Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-11-15 08:14:16

It's hard to know what to believe because of the multiplicity of conspiracy theories, probably flavoured by the propagators with their own particular political angles.

There's been a trend by religious historians recently to view Christianity as a manufactured religion.
In this new view, Jesus is seen as not so much a spiritual leader as a revolutionary, a direct descendant of David, intent on reclaiming Israel from Roman rule. That's why an attempt was made by Rome to crucify him, crucifixion being the standard punishment for non-Roman citizens who were a threat to the Roman state.
I use the word "attempt" because of the evidence that he survived the execution, through the assistance of his Jewish 'subjects' - principally the enigmatic figure Joseph of Aramathea, a wealthy and influential man who is believed to have been a personal friend of Pilate, the Roman governor.
After Jesus and his wife, Mary (Magdalene), quietly fled Judea to start a new life in the south of what is now France, the process of his deification was initiated, mainly by Paul (formerly Saul of Tarsus). Why? Running a religion gives you power, status, and usually plenty of money. (Ask a few of the disgraced American Evangelist preachers! :;): )
The new religion, based quite closely on much older religious concepts involving the death and resurrection of a god, eventually took off after some nearly disastrous false starts and became the Catholic church.

The presence of Jesus, the man, and his wife and children and subsequent heirs, over in southern France, was always a huge potential embarrassment to mainstream Christianity for obvious reasons and, apparently, various attempts have been made by Rome (the church, that is, not the empire) to extinguish any evidence of it.
The bloodline of Jesus, the descendant of Jewish kings remember, was continued on in the Merovingian royal dynasty of France, but had to go 'underground' as the Church's power expanded. Supported through the centuries by various arcane organisations such as the Knights Templar and even the Masons, it is now reputed to continue in a covert organisation called the Prieure de Sion.
All this time, the search for the Holy Grail, or the mystical container of Jesus' wine at the Last Supper, since 'transubstantiated' into his blood in Catholic belief, has focused on the actual cup from which he drank. In fact, the 'container' of Jesus' blood is the royal bloodline of his descendants. Even the term Holy Grail itself is a play on words which may well have originated from a simple transposition error, be it accidental or intentional.
To quote from "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail", by Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln: "In many of the earlier manuscripts, the Grail is called the 'Sangraal'; and even in the later version by Malory, it is called the 'Sangreal'. It is likely that some such form - "Sangraal' or 'Sangreal' - was in fact the original one. It is also likely that the one word was subsequently broken in the wrong place."
What this means is that it was probably never meant to be broken into 'San Graal' or 'San Greal', very early French for Holy Grail. It was most likely meant to be 'Sang Raal' or 'Sang Real', which would translate as Royal Blood.
If so, the concept of searching for the Holy Grail could in fact be a deliberately romanticised distortion of a 'holy quest' to root out the embarrassing evidence that Jesus was not divine. How do you do that? Send knights of the Church to seek out the 'Sang Royal' and eliminate it.

While much of the above may seem fanciful, there is a remarkable amount of at least circumstantial evidence to back it up. And, when you put it up against the notion that Jesus was the physical embodiment of the Supreme Being, walking on water, commanding the winds, and rising from the dead, the other story begins to look downright pedestrian and plausible, doesn't it?!

In any event, I used to worry about conspiracies and secret societies when I was young (It was about the same time in my life when I used to argue the Left's viewpoint and rage against capitalism .. believe it or not!)
I don't worry about them any more because societies composed of people intent on personal wealth and power inherently carry the seeds of their own disintegration. Individuals like that would inevitably start wanting it all for themselves and the cracks would soon appear.

Interesting stuff about Christianity, though, isn't it? ???
Now, if only I could be sure there's any truth in it!

