Decision 2004 and Yales Skull and Bones Society - Page 2

JohnT · February 8, 2004, 19:52

Just as likely as the Skull and Bones taking over, Imran. Even more, as all the Presidents who went to Yale didn't belong.

Imran Siddiqui · February 8, 2004, 19:55

They must have become honorary members before acending to the Presidency

.

JohnT · February 8, 2004, 20:01

Not according to the vast number of membership lists that exist of this secret society. I thought the purpose of being a secret society was, you know, secrecy. As of the type of not letting others know you belong.

Imran Siddiqui · February 8, 2004, 20:02

But they MUST have been. Pax told me!

VetLegion · February 8, 2004, 20:05

Kim Il Sung and George Bush would have a lot to talk about

Capt Dizle · February 8, 2004, 20:06

And here all this time I thought Bill Clinton was the first black president.

Pax · February 8, 2004, 20:22

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT

I'm willing to take that bet, place my mortgage and all future income on it, and then double-down.

I think I look at it differently.

There have been 42 Presidents. Let's just say they have all been white, male and Christian.

The odds that the next President will be white are dead on.

The odds that any given white male will be President are 42/number of white male U.S. to be eligible to run for President in the U.S. history.

If there were only 2 Skull and Crossbone Presidents and there total membership was 10,000. Then they would have something like a 1/5000 chance. Of course this is very rough.

I see your mortgage and raise you my 87 non running 900s Saab

Ben Kenobi · February 8, 2004, 20:30

Small sample size.

JohnT · February 8, 2004, 20:30

Except...

The S&B is also a legacy group, i.e., if your Dad was a member that goes a lot towards you being a member too.

All three Presidents who were members of the S&B were assisted by the fact that their fathers were too. W.H. Tafts father was a founder, and George Bush I's father, Prescott, was a member in 1917.

Ergo, your conspiracy doesn't wash. Period. These people got in, not because of any conspiracy on the part of the S&B, but because of daddies name and influence.

JohnT · February 8, 2004, 20:33

Quote:

I see your mortgage and raise you my 87 non running 900s Saab

Cool! You're gonna give me a Saab as well? Thanks!

Remember, don't weasel! This is to your initial bet, i.e., that membership to the S&B is the most common link between American Presidents, even more so than race or national origin (ethnicity).

notyoueither · February 8, 2004, 20:35

Fragile ground, JohnT. Heredity is a mark of some groups that have/had exerted inappropriate influence in our society. Ever heard of Masons?

JohnT · February 8, 2004, 20:35

Want to explain to me how the S&B knew that GWB, GWHB, and WHT were going to be President before they were even college graduates?

I'm really interested in the selection process, especially one in which GWB was selected out of all the (seemingly) more qualified candidates. Did Kerry get a vote in this selection process? Did he vote for Dubya, or did he campaign for his nomination, only to be told

Quote:

We'll give it to you if this guy ****s it up.

JohnT · February 8, 2004, 20:37

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Fragile ground, JohnT. Heredity is a mark of groups that exert inappropriate influence in our society. Ever heard of Masons?

Yes, and legacy is something that all fraternal organizations here in the US (and likely, elsewhere) honor. If it was just the S&B, then this argument might have merit. But it isn't, so it doesn't. Try again.

Pax · February 8, 2004, 20:39

I'm not arguing that there is a conspiracy. I'm just stating that the evidence/smoke for a conspiracy exists.

Anyway, do I get your house or are you making the mortgage payments to me?

notyoueither · February 8, 2004, 20:39

My point is that you can not use heredity as an argument against, as you have. It has little to do with it, except as it invalidates your own position.

JohnT · February 8, 2004, 20:39

Next thing you'll know we'll be arguing Kennedy assassination conspiracies.

JohnT · February 8, 2004, 20:46

Wow... an actual DP.

MRT144 · February 8, 2004, 20:47

Kennedy was assinated by mulattos

JohnT · February 8, 2004, 20:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
I'm not arguing that there is a conspiracy. I'm just stating that the evidence/smoke for a conspiracy exists.

Anyway, do I get your house or are you making the mortgage payments to me?

