Journalist throws shoes at Bush

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Seth

I find it funny how this man has the so called freedom to express himself(stupidly...assault is a crime) without being cut up and given to his family in bags......and at the same time, Saddam would never have had the power or resources to perform such acts of cruelty and violence if it weren't for the military support given by none other than rumsfeld himself(1983)...those ra******* iranians just needed to die. Think it over for a while. Freedom loving country enables mad dictator to persecute for decades, only to turn and fully denounce, pursue, and eventually sentence him to death(yeah whatever it was an 'iraqi court')........wtf prof s I think you're living in an american dreamworld.

1) Racist comments are NOT tolerated and its not to happen again.

2) Seth, you make the common mistake of looking at the past through the lens of the present. Iraq was not our biggest concern in the 80's, it was the USSR and Iran was buddy-buddy with them. Add to that Russia's push into Afghanistan, and Iraq was one of the only forces at the time that was thought able to prevent a consolidation of power in the Middle East which would have given Russia incredible resources (oil) for continued expansion.

Now does that make what happened right? No, but it makes it more complicated than you portray. America had a completely different foreign policy strategy at the time (enemy of my enemy is my friend) that empowered other dictatorships as well, and that is unlike what we have now even when Rumsfeld was with Bush. The Bush doctrine is not the Reagan doctrine when it comes to foreign policy. The situations are different and the decisions are different.

Administrations change, strategies change, and many times we have to deal deal with the mistakes of the past today, just as Obama is going to have to deal with the mistakes made in Afghanistan by the Bush administration.

You seem to live in a world where there are no mis-judgements or imperfect solutions; only golden truth and despicable deviousness. That is a hard and unforgiving way to look at the world that only breeds anger and paranoia.

[Seth]

Well, i thought the racist comment was in context, obviously not meant to be taken literally, merely a representation of how they were viewed by the reagan administration in terms of value of life. You're right though, it's offensive.
And, the US sold arms to both sides. Iran and Iraq, so I don't know where shades of gray fit in. By the time they signed the armistice over a million from both sides had died, and I wouldn't say that Bush Senior and the Reagan admin were far apart....i mean it's a general concession that Bush Senior ran the show as VP under Reagan. The guy was an actor for f's sake. Jimmy Carter started a move towards independence from foreign oil. Reagan effectively ended that movement and instead fueled the industrial war complex to keep oil money flowing.

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Seth

i mean it's a general concession that Bush Senior ran the show as VP under Reagan.

I don't think that's a general consensus, or true. Reagan's intelligence has been historically underrated. Take, for example, his 1964 speech in support of Barry Goldwater.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Seth

Well, i thought the racist comment was in context, obviously not meant to be taken literally, merely a representation of how they were viewed by the reagan administration in terms of value of life. You're right though, it's offensive.
And, the US sold arms to both sides. Iran and Iraq, so I don't know where shades of gray fit in. By the time they signed the armistice over a million from both sides had died, and I wouldn't say that Bush Senior and the Reagan admin were far apart....i mean it's a general concession that Bush Senior ran the show as VP under Reagan. The guy was an actor for f's sake. Jimmy Carter started a move towards independence from foreign oil. Reagan effectively ended that movement and instead fueled the industrial war complex to keep oil money flowing.

Your selective memory is astounding in your first sentence. Remember what was associated with the sale of weapons to Iran? The release of hostages? Remember that the weapons were initially sold to Iranians who were AGAINST THE AYATOLLAH??? Remember????? Once again the information you quote is missing important nuance and major facts.

The Iran-Contra affair was a political scandal which was revealed in November 1986 as a result of earlier events during the Reagan administration. It began as an operation to increase U.S.-Iranian relations, wherein Israel would ship weapons to a moderate, politically influential group of Iranians opposed to the Ayatollah Khomeini; the U.S. would reimburse Israel for those weapons and receive payment from Israel. The moderate Iranians agreed to do everything in their power to achieve the release of six U.S. hostages, who were being held by Hezbollah. The plan eventually deteriorated into an arms-for-hostages scheme, in which members of the executive branch sold weapons to Iran in exchange for the release of the American hostages

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair

The rest of your warrantless commentary isn't worth responding to on a serious level, IMO. You make groundless assumptions based on conspiracy theory fiction, as usual, and any statement that its "generally accepted" that Bush ran the Reagan whitehouse ignores any semblance of reality or knowledge of the conservative movement.

