Will Bush be the NAU 'president' in 2012?

[TiCkEr]

Originally Posted by CosmicSerpent

You added the word "crazy" your self. You seem to have a very different understanding of the word "conspiracy", which is why I gave you the definition.

"but heck, were crazy conspiracy theorists, who's going to believe us? If they do, will they be crazy conspiracy theorists to? What will their friends think of them? Will people judge them and say their loony? "Like OMG, will my boyfriend leave me if I think that?" You get my point..."

Obviously you didn't. It is called sarcasm, and I was using it to show the mindset of the masses.

Edit: Upon reading my post, I realize I sound like a fktard and a prick.. I apologize and hope I didn't offend you. I'm usually pretty easy going.. these subjects get me all rattled up sometimes.

I do hope you got my point though.

TiCkEr

[CosmicSerpent]

Originally Posted by TiCkEr

Sure!

Truth: a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like.

You clearly missed my point. When I said it was a not conspiracy, I meant it in a sense that it should not be looked upon as a "conspiracy theory" by "conspiracy theorists" with all the dogma that goes along with anything "conspiracy". It is the truth and thus should be addressed as the truth, nothing but. I did not mean it in a grammatically correct sense with definitions and such, who gives a fck really. I'm not disputing what the definition of "conspiracy" is.. all I'm saying is that 9/11 should not be labeled as such.There are tons of bogus conspiracy theories out there, which keep people from opening up to what really happened on 9/11. People think if they believe 9/11 is an inside job, then they also must believe Hilary Killary is a shapeshifting alien from another planet.

TiCkEr

Why should it not be looked upon as a "conspiracy theory" by "conspiracy theorists"? Do I need to post the definition of "conspiracy theory" one more time? Seriously, go read it again.

No matter what you say, the idea of the government being involved in 9/11 is by definition a conspiracy. The fact that it is a conspiracy has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether it is true or not, and I never implied that it did. The assassination of Julius Caeser was a conspiracy, and it was true. The Watergate scandal was a conspiracy, and it was also true.

I did not miss your point. You misinterpreted mine because you didn't fully understand the meaning of a word. You implied that the word "conspiracy" meant that something wasn't true, so you were in fact disputing its definition. And it has nothing to do with grammar, it has to do with lexicon.

[TiCkEr]

Originally Posted by CosmicSerpent

I did not miss your point. You misinterpreted mine because you didn't fully understand the meaning of a word. You implied that the word "conspiracy" meant that something wasn't true, so you were in fact disputing its definition. And it has nothing to do with grammar, it has to do with lexicon.

You did miss my point. Who cares if by definition 9/11 falls under the definition of conspiracy? I never implied the word "conspiracy" meant that something wasn't true, now you are making false assumptions. What I was saying.. ah hell never mind. There are those who understand and those who clearly cannot I guess. Glad to see liquidtruth picked up on what I was saying.

Anyways, your 100% correct and I am completely incorrect. Will this satisfy your ego? Who cares if 9/11 can be defined as a conspiracy, why are we even debating this? That wasn't my point at all lol.

Lighten up buttercup.

TiCkEr

[CosmicSerpent]

Originally Posted by TiCkEr

I do hope you got my point though.

I understand your point, and I agree it is stupid to be arguing over vocabulary. You're right, there are people who hear the word conspiracy and automatically dismiss the claim... but it is these people who are being ignorant and misunderstanding the word, not me.

I am being completely honest when I say that the first time I ever heard these claims of the government being involved in 9/11, I had a completely open mind. I watched the videos, read up on it for hours, and came to my own conclusion that there was not strong enough evidence to convince me of it.

[CosmicSerpent]

Originally Posted by TiCkEr

Who cares if by definition 9/11 falls under the definition of conspiracy?

You do, apparently. If you didn't, you would have never had a problem with what I said.

Originally Posted by TiCkEr

I never implied the word "conspiracy" meant that something wasn't true, now you are making false assumptions.

Originally Posted by TiCkEr

It's the truth, not a "conspiracy".

[TiCkEr]

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Originally Posted by TiCkEr
Who cares if by definition 9/11 falls under the definition of conspiracy?
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

Originally Posted by CosmicSerpent

You do, apparently. If you didn't, you would have never had a problem with what I said.

I really don't. Just because you can define 9/11 as a conspiracy, it doesn't mean that it has to be labeled as such.
Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Originally Posted by TiCkEr
I never implied the word "conspiracy" meant that something wasn't true, now you are making false assumptions.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiCkEr

It's the truth, not a "conspiracy".

