Freedom, Tyranny and threats to rights...

Hypotheses and Occam's razor

Regarding what may be written in a book that is written for mass consumption... I spent 5 minutes on Amazon, and here are some of the books that I found. These are real books, by real authors, and real people buy them and buy into them.

"Black Helicopters over America: Strikeforce for the New World Order"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_2/103-4464076-3096663?v=glance&s=books

"Virtual Government: CIA Mind Control Operations in America"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...2/103-4464076-3096663?_encoding=UTF8&v=glance

"Blood Lines of the Illuminati"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...=sr_1_21/103-4464076-3096663?v=glance&s=books
... that one may not be obviousm, but the Illimunati are an elite Satanic cult, genetically related, that have been controlling the world for a long time (most of our business, political and civic leaders around the world are actually members of this secret cult). The goal of this cult (being Satanic, after all) is to destroy Chistianity.

"Rule by Secrecy: The Hidden History That Connects the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, and the Great Pyramids"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...1/103-4464076-3096663?_encoding=UTF8&v=glance

"Alien Agenda: Investigating the Extraterrestrial Presence Among Us"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...1/103-4464076-3096663?_encoding=UTF8&v=glance

A common refrain in marketing these type of books is (paraphrased): "Find out what the authorities don't want you to know - Dare to find out the truth!"
My point is, just because something is out there in a book, in and of itself lends no creedence to the idea. The goal of publishers is to make money. While it's not important, I don't know if these authors even believe what they write - they, after all, profit by getting people to buy their book, which is motivation enough.

Even if they believe them, critical thinking, if employed suggests that you evaluate any hypothesis critically - FWIW, some questions I like to use are: how much information is carefully cited? what is the reliability of those sources? how much evidence is there? How immediately and how logically do conclusions follow from observations? Are there any important postulates needed to support the hypothesis that are simply asserted, without strong evidence? Any significant (rather than trivial) internal contradictions? What other motivations might the author have for positing this? What other explanations exist for the same phenomenon?

There is a centuries old and very powerful concept when it comes to formulating and more importantly, evaluting hypotheses. It's called Occam's Razor, and was attributed to the 14th century philosopher and logician William of Ockam. Basically, it says that when comparing multiple hypotheses that *may* explain the same observations, the simplest explanation is the best. This is used throughout science and mathematical modeling, and although it's beyond the scope of a forum like this, there are very profound reasons supporting this principle (nothing Satanic though! :D ).

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor
 
Sorry Caleb,
But you don't really have a point, as you did not actually sit down read any of the books referenced by anybody including the ones on your list.
Research means doing actual work, not googling something or cut copying and pasting it.
Trying to tar and feather a book (in this case, Jon Ronson's) by comparing it with a list of crap books written by nuts is sort of how the "mainstream" mass media tars and feathers us ordinary gun owners by trying to demonize us and pretend that the only gun owners in America are militia members or klansmen or gangbangers.

By their (and your logic) because there are armed KKK members or terrorists or crack lords out there with Glocks and semiatomatics and handguns therefore everybody who owns a glock or a semi automatic or a handgun is a KKK member or terrorist or crack lord. That's called "demonization" and the mainstream mass media has abused that illogical argument for over a decade now.
Just because there are books written by nuts out there on conspiratorial topics does not mean that all books about conspiratorial topics are the work of nuts.
Ronson's book points out the lunacies of many of the conspiracy theorists.
For example one nut goes on and on about how the globalists are not really people but 12 foot tall shape shifting lizards who drink human blood. This of course, drives another of the conspiracy theorists up a wall, as he keeps pointing out that the Lizard King's comments and the crackpots and the cranks keep people from taking some of the subjects like global warming and globalized trade seriously.
Why?
Because the demonization tactic works on shallow or gullible people.
Ronson is not a crackpot or a crank by the way but a legitimate journalist.
He also pointed out that some of the "normal people" were just as nutty as these cranks. For example the groups who convinced themselves that one nut who kept talking about the 12 foot tall blood drinking lizard was actually using a metaphor for hebrew people and was an anti-semite. Ronson, who is jewish kept pointing out , "No, he is not talking about jews, he really is talking about 12 foot lizards, if he had a problem with jews, he would hve had a problem with me."
Ronson points out the irony that one nut who was babbling about the Lizard people really was being censored and targeted by folks. Just not the lizards he thought were censoring him or targeting him, but well meaning but equally nutty people who were obsessed that he was talking about an ethnic group and not really lizards.
Like I said, its a good book written by a respected author.
Do a little honest research on a topic first instead of jumping on the demonization bandwagon and you may actually develop a "point."
 