Palomar · 2004-11-15 08:51:30

Gennaro:
I've encountered these strange theories about obelisks and star patterns before around here somewhere. It seems rather out of context. The obelisk was an important religious symbol in ancient Egypt connected to the worship of the benevolent Sun God.
The Romans, the new sun of the world, over time deemed it appropriate to bring a number of obelisks to Rome as a sign of their importance, splendour and and probably because of their generally sympathethic attitude towards foreign cults. Not that they took religious matters all that seriously.

*Well, sure. Freemasonry (I checked Google and apparently the Freemasons do utilize obelisks in their symbology), like many other groups, has borrowed from antiquity. As I'm sure most of us know, the obelisk is a phallic symbol. No surprise the Romans used it. But, again, I'm not overly familiar with Freemasonry and I'm trying not to overstep...

dickbill: I think that the whole world is in a dangerous trend. Ecological systems are not going better, they may collapse more quickly than we think. Wars abound everywhere. I learn that now, the US have to invest more in cemeteries, the healthcare system is no great, the US have a huge debt, some say they are close to bankruptcy. So in short Cindy, i don't believe that the US is going to be able to set up FINANCIALLY a manned mission to Mars in the next decades more easily in the future than now. Too much problems at the horizon. Americans won't be richer in 40 years than they are now, you know that. It's now now, or in 80/100 years, maybe later.

*Unfortunately, I think you're probably right. Just saw a Yahoo! article yesterday discussing the current decline of the U.S. dollar against other currencies. Of course that trend could change...but economics isn't a strong-suit subject for me by any means.

--Cindy

::edit:: Just saw this from Josh:

The question is, since space is so freaking empty (you either have really small things or really big things) what truely is there to "conquer"?

:laugh:

Euler · 2004-11-15 14:04:08

*Unfortunately, I think you're probably right. Just saw a Yahoo! article yesterday discussing the current decline of the U.S. dollar against other currencies. Of course that trend could change...but economics isn't a strong-suit subject for me by any means.

The decrease in the dollar's value is due to the large current account deficit that the US has. If the dollar falls enough, US exports will become more competitive and imports will become less competitive, so the current account deficit will shrink and could eventually turn into a surplus. However, since the current account deficit is still at record levels, the dollar probably still has a long way to fall.

dickbill · 2004-11-15 23:42:52

The decrease in the dollar's value is due to the large current account deficit that the US has. If the dollar falls enough, US exports will become more competitive and imports will become less competitive, so the current account deficit will shrink and could eventually turn into a surplus. However, since the current account deficit is still at record levels, the dollar probably still has a long way to fall.

Maybe it's true, america is a rich nation and will stay rich for a long time, however many problems accumulates at the horizon of the near future. My only point is that these problems, most likely, will require expensive fix and so I don't see how it will be more easy to set up a manned operation to Mars in 30/40 years, versus now.
In addition, the picture of Zubrin of 15 billions for a first mission is probably not reallistic, not because it is impossible but because it is too cheap. This is more or less what Jeff Bell said in this article in Spacedaily.com : it doesn't matter what is the real cost of a program, finally. What does matter is that the program needs to be able to fuel big companies or agencies (labs grants etc) in research and development. I doubt that Boing is going to waste its time for a tiny 15 billions dollars. Which is understandable. To be secured, the program has to be so big that it cannot be canceled and that everybody is sure to get a piece of the cake. So the cake has to be big, maybe 400 to 1000 billions would taste better ? but how can you dare to advance such a big bill when you have to pay for the ISS, the space shuttle, the war in Iraq, and I probably forgot some, but only these would pay for a comfortable budget to send a man to the Red Planet.
1000 billions dollars is not so much by the way, if spread for 10-12 years. But this is a dream that won't happen.

About the pyramid and eye symbol on the dollar bill, I'm not convinced that's not a freemason symbol, do you have a link or somthing ?

