One reason anonymous forums are dead in the water. Facebook, Twitter, social media is the real thing. Forums are fossils.
Except a significant percentage of people are just as likely to be fuckwads on social media.
Ok. I will.
Not exactly.
[QUOTE=Fish Stink Pot]
Well, what IS the truth?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Kozmik]
What you know today.
[/QUOTE]
What I know today:
In The New York Times, today, Paul Krugman published a column, Europe’s Great Illusion. In it, he writes:
He concludes:
There are 242 countries in the world, according to Wikipedia. There’s the United States with Barack Obama. There’s Russia with Vladimir Putin. There’s Mexico and the Phillipines with Felipe Calderón and Benigno Aquino, respectively. There’s Egypt, Germany, and Iran with their respective leaders. Then there’s France, the United Kingdom, and Italy with theirs as well. Then there’s other countries like South Korea and Spain also with leaders. And then there’s countries like North Korea with Kim Jong-un.
Barack Obama and his 241 counterparts are supposedly running the world. Just like Woodrow Wilson and his 100 odd counterparts were supposedly running the world in 1914.
Four questions:
Is it naive to think that 242 people “run the world”?
Is it naive to think that no one has more impact on the world than Barack Obama?
Is it naive to think that events like wars and economic crisises can ultimately be explained with reference to countries or that there is something or someone behind countries?
Do you understand Paul Krugman’s insane ramblings?
No, No, No (that countries explain it), Yes.
Whatever it is you’re smoking, it must be some good stuff.
Also, you still have yet to explain either jack or shit.
A simple statement of whatever the hell you’re going on about would be appreciated.
A bunch of random quotes and references is not a position statement.
I’m smoking the same stuff Paul Krugman is smoking. :rolleyes:
Norman Angell’s The Great Illusion, argued, in 1910, that wars had become obsolete.
My position is that there is something or someone behind countries and that they have been taking the leaders of countries and the people for a ride for well over a hundred years.
Do those somethings or someones look like reptiles?!?
I know. I know.
Now if there was only some evidence of this or some rational (or even just sane) explanation for why they’d do it…
I’ve got this nice jacket here. It’s got these long floppy arms. You might find it comfortable.
Can you elaborate or do you just make vague points?
You’re going to need two: One for me and one for Paul Krugman.
I’m still not sure what your position is, nor what I am supposed to learn from the fact that Paul Krugman wrote a column today that mentions world leaders. I’m not sure you read the entire column, either. In an effort to try to understand what you’re talking about, I have a question and a followup. Please answer the questions as briefly as you can, preferably in two sentences; the first of those sentences, ideally, will consist of only the word “Yes” or the word “No.”
It is your position that the leaders of the 242 nations of the world “run the world.” Is that correct?
If it is not correct, please write a single, clearly-written sentence that states your position.
If it is correct, please write a single, clearly-written sentence that describes what you mean by “run the world.”
If you read his OP/ED and his columns over the last several months, you’d see that Paul Krugman doesn’t believe in a secretive cabal of power brokers running things behind the scenes. In fact, he publicly blames current world and economic leaders for their responses to the crisis. It’s well established he doesn’t resort to shadowy backroom figures. That particular post is a good example. He thinks the response of public figures to the current crisis is dumb.
I have no clue how you translate that into support for your conspiracy theory, nor am I all that interested.
That’s kind of what I’m curious about. If Kozmik’s point is that world leaders are heads of state who engage in foreign policy, then that’s almost tautological, so I’m curious where the conspiracy comes in. If his point is that there’s something deeper going on, I’m curious what he claims is going on and why he believes it.
What evidence leads you to that conclusion? How would the world look different if that weren’t true? What evidence would you accept that disproves your position?
So you’re saying there’s a secret handshake. Maybe more than one.
Ground-up Ritalin?
Like I said earlier, it looks like that’s a feature, not a bug. It’s hard to phrase this in a sympathetic way, but I think that either Kozmik is being an idiot on purpose, or he’s having a mental health problem and needs to get better medication.