History shows that those who do not learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them.
Look at ancient Rome.
Rome's business people helped lead to the downfall of that empire simply because of greed.
How?
They began outsourcing manufacturing jobs from Roman citizens to citizens in the new provinces like Gaul or Britain because...the labor was cheap.
Sound familiar?
Remember what happened within the empire?
The ordinary folks were without gainful employment and the government began keeping them pacified with Bread and Circuses. In other words, the welfare of the ancient world. You went to the arena, got fed and watched the gladiators stab each other and the chariot racers smash themselves up.
Sound familiar? (if it doesn't go past the trailer park during a NASCAR day on sattelite or a WWF pay per view).
We are not so different right now in the USA than Rome was in it's final days.....
So you had crime, despair and poverty on a massive scale at home in Rome and you had angry barbarian peoples upset outside of Rome because they were reduced to being cheap labor for the Roman merchants. So many of them decided to go to Rome itself and take up shop there .What the heck, if these people had reduced them to this, surely what they had must have been better than the pickings back in the provinces, right?
In 407 AD the Teutons (and many Gauls) marched across the frozen river and into Rome and eventually it fell, not so much becuase of the Barbarian invasion as because of the rot caused internally prior to that out of the greed of the merchants.

In my lifetime I have seen our country change drastically for the worse thanks in large part to global trade. Anybody 40 and over can remember what it was like when most of what you bought in the USA was made in the USA and it did not take two jobs to provide for a family.
Global trade is bad because it only benefits the same grasping greedy mercantile class that destroyed the Roman empire. The people in the outlying nations who are abused for the cheap labor do not benefit. The people in the old home country do not benefit. Nobody benefits but the people who are allready set for life. If you can't understand how that is bad, I am truly amazed. I have a college education and I make aproximately one half of what my father made when he retired from work as a physical laborer with a third grade education.
I can assure you sir, that is no improvement.
Globalization has decimated our economy and nobody wants to admit it. Our whole moder tecnophile culture is aimed around distracting the public from realizing that we are being squeezed and squeezed and our quality of life has drastically decreased, just like the old Roman senators used free passes and free meals at the arena to keep the mob distracted.
Its not about a secret elite dude. Its about the same type of greedy merchant @$$holes who destroyed the Roman empire through their short sightedness and greed doing the same thing today publicly. They do it by supporting politicians that they feel will do their bidding and they finance media campaigns for them.
Our nation is going down the pipes not because of a conspiracy, but because of the short sighted greed of truly awful people who are more than happy to sell you out, and sell your country out for the sake of a bigger quarterly earning. No matter what you want to beleive, that is bad and it is about as clearcut as something can be.



>>>On whether or not global trade is good... I don't think it's so clearcut. And I definitely don't think circling the wagons would be beneficial. I am a techie - we're the guys that are in the news a lot for being outsourced, and yes, I've been laid off before, so I know what that feels like.

My first comment is that global trade has actually gone on for millennia, not just for the last 10 or 20 years. With improvements in information and transportation infrastructure, it's gotten more economical and so more widespread. It's not the result of a conspiracy by some secret elite - it's just the result of many many individuals and organizations, optimizing their utility.<<<
 
My point is, just because something is out there in a book, in and of itself lends no creedence to the idea.
Click to expand...

Jack - As you have said, I have not read Jon Ronson's book. But you did, and seemed to say, well Jon Ronson says in his book... If you read what I said is my point - reiterated in the quote above, mere publication in a book for the mass media is in and of itself not a mark of fidelity. I chose a few books easily from Amazon to help illustrate the point.

