Now We Know For Sure They Lied About 911

CVX · Post by **CVX** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 10:53 pm

By John Kaminski

skylax@comcast.net

8-19-4

I challenge anyone to watch the new "911 In Plane Site" video and still believe the government's story that a jet airliner full of passengers hit the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. It simply can't be done. I'll bet anyone any amount of anything that they just can't do it.

Utilizing footage from TV networks - often stuff that was shown only one time and never seen again - the Power Hour radio show's Dave Von Kleist methodically provides proof positive that the government lied about what happened in Washington on that fateful day, an event that was the culmination of the greatest sneak attack in American history.

The damning images of flames raging inside the Pentagon behind an unbroken wall with many unbroken windows and an unbroken roof line clearly demonstrates that whatever caused the explosion and fire inside America's most secure building, coupled with no significant trace of airplane wreckage at any time during the disaster, was no giant airliner.

It wasn't until long after the fire began that the roof finally collapsed, and even then, the hole that was created in no way resembles the ghastly imprint two other jets left when they struck the World Trade Center towers in New York City mere minutes before.

What this means for the American people is that the story President Bush, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and all those other government officials told the world that day is a lie, a gigantic and bald-faced lie.

A hijacked airliner never hit the Pentagon, and this film proves it. As VonKleist, who both wrote and produced this masterpiece, asks in the film, "How does a plane 125 feet wide and 155 feet long fit into a hole which is only 16 feet across?"

Since day one, the only thing that every single, skeptical 9/11 researcher has ever wanted during all the research they have undertaken during the past three years is one single, irrefutable fact that could disprove the government's blatant lie. Because proving one lie means their whole story is false. One provable lie means 9/11 is not what they said it was.

This is the film that does it. And this is a development in the 9/11 story that no one in America or the world can afford to ignore.

Indictments and arrests should begin immediately based on this film alone. Top members of the government lied about what happened. This is a statement that can no longer be challenged as false. It is now up to American law enforcement officials to act in this matter, or the American people will realize our leaders are allowed the break the law, and the laws no longer apply to them.

And the Pentagon revelation is only the start of this remarkable film, a 70-minute documentary that delves into only four major aspects of Sept. 11.

Having viewed this film with two relatives who did believe the government's story prior to viewing, I interpreted the ashen looks on their faces as a valid testament to the movie's power. Before seeing it, they basically believed what they'd heard on TV about what happened on 9/11. Afterwards, they both told me that they no longer did.

After the Pentagon segment, Von Kleist turns his attention to the plume, a giant puff of smoke that rises from the base of the Twin Towers PRIOR to their collapse. Although Von Kleist doesn't say so (and doesn't really make any conclusions in his objective presentation of film fact), the viewer is left to contemplate whether this was the explosion that brought down the towers. A great clip of firemen describing how the buildings were demolished leaves viewers with that distinct impression.

The most controversial aspect of the film, one which led me and other potential reviewers to express reservations about the film before we'd actually seen it, was the inclusion of material from Phil Jayhan's letsroll911.org website, the most astounding aspect of which is footage that shows both jetliners appearing to fire missiles at the towers in the instant before impact.

It simply sounded too preposterous. It sounded as untenable as the hologram theory. Many of us worried it was deliberate disinformation, designed to destroy the 9/11 skeptics movement.

You need to see it. Four different people with four different cameras recorded it. I am no photographic expert. I can't tell you when a film has been tampered with or when it hasn't. I can only tell you what I saw. It looks real, and the patient pacing of Von Kleist's explanation will make it most difficult for you to deny what you are seeing.

But my initial fear that the 9/11 truth movement could be hurt by this footage was completely erased after I saw the Pentagon segment, because if people watch that, they will have no alternative but to realize that their leaders are criminals - liars, traitors and mass murderers - who have covered up the truth about 9/11 because they were involved in it.

This is not a conspiracy theory. These are facts recorded on film. See it for yourself. You can't afford not to. After all, what is at stake is the future of freedom, and that's not an exaggeration.

And all the subsequent carnage that Bush and his criminal friends have inflicted on the world is predicated on this one colossal lie.

No jetliner hit the Pentagon. This film proves it. This film proves the government lied - big time - about what happened on 9/11. Think about the people who are involved in this lie. Everybody on television. Everybody at the major newspapers. Everybody in the Congress. Thousands of people.

Think about all the lives that have been needlessly thrown away as a result of this lie.

Think about America. It's a lie. This film proves it.

I talked with Phil Jayhan last night. I told him that I was not a film expert, but that the missile footage looked real to me. And I congratulated him on the tireless outreach he's done on this project. More than any other 9/11 researcher, he has contacted more people and produced more results than anybody else.

We had argued about this issue in the past. I worried if the missile footage were proven to false or tampered with, the whole movement could be hurt.

I no longer believe that the missile footage - should it somehow be proven false - can hurt the 9/11 skeptics movement, in large part because the Pentagon footage was so masterfully presented that no one in their right mind can deny that no hijacked airliner hit the Pentagon.

I have previously advocated that the time the towers took to fall was the smoking gun of 9/11, because that indicated the WTC buildings had been demolished, since they fell at the same speed as debris off to the side. Jayhan responded that Twin Tower demolition could one day be explained away as a way to prevent more deaths than actually happened. I had to agree the perps could do that, if their demolition scheme were ever to be revealed to the public.

But, Jayhan stressed, there can be no alternative reason for a plane firing missiles at the towers just before impact.

See the film. Make your own decision.

Writer/producer Von Kleist, director William Lewis and Power Hour Productions deserve all the credit possible for bringing this presentation to the world. This could in fact be the one item that finally overturns the coverup.

Every American should see this film. And every cop, too. And perhaps if there is a prosecutor remaining in America with a scintilla of honesty and integrity, he should consider this video as prima facie evidence in the greatest crime in American history, and maybe do something about that.

To order the film, go to http://www.thepowerhour.com/

To see clips of the missile firing, check out http://letsroll911.org/

John Kaminski is the author of "America's Autopsy Report," a collection of his Internet essays seen on hundreds of websites around the world. More recently he has written "The Day America Died: Why You Shouldn't Believe the Official Story of What Happened on September 11, 2001," a 48-page booklet aimed at those who still believe the government's version of events on that fateful day. A second collection of his essays, titled "The Perfect Enemy," is in press and should be available in September 2004. For more information see http://www.johnkaminski.com/

Serenity · Post by **Serenity** » Fri Aug 27, 2004 4:03 am

yeah? so it's a big lie. so what? It's not like it's goin to reform any of the laws that've been legislated, such as the "terrorist act" that was put into effect, of which we all know was just a goddamned "bald-faced"-to use your terms- bulligerent push-over to prod further into our lives and reduce our autonomy (of what little we had)

In the grand scheme of things- and it's been mentioned on here before- "only" a few thousand people died in this event( of which many were non-americans) , and while i don't wish to make a person's life sound any less significant then another's, on the grand scale it was a small loss in order to put forth such a strong measure to wich we've all become slaves and victims.

I don't think there's much more i need to say about this for anyone to get the rest of the picture.

