Jeff Matthews Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 This comes about from a passive acquisition of history. The head of Goldman Sachs is never, EVER, going to appear on FOX News and say, "Here's my latest scam for screwing the American consumers. I'm going to______________" The prince of Saudi Arabia is never, EVER going to appear on Good Morning America, and describe his plans to destroy the oil business in Houston. And because of this lack of obvious transparency, all people get is a passive understanding provided to them by Good Morning America: "Oil Prices Continue to Slide on Weaker Demand." That's as much information as an American will conceivably digest. Tiny little sound bites that he hears in between football games. They don't have to get on and say those kinds of things. It is implicit in capitalism and free trade. To be completely precise, it is implicit in competition. Who isn't expected to know this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted February 2, 2016 Author Share Posted February 2, 2016 Use some logic. Everyone understands the marginal effects of reducing care, or increasing the cost. The marginal effect is some people die. When you engineer this direction, you are in fact engineering deaths at the margins. Most people believe there is a significant difference between malfeasance and non-feasance. I'm not posing a legal argument. Just a logical argument. In fact, I have judiciously avoided any mention of laws, regulations or moral vectors in order to isolate the argument into the point I was attempting to make. To wit: 1)Events with negative consequences often occur because of human intentions and planning outside of any public scrutiny. 2) Because they do happen, doesn't infer there is a CONSPIRACY, or a conspiracy theory, or aliens involved. 3) Knowing about these out of sight intentional actions does not make one a "conspiracy theorist." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted February 2, 2016 Author Share Posted February 2, 2016 This comes about from a passive acquisition of history. The head of Goldman Sachs is never, EVER, going to appear on FOX News and say, "Here's my latest scam for screwing the American consumers. I'm going to______________" The prince of Saudi Arabia is never, EVER going to appear on Good Morning America, and describe his plans to destroy the oil business in Houston. And because of this lack of obvious transparency, all people get is a passive understanding provided to them by Good Morning America: "Oil Prices Continue to Slide on Weaker Demand." That's as much information as an American will conceivably digest. Tiny little sound bites that he hears in between football games. They don't have to get on and say those kinds of things. It is implicit in capitalism and free trade. To be completely precise, it is implicit in competition. Who isn't expected to know this? Apparently the other lawyer doesn't know it. I'm not sure you are actually following the long argument. I don't blame you. However, it is about the difference between intentional actions out of public scrutiny, and so-called "absurd conspiracy theories." The latter being the constant claim being made by DWIlaw ad a discredit to my assertions about how private capital (bankers, nominally) control economies. I've already document all that. So, what you have here is a tiny piece of my argument to the other lawyer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 I want to show that all large man-made phenomena arise from intention, not accident(1). GM didn't accidentally make defective key locks that killed people, they did that with intention. Yes, even after knowing the defect was deadly they refused to spend a few dollars to fix it. This works against all arguments that bad consequence are important to business. The only bad consequence that is important to business is if people don't buy the product. Be sure that the shareholders and executives of RJ Reynolds tobacco company enjoyed all those dividends just fine well after it was understood that smoking causes cancer. The makers of SugarSmacks are having no trouble enjoying their profits. So, it's fair to eliminate "negative consequences" as a serious operator in how things work. So, why did Clarence put together an FDA and a Dept. of Consumer Product Safety? Aren't GM, RJ Reynolds and Kellogg's closer to Clarence than you and me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Use some logic. Everyone understands the marginal effects of reducing care, or increasing the cost. The marginal effect is some people die. When you engineer this direction, you are in fact engineering deaths at the margins. Most people believe there is a significant difference between malfeasance and non-feasance. I'm not posing a legal argument. Just a logical argument. In fact, I have judiciously avoided any mention of laws, regulations or moral vectors in order to isolate the argument into the point I was attempting to make. To wit: 1)Events with negative consequences often occur because of human intentions and planning outside of any public scrutiny. 2) Because they do happen, doesn't infer there is a CONSPIRACY, or a conspiracy theory, or aliens involved. 