|
Post by maddogblues on Sept 8, 2009 22:10:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tko on Sept 8, 2009 23:14:42 GMT -5
Interesting, but lots of conspiracy theory. And tons of omissions. He will cherry-pick through multitudes of facts -- ie -- panic of 1907 and use only the ones that help push his theory through. I don't buy most of it.
|
|
|
Post by maddogblues on Sept 8, 2009 23:55:35 GMT -5
Interesting, but lots of conspiracy theory. And tons of omissions. He will cherry-pick through multitudes of facts -- ie -- panic of 1907 and use only the ones that help push his theory through. I don't buy most of it. I found that the first part on religion and the last part on the Federal Reserve was reasonable Cherry picking means we tend to interpret things by our pre-conceived notions and assemble them in a way that makes sense with regard to those notions. I do it. I do not pretend to 'know'. Most of these notions we have are the result of the way we have experienced things previously. I do know what makes sense with regard to my experience. One thing that seems quite certain to me is that there is a fundamental revulsion among freedom loving people to those who control the economy of a country. The reason is that when the economy is controlled by private hands then the people are little more than slaves. The best thing to do in circumstances like this to to ignore it and hope to die without a lot of trouble.
|
|
|
Post by tko on Sept 10, 2009 3:13:28 GMT -5
I found the 911 stuff and the federal reserve conspiracy as being far-fetched. The religion part I am unsure because I don't know little about religion.
I am fine with him having pre-coneived notions. But when he researched the film, I am sure he came across masses of contradictory information. He chose to only use the information that helped his theory along. I don't know if this is intentional or not, but it puts him on equal standing with the Rush Limbaug's of the world.
If the economy is not going to be controlled by private hands, who do you think should control it?
|
|
|
Post by maddogblues on Sept 10, 2009 9:35:50 GMT -5
I found the 911 stuff and the federal reserve conspiracy as being far-fetched. The religion part I am unsure because I don't know little about religion. I am fine with him having pre-coneived notions. But when he researched the film, I am sure he came across masses of contradictory information. He chose to only use the information that helped his theory along. I don't know if this is intentional or not, but it puts him on equal standing with the Rush Limbaug's of the world. If the economy is not going to be controlled by private hands, who do you think should control it? I'm sure that's the case too as far it goes. That's why we've got minds. Never believe everything someone tells you because you are not understanding it the way they do unless they explain it right. And then maybe not I can't remember what it was, but there was one part that made me say 'oh come on'. Then I thought that well maybe he threw that to attract the nut case fringe.
|
|