Bush Administration and the elite have put forth yet another phase in the game to world control. Game, set , match. we lose. what's next?

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Sun Aug 29, 2004 7:19 am

All the guessing games. It could well have done by the US government. Has anyone ever figured that out. Remember McViegh & Co.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sun Aug 29, 2004 11:52 am

there certainly is no shortage of crackpots in this world. missiles. yeah. sure.

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Mon Aug 30, 2004 3:44 am

Question? Irish people here still asking the question 'Who shot J.F.Kennedy?

And why are there more private armies in the United States?

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Mon Aug 30, 2004 10:26 am

plazul wrote: Google, Jim Fetzer Kennedy assasination, and you'll get your answer.

We have a few militia organizations in the US but no private armies (that I know of).

Oh Sorry, We alway's get it wrong. Yes militia. But what do they get up to?

John Fitzgerald Kennedy former President of the United States of America.

And I promise I won't ask Who shot JR.

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 3:27 pm

And this will go on and on and on. :-2

A Karenina · Post by **A Karenina** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 6:40 pm

plazul wrote: Translation: prepare for war with Iran.
Thank you. I've been saying this for some time - nobody wants to hear it.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 9:26 pm

Sorry to all the Bush voters, but, I think that the world "as we know it" is coming to an end. To me that means that the present political systems are so decadent that they must come to an end and be replaced by the next era. I think Bush was elected again because if someone's gonna get caught it's going to be him.

Too bad there has to be so much death when something new is born.

Paula · Post by **Paula** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:06 pm

can;t fix it now....lied, they died. Because. Let everyone in, the free world, be happy, it's good here, it's okay, come on, we like you too, yes you can kill us if feel like it...we care now, none of us are- political scientist, we live in a f754ked up world, we need trust in the next generation, HELP. I am confused, no one knows, why terror was so bad, that day i remember so well.....

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Nov 10, 2004 2:33 am

Paula wrote: can;t fix it now....lied, they died. Because. Let everyone in, the free world, be happy, it's good here, it's okay, come on, we like you too, yes you can kill us if feel like it...we care now, none of us are- political scientist, we live in a f754ked up world, we need trust in the next generation, HELP. I am confused, no one knows, why terror was so bad, that day i remember so well.....

Wow. Do you write stream of consciousness professionally?

Originally Posted by IdeaSeeker

Agree.

The only secure way to prevent further terrorist attack is to keep all foreigners off border.

What does immigration have to do with a 911 conspiracy film's comment on the lies and alliances of the government? I'm missing the relevance here

My favourite part in MM's film was where the Supreme Court judge says "We can't read every bill we pass/ that is put before us". Can't remember the exact words but, HEY? What does he mean they passed a bill without reading it!!!!????

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Nov 10, 2004 10:27 am

koan wrote:

My favourite part in MM's film was where the Supreme Court judge says "We can't read every bill we pass/ that is put before us". Can't remember the exact words but, HEY? What does he mean they passed a bill without reading it!!!!????
the supreme court doesn't pass bills, nor do they have a mandate to read the bills passed by congress and the president, so this doesn't make any sense at all. guess i'll have to find that pira*ted copy of f911 sometime...

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Nov 10, 2004 10:52 am

anastrophe wrote: the supreme court doesn't pass bills, nor do they have a mandate to read the bills passed by congress and the president, so this doesn't make any sense at all. guess i'll have to find that pira*ted copy of f911 sometime...

Someone who's seen it might have to help me remember exactly what this was. Only saw it once at theatre with annoying person who kept asking what was going on. It had to do with whether or not they had the right to invade privacy during war against terror movement I believe. Some kind of emergency bill.

Does anyone else know of what I speak?

By the way, you should really see the movie before you can speak of it with any real opinion. Since it's a hot topic that you submit replies to quite often....I would actually be very interested in hearing your explanations/thoughts regarding the many points of the film touches on.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Nov 10, 2004 11:03 am

koan wrote:

By the way, you should really see the movie before you can speak of it with any real opinion. Since it's a hot topic that you submit replies to quite often....I would actually be very interested in hearing your explanations/thoughts regarding the many points of the film touches on.
as i've said, i intend to watch it, so long as mr. moore doesn't receive any profit from my wallet in so doing.

as i've also said, i have seen excerpts from the film, and that's what i've based my comments on. i have not based any of my comments on portions of the film i've not seen, so to the best of my knowledge, those opinions i've shared on it have been 'real' to that degree.

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 9:17 am

KlatunIckto wrote: After reading,and rereading CVX's windy piece I pondered long,and hard do I run,laugh myself silly,or cry.

I chose of course :wah: :wah: :wah:

It's always nice when someone has the chance to laugh. Don't laugh yourself too silly, though.

CVX · Post by **CVX** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:14 am

Mega-Millionaire Offers $100,000

Reward For Scientific Proof

WTC Towers Collapsed As

Bush Administration Claims

From Ilene Proctor

Proctor & Associates

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/08/nyregion/08ads.html

http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/33563.htm

CNN Poll 11-10-04: 90% Believe US Complicity In 911 Attacks

$100,000 REWARD to the first person to deliver a full mathematical, engineering proof of how the impact and/or fires caused any of the WTC buildings to collapse the way the government claims! It must include all the fuel, mass, critical temperatures, likely temperatures and their causes, energy needed to crush concrete into fine powder, force needed to sheer bolts and rivets, time calculations, and all the other relevant data in a detailed analysis to be reviewed by accredited engineers on a team headed by Jeff King http://911review.org/Wiki/King,Jeff.shtml, engineer and doctor educated at MIT.

$10,000 FIRST PRIZE for engineering students who can best prove how the buildings collapsed.

Ten $1,000 prize for runner-ups. For application: http://www.reopen911.org

~ DEADLINE: JUNE 30, 2005 ~

Passionately committed to democracy, multi-millionaire Jimmy Walter, a Democratic philanthropist, announced that he would spend an extra million dollars on advertising in addition to the $1,500,000 already spent on another advertising blitz in America's most prominent newspapers and magazines. This time the full-page ads will specifically target the New York market: New York Times, New York Daily News, Wall Street Journal, New Yorker, The Howard Stern show etc. The theme of the new ads based upon a Zogby Poll is BOLD AND DECISIVE: 66% of New Yorkers want 9/11 reopened. 49% believe some US leaders knew in advance and "they consciously failed to act."

http://www.reopen911.org/index.htm.

