berkeley were actually in support of this guy anyways especially Berkeley. I thought the 60s have yet to end there. If that's the case why support a racist, mysoginisit homophobe? UCLA didn't really surprise me as I heard the students there are as dumb as door nails. Even then though they ought to have some sort of liberal ideas instilled in their brains, and should still realize that their school is facing drastic budget cuts and electing Ron Paul won't help anything at all. Even so, these turn outs haven't helped him get anywhere near the nomination anyways.

His ideas aren't a force to be reckoned with at all. They're literally a copy and paste of Right Wing Christian Fundamentalism masked as libertarianism mixed with Austrian economics which from what I can understand is shit economics in general.

You can have your prefered economic system. If you endorse Keynesianism, than I assume you accept and are ok with the fact that we have to have bubbles, and a we have to have collapses. Personally, I think all economic systems based on debt, interest and the (consequential) need for economic growth are flawed and destined to fail, also the Austrian approach. A laissez faire economy does however sounds better than what we have now. Matter of opinion I guess; there's no absolute truth here.

As for Ron Paul being a fringe candidate, without any substantial support.... Well sorry, but you have really not been paying attention. Libertarianism WILL have a huge impact in the decades to come in the US. Almost an entire generation (students) is gathering behind this guy. Just have a look here: http://www.squidoo.com/ron-paul-crowd-pictures, I personally like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9iEtZnrb3M. Also compare his 2008 votes to the ones he got in 2012.... that's called exponential growth my friend, mostly in your young generation. I can see from your (quite uncivilized) choice of words you're no Ron Paul supporter and are swallowing some lies and prejudices about the guy (which you can easily debunk by doing some investigation). But make no mistake, he is popular for 2 reasons, which make him truely unique. No other candidate in the past decades, or perhaps ever, had this. Not because all his supporters agree on all his views, but merely because:
1) He is completely open and honest AND he can proof this.
2) He has been consistent in his views AND has lived up to them AND can proof this too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sok0oU8R-uU

I bet you will argue that all his supporters are weed-smoking, tinfoil-hat-wearing idiots.... But if that is true, than you country has a much more serious challenge, because it seems you got an entire generation of those types of people.... Good luck with that! (Not to mention his support from the military; which is more than any other politician)

An entire generation of students aren't gathering around Ron Paul. if there was then I would've seen my entire school gather around the Ron Paul supporter table that was on my campus for a couple of weeks, and the Ron Paul supporters wouldn't be getting into any argument with any student at my school. Lastly, there'd be more than three people present at that booth.

Moving from 4th place to 3rd place isn't much of an improvement.
en
You seriously have no right in telling me what words to use when. Look around this forum and you'll see that other members have used the same language I have used. I'm not swallowing any lies about Ron Paul at all. I've looked at his policies on his own website and each of them confirm that he is nothing more than a Christian fundamentalist masking himself as a libertarian by saying End the Fed, return to the Gold Standard, and pretending to limit government control. He's not a true libertarian for the following reasons

1) Wanting to illegalize abortion
This not only is increasing government influence but it also is having the government decide for you what is right and wrong.
2) Not doing anything for gay marriage
"I support gay marriage but I won't legalize it". So allowing the federal government to recognize a union amongst two people is increasing the size of the government, but illegalizing abortions isn't?
3) Immigration
It's not ok to be militant oversees but being militant on US Soil is a-okay.
Not to mention him allowing people to die because they couldn't get health care.

Lastly if Ron Paul was in fact doing as well as you have said, then why is he suspending his campaign?

To be honest your stance and wording on Ron Paul were quite disappointing from a self-proclaimed 'objective' guy, studying facts, debunking nonsense... Would not expect this much bias from somebody like you.

My stance on Ron Paul comes from everything he has said.

Finally, the Reign of Terror is nothing like the USA at all. The President isn't a monarchy at all. If you seriously think things are bad in the USA though, then you seriously have no knowledge of other governments in the world.

That's what extrapolation is all about. Applying the same principles, to a different set of surrounding conditions. And sure, there's people much worse off in the world (ironically in a lot of cases, thanks to the US).

If that is what extrapolation is, then either you have a horrible understanding of what extrapolation is, or it should be tossed out the window and not even considered at all. You can't fit a square in a circle hole.

Well we did just kill bin-Laden. As for stopping terrorism overall, that may either not happen at all or may take a long time to finally stamp it out. I can't say for certain.

Trust me, you will never root out terrorism with your current foreign policy. It will only get worse. It's quite strange that you say 'you killed bin laden'. Have you seen proof of that? I thought you are a guy that needs proof.

I'm sorry you didn't get your photo evidence of the event and I'm sorry you can't take a joke. I don't need photo evidence because I trust the government actually did kill bin-Laden. It doesn't matter if there was photo evidence of the killing anyways as conspiracy theorists will find something wrong with it.

Interpreting his findings in a rational way is impossible. How do you even go about doing that anyways?

