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.

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

Artful Dodger: lol :o)

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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."

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.

Czuch: Exceptionalism is a word. Buy a dictionary.

Art and I debated global warming, and my conclusion was that both sides of the debate have merit.

As to how the issue is being used politically, I agree with you. Notice my post to Art on Global Warming just below, where I link to an article exposing Fox TV's role in brainwashing the public.

Artful Dodger: Fox Admits To Planting Political Brainwashing In Popular TV Shows

--Corporation boasts of “inserting messages” about global warming into hit shows like The Simpsons, 24, Prison Break & Family Guy--

http://www.prisonplanet.com/fox-admits-to-planting-political-brainwashing-in-popular-tv-shows.html


A spade is a spade.

ARE ELITISTS SHOOTING THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT?
My husband and I just listened to a CD of Ed Griffin explaining the formation of the Federal Reserve. It's shocking how much manipulation and deception of which we are the victims, under the banner of Democracy. Having this perspective now, I understand why you say that the labels--Socialism, Facism, Republican, Democrat, etc. just don't matter.

We do have a question: Who is going to bail out the US when we citizens no longer have the money to pay? If the goal is to reduce the citizens of the US to poor "peasants" like other 3rd World countries, then the time is coming when we peasants won't have the money to pay the interest OR the principal on loans. Does not the whole fraudulant system then collapse? Where then is their power? Won't those in power eventually be shooting themselves in the foot?
Mrs. Cook, 2009 Feb 28

Hello Mrs. Cook.
This concept deserves thoughtful analysis covering many aspects of the drama but, in my view, it all boils down to this: The elitists do not expect the common man to pay for this current debt in terms of money. In the face of crisis, people now are exchanging their personal freedom for security, or at least promises of security. At the end of that process, money as we have known it disappears and becomes merely digital impulses in accounts assigned to each person. Those digits will be used to acquire the necessities of life. The quantity people receive will depend on their service to the state and their willingness to cooperate. Those who obey will be told where to live and what work to do. Those who dissent will be cut off and will starve or beg. The elitists’ power will lie in total control over the economic lives of their subjects. Common people will support the government, not with taxes, but with human effort. They will be slaves to the system. Money is not a significant factor under slavery. Masters do not collect money from their slaves. Instead, they possess the output of their labor.
Ed Griffin

"Obama Admin. continues Bush policy of denying prisoners in Afghanistan the right to challenge their imprisonment. Prisoners in Guantanamo may be moved to Afghan prisons. Isn't it great to have two opposing political parties?"

http://www.smmp.pt/?p=3041

Turley: Bush terror memos are 'very definition of tyranny'

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Turley_Bush_terror_memos_are_definition_0304.html

World Trade Center 7 Demolition Acceleration

"NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) finally admits Freefall Speed."

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Find-Freedom.htm?EdNo=001&At=046815

Economic Destruction of America Step One of A Global Banking Power Grab

"The economic meltdown is merely a means to an end. It is being done deliberately, they say, at the very highest levels to achieve a well-planned outcome. What outcome is that? Global rule over all banking, of course."

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Find-Freedom.htm?EdNo=001&At=046816

The US Army Document That Proves the US is the World’s Number One Sponsor of World Terrorism

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Find-Freedom.htm?EdNo=001&At=046818

Czuch: I believe your lack of political insight & blindness to real American foreign & domestic policy can be summed up in this one sentence:

You believe in the myth of American exceptionalism.

This belief has tragic consequences for your fellow citizens and the rest of the world also. One day you will wake up to this.

Artful Dodger: "There's a difference between opinion and fact and it's pretty basic."

To examine the difference:

Let us say I demonstrate through mathematical proofs that 2+2=4. This then becomes recognized as a fact, through the demonstration. But the demonstration in itself does not bestow "facthood." 2+2=4 is true, or factual, regardless of any opinion to the contrary.

Now, suppose I have a different opinion, arising either from insufficient knowledge of mathematical principles or through purposeful disinformation by a pseudo-mathematician for reasons of his own. It can then be said that opinions differ, which is true. But FACTS don't differ! We can agree on this?