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/ ... eEvidence/

what_failed_and_how.htm/

http://www.911review.org/Wget/www.nerdc ... Hufschmid/

Clouds0Concrete_2.html

http://www.911review.org/http://www.pla ... blic_html/

Confronting%20the%20Evidence/what_failed_and_how.htm

http://www.john-knapton.com/

http://www.rense.com/

http://www.americanfreepress.net/

http://911research.wtc7.net/

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/col ... usses.html

http://www.policestate21.com/

Walter first turned to paid advertising two years ago when he saw the mainstream press self-censoring in support of the impending Iraqi quagmire. Alarmed at the critical omission of vital information in America's leading publications, he felt he had to get the word out that Colin Powell and the George H. W. Bush administration had lied to the American people, the Congress, and the UN to justify the first Gulf War and was now lying again to start an unjustified war which would increase terrorism, create a new Vietnam, and cause an economic disaster for America. Presciently, his predictions have all come true: the war has increased terrorism against the American people, jobs are scarce, oil is running out, and the world economy is being wrecked by Bush's fanatical actions. http://www.walden3.org/press.htm

Walter is still putting his money where his mind and heart are. In Mid-September, 2004, Walter funded the jam-packed Omission Commission in Manhattan: "Confronting the Evidence - a call to reopen the 9/11 investigation." According to a recent Zogby poll: half of New Yorkers agreed that some US leaders "knew in advance that the attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act. Two thirds of the respondents called for new probe of the still unanswered questions by Congress and/or the New York Attorney General's office."

The Commissions' mandate was twofold - first, to expose a complete accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the 9/11 attacks; second, like the Independent Commission, to make recommendations. In this made-forbroadcast forum presenters had the task of laying out a compelling case for their evidence. The event's panel, composed of 9/11 victims, environmental experts, researchers, scientists, journalists and first responders, challenged some of the key data that had been the basis of the 9/11 Commission's investigations and pointed our many serious omission and incongruities. This event had paramount importance because earlier recommendations based on an incomplete accounting of the facts is not making us any safer, and will not protect us from a recurrence.

The Victims Family Steering Committee filed close to 400 questions with the 9/11 Commission. Initially welcomed by the commissioners as a "road map" for their inquiry, the Commission ignored the majority of these questions, opting only to explore system failures, miscommunications and incompetence. The victim families' most incisive issues remain un-addressed to this day. Their queries cut to the heart of 9/11 crimes and accountability. They raised the central issues of motive, means and cui bono (who profited?). The Omission Commission was created to lift the shroud of secrecy and unanswered questions surrounding the largest homeland tragedy in American history.

Walter has more than war on his mind. Even though he is a businessman he supports organized labor and a living wage. While in New York City to protest the Republican National Convention, he carried a sign saying," Fair pay for Firemen and Police". "The police, firemen, EMS, sanitation, and other public labor forces do not have the right to strike or even protest. I have always supported labor as the smart thing for the whole economy. He believes that the Republican mayor and governor have perpetrated an injustice on New York's Finest, firemen, and other essential service employees.

Mr. Walter main focus, his "day job" as he calls it, is using his extensive economic experience to start and operate several progressive, futuristic, sustainable and Eco-friendly enterprises.

Walden Three - Walter's Practical Eco-Utopian Think Tank

If the air could talk, it would most certainly say that Walter is one of the environment's best friends. Known worldwide as an ecological crusader, he heads Walden Three, an environmental based think tank dedicated to preserving our environment while stimulating the economy and providing luxurious lifestyle for all.

While several Walden's and Walden Two's were started, few survive and none, except one (http://www.loshorcones.org.mx/), still adhere to their progenitor's concepts. Mr. Walter believes this is so because none of those communities were truly "off the grid". To do that, he points out, you have to make your own solar cells, glass bottles, pharmaceuticals, computers, plastic, china, knives, forks, steel, transportation vehicles, roads, etc., as well as food: all the things that people consume. To that end, Walden Three incorporates pollution free (including noise) factories so people can work, live, shop, and play within walking, moving sidewalk, or electric tram distance. Moreover, the freight system is built into the people moving system, efficiency. Everything is connected by the city's broadband Internet. Every person and business has computers and free, unlimited access to all the systems from school to work to entertainment.

Walter successfully helped over 20,000 inmates in the Florida prison system and 40,000 people nationwide with his Life Skills Foundation program, a program ended by jealousy from within the Florida Department of Corrections when they got the governor to veto the bill he got through the Florida legislature. Jeb Bush then ended all programs claiming punishment was all that was needed. The result, crime is on the rise with hundreds of thousands of untrained, unmotivated felons coming back into society without enough jobs for all. I believe in 'flood up' economics, not 'trickle down'. If the people at the bottom get money, they spend it. The tax giveaway to the rich went to higher interest bearing banks and bonds abroad, not to buy American."

As a patriot, philanthropist, activist with a genius IQ (he won the prestigious Morehead Scholarship at UNC even though he had a wealthy father), Walter is parlaying his knowledge of business, finance, psychology, economics, behavior management, religion, and philosophy to build a truly sustainable Eco-Utopian society.

Walden Three is a paradigm for future architectural and biotecture development.

He is working with architect R. Edmond of HASSELL Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia, which won the Urban Design Competition for Architecture, Urban Design, Landscape Architecture, Urban Planning, for a 4 -thousand hectare (~10,000 acres) model city in Ningbo, China. Walter lived in Hong Kong from 1986 to 1992 researching to this end.

Walter was born in Tampa, FL in 1947, the son of famed Horatio Alger industrialist, Jim Walter who started Jim Walter Homes with $1,000 in 1946 which became Walter Industries, a conglomerate that included Celotex and U.S. Pipe and Foundry which does everything from manufacture ceiling tiles, pipe, and wall board to building and financing low income homes to oil, gas, and coal production.

Walter spent over $3 million running the Life Skills Foundation, a non-profit educational organization he founded, which trained more than 20,000 prisoners Florida Dept art corrections inmates, and 3,000 welfare recipients. The recidivism rates are truly remarkable. Sixty-Six percent of inmates go on to healthier, more productive lives.

Jimmy Walter is definitely making a difference, and using his funds to make a positive change for the future. A man who has overcome personal challenges, and is 100% committed to uncovering the lies and manipulations of the dangerous men in Washington now. After all, these are the same people who told us that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11; the same people who told us Saddam Hussein had something to do with weapons of mass destruction; the same people who told us we would be able to use the oil for reconstruction money; the same people who told us we would be greeted as liberators, not occupiers; the same people, the same President who told us the Taliban is gone; the same President who told us that Poland is our ally 2 days before they pull out; the same President who tells us Iraq is going just great; the same President who tells us the economy is going just great; the same people who told us the tax cuts were going to create millions of jobs; the same people who told us that the Medicare program only cost $400 billion when it really cost $540 billion."

In a letter sent by Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Underwriters Laboratories is the company that certified the steel components used in the construction of the World Trade Center towers. The information in this letter is of great importance.

http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsar ... 1-ryan.php

http://www.reopen911.org/index.htm

PROCTOR & ASSOCIATES

INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC RELATIONS

Press Contact: Ilene Proctor or Angus Hsu

proctor@artnet.net

Paula · Post by **Paula** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 7:47 am

CVX, your information and concern is so vast, you should be investigating 911. Why the building did not stand up is because(simple english)thousands of gallons of diesel fuel, boom. :-5

A Karenina · Post by **A Karenina** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 6:33 pm

koan wrote: Someone who's seen it might have to help me remember exactly what this was. Only saw it once at theatre with annoying person who kept asking what was going on. It had to do with whether or not they had the right to invade privacy during war against terror movement I believe. Some kind of emergency bill.

Does anyone else know of what I speak?
Never fear, Koan. I know of whence you speak. I shall save you.