Again, I feel it is the truth and should not be put into a category along with the other wacky theories out there. That was my first post on this subject, if I would have known you would be dissecting everything I said I would have elaborated further. When the general public hear conspiracy they attach a lot of dogma along with it and many of them believe anything conspiracy to be false/fictitious. I also believe 100% that 9/11 was an inside job (agree to disagree I guess) after countless hour of research and analyzing the facts. So in my opinion, I would much rather call 9/11 truth rather than a conspiracy. CAN 9/11 be called a conspiracy? Sure.. happy now? Does it HAVE to be? No.. regardless, thats not my point. Now let's move past this so others can have a chance to post their opinions instead of listening to us battle it out. Ah well, if I'm bored and want a good debate, I know who to pm. Heck, just come to Canada and we'll burn a doob.. that way I can kick you if you disagree with me to much(I kid I kid ). Besides, were off topic. Thread is about whether or not Bush will be the North American Union president in 2012.

TiCkEr

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by TiCkEr

Sure!

Truth: a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like.

You clearly missed my point. When I said it was a not conspiracy, I meant it in a sense that it should not be looked upon as a "conspiracy theory" by "conspiracy theorists" with all the dogma that goes along with anything "conspiracy". It is the truth and thus should be addressed as the truth, nothing but. I did not mean it in a grammatically correct sense with definitions and such, who gives a fck really. I'm not disputing what the definition of "conspiracy" is.. all I'm saying is that 9/11 should not be labeled as such. There are tons of bogus conspiracy theories out there, which keep people from opening up to what really happened on 9/11. People think if they believe 9/11 is an inside job, then they also must believe Hilary Killary is a shapeshifting alien from another planet. If it is clearly the truth (which it is) why not call it as such. That was my point.

TiCkEr

Very simply: "conspiracy theorists" tend to have the mindset that human nature is overtly negative, that government exists for clandestine and op/repressive population control, and that the people will not "wake up" from their large-scale slumber.

It's kind of like taking a metaphor for reality. "Evidence" for truth. Internal fears extrapolated onto the external [subjective] "reality". Why don't all conspiracy theorists say the same exact thing if they are speaking "truth"? Why do people say that movies like Zeitgeist are true and factual when their basis for that statement comes from a personal (subjective) interpretation of the evidence presented [clearly with an agenda, because movies like that are not meant to serve as mere entertainment (or are they?)]?

You know, an optimistic view of mankind and existence can be mapped onto the subjective reality as well.

[TiCkEr]

Originally Posted by bkadoctaj

Very simply: "conspiracy theorists" tend to have the mindset that human nature is overtly negative, that government exists for clandestine and op/repressive population control, and that the people will not "wake up" from their large-scale slumber.

Agreed. I like how you put emphasis on "tend" because it surely isn't the case for all conspiracy theorists. I am not overly wrapped up into all the different conspiracies and I personally don't really bother with 9/11 anymore. It happened, there is nothing we can do about it. However, focusing our attention on the future and what might be the "next 9/11 event" and how to stop/prevent it from happening seems more productive. Though too much of anything is never good for anyone, especially obsessing over the future. Smoke a J and live in the moment ..

Originally Posted by bkadoctaj

Why don't all conspiracy theorists say the same exact thing if they are speaking "truth"?

Very simply: Because not all conspiracy theorists speak the truth. There is a lot of dis-info out there. Nobody ever said all conspiracy theorists are speaking the truth.

TiCkEr

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by TiCkEr

Agreed. I like how you put emphasis on "tend" because it surely isn't the case for all conspiracy theorists. I am not overly wrapped up into all the different conspiracies and I personally don't really bother with 9/11 anymore. It happened, there is nothing we can do about it. However, focusing our attention on the future and what might be the "next 9/11 event" and how to stop/prevent it from happening seems more productive. Though too much of anything is never good for anyone, especially obsessing over the future. Smoke a J and live in the moment ..


Very simply: Because not all conspiracy theorists speak the truth. There is a lot of dis-info out there. Nobody ever said all conspiracy theorists are speaking the truth.

TiCkEr

Could the same be said of the news media? And if that is the case, don't the truthful conspiracy theorists have the same exact objective as the media that tries to uncover things?

[TiCkEr]

Originally Posted by bkadoctaj

Could the same be said of the news media? And if that is the case, don't the truthful conspiracy theorists have the same exact objective as the media that tries to uncover things?

That not all news medias speak the truth? Of course. Here is part of a movie a really enjoyed called esoteric agenda. Truthful conspiracy theorists clearly do not have the exact objective as they are able to say what they please and do not have higher authority to answer to. If they do have a higher authority to answer to, I wouldn't say they are truthful, rather there to serve as a tool to add to the dis-info keeping the masses confused and debating amongst each other accomplishing nothing (kind of like we are doing now) while the powers that be continue with their agenda as planned.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=S9vRjWKqZFE&feature=related

I recommend watching the full thing, even if you don't like conspiracy theories, they address a lot of health issues in it regarding fluoride, aspartame, and the everyday food we eat.

TiCkEr

[CosmicSerpent]

Originally Posted by TiCkEr

Besides, were off topic. Thread is about whether or not Bush will be the North American Union president in 2012.

