More Ron Bashing

[reverendjeremiah]

So who will you vote for? Who is the best candidate for president in 2012?

Frankly I find voting on this magnitude to simply NOT WORK. 49% of a state votes Obama, and 51% of a state votes Paul. Therefore Paul gets ALL of that states votes? The problem is this form of democracy. I am personally considering to NOT vote, as I feel that it is nothing more than mental masturbation. even if it is someone I wanted who wins, he will still be an authority over me, and I obviously do not agree with everything anyone else agrees with.

What I am trying to point out is that you seem to have some very legitamite criticisms of the gov and corporations in the U.S

they are legit because I keep them simple and shy away from major conspiracy theories.

but what good is that discontent and concern if it is not focused somewhere that has some unity and possibilty of achieving some of the things you like, such as RBE and social anarchist ideals.

voting for the country to swing even more to the right wing is the OPPOSITE direction of RBE and anarchist ideals. thats why. Ron Paul is right wing no matter how much he opposes some of the neo-con tactics.

I really don't mean to be pushy. Sorry if I did! my bad, I just think these conspiracy theories are so complex and hard to express correctly.

Thats a sign that they are not grounded in reality. If they were grounded in reality, it would be much easier for you to describe them.

What I mean is that I am sure there is some truth in almost every theory but there may also be some misunderstanding or flat out lies as well.

At which point you must suspend your judgement and try to be as fact based as possible. You are not doing that. I am not saying these conspiracy theories might not exist, I am saying they have very little facts behind them. Which means you should NOT encourage people to ramble on about things of which they have no knowledge of. Might as well claim that a tea pot is orbiting Mars.

It is difficult to discern the fact from fiction when dealing with such 'larger than life' institutions such as the church and government and historical events. Without trying to overgeneralize,

..but this NWO has never been proven to exist in the first place. everything about this organization seems to be merely memes that are popular on the net. Like the meme is that the NWO has its hand in alien research at area 51. In reality, one can do a bit of research and find out the area 51 is one huge atomic research facility. Google earth will pull up pics of area 51, and a quick zooming out will find test crators all over the facility dating back more than 40 years. Some of them underground tests. In the 80's area 51 was in a controversy for burning used plutonium. You cant do that as it will render the atmosphere toxic. Area 51 also has many underground tunnels for spent nuclear fuel storage.

What makes more sense? The area is undercontrol of a NWO system who are being in cohoots with Alien Greys who wish to enslave humanity? Or is it an extremely dangerous base full of all types of radiation hazards and wastes where they test new planes like the B-52 bombers?

The fuckers were burning plutonium and other wastes such as that, yet they got off scott free because the politicians said "it doesnt exist", yet they spoke of it in congress anyways. It doesnt "exist" because they dont want to deal with other rules and evironmental laws, as well as the obvious top secret planes they make...and all of the money that gets flushed over there.

How can we really know for sure about anything in the Zeitgeist films to be either fact or fiction when there are two strong opposing sides disputing each other?

Yet the movie presents it all as fact. They dont say it "might be fact". They present a conspiracy as FACT.

I mean the whole idea that Christ for example is taken from various pagan gods and has strong astrological elements and influence seems totally plausible and likely to me.

Of course it does, amongst other common elements. It also has some eastern concepts in it that was made popular by hinduism and buddhism.

What is so unbelievable in that general premise?

My beef with the movie isnt so much about its approach on Jesus. Sure, they make some good points, but there are many more that were left out. The link I gave you will explain.

Christ is fake and it's religion is corrupt. Likewise with 9/11, why is the idea of it being an inside job seem so impossible?

It doesnt seem impossible. What the movie was lacking was actual incontravertable proof. Just because something MAY sound possible doesnt mean we should accept it as POSSIBLE. If you feel that way about the 9-11 part, then why not also say that Jesus also seems POSSIBLe, so therefore why not act as if it IS possible...and therefore believe in Jesus.

I think the whole idea of Al Queida pulling off this attack WITHOUT any inside help seems like the implausible story.

Frankly I think they had quite a bit of money coming in from Saudi Arabia, which is one of the reasons why the patriot act now allows the govt to look into peoples bank accounts. As far as the plane that was going to ram into the white house after the inital attacks on the twin towers...I have a very sneaking suspicion that American fighters shot the bitch down, or put a few bullets in a couple of its engines. Of course I have ZERO evidence for this, but if I were president, and knew a plane was coming tohit the white house, I would order it shot down and kept quiet.

I have ZERO evidence for this.

Therefore I will clearly point out that this is merely my opinion.

the zeit movie, on the other hand, does the same thing, but does not mention it is their opinion.

What benefit do truthers have in sticking their necks out in saying 9/11 was an inside job?

Political leverage. I notice that when the zeit movement started they were ALL hard core Ron Paul supporters. eventually some of them went beyond right wing libertarianism and decided to go left wing libertarian with the venus project, RBE, and so on. When I left them many were still arguing over wether to go right wing or left wing with the group. there are voters that can be had from such conspiracy theories, and obviously Ron Paul has gained popularity with it.

They face so much criticism and abuse from the public, the great majority don't make tons of money or gain fame by contriving some conspiracy theory.

Nope, but the makers of the movie have done pretty good:
http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/a...eist/cost/

I think an 'agnostic' stance may be more appropriate when considering such matters.

A stance you clearly are not taking.

You say that Zeitgeist lies about nearly everything in the films, so then what is the truth when it comes to 9/11? Exactly what the government's official story is????

We probably will never know. No sense in making shit up either. Sit on the fence.

That sounds like the most naive and sheepish conclusion to make after considering all the blatant holes in it's story. The government can PAY OFF any scientist, any "expert", any schmuck to say anything they want!!!

Yet you jump up and down for Ron Paul..someone who works for the government as well.

Or threaten to arrest or kill them if they don't! WHO is going to stop them? They are just like a national mafia, but fuck you harder and do it for 'national defense' and counter-terrorism.

We the people can. But they have currently divided and conquered us.

Ever hear of the Red Scare in the 1950's where Communism was the greatest threat in the world? Historians now realize that was all bullshit. It was an excuse to build up nuclear arms, invade Korea and Vietnam which were wars NOT meant to be won and ended, but SUSTAINED for political and corporate interests. Same shit is going on in Afghanistan right now, and will be in Iran within a few years, maybe sooner.

Not all of it was bullshit. Communism had some nasty things just as much as America had its nasty things.

I respect your opinions against Ron Paul. I can see how he can be easily misunderstood or seem too radical.

not just him, but his supporters as well "civil rights act is outdated", yet you dont want to look like a radical? there is no misunderstanding on my behalf. Ron Paul is the WRONG direction in my opinion. anyone who is so naive to think that suddenly racism just "disappeared" does not deserve to be the leader of our country.

I think he supports capitalism, but he says he is against crony capitalism which is the foundation for corruption within corporations and what makes the whole system dysfunctional.

Capitalism itself is also a foundation for corruption. The very concept of profit is a corrupting influence. The system is not dysfunctional. This is EXACTLY how capitalism works out. Its the golden rule, he who owns the gold makes the rules.

As a nation, we have to work with what we got right now, we are a capitalistic system that could at least be tweeked to serve the American public and save the environment.

So you think the best way to move America towards a technocratic syndicate based on RBE (which are ALL left libertarian concepts) is to introduce a harder swing towards the right wing? If I lived in Tennessee, and I said moving to Texas would be the greatest thing ever...what would you say to me if I started driving towards Virginia? You would say "ummm...if you want to go to Texas, then why are you going the opposite way to Virginia?"

Hey...if you want to go to Texas, then why are you driving your car to Virginia bgood?