I would like to refer back to my quote of Julian Assange, earlier in my post to answer this question. I simply evaluate events and connections between events differently. Pulling off a 1000+ people conspiracy, running for over 1 century, what is in fact what Alex Jones is claiming, does not seem likely to me :)

How is your interpretation any different from Alex's interpretation?

[ Top | Reply to Topic ]

Posted: May 24, 2012 - 04:48

(0)

Level: 0

You made it very hard to spot your responses, but here's my reply to the ones I found.

>Planes highjacked
>Planes crash into buildings, pentagon, and some open field
>Conspiracy theorists go nanners.
Now you know.

To be honest, Susan Lindauers explanation sounds more credible and explains some of the gaps in you story a lot better. Not sure if she is right, but again, it simply sounds more plausible taking all the aspects into account. She basically says the same as you do, but she adds that, just like with Pearl Harbor, there was prior knowledge AND manipulation of events.

I didn't realize alibis needed credibility.
Irrelevant, but quite a dumb stance. What about an alibi provided by somebody you pay $100K every month? Credible enough?

You can't seriously be telling me that as debunkers we immediately defend Bush's decision to attack Iraq do you? If I lead you to somehow believe this then point me where I did.
Aah, you're going the Faustian tour. This is pure diversion of the topic. I never said that debunkers support war. I simply said that 9/11 was very convenient for some in the US administration, a bit too convenient. And they made generous use of it! I assume you did read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm and http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm? To me, this makes a great motive to welcome a terrorist attack!

Long paragraph though it seems to me that you're stating how the US......... evidence that actually makes sense.
Alex Jones is a self-centered screamer. He does bring up interesting facts, but his interpretation is not mine. Let me point out just one more time: I don't necessarily think there was a conspiracy, nor do I think there was none. I simply don't know. Only thing that is 100% clear for me personally, is that there was more than meets the eye. Let me just ask you your response to 1 other thing that is very very suspicious. Why did Bush not testify A)Under oath and B)Alone ?? How will you rationalize that?

Proving Alex Jones is a tool, does not proof that all things he brings up are falsehoods.

Just because the US got out of the Great Depression via entering war doesn't mean that the US relies solely on war for profits. What it does mean is that the world market plays a vital role in US economics. post WWII america was thriving because of no competitive markets on the world market from any other country. That era is usually called the Golden Era if memory serves me.
You kidding me? You dare to claim that war is not an essential part of the US economy? The military industry comprises of 20% of the GNP and 20% of the jobs are in this sector! And that's a mild figure!
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_10-4-2003_pg3_4 http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com/ You will probably refute these links, in which case I encourage you to search on your prefered site for the economic figures and you will see what I mean.

Already told you what happened. What more do you want?
Sanity in your reasoning.

Just because it hasn't been mentioned in debunks doesn't necessarily mean that it holds truth. Not every debunk is going to house every claim made by conspiracy theorists as they typically tend to make up claims as they go along hoping that it would fit into their theory and that no one would notice that they totally made it up themselves.
So what's your debunk on building 7 then? What's your debunk on the amazing sudden defiance of all laws of nature and physics, when the buildings came down and the given reasons for them going down? Unprecedented.

Then write a summary on the official report. Prove to me that you did. Conspiracy theorists always tend to say that they have read the report when in fact they haven't. Their whole basis for their 9/11 was an inside job conspiracy theory comes from YouTube videos coupled with bad science.
The summary is basically your 3-step explanation in the top of this post. Perhaps you proof to me that you have actually seriously investigated Ron Paul; your statements proof to me that you never did. You're next argument on Ron Paul will probably be: "Duh, he voted for the first Iraq war". Another widely spread falsehood.

I won't deny that the government has lied to it's people. Is it for their own benefit? Well yes to them and in fact in benefit to us. If we were to know everything the government knows, we'd most likely hate the government for even telling us.
Ok, now we're getting somewhere. We simply disagree on the principle of morality I guess. You acknowledge that you support the sustaining of US and Western wealth by infiltration, war and regime manipulation. Not very moral, but at least a rational reason. Basically that stance puts you in the camp of this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjnpHZwhtZc

Personally, I prefer the moral approach. Even if it means less wealth for me personally.

Conspiracy theorists love to tout these words at debunkers for not accepting 9/11 conspiracy theories or any other conspiracy theory. No my government isn't perfect and no it doesn't cater to my every need. if it did, I'd have 30 women that i can have sex with whenever I want, a death ray to kill my enemies with, and I'd have control over Texas.
Your personal ideals perfectly complete the picture I am getting of you. It proofs to me once more, that we simply have a completely opposite moral compass.

You ARE saying that the only reason people get rich is because they control everything. That's false. Gates didn't get rich by having power over policy. Neither did Steve Wozniak, Zuckerberg, and Thomas J Watson.
That is not what I am saying. Stop misquoting me. I never said all rich people are evil. Nor did I say all rich people got rich because of their control over politicians. This however does not mean that SOME cannot have used their wealth and influence in such way. You cannot proof something is an apple, by merely proving it is not a pear, nor an orange.