3) Knowing about these out of sight intentional actions does not make one a "conspiracy theorist." Have you ever heard the lyrics, "You can choose not to decide, and still, you've made a choice?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 This comes about from a passive acquisition of history. The head of Goldman Sachs is never, EVER, going to appear on FOX News and say, "Here's my latest scam for screwing the American consumers. I'm going to______________" The prince of Saudi Arabia is never, EVER going to appear on Good Morning America, and describe his plans to destroy the oil business in Houston. And because of this lack of obvious transparency, all people get is a passive understanding provided to them by Good Morning America: "Oil Prices Continue to Slide on Weaker Demand." That's as much information as an American will conceivably digest. Tiny little sound bites that he hears in between football games. They don't have to get on and say those kinds of things. It is implicit in capitalism and free trade. To be completely precise, it is implicit in competition. Who isn't expected to know this? Apparently the other lawyer doesn't know it. I'm not sure you are actually following the long argument. I don't blame you. However, it is about the difference between intentional actions out of public scrutiny, and so-called "absurd conspiracy theories." The latter being the constant claim being made by DWIlaw ad a discredit to my assertions about how private capital (bankers, nominally) control economies. I've already document all that. So, what you have here is a tiny piece of my argument to the other lawyer. Everyone is controlling whatever turf they care to, and can, acquire. There are a lot of people in this world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted February 2, 2016 Moderators Share Posted February 2, 2016 Wondered how long afore this thread devolved into some curious culverts of political conspiracy. Seems as though one of us really wants to indict industry with malignant purposes with earnest desires to require that the federal gov't should define 'correct' and demand and enforce same. As has been pointed out......... those of us with wisdom are less subject to being manipulated into life limiting diets and lifestyles. Is this (better and longer) survival of the smartest? Then there is that other horrific can-O-worms residing on the other side of aging, actually being born. We have this liberal mindset defending the notion that healthy pregnancies be terminated at will. The result? The result is that poor black women are terminating pregnancies en masse. If the goal of the policy was population control of the poor black populace (as is the result) the outcry would be deafening. So what is the real intent if the outcome is so lopsided? We have a country that runs on profits and industry quite focused on fine tuning profiteering and, yes, at any ethical expense. Are the feds failing at key regulations? Lots of arguments there, some valid, others less so. Bottom line: Become educated enough to know right from wrong and choose what's best for yourself - which could well include profiteering by allowing less intelligent, easily-led others to harm themselves. The caveats apply........ same as forever. The dumb cave guy froze to death or got eaten by the bear and the smart one became the vaunted tribal elder. Some times you eat the Bear, sometimes the Bear eats you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted February 2, 2016 Author Share Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) Wondered how long afore this thread devolved into some curious culverts of political conspiracy. Seems as though one of us really wants to indict industry with malignant purposes with earnest desires to require that the federal gov't should define 'correct' and demand and enforce same. As has been pointed out......... those of us with wisdom are less subject to being manipulated into life limiting diets and lifestyles. Is this (better and longer) survival of the smartest? Then there is that other horrific can-O-worms residing on the other side of aging, actually being born. We have this liberal mindset defending the notion that healthy pregnancies be terminated at will. The result? The result is that poor black women are terminating pregnancies en masse. If the goal of the policy was population control of the poor black populace (as is the result) the outcry would be deafening. So what is the real intent if the outcome is so lopsided? We have a country that runs on profits and industry quite focused on fine tuning profiteering and, yes, at any ethical expense. Are the feds failing at key regulations? Lots of arguments there, some valid, others less so. Bottom line: Become educated enough to know right from wrong and choose what's best for yourself - which could well include profiteering by allowing less intelligent, easily-led others to harm themselves. The caveats apply........ same as forever. The dumb cave guy froze to death or got eaten by the bear and the smart one became the vaunted tribal elder. I have no idea how any of that applies here. This argument has NOTHING to do with politics, and nothing at all to do with REGULATIONS. Not sure how, but you have woefully missed the target here. I no longer suggest people read the thread. I can shorten this for you: I SAID: Food is intentionally engineered to have all the negative qualities that case sickness and reduce lifespans.And, that the American diet is killing us. DWI SAID: A raft of nonsense about conspiracy theories and aliens. I SAID: I provided the necessary logic to confirm food IS engineered as I said, and furthermore that is NO indication of a conspiracy. I SAID: Crumbling infrastructure won't be replaced because "bankers" (private capital) are in charge, and they don't see a big enough ROI. DWILAW SAID: You are a conspiracy theorist saying aliens are involved and secret societies and your assertion is ABSURD. I SAID: I provided commentary from many credible sources explaining fully the economics behind my assertion which fully confirmed it has nothing whatsoever to do with conspiracies. The entire thing is then filled with various attempts to discredit the ridiculous original rebuttal about conspiracy theories (post 38). There you go. Edited February 2, 2016 by jo56steph74 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted February 2, 2016 Author Share Posted February 2, 2016 I want to show that all large man-made phenomena arise from intention, not accident(1). GM didn't accidentally make defective key locks that killed people, they did that with intention. Yes, even after knowing the defect was deadly they refused to spend a few dollars to fix it. This works against all arguments that bad consequence are important to business. The only bad consequence that is important to business is if people don't buy the product. Be sure that the shareholders and executives of RJ Reynolds tobacco company enjoyed all those dividends just fine well after it was understood that smoking causes cancer. The makers of SugarSmacks are having no trouble enjoying their profits. So, it's fair to eliminate "negative consequences" as a serious operator in how things work. So, why did Clarence put together an FDA and a Dept. of Consumer Product Safety? Aren't GM, RJ Reynolds and Kellogg's closer to Clarence than you and me? WTF? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted February 2, 2016 Author Share Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) In the US, local infrastructure is not financed through bankers, of any kind. I guess you never heard of the Jefferson County Alabama project with JP Morgan and Goldman-Sachs? http://www.businessinsider.com/the-incredible-story-of-the-jefferson-county-bankruptcy-one-of-the-greatest-financial-ripoffs-of-all-time-2011-10 Learn about public obligation bonds. It will help you get the basics of my argument. Which I now see was way over your head. Public Obligation Bonds http://finance.zacks.com/buy-general-obligation-bonds-9387.html Edited February 2, 2016 by jo56steph74 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 I want to show that all large man-made phenomena arise from intention, not accident(1). GM didn't accidentally make defective key locks that killed people, they did that with intention. Yes, even after knowing the defect was deadly they refused to spend a few dollars to fix it. This works against all arguments that bad consequence are important to business. The only bad consequence that is important to business is if people don't buy the product. Be sure that the shareholders and executives of RJ Reynolds tobacco company enjoyed all those dividends just fine well after it was understood that smoking causes cancer. The makers of SugarSmacks are having no trouble enjoying their profits. So, it's fair to eliminate "negative consequences" as a serious operator in how things work. So, why did Clarence put together an FDA and a Dept. of Consumer Product Safety? Aren't GM, RJ Reynolds and Kellogg's closer to Clarence than you and me? WTF? A bit of hyperbole, but the question is, "If bankers rule the world and want to kill everyone they can for a profit, how did we wind up with the FDA, the Consumer Safety Dept., etc.? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscarsear Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Wondered how long afore this thread devolved into some curious culverts of political conspiracy. Seems as though one of us really wants to indict industry with malignant purposes with earnest desires to require that the federal gov't should define 'correct' and demand and enforce same. As has been pointed out......... those of us with wisdom are less subject to being manipulated into life limiting diets and lifestyles. Is this (better and longer) survival of the smartest? Then there is that other horrific can-O-worms residing on the other side of aging, actually being born. We have this liberal mindset defending the notion that healthy pregnancies be terminated at will. The result? The result is that poor black women are terminating pregnancies en masse. If the goal of the policy was population control of the poor black populace (as is the result) the outcry would be deafening. So what is the real intent if the outcome is so lopsided? We have a country that runs on profits and industry quite focused on fine tuning profiteering and, yes, at any ethical expense. Are the feds failing at key regulations? Lots of arguments there, some valid, others less so. Bottom line: Become educated enough to know right from wrong and choose what's best for yourself - which could well include profiteering by allowing less intelligent, easily-led others to harm themselves. The caveats apply........ same as forever. The dumb cave guy froze to death or got eaten by the bear and the smart one became the vaunted tribal elder. I have no idea how any of that applies here. This argument has NOTHING to do with politics, and nothing at all to do with REGULATIONS. Not sure how, but you have woefully missed the target here. I no longer suggest people read the thread. I can shorten this for you: I SAID: Food is intentionally engineered to have all the negative qualities that case sickness and reduce lifespans.And, that the American diet is killing us. DWI SAID: A raft of nonsense about conspiracy theories and aliens. I SAID: I provided the necessary logic to confirm food IS engineered as I said, and furthermore that is NO indication of a conspiracy. I SAID: Crumbling infrastructure won't be replaced because "bankers" (private capital) are in charge, and they don't see a big enough ROI. DWILAW SAID: You are a conspiracy theorist saying aliens are involved and secret societies and your assertion is ABSURD. I SAID: I provided commentary from many credible sources explaining fully the economics behind my assertion which fully confirmed it has nothing whatsoever to do with conspiracies. The entire thing is then filled with various attempts to discredit the ridiculous original rebuttal about conspiracy theories (post 38). There you go. When a small group of elites direct and command what any gov't does then the implication is clearly conspiratorial. How else could they accomplish such broad and eep machinations if the strings of an interwoven conspiracy were not in play? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted February 2, 2016 Author Share Posted February 2, 2016 I want to show that all large man-made phenomena arise from intention, not accident(1). GM didn't accidentally make defective key locks that killed people, they did that with intention. Yes, even after knowing the defect was deadly they refused to spend a few dollars to fix it. This works against all arguments that bad consequence are important to business. The only bad consequence that is important to business is if people don't buy the product. Be sure that the shareholders and executives of RJ Reynolds tobacco company enjoyed all those dividends just fine well after it was understood that smoking causes cancer. The makers of SugarSmacks are having no trouble enjoying their profits. So, it's fair to eliminate "negative consequences" as a serious operator in how things work. So, why did Clarence put together an FDA and a Dept. of Consumer Product Safety? Aren't GM, RJ Reynolds and Kellogg's closer to Clarence than you and me? WTF? A bit of hyperbole, but the question is, "If bankers rule the world and want to kill everyone they can for a profit, how did we wind up with the FDA, the Consumer Safety Dept., etc.? Putting aside your wild restatement of the premise. But I get the humor. Those agencies arise from legitimate public politics. And to some extent, industry and bankers want these "basic institutions" to prevent the country from becoming Somalia. But in all cases, "industry" captures these regulators with their own personnel, and steer them in ways that won't harm the industry being regulated. This capture is commonly called "the revolving door" of Washington. These basic institutions do not stop industry, they more or less give an imprimatur of approval. "What could go wrong....we have the FDA watching!" The two pieces I cited extensively explain exactly how private capital is expected to run the economies of all developed countries and the government's job is to SUPPORT THEM in that goal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted February 2, 2016 Author Share Posted February 2, 2016 Wondered how long afore this thread devolved into some curious culverts of political conspiracy. Seems as though one of us really wants to indict industry with malignant purposes with earnest desires to require that the federal gov't should define 'correct' and demand and enforce same. As has been pointed out......... those of us with wisdom are less subject to being manipulated into life limiting diets and lifestyles. Is this (better and longer) survival of the smartest? Then there is that other horrific can-O-worms residing on the other side of aging, actually being born. We have this liberal mindset defending the notion that healthy pregnancies be terminated at will. The result? The result is that poor black women are terminating pregnancies en masse. If the goal of the policy was population control of the poor black populace (as is the result) the outcry would be deafening. So what is the real intent if the outcome is so lopsided? We have a country that runs on profits and industry quite focused on fine tuning profiteering and, yes, at any ethical expense. Are the feds failing at key regulations? Lots of arguments there, some valid, others less so. Bottom line: Become educated enough to know right from wrong and choose what's best for yourself - which could well include profiteering by allowing less intelligent, easily-led others to harm themselves. The caveats apply........ same as forever. The dumb cave guy froze to death or got eaten by the bear and the smart one became the vaunted tribal elder. I have no idea how any of that applies here. This argument has NOTHING to do with politics, and nothing at all to do with REGULATIONS. Not sure how, but you have woefully missed the target here. I no longer suggest people read the thread. I can shorten this for you: I SAID: Food is intentionally engineered to have all the negative qualities that case sickness and reduce lifespans.And, that the American diet is killing us. DWI SAID: A raft of nonsense about conspiracy theories and aliens. I SAID: I provided the necessary logic to confirm food IS engineered as I said, and furthermore that is NO indication of a conspiracy. I SAID: Crumbling infrastructure won't be replaced because "bankers" (private capital) are in charge, and they don't see a big enough ROI. DWILAW SAID: You are a conspiracy theorist saying aliens are involved and secret societies and your assertion is ABSURD. I SAID: I provided commentary from many credible sources explaining fully the economics behind my assertion which fully confirmed it has nothing whatsoever to do with conspiracies. The entire thing is then filled with various attempts to discredit the ridiculous original rebuttal about conspiracy theories (post 38). There you go. When a small group of elites direct and command what any gov't does then the implication is clearly conspiratorial. How else could they accomplish such broad and eep machinations if the strings of an interwoven conspiracy were not in play? First of all, who mentioned a "small group of elites"? Not me. I mentioned that the largest dozen bankers control 75% of the world's capital. There's nothing nefarious there. That's what "largest" leads to. Consider what I said about financing infrastructure. Banks simply won't do it because they don't like the risk and the ROI. How is that a conspiracy? It isn't. It's the effect of an economic reality, and nothing else. Read the post I made from the IMF. It will explain exactly why private capital runs the economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted February 2, 2016 Author Share Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) Consider the food industry. Hundreds of companies produce many thousands of unhealthy products which form the basis of our "American diet." Let's use CocaCola as an example. Coke scientists fully understand that sugary drinks have no positive purpose. They read all the reports by experts that Americans are becoming obese in large part due to excessive consumption of sugary drinks. They know this as well as I know it or my doctor knows it. They decide - and only they - on how much sugar they will use and other ingredients. It is an "engineered product." It meets its intentions of being a very tasty, highly desirable drink loaded with sugar. They intentionally make plans, very elaborate plans, to great increase the consumption of their product globally. Shareholders are demanding, screaming for higher sales, higher profits, EVERY quarter. Executives respond with those capital demands and find ways to sell more. Ok, now....let's examine that. 1. No conspiracy is involved whatsoever. No aliens. No Masonic symbols. Nothing but pure intention of men. 2. The design and marketing decisions which are behind all that, are not subject to public scrutiny of any kind. We don't get to demand their marketing programs. 3. The net effect to society is NEGATIVE. This is the core of the argument. All the things they do, from engineering to marketing ever increasing amounts of this stuff has a net negative effect on society.This is confirmed by every scientific study on the effects of sugary drinks. It follows that, "The CocaCola company is an intentional part of the cause of disease and obesity." Not the entire cause, but they are in the chain of causality. Multiply that by the many hundreds of companies producing crap food. You soon arrive at this: The Food Industry is an intentional part of the cause of our poor life expectancy compared to other countries. But here's what happens in the public. If I say those words, the first thing you hear is "Conspiracy theory! Aliens!" When there is absolutely no conspiracy of any kind. Just the normal intentional acts of people who can work outside of public scrutiny. Edited February 2, 2016 by jo56steph74 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 I want to show that all large man-made phenomena arise from intention, not accident(1). GM didn't accidentally make defective key locks that killed people, they did that with intention. Yes, even after knowing the defect was deadly they refused to spend a few dollars to fix it. This works against all