In truth, I am not likely to read Jon Ronson's book - I never read Michael Moore's books either for example - I don't think he's all bad, but I don't think he's worth my time either. I probably buy at least $500 in books a year, but I choose by the reputation and achievments of the author, not by how many books they sell, or how provocative the title is - there are just way too many books out there to even approach reading them all, so I try to take the cream. The books written by brilliant authors of international stature cost exactly the same as those turkeys I listed above - that's one of the beautiful and unique things about books - you basically pay for the quality of the ink and paper, not the quality of the ideas, which are the real value in them.
 
Jack Malloy,

In my lifetime I have seen our country change drastically for the worse thanks in large part to global trade. Anybody 40 and over can remember what it was like when most of what you bought in the USA was made in the USA and it did not take two jobs to provide for a family.
Click to expand...

That particular Populist refrain is getting tiresome.

Let me cast my mind back to when my parents were my age:

It was 1981. They were renting a house in a subdivision from the bank. We had a paid-for car. Dad had been laid off from his executive postion and was slinging bags for an airline, and mom was running a daycare in the basement to help make ends meet. We had a Sears Pong set hooked up to our one color TV (we also had two B&W television sets), and an Apple II. We had one decent stereo system in the house, and dad had lost his loaner VCR from his previous job. We rented a phone from the regulated phone industry. Dad had a small camera collection for his hobby. My clothes came from garage sales. Both my parents had associate degrees from technical schools.

Now it's 2005. I rent a house on the lake from a landlord. I have a paid-for car. I run the retail end of a large FFL. I have four video game consoles, only one of which is hooked up to a color TV (because I'm too lazy to drag the other two color TVs out of the back room and find outlets for them), and two PCs that I use, as well as nine Macintoshes that I collect. I've got a stereo system and two good boom boxes gathering dust because I use one of my PCs and one of my Macs as the sound systems in my house, and I watch my DVDs on one of my desktops if I'm inside or on one of my laptops if I'm outdoors. None of these electronics were particularly expensive, thanks to that world-wide 24-hour garage sale called "eBay". I've abandoned the land line and gone all cellular, because it's cheaper than a landline and cellular. I have as a hobby a large gun collection that grows constantly. My clothes come from the mall, because I don't have to worry about buying clothes for kids. I have a high school diploma.

Why do folks need two jobs these days? Because even though stuff is cheaper, there's just so much more of it to buy. When I was a kid, you were hot stuff if you had a Lite Brite and a Barbie Camper. Nowadays it's considered child abuse if you don't pick up the latest X-Box game for your kid within a week of its release, and even the most underprivileged trailer-park youngster has a copy of Halo or a four-wheeler...
 
Sorry, but "bait and switch" tactics don't work on me. I am not all that intellectually challenged. Bait and Switch doesn't work on many people, actually. The fact that over 30 states have CCW laws now shows that there are plenty of people out there who can think for themselves without falling for the media baloney, which depends on Bait and Switch to hoodwink the Sheeple.
Bait and Switch is not a point Caleb. It's a tactic. A tactic that those of us in the gun owning community are all too familiar with. The point is that there is an agenda out there-globalism- and that those who push it have been very successful thanks to their financial influence in stealing your rights from you and robbing people all over the world of their rights.
They wreck your nation's economy. They create civil and economic unrest in your streets then they step in and declare that because of all the lawlessness, chaos and danger that they are going to have to take away your right to defend yourself or to own a weapon for your own good.
Suddenly you have found yourself without the means of defending yourself from tyranny, be it from the forces of a corrupt army or government or criminals, aka economic terrorists.
The UN's current global gun ban plan being an example of this. An example that has pretty much only been written about in the American Rifleman and a few gun magazines.
By trying to compare a book by a legit author about a legit topic - globalists and the relationship with extremists- to tripe is nothing but bait and switch. We are not talking about tripe written by whackos, we are talking about a real topic and a legitimate author and his work on it. Bait and Switch adds nothing to that topic, and it is about as intellectually honest as the media, which blurred the line between semi-automatic rifles and "assault weapons" in their hyped reports pushing the gun ban agenda.
They didn't care about the topic. They just used bait and switch to whip up support for their agenda, an agenda that benefits the globalists, and that globalists like George Soros have funded for years now. Under the radar of the "mainstream" mass media. Would anybody even know who George Soros is, were it not for the American Rifleman?