You previously stated that the Third Century's collapse was due in part by competing currencies and even showed some concern over this happening in the US. Now you're telling me it's a good thing. Who's not looking at history now?
Competing currencies are good for preventing a currency monopoly. If there's an inmensely overvalued monopoly currency and you then introduce new, competing, currencies, yes, than the monopolized currency will fall. As it should. Competing currencies are still there in the world, mostly on a national scale. This does not mean that they cannot be applied on a smaller scale. Currency should be nothing more and nothing less than a lubricant for economic transactions. Doesn't it strike you as odd, that during crisis, all people are still there, all the production facilities are still there, but the only thing missing is paper (currency)....

There's many alternative currencies on small scale already. Look up "Brixton Pound". There's dosens of more examples by the way. They have saved the economic flow in local communities.

Ron Paul blabla
I will not go further in debating Ron Paul with you. You lack factual knowledge and seem biased, probably by some partisan preference. You have it all wrong. You probably never SERIOUSLY looked into the guy, or if you did, you simply lack the intellectual capacity to grasp what this guy is proposing. Let's agree we disagree.

If that is what extrapolation is, then either you have a horrible understanding of what extrapolation is, or it should be tossed out the window and not even considered at all. You can't fit a square in a circle hole.
That´s not what I am doing. I am comparing personal interest several centuries ago, with self-interest today and my conclusion is that it is still a very important motivator. Bit disappointng you did not respond to "....(ironically in a lot of cases, thanks to the US).". I assume in this case that simply means you agree with me on that fact ;)

I will not respond to the rest, can't do that without repeating myself. Sorry man, but you have disqualified yourself more than once now, at least in my book. You are definitely a knowledgable guy, but you refuse to step outside your frame of (p)reference and also I sincerely believe you lack the intellect to put things into perspective. This makes it impossible to have a sane debate with you. Time to end this debate. It's way off-topic anyway. Good luck debunking the stories you want to see debunked!

[ Top | Reply to Topic ]

Posted: May 24, 2012 - 12:13

(0)

Level: 0

Welp seeing as you probably won't respond anyways I'll make my response right here.

Quote from Damarauder

That seems odd to compare the Battle of Waterloo with 9/11. Nathan Rotschild did what anyone with that kind of status and money could do. 9/11 was an unpredictable event. I guess you're trying to tie the rise of oil stocks like Haliburton to bankers knowing beforehand about 9/11 which doing so would be wrong. In fact any stock that increased post-9/11 is seriously coincidental. It would be similar to investing in IBM stocks back in the 80s when PCs first came out.

You misunderstood my point here. I am not talking POST 9/11 trade, but PRE 9/11 trade. I can give you numerous sources for this, but I assume CBS is something you consider reliable. Check http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/19/eveningnews/main311834.shtml and if you still are not convinced, check the archives of financial papers etc. A similar thing happened PRE-Napoleons defeat. Rumor was spread in Great Britain, that Napoleon was winning. Stocks plummeted, bankers (particularly Rothschild) bought cheap, Napoleon lost after all, stock rose again.

If you're going to refer to pre-9/11 stock trade, then you're best bet would be to look at the prices of stocks before 9/11, and what the airline companies were doing around that time. Your source makes mention of the fact that there were those who guessed that the stocks would fall. To tell if this is true or not, you'd have to look back on the times exactly and see what was going on that would cause that to happen. Maybe the airline companies were making a risky deal, spending cash on outdated machinery, etc.

Currently I still stand by the point I made right here. Nathan Rotschild did do what anyone with that kind of money and power would do. Yes I'll budge on the whole money = power thing. That was my own fault. I have a natural tendency to immediately reject anything coming from a conspiracy theorist's mouth. it's a bad habit that mostly stems from before when I was a conspiracy theorist, accepted them as truth, and learned recently that they were all bogus. However, not all times does money = power. If it did, Bill Gates wouldn't have gotten in trouble with the US at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
Not to mention that IBM itself would still be pumping out computers. This claim requires more research though, but according to the story, Microsoft was able to acquire a monopoly of PCs via a court ruling in favor of Microsoft. Anyways, back to the topic at hand. Judging by this post here:

Quote from Damarauder
Rumor was spread in Great Britain, that Napoleon was winning. Stocks plummeted, bankers (particularly Rothschild) bought cheap, Napoleon lost after all, stock rose again.

You seem to be under the impression that Nathan made up the story that Napolean was going to lose. Here is an article containing that claim.
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4311

You are free to tell me whether or not I got this right. It is your claim after all.

Quote from Damarauder

That is not what I am saying. Stop misquoting me. I never said all rich people are evil. Nor did I say all rich people got rich because of their control over politicians. This however does not mean that SOME cannot have used their wealth and influence in such way. You cannot proof something is an apple, by merely proving it is not a pear, nor an orange.

