masdog5
08/22/02 02:46 AM
205.213.145.140
|
So this is the first time I am posting on the Off Topic Board...guess that means I'm not a virgin anymore...
Anyway, I was on Yahoo tonight discussing this new book that is coming out about september 11th and how the government was behind it when I found that I couldnt post to their message board anymore. It seemed like my post was being submitted to a moderator or something, and none of them ended up on the discussion board.
I dont even know what I said that would get me banned from the message board, but it probably had soemthing to do with countering the 'accepted' story of 9/11.
|
Bob_Richter
08/23/02 12:20 AM
4.35.174.250
|
...and what evidence is offered?
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
MacLeod
08/23/02 03:40 AM
209.247.55.21
|
Sounds like the usual 'you tell what really happened and we kill your cat' government coverup. These things happen all the time.
Drugs don't kill people, pancreatic cancer kills people.
... and whoever heard of a drug that causes pancreatic cancer?
|
Greyslayer
08/23/02 05:35 AM
216.14.192.226
|
Please kill the cat .... kill the cat 
(gee I hope my dislike of cats is not showing too much  )
Greyslayer
|
Karagin
08/23/02 10:43 AM
65.129.164.156
|
Not to sound like I am attacking you but HOW is it that the government is behind the attacks of and on Sept. 11?
No offense but it sounds more like you have been listening to the extreme right wing nut groups and not taking all the given info into account...
Let me as this, since you believe the US government is behind the Sept 11th attacks, do you believe that they had a hand in the OK City bombing? Or the first attacks on the WTC?
Honestly I don't think George Bush Jr would go that far as to think up such a plot as the Sept 11th attacks since in all reality he doesn't gain that much from it and has been attacked repeatedly for not actting sooner etc...
But I am sure you have your reason as to why you believe the US government would do some thing like this, and that is your right, just don't expect others to agree with it or like it.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
08/23/02 10:50 AM
65.129.164.156
|
If you think about it, the story would be along these lines and I am guessing here...
One the attacks would unite the country behind the President.
The attacks would have us focus on a foreign enemy and thus the econmy would imporve since we as a nation would step up production to show that we are not cowwed by such actions.
Three they are a steping stone to convice Congress that Osma and others like him need to go and that see they attacked us and our way of life so....and oh yeah by the way the plane that hit the Pentagon well it could have hit the Capital...Why thank you senator for that 10 trillion dollar defense budget...you can see where I am going with this...
Then it makes us look better to the international community...see even the US was attacked by these rabid dogs...etc...
But the reality is the economy sucks, production is down and while the world is sorry that the attacks happen they are not giving us a carte blanche to go after everyone who has supported or does support terrorist. And Congress isn't writting trillion dollar checks to the military.
So if the US government was behind this then their ideas for why it would be a good idea have failed...
But as I said I am guessing at this since it makes no sense beyond what I listed above for them to do it and if it comes out they did, I do believe we will see a very hostile US public marching on DC... 
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
masdog5
08/23/02 11:19 AM
205.213.145.140
|
Actually, I dont believe that the government was behind the attacks. I was merely playing devils advocate with some people who werent willing to look past a government press release. It was fun until I couldnt respond to any posts that attacked my ideas.
<sarcasm>
Karagin, that is something along the lines of the popular theory, except you forgot the part about the black helicopters, troops on every corner, and the taking of our rights... 
</sarcasm>
|
SoyBigHead
08/23/02 11:41 PM
68.57.148.119
|
and the taking of rights is where bands like Anti-Flag, Pennywise, et al. speak out about taking htem back...it could be just like State of Emergency (the PS2 game yall)
"There are three types of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
-Mark Twain
|
Nightward
08/25/02 07:00 PM
132.234.251.211
|
An episode of "The Lone Gunman" (which I hear is an X-Files spin-off) aired a few days before the event and had very nearly the same plot and conspiracy theories as you have outlined.
Personally, I don't think Dubyah could plot his way out of a wet paper bag, and I really doubt anyone in a position to do this stuff really would have.
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
Countergod
08/30/02 08:47 PM
160.39.138.48
|
Just curious What do you guys think of the anti-flag-burning law? I mean, I think it makes sense. If you dont like the US government, either: keep it to yourself, or leave the country. Atleast this is my opinion. What say all?