Good point.

I think if Bush tried in any way to cancel the election, or remain in control of our country after his term is up, he would immediately be put on trial, impeached, and arrested.

Dictators rise to power because they usually have the people's support in the beginning. They are able to successfully declare a state of emergency and cancel elections because the people are willing to believe it is necessary. Bush very clearly does not have the people's support... he has the lowest approval rating in history.

Even if he were to stage another major terrorist attack, it would not be enough to keep him in power. The people would not stand for it... whether anyone believes in the 9/11 government conspiracy or not, the majority of the public DOES agree that Bush has made a lot of mistakes because of it. No one in their right mind would trust him to handle another attack of that magnitude, and all it would do is boost the appeal of whoever the next president is.

Besides, the fact that so many people have already questioned the Patriot Act would make it even harder. Many have made the accusation that the Patriot Act itself is unconstitutional and was a horrible decision, so anything that took it a step further would surely create a very aggressive effort to remove Bush from office.

[crackrockstdy89]

[quote=CosmicSerpent;2497505
....On a side note, I still find it hilarious that people think George W. Bush is competent enough, resourceful enough, and organized enough to have planned 9/11.[/quote]

Bush did not plan 9/11, but he carried it out well. I like to think of the gov/t and all that as a game of chess. You have the pawns (the police) who are sort of the lowest on the board, but still enforce their laws and such. Then you have the kings, queens, kinights (The presidents, heads of countries) who enforce the laws onto the pawns and stand back and watch. Then you have the person controlling the chessboard/playing (the illuminati, big brother, big business, etc.) who create the laws and tell the kings and pawns what to do and who can do what, etc. The men behind the curtains (the player) pulled a false flag and caused 9/11 in order to get more money for them, and had teh Kings and Pawns carry out their plan. This has happened over and over, including Pearl Harbor where we knew of an attack, but did nothing to stop. Even most of our more important ships weren't docked when the attack happend. And as soon as the attack happened, the player sent all his chessmen out to attack, and get more money. It's fucked up how this goes on and on, and we sit back and do nothing

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by TiCkEr

That not all news medias speak the truth? Of course. Here is part of a movie a really enjoyed called esoteric agenda. Truthful conspiracy theorists clearly do not have the exact objective as they are able to say what they please and do not have higher authority to answer to. If they do have a higher authority to answer to, I wouldn't say they are truthful, rather there to serve as a tool to add to the dis-info keeping the masses confused and debating amongst each other accomplishing nothing (kind of like we are doing now) while the powers that be continue with their agenda as planned.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=S9vRjWKqZFE&feature=related

I recommend watching the full thing, even if you don't like conspiracy theories, they address a lot of health issues in it regarding fluoride, aspartame, and the everyday food we eat.

TiCkEr

Regardless, if you can prove you know someone's true intentions, then you can prove something. If not... well, you're theorizing. It's that simple, man. No video should be considered "proof".

[TiCkEr]

Originally Posted by bkadoctaj

Regardless, if you can prove you know someone's true intentions, then you can prove something. If not... well, you're theorizing. It's that simple, man. No video should be considered "proof".

No video should be considered proof? I merely put up a link to a video and suggested you watch it. Take the information handed to you in the video and do your own research with it and draw your own conclusions. Not everything is black and white, although some videos might have dis-info, they might also contain many important truths/facts (like the Bible). So yes I agree, no video should be considered "proof" but should encourage you to do further research. Did you take the time to at least watch the video.. or maybe do 10 minutes of research? (ps. that was a rhetorical question since were going off topic again)

"Bush be NAU president in 2012?! Whadooya say!?"

TiCkEr

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by TiCkEr

No video should be considered proof? I merely put up a link to a video and suggested you watch it. Take the information handed to you in the video and do your own research with it and draw your own conclusions. Not everything is black and white, although some videos might have dis-info, they might also contain many important truths/facts (like the Bible). So yes I agree, no video should be considered "proof" but should encourage you to do further research. Did you take the time to at least watch the video.. or maybe do 10 minutes of research? (ps. that was a rhetorical question since were going off topic again)

"Bush be NAU president in 2012?! Whadooya say!?"

TiCkEr

Want to know something? I spent all last summer doing research. I WAS a "conspiracy theorist". That is what gives me the personal authority to say what I have. I've seen and heard all this stuff. Connect anything "bad" and you have a conspiracy. It only takes two...

EDIT: I hate to sound like my dad here, but you'll be saying the same things I'm saying to you to someone else somewhere down the road. You can't stay negative your whole life... (although I do admit you're positive about your negativity)

EDIT #2: And I know how those videos are, you see one, you see links to another, and from there links to more... Ever wonder why people are charging money for the videos if this is all for truth trying to get out to as many people as possible? I mean, did you ever wonder? Did you ever doubt the conspiracy theorists as much as you've doubted the "conspirators"?