Decision 2004 and Yales Skull and Bones Society - Page 4

Pax · February 9, 2004, 01:29

Imran,
1. The way it's taught is those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it.
2. It was always wrong. Our founding fathers fought against tyranny in 1776. So any tyranny by the U.S. exercised after July 4, 1776 is hypocritical and morally corrupt. But this is not tyranny this is eminent domain.

notyoueither · February 9, 2004, 01:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
At the time, no. With today's morality, yes... but you have the problem of putting the square peg of today's morality into the round hole of history... and no matter how much you force it... it don't fit.

And, of course the ends have justified the means.

At the time it should have been wrong, Imran. Amerinds were being treated better elsewhere, by a different sovereign.

Imran Siddiqui · February 9, 2004, 01:33

Quote:

The way it's taught is does who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it.

So learn from history. I never said any different. Morals change, so you can review your history lessons.

Quote:

It was always wrong. Our founding fathers fought against tyranny in 1776. So any tyranny by the U.S. exercised after July 4, 1776 is hypocritical and morally corrupt.

Man, did you buy that one hook, line, & sinker. Yes, they fought against 'tyranny'... as long as 'tyranny' means British control. They fought to rule themselves.

And you act shocked that states are hypocritical. Seeing as different parties and leaders ascend to leadership, how can a state NOT be 'hypocritical', unless it is run by one party and every leader agrees 100% with the first one.

It can be morally corrupt to you, but I don't think most people at the time thought so, and that is what counts in deciding what is 'morally corrupt'.

MrFun · February 9, 2004, 01:34

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither

By your reasoning, the new PM of Canada is corrupt, because his family controls a lot of shipping.

Can you try listening to me?

I'm not saying that having wealth tied to one specific industry AUTOMATICALLY means the person MUST be corrupt, or to just one industry.

I'm saying that the way political leaders can use their wealth, and their ties with industrial leaders, can lead to excessive corruption.

Imran Siddiqui · February 9, 2004, 01:36

Quote:

At the time it should have been wrong, Imran. Amerinds were being treated better elsewhere, by a different sovereign.

So simply because other soveriegns treated them different that has any bearing on the morality of the American society? Sorry, at the time it wasn't seen as morally wrong. Legally wrong, perhaps, but not morally.

notyoueither · February 9, 2004, 01:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
I think this is the right forum for discussing conspiracies.

Once again let me state that I am only saying the possibility exists. I have no intent to prove that it does.

Well, good. Too many people go forward from the possibility that a conspiracy could exist and insist that it does. For a moment there, I thought you were doing that.

I guess it must not be so bad that 'people are blind' to what you yourself do not insist exists.

Imran Siddiqui · February 9, 2004, 01:37

Quote:

I'm saying that the way political leaders can use their wealth, and their ties with industrial leaders, can lead to excessive corruption.

And you've basically assumed that because certain political leaders have ties to oil they are corrupt.

Seeing as how EVERYONE has interpreted it to mean that way, perhaps you are the one who has written it incorrectly?

notyoueither · February 9, 2004, 01:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

At the time it should have been wrong, Imran. Amerinds were being treated better elsewhere, by a different sovereign.

So simply because other soveriegns treated them different that has any bearing on the morality of the American society? Sorry, at the time it wasn't seen as morally wrong. Legally wrong, perhaps, but not morally.

You made the square pegs and round holes argument, Imran. The morality of dealing with the Amerinds was being decided both above and below the 49th. Your nation, of the same world as mine and with the same information available, made horendous decisions regarding the Amerinds. There were square holes for the square pegs, at the same time that the US acted as if all were round.

Now, we didn't do such a **** hot job ourselves, but campaigns of extermination were never part of the equation up here.

Imran Siddiqui · February 9, 2004, 01:44

Quote:

You made the square pegs and round holes argument, Imran. The morality of dealing with the Amerinds was being decided both above and below the 49th. Your nation, of the same world as mine and with the same information available, made horendous decisions regarding the Amerinds. There were square holes for the square pegs, at the same time that the US acted as if all were round.