Members of Congress were saying that they did not have time to read every bill before having to vote on them. The specific bill you are referring to is the Patriot Act.

Yep! This was passed without being read.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 6:55 pm

A Karenina wrote: Never fear, Koan. I know of whence you speak. I shall save you.

Members of Congress were saying that they did not have time to read every bill before having to vote on them. The specific bill you are referring to is the Patriot Act.

Yep! This was passed without being read.i'm sure at least *some* of the hundreds and hundreds of members of congress did actually read it. others may have relied on their colleagues 'reviews' of it to determine whether to vote yea or nay. but it's not like it went through both the house and senate without a single soul reading it.

btw, i 'found' a copy of f 9/11. aside from the fictional parts, which are quite ballsy, i found it a snoozer. i fell asleep halfway through. *this* thing made more than a hundred mil at the box office? yeah, and there's one reason why: michael moore is a genius at *self promotion* not a genius at filmmaking. pack 'em into the theatres with controversy, rather than honest content.

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 9:41 pm

A Karenina, THANKS!!!! :-6

I was going to rent it again just to find out what that segment was. You saved me the trip.

Anastrophe, forgive me, for some reason I feel like I'm in "1984" when you post. I don't know why but I'm sure you'd have a million words to explain it. :wah:

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 10:15 pm

koan wrote:

Anastrophe, forgive me, for some reason I feel like I'm in "1984" when you post. I don't know why but I'm sure you'd have a million words to explain it. :wah:
if only i understood what you mean....

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 10:40 pm

I'm sure you know George Orwell, "doublespeak", "We are at war with the East we have always been at war with the East" one week later "We are at war with the West, we have always been at war with the West". People just erase their memories and accept the new info as true...

It's kind of a harsh statement that I can't justify (hence the preapology)...just a feeling I get sometimes.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 11:23 pm

koan wrote: I'm sure you know George Orwell, "doublespeak", "We are at war with the East we have always been at war with the East" one week later "We are at war with the West, we have always been at war with the West". People just erase their memories and accept the new info as true...

It's kind of a harsh statement that I can't justify (hence the preapology)...just a feeling I get sometimes.
yes, i'm familiar with orwell's 1984. i still don't understand what you're implying.

what doublespeak am i engaging in, or what am i failing to 'understand'?

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 7:46 am

I recall your consistent derision of people who believe that Bush's administration is engaging in doublespeak or that the general public is being deceived by government. If they are not questioned and investigated, the government is bound to become corrupted. It is a central theme of the Declaration of Independence to challenge the legitimacy of every institution with "eternal vigilance".

Edward Bernays, a leading figure in the rise of the public relations industry, said that persausion is the very essence of the democratic process. "A leader frequently cannot wait for the people to arrive at even a general understanding...Democratic leaders must play their part in...engineering...consent to socially constructive goals."

("...engineering...consent...?)

Journalist Walter Lippman wrote in Public Opinion in 1921 that "the manufacture of consent" constituted a "revolution in the practice of democracy" and has become "a self conscious art and regular organ of popular government."

(the manufactur[ing] of consent"?)

I do not think you are engaged in "doublespeak" but I wonder if you are practicing vigilance to ensure you are not a victim of it. Why should the legitimacy of our leaders' actions require less proof than the suspicions that they are not acting legitimately?

Has Bush engineered consent? Remember when 911 happened and he suggested we go after Hussein while we were over there? The public did not agree so he took a couple of years to engineer their consent. Is this the only example? What about the media that feeds us our information?

James Mill describes the media's role as being to "train the minds of the people to a virtuous attachment to their government."

So, although your support of the government may be deserved, do you keep constant vigilance that you are not being deceived?

That is what I mean.

greydeadhead · Post by **greydeadhead** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 8:34 am

Koan raises an interesting question. As far a engineering consent, I don't think that any administration is not guilty of that in some shape or form. And as far as knowing the whole truth behind 911, I higly doubt that we will know that either. There are still portions of the Warren Commision report that are sealed, to address one of the biggest conspiracies in history.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 8:40 am

greydeadhead wrote: As far a engineering consent, I don't think that any administration is not guilty of that in some shape or form.

You should see the sort of manipulation that Fascist Tony and the Eurghopeans

are indulging in.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 10:20 am

koan wrote: I recall your consistent derision of people who believe that Bush's administration is engaging in doublespeak or that the general public is being deceived by government. If they are not questioned and investigated, the government is bound to become corrupted. It is a central theme of the Declaration of Independence to challenge the legitimacy of every institution with "eternal vigilance".

are you sure you don't have me confused with someone else? if as you say it is 'consistent', then it should be easy to find quotes, constructs, examples of that here on forumgarden to corroborate that. i don't think you'll have an easy time of it.

Edward Bernays, a leading figure in the rise of the public relations industry, said that persausion is the very essence of the democratic process. "A leader frequently cannot wait for the people to arrive at even a general understanding...Democratic leaders must play their part in...engineering...consent to socially constructive goals."

("...engineering...consent...?)

Journalist Walter Lippman wrote in Public Opinion in 1921 that "the manufacture of consent" constituted a "revolution in the practice of democracy" and has become "a self conscious art and regular organ of popular government."

(the manufactur[ing] of consent"?)
yes, i'm familiar with all of that. what i would submit however, is that michael moore is trying to 'manufacture dissent'. he uses the very same tactics of those who try to manufacture consent to try to manufacture dissent. his arguments would hold a lot more water with me if he presented the facts, and didn't salt them with histrionics, shrillness, derision, paranoia, and worst of all, his own insatiable desire for self promotion, ergo, wealth.

I do not think you are engaged in "doublespeak" but I wonder if you are practicing vigilance to ensure you are not a victim of it. Why should the legitimacy of our leaders' actions require less proof than the suspicions that they are not acting legitimately?
therein lies the rub. mr. moore produced a movie - not a documentary mind you - to capitalize on legitimate concerns about the actions of the government. why should the legitimacy of mr. moore's opinions require less scrutiny than those of our leaders?

think about this - mr. moore claimed, repeatedly, as the election wore on, that it was just 'so incredibly important' that people see his film. he went so far as to try and arrange a deal to have his movie shown on cable tv the night before the election. but did he try to do this out of the love for his nation he has, and the goodness of his heart? no. the film didn't show the night before the election, and it wasn't due to government pressure, or trepidation on the part of the cable companies, or any of that - it was that *they could not come to an agreement on how much mr. moore would be paid for the broadcast*. now think about it. long before election night, mr. moore had become a millionaire many times over due to the profits from f 9/11. he is, quite accurately, filthy rich. if the showing of his film was so incredibly important to the future of this country, as he maintained, then why was his paycheck for that night-before-the-election showing more important than getting it shown?

Has Bush engineered consent? Remember when 911 happened and he suggested we go after Hussein while we were over there? The public did not agree so he took a couple of years to engineer their consent. Is this the only example? What about the media that feeds us our information?

James Mill describes the media's role as being to "train the minds of the people to a virtuous attachment to their government."

So, although your support of the government may be deserved, do you keep constant vigilance that you are not being deceived?