Shaun : It's well possible that you are right about Mary Magdalene, or whatever her name. I mean, it doesn't change anything in Christ message if he had some fun before he died, right ?. He was 32 I think, how possible is that that he never touched a woman ? .... well that's it, the ultrafundamentalists are signing themself three times, jump from their seat and want to apply the sharia by lapidation to Dickbill, or even better, the "Question". Get down ! Dickbill is a good christian, he flagellates often and never speaks under the Question anyway !
Anyway yes, we may never know since Jesus never mentioned it.
Allright, but after that, the story of the sangreal because Magdalene ended up in southern France and being chased by templars killers... and the merovingiens were still in the Northern France/Netherlands, what are they doing in Marseille ? a razia to pillage the stock of pastis ?
Difficult to believe, but who knows. That's not gonna bring us to Mars, or is it ?

dickbill · 2004-11-15 23:54:31

I just checked the link provided by Euler to explain the dollar bill.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Seal … ted_States

They don't even mention a Freemason symbolism as an explanation. Very suspicious IMO, when it is the first thing you think about.
Is Wikipedia an "embedded" encyclopedia ?

Euler · 2004-11-16 00:28:41

Maybe it's true, america is a rich nation and will stay rich for a long time, however many problems accumulates at the horizon of the near future. My only point is that these problems, most likely, will require expensive fix and so I don't see how it will be more easy to set up a manned operation to Mars in 30/40 years, versus now.

Assuming that technology never goes backward, the cost of a Mars mission should stay the same or decrease. Due to improved productivity and increased population, the GDP of the US should be larger in 30-40 years than it is now, probably at least twice as large. If we can convince congress that NASA's budget should stay at the same proportion of the GDP (which, unfortunately, has not been the case so far), then NASA will have more than enough money for a manned Mars program.

Of coarse, many other countries will experience even greater growth. China's economy could be 10 times larger in 40 years than it is now. If there is any enthusiasm left for manned spaceflight in 30-40 years, then we can expect someone will be able to gather enough money to go to Mars.

They don't even mention a Freemason symbolism as an explanation. Very suspicious IMO, when it is the first thing you think about.

You did not read all of it:

That of the reverse is more murky. Many consider the eye atop the pyramid to have its origins in Masonic iconography. However, the icon is not a Masonic symbol, nor designed by a mason. Among the Great Seal committee, only Benjamin Franklin was a Mason, but his ideas were not adopted by the committee.
The all-seeing eye was a well-known classical symbol of the Renaissance. The all-seeing eye of God is mentioned several times in the Christian Bible. The eye in a triangle design originally was suggested by Pierre Du Simitière, and later heraldist William Barton improved upon the design. In Du Simitière's original sketch, two figures stand next to a shield with the all-seeing pyramid above them. The August 20, 1776 report of the first Great Seal Committee describes the seal as "Crest The Eye of Providence in a radiant Triangle whose Glory extends over the Shield and beyond the Figures."

Shaun Barrett · 2004-11-16 04:57:04

Dickbill:-

That's not gonna bring us to Mars, or is it?

No, it won't make two cents worth of difference to the fact that I'll never see a bootprint on Mars, I'm afraid.
But then I didn't start all this stuff! Probably 75% of the posts here at New Mars have nothing whatsoever to do with Mars. In fact, the political animosity in places is tending to undermine previously good relationships. Such a pity.
Ah well, such is life, I suppose.

But it's not all doom and gloom .. after all, you're back, Dickbill! :up:
Even though your politics are hopelessly Gallic - i.e. pathetically immature, illogical, and intellectually bankrupt - you always make me smile.
Now go away and flagellate yourself once more, before I tell the Christian ultrafundamentalists where to find you!
:laugh:

Gennaro · 2004-11-16 05:39:51

Well, sure. Freemasonry (I checked Google and apparently the Freemasons do utilize obelisks in their symbology), like many other groups, has borrowed from antiquity.

Well, I am not an expert on Freemasonry, but to suggest that the obelisk in front of St. Peter's, the ones brought home by the Roman emperors or as a grave monument on any churchyard has something to do with Freemasonry is, well, nuts.