Bull, Canadian/English morality is an entirely different species from American morality. Each society has its own morality which can be as similar or different from the others out there as it chooses. At the time, the decision was not viewed as morally wrong in the US... as seen by President Jackson's popularity.

I'm not sure the English would have considered the action morally wrong anyway, since it wasn't long ago when they were driving the Natives out themselves.

notyoueither · February 9, 2004, 01:49

Quote:

Originally posted by MrFun
Can you try listening to me?

I'm not saying that having wealth tied to one specific industry AUTOMATICALLY means the person MUST be corrupt, or to just one industry.

I'm saying that the way political leaders can use their wealth, and their ties with industrial leaders, can lead to excessive corruption.

OK, so that there are oil companies making profits in the US and abroad while bush is president, and there are others who come from the oil industry within his administration makes him corrupt?

I'm waiting for the dots to be connected here.

Pax · February 9, 2004, 01:58

NYE,
I choose not push the issue based on the fact that as a member of the military I am not permitted to critique the commander in chief.

Just know that the only way you're going to find out about the true power of an organization is when it no longer has power. Just like what the Radiation experiments the truth did not come out until 1996. Even then it was buried by glossier trivial news.

notyoueither · February 9, 2004, 01:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

You made the square pegs and round holes argument, Imran. The morality of dealing with the Amerinds was being decided both above and below the 49th. Your nation, of the same world as mine and with the same information available, made horendous decisions regarding the Amerinds. There were square holes for the square pegs, at the same time that the US acted as if all were round.

Bull, Canadian/English morality is an entirely different species from American morality. Each society has its own morality which can be as similar or different from the others out there as it chooses. At the time, the decision was not viewed as morally wrong in the US... as seen by President Jackson's popularity.

I'm not sure the English would have considered the action morally wrong anyway, since it wasn't long ago when they were driving the Natives out themselves.

And that is an indictment on the US body politic. Different people at the very same time, elsewhere, were making different decisions about how to deal with Amerinds.

PS, it was European colonists that were driven out by the British. The Acadians were driven out, and it is something that is mourned in Canadian history, not celebrated nor defended.

Similarly, our mistreatment of some Amerind bands and tribes is likewise mourned. There was a tribe native to Newfoundland when the British first colonised. The last of them died during the ealry 20th century, after having their population hunted and starved out many years previous.

Saying that the US was seperate from the the rest of the world in morality would have the same basis that the German nation was seperate from all of us in 1943. It is a bull **** argument that abuses historigraphic understanding, pure and simple.

Pax · February 9, 2004, 01:59

Imran,
Your argument about morality justifies the holocaust, idi Amin, and all the ills of society.

notyoueither · February 9, 2004, 02:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
NYE,
I choose not push the issue based on the fact that as a member of the military I am not permitted to critique the commander in chief.

Just know that the only way you're going to find out about the true power of an organization is when it no longer has power. Just like what the Radiation experiments the truth did not come out until 1996. Even then it was buried by glossier trivial news.

Well, if you have some evidence that you are unable to comment on, then I would suggest the NY Times.

In the mean time, it looks like more of the assumption of conspiracy because there have been other conspiracies.

Imran Siddiqui · February 9, 2004, 02:10

Quote:

And that is an indictment on the US body politic.

Indeed it may be, but that's not the issue, now is it?

Quote:

Different people at the very same time, elsewhere, were making different decisions about how to deal with Amerinds.

Indeed... but it really only the Canadians wasn't it? I mean, the French influence really hit home. The Spanish weren't that nice about dealing with Amerindians at the same time and neither were the Portugese.

Simply because the French and their offspring were a bit more enlightened doesn't mean the general morality of the time was what your little group did. If you don't believe me see what the Brits were doing in India at the time, and other evidence of colonial conquest.

