Subject:
|
The Sheep (was: An armed society...(what if?))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 26 Jan 2002 12:56:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1824 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > There are 'rich guys' out there teaching the sheep how we can start to • exploit
> > these same loopholes.
>
> Can we please include "sheep" accusations in Godwin's law, too? I mean,
> I'm not in the habit of calling conspiracy-theorists "paranoid, raving,
> credulous buffoons," so I find it petty and annoying that non-believers of
> conspiracy theory are called sheep.
I'm not sure if this was tongue in cheek or not, but just in case...
In this segment of my note, the sheep were not the conspiracy nuts, they were
the masses of people who, not knowing how to take advantage of the system (and
probably not having the funds to do so effectively -- or at least believing
that), do not exploit the loopholes that the rich use (e.g. land trusts,
section C corporations, etc.) I attempted to indicate a non-disparaging way by
including myself in that group.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
| (...) In what way are you asking? Do I think that a number of corporations are working independently, but simultaneously, to further their own wealth? Certainly, and the factions of each company are likely "conspiring" to achieve that end. Are (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
179 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