That is what I mean.
okay. but i still think you've got me mixed up with someone else. relying on mr. moore's film as a means of vigilance is to me tantamount to reading an 'incredible hulk' comic book as a means of staying informed about how evil and corruption are being fought.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 2:22 pm

posted by anastrophe

yes, i'm familiar with all of that. what i would submit however, is that michael moore is trying to 'manufacture dissent'. he uses the very same tactics of those who try to manufacture consent to try to manufacture dissent. his arguments would hold a lot more water with me if he presented the facts, and didn't salt them with histrionics, shrillness, derision, paranoia, and worst of all, his own insatiable desire for self promotion, ergo, wealth.

therein lies the rub. mr. moore produced a movie - not a documentary mind you - to capitalize on legitimate concerns about the actions of the government. why should the legitimacy of mr. moore's opinions require less scrutiny than those of our leaders?

Very true but leaving aside Michael moore's polemic you can still assess for yourself how much of the "factual" content is actually factual. Read the 911 report-it's the second link.

Given the scepticism with which you view michael moore I would expect someone like yourself to apply the same scepticism to what the bush administration are telling you. Believing evrything michael moore says would not be sensible, neither would dismissing it all out of hand.

I haven't seen fahreinheit 911, it did not stay long in the cinemas here and I missed it, I think I will wait till it's on cable.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

If we didn't get lied to by TB then we are being led by an idiot, certainly in the case of britain the intelligence reports presented to parliament were doctored to put the right spin on the concluscion-only a complete idiot or a dyed in the wool new labour supporter believes otherwise.

We too are getting the hype about the threat of terror and the need for id cards holding people without trial etc, hopefully the british public will not buy it, I would like to think we are more cynical than that. Having suffered terrorist attacks for years and not needing them it's a bit farcical to start calling for them now.

I think you should start out assuming all politicians are self seeking liars and proceed from there.

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 2:59 pm

Thank you, Anastrophe for acknowledging my last point.

I am not thinking so much of MMs film as a means of vigilance as I am the works of Noam Chomsky.

I read through a bunch of threads to see how I was linking you to "1984" thinking and tried to go back to ones prior to my membership in the Garden. I am somewhat hesitant to label you as I see some indication that you are aware of the propaganda that government feeds us (Post #2 Thread -John Kerry Ad) and your qoute "We have met the enemy and he is us" (P#14 T-Abortion, political...) although I am not sure you used this in the context of pointing at the government.

It is not labeling that I am interested in, I want to look at how we may get brainwashed and manipulated by the media that is there to keep us informed.

MM may be manufacturing dissent but he is creating cause to question what we are told. This is essential.

I am set off by your disregard of opinions and facts that don't correspond with your own.

"I found it a snoozer" (P#25 this thread)

"crackpots" (P#4 this thread)

anyone who thinks GWB is stupid is "delusional, blinded by ideology" (P#10 T-Hidden earpiece)

""that's ridiculous" and "Iraq in a quagmire. I'm sick of hearing about it." (P#11 T- Kerry/Bush)

"your post is full of prejudice and bias" (P#3 T-Abortion, political or personal)

BTW the post in reference here expressed views I have heard many times.

You discounted sources of information in thread "You couldn't make this up"

P#4 "getting news through six layers of filters" - this is very similar to Chomsky's 5 filter explanation of how all media is controlled. Your news and information is controlled as well.

P#6 "Biased" "Irrelevant" (repeat repeat repeat) you discounted a large number of media sources and instead offered only one. I don't know who owns or funds factcheck.org but is it wise to put all your faith in one site? Do you know who owns and finances it?

P#24 T-President should not debate, you say "We are still very, very free" Perhaps in comparison to others but not in light of what freedom was meant to be at the time of the Declaration.

Despite the claim of freedom, you state in

P#3 T-Abortion, political or personal "US is not a democracy, thank goodness." I still wonder what you meant by this.

#13 T Abortion you claim "the people run the country... each branch is a brake on the power of the others". Is this not democracy? You just said that there is no democracy in the US. Is this doublespeak?

The government used fought "The Communists" for a long time and used that label to gain support for all kind of acts. Must fight the Communists, on that they could get everyone to support them. Now that Russia fell apart they use the milder term "left" "leftwinger" or "leftist" write your own version. I have heard you use left as a derogatory term on a number of occasions. When you throw these terms at people you attempt to deride their opinions with a form of "evil" connotations. Why is left worse than right?

You use the term propaganda quite often. While you used it once to describe government it has mostly been applied with Nazi reference to MM. The Nazi propaganda was produced by government for the benefit of government and can hardly be applied to MM. If he was working for the hopeful government of Kerry he wouldn't have held back the show for more money on cable.

"One cannot suggest that Bush is a fascist without demeaning the cost of fascism" (P#29-T Abortion) Maybe it is wrong to limit it to just Bush. The US government has aided fascist governments all over the world in order to secure their foreign interests.

When Arbenz was elected in Guatemala, Eisenhower's Under-Secretary of State said he was playing the "communist game". Using this excuse the CIA overthrew the elected government of Guatemala and restored military rule.

When the Dominican Republic elected Bosch in 1962, he made radical changes, the US military overthrew him, let him go and gave their support to the military regime. Corruption returned, Dominican Republic people wanted their democracy back and overthrew the military regime to put Bosch back in power. The US sent 23 000 soldiers to help the corrupt military regime beat the people down again.

The list goes on. And this post is long. I don't want to point fingers...I just question whether your views of the legitimacy of the government are as accurate as you think.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 1:56 am

koan wrote: Thank you, Anastrophe for acknowledging my last point.

I am not thinking so much of MMs film as a means of vigilance as I am the works of Noam Chomsky.

I read through a bunch of threads to see how I was linking you to "1984" thinking and tried to go back to ones prior to my membership in the Garden. I am somewhat hesitant to label you as I see some indication that you are aware of the propaganda that government feeds us (Post #2 Thread -John Kerry Ad) and your qoute "We have met the enemy and he is us" (P#14 T-Abortion, political...) although I am not sure you used this in the context of pointing at the government.

It is not labeling that I am interested in, I want to look at how we may get brainwashed and manipulated by the media that is there to keep us informed.

MM may be manufacturing dissent but he is creating cause to question what we are told. This is essential.that may be. the message is lost on me, however, when he fictionalizes to make his point. i don't like being lied to for theatrical effect. misleading people to try to 'teach' them about how they are being misled by the government is, well, unclear on the concept.

I am set off by your disregard of opinions and facts that don't correspond with your own.

i've never claimed that i'm perfect, that i am completely evenhanded, that i don't have bias, that i have the high ground, or that i don't ever disagree with others. well, at least, i hope i haven't claimed any of that. i don't see anything wrong however with expressing my opinion, even if it means 'trashing' someone elses. that's how debates tend to go. you'll rarely find me sinking into direct ad hominem attack. note, i said "rarely". i have done so, and i always regret it. hate the sin, love the sinner, if you will.

"I found it a snoozer" (P#25 this thread)i found the movie boring. what am i supposed to say? "i was riveted"? to what end?