The reason I came to this conclusion comes from this paragraph here.

Well, it is simple. Also in the great depression (like during the crisis nowadays), everyone suffers, except for the few top CEO's and bankers. Sure, they get a bit of opposition, sure, they in some cases get less money than they used to get, but at the end of the day, they still profit. Profiting is ofcourse very easy, if you can do what normal people cannot do, which is, predicting with quite good accuracy, what the markets will do, when. If you also happen to control the interest rates (and thus, the flow of money), it becomes even easier to not only predict what will happen, when, but even to stear events into a certain direction. The great depression was, like all economic crisis, also todays, caused by a bubble. The stock bubble. Guess who sold the populus the stocks? There were even stock-products back then, similar to the worthless derivatives nowadays. Derivatives created by the same people that are on the FED board, just like some of the stock products back in the 20's.

and your use of FED cartel quite frequently which would imply that there are people in the FED "pulling the strings" to get richer and make others richer.

Quote from Damarauder
I didn't realize alibis needed credibility.
Irrelevant, but quite a dumb stance. What about an alibi provided by somebody you pay $100K every month? Credible enough?
my point was pretty relevant to your point regarding alibis. Alibis are pretty much a story made up by someone to avoid being blamed. They are essentially claims and don't need to be credible at all. All they need to have is sufficient evidence to try to prove a point in the context of a court of law, or be well almost realistic to whomever someone is telling the alibi to. It's more of a how well can you convince your audience that this is true thing, not a matter of credibility.

Quote from Damarauder

Competing currencies are good for preventing a currency monopoly. If there's an inmensely overvalued monopoly currency and you then introduce new, competing, currencies, yes, than the monopolized currency will fall. As it should. Competing currencies are still there in the world, mostly on a national scale. This does not mean that they cannot be applied on a smaller scale. Currency should be nothing more and nothing less than a lubricant for economic transactions. Doesn't it strike you as odd, that during crisis, all people are still there, all the production facilities are still there, but the only thing missing is paper (currency)....

To me you seemed to change your position on this subject throughout this whole debate. I first mentioned the multiple currencies in the Third Century to which you then mentioned some concern over this becoming true with Ron Paul becoming a president, to which I then told you not to worry as Ron Paul won't be president, to which you then switched to "Competing currencies is a good thing". Competing currencies are bad in the world anyways, well at least in one country. Since you're fond of using extrapolation, why not check out the United States under the Articles of Confederation? Not to mention that devaluing the price of one currency just to bring in another currency sounds like a horrible idea as both currencies would mostly be almost worthless.

Quote from Damarauder

There's many alternative currencies on small scale already. Look up "Brixton Pound". There's dosens of more examples by the way. They have saved the economic flow in local communities.

The difference between alternative currencies and a second currency is that alternative currencies are only recognized on a local scale. Alternative currencies aren't recognized at all on the national scale. Alternative currencies are like gift cards. Target gift cards don't work at best buy.

As for Alex Jones, he does get a bare minimum of stuff right (Henry Kissinger being a war criminal/mongerer person, police brutality(at times)), but most of the time he does talk straight out of his ass and virtually everything he says ever is assinine no matter how you try to interpret it. Alex Jones is basically rehashing conspiracy theories that came way before he ever became popular. He's not saying anything new. Judging by the fact that his entire knowledge of how the US operates come from conspiracy theories one can assume and generally find evidence that Alex's "predictions" are all a load of BS and shouldn't be taken seriously at all. Typically though he will try to fit his broad vaguely worded prediction to fit into a current event and then tout on the radio "I PREDICTED THIS!!!!".

As for everything else, I was using sarcasm at times and making jokes here and there only because I felt like it though I think you didn't catch all of that. As for my stance on Ron Paul, it is supported by what he has said throughout his campaign as well as on his own campaign website. I still stand by Ron Paul being a fringe candidate as he hasn't made any victories at all throughout his campaign. Heck he even suspended his campaign. That doesn't sound like a candidate that has a chance at winning. Furthermore, Ron Paul supporters do tend to be the insane and crankerish bunch ranging from Stormfronters, Alex Jones, anyone that thinks the Jews control the world, Zeitgeisters, and libertarians for some odd reason. Admittedly he has gained support from people outside of these groups, though that has yet to play a significant role in his campaign at all and it doesn't seem likely that libertarianism will reach mainstream acceptance at any point in the United States.

[ Top | Reply to Topic ]

Posted: May 24, 2012 - 16:20

(0)

Level: 0

First, my apologies for missing sarcasm and perhaps responding too fiercly. English is not my mother language, so I might miss word jokes and sarcasm sometimes.

In this message, I will respond to your last message and also to the FEMA debunk movie you made. Quotes of claims from your message and the debunking-movie in bold.

