Artful Dodger: lol It's one of the best books you'll ever read. It's worth the price alone just to get to "know" Jubal Harshaw, the old cantankerous, brilliant iconoclast whose view of politics and American culture is sure to get anyone to thinking.

The Usurper:  Still probably better suited here:  Books. 

Czuch: "well I have at least the same on my side, there are just as many people, even more, who will tell me it could have happened just that way"

What does it matter what people will tell you? Where does the evidence lead, that ought to be the question.

As to the Pentagon, you've got one government-released 5-frame video showing a blur & an explosion. However, we have testimony that all other video was confiscated immediately by the FBI (for examples, from a gas station across the street, from a hotel, from the Dept. of Transportation), nor has the Pentagon released video footage from its dozens of surrounding cameras. What does the video you've seen prove? Nothing. What do the unreleased videos prove? Nothing except the government doesn't want you to see them. If there is nothing to hide, why not?

The Usurper:   Sounds out of this world. 

(V): I think I may lean a bit more towards Emma's interpretation here. lol :o)

"conservative"

Being a pawn, I can't modify my (many) errors.

Artful Dodger: Actually, Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land" is a very political book. It was published in 1960 and in some ways foreshadowed the '60s counterculture movement. This is especially interesting considering Heinlein himself was a political conservation. But he was also a genuine explorer of the social condition. The main character (Valentine Michael Smith) eventually is murdered by a mob won't suffer the social taboos he is breaking in America. So you can see Heinlein's libertarianism shining through in this: that most people are too close-minded to let others be, i.e., they don't really pay more than lip service to the idea of Liberty. That speaks volumes about today's political climate.

 A Bit   Science channel  that way  ------->

It is while living with Jubal, that Mike begins his quest to "grok" the human condition. Grok is a basically untranslatable Martian term but it is a measure of the novel's impact that the word has sufficient gravitas to be defined in several dictionaries. For instance, The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language defines it as "to understand profoundly through intuition or empathy." That's about as close as you can get to a definition, and as is readily stated in the novel, you really have to have grown up Martian to truly Grok the word. Heinlein writes a wonderfully convoluted tale, creating an incredibly rich weave from the many threads that run through the story. For instance, he creates a legal history upon which Mike's claim to be defacto owner of Mars (and incidentally much of the moon) is based, and this further allows him to touch on the moral ambiguity of laying claim to an already inhabited planet; shades of settlers encroaching on the land of native American Indians. Indeed, the entire book is a minefield of social commentary and discussion, much of it as muddled as it is profound.

The muddle is in fact one of the charms of the book. The characters grow and evolve significantly as the story progresses, and Mike is not the only one to learn what it is to be human, though the conclusions will not be to everyone's liking.

heavenlyemma: I remember in one of Heinlein's books "Stranger in a Strange Land"... The Martians being a far superior race destroyed a world in our system, as the race was to insane and violent to be allowed to exist... hence the asteroid belt.

.... Oh they thought about Earth as well, but thanks to a kid they saw we had potential to grow and change.

(V): We are nothing to them they could wipe us out just like that if need be.

Vince Cable has called for highly paid executives in the private and public sectors to be named and shamed.

In his speech to the Lib Dem spring conference, the party's deputy leader demanded full disclosure of salaries more than £194,000 - what the PM earns.

The move would ensure "fat cats have nowhere to hide", he told delegates.

Publicly listed firms publish board members' pay but Mr Cable claimed some of the highest earners do not join boards to avoid full disclosure.

The Lib Dem Treasury spokesman, who has been one of the leading critics of excessive City salaries, criticised what he called "extreme, obscene, inequalities of reward".

But he extended criticism to public sector employees who expect bonuses whether they succeed or fail.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7929664.stm

heavenlyemma: I don't blame them for not being happy with us. We (well our leaders) play to many silly games, that could well be considered very kiddish.

One message they could be trying to send by the more dramatic first encounters recently is... "you ain't that big and powerful"

(V): Yeah, yeah, yeah I had a dream they are not happy chappies lol

heavenlyemma: Oh no they are not!! If they had wanted to do that they could have done it years ago.... But there again... some council could be looking at our case and whether they think we are sane enough to be part of the Galaxy.... as I guess as within a hundred years we might have developed the tech to start exploring.

(V): Didn't you know the aliens are coming from space to end it all as we can't look after the planet properly and they want to start over again.

heavenlyemma: Nahhhh according to Jewish history, they've been saved from the Romans which was that bit in Rev's being fulfilled, and Ghenna is long since gone. But as Pardes rules go, it still gives a message of the end of evil and hope for those suffering through the awakening process.

Artful Dodger: It's an open board, I'll say my opinion if feel so. There is nothing illegal about that... I mean, if being opinionated was illegal.... How many politicians would still have a job.