"crackpots" (P#4 this thread)i think some people are crackpots.

anyone who thinks GWB is stupid is "delusional, blinded by ideology" (P#10 T-Hidden earpiece)i stand by that. he has said some stupid things, but if you watched the debates, you'll note that he didn't stand there drooling. if someone actually, honestly believes that GWB is stupid, then they aren't paying attention, in my opinion. i don't like everything that comes out of his mouth. i didn't like everything that came out of john kerry's mouth. i've never felt that john kerry was 'stupid' simply because i disagreed with what he said.

""that's ridiculous" and "Iraq in a quagmire. I'm sick of hearing about it." (P#11 T- Kerry/Bush)okay. i don't entirely understand what you're getting at. i'm expressing my opinion. i also express opinions on other people's opinions. i also get tired of hearing mantras (repetition, to try to reinforce an idea, regardless of the veracity of same), and expressed that feeling. what is it exactly i'm doing wrong here?

"your post is full of prejudice and bias" (P#3 T-Abortion, political or personal)

BTW the post in reference here expressed views I have heard many times.

i don't remember the context of the above. but again, what exactly is wrong with me expressing my opinion as i see it?

You discounted sources of information in thread "You couldn't make this up"

P#4 "getting news through six layers of filters" - this is very similar to Chomsky's 5 filter explanation of how all media is controlled. Your news and information is controlled as well.well, now i'm lost. discounting a source of information is called being skeptical. i don't trust very many sources of news. how does distrust alchemize into blind acceptance of what i'm told by the media?

P#6 "Biased" "Irrelevant" (repeat repeat repeat) you discounted a large number of media sources and instead offered only one. I don't know who owns or funds factcheck.org but is it wise to put all your faith in one site? Do you know who owns and finances it?this is becoming tedious, and bordering on ridiculous.

how do you go from one mention of a website to the notion that i "put all [my] faith in one site"?

i've been to the factcheck.org site maybe a half dozen times. haven't been back to it in months. i'd heard about it a couple of times, so took a look at it. they *seemed* to be doing a good job of eviscerating claims the candidates were making, regardless of which one was doing it. i like i site that doesn't show obvious lean to either the right or the left.

on the other hand, there are despicable sites like "fair.org", which present themselves as media watchdogs. well, i suppose. but only if you want your media to be 'watchdogged' to fight any and all statements that are not far left. but i digress.

P#24 T-President should not debate, you say "We are still very, very free" Perhaps in comparison to others but not in light of what freedom was meant to be at the time of the Declaration. true. we are *more* free than back then. you and i are here debating openly matters of politics, ethics, religion, sex, whatever we choose to debate. you are thousands of miles away from me. to carry on this debate at the time of the declaration of independence....well, it simply wouldn't have happened. these ideas wouldn't be being freely exchanged, because it would be physically impossible to do so. yet here we are. nope, no government agents there nope, none there either. is it possible somebody is 'surveilling' our conversation here? well sure. this is out in the open, anybody can read it - cops, clergy, government spooks, factory foremen, seamstresses, rock stars, third base coaches, college students, hermaphrodytes, midgets, geniuses, idiots. and they can do it all at the same time.

i post my opinions here on forumgarden and elsewhere with virtually no regard for the consequences. i have criticized the government extremely harshly at times. one of my favorite one liners is 'there isn't enough rope for the lot of them', meaning those who run our government. nope, still no spooks editing my words or breaking down my door for not being a good 'fellow traveler'.

there are 'big' liberties, 'little' liberties, and 'in between' liberties. there are ten hundred thousand different kinds of liberties. many of them come and go, as functions of time, place, technology, economics. each day we make decisions with regard to which liberties we'll exercise, and each day there are ten hundred thousand liberties we may not exercise at all.

am i bothered when liberties are curtailed? of course. but it's not a black & white proposition. liberty is not an all or nothing quality. 'choose your fights' comes to mind. i'm rambling, as it's late and i'm tired.....

Despite the claim of freedom, you state in

P#3 T-Abortion, political or personal "US is not a democracy, thank goodness." I still wonder what you meant by this.

#13 T Abortion you claim "the people run the country... each branch is a brake on the power of the others". Is this not democracy? You just said that there is no democracy in the US. Is this doublespeak?rather than rehashing what i've already written, you might run a search here on forumgarden on my name and that topic. i believe i've written an explanation at length about this. the word democracy has been warped and misused for decades. the united states is not a democracy, it is a federal republic. democracy sucks, because it is the direct path to the tyranny of the majority.

if you believe that gays have a right to marriage, then you don't want democracy. it is creeping democracy that is punishing those who don't cleave to the majority, a la the states that have banned gay marriage. in a representative federal republic, the majority can't impose its will on the minority. our whole form of government was designed to *resist* democracy.

The government used fought "The Communists" for a long time and used that label to gain support for all kind of acts. Must fight the Communists, on that they could get everyone to support them. Now that Russia fell apart they use the milder term "left" "leftwinger" or "leftist" write your own version. I have heard you use left as a derogatory term on a number of occasions. When you throw these terms at people you attempt to deride their opinions with a form of "evil" connotations. Why is left worse than right?you're projecting. or at least, i don't appreciate the suggestion, by use of quotes, that i am saying that people who have left leaning opinions are "evil".

i grew up in a straight down the line democrat household. leaning to the left. of course, that was back in the 1960's, before 'left' got coopted by a whole different element.

a lot of leftist rhetoric rests on expanding government powers, and socializing/nationalizing free market constructs in our society. i'm against that.

i'm also running out of steam here, as this has been a long post, and as above, i'm pooped!

You use the term propaganda quite often. While you used it once to describe government it has mostly been applied with Nazi reference to MM. The Nazi propaganda was produced by government for the benefit of government and can hardly be applied to MM. If he was working for the hopeful government of Kerry he wouldn't have held back the show for more money on cable.i don't care who is making the propoganda. it's still propoganda.

"One cannot suggest that Bush is a fascist without demeaning the cost of fascism" (P#29-T Abortion) Maybe it is wrong to limit it to just Bush. The US government has aided fascist governments all over the world in order to secure their foreign interests. the us government has aided every color of government you can name. i still reject, at face value, the offensive suggestion that Bush is a fascist. those who say that clearly have no understanding of what fascism is.

When Arbenz was elected in Guatemala, Eisenhower's Under-Secretary of State said he was playing the "communist game". Using this excuse the CIA overthrew the elected government of Guatemala and restored military rule.

When the Dominican Republic elected Bosch in 1962, he made radical changes, the US military overthrew him, let him go and gave their support to the military regime. Corruption returned, Dominican Republic people wanted their democracy back and overthrew the military regime to put Bosch back in power. The US sent 23 000 soldiers to help the corrupt military regime beat the people down again.

