MennoNet.com

PeterG wrote:

PeterG wrote:I think that I could find a way to "prove" all kinds of interesting things if only I had Joe Arpaio's birth certificate and an ax to grind.

temporal1 wrote:i tend to presume, if there were questionable/fraudulant documents in the sheriff's background, he would be in prison/silenced (?)

To be clear, I have no doubt that Arpaio's documents are perfectly in order. My point was that if his birth certificate (or yours or mine or anyone's) were subject to the same kind of scrutiny, a person so inclined could easily find reasons to call it into question.

Perhaps.

The thing that is a bit weird though is that if mine were brought into question I would simply authorize the hospital to feel free to make their records public and that would be the end of it. I really believe that President Obama holds part of the blame for this still being a thing. Perhaps they did it all on purpose to make the birthers look silly. The whole thing should never of been that complicated. Anyway back to the original topic. Sorry for my part in sidetracking this.

appleman2006 wrote: The thing that is a bit weird though is that if mine were brought into question I would simply authorize the hospital to feel free to make their records public and that would be the end of it. I really believe that President Obama holds part of the blame for this still being a thing. Perhaps they did it all on purpose to make the birthers look silly. The whole thing should never of been that complicated. Anyway back to the original topic. Sorry for my part in sidetracking this.

That might be the case, although if it was me I would have probably ignored them rather than releasing anything. As long as people don't want to believe President Obama was born in the USA, they're going to find creative ways to argue that the documents presented are fake.
Take that "evidence of forgery" in the WND article. It's stupid really. Fake news. A bit like the 9/11 conspiracy theories. People believe because these things because they want to believe them not because of the evidence.

ken_sylvania wrote:Take that "evidence of forgery" in the WND article. It's stupid really. Fake news. A bit like the 9/11 conspiracy theories. People believe because these things because they want to believe them not because of the evidence.

Agree.

RZehr wrote:

ken_sylvania wrote:Take that "evidence of forgery" in the WND article. It's stupid really. Fake news. A bit like the 9/11 conspiracy theories. People believe because these things because they want to believe them not because of the evidence.

Agree.

when i found that link, it was one of many, including some mainstream names.

i "picked one," to ask appleman if it was what he was referring to. i thought he might add his source. i understand Canada's news leans left, so, i wondered what was being reported that got his attention .. esp when i'd not seen a word on it.

i have mostly ignored the story from the start, because there are 2 extremes herein, those wanting to discredit, and those wanting to make a blameless god out of obama. the latter has (has enjoyed) the greater power to control perceptions.

i do not sense a general interest in balanced facts.
which i find sad.

temporal1 wrote:

RZehr wrote:

ken_sylvania wrote:Take that "evidence of forgery" in the WND article. It's stupid really. Fake news. A bit like the 9/11 conspiracy theories. People believe because these things because they want to believe them not because of the evidence.

Agree.

when i found that link, it was one of many, including some mainstream names.

i "picked one," to ask appleman if it was what he was referring to. i thought he might add his source. i understand Canada's news leans left, so, i wondered what was being reported that got his attention .. esp when i'd not seen a word on it.

i have mostly ignored the story from the start, because there are 2 extremes herein, those wanting to discredit, and those wanting to make a blameless god out of obama. the latter has (has enjoyed) the greater power to control perceptions.

i do not sense a general interest in balanced facts.
which i find sad.

Exactly. And let me clarify that I didn't mean to insinuate that you agreed with that WND article.

ken_sylvania wrote:Exactly. And let me clarify that I didn't mean to insinuate that you agreed with that WND article.

thank you.
often, i use too many words, my intent gets overlooked, or misunderstood.
i used to be worse. if you can imagine.

appleman2006 wrote:But do I believe there will be a collapse. Absolutely. But not because of any supposed conspiracy theory. I tend to believe that because I simply do not see a way out of the mess we have dug ourselves into.

My only question is when not if. I think there is still a good possibility it could be 10 or even 20 years away but one thing I am quite confident of is this. When it happens it will be fast and probably in a proportion that has never been seen before at least in modern times.

What do I base it on? Quite simply the fact that not one person, not one has ever been able to explain to me how we will ever balance our budgets and pay off the debt.

The world still produces enough for everyone. So distribution is the problem. Maybe the solution would be the biblical idea of Jubilee.

Cancel all debts; set non-violent prisoners free, redistribute the wealth equally.

I know it's not as simple as it sounds, but I too think the predicted collapse is likely if we don't do things God's way.

Perhaps the impending collapse is God's way of imposing a jubilee on us. Things will get iffy when we try to restore all the land back to its original owners, tho...

(Been thinking about this today as last night we watched a video on the concept of a redeemer, and the sermon this morning was about Ruth and the rules for kinsmen redemption in the old law.)

JimFoxvog wrote:

appleman2006 wrote:But do I believe there will be a collapse. Absolutely. But not because of any supposed conspiracy theory. I tend to believe that because I simply do not see a way out of the mess we have dug ourselves into.

My only question is when not if. I think there is still a good possibility it could be 10 or even 20 years away but one thing I am quite confident of is this. When it happens it will be fast and probably in a proportion that has never been seen before at least in modern times.

What do I base it on? Quite simply the fact that not one person, not one has ever been able to explain to me how we will ever balance our budgets and pay off the debt.

The world still produces enough for everyone. So distribution is the problem. Maybe the solution would be the biblical idea of Jubilee.

Cancel all debts; set non-violent prisoners free, redistribute the wealth equally.

I know it's not as simple as it sounds, but I too think the predicted collapse is likely if we don't do things God's way.

I am glad you admit it is not as simple as it sounds. I too believe that there are enough resources for everyone to survive. Even to survive well. But I am equally convinced that redistributing the wealth would be a solution that would last less than a month.
Selfishness and a lack of doing things God's way is certainly at the root of our problems. But those problems are not confined to the wealthy or at least not as has become to be known as the 1%. Not even close. Greed and overconsumption is a problem that has spread through the western world in epidemic proportions and is not uncommon in the rest of the world anymore either.
Doing things God's way is the answer. Legislating that will never work.

Speaking of distribution problems; I was at a seed conference last week, and one of the speakers was talking about how the low grain commodity prices are affecting seed usage. He forecast low grain prices thru the next year, and said that right now the world has a two year supply of grain.