Quote:

it was European colonists that were driven out by the British

Not exactly. Look at the Pequod Wars and King James War to see where the Brits were driving out Native Americans from the 13 colonies.

Quote:

Saying that the US was seperate from the the rest of the world in morality would have the same basis that the German nation was seperate from all of us in 1943.

Yes, it is. And it was. I mean really, do you ACTUALLY think the German nation in 1943 had the same morality as Britain and France? Obviously it didn't. It had it's own morality at the time, which it justified to itself. I don't see why that is a horrible thing to admit. You may not like their morality (and I'm sure no one on this forum does), but you cannot deny it was a totally seperate morality.

The 'world' morality of the time (world being Europe for the context of the discussion, naturally) 1943 Germany was incorrect, but 1830 America was not. Like I said, colonies.

Quote:

Your argument about morality justifies the holocaust, idi Amin, and all the ills of society.

Well they all morally justified it to themselves, didn't they? I mean they didn't sit there and say let's do something which we believe is morally wrong! No one does that. So they, themsleves, obviously believed it was morally correct.

They did 'wrong' to us because they lost, plain and simple. If they won, you'd have many people justifying what was done. You wonder what future generations will say about what things we did which is morally unjustifiable.

MrFun · February 9, 2004, 02:15

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither

OK, so that there are oil companies making profits in the US and abroad while bush is president, and there are others who come from the oil industry within his administration makes him corrupt?

I'm waiting for the dots to be connected here.

Nope, that's not it either.

Excessively corrupt politicians tend to misuse their power with their assets, and in conjunction with the special interests of industrial leaders of any particular industry that politicians have invested in.

Imran Siddiqui · February 9, 2004, 02:16

Quote:

Excessively corrupt politicians tend to misuse their power with their assets, and in conjunction with the special interests of industrial leaders of any particular industry that politicians have invested in.

You've just offered the obviously accepted definition of 'corrupt politician'. Now were you making a point at all?

Pax · February 9, 2004, 02:19

No, I simply cannot say I don't believe the President or anything like that.

Like I said, I'm very casual. I assume that I look at the same news as you. Read the same history.
I can trace wrongdoing on the part of the government back from the day I joined in June 1988 all the way past the Spanish American War. I know about the Tammany Hall Machine, The Daleys, The Kennedys and etc. I guess I just don't believe that the political machines just went away abruptly nor do I believe that the only that were around were the ones best documented.

Everything I learned was just from reading history in general, not looking for a conspiracy. That's what is so disturbing about it.

Most societies have had secret socieities or organizations with secrets involved politics. What makes you think that the U.S. is somehow different?

If you were to read 1984 and see how the main characters country changed the truth so effortlessly then see the same thing happen in Britain would that not disturb you?

Imran Siddiqui · February 9, 2004, 02:21

Quote:

I guess I just don't believe that the political machines just went away abruptly nor do I believe that the only that were around were the ones best documented.

Your problem is that IF S&B were a political machine, it's doing a piss poor job. Only really capturing the Presidency a few times in the long history of S&B? What about the mayors and governors and Congressmen, etc? There seem only to be a few S&B members there. Everyone who knows anything about political machines knows that you have to impermiate every level of politics from top to bottom.

S&B aren't even close.

MrFun · February 9, 2004, 02:23

Yes, Imran -- my original point was in response to Jimmy's quote:

"Because someone is born into wealth doesn't necessarily make someone a bad person or unable to relate to "common people". Alot of times it does, but not necessarily."

this was my response:

Quote:

Originally posted by MrFun

Exactly -- I'm more concered about the Bush family having such intimate ties with the oil industry than simply because they are wealthy.

I was basically just expressing my agreement with Jimmy, in that birth into a wealthy family does not automatically entail corruption -- it's how that wealth and industry connections are used or misused, that counts. I used the Bush family as an example.

I hope this is SIMPLE enough for you now.