Turning now to the question at hand (i.e., was the U.S. invasion of Iraq unprovoked? and the corollary questions, Was it unjust? and, Was it illegal?), my point is simply this: just as 2+2=4, so it is proven by documentary evidence that the invasion of Iraq was, in fact, both unprovoked & pre-planned before 9/11. Secondly, such an unprovoked invasion of another country is illegal by definition, both by U.N. and U.S. law. And thirdly, such an unprovoked invasion is immoral, i.e., unjust on the face of it, if there be any rational standard of justice....which we all agree there is.

Now, you may have a contrary opinion, which is your right. However, if you do, then your opinion arises either from insufficient information or through purposeful disinformation by pseudo-intellectuals, for their own reasons. I suspect, in your case, the disinformation leads to a lack of information & also psychological immobolization, from which you ought to strive to free yourself (as we all must).

However, I will readily admit that this latter statement of mine (regarding how your mind in particular has been influenced & how it works) is an OPINION based on circumstantial evidence, not FACT based on incontrovertable evidence. But the facts referred to above are incontrovertable, no matter what opinion you or I may hold.

Artful Dodger: Each night we discover grounds of agreement even in the midst of disagreements. We'll get there.

Peace & Nite.

Artful Dodger: To make my point about Hiroshima & Dresden a little more clear, look at this way:

The Germans & Japanese deserved what they got. But the Allied powers, in targeting civilians, acted unrighteously nevertheless. Like Babylon, they were a punishing instrument in the hands of God (if you will), but the nature of these acts were evil & themselves merit divine retribution.

Artful Dodger: In one sense your extension of my logic is correct, in another sense incorrect.

First, yes, that Germany & Japan were aggressive powers, resulted justly in aggression being used against them. It's called the right of self-defense, and the Allied powers exerted this right.

Now, the issue we are speaking of here, is the targeting of civilians. Now let us assume that the Germans & Japanese also targeted civilians, and did so first. Then, you are correct, the peoples of Germany & Japan had strictly no cause to complain when they were targeted.

But this argument misses the broader perspective, which is that it is immoral to attack unarmed civilians. Therefore, while American civilians, if attacked on their own soil by Iraqi forces, would have essentially brought it upon themselves, it does not follow that the killing of civilians can ever be a righteous act in itself.

Think of how God used Nebadchanezzar (sp) to punish Judah. Judah, for their injustices, deserved the punishment. However, God's weapon of punishing (Babylon) was not therefore righteous. Rather it was an unrighteous power utilized by God for the righteous punishment of Judah. Only God can pull this off, by the way.

So the issue of civilian casualties is more complex. But the principle stands, don't do unto others what you would not have them do unto you.

Artful Dodger: I'm extremely serious. Any American who has supported the unjust & unprovoked invasion of Iraq has therefore no cause for complaint if this unconscionable action comes back to bite them on their own soil. And to the extent that we are all Americans, responsible for the actions of our government, even those who did not support the invasion must nevertheless bear some responsibility for it. After all, their tax dollars helped to fund it. In a perfectly just world, we would pay at home for the lives we have taken abroad. And in the long run, this will indeed be the case. As for the Iraqi citizens, they have the right of reciprocity, just not the power to act upon it. If bringing the fight to American soil would secure their independence at home against a brutal tyrant, they have every moral right to so defend themselves. But naturally, America makes a point of attacking those countries which can't really defend themselves. They might successfully repel the monster after great & terrible loss, but to return the favor is beyond the scope of their ability.

Artful Dodger: What is not fact? That we invaded Iraq without provocation? No my friend, that is simple, proven fact. If your opinion is contrariwise, then it is based on something besides fact.

Bernice: LOL I think I'm gonna make this website my homepage for awhile and spend some time checking it out.

Artful Dodger: "That's nonsense."

On the contrary, it is simple demonstrable fact. We invaded Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11, which did not support al-qaeda, and which had not attacked us first. Therefore, we started a war in the backyards of Iraqi citizens.

