1381: Take This Poll

[Loki74]

Originally Posted by Blitzgal

They can still wreak major havoc. Jim Jones. David Koresh. Etc. Religious texts can very easily be twisted to provoke violence and/or oppression. We see the same thing with Islamic terrorists and fundamentalists like the Taliban.

Absolutely... I just meant that they use “facts and experts” to “support” their theories; that and soo many stories about scandals and corruption in government also helps their cause.

Religious nuts say “cause God says so” … I can see an average person being swayed by conspiracy theories more than religious arguments.

Originally Posted by Junkenstein

some of them are just random, but the Alex Jones NWO bunch, is pretty organized and with guidelines. If you listen to his shows or watch his documentaries, he has a bunch of main points he pushes by using the same tactics athat religious extremists use to rpomote their ideas. Lots of shouting, simple sentences repeated over and over, diagrams that have no substance but are really pretty to look at, "insiders" and "witnesses" that say a lot of very vague stuff or point out the obvious, easy targets (always the banks, since everyone hates banks), no constructive ideas....

Fear and loosely factual examples are the favored tool of the manipulators be it political or religious…

[Blitzgal]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

It's also funny that they keep quoting Arthur Conan Doyle, who insisted that Harry Houdini had supernatural powers.

And Houdini famously debunked a lot of phony spiritualists. Irony!

[dEadERest]

Bob, what is your take on Pat Tillman? His diary was never released to his family.

[canarybuttons]

I think it's a little ignorant to believe that 2 buildings, capable of withstanding a comerical airline crash, were completely flattened by the vary thing they were built to withstand. I also feel it's ignorant to believe that an airplane was "vaporized" on inpact at the pentegon. (Not to mention the mysterious flatteneing of world trade building 7.) I do not claim to be a conspiricy theorist, I just believe in asking questions. The evidence was left behind in pictures and video. If you've done any research, you've got to wonder if someone isn't leaving out a little info. Just saying.

[dEadERest]

Originally Posted by canarybuttons

I think it's a little ignorant to believe that 2 buildings

2? What about Bldg. 7? Anyone happen to know what was in Bldg. 7? Anyone happen to know who Marvin P. Bush is?

[Keith]

We just discussed it, and we all believe you.

All good. Thanks.

[punk'n]

Originally Posted by dEadERest

2? What about Bldg. 7? Anyone happen to know what was in Bldg. 7? Anyone happen to know who Marvin P. Bush is?

That's the guy who played Hiram on 'Six Feet Under'!

[Hennessy]

Here's why Keith saying he feels better about me being a "girl" seems disrespectful:

Although I've come out as a male trapped in this boobalicious prison, and male affirmation makes me feel good (though not necissary) Keith is essentially saying that he has something I don't and can make her feel a certain way I can't, so in esscence, something is lacking in me and this makees him feel better. Cause were SO different.

This is completely false since Chemda and I both agree that sex with eachother is some of the greatest we've ever had and she's even come out on the show stating how she sexually feels me like a man.

HOWEVER, I do completely undrstand Keith and Pat's point. Id feel the same way if Chemda began dating a male bodied person over a chick. If I had a penis, it'd make me feel defensive too. The fact that I don't would make me feel like I MUST be lacking and that's what she's always needed anyway. If she began dating a chick, id feel like saying, "Well guess you've always been a les deep down. Good luck with that."

So yes it is disrespectful. And yes, I do understand the sentiment and don't blame him.

[Junkenstein]

good point but the "peepee" in the title distracts me and makes me giggle.

[Keith]

That's interesting and all, but does anyone know who David Griffin is?