Imran Siddiqui · February 9, 2004, 02:27

Quote:

birth into a wealthy family does not automatically entail corruption -- it's how that wealth and industry connections are used or misused, that counts. I used the Bush family as an example.

But you are still wrong. You are concerned about family X having intimate ties with industry Y, rather than because they are wealthy. But EVERY family has an intimiate tie with an industry. Even though family O has similar intimate ties with industry P, that doesn't concern you.

The Bush family has no more 'used or misused' it's industry ties than anyother wealth political family. So, naturally, we all (correctly, I might add

) assumed you were pilling on Bush and the oil industry.

Ben Kenobi · February 9, 2004, 02:28

Quote:

According to the bible

All have sinned and fallen short of the law. Hence, by that standard, all US presidents past and future are and will be morally corrupt.

So now you need to clarify what you mean by 'corrupt'. What is your standard?

Pax · February 9, 2004, 02:30

If you really wanted to have a secret society you would probably organize them inside another organization.

The way the the Viet Cong were organized initially most members were not Communists but the ones controlling the Organization were. The decisions would come from that cell. Even if that group does not always seem to have a man on the spot they are still acting on the central authority will.

MrFun · February 9, 2004, 02:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

birth into a wealthy family does not automatically entail corruption -- it's how that wealth and industry connections are used or misused, that counts. I used the Bush family as an example.

But you are still wrong. You are concerned about family X having intimate ties with industry Y, rather than because they are wealthy. But EVERY family has an intimiate tie with an industry. Even though family O has similar intimate ties with industry P, that doesn't concern you.

The Bush family has no more 'used or misused' it's industry ties than anyother wealth political family. So, naturally, we all (correctly, I might add

) assumed you were pilling on Bush and the oil industry.

I don't think it's too presumptuous, that if one has substantial investments and connections with a major industry, that the person is wealthy.

Bush's shoeshine boys on Apolyton will continue to hold the misguided notion that the Bush family is not corrupt, and thus, invalidate my example.

par of course, I guess

notyoueither · February 9, 2004, 02:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

And that is an indictment on the US body politic.

Indeed it may be, but that's not the issue, now is it?

Uhhmmm, for this it is.

Quote:

Different people at the very same time, elsewhere, were making different decisions about how to deal with Amerinds.

Indeed... but it really only the Canadians wasn't it? I mean, the French influence really hit home. The Spanish weren't that nice about dealing with Amerindians at the same time and neither were the Portugese.

Simply because the French and their offspring were a bit more enlightened doesn't mean the general morality of the time was what your little group did. If you don't believe me see what the Brits were doing in India at the time, and other evidence of colonial conquest.

Well, I wouldn't call the British Empire of 1830 to 1870 a 'little group', actually, but suit yourself.

Nice job of obfuscating by dragging in the Spanish. Are you now prepared to admit Yankee handeling of the Amerinds was on a par or worse than theirs?

Nice also to conflate French and British treatment of Amerinds. Makes it easier if it was just the French tainted British, doesn't it?

btw, how many 'tribes' of India were exterminated under the Raj?

Quote:

it was European colonists that were driven out by the British

Not exactly. Look at the Pequod Wars and King James War to see where the Brits were driving out Native Americans from the 13 colonies.

I'll look it up, but I suspect that this involved tribes or bands that allied with the French when Britain was at war with France. How does that effect what the US did to practically defenceless people who were no enemies except of your own creation?

Quote:

Saying that the US was seperate from the the rest of the world in morality would have the same basis that the German nation was seperate from all of us in 1943.

Yes, it is. And it was. I mean really, do you ACTUALLY think the German nation in 1943 had the same morality as Britain and France? Obviously it didn't. It had it's own morality at the time, which it justified to itself. I don't see why that is a horrible thing to admit. You may not like their morality (and I'm sure no one on this forum does), but you cannot deny it was a totally seperate morality.