(V): Yet!!

(V):Stay out of the conversations if you're going to be dishonest. 

Artful Dodger: Chill dude, it ain't the end of the world.

"It's a fact that you do this to me and it's also a fact that you do this with others."

Blimey.. a fact? ... if you say so.

(V): Why don't you just admit that you made a false statement and get it over with.  Saying Fox is the most trusted and that "I don't get my news from Fox" are two different things.  I've clarified this for you if you would care to read it and try to honestly understand it instead of trying to be clever (which you're not). 

And I couldn't care less if you don't pay attention to what I said about you making false statements.  It's a fact that you do this to me and it's also a fact that you do this with others. 

Artful Dodger: I think it was you said Fox was your most trusted source, either that or that Fox news is the most trusted or should be in America.

As usual I am making a false statement.. That's an opinion from a person on the other side of the political spectrum... I hope you don't mind that I don't pay any attention to such a comment.

(V):Rubbish. You're making a false statement (as usual).  You quote me out of context (a typical ploy of the lying liberal left media). Here's what I did say:

Subject: But you DO use Fox News as a major source of information, correct?
Modified by Artful Dodger (6. March 2009, 21:53:28)
The Usurper:No I don't

and

"I don't get my news from Fox.  I get it from many sources...."

It's ONE source. I've said it's the best source for news but it's NOT my only source.  Don't try to put words into my mouth.  Would you like a list of the various sources? I really get tired of your constant manipulation of what people (particularly me) say on this board.  If you can't get your facts straight, then stay out of the conversation.

9/11... I dont think it is possible to conceive and plan and implement and cover up to the extent that would be needed to pull this off....

I have read many many things and watched many many videos on the subject, I just dont see it.

I look at a blurred video of a plane flying into the pentagon, and see a caption asking if it really looks like a plane, and how does a plane going so fast fly so close to the ground blah blah blah... well to me it does appear that it could be a plane, and yes it is not impossible for it to fly like that.... all your hopes lie in supposition that it could not have happened the way they say it happened, the way we all saw it happen, well I have at least the same on my side, there are just as many people, even more, who will tell me it could have happened just that way, as those who will tell me it is possible it did not happen this way, and yes, I can sleep just fine, and it bothers me as much that you are so paranoid that you cannot sleep as it bothers you that I am so blind that I can, get over it already, you have no proof that you are right, you have no proof that I am wrong....

The Usurper: Are you kidding me??? Really??? You have movies made by liberals that garner awards from other liberals who also make movies, and even a Nobel peace award from more self serving liberals, all pushing for liberal agendas, gets to the point where every school kid in America was forced to watch, and then be crammed down their throats as truth....


You got no problems with any of that crap????

Artful Dodger: That's not what you've said in the past.

Artful Dodger: Your telling me that I get my 9/11 info from Rosie O'Donnell is a good start. lol

The Usurper:Now I gotta come up with some Dodgerisms. 

Artful Dodger: lol :o)

The Usurper:
  You got me on that one! 

Artful Dodger: When he's diplomatic, I respond in kind. And his Czuchisms are met with Usurperisms. It's all par for the course. I hope you are correct, that he cherishes truth. Fewer Czuchisms might be more convincing. Just as in debate with you, however, it sometimes gets heated. Yet fondness and mutual respect grows sometimes in spite of these things, or perhaps even because of them. It's our world. The challenge for all of us is to understand it and make it better. To some extent all these debates, from whichever side, are conducive to those ends & represent a real striving for something better.

The Usurper:Czuch never bothers me.  Fortunately, I agree with just about everything he says.  And more often than not, he's very diplomatic.  His other stuff is simply Czuchisms and should be taken as such.  He doesn't disdain truth any more than you or I.  He cherishes it. 

But easy for me to say since I like the guy and appreciate his POV since it most closely mirrors mine.  His snippy comments make me go or but most often get a from me. 

Artful Dodger: My comment to Czuch about not disdaining truth was apropos, and frankly meant to be insulting, because of the way he himself insinuates insults into his specious statements. "Answer a fool according to his folly." Czuch hits below the belt at times, so I return the favor. You ought to be able to see this.

That you are a skeptic at heart is very healthy. So am I. And because you and I both, though we disagree on many issues, nevertheless DO have an interest in obtaining to the truth, on whatever topic, wherever the evidence may lead, there is hope for us both. Czuch has a taller hill to climb, in my opinion. He resorts to ridicule more often than he tries to articulate a point. To my knowledge, he does no private research on any of these issues, nor does he appear to lose an ounce of sleep over matters of the greatest importance.

So...there is the rationale for my different approaches to debate. I'm not perfect, but it's like a wrestling match...you have to think on your feet.