It was pointed out that there are interviews and magazine articles about globalists that have been published by respectable authors and magazines (not just whackjobs self publishing) and that when you compare what these people say, beleive in, stand for and support politically, what you find is that there is a globalist agenda that seems to be revolving around outsourcing jobs from one place to the other in the never ending search for cheaper wages and that nobody is really benefitting from this, other than the globalists themselves.
Of course, the "mainstream" mass media tends to obfuscate this by focusing on the nut jobs squawking about the New World Order and black helicicoptors.
Want another good example of Us vs Them from a foriegn viewpoint?
Couple of years ago I visited a country in the British isles that had an excellent economy. The reason was simple. The majority of what was sold there and bought there was actually made there. Peoples homes were full of things made there at home from wood, brass, steel and glass instead of plastic thermomoulded in China.
There economy was doing very well.
The politicians were planning on dumping their own currency and jumping on the Euro bandwagon, even though about 90 percent of the public opposed it, pointing out that the move would damage their economy as the wages would fall to the levels they are in Spain and that the inflation would skyrocket to the levels they are in France.
But the politicians did not care. They were being financially supported by ...you guessed it, the globalists.
Globalists are like a pack of vultures and they are picking clean the bones of the earth as it were. They just don't CARE about a healthy economy or human rights or anything but the bottom line and the quarterly earnings reports. They have a philosophy of what is best for them and no concerns about things like nationalism, which they see as a threat to their financial well being.
Michael Moore is an excellent example of what happens when somebody sells out for the extreme left wing. Years ago, he was a talented writer and filmaker who produced probably the best documentary ever made - Roger and Me. He had a television show called "TV Nation" that got cancelled even though it did well in the ratings. Better, in fact than some shows that were renewed. Despite his talent, the people who call the shots in Hollywood just yawned. What would have happened had "Canadian Bacon" ( an excellent comedy with John Candy and Alan Alda) recieved the same amount of paid for media hype as say, "Bowling for Columbine"?
For all his talents, Moore is on the outside looking in....
One day, Michael Moore reinvents himself.
Suddenly, he is no longer just a guy on the outside taking shots at everybody. Suddenly he is the PC Avenger. And guess what. The folks who call the shots for the media decide that the new X-Treme PC Michael Moore is suddenly the prophet for the age. They blue light his new movie projects and he gets book deals out the wazoo.
Why is it that suddenly, despite the fact that his movies aren't actually doing any better box office than they did before, and his books don't sell as well as his first book he is a media darling?
Could it be that the Powers That Be have decided to use Moore's talents as their official PR guy? Could it be that he can be a tool for their attack on your rights? "They" have Micheal Moore as their spokesman. A documentarian and former journalist! "We" are compared to klansmen, UFO nuts and white christian militiamen who are referred to as our spokesmen.
Notice that for the past few years, Moore has attacked the NRA, Gun Owners, etc. but has been remarkably silent about outsourcing of jobs, a topic that he used to be quite passionate about?
Hmmm.....
Like I said, its not about a conspiracy. There is no conspiracy. Its about a group of known, wealthy individuals who call the shots thanks to their financial influence in politics and the media doing what they want for their own selfish interests and doing it right out in the open, and the mainstream media looking the other way.
Bernard Goldberg wrote an interesting book a few years ago vis a vis his years at one mainstream media network. He pointed out that it wasn't that these people met behind closed doors and worked on pushing their agenda. It was a factor that these people lived in the same neighborhoods, attended the same parties and worked in the same industry and held similar views. People who had opposite views were looked upon as being scandalous or not quite "right."
He gave as an example the statement of one media maven who said she did not know anybody who voted Republican as an example. The woman probably didn't. And when sharpies popped up spouting the PC drivel, nobody would oppose them or argue with them simply because they did not want to be percieved as not being "progressive" with the rest of the cocktail set.
In other words, they (the media elites) can be embarrassed or bullied or hoodwinked into buying into an agenda.