Yeah, I know. I’ve noticed him in a few other threads. I’m mostly just interested in how conspiracy theorists articulate their positions. I find Idiot Legal Arguments and similar fascinating. 
(Side note: Idiot Legal Arguments is currently down! Damn!)
It’s more of an ancient illuminati ritual. It is a shaking of hands, but the hands don’t actually touch, and it serves to identify those who grasp the give and take of life, the spinning of the earth, and what it’s all about. The most senior member instructs the acolytes to extend their right hands into the circle (the give). They are then instructed to remove them (the take). Next, they return their hands to the circle and flap them back and forth (the handshake). At this point the leader instructs the acolytes to rotate 360 degrees. The cycle ends with the senior member intoning, “That’s what it’s all about”.
Some chapters will repeat this cycle numerous times, substituting a separate body part for the right hand after each rotation. This is preferably performed on roller skates.
"I want this country to realize that we stand on the edge of oblivion. I want everyone to remember why they need us! "
Chancellor Sutler - V is for Vendetta
"What we need right now is a clear message to the people of this country. This message must be read in every newspaper, heard on every radio, seen on every television… I want everyone to remember, why they need us! "
Chancellor Sutler - V is for Vendetta
No. The leaders of the 242 nations of the world do not run the world. Barack Obama and 241 other leaders do not run the world.
The world is complex. It would be simple if exactly 242 people actually run the world. It would also be naive.
There are 242 nations in the world. There’s the United States, a singular nation. Then there’s Russia which has a complicated relationship with the United States. Then there’s Mexico and the Phillipines and their colonial past. Then there’s Egypt, Germany, and Iran. Then there’s France, the United Kingdom, and Italy. World powers with complicated, interrelated relationships and histories. Then countries like South Korea and Spain and Canada.
In order to state my position, I need to explain my understanding of a column by Paul Krugman and of an Op-Ed by Misha Glenny. Glenny, in A Weapon We Can’t Control states that the world is going into uncharted territory with the United States and Israel launching Stuxnet when George W. Bush was President. He writes: “Until recent revelations by The New York Times’s David E. Sanger, there was no definative proof that America was behind Stuxnet.” He concludes that Washington must stop this new arms race. Krugman, in Europe’s Great Illusion states that he is reading optimistic assessments arguing that failure - meaning the Euro - would be bad for everyone and that European leaders will do whatever it takes to prevent failure; however, these assessments do not argue that German-dictated austerity has any change of success. He writes: “Back in 1910 Angell published a famous book titled “The Great Illusion,” arguing that war had become obsolete.” Krugman points out that German politicians have been telling voters that the crisis is all the fault of irresponsible governments in Southern Europe. Krugman concludes: “Yet misinformed voters arent’ the only problem: even elite European opinion has yet to face up to reality. To read the latest reports from European-based “expert” institutions, like the one released last week by the Bank for International Settlements, is to feel that you’ve entered an alternative universe, one in which neither the lessons of history nor the laws or arithmetic apply - a universe in which austerity would still work only if everyone had faith, and in which everyone can cut spending at the same time without producing a depression.”
George W. Bush did not create Stuxnet. I don’t believe George W. Bush had anything to do with Stuxnet other than signing his name to a document. Krugman points out that before David E. Sanger reported on Stuxnet, there was no proof that the United States was behind it. I remember reading that. I almost knocked over my coffee! The “European leaders” did not create this economic crisis, oh, but they sure are going to solve it. German politicians have been telling voters that the crisis is all the fault of irresponsible governments in Southern Europe. Now that’s leadership! And then there’s the interesting conclusion by Krugman. That “elite European opinion” (who could that be!) declares that austerity can work with spending cuts.
So you have George W. Bush creating and launching Stuxnet (not!) and then you have “elite European opinion” dictating to national governments and playing one national government off another.
The United States was behind Stuxnet.
George W. Bush was not behind Stuxnet.