The Usurper:  I'm not going to defend Fox or any other cable network.  Think what you want about them.  As I've said, I couldn't care less about this theory of yours.  It's meaningless to me.  I don't get my news from Fox.  I get it from many sources and I am a skeptic at heart.  I don't believe everything I read or hear.

Some people on this form like to generalize and tell people what they are thinking.  Some like to twist words or create caricatures of others.  Some of  the things you say are a passive form of insulting.  Some not so passive.  "Some of us don't distain truth."  That is an arrogant statement.  When you make these kinds of statements, I just start ignoring you and I certainly don't take what you  say with any degree of seriousness. 

One of the most effective ways to get someone to consider your view, is to put a stone in their shoe.  The reason I don't buy global warming is I had a stone (of doubt) put in my shoe.  I am not a conspiracy theorist but there are some things about 911 that just don't add up for me.  Again, stone in the shoe.  I don't think the Republican party is always right.  But I hold strongly to conservative views and think that our country is better off run from conservative principles.  Still, I have some democratic congressmen that I respect.  I like Alan Combes now that he's off with Hannity.  He's so much better as a Fox News Contributor.  He brings a different view to the issues and he articulates them well.  I also like Dr. Marc Lamont Hill.  He's pretty much a Left kind of guy.  But he's brillant and gives excellent reasons for his views.  He's a regular on Fox.  He NEVER agress with the conservative viewpoints.  That's why I like watching Fox.  I know of MANY left leaning political commentators that are regulars on Fox. 

To my knowledge, neither Homer or Bart has appeared on a Fox news program for their views on anything.

Artful Dodger: "It's illogical to assume that just because a show like Family Man contains positive messages supporting global warming that somehow this attitude bleeds over to the hard news."

Why is this illogical? At the top, you have one man (Murdoch) owning both.

In the article itself, there is this sentence: "In 2003, Rupert Murdoch himself admitted that the corporation had “tried” to help the Bush administration sell the war in Iraq."

And embedded within this sentence is a another link, to this:

Murdoch Admits He Tried to Shape Public Opinion on Iraq

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF9HpuZm6-g

How did he try to shape public opinion? Why, through programming, whether entertainment or news. He utilized the means at his command. What can be simpler than this?

The Usurper:It's illogical to assume that just because a show like Family Man contains positive messages supporting global warming that somehow this attitude bleeds over to the hard news.

And when you can read minds then, and only then, you will be able to tell me the motives behind Fox Executives.  Otherwise, you simply have an opinion and as I've already stated, opinions don't add up to facts. 

Artful Dodger: I'm glad to hear that. Now if I could convince my liberal friends to stop getting their news from MSNBC, we might get somewhere.

The Usurper:No I don't

Artful Dodger: "This all coming from someone who gets his 911 information from Rosie ODonnell."

Cute. But you DO use Fox News as a major source of information, correct? That would include Hannity & O'Reilly, among others. You think Murdoch pulls the strings on Fox entertainment for political purposes, then leaves Fox news alone?

The Usurper:Duh Greg.  I don't consider Prison break or The Simpsons a major source of information.  Give me a break.  I couldn't care less about your meaningless suggestion here.  This all coming from someone who gets his 911 information from Rosie ODonnell. 

Artful Dodger: "so what"

So your adopted favorite source of information plays deceptive games with the minds of the public, that's what. This includes Fox News. I don't deny that so does CNN, MSNBC, etc.

Seems pretty important to me.

Czuch: "why bother, it fits perfectly into your model"

Because some of us don't disdain truth, even if it forces us to modify our own opinions, when it comes to light.

"and with 9/11 its not evenly divided at all"

The only science supporting the 9/11 official conspiracy is pseudo-science. You could learn that for yourself if you would "bother."

The Usurper: haven't thoroughly studied it for myself.

why bother, it fits perfectly into your model.... create fear to promote or advance some agenda...

The Usurper:So what.

The Usurper: Scientists are genuinely divided on the issue, or appear to be so;

and with 9/11 its not evenly divided at all.. so that should not matter

Czuch: Exceptionalism.

Google it for the definition.

As to Al Gore, he is a propagandist for the global elites.

About the global warming conspiracy, my difficulty wrapping my head around it, to this point, has been two things: 1) Scientists are genuinely divided on the issue, or appear to be so; and 2) I haven't thoroughly studied it for myself. That being the case, I ought not to assert an opinion too strongly pro or con before doing my homework. Is that fair?

As to 9/11, I have done my homework and that's why my conviction is strong on the matter.

The Usurper: But at any rate... global warming fits into your theory so neatly... how do you justify blaming the US government for 9/11 but you cant wrap your head around a global warming conspiracy?