We live in a society where the media and their purse string masters push the "no responsibility" agenda. Gun control is a part of that agenda. Telling people what to think so they won't think for themselves is another part of that agenda. Wrecking the economies of nations for cheaper wages is yet another part of that.
Who benefits from this? Governments and Multi National Globalists. Certainly not you or I. Its all about taking power out of the hands of the many, and restricting it to the hands of the few.
Our founding fathers beleived in the power of the people, not the power of big government. And that is a threat to tyrants be they of the political stripe or the economic stripe.

>>>Jack - As you have said, I have not read Jon Ronson's book. But you did, and seemed to say, well Jon Ronson says in his book... If you read what I said is my point - reiterated in the quote above, mere publication in a book for the mass media is in and of itself not a mark of fidelity. I chose a few books easily from Amazon to help illustrate the point.

In truth, I am not likely to read Jon Ronson's book - I never read Michael Moore's books either for example - I don't think he's all bad, but I don't think he's worth my time either. <<<
 
Look at the propaganda machine and how it works....
I saw an excellent example last night on network television. One of the "news" feature shows had a story about a shooting where a woman killed her husband and claimed self defense.
Two of the jurors were textbook examples of what happens when you have people who just don;t think for themselves because they have watched way too much network television and bought into the anti-self defense agenda because the media has told them what to think.
One juror commented "she could have backed away and climbed out of a window."
The other juror said, "She could have shot him in the leg."
In other words, it was not important to them whether or not this woman was in danger. What mattered to them was that the media says you should run away instead of shoot back and the media says if you do shoot back you should shoot somebody in an extremity to wound them.
These people have been brainwashed!
God forbid any of us here ever get into a shooting scrape, but if you do, do you want people like that on the jury who are using pure bull$#!* logic l which was spoon fed to them from the media?

Would you want your case judged on brainwashing instead of its merits because some bonehead really thinks you should have jumped out the window instead of shooting back? Do you really want to face years in prison because some halfwit who watched too much television decided you should have shot somebody in the leg instead of doubletapping him in the chest?
Compare this to the Penn and Teller show about Gun Control on pay cable that was also on this week, where the duo took apart the arguments for gun control and pointed out facts such as "most shooting sprees happen in "gun free" zones like schools" and "gun control makes it safer for criminals to do their job."
A gun grabber babbling about calling 911 was called a smug jerk, and the concerns of women about crime were actually paid attention to.
Why is it that other than John Stossel, you never hear these things when 60 minutes, 20 20 or the other shows are handling the gun control topic?
Its not about news. Its about telling you what to think with them.
Of course, to see the Pen and Teller show, you had to pay for it, as opposed to viewing the other peice of tripe on "free" tv.
If you want to pay for it, you get two commedians telling you that the arguments for gun control are pure Bull@#!*. Or you can tune in to network tv for free and learn that somebody should have jumped out a window or shot somebody in the leg instead of blowing an alleged attacker away, implying of course that self defense arguments are really just nasty excuses to commit cold blooded homicide.
This is what we are up against folks.
The UN is against us.
The left wing of the political spectrum is against us (which is funny, considering that in the 60s and 70s the lefties did not trust big government).
The media elites are against us.
And the Globalists are sitting back and calling all the shots thanks to the influence of their fat wallets.
And because of bait and switch tactics in the media that some people are gullible enough to fall for, it is working more and more every day.
 
Jack - I am not really sure what you mean by "Bait and Switch" tactics that I am using... it sounds though as if you're saying I am trying to trick you. :rolleyes:

Believe me, I am not trying to trick you. That's not the way I operate - I have never been accused of that by anyone who knows me. On the contrary, more than once I've been told that I am overly direct, and alternatively that I am too honest for the "real world".

I don't think you are really listening to what I am saying. That's fine, you don't have to. But if you're not, I shouldn't continue to write here.
 