No it doesn't. Evidence is far stronger for an organization of mulattos taking over the Presidency than a member of the S&B. Evidence is far stronger for the Prebsyterian church to be in control of the Presidency than the S&B. Evidence is even stronger for the idea that a conspiracy of people who never graduated from college is in control of the S&B.

Hell, we've had more Presidents who used to be British subjects than we've had Presidents who've belonged to the S&B... are you going to argue that the British empire was in control of the US from 1792-1840?

JohnT · February 8, 2004, 20:51

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
My point is that you can not use heredity as an argument against, as you have. It has little to do with it, except as it invalidates your own position.

It does no such thing... all it does is offer an alternative explanation as to why 3 people who were President were also members of the S&B. No invalidation at all.

notyoueither · February 8, 2004, 20:52

Winnipeg took over sometime around 1840, so that should be accurate.

notyoueither · February 8, 2004, 21:02

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT
It does no such thing... all it does is offer an alternative explanation as to why 3 people who were President were also members of the S&B. No invalidation at all.

The argument that their fathers were members therefore it is inconsequencial that they were members is invalid on its face. The premise has nothing to do with the conclusion.

Sikander · February 8, 2004, 21:02

Oh, and JFK didn't do Jack about civil rights, while Bobby was looking the other way for the most part. They were such good liberals that they didn't want to risk their re-election by lifting a finger to help blacks simply reclaim their civil rights under the 14th amendment (and others). Yea, Massachusettes liberals show that the wealthy can uphold liberal values as long as it doesn't cost them anything. Kerry fits that mold perfectly.

notyoueither · February 8, 2004, 21:06

How many presidents have been the sons of prominent and influential families?

JohnT · February 8, 2004, 21:11

A decreasing percentage as the twentieth century has gone onward, that's for sure. Of the past 50 years, only 3 Presidents have been from prominent families - JFK, and the Bush's. Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, and Clinton all came from poor or lower middle-class families.

Pax · February 8, 2004, 21:18

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT

No it doesn't. Evidence is far stronger for an organization of mulattos taking over the Presidency than a member of the S&B. Evidence is far stronger for the Prebsyterian church to be in control of the Presidency than the S&B. Evidence is even stronger for the idea that a conspiracy of people who never graduated from college is in control of the S&B.

Hell, we've had more Presidents who used to be British subjects than we've had Presidents who've belonged to the S&B... are you going to argue that the British empire was in control of the US from 1792-1840?

number of Presidents who been presbyterian/total population of Presbyterians in U.S. history would not be as likely as your chance if you were a skull and bone. Apply this same simple division to the British subject and mullato question. In any situation your chance goes from winning the lottery to a scratch and pick card.
If you reverse the question it is highly unlikey that 3 members of the Skull and Bones became President, yet it happened can you give an explanation as to why? If it's money then these people knew who to pay and that's a definite conspiracy.

Consider this as proof of conspiracy but not the bet.
42 Presidents
We know that because of how this country came to being that they will most likely be Christian, White, Male
So throw these out as to common factors and look at other factors that tie 42 men together.
42 Presidents assumes some conspiracy from the start of U.S. government let's just start from a war that was started on shady grounds the Spanish American War.
How many Presidents were skull and bones then. Still 3. How many people does it take for a conspiracy anyway?2. 3 Presidents 2 family members= 5. How many peoplel would have to be involved in 1 election to make 1 man President?
Keep in mind that there is voting so it's not a given that any one person will be President. What are the odds that people from the same family will be President? It's highly unlikely

Pax · February 8, 2004, 21:24

Sir,
Almost all American Blacks have some amount of European blood.

Imran Siddiqui · February 8, 2004, 21:30

Pax is such a wierdo. One day he will be cowering in a corner scared that Major League Baseball is reading his mind... and that will be the reason for the tin foil hat.

JohnT · February 8, 2004, 21:31

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither

The argument that their fathers were members therefore it is inconsequencial that they were members is invalid on its face. The premise has nothing to do with the conclusion.

The premise is that the S&B is a secret organization with ties to the Presidency. The fact is that the 3 presidents who were members got in because of their fathers memberships. This is the simpler explanation and is more than likely the only one needed without adding a bunch of conspiracy hoo-rah.

Pax · February 8, 2004, 21:33

Imran,
How did you know about my hat. Who paid you to follow me down Candler road?