Ted Cruz indoctrination coloring book inspires hilarious comments from internet

[IDL]

I say that you're just spewing buzzwords with no regard to their meaning. Who is involved in the "private banking cartel" (do you even know what "cartel" means?) and what are their "global offshots." In what sense do they "direct both parties"? I don't believe that you can answer those questions (which you'd need to do for your post to make any sense in your own mind), and I don't think you care that you can't answer them.



I didn't say anything about corruption. That's another word that has an actual meaning that doesn't apply to what we've been discussing. One party is promoting the interests of the wealthy primarily (if not exclusively), though, and one party is more the party of the people. That's a very, very common political division at all times and places.



Huh?



The Kochs are, of course, much more powerful than the Rockefellers or Rothschilds today in America.



It is true. As I said, there's a multi-way battle for power, and the ideal situation for people not directly part of it is a draw, but you're pushing to weaken one leg--the only one that the people really control.

Cartel as in they are working together. It's more of a banking empire, or one big bank. IMF, BIS, you know. Global. The power in this world is global is what I have concluded. Creating money is powerful because everyone (including politicians) rely on it and they can make or break the economic system.

Off shoots include most of the media and various institutions that are used to control people. Essentially what they are going for is complete global control.

I realize we are never going to agree on that, but if anyone is at all interested it is literally a matter of searching for "central banking cartel" and start digging and digging and see where it leads. A single article, or anything will not be enough for anyone to draw conclusions. Most simply will dismiss it and instead think their elected representative holds the power.

parties are directed by having people loyal to the real power all over DC and getting direction from places like the CFR. If you want a career you are going to have to work within the system. Just like getting a job at a company.

seeing it as 'one party promoting the interests of the wealthy' misses the larger picture which has always been about power and control. We'd be getting back to talking about the march towards a totalitarian system again which I know you also disagree with.

The Koch's are most likely just one more family that makes up the aristocracy. Any political movement that gains any traction will be taken over by the aristocracy and controlled.

So, we have very little common ground Jack

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

And you believe we just popped out of nowhere, whats your point?

This post demonstrates one of two things.

Either you are incredibly dishonest and purposely misconstrue the statements by those debating with you...

or you are a complete fu*king idiot without any understanding of Evolution.

nowhere in the theory of evolution does it posit the notion that ,"poof, we popped out of nowhere."

Considering your history of posting, both are very plausible.

 

[James Bomb]

I always see you referncing me in posts often times when I'm not even in the thread. Back to stalker mode I see? Lol, I knew your true colors would come back out. Its cool tho, I get a kick out of it.

You're probably the only person who gets a kick out of your clown routine.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Cartel as in they are working together. It's more of a banking empire, or one big bank. IMF, BIS, you know. Global. The power in this world is global is what I have concluded. Creating money is powerful because everyone (including politicians) rely on it and they can make or break the economic system.

So it's not a cartel, and it's groups with no power in the U.S. And you have no idea how monetary policy works anywhere. OK.

Off shoots include most of the media and various institutions that are used to control people. Essentially what they are going for is complete global control.

So you think the media companies are offshoots from bankers? That is false. And what other institutions are you referring to?

parties are directed by having people loyal to the real power all over DC and getting direction from places like the CFR. If you want a career you are going to have to work within the system. Just like getting a job at a company.

The CFR is another group with minimal actual power, though they have a lot of powerful people on their mailing list. And, no, that is not how people get into politics in America. Ask Pan.

seeing it as 'one party promoting the interests of the wealthy' misses the larger picture which has always been about power and control. We'd be getting back to talking about the march towards a totalitarian system again which I know you also disagree with.

What is your definition of "totalitarian"?

The Koch's are most likely just one more family that makes up the aristocracy. Any political movement that gains any traction will be taken over by the aristocracy and controlled.

Well, it's two geezers who are combined richer than the Rotchschilds, Rockefellers and every other American family except for possibly the Waltons. And they are very involved in promoting the Tea Party, and they spend huge amounts of money to do it. Obviously, they believe that elections and things like fighting the scientific consensus on global climate change and promoting lower inflation are worth a lot of money.

 

[IDL]

So it's not a cartel, and it's groups with no power in the U.S. And you have no idea how monetary policy works anywhere. OK.



So you think the media companies are offshoots from bankers? That is false. And what other institutions are you referring to?



The CFR is another group with minimal actual power, though they have a lot of powerful people on their mailing list. And, no, that is not how people get into politics in America. Ask Pan.



What is your definition of "totalitarian"?



Well, it's two geezers who are combined richer than the Rotchschilds, Rockefellers and every other American family except for possibly the Waltons. And they are very involved in promoting the Tea Party, and they spend huge amounts of money to do it. Obviously, they believe that elections and things like fighting the scientific consensus on global climate change and promoting lower inflation are worth a lot of money.

I think this comes down to what information we are basing our conclusions on. You say they have no power in the US based in whatever research you have done on the subject, and I have come to the opposite conclusion. I have come to the conclusion that the US borrows its money from the same group.