Caleb,
Im not ticked, I am just pointing out something that any college freshman level debate team member could tell you. You really don't have a point, you have a bad tactic you keep falling back on trying in vain to reroute an argument.
Problem is anybody with basic debate class skills would be aware of this. Its been pointed out, but you still seem unable or unwilling to understand or accept that.
The topic is about freedom, rights and the threat that globalists and politicians make towards your them.
Facts have been presented, vis a vis comments regarding George Soros, the UN and the influence that globalist economic pirates have on greedy grasping politicians.
Your comments about books written by boneheads and trying to compare a legitimate book by a respected author to them is a bait and switch tactic.
Thats it in a nutshell, pure and simple.
You have implied that just because a handfull of loons have written spurious books on the same topic that ALL books on the topic are spurious as well.
Unfortunately this 'argument' is based on a fallacy, not logic. You would know that if you bothered to read the cited source (Ronson) before comparing it to this drivel you found on the internet.
The problem with your line of thinking is that it is based on a shoddy tactic and not logic. As you yourself have said, you never read the Ronson book. Therefore you cannot compare it to some book written by the likes of William Pearce. In other words, you don't really have a point, you have a tactic that you naively seem to think is a point when it is not.
Don't get bent out of shape that I point this out to you. Don't take my word for it either. Go to your nearest community college and ask a debate teacher to go over the basic gist of the discussion and He or She will tell you the same thing. You have compared apples to radiator bolts, as it were.
What I have tried to point out to you is that you- as a gun owner- should KNOW BETTER than to resort to such a simplistic, underhanded tactic (bait and switch), because you-as a gun owner- have had this same slimy underhanded tactic used AGAINST YOU (for many years) by the "mainstream" mass media.
You cannot compare disparate things. If you saw an ad for a new Caddilac Escilade for $500 at the local car dealership and showed up only to find that they did not have one, but they wanted to sell you a used Yugo for $500 you would realize that you had fallen for the classic bait and switch tactic, and realize that it's not quite kosher.
When the legislation about semi-automatic rifles came up in Congress a few years ago, what did the media do? They showed footage of full auto machineguns implying that an "assault rifle" was the same as a full auto rifle. Classic Bait and Switch. What the people who did fall for this drivel did not understand was that the Bait and Switchers wanted to bait and switch again. The same legistlators ultimate goal was more than likely to ban ALL rifles as they could be used to "assault" someone. Hence the innacurate media term, "Assault Rifle." They tried the same bait and switch tactic years earlier when they introduced legistlation that was SUPPOSED to be about the KTW armour peiercing round. But the way the legislation was written it would have banned almost any centerfire rifle round period, not just KTW rounds. Thats bait and switch. Thats what THEY have used against US for decades now.
The topic is about how globalists and politicians and their lust for power and greed are a threat to your rights. Accurate works have been cited. Real world examples have been shown to support that statement. If you have a point, feel free to make it, but please don't confuse a poor tactic based on spurios and fallacioius reasoning with a valid point. Gun enthusiasts tend to be a bit smarter than the rest of the Sheeple herd, I have noticed over the years. Most of us do not fall for arguments based on emotionalism or bait and switch tactics. If we did, we would all voluntarily disarm ourselves and do what the George Soros's and the Bill Clintons of the world want. We don't.
You can agree or disagree as you want. That won't change the facts. The truth is what the truth is and your interpretation of that or mine will not change the truth or the facts.
 
Jack... I will see about getting my former professors into tenure revocation proceedings and enrolling in a community college as per your astute educational suggestions - maybe then I'll be more like you.

My point with the book, as I will state again, is that just because it's written in a book, doesn't make it true. You may think that's an illogical statement. Fine.

George Soros, the secret brain washer that you said would be unknown were it not for the 2003 expose' in American Rifleman? He has been on the cover of Time magazine back in 1997, and the subject of multiple PBS documentaries, as well as the subject of countless other articles and magazine covers, tv presentations, news stories. He is one of the world's richest men, and is also an activist. He is the author of perhaps a dozen books - under his own name for God's sake (the fool isn't very smart about his attempts at hiding, is he?), as well as the subject of many books by other authors. He wasn't discovered by American Rifleman, or by your community college.