Correlation and absence of evidence to the contrary does not make evidence for your accusations. Until you can resource and quote some serious evidence for your claims, go crawl into a bunker, stockpile canned goods and arms and get ready for the New World Order to take over. I apologize for being so harsh but opinions like your are dangerous and if people are to read and believe they are true they damage themselves as conspiracy theories do more to crush ambition and create impotence than to reveal truth.

[Seth]

Bond, according to wiki Reagan had no idea about the arms for hostages 'scandal'. So really, administrative members were acting without the president's approval. The guilty parties involved were later pardoned by Bush sr. I'd also conjecture that the reagan of 1964 wasn't under the same influences as when in office. Don't misunderstand my comment as insuniating Reagan wasn't intelligent. Anyone with high political ideals can be manipulated. Dick Cheney, VP, holds tons of power...in the way that he's basically a lobbyist in an elected position. Given the vast amount of wealth of the bush family, their ties with oil, well I'd say that's power. Believe that the nice talking Reagan was free to make the best decisions for the american people instead of looking out for the status quo. Same thing with Obama, he's a beacon of hope. He's also the highest funded presidential candidate in history....which, hahaha, ensures that he'll be representing the working class american.
Hey, they used a portion of the profits from the arms sales in iran to give weapons to the nicaragua anticommunist militias...and they got cocaine in exchange. cocaine which they smuggled into america....the CIA did this. Sure, this all happened within the intelligence community without presidential administrative knowledge. suuuure. Believe that if it helps you sleep. Hey, they also destroyed evidence about the iran-contra affair...they probably just burnt the info that had no relevence with accountability towards the american people. Go ahead and call me a CT because I believe that money moves politics. sure, whatever. I'm not into canned food and weapons...and especially underground bunkers. You're just another fratboy so of course your opinions have a collective merit.
Prof, what do you mean about my selective memory in context with my first sentence? I was using a derogatory, racist term to emphasize the lack of empathy towards human life in the whole iraq/iran/communist/democratic shitfest. Maybe you weren't referring to this? The same Ayatollah you mention was loved by the iranians. We both know that Iraqis and Iranians don't know what's best for them though. I'm not saying I believe Ayatollah was right, or even a good man. The western implanted Shah before him modernized Iran through oil money. He was pushing for more women's rights and non-muslim equality. Hey, prof s, since you brought up the nwo, do you believe in the abolition of sovereign states? Should we all share the same constitution? Because that is what the political move is heading towards, straight from the mouth of a US president, and many more political leaders. Sure, it's a CT and of course, as you've mentioned before, keeping an open mind towards evidence is ambition crushing...whatever man.

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Seth

Bond, according to wiki Reagan had no idea about the arms for hostages 'scandal'. So really, administrative members were acting without the president's approval. The guilty parties involved were later pardoned by Bush sr. I'd also conjecture that the reagan of 1964 wasn't under the same influences as when in office. Don't misunderstand my comment as insuniating Reagan wasn't intelligent. Anyone with high political ideals can be manipulated. Dick Cheney, VP, holds tons of power...in the way that he's basically a lobbyist in an elected position. Given the vast amount of wealth of the bush family, their ties with oil, well I'd say that's power. Believe that the nice talking Reagan was free to make the best decisions for the american people instead of looking out for the status quo. Same thing with Obama, he's a beacon of hope. He's also the highest funded presidential candidate in history....which, hahaha, ensures that he'll be representing the working class american.
Hey, they used a portion of the profits from the arms sales in iran to give weapons to the nicaragua anticommunist militias...and they got cocaine in exchange. cocaine which they smuggled into america....the CIA did this. Sure, this all happened within the intelligence community without presidential administrative knowledge. suuuure. Believe that if it helps you sleep. Hey, they also destroyed evidence about the iran-contra affair...they probably just burnt the info that had no relevence with accountability towards the american people. Go ahead and call me a CT because I believe that money moves politics. sure, whatever. I'm not into canned food and weapons...and especially underground bunkers. You're just another fratboy so of course your opinions have a collective merit.

My problem with conspiracy theories in general is that they are overly simplistic. The world is a complex string of economies, governments, cultures, religions, etc. One theory cannot and never will be able to explain the inner workings of all these combined elements.