As I'm sure most of us know, the obelisk is a phallic symbol. No surprise the Romans used it. But, again, I'm not overly familiar with Freemasonry and I'm trying not to overstep...

Nah... Freud is wrong. Just because something is a elongated and raised it doesn't imply it has to represent a phallos. Contrary to popular opinion, the male psyche doesn't operate like that.

About obelisks:

http://egipto.com/obeliscos/histo2.html … isto2.html

I wouldn't rule out obelisks couldn't have been used in a fertilty function somehow, somewhere. In fact, I have a weak memory of an Old Testament line where obelisks are mentioned in connection with the smashing a temple to Baal, but if so that's in Palestine, an anti-Canaanite or internal Hebrew affair and thus fringe. They could also have been used as a magical protection of the sacred grounds, just like in Egypt, although Baal is a Semite god(s). The Egyptians themselves do of course link obelisks to the sun god Ra and the act of creation, so in a very early and primitive stage, who knows, yet, in a general sense... no, creator deities are seldom fertility gods, they are rather either otiosi or bringers/upholders of order, and the Romans most definitely didn't regard the obelisk as a fertilty symbol. Did they wish to dramatize the chtonian and orgiastic they would turn to Venus, Cybele, Isis and Ishtar etc and make use of similar cults.

Palomar · 2004-11-16 06:05:12

Well, I am not an expert on Freemasonry, but to suggest that the obelisk in front of St. Peter's, the ones brought home by the Roman emperors or as a grave monument on any churchyard has something to do with Freemasonry is, well, nuts.

*Gennaro: I was referring to the obelisk in Washington, D.C. (in conjunction with the U.S. Founding Fathers, some of them having been involved with Freemasonry, etc.)

Nah... Freud is wrong. Just because something is a elongated and raised it doesn't imply it has to represent a phallos. Contrary to popular opinion, the male psyche doesn't operate like that.

*Whoa, let's back up. I wasn't referring this to the male psyche whatsoever. I tend to greatly avoid gender-specific conversations, for a variety of reasons. Many scholars I've read (mostly male, coincidentally -- and they don't refer back to Freud) have claimed the obelisk to be a phallic symbol. I'm simply relating what I've read repeatedly from various sources (basically in comparative mythology and symbology, not psychiatry/psychology).

Hopefully this will help clear the air a bit. :-\

--Cindy

Gennaro · 2004-11-16 06:46:17

There's been a trend by religious historians recently to view Christianity as a manufactured religion.
In this new view, Jesus is seen as not so much a spiritual leader as a revolutionary, a direct descendant of David, intent on reclaiming Israel from Roman rule. That's why an attempt was made by Rome to crucify him, crucifixion being the standard punishment for non-Roman citizens who were a threat to the Roman state...

Ugh, what an intricate and complex theory. I wonder whether the propagators of these notions comment or are aware of the rather extensive picking apart of the New Testament performed by Bible criticism in the 19th century?
In accord with it, the genealogical table of Jesus does not appear until Matthew (second gospel after Mark) and is interpreted as evidence of the early growth of the myth/legend, serving to underline the sacred character of Christ among fellow Jews.
If that's the case, which I think seems plausible, it would falsify any idea that the Romans wanted Jesus dead because he was related to David, which in itself would be a rather un-Roman thing to do. They wouldn't have cared less if someone preaching the true nature of the Kingdom in the desert was related to a whole line of goat herding petty kings.

Jesus, a violent, nationalist revolutionary? I don't buy it. Too cheap and the gospels are written too close in connection with the transpired events. Besides, there is absolutely no evidence supporting such a conclusion, although there is a lot to the contrary, from Flavius Josephus to the gospel of Thomas. The only ones who could have been interested in the death of Jesus would have been the Levite priests in Jerusalem, as he claimed to be the son of God and preached that the Kingdom belongs to all men, thereby denying the choseness of his people.

Gennaro · 2004-11-16 06:59:24

*Whoa, let's back up. I wasn't referring this to the male psyche whatsoever. I tend to greatly avoid gender-specific conversations, for a variety of reasons.

