Decision 2004 and Yales Skull and Bones Society

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus

If you reverse the question it is highly unlikey that 3 members of the Skull and Bones became President, yet it happened can you give an explanation as to why?

Simple: because there is an elite in this country and they are located in the NE. Their schools are the Ivy League schools of Harvard, Yale, Columbia, et al.

42 Presidents assumes some conspiracy from the start of U.S. government let's just start from a war that was started on shady grounds the Spanish American War.
How many Presidents were skull and bones then. Still 3.

Not even sure what that argument was, as the Span-American war was over before the first President from Yale was even elected. So to answer your question of how many Presidents were members of the S&B by the time of the S-A war: 0. Not 3.

How many people does it take for a conspiracy anyway?2. 3 Presidents 2 family members= 5. How many peoplel would have to be involved in 1 election to make 1 man President?

Anybody want to translate the above for me? I can't follow the math.

Keep in mind that there is voting so it's not a given that any one person will be President. What are the odds that people from the same family will be President? It's highly unlikely

Actually, it isn't. There have been six Presidents in this country who have been closely related: the Adams', the Roosevelts, and the Bush's. You would think that it would be even more unlikely that there would be Indian Prime Ministers who were related (in a country of ~800,000,000), but there were 2 Ghandi's that held that position. Where's the conspiracy there?

[Bosh]

Evidence is far stronger for an organization of mulattos taking over the Presidency than a member of the S&B. Evidence is far stronger for the Prebsyterian church to be in control of the Presidency than the S&B. Evidence is even stronger for the idea that a conspiracy of people who never graduated from college is in control of the S&B.

Not really, since there's a lot more mulattos, Presbyterians etc. etc. than S&Bers. If you take just about any non-government group and divide its numbers by the number of people in it that got to be President then S&B would come out pretty close to the top.

[JohnT]

Oh, God, they got to you too Boshko?

[JohnT]

Again, it is far more likely that the Pres's that were members of the S&B were so because of legacy rather than some bizarro conspiracy theory that has the S&B somehow planting its members in the Oval Office.

But y'all can go on believing whatever y'all want.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by JohnT
Oh, God, they got to you too Boshko?

No, they didn't. The conspiracy argument is silly. But the mulatto etc. counter-argument is logically flawed and I was just pointing that out.

[Capt Dizle]

You guys are so smart. Well, George Bush selected five fellow bonesmen to serve in his administration. Can you name them?

BTW, Dick Cheney is not one as he flunked out of Yale. There were something like 9 other Cheneys in there so it is more than likely he had ties through his family. Without which he probably would not have been vice president.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by JohnT
Next thing you'll know we'll be arguing Kennedy assassination conspiracies.

George Bush, Skull & Bones and the JFK Assassination

Rodney Stich's book "Defrauding America" tells of a "deep-cover CIA officer" assigned to a counter-intelligence unit, code-named Pegasus. This unit "had tape-recordings of plans to assassinate Kennedy" from a tap on the phone of J. Edgar Hoover. The people on the tapes were "[Nelson] Rockefeller, Allen Dulles, [Lyndon] Johnson of Texas, George Bush and J. Edgar Hoover."

Could George Bush be involved in the JFK assassination?

In 1963, Bush was living in Houston, busily carrying out his duties as president of the Zapata Offshore oil company. He denied the existence of a note sent by the FBI's J. Edgar Hoover to "Mr. George Bush of the CIA." When news of the note surfaced, the CIA first said they never commented on employment questions, but later relented said yes, a "George Bush" was mentioned in the note, but that it was "another" George Bush, not the man who took office in the White House in 1988.

Some intrepid reporters tracked down the "other" George Bush and discovered that he was just a lowly clerk who had shuffled papers for the CIA for about six months. He never received any interagency messages from anybody at the FBI, let alone the Queen Mary.

It is also worth noting that a CIA code word for Bay of Pigs was Operation Zapata, and that two of the support vessels were named Barbara and Houston.

Many say that George Bush was high up on the CIA ladder at the time, running proprietorial vehicles and placed in a position of command, responsible for many of the Cubans recruited into "service" at the time. All through the Iran-Contra affair, Felix Rodriguez, the man who captured and had Che Guevara killed for the CIA, always seemed to call Bush's office first.