You also have to take into account that America has been, and still is, the sole world power. This is a tremendous and complex responsibility, and cannot be oversimplified. Nixon wrote several great books on this issue.

[Professor S]

Seth, you say you keep an open mind toward evidence... what evidence? What evidence do you have that Bush ran the Reagan whitehouse? What undebunked hard evidence do you have that 9/11 was an inside job? What real evidence do you have for any of this? Where are the documents? Where is the smoking gun? Nixon couldn't get away with a simple robbery without getting nailed... how is the world elite getting away with their nefarious schemes without producing a single verifiable shred of real evidence????

Evidemnce is not correlations or absence of contrarian data. Evidence is fact and is empirically viable. IMO, conspiracy theory is a mental dysfunction that relies on the lack of proof to validate wild logical leaps and imaginative explanations for our own feelings of powerlessness. Why aren't you a brilliant success? Who is keeping you back? Why is the world not perfect? Well, it must be a shadow government...

When it comes to the NWO, not only have you taken Presidential statements out of context, just as you previously took history out of context when talking about Iran and the arms deals (by the way, the Ayatollah was not "loved" by his people, at least not how you portray it. I personally know two families that RAN from the Ayatollah), but you still fail to post any evidence.

The greatest logical evidence that these crackpot theories are wrong is that Alex Jones is still alive. If the world is run by such a small collection of infinitely powerful people, why would they allow their "greatest nemesis" to live? They wouldn't.

[Seth]

Good question prof s. Watergate was a media frenzy, distracting from the real issues. Unelected Gerald Ford became president as a result, he then used the 25th to appoint Nelson Rockefeller as VP. Ford didn't cleanse the hill of corruption. -Webster G. Tarpley & Anton Chaitkin, George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography, Chapter 7
What are your thoughts about the destroyed evidence in the Iran-Contra scandal? That's fact and it's right out of the same wiki article you posted. Because it was destroyed do you assume the evidence was irrevelent to holding accountable the people involved?
You're pushing it with the conspiracy theory impact on the whole of one's life. I don't blame other people or organizations for my shortcomings. I know that I won't come out with an MA if I don't study hard at my uni. I believe in taking charge of one's life fully, and that, until a political powered entity removes my rights to follow what I want, well, no one else is to blame. I believe that disproportionate taxing does little to help the working class and effectively enables the richest of the country to dodge paying taxes...i believe this has a relative influence on my life, but I don't point to a Rockefellar power cabal or anything as the men in charge. Prof, I feel like you stereotype me into a raving alex jones loving CTheorist which isn't at all what I am. I can't bear listening to jones' garbage. If anything he's a perpetuator of the system, leading astray people who feel like the corruption spans past an administrative body, and has it's roots more in money. Alex Jones doesn't represent the conspiracy theory culture. He's a vent that the average joe american can listen to and form conclusions. I'm not saying that everything he says is garbage, but a lot of it is merely speculation. I think he takes truths and renders them invalid. That's why he's alive. Plus, martyred people...with his profile, make people protest.

I remember the popular science article you posted which was supposedly an infallible refute of the other view. http://www.ae911truth.org/
have you read the evidence in that website? They're architects and engineers, finding faults with the official story. I'd say it's worth your time. It's a different website than 9/11truth.org
The majority of Iranians felt that Ayatollah was a good leader. Yes, he murdered and persecuted, but so did the shah before him. Heck, they'd rape virgins before executing them because it's law that a virgin can't be put to death.
What do you think of the Defense Authorization Act of 2007? It gives the president power to declare marshal law for the laughable reason of restoring public order. Do you see your country heading in a good direction? What do you think of publicly elected officials(clinton, harper) speaking at Bilderberg meetings? Is it ok for government elects to hold private meetings, barred from media scrutiny? Maybe you believe the public's to stupid to form a rational opinion based on openness and honesty.
I'd ask you to read the power elite playbook series of articles, but you'd probably decline, seeing as how they're on conspiracyarchive.com All the articles are heavily referenced. I'm open to any articles you have which back your opinion.
I've found that the Bible has a lot to say about end times. If you want true answers, it's all in that book. None of you guys believe in its validity I can assume. Don't go Dawkins on me, but I believe that fulfilled prophecy has proven the authenticity of the Bible.