The list goes on. And this post is long. I don't want to point fingers...I just question whether your views of the legitimacy of the government are as accurate as you think.when did i say this government was legitimate? i again think you're projecting. simply because i don't blatantly bash all things conservative, or all things bush, or all things government, that does not then mean that i am in favor of, or support, all things conservative, or all things bush, or all things government.

have you read the article that this whole topic was started for? it is pure, unadulterated, 'tinfoil hat' brigade stuff. the goverment staged 9/11 as part of their plan for world domination.

to leap from being skeptical of that, to the notion that i'm somehow some sort of 'i stand behind my president' automaton is just silly.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 11:52 am

gmc wrote: Very true but leaving aside Michael moore's polemic you can still assess for yourself how much of the "factual" content is actually factual. Read the 911 report-it's the second link.

it's all well and good to suggest reading the 911 report. but it misses the point. millions of people went to see farenheit 9/11. there's a very good likelyhood that only a fraction of a percentage of them read, or ever will read, the 911 report. they will simply believe that mr. moore's propoganda is the truth, particularly since it has been billed a "documentary", as opposed to the largely fictionalized and sensationalized work that it is.

mr. moore/his work is being held up as some sort of courageous freedom of speech, questioning the government, revealing the truth document. when in fact it was in reality michael moore using his talents as a showman to increase his personal wealth. he talks a great game - he's david fighting goliath.

nothing could be further from the truth. the viewers of his work have been misled.

A Karenina · Post by **A Karenina** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 12:19 pm

anastrophe wrote: i again think you're projecting. simply because i don't blatantly bash all things conservative, or all things bush, or all things government, that does not then mean that i am in favor of, or support, all things conservative, or all things bush, or all things government.Where's a flag to wave when you need one? Anastrophe, I love the above quote!

It's so frustrating to be pigeon-holed because of certain views. Then, even worse, we are put in a position of defending ALL of our views because they don't fit neatly into a pre-labeled category. Argh!! (I'm not yelling at you, Koan

)

I reserve the right to repeat this same rant at any time. LOL

On Bush....he doesn't drool, it's true. But he's not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, either. What great success has he had, particularly in business? What accomplishments can he personally point to (not his advisors, just him)? He comes from an intelligent family, but the things he says makes me cringe. He's the president of a world power but has no interest in political theory. He uses biblical terminology to express his views - and while the argument exists that he does this to capture the hearts and minds of a large part of our population, it's still disturbingly unimaginative.

This is the one area where you and I appear to disagree. I guess I'd like to ask you why you feel he is inteliigent, the best man for the job, that Iraq is the right thing to do, etc.

Thanks.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 1:21 pm

A Karenina wrote:

On Bush....he doesn't drool, it's true. But he's not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, either. What great success has he had, particularly in business? What accomplishments can he personally point to (not his advisors, just him)? He comes from an intelligent family, but the things he says makes me cringe. He's the president of a world power but has no interest in political theory. He uses biblical terminology to express his views - and while the argument exists that he does this to capture the hearts and minds of a large part of our population, it's still disturbingly unimaginative.

This is the one area where you and I appear to disagree. I guess I'd like to ask you why you feel he is inteliigent, the best man for the job, that Iraq is the right thing to do, etc.

Thanks.

well, not too put too fine a point on it, but you jumped from my suggesting he's not stupid, to my suggesting he's intelligent. and that i think he's the best man for the job. or that iraq is the right thing to do. it's that whole pigeonholing problem once again!

i'm not suggesting bush is einstein's reincarnation. i'm suggesting that if you watched the debates, and watched them as much as possible without *interpreting* whether you think what candidate X says was right or wrong - or at least stopped interpreting long enough to just watch and listen - but on the merits of the ability to make an argument, and do so reasonably clearly and concisely (and ignoring the blatant humjobbing the press did about how kerry 'won' the debates, which is ridiculous on its face), then it's patently obvious that he is not *stupid*. beyond that, there's an old saying, 'the wise man knows he is a fool, but the fool truly believes he is wise' (i may be mangling it). bush, quite charmingly - in my opinion - acknowledged his ability to mangle sentences and words, at the end of the last debate. a stupid man would not understand how silly he sometimes sounds. you can argue all day that bush was coached and prepped to give all the right answers in the debate. well, um, duh. so was kerry. so is every candidate. but if he was reading from a script, then his extemporaneous comments suggest he's far from stupid - unless one believe the extemporaneous comments were scripted, in which case i'll leave my interlocutors to their tinfoil hat pattern making.

say what one will about the mantra that was well drilled by both the press and commentators that john kerry was a "flipflopper". it got mighty tiring hearing that, and only that, as a rejoinder. but the fact remains - and again it's quite clear if you set aside partisan preferences and just *listen* to what the man says, that mr. kerry tried at every turn to say precisely what he estimated a given audience wanted to hear. that tactic used to work well - back before live television coverage of every utterance the candidate makes. a politician on the stump, fifty years ago, could say something to one crowd, and say something different to a different crowd, and fairly easily get away with it. no more. sorry, john, but it's all on tape.

on the other hand, mr. bush pretty obviously does not do that. he says what he means, and he means what he says - much to the consternation of the left, the handlers, and probably his friends and family for that matter.

i don't like the whole 'faith-based initiative' thing. i don't want the constitution amended to ban gay marriage. i don't want our expeditions in the middle east to be a Crusade. i don't like much of the patriot act. while i am in my heart against abortion, i believe it is far too complex a personal issue for anyone to judge besides a woman who is pregnant and considering it. much like drug use, making it illegal won't stop it - it will merely drive it underground, where the risk of harm to an already living, breathing, most likely productive member of society will significantly increase the likelyhood of dying from the procedure. i'm in favor of stem cell research, but much like many things, i don't think it's necessary for the government to fund it - government funding of research is just another form of people suckling off the teat of the government, and the milk comes from the taxpayers. private research is more productive. i happen to be glad that the assault weapon ban was not renewed, but i'm not pleased that bush said he'd have signed the renewal, even though he didn't exactly push for it.

so, there you have it. i'm a raving right wing conservative, who trusts everything the government says, does not question what his leaders tell him, does not dissent from the republican platform, and hates michael moore because of his message, rather than because of his dishonest tactics.

where's my John Birch Society membership card, darnit, i know i had it here somewhere....

:yh_bigsmi :yh_coffee

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 6:15 pm

Just as a note:

The quote/references were only put in my post because they were asked for.

I think you, Anastrophe, are a very intelligent and well read person. While one person scoffing at an idea may have no general effect, I feel that you have much more sway (well deserved respect) on the general opinions. I have never heard you consider any conspiracy theory about the government. I am wondering, as a result of your not buying into these conspiracy theories, do you believe the government is not hiding anything?

As I pointed out earlier, I am not trying to label you or "pigeon hole" you based on a few collected remarks. I really want to know if you think government has alterior objectives from the "greater good" of the citizens or not. My personal opinion is that to believe the government tells us everything we need to know or, in many cases, ever really tells us the truth would require being of the 1984 mindset. I have not classified you, only asked questions.

A Karenina · Post by **A Karenina** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 8:20 pm

anastrophe wrote: well, not too put too fine a point on it, but you jumped from my suggesting he's not stupid, to my suggesting he's intelligent. and that i think he's the best man for the job. or that iraq is the right thing to do. it's that whole pigeonholing problem once again!

:yh_bigsmi :yh_coffee
Wellllll, I suppose I should 'fess up and tell you that I refuse to watch the debates. I prefer to read them the next day instead. It's just a bunch of hype over very little content, on the whole. People said that Bush did very well, and good for him (sincerely).

