Kind of brash of you to jump to conclusions that this guy is "dirty" solely by your assumptions and what Wikipedia says. Why don't you base you opinions of of his actions?

Brash assumptions?

He's a politician, of course he's dirty

I stand corrected.

Originally posted by build319
Brash assumptions?

He's a politician, of course he's dirty

Saddly, Your 100% correct

and to think...i thought this Ned Lamont Guy was awesome for about 10seconds until i found out Who is Is...

Okay,

The article states that Mr. Lamont went to Harvard not Yale. He was never an undergrad at Yale, never. So, he can't be in Skull & Bones.

-- Boat

[edit on 10-8-2006 by Boatphone]

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Hes a LIAR obvioiusly

Huh?

He's a liar because one of this 8 great grandparents was JP Morgan? He was in SnB because he's rich and went to Yale? And that makes him a liar??

About 50% of all the CFR executive officers have been confirmed members of the Pilgrims Society, which seems to indicate that quite possibly all of them are.""

Wow, again with the poor logic. Half of them are in the group, therefore they are all in the group? Are they all liars too???

Originally posted by Boatphone
Okay,

The article states that Mr. Lamont went to Harvard not Yale. He was never an undergrad at Yale, never. So, he can't be in Skull & Bones.

-- Boat

[edit on 10-8-2006 by Boatphone]

""and a Masters of Public and Private Management from what is now known as the Yale School of Management in 1980. ""

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Hes a LIAR obvioiusly

Huh?

He's a liar because one of this 8 great grandparents was JP Morgan? He was in SnB because he's rich and went to Yale? And that makes him a liar??

=====> No, But i was under the impression 99.9999% of all Politicians were Liars?
Correct me if im wrong but .... lol

About 50% of all the CFR executive officers have been confirmed members of the Pilgrims Society, which seems to indicate that quite possibly all of them are.""

Wow, again with the poor logic. Half of them are in the group, therefore they are all in the group? Are they all liars too???

That was probably something said on that website, which i didnt write, its just what Their logic was, my logic would say if 50% were members, than the other 50% were accomplices in some level or another, if not just for good conversation buddys alone.

Hey now, if your in the same car with someone who breaks a law, your automatically legally considered an accomplice to the crime even if in minimal terms, and are due some form of punishment even if minimal.

At least in my state, thats how we look at things, and thats how our law is set up.

So, even if the other 50% arent in it, which i wouldnt claim they were or werent unless i knew with reasonable doubt , they could reasonably be referred to as accomplices of said group 1.

Now i really dont think that was my direct quote, i think u quoted the arcticle i found on like my 2nd google search or something.

It was just meant as a tidbit to get everyone looking into the Subject digging information up to conjecture with me as to dig to the bottom of it so to speak.

Just adding a simple remark is Not the type of "Conjecture" i was searching for.
I was looking for the goods. I wanted photos. The bottom of it .

me throwing up a few websites means "hey guys, toss up more websites that say Different things about this subject. Prove this wrong. Show me another path of information. So far, the only path of information i see is one depicting a rich, opulant, wealthy man, running for office, claiming the same wishful promises that every other politician claimed, of which few ever held those promises, especially those whom were so wealthy.

Whats a Politicians Track record with being truthful? and being Honest and keeping their promises?

Does anyone have any insight / debate / substance to add to this?
Or have we lost our desire to dig?

No one ever said that everything we dug up would be true/false.

Digging thiings up isnt "Claiming" something, its a process of information gathering designed to spur more information gathering in others, which can help us form more educated opinions.

It doesnt matter what side u lean on politicially, information is information and can be spun anyway your personality spins it.

"The war in iraq" good or bad? either way u look at it, theres no denying the fact there is in fact a "war in iraq" and that its a realistic perception of the world in that aspect of todays society.

Well, "Ned Lamont is a pilgram aristocrat elite type guy" is there any information to the contrary to this? if so, im quite curious to see it.

Wether you believe being elite is good/bad/neutral is your opinion. Thats the whole "my take" or "your take" on the matter of discussion.

Despite my own opinions, is the information at least 80% factual? thats the question. Wether u agree with my opinion of the information is the least important aspect of the discussion, in my opinion.

And the websites i linked do indeed express particular opinions on the Information presented. Thats fine, we all disagree sometimes about things, and sometimes we agree. Thats great.

But is that info factual? If you have more info that builds upon the credibility , post it.
If you have info that disputes the credibility of said information, Post it.

Thats where the real discussion comes from IMO.

I will admit i dislike politicians and their ilk to a great extent, i just dont trust them at all.

Do you Trust Politicians? Im just questioning things here publicly.

So please, Dont bash my opinions, or other peoples opinions, until we have more information that can weigh agianst those opinions and create a real actual full fleged debate on serious grounds.

thats what i seek, and i know this community is capable of it.
Thank you for your time

BTW Mods, i think the title of the thread should be changed to "Ned lamont , Dirt Digging" or something of that nature since the original question posed by the threads title has been nullified by the revelations that he was in fact not a skull and bones member, but most likely a member of corresponding alternate groups which are linked.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
""and a Masters of Public and Private Management from what is now known as the Yale School of Management in 1980. ""

Thats a graduate program, SnB is for undergrads, not graduates.

Hey now, if your in the same car with someone who breaks a law,

Sure, but if we both are in the same social club? No way.

I did see earlier that he was a morgan and I was like 'Whoa!"

But then, I didn't support him in the first place.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
""and a Masters of Public and Private Management from what is now known as the Yale School of Management in 1980. ""

Maybe you don't understand how higher education works.

He got his undergrad degree at HARVARD. Then...

He went to the "Yale school of Management in 1980". For his Masters degree.

The only way to become a member of Skull & Bones is to be "tapped" your seinor year in college (undergrad) at Yale. He did not go to Yale. He is not in Skull & Bones.

-- Boat

I dislike Ned Lamont, but just because he is "rich" doesn't mean that he is in Skull & Bones or evil. Geez.

-- Boat

I thought they tap juniors? Its only seniors? Yeesh, whats the point.

This guys Freaking rich!!!!! Hes a LIAR obvioiusly, hes neck deep in BIG buisness from what these HUGE $$$$ numbers say.

What exactly makes him a liar? Anyone who didn't know he is a very wealthy individual well before the conn primary ended was just plain uniformed. It isn't Ned Lamont's fault you decided to research him AFTER the election. It is/was a well known and established fact. Lieberman tried to use this against Lamont in one of the debates on television -- I guess you must have missed that debate.

Also, Ned challenged Lieberman to adhere to spending limits, and said Lieberman could choose the limit. Lieberman refused. I believe Lieberman also outspent Lamont on the campaign.