***Chemistry is like art. One wrong move can really ruin your day!***
To: All other empire leaders
From: Maj. NevLord Madman (Mad Man's Marauders [STB] )
Subject: Hi Neveron
Date Sent: 7/12/3222 12:50:00 AM
May i just point out u all suck 
Maj. NevLord Madman |
NathanKell
08/30/02 09:25 PM
24.44.238.62
|
Burning the flag is a form of protest. Furthermore, it is a non-violent form of protest, and does not even physically inconvenience anyone else (unlike, say, a sit-down strike / protest).
It is also worth mentioning that the earliest instance of which I can think of this sort of thing occurring was of William Lloyd Garrison, arguably the most famous and earliest "public" abolitionist, burning the U. S. Constitution quite publicly.
For which he was nearly lynched, of course.
I find it rather sad that, while now few (but not none, I'm sure) would argue for that extreme a punishment, the spirit is still there.
And I would further add: if you don't like the idea of a free society, you can easily find one that isn't. I prefer a free one. I don't like the {current} US government at all...but I love the US as a country, and even more so as an idea. I don't see any contradiction in that, and in fact I feel that that simple dichotomy is, in many ways, what this country is about...and what makes it great.
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
Spartan
08/31/02 12:09 AM
172.131.41.215
|
To be honest I'm highly conflicted on this subject. I believe very strongly in the bill of rights even to the point of standing against some of my fellow Christians. That is to say, I won't necessarily defend someones words or beliefs but I will defend their right to those words or beliefs until I die. Having said that, I am nevertheless heartbroken when I see an American burning the flag. If in protest to the current government or in protest of our system as an institution I think that there are better and more effective ways of making said protest. Burning a particular politician in effegy for instance (or for real, either way what bliss ) But if in protest to our country and the ideal for which it stands and strives for(if not exactly lives by) then my attitude is more along the lines of "Screw you" in a not so civil phrasing.
So I guess I'm for the right to do it but against the act itself. Which may seem like a contradiction but is not to me.
Spartan
We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.
(I refer you to what Nightward said)
|
NathanKell
08/31/02 01:08 AM
24.44.238.62
|
Bingo.
Well said; and I agree completely. There is a great deal of difference between being for the legality of an act, and endorsing an act.
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
Countergod
08/31/02 03:18 PM
160.39.138.48
|
I am completely for a free country, but there has to be SOME restrictions on that freedom. I mean you (thankfully) can't go into a crowded room and yell "FIRE!" without being arrested. There are other points which I think that should be taken away in the name of unity, control and even decency. This entire business with "under god" in the pledge for one. It is in there, it was added in 1954 by popular vote. Just because one athiest finds it appaling doesnt' mean it should go. Also, I have heard many historians comment that if the makers of the constitution were to come foward in time and see what has happened to the country they would have created, they would be appalled. This country is too rights happy, (and I mean some extreme stuff, which goes against common sense) and WAY too sue happy. And I will not get started on politicians and thier corruption.
***Chemistry is like art. One wrong move can really ruin your day!***
To: All other empire leaders
From: Maj. NevLord Madman (Mad Man's Marauders [STB] )
Subject: Hi Neveron
Date Sent: 7/12/3222 12:50:00 AM
May i just point out u all suck
Maj. NevLord Madman |
KamikazeJohnson
08/31/02 03:31 PM
142.161.0.92
|
"I'm sentimental, if you know what I mean.
I love the country, but I can't stand the scene.
And I'm neither left or right
I'm just staying home tonight
Getting lost in that hopeless little screen.
But I'm stubborn as those garbage bags
That Time cannot decay.
I'm junk, but I'm still holding up
This little wil bouquet.
Democracy is coming to the USA"
-Leonard Cohen, "Democracy"
Ok, so I'm not American, but then neither is good ol' Leonard
Stll, I thought this little verse was appropriate to the discussion. As for the point of a non-American getting involved in this...well, like it or not, the US is the "model" of western society, and most of the world is gradually getting more and more Americanized, so really, the state of American society is a matter that affects us all.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
novakitty
08/31/02 03:49 PM
209.242.100.230
|
Right and responsibility are two halves of the same, yet few want the whole.
meow
|
NathanKell
08/31/02 07:24 PM
24.44.238.62
|
1. Indeed you can't. That could cause physical harm. {Also, you are making a statement that is dependent on facts, and those facts must indeed be proven to be wrong (AFAIK) before it's an offense.}
2. What is appalling is not the fact that someone says it, but the state sanction that it carries. A statement, endorsed by the government, which says we are "under god" is a state affirmation of religion; I just don't see how it can be taken any other way.