I watched another speech today, by a U.S. Iraq War veteran. He was a morter-man (sp). He said that in Baghdad not one apartment complex is left unscathed by American morters & plane bombs. He described how he and others were given orders on the ground to murder civilians. The idea was to wage a war of attrition to break the spirit of the Iraqi resistance.

Do you think I make these things up? Do you think the soldier is lying? There are plenty of other soldiers who have spoken out. If I were an Iraqi citizen, I'd be fighting the U.S. occupation tooth-and-nail. And I'd sure as heck prefer to take the fight to American soil, or at least kick the Invader out. Did we "liberate" Iraq? What a joke. No, we brutally subjugated it.

Only willful blindness refuses to see the truth of this matter.

Bernice: I wish. :o)

Today I watched a speech by a Libertarian, made at the 2007 9/11 Accountability Conference in Arizona. This speech was very inspiring and helped clarify my thinking.

This speaker has a website, called Freedom's Phoenix (Political News & Opinion), which is run on Libertarian principles. Non-censorship & open discussion is the rule. To give an example of the Libertarian principle at work, one is even free to post an argument there in FAVOR of censorship. In fact, one is free to post any argument at all, and to use any language. It is a free market-place of ideas. It is worth checking out:

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

--The Declaration of Independence

Bernice: That's right. Which means Americans have no cause for complaint now should a war be fought on its own soil.

(V): "It's makes me think that the land of the free is not a land of the free anymore. And the core of your government has sold out."

That is correct. And if we want it to become the Land of the Free again, it must first become, again, the Home of the Brave. We need an informed, courageous citizenry to stand up to the powers who have consistently & continually violated our Bill of Rights, and asserted control in all our private affairs...and, more, taken our wealth to enrich a few through the slaughter & subjugation of multitudes.

In short, the Contract is null & void. It has been broken by the Government. It is high time to bring this system to its knees, alter or abolish it, and constitute new government better fitted to secure the rights of the people.

Czuch: "I think capitalism can get past this time as well"

I have great respect for the libertarian ideal of free market capitalism, because its underpinning philosophy is one of individual liberty in all phases of life. I've said before that a better solution than we have now, for every man, is the end of all welfare, to rich and poor alike, the stripping of corporations of their political ties, the repeal of the Federal Reserve Act, etc.

However, we have also established that you are a not a true libertarian. You don't support a free market (which is the definition of capitalism), but welfare to the rich. It is not intellectually honest to uphold the wonders of capitalism when combatting the socialist tendencies of the left, only to turn around and abandon or undermine capitalism while embracing the fascist tendencies of the right.

Look, we all need to examine ourselves, and get back to basics. Let's remove the inconsistencies and become a united people against tyranny. The intellectual right points out many abuses of power in government, up to an including false-flag operations like the Oklahoma City bombing, the Waco massacre, the unconstitutionality of the Federal Reserve, and even 9/11. The intellectual left points out abuses of power also, such as 9/11, the false War on Terror, the Patriot Act, and the wedding of corporations & government.

So, both the intellectual right & the intellectual left are CORRECT, as far as they see things. They both recognize the abuses of power. But both are inconsistent, in that neither recognizes the full spectrum of abuse, and each neglects to examine its own inconsistencies. But many people are waking up, and recognizing it is time to take back our country from the demagogues in power, both Democrat & Republican.

(V): "In the short term, New Deal programs helped improve the lives of people suffering from the events of the depression. In the long run, New Deal programs set a precedent for the federal government to play a key role in the economic and social affairs of the nation."

I think this is a correct analysis. Over time, the programs which improved the lot of the common man were gutted, while the corporatism set in place led to the fascist state now entrenched in our political culture. Was this the plan all along? An argument can be made for it.

I don't blame the Jewish people, or the American people, or any other people. But the global elites, both Jewish & American and others, are blameworthy.

Czuch: Welcome back Czuch.

Won't you be surprised when you figure out your Problem-Reaction-Solution scenario has real merit. :o)

saeco: As you prefer.