From The Realist (Summer, 1991):

"Bush was working with the now-famous CIA agent, Felix Rodriguez, recruiting right-wing Cuban exiles for the invasion of Cuba. It was Bush's CIA job to organize the Cuban community in Miami for the invasion.... A newly discovered FBI document reveals that George Bush was directly involved in the 1963 murder of President John Kennedy. The document places marksmen by the CIA. Bush at that time lived in Texas. Hopping from Houston to Miami weekly, Bush spent 1960 and '61 recruiting Cubans in Miami for the invasion....

"George Bush claims he never worked for the CIA until he was appointed Director by former Warren Commission director and then president Jerry Ford in 1976. Logic suggests that is highly unlikely. Of course, Bush has a company duty to deny being in the CIA. The CIA is a secret organization. No one ever admits to being a member. The truth is that Bush has been a top CIA official since before the 1961 invasion of Cuba, working

[Pax]

Sorry, I was excited thinking about my new vacation home. How many Presidents were S & B after the Spanish American War. 3. I just picked the Spanish American War because it happened at the turn of the century and the reasoning for the war was bogus.

As far as the math goes it only takes two people to form a conspiracy. By your own statements you have provided 5.

As far as family members go the odds of it happening are unlikely. The actual amount of times it happened is high. This a very important point!!!
If you were sitting a gambling table in any casino and you won a disproportionate amount of times the management would start to wonder what is going on. They would suspect the game to be rigged. But if you John owned the casino. You would not raise an eyebrow.

Your own statement also points to conspiracy when you say that there is a New England elite. I only maintain that the possibility exists.
I also maintain that it would be very hard to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. If it is true it's not something that could be safely proved. Meaning the safety of the person with the evidence to prove it. I have no real interest in proving it because I have a relatively good life conspiracy or no. But I still see things that don't add up.

I would have read more about Indian history to give you that answer.

[Capt Dizle]

Did I mention that Bill Clinton attended law school at Yale. Not that he was tapped into the S&B but still, you know he made connnections......

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by JohnT
A decreasing percentage as the twentieth century has gone onward, that's for sure. Of the past 50 years, only 3 Presidents have been from prominent families - JFK, and the Bush's. Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, and Clinton all came from poor or lower middle-class families.

There would be your game, set, and match.

[Pax]

My idea of gullible is to think that a conspiracy is not possible when we know that the American government has been involved in many conspiracies in other countries. For some reason you believe it can't happen here. There is nothing that can't happen here.

[Capt Dizle]

More Grist for the mill:

Teresa Heinz Kerry brings an extraordinary range of experience and talent to the campaign trail for her husband. She has been deeply involved with a number of issues that are equally important to her husband, including the environment, children, women's issues, and health care and wellness. She has been an outspoken advocate for human rights, and a strong supporter of the arts.

Born in Mozambique, fluent in five languages, she has combined compassion and common sense to become a force for innovation and social progress as leader of one of the nation's largest private foundations. After studying in South Africa and Switzerland, she moved to the United States to work for the United Nations. In 1966, she married Senator John Heinz, with whom she had three sons. Shortly after celebrating their 25th wedding anniversary in 1991, she lost her husband in a plane crash.

Sen. John Heinz was a Bonesman as was his father. The Heinz family has one of the largest food-producing companies in the world.

[Capt Dizle]

So you see that Kerry is so deeply involved in the S&B society that he married the window of a former member who happened to be another senator.

But its purely coincidental I am sure.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
My idea of gullible is to think that a conspiracy is not possible when we know that the American government has been involved in many conspiracies in other countries. For some reason you believe it can't happen here. There is nothing that can't happen here.

Gullibility would be to seriously consider something to be a conspiracy when there is no reason to other than what could be explained as simple coincidence.

2 of the 3 presidents who were S&B were related. Whereas there have been 3 pairs of related presidents, only one pair was S&B.

Isn't it pretty clear that family has been more important than the S&B?

The sort of gullibility that sees conspiracies where there is no valid reason to do so is of the tin foil hat variety.

[Capt Dizle]

NYE, are you trying to say that the S&B does not conspire day and night to achieve power in this country? That would be a statement almost beyond credulity.

[Pax]

NYE,
I'm not saying that 1. S & B would be the only group conspiring. 2. That secret societies are not exclusive clubs that allow membership by way of families.

To me,
"It's blatantly obvious to the most casual observer."
Believe me I am casual. What I find exasperating is when people are getting wet but refuse to see the rain.