The 'world' morality of the time (world being Europe for the context of the discussion, naturally) 1943 Germany was incorrect, but 1830 America was not. Like I said, colonies.

The rest of this if simply scarey. The worst part of what happened in Germany from 1933 to 1945 is just how many people knew it was wrong, but they went ahead and did it or watched it happen without comment or resistance. That is why most Germans cringe from this subject.

Historically speaking, it is what you SHOULD have known, and what you SHOULD have done or not have done, given what others were doing at the same time.

To argue that the US was some morally marooned island is to argue that early Americans were mental midgets who could not keep up with developments in London, Paris, and elsewhere.

Pax · February 9, 2004, 02:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

All have sinned and fallen short of the law. Hence, by that standard, all US presidents past and future are and will be morally corrupt.

So now you need to clarify what you mean by 'corrupt'. What is your standard?

I'm also casual on religion. That is a tough question.
I only used the bible as a point of reference for a situation in which everyone was doing it and it still was not an acceptable practice. Still, If you used the 10 commandments as your law, an obvious violation of a commandment would be morally corrupt. I consider killing obvious. Stealing is not so obvious. Committing one of these sends and not asking forgiveness would cement your corruptness if your rule is the bible.
If it's U.S. law then violation of that law in the treatment of another humans would make you corrupt.

If you are an U.S. politician and you claim to be a christian I feel you are bound by both laws and you have probably stated so publicly making you so corrupt I personally want to vomit when I think of it. Of course only if you have authorized anything that would violate these laws you claim to be defending.

Is that clear?

notyoueither · February 9, 2004, 02:41

Quote:

Originally posted by MrFun

I don't think it's too presumptuous, that if one has substantial investments and connections with a major industry, that the person is wealthy.

Bush's shoeshine boys on Apolyton will continue to hold the misguided notion that the Bush family is not corrupt, and thus, invalidate my example.

par of course, I guess

I'm waiting for the evidence of corruption, beyond being tied into the oil industry.

Pax · February 9, 2004, 02:49

I do not consider killing in self defense a sin. I define self-defense as defending yourself when attacked as in 9-11 or Pearl Harbor but not Eminent Domain over Indians.

Ben Kenobi · February 9, 2004, 03:06

Quote:

If you are an U.S. politician and you claim to be a christian I feel you are bound by both laws and you have probably stated so publicly making you so corrupt

Okay. So corruption is relative by this standard. "What measure you use, will be measured to you." If someone felt that killing and stealing were perfectly okay in his book, then you could not condemn such a person as corrupt.

Do you believe that breaking a law in the United states would make a politician corrupt? Is that the bare minimum standard that they must meet, or should there be additional standards?

Pax · February 9, 2004, 03:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Okay. So corruption is relative by this standard. "What measure you use, will be measured to you." If someone felt that killing and stealing were perfectly okay in his book, then you could not condemn such a person as corrupt.

Do you believe that breaking a law in the United states would make a politician corrupt? Is that the bare minimum standard that they must meet, or should there be additional standards?

These are tough questions.

I am not saying corruption is relative. I think that there should be universal laws. I only say that these politicians in the U.S. profess to be Christians and are supposed to be bound by U.S. law. That puts them under the bible and the U.S. legal system at minimum.

It's still complicated. Let's take the trail of Tears and Imran. If Imran is an Army Calvary Officer herding these Indians across America because he believes in eminent domain he's not necessarilly corrupt. But when he reads his bible, reads the law, how can he forget thou shalt not kill. How can he still justify his actions when he sees old women and children dying while he rides above them on a horse. He sees their tears. At that point I deem him corrupt.
Another good example is the My lai incident(read about it if you don't know) My Lai and the trail of tears were a century apart.
I think the point you make above goes directly to the question of Henry Kissinger who is wanted by the world court (Anyone interested should look up the details). In the vacuum of no universal law the only laws left are the religous ones and the secular ones. If you can be convicted of the laws that you claim to believe in you are morally corrupt.