"Back up?" Heh, walking on dangerous ground here... Guess it was just my reckless way of saying that we shouldn't draw conclusions based on oversimplification or culturally percieved notions.

Many scholars I've read (mostly male, coincidentally -- and they don't refer back to Freud) have claimed the obelisk to be a phallic symbol. I'm simply relating what I've read repeatedly from various sources (basically in comparative mythology and symbology, not psychiatry/psychology).

Allright, never heard that myself, though. You know some net source that's non-conspiracy related?

Shaun Barrett · 2004-11-16 08:03:28

You're right, I think, Gennaro.
The Romans couldn't have cared less if Jesus was related to King David or the Queen of Sheba, unless he was looking to establish independence from Rome.
And you're also right that the Romans wouldn't have been concerned about Jesus preaching anything spiritual, and it would have been a "rather un-Roman thing" to want to kill him for that. That's the whole point of the matter.
If Jesus was blaspheming in the eyes of the Jewish priests and causing unrest for that reason alone, the "Roman thing" to do would have been to hand him over to those priests for whatever punishment they saw fit. But they didn't. They crucified him - a very "Roman thing" to do to someone breaking Roman law.
This is part of the line of reasoning put forward by the modern-day biblical historians, who maintain there is growing evidence Jesus sought a physical kingdom rather than a spiritual one.

Considering your apparent grasp of the minutiae of 19th Century bible study ( performed by committed Christians, I presume, and therefore not impartial), I'm surprised that you seem unfamiliar with more recent evaluations of the Gospels.
In any case, I was just relaying a highly condensed precis of some of the less religiously inclined examinations of New Testament events that I've come across. If I've offended your religious beliefs, I apologise.

Palomar · 2004-11-16 08:10:06

Many scholars I've read (mostly male, coincidentally -- and they don't refer back to Freud) have claimed the obelisk to be a phallic symbol. I'm simply relating what I've read repeatedly from various sources (basically in comparative mythology and symbology, not psychiatry/psychology).
Allright, never heard that myself, though. You know some net source that's non-conspiracy related?

*Nope; sorry. All of the reading I mentioned was done from books, in the early to mid-1990s. Can't recall the titles off-hand, either.

--Cindy

dickbill · 2004-11-16 13:28:49

Maybe it's true, america is a rich nation and will stay rich for a long time, however many problems accumulates at the horizon of the near future. My only point is that these problems, most likely, will require expensive fix and so I don't see how it will be more easy to set up a manned operation to Mars in 30/40 years, versus now.
Assuming that technology never goes backward, the cost of a Mars mission should stay the same or decrease. Due to improved productivity and increased population, the GDP of the US should be larger in 30-40 years than it is now, probably at least twice as large. If we can convince congress that NASA's budget should stay at the same proportion of the GDP (which, unfortunately, has not been the case so far), then NASA will have more than enough money for a manned Mars program.
Of coarse, many other countries will experience even greater growth. China's economy could be 10 times larger in 40 years than it is now. If there is any enthusiasm left for manned spaceflight in 30-40 years, then we can expect someone will be able to gather enough money to go to Mars.
They don't even mention a Freemason symbolism as an explanation. Very suspicious IMO, when it is the first thing you think about.
You did not read all of it:
That of the reverse is more murky. Many consider the eye atop the pyramid to have its origins in Masonic iconography. However, the icon is not a Masonic symbol, nor designed by a mason. Among the Great Seal committee, only Benjamin Franklin was a Mason, but his ideas were not adopted by the committee.
The all-seeing eye was a well-known classical symbol of the Renaissance. The all-seeing eye of God is mentioned several times in the Christian Bible. The eye in a triangle design originally was suggested by Pierre Du Simitière, and later heraldist William Barton improved upon the design. In Du Simitière's original sketch, two figures stand next to a shield with the all-seeing pyramid above them. The August 20, 1776 report of the first Great Seal Committee describes the seal as "Crest The Eye of Providence in a radiant Triangle whose Glory extends over the Shield and beyond the Figures."