Take wrestling. Why do so many people believe it's real.

Take a small thing like the world series or that quiz show. Easily rigged over relatively small dollars.

Take the actions of the men once they got into office. I am talking about every President after the Spanish American War. You can find some situation it which they behaved in a morally corrupt way. Are you saying that they were honest until they became President.

Why are so many people blind?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I am talking about every President after the Spanish American War. You can find some situation it which they behaved in a morally corrupt way. Are you saying that they were honest until they became President.

What about every President BEFORE the Spanish-American War. Can you name a single President who did not act in a 'morally-corrupt way' (whatever the Hell that is) in US history? Are you blaming the S&B for Lincoln abolishing habeus corpus? Politicians are politicians, unless you think that S&B and other secret societies are entangled with every politician.

Man, are you coo-coo or what? Playing too much Deus Ex?

[Pax]

I've never played Deus-Ex.

The truth is I can't name a President who did not act in a morally corrupt way.

"morally corrupt" breaking treaties, accepting bribes, bribing, ownining slaves, condoning/initiating genocide, endorsing the sale of harmful drugs, and etc..
You know people you would not want to marry your daughter.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Name a single political leader in world history who did not act in a 'morally corrupt' way as you define it.

Personally there are plenty of American Presidents I would not consider morally corrupt.

[Pax]

Once again, I choose the Spanish American War because it's known that the Spanish were not responsible for the Maine. Remember the Maine.

I think the war with Mexico in 1845 was also bogus.

I think that the Great White Fleet demanding Japan trade with us bogus.

I think the declaration of independence is ridiculous considered that they were slaves who had no liberty or pursuit of happiness. Only life to pick cotton.

I think supporting regimes that oppress people bogus.

I think that people who don't question they government are bogus

I think segregation, oppression, corruption, cronyism, favoritism and almost all other isn's are bogus.

But maybe I'm just strange when I read about how many people were killed in the phillipines because it was a strategic point in the pacific and I become disillusioned from what was only a paragraph in history class but was dramatic to some nameless body in a swamp.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Nice way to avoid the question... put on that tin hat again .

[Pax]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Name a single political leader in world history who did not act in a 'morally corrupt' way as you define it.

Personally there are plenty of American Presidents I would not consider morally corrupt.

Imran,
I don't know maybe Gandi. It does not matter if everyones doing it. Would you accept that from your child if you caught him with a crack pipe or whatever it happens to be that you are against.

Imran you and I are both from Georgia, So you must know about the trail of tears. How does that sit with you. After the trail of tears those people were no longer apart of Ga History but then what happened to them. How was Oklahoma formed? Is that justice. is that american way.
i simply would like to live in the america of ideals vs the one in which corruption goes unchecked

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
NYE,
I'm not saying that 1. S & B would be the only group conspiring. 2. That secret societies are not exclusive clubs that allow membership by way of families.

To me,
"It's blatantly obvious to the most casual observer."
Believe me I am casual. What I find exasperating is when people are getting wet but refuse to see the rain.

Take wrestling. Why do so many people believe it's real.

Take a small thing like the world series or that quiz show. Easily rigged over relatively small dollars.

Take the actions of the men once they got into office. I am talking about every President after the Spanish American War. You can find some situation it which they behaved in a morally corrupt way. Are you saying that they were honest until they became President.

Why are so many people blind?

Why do so many see things that are not there to be seen, but instead must be imagined?

S&B is one of many groups conspiring to control the American political process. This is an assumption that is backed only by an observation that 3 presidents have been S&B members, nevermind that 2 of those come from the same priviledged family, and that family can be observed to be more important to becoming president than membership in the S&B club; even though neither family nor the S&B club have kept Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, and Clinton from gaining the White House in the last 58 years.

As for getting wet, someone would have to be making a good case that it were raining, not simply observing that clouds sometimes inhabit the sky. 3 presidents were members of an elitist club at an elitist University. If class memberships were the criteria, I am sure one could then assume that Eton was a conspiracy to control British political power.

Regarding wrestling, it is not unreasonable to believe something that is displayed for your immediate experience. However, believing that wrestling is real because there are large, hairy men, and therefore wrestling must be real would be stretching things a lot, I agree.