Same goes with the power that these aristocratic families have. There is far more incentive to hide power in this context, than to advertise it and invite the eyes of the public onto you. 'Shadow government' is a reference to the quiet power that is not broadcast to the public. In all my travels I haven't had the Koch family even come up on the radar as a real power in this world. That is not to say they aren't powerful of course, but to me it more suggestive that in the grand scheme of things they are not amongst the biggest.

As far as totalitarian goes, let me borrow from wiki

Totalitarianism or totalitarian state is a term used by some political scientists to describe a political system in which the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism

That really is the end game of power seeking people. Of course, now the game is on a global scale.

 

[flanellograf]

And you believe we just popped out of nowhere, whats your point?

This flawed logic is exactly your problem. Lack of evidence isn't evidence of the opposite. So, no, I do not believe that. I have no clue what happened. Fact is, it is more of a philosophical and semantic argument since you first must define what "nowhere" is. Or, it is merely a flawed question, because "somewhere" was created in that pop. Nowhere, being what existed before that moment, is meaningless. There was no before. There was no time. According to that theory, at least.
Anyway, my point is you believe in fairytales or you are trolling.

 

[flanellograf]

I believe in the magic man in the sky as well.

Doesn't mean I can't be politically informed.

It means your mental faculties are in question. Depending on how much those beliefs encroach on the empirical world. .
Politics is usually about magical thinking as well, so.

 

[speakhandsforme]

It means your mental faculties are in question. Depending on how much those beliefs encroach on the empirical world. .
Politics is usually about magical thinking as well, so.

That's the adversarial rhetoric that is partially to blame for the divide between the religious community and the political left/science community. I was an atheist for years and was more guilty of being inflammatory than anyone. You should really try and cut back on that: it doesn't help anyone.

 

[flanellograf]

That's the adversarial rhetoric that is partially to blame for the divide between the religious community and the political left/science community. I was an atheist for years and was more guilty of being inflammatory than anyone. You should really try and cut back on that: it doesn't help anyone.

That wasn't particularly adversarial. More matter of fact. Believing in supernatural explanations isn't rational, and using those beliefs to guide your everyday life or arguments, means you don't have all your pens in the drawer. The only thing that distinguishes religious beliefs from actual delusions, is that a majority of the world believes in those delusions.

But, becoming "spiritual" after having been atheist is an interesting and rare phenomenon. Tell me more.

 

[Ruprecht]

Man.... there's a whole bunch of this stuff out there.

 

[AgentOrange24]

The tea partiers, i.e. the uneducated whites, i.e. the party which has based the entirety of its existence on mere obstruction. You can debate whether their aims at obstructing everything Obama does is based on his skin color or his party affiliation, but it seems to be pretty clearly suspect considering no Democratic president has seen such resistance in modern times.

I shit you not: I have a friend from high school who is a tea party guy (yes, I realize that his age is a bit young for their membership) and his Facebook political views are listed as "Do no support African American leaders!"

You know they impeached Bill Clinton, right?

 

[AgentOrange24]

That wasn't particularly adversarial. More matter of fact. Believing in supernatural explanations isn't rational, and using those beliefs to guide your everyday life or arguments, means you don't have all your pens in the drawer. The only thing that distinguishes religious beliefs from actual delusions, is that a majority of the world believes in those delusions.

But, becoming "spiritual" after having been atheist is an interesting and rare phenomenon. Tell me more.

I'm the same.

I grew up.

 

[flanellograf]

I'm the same.

I grew up.

Him, you saying you are the same as him? Because stopping believing in fairytales is usually associated with growing up.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

This flawed logic is exactly your problem. Lack of evidence isn't evidence of the opposite. So, no, I do not believe that. I have no clue what happened. Fact is, it is more of a philosophical and semantic argument since you first must define what "nowhere" is. Or, it is merely a flawed question, because "somewhere" was created in that pop. Nowhere, being what existed before that moment, is meaningless. There was no before. There was no time. According to that theory, at least.
Anyway, my point is you believe in fairytales or you are trolling.

or option C, he's just plain fu*king stupid.

 

[speakhandsforme]

That wasn't particularly adversarial. More matter of fact. Believing in supernatural explanations isn't rational, and using those beliefs to guide your everyday life or arguments, means you don't have all your pens in the drawer. The only thing that distinguishes religious beliefs from actual delusions, is that a majority of the world bellves in those delusins.

But becoming "spiritual" after having been atheist is an interesting and rare phenomenon. Tell me more.

It's not that rare. Happened to Bob Dylan too and he's pretty bright. I certainly don't fit the criteria of a fundamentalist or Biblical literalist. I don't find that my spirituality is at odds with my grasp on reality. I lean pretty far left on just about everything but gun control and think, for the most part, I can cite my religiosity as being very compatible with those stances. As far as the reason for my conversion from atheism after being very against religion philosophically for years, that would be a very personal story and one that would not help you to cope with the existence of religion.

