Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Why the media calls anything negative about the government a "Conspiracy Theory"

"While we were not watching, conspiracy theory has undergone Orwellian redefinition. A "conspiracy theory" no longer means an event explained by a conspiracy. Instead, it now means any explanation, or even a fact, that is out of step with the government's explanation and that of its media pimps. For example, online news broadcasts of RT have been equated with conspiracy theories by the New York Times simply because RT reports news and opinions that the New York Times does not report and the US government does not endorse. In other words, as truth becomes uncomfortable for government and its Ministry of Propaganda, truth is redefined as conspiracy theory, by which is meant an absurd and laughable explanation that we should ignore. . . "

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 11501/29/2013

FYI- the RT mentioned is Russia Today, an English language branch of the independent Russian media. Like Al Jazeera, they provide much more complex and astute analysis than CNN/FOX/MSNBC, or the NYT/WSJ/WP, and are therefore disregarded and denigrated by the fascist gatekeepers of the US media.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 106/22/2011

-

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 311/27/2011

Uh..."free speech" zones. WTF is that.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 411/27/2011

The Guardian is also good.

There is a narrative, an overview, that government and the media find workable. It is a worldview that their sources share and that they are accustomed to providing. It is a comfort zone for their audience in general and their sponsors especially.

If someone steps outside that zone in a "The emperor has no clothes moment," then the media have a number of ways to deal with it. If no one is picking up on the issue, they can ignore it, at least for the time being.

If the issue becomes of general concern, wealth disparity as a social problem has come to the forefront recently, then they can cite contrary facts.

If the facts are absolutely against them, as is the case with wealth disparity, its causes and effects, then they can twist the facts cherry-picking and using market manipulation techniques, to steer discussion back into the comfort zone. That's Murdoch's forte.

If that doesn't work. the facts are just blatant and the public interest intense, as is the case with wealth disparity, the media will marginalizing the proponents of the issue.

Calling something a conspiracy theory is a way of calling out those who raise the issue as sources unworthy of serious consideration, reducing their arguments to tin-hat land.

When Fox News uses this technique they don't use conspiracy so much as use slur words: "Looney, nutty, hippy, lefty, Marixt-Leninist, etc." You see them try it here once in a while.

That's ugly right-wing behavior going all the way back to McCarthyism, but it is different from calling something a conspiracy only in using cruder terms, dog-whistle stuff for the Fox demographic.

It's a way of controlling the dialog without engaging the dialog.

Those techniques work for awhile, but when the disconnect between what people hear in the media and what they experience in their own lives becomes so intense, then there is a reaction the other way, and people say, "They have been playing us, lying to us. Let's examine the problems from the start and work out are own solutions."

That's starting to happen now around the world.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 511/27/2011

[quote]the RT mentioned is Russia Today [...] Like Al Jazeera, they provide much more complex and astute analysis than CNN/FOX/MSNBC, or the NYT/WSJ/WP

Cute.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 611/27/2011

[quote]The Guardian is also good.

Well, it's better than Russia Today (LMAO), I'll grant you that.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 711/27/2011

The media is owned by the congressional military complex. They don't investigate- they repeat press releases.

Why do you think they ignore Ron Paul and call him crazy? He threatens their power!

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 911/28/2011

Exactly, OP.

Correct, R9.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 1011/28/2011

Whatever you say, R9!

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 1111/28/2011

I saw RT on satellite television in Europe. It's actually fairly impartial and not all that different from, say, BBC World, Deutsche Welle, and a lot of other pan-European news outlets.

What I find far more sinister than things being labeled "conspiracy theories" was the mayors of major cities meeting with the Department oF Homeland Security to figure out how to crack down on the OWS protestors. The day when CIA is allowed to spy illegaly on American citizens is probably not that far away either.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 1211/28/2011

Haven't they already been doing it for decades, R12?

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 1311/28/2011

[quote]A "conspiracy theory" no longer means an event explained by a conspiracy

It never did, genius. That's why it's labeled a theory and not a conspiracy. No one speaks of the Lincoln assassination conspiracy "theory" because actual facts establish the conspiracy.

There's an alternate explanation for why no one accepts your conspiracy theory. It's not that there's (surprise) another conspiracy to silence you. It's that people simply don't find your analysis credible or persuasive.

I find those most passionate about any given conspiracy theory START with the assumption of a conspiracy and interpret isolated bits of information to support that conclusion. However, they never can present a coherent, sensible explanation of the alleged conspiracy that includes a motive that makes sense from a cost/benefit analysis or that even begins to explain how the conspiracy was executed and kept secret.

Rather they find isolated "facts" (often not real) that they think don't fit the generally accepted story and assert that these alleged anomalies prove the official story is all a pack of lies and assert that this necessarily means their alternate explanation must be true.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 1511/28/2011

"those most passionate about any given conspiracy theory START with the assumption of a conspiracy and interpret isolated bits of information to support that conclusion."

lone gunmen theorists also do the same thing.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 1611/28/2011

"That's why it's labeled a theory and not a conspiracy."