3. Many would be. And I say: good. I'd hate to find that were not shocked and dismayed: after all, these people were nearly all, with a couple exceptions:
Pro slavery
Against universal white manhood suffrage, let alone universal suffrage period.
etc.
5. Corruption: in this, I agree totally.
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
NathanKell
08/31/02 07:26 PM
24.44.238.62
|
Very true. Part of the responsibility that goes with the right is in accepting others' usage of the right.
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
novakitty
08/31/02 10:12 PM
209.242.100.230
|
" statement, endorsed by the government, which says we are "under god" is a state affirmation of religion"
And what does that matter, even if you only value yourself or money, that is a religion, the term is far more general than standard brainwashing, er, schools would have you believe. Religion is the sum of what you believe can be trusted and what must be proven. The two words will, of course, be offensive to those who want to be offended.
The government has acted to support a religion that worships nothing so much as improbability and bad math, yet you take offense at one line that supports the morality that turned this country into the most powerful and generous on earth?
meow
|
NathanKell
08/31/02 10:38 PM
24.44.238.62
|
A state affirmation of religion is unconstitutional.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "a religion that worships nothing so much as improbability and bad math"...but I do notice that you specifically say the morality that has made this country great...and I agree. One key tenet of that morality is that we, as people, may be as religious--or not religous--, and in whatever ways, as we please; and that we do not allow the government to dictate this in any way.
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
Countergod
08/31/02 11:26 PM
160.39.138.48
|
I hate to point this out, but separation of church and state was never intended to go this far. Might I remind you that all of the founding fathers were VERY religious, and in thier time period, the Anglican Church ran the English empire with the King of England as it's head. People were dissatisfied that they had to follow the rulings of the King not only in matters of state, but in matters of religion also. Thus the founding fathers wished to make sure the church didn't RUN the state. Unfortunately, like just about any writen document, this specific passage has been twisted completely by someone who wished to make his personal views known and "backed up" by law.
***Chemistry is like art. One wrong move can really ruin your day!***
To: All other empire leaders
From: Maj. NevLord Madman (Mad Man's Marauders [STB] )
Subject: Hi Neveron
Date Sent: 7/12/3222 12:50:00 AM
May i just point out u all suck
Maj. NevLord Madman |
NathanKell
09/02/02 09:09 PM
24.44.238.62
|
James Madison: "Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
The Founding Fathers, despite their other faults--and they were legion, in my view--were at least firmly for the separation of church and state. While I agree that in other things they did not want to "go this far" i.e. other civil rights, notably including voting, their opinion of the separation of church and state--not in spite of, but because of their faith--was steadfast and unflinching. Amendments calling for specifically what you say (i.e. keeping the state out of the church, but not vice versa) were often and specifically defeated; the language of the First Amendment was carefully crafted. Patrick Henry, actually, has two claims to fame: both for "Give me liberty or give me death" and for trying to get Christianity put into the Virginia Constitution. The latter was soundly defeated by a great majority led by Jefferson.
"Unfortunately, like just about any writen document, this specific passage has been twisted completely by someone who wished to make his personal views known and "backed up" by law." Very true. Yet more to lay at the feet of the McCarthy era: the chainsaw-editing of the Pledge of Allegiance (you know that, originally, it did not say "under God", and also that it said "equality and justice for all", right?) and adding "In God We Trust" to our coins (our Founding Fathers-crafted motto is E Pluribus Unim, not In God We Trust).
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
Countergod
09/03/02 12:10 AM
160.39.137.161
|
I will not repeat myself because it is about 1:00AM when I am typing this, but I would like you to reread what I posted, with emphasis on the fact that THEY WERE ALL RELIGIOUS. They put the first amendment in to prevent what happened in england from happening here: the king/queen of england being the head of the church by "law of God" NOT what people seem to think nowadays.
I know that "under God" was not in the pledge before 1954, but it was added for a very good reason. Look at what the completely godless religion did to the Soviets. KGB, secret service, etc.
and adding "In God We Trust" to our coins (our Founding Fathers-crafted motto is E Pluribus Unim, not In God We Trust).
First off, it is supposed to be "E Pluribus Unum" not Unim. Unum in Latin means one. second off, Are you going to make the US government reprint every dollar bill, and melt each coin just because they have God on it?