World Series and quiz shows? There have been conspiracies and scams, therefore there must be conspiracies and scams... that is the first step into the line to get your tin foil hat. Not only was the World Series fixed, and the quiz show rigged among a relatively small number of people who should have been easy to control, but even those small numbers of people were not able to keep the secret. Thank you for discrediting the whole idea that thousands of people have been controlling American political power for the last 100 years and nary a whisper of real evidence beyond an observed coincidence has got out.

Deciding which presidents did something morally corrupt would be somewhat subjective wouldn't it? Just because you disagree with an act does not make the person who did it dishonest simply on that basis, does it? btw, how does any given president being dishonest with himself or the electors lend any credence to S&B coniving for political power? Have they been successful 100% of the time with their 'secret member' list, and are only S&B members corrupt?

Why are there so many people wearing tin foil hats?

[Imran Siddiqui]

It does not matter if everyones doing it.

It does if EVERY SINGLE PERSON is doing it, meaning your 'morals' are unattainable and don't matter at all.

Why are there so many people wearing tin foil hats?

It's striking to me as well

[Pax]

I think this is the right forum for discussing conspiracies.

Once again let me state that I am only saying the possibility exists. I have no intent to prove that it does.

1. Conspiracies in the form of secrets are kept me between many groups of people without anyone being the wiser. There are ways to hide a secret in plain sight for example:
On the day that OJ Simpson was found not guilty of murder the President revealed that the government had conducted radiation experiments on its citizens between the early 40's and 1974. I heard this because I was driving to school and I had NPR on. How many other people know about this? It was quite graphic. Peoples testicles were radiated and such.

Had you told me about this prior to that day I would have accused you of wearing a tinfoil.

I can agree that the edge of something like morally corrupt might be shaky but according to U.S. law stealing and murder is illegal. So I would have to say that any action that causes innocent loss of life or appropriation of another persons assets would be morally corrupt if you hold our leaders to U.S. law. If they are above the law then nothing is corrupt and everything is fine.
According to the bible EVERYBODY in Soddom and Gomorrah were doing IT and they were morally corrupt. If the ALL of Germans had thought it was okay to gas all the Jews it would still be wrong. It's really simple.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I am only saying the possibility exists

And yet it doesn't.

I can agree that the edge of something like morally corrupt might be shaky but according to U.S. law stealing and murder is illegal.

Murder is illegal killing, and the state defines what is legal and not. And I take it you've never heard of eminent domain? Aside from that, of course, the government can appropriate for 'public use'.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi




So it's okay to be rich, so long as it is not by drilling oil?

Wow -- this is a record. You, JohnT AND Imran all missed my point.


The point was not that being wealthy is ok as long it's not connected to the oil industry.

My point was that it matters to what extent a political leader is excessively corrupted because his wealth is tied to any one, particular industry.

[Pax]

Let's go back to the trail of tears
The United States made a treaty with the Cherokee Nation that made a portion of North Gerogia belong to the Cherokee for all time. Gold was discovered in the North Ga mountains. The U.S. exercised the right of eminent domain on a land that belonged to a foreign country forcing said foreigners to walk from Georgia to Oklahoma. The trip killed many I'm assuming legally. After it was decided that the government needed the Oklahoma Indian territory the right of eminent domain was again exercised so the lands became U.S. territory all well and good. I guess there's nothing wrong with that. Why do they call it the trail of tears?

[Imran Siddiqui]

My point was that it matters to what extent a political leader is excessively corrupted because his wealth is tied to any one, particular industry.

So basically we were right. Or do you think the most wealthy leaders have diversified industry ownership? Why do the people will oil bother you so much but those connected to other industies not so much.

I guess there's nothing wrong with that

At the time, no. With today's morality, yes... but you have the problem of putting the square peg of today's morality into the round hole of history... and no matter how much you force it... it don't fit.

And, of course the ends have justified the means.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by MrFun
Wow -- this is a record. You, JohnT AND Imran all missed my point.

The point was not that being wealthy is ok as long it's not connected to the oil industry.

My point was that it matters to what extent a political leader is excessively corrupted because his wealth is tied to any one, particular industry.

But you drop the allusion to the oil industry as if that were indictment enough.

btw, it is not common for one to become wealthy via many industries. People usually learn one thing and then do it well, and a lot, to get rich.

By your reasoning, the new PM of Canada is corrupt, because his family controls a lot of shipping.