This discussion is getting a bit out of hand. Although I find it interesting to monitor the complex thoughts of my fellow vorts, I suggest that we attempt to move on to issues that are in line with our normal conversations. Perhaps someone might want to offer a location to which this topic could be pursued.
Dave -----Original Message----- From: John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Mon, Sep 23, 2013 5:23 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems? Jed, do you believe that if you were in countries that had insane governments, and you were raised in that culture and had a normal degree of faith in that government. Would you have seen them as insane? Hindsight is 20/20, you would not fall for that would you? And if it was 1962 and operation Northwoods was put into play, and you were appropriately patriotic for the time (on average more so than now days I would think) and I told you that it was a false flag operation... Would you believe me? Of course you don't believe it now with 9/11 despite tons of evidence. Please consider that by being unwilling to consider such a thing, that your faith in the the system is precisely how false flag attacks can be considered. After I finally accepted that 9/11 was a false flag attack, and had already considered Bush stole the election and had an extremely low opinion of the republicans... I still was shocked to hear that they would have even dreamt up the concept of sexually torturing a child to coerce parent under interrogation, and making it legal. I accept that my mind is not on the right wavelength to even contemplate such concepts. John On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: The scary part is that intelligent people would consider this claim even plausible when the idea is obviously the hallucination of an insane mind. Of course the government lies, of course it does bad things, of course it cannot be trusted. To some extent. As Ed says, you can predict with some confidence which parts lie, about what, for what reasons. Many parts of the government can be trusted, especially the uncontroversial parts. The Agriculture Dept. will give you excellent advice on your crops. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) has good statistics. I know they are good because: * They fit in well with other sources. * If the EIA misrepresented or misplaced the data, industry would raise a big stink. * Most of them come from industry. Say what you like about American industry, it usually provides good technical data. You can always trust things like the gas mileage estimates on new cars, or the watts and lumens ratings on lightbulbs. Because if one manufacturer lied about these things, the others would call them out. (That happens from time to time.) Some political or law enforcement agencies are corrupt or unreliable. The DoE is biased against cold fusion. But the government does operate in predictable ways. Exactly. Gaining any benefit from setting off a nuclear weapon anywhere in the US gives no benefit whatsoever. Exactly. They are not crazy. There are a few crazy individuals, no doubt, but overall people in the U.S. government today are sane. There are historical examples of mass insanity in governments. I would say the Japanese government in 1941 was crazy to attack the U.S. The Confederacy was a bit crazy to fight on after Atlanta fell in 1864. They should have negotiated a surrender. - Jed