***Chemistry is like art. One wrong move can really ruin your day!***
To: All other empire leaders
From: Maj. NevLord Madman (Mad Man's Marauders [STB] )
Subject: Hi Neveron
Date Sent: 7/12/3222 12:50:00 AM
May i just point out u all suck
Maj. NevLord Madman |
MacLeod
09/03/02 09:11 PM
166.90.32.63
|
In reply to:
First off, it is supposed to be "E Pluribus Unum" not Unim.
Dude, why are you picking apart his Latin? So he made a spelling mistake... who cares?
And also, the Soviet Union fell because of internal power struggles and the problems caused by the attempt at ruling a nation through Communism, not through the Reds not getting their Jesus fix. God has nothing to do with the fall of the Iron Curtain - it was because their economy was lower than Jerry Falwell's opinion of minorities.
Drugs don't kill people, pancreatic cancer kills people.
... and whoever heard of a drug that causes pancreatic cancer?
|
Grizzly
09/04/02 10:30 AM
12.108.119.227
|
I agree with you. There are a lot of issues (gun ownership, abortion, seperation of church and state etc.) that have that dichotomy. Where as many people don't support them, they also don't what their personal rights degraded to the point of uselessness. To semi qoute Mr. Spock "do the needs of the many, really outweigh the needs of the few or the one?". I think we will be wrestling with this for a long time.
"I am but mad north-northwest, when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw" Hamlet
|
NathanKell
09/04/02 02:53 PM
24.44.238.62
|
Indeed they were religious, sometimes very. In fact, for many of them, that was the very reason the created such a strong separation between church and state. I'd like you to reread the James Madison quote above: this is inded a religious man (no arguement there) stating, quite plainly, that the very separation of church and state is good for both. This view was by no means an uncommon one; note that Jefferson's famous "wall of separation" letter was to the Danbury Baptist Association, a group that had lobbied for the very separation of church and state that Jefferson described in the letter.
For any "evil, godless regime" example, there are a dozen very godly ones: most recently the Taliban.
Sorry about the spelling error.
If I could, I'd certainly change the motto back on all currently printing bills and coins. I wouldn't suggest, even though I firmly believe having "under God" on our coinage is unconstitutional, doing a retroactive change. Besides, at least for bills, turnover is pretty good anyway.
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
NathanKell
09/06/02 03:32 PM
24.44.238.62
|
Oh, also: (I forgot)...
{points to sig}
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
Countergod
09/06/02 10:56 PM
160.39.139.12
|
I agree with you that the Taliban had religion far too intwined with thier politics (and look at what thier blustering about being superior to any "infidel" led countries got them Almost reminds me of the WoB) but where do you think most of our laws came from? killing is illegal in the US (and most of the world, thankfully  ). The fifth commandment states "Thou shall not kill (or atleast in most bibles, I found one that said "thou shall kill" ). This is one example, but I could also state theft, or bigotry (you are only allowed 1 wife in most judeo-christian religions, or husbands for that matter...) frankly (and I DO NOT mean to be offensive, this is my opinion and this is a free country right?) this country has become too enthrawled with suing and trying to change the government for thier own "beliefs." Good examle: Some nut in (I think, but I am not sure) California got arrested for possesion of Marijuana. he claims in court that it is something used for "religious" purposes, and now it is legal for him and his friends to purchase, posses, and distribute a controlled substance !!!!! Or this person who did the "under God" thing. I think that he should accept the law, or to refrain from saying that phrase as the law permits. Or perhaps he should get out of his daughter's affairs, since he is not her guardian and she is a devoted Christian raised so by her mother. But I will stop ranting because my thoughts are starting to become incoherant (I have been working overtime and i am dead tired  )
***Chemistry is like art. One wrong move can really ruin your day!***
To: All other empire leaders
From: Maj. NevLord Madman (Mad Man's Marauders [STB] )
Subject: Hi Neveron
Date Sent: 7/12/3222 12:50:00 AM
May i just point out u all suck
Maj. NevLord Madman |
SoyBigHead
09/07/02 07:47 AM
68.57.148.119
|
you're bout the commandment; its supposed to be "thou shalt not MURDER." at least thats what the KJV vers. says. and even if it doesnt in all... there are legal definitions for when it is legal to kill someone (war, execution, police in the line of duty, citizen who feels their life is threatened in an emergeny situation and can prove it to the authorities after the act, etc.)
"There are three types of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
-Mark Twain
|
|
|
Extra information
|
0 registered and 26 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: Nic Jansma, Cray, Frabby, BobTheZombie
Print Topic
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Topic views: 9739
|
|
|
|
|
|
|