arguments that bad consequence are important to business. The only bad consequence that is important to business is if people don't buy the product. Be sure that the shareholders and executives of RJ Reynolds tobacco company enjoyed all those dividends just fine well after it was understood that smoking causes cancer. The makers of SugarSmacks are having no trouble enjoying their profits. So, it's fair to eliminate "negative consequences" as a serious operator in how things work. So, why did Clarence put together an FDA and a Dept. of Consumer Product Safety? Aren't GM, RJ Reynolds and Kellogg's closer to Clarence than you and me? WTF? A bit of hyperbole, but the question is, "If bankers rule the world and want to kill everyone they can for a profit, how did we wind up with the FDA, the Consumer Safety Dept., etc.? Putting aside your wild restatement of the premise. But I get the humor. Those agencies arise from legitimate public politics. And to some extent, industry and bankers want these "basic institutions" to prevent the country from becoming Somalia. But in all cases, "industry" captures these regulators with their own personnel, and steer them in ways that won't harm the industry being regulated. This capture is commonly called "the revolving door" of Washington. These basic institutions do not stop industry, they more or less give an imprimatur of approval. "What could go wrong....we have the FDA watching!" The two pieces I cited extensively explain exactly how private capital is expected to run the economies of all developed countries and the government's job is to SUPPORT THEM in that goal. Essentially, it sounds like you believe these conspirators are benevolent dictators. That's not all so bad. From most religious doctrine, I would gather God is essentially seen as a benevolent dictator as well. But this isn't about a comparison of religions or a debate about any particular religious tenets. It's just an observation that life isn't bad just because somebody controls you or limits you in some ways. There are degrees of the control vs. freedom paradigm applicable to everyone... including the bankers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 It follows that, "The CocaCola company is an intentional part of the cause of disease and obesity." Not the entire cause, but they are in the chain of causality. I wonder if Hitler's schoolteachers ever felt guilty after seeing what he became. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 But here's what happens in the public. If I say those words, the first thing you hear is "Conspiracy theory! Aliens!" When there is absolutely no conspiracy of any kind. Just the normal intentional acts of people who can work outside of public scrutiny. There is no surprise or outlandishness at all in those basic capitalistic premises. None whatsoever. It's the way you color the facts with word and phrase choices which stirs the pot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted February 2, 2016 Moderators Share Posted February 2, 2016 In the US, local infrastructure is not financed through bankers, of any kind. I guess you never heard of the Jefferson County Alabama project with JP Morgan and Goldman-Sachs? http://www.businessinsider.com/the-incredible-story-of-the-jefferson-county-bankruptcy-one-of-the-greatest-financial-ripoffs-of-all-time-2011-10 Learn about public obligation bonds. It will help you get the basics of my argument. Which I now see was way over your head. Public Obligation Bonds http://finance.zacks.com/buy-general-obligation-bonds-9387.html It is all way over your head. You are going in circles IMF, 2 dozen world bankers, an Economist article on Global infrastructure. I deal with local infrastructure as it relates to fire fighters and police on an almost everyday basis, bond issues, elections on civil service, bond approval, etc. You keep switching from micro to macro issues, local to global, and in the process, have gotten you to the point where you are going back and giving explanations to your posts before anyone even responds to them. Now you have thrre seperate topics going and you are chasing your taol. It doesn't matter, no one is reading really reading it anyway. There are still a lot of gaps to fill, but you could take another run at that 33T, or was it 35, and what the significance of those dark funds might be to us in a neoliberalism society with a diminishing life expectancy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted February 2, 2016 Author Share Posted February 2, 2016 But here's what happens in the public. If I say those words, the first thing you hear is "Conspiracy theory! Aliens!" When there is absolutely no conspiracy of any kind. Just the normal intentional acts of people who can work outside of public scrutiny. There is no surprise or outlandishness at all in those basic capitalistic premises. None whatsoever. It's the way you color the facts with word and phrase choices which stirs the pot. To you. However, others think every such common premise is some "absurdity" to be subject to accusations of associating with aliens and blah blah blah. Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.