(V): A book everyone should read is this:

http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/tfsar10.txt


It has a tacky name: "The Flying Saucers Are Real," by Donald Keyhoe, who....

"...is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis. He flew in active service with the Marine Corps, managed the tour of the historic plane in which Bennett and Byrd made their North Pole flight, was aide to Charles Lindbergh after the famous Paris flight, and was chief of information for the Aeronautics Branch, Department of Commerce."

Published in the early '50s, its importance lies in its real-time tracking of the shifting U.S. official response to the widespread UFO phenomena of the time.

(V): To further bolster the point, the PNAC document, "Rebuilding America's Defenses," publishing September 2000 & laying out a strategy for future control of the Middle East (with the help of "a new Pearl Harbor"), is a Neo-Con document, many of whose contributors made it into Bush's White House and are duel Israeli-U.S. citizens.

I usually wake up to a lamblast or two from that fine gentleman. It is worrisome to find the board thus vacant of his sarcastic rebukes and I miss them. It's like being ready for a fight and having nothing to punch. lol :o)

Teasing, of course....but he usually has posted by now, or so I thought.

(V): "If that is true, then there needs to be a full investigation of 911 ASAP"

It is very true, and one of the dozens of reasons I and many others are calling for this full investigation. Lie detectors & subpoena power, absolutely.

Your point about Israel's influence on the U.S. is well made. This would seem to be part of a joint global for eventual world domination, beginning perhaps with the overthrow of the Arab regions. A full investigation, if truly unencumbered by White House & other pressure, would reveal plenty. And heads would roll.

saeco: "thats just ludacris.. feel free to convince me of the opposite."

An article in Foreign Policy Journal has the following:

"Baer also indicated that the 9/11 Commission Report had been a cover-up of what really happened and questioned why certain other oddities about 9/11 had not been investigated, such as “the famous white van”, which he said was “an intriguing story” that “deserves a book”.

"He was referring to the case of the five Israelis who were witnessed on 9/11 celebrating beside their white van at the sight of the smoking towers from a parking lot in New Jersey. They were later arrested and detained. Upon arrest, the driver of the van told the arresting officers, “We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem.”

"The van was registered to an Israeli-owned company called Urban Moving Systems, whose owner immediately closed shop and fled to Israel. At least two of the five Israelis witnessed videotaping and celebrating the attacks were learned to be operatives of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency."

This articles, entitled "High-Fivers and Art Student Spies: What Did Israel Know in Advance of the 9/11 Attacks?" has more:

http://www.counterpunch.org/ketcham03072007.html

To find these, I just googled: "israeli art students celebrating wtc collapse on van"

There are plenty of related articles to sift through.

(V): Franklin D. Roosevelt:

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson."

The question, as you seem to hint at, then becomes possibly more sinister, stated thus: Who controls the financial element?

We keep winding up here, at the close of each day. But who knows (sinister pipe organ here) where the P-Board will lead us tomorrow.....

As always, enjoyable. Sleep well cuz I'll be coming back loaded for bear. :o)

Artful Dodger: Ok, some consistency begins to emerge. Thank you. Let's look at Vietnam, for example. Nixon is rightly blamed for not ending it quickly enough. But Johnson, the corrupt Democrat, is the one who escalated it to full-scale war to begin with. Guilt spreads across the board, for many issues. Thus, my contention that we're watching Good Cop/Bad Cop smoke screens to keep us entertained while the guy in the shadows steals the loot.

Artful Dodger: Big business IS responsible for most of the pollution, the stripping of the earth, etc. I understand what O'Reilly means. He blames the small guy. What is new?

Artful Dodger: Ok, here's a shot at a jumpstart. Say it with me....not only Democrats but also REPUBLICANS have gotten us into this mess! There, you can say it. And let's take it a step further...not only Democrats but also REPUBLICANS are endangering our freedoms, violating the Constitution, and generally interests alien to the common citizen. There, you can say it! Kick that door down.

Artful Dodger: Those are interesting links & I'll admit there's some question about the whole thing, and some merit to the counter-position. One small complaint I have.....the font isn't big enough so it's hard for me to click on them. lol