I agree with you Euler "if everything goes right" but what if "everything goes wrong" ?

You mention 1) the GDP of the US or China 10 times larger in 40 years or at least twice larger, 2) the same enthousiasm for space exploration. 3) And the technology going forward.
That's 3 factors that are likely to be true.

And now for other factors, also very likely to be true in the future, that could impact the 3 formers :
4) aging population, in the EU, US and China, declining population in Russia. Health problems for the US, mostly related to an overweight problem. These will impact negatively the part of GDP left for space exploration. I also believe "aging" will impact the enthousiasm for space exploration . 5) Ecological problems due to pollution and global warming. They will also have a negative impact. 6) a shift of funding for military research and equipment in most countries.

And now for the unknown, what you don't expect because it's hardly predictible. Could be good or bad.
Let me Imagine a catastrophe scenario : In addition to the ongoing global warming, the sun, in 40 years, suddenly produces an output 1% superior to the present solar output, raising temperatures much higher than the worst scenario could predict. This, combined with lack of water ressources create huge emigration flux that in turn trigger wars that finally degenerate in a global Nuclear conflict.
That's just the Murphy's law plus the Domino's theory.
All you need for these catastrophe scenario is a little imput of bad luck. I used the sun but you can find something else at your will : world wide pandemia, genetic toxicity (deleterious mutations) raising in the population, oceans turning anoxic. Or political : raising of new dictatorship in "powerful" nations, etc.

I believe in Murphy's law : "if it can go wrong, it will go wrong"

SpaceNut · 2004-11-16 14:17:02

sort of jumping in late on the dollar and masonic symbol but here is a few pages. Some agree that the notion of the symbols being connect to any underlining reference is meaningless.

http://www.crystalinks.com/freemasons.html

http://www.calodges.org/no406/ALLCEYE.HTM

http://www.mastermason.com/WallerLodge/dollar.htm

The symbols on the dollar bill relate to the Masonic notions of the founders. The all-seeing eye comes from the Masonic symbology. The concept of the pyramid with its missing capstone links with the ancient mystery school teaching of ancient Egypt.

Gennaro · 2004-11-16 14:17:44

If Jesus was blaspheming in the eyes of the Jewish priests and causing unrest for that reason alone, the "Roman thing" to do would have been to hand him over to those priests for whatever punishment they saw fit. But they didn't. They crucified him - a very "Roman thing" to do to someone breaking Roman law.

You got a point there. On the other hand, there is general agreement that the synoptical gospels are chronologically very close to the events they describe and I find it difficult to see how the concept of Jesus could have changed profoundly in the (what is it now?) 15 or 25 years separating Mark from the crucifiction. Also, Flavius Josephos tells of a "wise man" doing miracles. Why should he as a non-christian Jew stray from near history as he percieved it if indeed Jesus had been some sort of resistance fighter? Then there is the gospel of Thomas, which largelly echoes many of the sayings from the canonical gospels while itself lacking a narrative, which in my opinion makes it likely that it is an early source independant from the other four. Maybe it derives from the verbal "Q Source" in the same way which is hypothesized for the synoptics (i.e Mark, Matthew and Luke).

Considering your apparent grasp of the minutiae of 19th Century bible study ( performed by committed Christians, I presume, and therefore not impartial), I'm surprised that you seem unfamiliar with more recent evaluations of the Gospels.