"However, not all times does money = power."
Nope, you're right. PR also helps a bit. Seems you need both ;)

"His four brothers helped co-ordinate activities across the continent, and the family developed a network of agents, shippers and couriers to transport gold - and information - across Europe. This private intelligence service enabled Nathan to receive in London the news of Wellington's victory at the Battle of Waterloo a full day ahead of the government's official messengers"
Decide for yourself whether a businessman of his magnitude, would let an opportunity like that go by unnoticed....

-> Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Mayer_Rothschild

"and your use of FED cartel quite frequently which would imply that there are people in the FED "pulling the strings" to get richer and make others richer."
Yes, I believe that could be true. Perhaps not in all cases, nor actively involving all of the people in such position, but I am sure it happens occasionally. In fact, it would surprise me if it wouldn't. Never underestimate the power of self-interest. Would not be the first case where it wins over morality.

"To me you seemed to change your position on this subject throughout this whole debate. I first mentioned the multiple currencies in the Third Century to which you then mentioned some concern over this becoming true with Ron Paul becoming a president, to which I then told you not to worry as Ron Paul won't be president, to which you then switched to "Competing currencies is a good thing". Competing currencies are bad in the world anyways, well at least in one country. Since you're fond of using extrapolation, why not check out the United States under the Articles of Confederation? Not to mention that devaluing the price of one currency just to bring in another currency sounds like a horrible idea as both currencies would mostly be almost worthless."

You got me in on competing currencies, had no plan for bringing it up in that detail. It is, to be completely honest, also an irrelevant topic. Monetary problems, are only just another symptom of the real problem. But yea, you're right, history shows competing currencies are not always an immediate cure and can fail. But in the long run, I am convinced decentralized systems (monetary, but even economically and governmentally in general) are a much better way of governing a country and even the planet. I admit that this is an idealistic and perhaps utopian vision. I do try, however, to act in the best interest of this ideal.

Let me explain why I am such a fan of Ron Paul. Not because I am a libertarian. Libertarianism has flaws. The same goes for Austrian economics. Ron Paul is a little too Christian for me too. Nevertheless, he really is the first politician I have seen in my life time, that is open, honest, sincere, principled and morally integer (you seriously cannot deny this or I will send you TONS of roll-calls and speeches as proof). If he tells me he will stop US militarism around the world, I believe he actually WILL do that. These wars are criminal and immoral and NOT in the US civilians' best interest (but that's a different debate, you probably don't agree with me on that either).

Ron Paul will win some states, whether you believe it or not. He will win most caucas states. In fact, RP supporters have worked their way into the GOP administration in lots of states. Try to debunk this if you want to. Try to debunk the fact Ron Paul is gaining popularity exponentially AND libertarianism is gaining influence. And please don't debunk by sending me an Associated press clip or link.

"my point was pretty relevant to your point regarding alibis. Alibis are pretty much a story made up by someone to avoid being blamed. They are essentially claims and don't need to be credible at all. All they need to have is sufficient evidence to try to prove a point in the context of a court of law, or be well almost realistic to whomever someone is telling the alibi to. It's more of a how well can you convince your audience that this is true thing, not a matter of credibility."
Again, diversion of the topic to a technicality. The thing I was talking about and that led to this side-step, before drifting off to the definition of the word "alibi", was trying to give you a metaphor for a suspicious situation.

"Alex Jones"
I think he has some points, but I am no fan of the guy.

Additionally
I still had your FEMA debunking video on my watchlist, so I just did. You have a few good points, but I still think it's a very mediocre debunk and I am overstating there.

Firstly, In general, you're style of debunking is seaking out every claim you can find that you can somehow cast doubt on or in some cases, effectively debunk. However. When debunking a theory properly, you should at least refute ALL claims and aclaimed facts. Also, you cannot refute a claim 100%, by providing an alternative interpretation of the facts. In that case, it is not called debunking, but simply a difference of opinion.

Secondly, it would be stronger if, besides refuting the claims made in the theory, you could PROOF the opposite.

Thirdly, you debunk quite a lot of parts, specially in the legislation section, by reassuring us, that it's only for use in "in times of crisis", and you also sometimes add
"it has not happened yet".

Well. You know how we got here right? History was the key issue. Let me take you on a tour to show you, that you might be right, but probably aren't.

"On February 27, 1933, the Reichstag building went up in flames. Nazis immediately claimed that this was the beginning of a Communist revolution. This fact leads many historians to believe that Nazis actually set, or help set the fire. Others believe that a deranged Dutch Communist set the fire. The issue has never been resolved. This incident prompted Hitler to convince Hindenburg to issue a Decree for the Protection of People and State that granted Nazis sweeping power to deal with the so-called emergency. This laid the foundation for a police state."

-> Taken from http://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/timeline/nazifica.htm

"Concentration camps do not have catering services, handwashing staions and a laundromat"
Concentration camps in Germany in the 40's offered great entertainment as well. The inhabitants could play football, earn money and buy stuff at the grocery store. Enough said?