Therefore…
My position:
September 11, 2001 can be explained by 19 persons; 5 on one plane, 5 on another plane, 5 on another plane, and 4 on one other plane. One Egyptian, one Lebanese, two Emirati and 15 Saudi. It was not like December 7, 1941 which could be explained by one nation: Japan. The world was seemingly simple. There was the American Civil War, World War II, the 1960s, and Watergate. (Watergate can be explained by Richard Nixon and how many other men.) After Watergate, however, the world became fracturedly complex. There was the end of the Cold War and then technological development that contributed to events like Stuxnet. There was global community and global crisises. There was fear over something called Y2K. Then there was the desert of the real.
The world is ruled by the people (7 billion and counting), Barack Obama and 241 others, hackers who created and launched Stuxnet, and the Illuminati who are behind everything.
I have read his columns over the last several months. I don’t care whether you are interested or not, Great Antibob.
The only thing I have is OCD. Anyone who sees me would understand my OCD. I read *The New York Times *every day except Sunday. Arguably, newspapers are suppose to be read every day. Yesterday it took me 40 minutes to read The New York Times at Starbucks and then I had a 7 hour work day. Sometimes I read it at Jimmy John’s for lunch between work. I don’t let reading The New York Times interfere with work or anything else. I suppose I could be reading The New York Times on a given day at 8 PM. Some people like to watch TV (at 8 PM). Some people like to go to the movies (at 8 PM).
My favorite time to read The New York Times is either in the morning at Starbucks or in the afternoon at Jimmy John’s or wherever I go to lunch. I read all the headlines and stories on the front page, whatever interests me in International, whatever interests me in National, then I read all the editorials, letters, and op-eds on the opinion pages, and, finally, I read whatever interests me in the other sections, Business, Arts, ect. So I can start my day or I can go back from lunch (or end my day) after finishing today’s New York Times.
If it’s ok that some guy cannot go a day without a Big Mac then it’s ok that I cannot go a day (Sunday excepted) without reading The New York Times. (Remember that next time there’s a blizzard. Yeah. I’ll be trudging through the snow to get to the newsstand and he’ll be trudging through the snow to get to McDonald’s..")
Please understand that I went through last year reading The New York Times and, unless I go into a coma or something, I will go through this year reading The New York Times. Please understand also that the act of reading The New York Times harms neither me or anyone else. I sit down. I read. I get up and go about my day.
I don’t generally tell people that I read The New York Times every day. I want people to realize that I read The New York Times every day. I want, for example, the other regular customers at Starbucks, who I don’t generally talk to, to realize that and, maybe, realize something else.
Before I was working and reading The New York Times, I was in college and writing for the student newspaper. To be precise, I was writing letters to editor. To be more precise, I was responding to columns written by the editor. To be even more precise, the editor of the student newspaper and I were responding in the newspaper and outside of the newspaper, arguing, laughing, seeing eye to eye, at odds with each other, in short, having a dialogue.
The interesting thing was: He was actually publishing my letters and I was actually interacting and communicating with others. Because except for student groups I was involved in and a couple of best friends, I kept to myself. I rarely let anyone into my sanctuary (my apartment room) and I rarely spoke in class. So you can imagine how remarkable it was for me to be noticed. I was expressing views in the newspaper that I did not express in class or at college in general. And I was being noticed not just for the views themselves but because they were in response to a senior editor of the student newspaper.
And I had one of the most remarkble moments of my college years. Because I was talking to the editor and two columnists were with him. One of the columnists did not know me, but she read me. Because I was talking to the editor about the last article he had written and I wanted to know whether my cites from news articles could be used with Simpsons quotes (no joke!), she must have realized who I was. She looked at me. I could tell someone was looking at me. I slowly look at her. She had this sideways glance beneath her glasses and this grin she was trying to hide. She said, “Nice. To. See. You.” The most philosophical thing anyone has ever said to me. She had seen me.
She supported one of my published views in her next column. I’ll never forget her. If I ever meet her in the future, I can only say “thank you” and next time I talk to the editor, I can only say “we did it, good times”. He misspelled my name on one of my more controversial letters. I think it was intentional
I… don’t really think you’ve supported your argument.