Well, I studied it at university in the early 90's, so I did not expect to be so far behind. Trouble is, right now I lack access to any of my relevant textbooks, so if I get anything wrong, there is an explanation for it.
The textual criticism I was referring to was by guys like Wellhausen, Lachmann, Schleiermacher, David Friedrich Strauss and Rudolf Bultmann and so on and so forth. Feuerbach also dabbled in it and Nietzsche followed it interestingly in his younger years. Generally, these people were either atheists or unconcerned with religion, or at least they wouldn't allow it to interfer with a scientific approach, that is so say, if they were not downright hostile towards it. Some of them would probably have jumped with joy if they had found out that Jesus was just an worldly revolutionary. Generally speaking, in the 19th century, religion was already taking a back seat among academia and the Faculty of Theology found itself progressively an isolated island (to which said research did not belong, history of religions has traditionally been part of the Philosophical Faculty). In other words, one could rather safely say that it was not research performed by committed Christians.

In any case, I was just relaying a highly condensed precis of some of the less religiously inclined examinations of New Testament events that I've come across. If I've offended your religious beliefs, I apologise.

Oh, not at all, I'm most profoundly an objectivist and I don't let religion interfer with my perception of reality or a scientific worldview.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-11-16 16:08:04

Thanks, Gennaro.
I stand corrected regarding the 19th Century bible commentators you refer to; you are obviously far better read in this area than I'll ever be. I accept your interpretation that many of them were probably at least impartial, if not actually anti-Christian.
Perhaps I'm the biased observer here - since I find it much easier to believe the Gospels are a deliberately distorted account of a Jewish revolutionary than that Jesus was God!
On that 'doubting Thomas note', I'll withdraw.

dickbill · 2004-11-16 21:03:21

sort of jumping in late on the dollar and masonic symbol but here is a few pages. Some agree that the notion of the symbols being connect to any underlining reference is meaningless.
http://www.crystalinks.com/freemasons.h … asons.html
http://www.calodges.org/no406/ALLCEYE.H … LLCEYE.HTM
http://www.mastermason.com/WallerLodge/ … dollar.htm
The symbols on the dollar bill relate to the Masonic notions of the founders. The all-seeing eye comes from the Masonic symbology. The concept of the pyramid with its missing capstone links with the ancient mystery school teaching of ancient Egypt.

many thanks to SpaceNut, Cindy, Gennaro, Donpanic and Shaun for their input about the Freemason. From what I can understand, the issue is not settled. well, so maybe the pyramid on the dollar was, or was not, a freemason symbology.
I have to say (seriously) something about biology on Mars and several positions that I read in past posts that I don't agree, but frankly, after the last news from Iraq, you see what I mean, I am too disgusted to talk about anything Mars.

I am sure I am not alone to feel like that.

DonPanic · 2004-11-17 15:09:56

LO

frankly, after the last news from Iraq, you see what I mean, I am too disgusted to talk about anything Mars.
I am sure I am not alone to feel like that.

I think that cons don't even realize that for very large part of the world, USA is synonim of Abou Ghraib and now, a country which trademark is shooting hatefully at wounded disarmed people. Reps like it so much that way, they are proud of that.

For almost rest of the world, that is reminded however the terrorists act, unhappily.

3 more other countries to quit coalition, Nederland, Bulgaria and Romania.
British anger at Blair and Bush rising higher. Now 2 brits out of three want GB to withdraw from Irak

Gennaro · 2004-11-17 15:14:31

It would clear a lot of mist if you stopped referring to the US regime as "cons", DonPanic. European Conservatives have not got much in common with the Anglo-American breed and even true American Conservatives are against the war and the government.

DonPanic · 2004-11-17 15:48:17

LO

It would clear a lot of mist if you stopped referring to the US regime as "cons", DonPanic. European Conservatives have not got much in common with the Anglo-American breed

This was partly a reply to Dickbill who knows what "cons" means in french, something as a "slots", brainless ones, far away from politics, kinda private joke

I know that in Northern Europe, even conservatives agree with high price social welfare

and even true American Conservatives are against the war and the government.

Wasn't demonstrated in ballots, unless you never read news
???

Gennaro · 2004-11-17 16:08:08

Wasn't demonstrated in ballots, unless you never read news

That's because American Conservatism has been infiltrated and taken over by a body that is not Conservative at all, but rather has its background in Liberalism and Trotskyism and the American public haven't noticed.