-> Taken from http://www.scrapbookpages.com/mauthausen/KZMauthausen/History/introduction.html

"maximum stay 30 days"
.... and then, if they still need you inside, they will pull the NDAA trick on ya.

-> Double check her http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Lindauer

"The army gets free labor. Hell even the inmates get meaningful work out of it"
Oh please... Seen that strategy before as well.

-> Read http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005474

"FEMA coffins"
I totally agree with you, that's a joke. Ironically, if you look at history, I have never seen "proper" mass burial before. I am sure FEMA will just dig a huge hole and dump the bodies there ;)

"Linda Thompson"
Yea, unfortunaly, one can always find some fruitcakes chasing the same goal as you do (I mean NAFTA = bad in this case, i agree with her), just with an utterly idiotic approach. I would even argue that the UNA bomber would fit in this category. Complete idiot, but making some good points.

[ Top | Reply to Topic ]

Posted: May 24, 2012 - 22:41

(0)

Level: 0

Quote from Damarauder

First, my apologies for missing sarcasm and perhaps responding too fiercly. English is not my mother language, so I might miss word jokes and sarcasm sometimes.

It's all good no harm done.

In this message, I will respond to your last message and also to the FEMA debunk movie you made. Quotes of claims from your message and the debunking-movie in bold.

"However, not all times does money = power."
Nope, you're right. PR also helps a bit. Seems you need both ;)

I budge for you and this is how you repay me?

"His four brothers helped co-ordinate activities across the continent, and the family developed a network of agents, shippers and couriers to transport gold - and information - across Europe. This private intelligence service enabled Nathan to receive in London the news of Wellington's victory at the Battle of Waterloo a full day ahead of the government's official messengers"
Decide for yourself whether a businessman of his magnitude, would let an opportunity like that go by unnoticed....

-> Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Mayer_Rothschild

"and your use of FED cartel quite frequently which would imply that there are people in the FED "pulling the strings" to get richer and make others richer."
Yes, I believe that could be true. Perhaps not in all cases, nor actively involving all of the people in such position, but I am sure it happens occasionally. In fact, it would surprise me if it wouldn't. Never underestimate the power of self-interest. Would not be the first case where it wins over morality.

Quote from Damarauder
"To me you seemed to change your position on this subject throughout this whole debate. I first mentioned the multiple currencies in the Third Century to which you then mentioned some concern over this becoming true with Ron Paul becoming a president, to which I then told you not to worry as Ron Paul won't be president, to which you then switched to "Competing currencies is a good thing". Competing currencies are bad in the world anyways, well at least in one country. Since you're fond of using extrapolation, why not check out the United States under the Articles of Confederation? Not to mention that devaluing the price of one currency just to bring in another currency sounds like a horrible idea as both currencies would mostly be almost worthless."

You got me in on competing currencies, had no plan for bringing it up in that detail. It is, to be completely honest, also an irrelevant topic. Monetary problems, are only just another symptom of the real problem. But yea, you're right, history shows competing currencies are not always an immediate cure and can fail. But in the long run, I am convinced decentralized systems (monetary, but even economically and governmentally in general) are a much better way of governing a country and even the planet. I admit that this is an idealistic and perhaps utopian vision. I do try, however, to act in the best interest of this ideal.

Yeah I did only because it was part of the reason for the Crisis of the Third Century, and because it came straight out of your source. I did also mention the other factors that were contributing to the collapse of the empire too. Keep that in mind.

Quote from Damarauder
Let me explain why I am such a fan of Ron Paul. Not because I am a libertarian. Libertarianism has flaws. The same goes for Austrian economics. Ron Paul is a little too Christian for me too. Nevertheless, he really is the first politician I have seen in my life time, that is open, honest, sincere, principled and morally integer (you seriously cannot deny this or I will send you TONS of roll-calls and speeches as proof). If he tells me he will stop US militarism around the world, I believe he actually WILL do that. These wars are criminal and immoral and NOT in the US civilians' best interest (but that's a different debate, you probably don't agree with me on that either).

Everyone typically has some sort of messiahistic view of their candidate until they get into office. Just keep that in mind.

Ron Paul will win some states, whether you believe it or not. He will win most caucas states. In fact, RP supporters have worked their way into the GOP administration in lots of states. Try to debunk this if you want to. Try to debunk the fact Ron Paul is gaining popularity exponentially AND libertarianism is gaining influence. And please don't debunk by sending me an Associated press clip or link.

"my point was pretty relevant to your point regarding alibis. Alibis are pretty much a story made up by someone to avoid being blamed. They are essentially claims and don't need to be credible at all. All they need to have is sufficient evidence to try to prove a point in the context of a court of law, or be well almost realistic to whomever someone is telling the alibi to. It's more of a how well can you convince your audience that this is true thing, not a matter of credibility."
Again, diversion of the topic to a technicality. The thing I was talking about and that led to this side-step, before drifting off to the definition of the word "alibi", was trying to give you a metaphor for a suspicious situation.

