Maybe the conspiracy is how so many American's can be retarded?
Can't argue with well-reasoned logic like that!
interesting or not?
use your free thinking.
p;ease reply... .. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=403757&in_page_id=1770 .
Maybe the conspiracy is how so many American's can be retarded?
Can't argue with well-reasoned logic like that!
anything by raymond franz is a given.. 1984. siddartha.
lord of the flies.
grapes of wrath.
Catcher in the Rye - Salinger
Brave New World - Huxley
World According to Garp - Irving
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich - Shirer
Blue Highways - Moon
Razor's Edge - Maugham
interesting or not?
use your free thinking.
p;ease reply... .. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=403757&in_page_id=1770 .
About the only governments I know of who would be willing to murder 3000 of it's own people would be Iran, "Former Iraq", "Former Afganistan".
U.S. military deaths in the Iraq war stand at 2,700 as of today. And climbing.
interesting or not?
use your free thinking.
p;ease reply... .. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=403757&in_page_id=1770 .
But with what we know about this administration and president, is a similar plan of action not beyond them?
Here's what we know in George W. Bush's own words:
President Bush: I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign-policy matters with war on my mind. Again, I wish it wasn't true, but it is true. And the American people need to know they got a president who sees the world the way it is. And I see dangers that exist, and it's important for us to deal with them.
Ques: Will you testify before the [911]commission?
President Bush: This commission? You know, testify? I mean, I’d be glad to visit with them.
interesting or not?
use your free thinking.
p;ease reply... .. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=403757&in_page_id=1770 .
Did it occur to you that having 3000 or so people die as "collateral damage for the war on terror" might be acceptable to the government?(they obviously didn't care too much about civilian casualties in Iraq when they first started bombing)
Agreed! Obviously, tons of questions unanswered on both sides, but to suggest that a point on the side of 'no conspiracy' is that 'the US government would be too squeemish about killing 3,000 of its own people - does not fly.
a couple of years ago after talking about 1975 and the generation change with 2 elders i asked them what we would call another religion if they were wrong with dates and had to change prophecies.
no answer was forthcoming so i offered "false prophets?".
one elder agreed we probably would, the other was deadly silent.. anyway i thought i would look up false prophets and found this... *** g93 3/22 pp.
Jehovah’s Witnesses, in their eagerness for Jesus’ second coming, have suggested dates that turned out to be incorrect.
Notice how they subtly spread the blame to the rank and file, not the GB. "Jehovah's Witnesses" do not officially suggest j-squat. By this reasoning, the WTS would have to either defend or dismiss every crack-brain notion whispered in the congregations out in the hinterlands. Nope, shit rolls downhill, not up.
Loyalty is the most important quality in a good friend. Too often, many "friends" are only friends if they party with you but if something negative happens in your life, they are rarely "there" for you.
This I can total agree with!
interesting or not?
use your free thinking.
p;ease reply... .. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=403757&in_page_id=1770 .
"Christopher Pyle, professor of constitutional law at Mt Holyoake College in Massachusetts, has dismissed the academic group.
He said: 'To plant bombs in three buildings with enough bomb materials and wiring? It's too huge a project and would require far too many people to keep it a secret afterwards.
'After every major crisis, like the assassinations of JFK or Martin Luther King, we've had conspiracy theorists who come up with plausible scenarios for gullible people. It's a waste of time.'"
Hmmmmmm..........I am not only cynical, I am skeptical and fall squarely on the side of Occam and his Razor. However, purely from the persepective of the principles of argumentation, while some of what Prof. Pyle says is no doubt true, the above is an awfully lame response.
To dismiss people with perjorative labels, such as 'gullible' is simply insulting - a very weak tactic.
BTW, I appreciate the humorous responses and I'm usually one of the first to take that route. That can be done (as Elsewhere has done) without insulting an individual.
Good Girl:
Good points you make and I agree with the last two. However, (just cause I'm in a picky mood this morning), 'unconditional' love is unrealistic unless it is a parent's love for their child. It would mean "I love you no matter what you do." I don't even feel that way about Mr. Bee.
Certain 'conditions' are met when you decide that this is someone you want to be friends with, so if those 'conditions' are betrayed, I wouldn't necessarily expect that loyalty would continue. For example, finding out they are: a cheater, a thief, physically violent, dishonest, disloyal to you, etc.
I think this is suppose to be a serious thread. lol
Oh. Well, then I would say a good friend is someone who is there for you when the going gets rough. And it is a very rare quality.