When I mention his less-than-stellar performance, I'm referring to 4 years of interviews and speeches.

Personally, I don't like him because of the religious thing (same as you), and I do not think rushing off to war and threatening other countries is the best we can produce.

I haven't been able to pigeon-hole you, you slippery person!, because we do agree on most things. However, I had gathered from reading your other posts that you do support Iraq, and that you felt Bush was the better choice between the two.

I'm always curious to discover why people think as they do. It's especially interesting to find out where and why thoughts differ when there is so much in common elsewhere. Not a question of right and wrong - just a question of what and why and am I missing something?

Like THAT made any sense!

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 7:13 pm

i don't believe that any further meta-analysis of the nature, disposition, genesis, or validity of my opinions will be fruitful. I have tried several times to counter the characterizations of same that i believe are unfair, but they are ignored. sorry. i have my opinions. i am not what you think i am. only further review of my existing posts here, in perhaps a less clinical and eviscerating light, will show that.

one aspect of who i am is that i don't give much stock to conspiracy theories of *any* kind. contrarily, that does not logically then dictate that i *trust* everything i read or hear, or that i disregard *all* conspiracy theories. i believe, in the main, that belief in conspiracy theories generally is the avocation of a small mind. it is in the nature of being powerless to believe that all who have power are corrupted by it. however, the quote, often mangled, is that "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely". a tendency is one thing; belief that all in power are corrupt is simply a different corruption of its own - it denies the fundamental good nature of most of the 6,416,963,800+ people on this earth (yes, i just installed a 'world population clock on my PDA!).

obviously, there have been, are, and will be, conspiracies in this world - the word exists for a reason. belief in a dark conspiracy behind most actions of government, large corporations, other nations, individuals, or whatever other vessel power may come in, is to deny the free will we have to try to shape and to make the world as we see it should be. if it's all a conspiracy, then we can just sit back, and point our fingers at how '*those* bad people are to blame for all that is wrong'. it's a comfortable position to take, but ultimately it leads to the corruption of one's own being - believing in one's own powerlessness, which is, not to put too fine a point on it, horse-puckey.

as i am wont to do, i am rambling. enough for now...

Paula · Post by **Paula** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 5:10 am

i don't understand why these messages keep coming to my hot mail? how do i know who did what 911?

jahamaa · Post by **jahamaa** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 10:48 am

I don't mean to be disrespectful to you but it seems like when the USA gets involved somewhere folks such as yourself say we're warmongers and if we let a situation alone the same people cry " why aren't we doing something?"

First you tell us how stupid our leaders are then you tell us how they outsmart the whole world with their sneaky plans.

To me, your thinking just dosen't follow a rational path. Given the power our leaders have what makes you think they even need to hide what they want to do? They don't need to deceive us, they can do whatever they want and what could we do about it? Next election it would just be lifelong politions from the democratic party forcing their ideas on us instead of the lifetime pols. from the GOP. :-5

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 10:54 am

Paula wrote: i don't understand why these messages keep coming to my hot mail? how do i know who did what 911?
paula, any time you post to a thread, you automatically become 'subscribed' to it, which means you are emailed notification any time anyone posts to that thread. you can unsubscribe by clicking on the 'thread tools' link at the top of the thread in question, and then click 'unsubscribe'.

i think there may be an option in the user control panel to turn off auto subscription, i'm not sure though.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 1:37 pm

posted by anastrophe

it's all well and good to suggest reading the 911 report. but it misses the point. millions of people went to see farenheit 9/11. there's a very good likelyhood that only a fraction of a percentage of them read, or ever will read, the 911 report. they will simply believe that mr. moore's propoganda is the truth, particularly since it has been billed a "documentary", as opposed to the largely fictionalized and sensationalized work that it is.

mr. moore/his work is being held up as some sort of courageous freedom of speech, questioning the government, revealing the truth document. when in fact it was in reality michael moore using his talents as a showman to increase his personal wealth. he talks a great game - he's david fighting goliath.

nothing could be further from the truth. the viewers of his work have been misled.

I see what you are getting at now, at first I thought you were dismissing anything criticising GW out of hand as not worthy of consideration without even bothering to look at it, which is just as bad as accepting it all uncritically but that isn't the case is it. I only heard about michael moore because of the publicity surrounding fahreinheir 911 and disney not distributing it. i tend to cross reference sources.

I don't think GW is stupid either and he does believe he is doing the right thing, I happen to think he is wrong and the action taken has if anything increased the liklihood of terrorism in the future.

I watched with disbelief when TB came away with that 45 minute claim, it was so ludicrous I can't believe anybody took it seriously and now it has been proven to have been hyped to make the case for war yet still he won't apologise for conning us to get the support to go to war.

posted by anastrophe

one aspect of who i am is that i don't give much stock to conspiracy theories of *any* kind. contrarily, that does not logically then dictate that i *trust* everything i read or hear, or that i disregard *all* conspiracy theories. i believe, in the main, that belief in conspiracy theories generally is the avocation of a small mind. it is in the nature of being powerless to believe that all who have power are corrupted by it. however, the quote, often mangled, is that "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely". a tendency is one thing; belief that all in power are corrupt is simply a different corruption of its own - it denies the fundamental good nature of most of the 6,416,963,800+ people on this earth (yes, i just installed a 'world population clock on my PDA!).

The US seems to have developed a sense of hysteria about terrorism bordering on the paranoid, There never was some mass large scale plot to bring down the united states and destroy your way of life, you can't fight terrorists with conventional armies it is an intelligence war. It looks like 911 has been used by vested interests to justify pre-emptive warfare to protect america's interests as they see it . far from helping your interests it has damaged them considerably although i suspect you wont agree with that. We now have a UK government trying to stir up the same hysteria but in a nation inured to terrorist attacks it's harder to get us to take it seriously

weeder · Post by **weeder** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 3:02 pm

jahamaa wrote: I don't mean to be disrespectful to you but it seems like when the USA gets involved somewhere folks such as yourself say we're warmongers and if we let a situation alone the same people cry " why aren't we doing something?"

First you tell us how stupid our leaders are then you tell us how they outsmart the whole world with their sneaky plans.

To me, your thinking just dosen't follow a rational path. Given the power our leaders have what makes you think they even need to hide what they want to do? They don't need to deceive us, they can do whatever they want and what could we do about it? Next election it would just be lifelong politions from the democratic party forcing their ideas on us instead of the lifetime pols. from the GOP. :-5
Your exactly correct.. they do whatever they want to. ive known that for years. we only think we have anything to say about anything. and they tell us whatever they need to tell us to keep us on their side. and they try to make us hate other people all in the name of patriotism..

Paula · Post by **Paula** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 3:05 pm

anastrophe wrote: paula, any time you post to a thread, you automatically become 'subscribed' to it, which means you are emailed notification any time anyone posts to that thread. you can unsubscribe by clicking on the 'thread tools' link at the top of the thread in question, and then click 'unsubscribe'.

i think there may be an option in the user control panel to turn off auto subscription, i'm not sure though.

Thank you...you learn something new every day!