"Alex Jones"
I think he has some points, but I am no fan of the guy.

I think he has zero to no points and hate him with a fiery passion.

Quote from Damarauder
Additionally
I still had your FEMA debunking video on my watchlist, so I just did. You have a few good points, but I still think it's a very mediocre debunk and I am overstating there.

Not cool man/woman.

Firstly, In general, you're style of debunking is seaking out every claim you can find that you can somehow cast doubt on or in some cases, effectively debunk. However. When debunking a theory properly, you should at least refute ALL claims and aclaimed facts. Also, you cannot refute a claim 100%, by providing an alternative interpretation of the facts. In that case, it is not called debunking, but simply a difference of opinion.

Secondly, it would be stronger if, besides refuting the claims made in the theory, you could PROOF the opposite.

Thirdly, you debunk quite a lot of parts, specially in the legislation section, by reassuring us, that it's only for use in "in times of crisis", and you also sometimes add
"it has not happened yet".

Well to me that's what debunking usually is. It's just sometimes a simple glance at logic and reason which can be enough to refute a claim. Many times in the conspiracy theory world claims and documents are taken entirely out of context or distorted to try to make it fit in their conspiracy. The same goes for the FEMA camps. The conspiracy theorists took some pieces of legislation and tried to fit them into their conspiracy. They have been cited as evidence repeatedly. Instead of taking their word for it, I sought out these pieces of legislation and found out their true purposes, statuses, and whatnot. Basically search out the facts. It didn't take long to realize that some of them weren't exactly what the conspiracy theorists have stated they were, and other times it was them just blowing up or going apeshit on those pieces of legislation. They typically do go nanners when something similar like this happens. In fact they do it so much that it's become a joke here on this forum. I could dig up some old threads to prove my point. An example I can think of at the top of my head immediately would be any weather disaster that happens anywhere which is immediately blamed on HAARP without second thought at all.

To respond to your third point, times of crisis typically mean some major breach of national security which at the time that these pieces of legislation was made was the number one concern of the people and the government. Over time though, these pieces of legislation did either vanish or get remolded into another. My stating of it not happening yet does fit in well here because this legislation is well over 40 years old (going on 50 to be exact), and the government has yet to actually enact these things. The same can be said of the FEMA camps and WWIII. Conspiracy theorists such as Alex Jones have been claiming that WWIII and FEMA camps have been coming for quite some time now that it's getting old. It's like the people saying that the end of times is coming soon. People have been touting this forever and a day and yet no apocalypse as of yet. Not to mention that a lot of these claims tend to be more "out there" claims that need to be looked at and who's making the claim, like that End of America crap commercial that Alex Jones narrated that aired in 2011 claiming that it was going to tell us of a major event in 2011 that would change everything. That event didn't happen, and since it was made by Alex Jones it further adds to how he has no ability to predict anything. We have a whole section dedicated to predictions if you'd like to browse them

Well. You know how we got here right? History was the key issue. Let me take you on a tour to show you, that you might be right, but probably aren't.

Quote from Damarauder
"On February 27, 1933, the Reichstag building went up in flames. Nazis immediately claimed that this was the beginning of a Communist revolution. This fact leads many historians to believe that Nazis actually set, or help set the fire. Others believe that a deranged Dutch Communist set the fire. The issue has never been resolved. This incident prompted Hitler to convince Hindenburg to issue a Decree for the Protection of People and State that granted Nazis sweeping power to deal with the so-called emergency. This laid the foundation for a police state."

-> Taken from http://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/timeline/nazifica.htm

Hmmm, I'm surprised that Nazi Germany would say something like this. I would assume that Hitler would immediately blame this on the Jews that he has yet to capture.

"Concentration camps do not have catering services, handwashing staions and a laundromat"
Concentration camps in Germany in the 40's offered great entertainment as well. The inhabitants could play football, earn money and buy stuff at the grocery store. Enough said?

-> Taken from http://www.scrapbookpages.com/mauthausen/KZMauthausen/History/introduction.html

Can you post the time in the video that I made that claim? It's been awhile since I made it and I hardly remember that at all. I think if anything the point I was trying to make is that it makes no sense to send us in a concentration camp and give us a catering service, personal laundromat, and sanitation. I would assume that they would do what conspiracy theorists would tell us what they'd do and torture us and make life miserable.

"maximum stay 30 days"
.... and then, if they still need you inside, they will pull the NDAA trick on ya.

-> Double check her http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Lindauer

"The army gets free labor. Hell even the inmates get meaningful work out of it"
Oh please... Seen that strategy before as well.