You know they impeached Bill Clinton, right?

How is that relevant? Bill Clinton had far easier paths to legislation. By the way, can you even imagine Barry having an affair? The shit storm would be unreal

 

[Jack V Savage]

So you think constitutional rights are a negative thing because they restrict "ordinary people"'s power eh?

Be sure to to note where I offered direct democracy as an alternative to eroding rights in that discussion by the way...

Huh? No. I think Constitutional rights are a limitation on ordinary people's power, but that some limitation is good. It's a tradeoff, and different people have different ideas of how far we should go in either direction, with the right being more on the side of less power for regular people.

Direct democracy is a radical left-wing idea, no? I don't agree with it.

I think this comes down to what information we are basing our conclusions on. You say they have no power in the US based in whatever research you have done on the subject, and I have come to the opposite conclusion. I have come to the conclusion that the US borrows its money from the same group.

The way the U.S. gov't borrows money is that it sells securities, which can be bought by anyone. It makes no difference who does the buying because the treasury (which issues the securities) has no power to control spending (that's Congress). So, no, the people who the U.S. borrow money from (in many cases, regular people) have no power on that basis. They're just making a safe, low-yielding investment that carries no additional power. If you don't believe me, do your own research on that subject. And, if you have any information at all suggesting that the IMF or BIS have power in America, I'd like to see it.

Same goes with the power that these aristocratic families have. There is far more incentive to hide power in this context, than to advertise it and invite the eyes of the public onto you.

So power is just basically the ability to do something. Certainly, wealthy folks have a lot of it (though the IMF and BIS have essentially none in America). If you want to do stuff that other people don't want you to, there are various ways to go about it. What do you think is being done by these secret overlords?

'Shadow government' is a reference to the quiet power that is not broadcast to the public. In all my travels I haven't had the Koch family even come up on the radar as a real power in this world.

Yikes. You're just advertising your ignorance there.

As far as totalitarian goes, let me borrow from wiki

Totalitarianism or totalitarian state is a term used by some political scientists to describe a political system in which the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism

That really is the end game of power seeking people. Of course, now the game is on a global scale.

And you think that we're moving in that direction, and that the schlubs at the IMF and declining aristocratic families are the ones who are going to control all aspects of public and private life. OK. Allow me a second to chuckle.

 

[flanellograf]

It's not that rare. Happened to Bob Dylan too and he's pretty bright. I certainly don't fit the criteria of a fundamentalist or Biblical literalist. I don't find that my spirituality is at odds with my grasp on reality. I lean pretty far left on just about everything but gun control and think, for the most part, I can cite my religiosity as being very compatible with those stances. As far as the reason for my conversion from atheism after being very against religion philosophically for years, that would be a very personal story and one that would not help you to cope with the existence of religion.

I know that people find religion, but usually not staunch atheists. Artists are not good examples either, because they tend to be miserable and/or emotionally driven.
Anyway, I have a pretty clear and informed idea about why people become religious, even partly based on personal experience, so I don't really need "help to cope with the existence of religion". I was merely interested. If you don't feel like sharing, that's fine.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Because he garners his support from a voting base that is largely comprised of bigots and racists.

I just think he's a close-minded attention-starved dip shit with a laughable inability to grasp public policy. But I don't recall ever thinking he was the backwoods racist type.

Yeah, bigots and racists vote for Cuban's named Raphael all the time.:icon_sad:

And I'm not a Cruz fan either.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Evolution, which is a pretty simple concept. First basic life came out around 3.6 billion years ago when nucleic acids and protein bonded together. Read up on Abiogenesis.

I asked how the existence of anything in our universe came into being. Nucleic acids and protein still have to come from somewhere. And whatever hypothesis you decide to go with regarding where existence comes from...its probably going to sound pretty supernatural and unbelievable.

I don't begrudge anyone who decides that God just doesn't make any sense. I get that. Carnal minded people cannot discern spiritual things so I totally get it. But you can't logically deposit an origin story without including a creator of some kind, perhaps even an unintentional one. But to believe that either a) existence has always been here or b) existence and the extremely intricate and mindblowing processes that make it up just popped out of nowhere takes probably more faith than believing in an intelligent creator.

 

[TheComebackKid]

This flawed logic is exactly your problem. Lack of evidence isn't evidence of the opposite. So, no, I do not believe that. I have no clue what happened. Fact is, it is more of a philosophical and semantic argument since you first must define what "nowhere" is. Or, it is merely a flawed question, because "somewhere" was created in that pop. Nowhere, being what existed before that moment, is meaningless. There was no before. There was no time. According to that theory, at least.
Anyway, my point is you believe in fairytales or you are trolling.

And my point is that you believe in fairy tales as well. You just insist on calling your fairy tales fact. So there was no time, no existence, no nothing....not even a space for nothing to exist in...and then all the sudden there was? Yeah, very logical.