You should look here:
http://www.amconmag.com/]http://www.amconmag.com/

BWhite · 2004-11-17 17:25:22

Wasn't demonstrated in ballots, unless you never read news
That's because American Conservatism has been infiltrated and taken over by a body that is not Conservative at all, but rather has its background in Liberalism and Trotskyism and the American public haven't noticed.
You should look here:
http://www.amconmag.com/]http://www.amconmag.com/

Some of us Yanks have been suspecting as much. . .

Shaun Barrett · 2004-11-17 18:41:29

I don't think Dickbill was referring to the death of that terrorist. I think he was talking about the slaughter of Margaret Hassan, the much-loved Dublin-born charity worker.
I, too, am almost too disgusted to talk about it.

I very much hope the world's crazy left-wing press will raise its game a little and not do what it usually does, which is to seize on any little thing it can find to discredit the Coalition and undermine its efforts to bring democracy to Iraq.
Unfortunately, however, I'm sure my hope is a forlorn one. That U.S. soldier was shot in the face the day before the incident, so I've read, and was fighting in an environment where terrorists feigning death were known to suddenly fire on Coalition troops. It looks to me like he made a mistake. You or I may well have made the same mistake under similar circumstances - I could easily imagine myself being just as jumpy in the same situation.

But will the press see it that way? Most likely not. While tens of thousands of blacks are exterminated by genocidal Islamics in Sudan, and while a beautiful, caring charity worker is executed by Islamic murderers in Iraq, the loony left-wing press will concentrate its attention on one U.S. soldier who cracked under pressure and shot a terrorist.

Think about that when you're reading all the bulldust about 'the shame of it all' in your newspaper. Stand back, look at the bigger picture, and ask yourself what these media weasels are really trying to achieve.
???

Palomar · 2004-11-17 19:49:14

I don't think Dickbill was referring to the death of that terrorist. I think he was talking about the slaughter of Margaret Hassan, the much-loved Dublin-born charity worker.

...snip...
But will the press see it that way? Most likely not. While tens of thousands of blacks are exterminated by genocidal Islamics in Sudan, and while a beautiful, caring charity worker is executed by Islamic murderers in Iraq, the loony left-wing press will concentrate its attention on one U.S. soldier who cracked under pressure and shot a terrorist.
Think about that when you're reading all the bulldust about 'the shame of it all' in your newspaper. Stand back, look at the bigger picture, and ask yourself what these media weasels are really trying to achieve.
???

*You are right on, Shaun.

Hours ago I saw a Yahoo! headline that stated which story the Arab media is focusing on strongly and it isn't Mrs. Hassan.

--Cindy

P.S.: And yes, the "swept-under-the-rug" genocide of black African Sudanese by crackpot Arabic-Islamic terrorists is an outrage. And yet the world continues to turn a blind eye.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-11-15 08:14:16

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#27 2004-11-15 08:51:30

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#28 2004-11-15 14:04:08

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#29 2004-11-15 23:42:52

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#30 2004-11-15 23:54:31

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#31 2004-11-16 00:28:41

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#32 2004-11-16 04:57:04

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#33 2004-11-16 05:39:51

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#34 2004-11-16 06:05:12

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#35 2004-11-16 06:46:17

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#36 2004-11-16 06:59:24

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#37 2004-11-16 08:03:28

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#38 2004-11-16 08:10:06

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#39 2004-11-16 13:28:49

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#40 2004-11-16 14:17:02

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#41 2004-11-16 14:17:44

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#42 2004-11-16 16:08:04

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#43 2004-11-16 21:03:21

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#44 2004-11-17 15:09:56

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#45 2004-11-17 15:14:31

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#46 2004-11-17 15:48:17

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#47 2004-11-17 16:08:08

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#48 2004-11-17 17:25:22

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#49 2004-11-17 18:41:29

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#50 2004-11-17 19:49:14

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

Board footer