-> Read http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005474

Army gets the profits then. Ron Paul has no problem with giving the army money. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyrqOzCf1eI

"FEMA coffins"
I totally agree with you, that's a joke. Ironically, if you look at history, I have never seen "proper" mass burial before. I am sure FEMA will just dig a huge hole and dump the bodies there ;)

"Linda Thompson"
Yea, unfortunaly, one can always find some fruitcakes chasing the same goal as you do (I mean NAFTA = bad in this case, i agree with her), just with an utterly idiotic approach. I would even argue that the UNA bomber would fit in this category. Complete idiot, but making some good points.

[ Top | Reply to Topic ]

Posted: May 25, 2012 - 03:20

(0)

Level: 0

Emcada. I think we're on the same page in quite a few cases. The main difference between us, is that I am probably a little bit more paranoid when it comes to interpreting certain trends. Not paranoid in the sense that I suspect a cabal of bankers and satanists of trying to kill 90% of the world population, so that they can gain absolute world domination.

However, my opinion is that
- Self-interest DOES thrive in politics.
- Lobbyists DO have huge power.
- One world government IS a bad thing, perhaps not at first, but at some point, inevitably, you will have some complete idiot ruling the entire world (and there IS a movement trying to achieve such world government; they admit it themselves)
- The central banking system IS in fact a corrupt system and it WAS introduced in the US in a conspiratorial way.
- The USA IS in fact rapidly approaching a a police state, by any definition. You may rationalize this, by saying the government only means to do good, to protect us etc. but the fact is, that at some point it most likely WILL be abused.
- "Terrorism" IS in fact an overrated (and self-inflicted) smokescreen, to allow invasions. Yes, there is terrorism, but it's used as an excuse to do horrible things!
- Corporations ARE in bed with the government. Simple question: Why bail out banks? Why not bail out all mortgage owners? Both have negative side-effects. In the first case the negative side-effects are for the entire nation for its civilians; the CEO's profit, they can still receive bonusses. In the second case, the the economy would get a huge boost (spendable income would increase dramatically); but yes, some banks would fail. This is 100% compliant with a free market, when you're bankrupt, debt needs to be liquidized. Hypocritically enough, the same corporations use 'free-market' as an argument to pay those insane salaries and bonusses... "If we dont pay that much, the market will have the competitor pay this amount and the best CEO's will run!". You can't have it both ways, but in reality, the CEO's DO get it both ways. To me, it's incomprehensible that civilians let corporations and governments get away with this, always coming up with solutions where the CEO's jump out the best and the burden falls on the normal people.
- The USA/CIA IS in fact comitting horrible crimes against people around the world. Just look into the history of Venezuela, Bolivia, Iran, Indonesia, Iraq, Lybia and many many other countries. There can be no debate over this, it's admitted, documented and all in the name of US-or another narrow self-interest.

Again, we're simply on a different moral compass and we have a different opininion on the type of government that is needed. I am naturally a bit more suspicious when I see a politician do stuff (whether it is passing legislation or drone-bombing or invading) that benefits the same people and companies that sponsor him.

Call me paranoid, call me a conspiracy theorist, but I know I am a rational person, with a healthy suspicion... I know I can be miles off, I could interpret events completely wrong, but the evidence is simply too compelling to ignore, at least for me it is. And trust me, I have read loads and loads and loads of books, reports, laws, wikis etc.... There's a horrible pattern of self-interest in this world, that I simply cannot rationalize away and it's bringing down the planet.

[ Top | Reply to Topic ]

Posted: May 28, 2012 - 04:51

(0)

STFU!

Level: 1
CS Original

Exibit H
Fact: There was no debri of anything that should resemble a commercial airliner at the pentagon crash scene.
Debunking theory: It was already cleared and the rest of it got vaporated.
My response: Highly improbable, but could be.

bullshit, there are photos all over internet. also, vaporated is not a word. debri rhymes with colibri and truthers are morons.

[ Top | Reply to Topic ]

Posted: May 28, 2012 - 05:01

(0)

Level: 0

Lol @ evil elvis. Read some of your replies now. You my friend are a constructive guy. Love the way you present your arguments in 1 line.

[ Top | Reply to Topic ]

Posted: May 28, 2012 - 17:02

(0)

Level: 0

Quote from Damarauder

Lol @ evil elvis. Read some of your replies now. You my friend are a constructive guy. Love the way you present your arguments in 1 line.

beats reading essays of the same stuff touted over and over again.

[ Top | Reply to Topic ]

Posted: May 28, 2012 - 22:24

(1)

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

[ Top | Reply to Topic ]

Posted: May 29, 2012 - 01:02

(0)

Level: 0

Matt's findings never cease to amaze me

[ Top | Reply to Topic ]

Posted: May 29, 2012 - 05:08

(0)

STFU!

Level: 1
CS Original

Quote from Damarauder

Lol @ evil elvis. Read some of your replies now. You my friend are a constructive guy. Love the way you present your arguments in 1 line.

one line is too much for most truthers. scratch that - all truthers. no way to be constructive when you're facing people who disregard facts and proclaim their own versions and truths. oh crap, this is really long, over one line, damn i feel constructive today.

[ Top | Reply to Topic ]