Before you go on some long tirade about how I must be one of "them"... I am not advocating for Soros. One thing he mostly definitely is not though, is a secret, nor is he trying real hard to be hidden, judging by the books he writes, television appearences he makes and journalistic interviews he gives. If you've barely heard of him outside of American Rifleman, that should make you think.
 
Last edited:
Aussie Perspective

Hi guys, this is my first post on the forum. Thought I might put my perspective forward for your appraisal. Australia is a little different from the USA due to our Anglo heritage. Our beginning was much more controlled.
We never achieved the level of seperation that you did. Our political system may appear to be as good as it gets to some but in reality our society and yours is of a fragile construction. We all are somewhat controlled by business when we are seen as being consumers. Business and Gov't, both make decisions that they consider are in our best interests. Like the sheep that we trade in, we follow along. Any who don't readily follow the flock are "bad sheep".
My problem is that Gov't / democracy, frequently screws up by abuse of trust and authority. The Anglo colonial foriegn/trade policy for the last 600 years has been a dissaster. You don't need a history lesson to be reminded of the destruction caused by a so called "democratic system".

I'm sorry but the suggestion that anarchy would end up being the alternative doesn't wash with me.

Gov'ts that have no idea what they are doing are capable of allowing starvation to occur by interruption of supply. A simple fuel crisis can cause starvation and death. Anarchy often happens as a result of Gov'ts abuses.
The AUS Gov't wants a gun free society. I'm sure your all aware of our stats that fly in the face of gun control.

Call me a black sheep if you like, but I feel threatened by the gun control agenda. Why? Because of the mindless, hungry mob.
With or without the current events that have been foreign to this country brainless Gov'ts will take us where we don't need or want to go.
My solution is to prepare yourself and family and friends.


" At the end, fight the good fight."
 
Last edited:
Once again Caleb, you still don't have a valid point. Points are based on supportive arguments based on fact. You are bandying about an opinion based on SPURIOUS logic.
We are not talking about books written by spurious authors. Just because SOME books print stuff that is not true does not mean that ALL books that print stuff are untrue.
Can you comprehend that? Your argument has no validity. Harping it over and over again is not going to make it more valid. You used bait and switch on somebody who is not so intellectually challenged that they fall for that silly tactic. Harping the same silly argument based on baloney over and over and over again is not going to change anything.
Facts are what the facts are and they differ from opinions based on fallacious tactics.
That is simple English that anybody with a sixth grade education back in the day should be able to comprhend.
Its that simple, and if some people can't comprehend that maybe you are right and the secondary education system has failed them and maybe some people do need to have their tenure removed and get their hind ends sued for the shoddy job they have done preparing younger generations to deal with the world.
The fact is that Ronson is a respected author. He is a respected journalist. The book is full of honest stories and humourous incidents. He is not, by the way ,a believer in conspiracy theories, which you would know if you bothered to read it.
Thats the fact of the matter and it is very easy to verify with a little bit of work.
All you have done is continuingly go on and on and on and on like a broken record with the same tiresome and spuroius and fellacious reasoning based on bait and switch tactics not facts.
You can believe whatever you want to believe in this world friend, but it's not going to alter the facts or the truth. They are seperate of how you personally choose to observe or interpret the world around us.
The world is full of young, immature people who have been raised to think that just because they have an opinion on something it is therefore as valid as anybody else's opinion. That idea is horse$#!*.

Some poeple base their opinions on facts and some people just have random opinions based on guess work, supposition or faulty logic. I have not been in that group in about 25 years now.....
Do you honestly expect us to beleive that the typical person on the street is as familliar with Soros as say, Charlton Heston? More random people who are not NRA members would be more apt to recognize say, Allan Gottlieb or even Wayne LaPieirre than George Soros.
If some right wing crackpot was financialy funding the NRA and the various gun rights groups he would be a huge mainstream mass media boogey man. Every time a school shooting took place in a gun free zone he would be plastered across the airwaves as a badguy and Michael Moore would attack him in one of his propaganda specials.

>>>My point with the book, as I will state again, is that just because it's written in a book, doesn't make it true. You may think that's an illogical statement. Fine.
<<<
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top