Official versions are also just theories.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 1711/28/2011

"No one speaks of the Lincoln assassination conspiracy "theory" because actual facts establish the conspiracy."

Interesting you mention Lincoln. Many Americans think it was a lone gunmen because most of the media only talk about John Wilkes Booth and don't mention the fact that there were about 8 conspirators put on trial, 4 who were executed (including the first woman).

You have to dig deeper to find out it was a conspiracy because most Americans think it was only John Wilkes Booth. The media doesn't like to remind people that more than one person was involved.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 1811/28/2011

OP, give us examples.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 1911/28/2011

R15 thinks that he's so smart by trotting out Lincoln, and then gets shot down.

When the facts of these conspiracy theories are examined (9/11, the Iraq invasion, JFK, etc.) the "official" narrative is often found lacking. The "official" version is accepted, and promulgated, and repeated as gospel because it serves the interests of the rich and powerful. The powerful write the history books!

That's why people like Ron Paul are hated by the media and so many lies are spread about him. They threaten to expose TPTB, and they hate it!

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 2011/28/2011

[quote]most of the media only talk about John Wilkes Booth and don't mention the fact that there were about 8 conspirators put on trial, 4 who were executed (including the first woman).

Right. It's a secret. Shhhh!

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 2111/28/2011

[quote][R15] thinks that he's so smart by trotting out Lincoln, and then gets shot down.

How exactly did I get "shot down?" By the ridiculous assertion that there is a conspiracy to hide the Lincoln assassination conspiracy? Again, a house of cards built on a false assumption.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 2211/28/2011

Wrong, R22.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 2311/28/2011

R22-you point out that a larger conspiracy surrounded the Lincoln assassination. However, 99% of people don't know the facts, and therefore call it "crazy".

Documents released under the Clinton administration prove FDR and his cabinet knew the Japanese were planning an attack on Pearl Harbor, but they allowed it to happen so the populace of the US could be goaded into entering WW2. 99% of people will call you crazy if you point this fact out.

The German government took out a full page ad in the NYT warning passengers of the Lusitania that it would be sunk for carrying arms destined for the UK, but 99% of people will call you crazy if you point it out.

That is the essence of conspiracy- convince the majority that it's not true, and the facts don't matter. The same goes for 9/11, or JFK, or MLK. The facts support the "conspiracy" but the media has pushed a story that makes 99% of the people call bullshit without knowing the facts.

And you wonder why this homo supports Ron Paul? At least he tells the truth!

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 2411/29/2011

In the case of JFK at least the public haven't been conned since on that one two-thirds of the public from the 1960's to present day do not believe the Oswald acted alone theory.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 2511/29/2011

There was still a partially independent press in the 1960's. The number who think 9/11 was an inside job peaked at about 33% of the public just before the 2006 election, which the Democrats were allowed to win, probably for that very reason, although there also may have been an underestimate of how many votes needed to be stolen. Thanks to the Obama win too, the number is now down to slightly less than 20%, but it will rise again. Considering the blitz of hate and violence against anyone with that view in the media is unprecedented on any subject in American history since the re-enslavement of blacks under Jim Crow, it is remarkable that much of the public can see through their lies.

FDR had a plan, which was followed, of eight things which would lead to war with Japan. And the fact that patrols were not sent out north from hawaii and the more valuable aircraft carriers were sent out from Pearl....all those things suggest deliberation and foreknowledge.

But there are many many many other events which were undoubtedly conspiracies but which haven't been recognized as such, like the murder of Pennsylvania's three top Democrats in the 1980s by a rare disease that all three came down with and eventually died of.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 2611/29/2011

When you get outside of the United States and take a look at Europe and their response and feeling on 9/11 and some of the other issues, you will find a lot of people there are much more skeptical and suspicious than Americans.

Many Europeans believe the Bush administration was involved in 9/11

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 2711/29/2011

And the mega-conspiracies, like the fact that the Christian Right is not a grass roots organization at all but a political agenda and fake leaders imposed on the gullible believers by illegally diverted tax money from the Pentagon and CIA, you will only find identified right now on datalounge.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 2811/29/2011

And systematic electronic vote stealing you will find elsewhere, but still nobody listens.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 2911/29/2011

Here are recent covers of Time Magazine, one cover is for domestic consumption that we get to buy and the same issue with a different cover for people in other countries.

People abroad are often mystified at attitudes about current events and politics in the United States until they travel here for the first time and see how our media are different from theirs. Then they understand.

Everyone in the world knows that the United States supported that brutal dictator Mubarak in Egypt for decades, that the United States put forward some of his henchmen, one was the CIA torturer in chief, as candidates to run the country after the people ran Mubarak out, and that the people are fed up with both the old regime and the United States.

You think the media here let us know that?

Everybody in the rest of the world knew that the United States under Reagan was conducting a war against Nicaragua and mining its harbors. It was no secret. It was only a secret if you lived in the United States.

The rest of the world knew that U.S. educated and trained forces killed 200,000 Indians and peasants in Guatemala. But we didn't know about it until Clinton apologized, as though an apology accomplishes something.

We didn't know things like this because that is not what our media wants us to experience. Letting us know what our rulers are up to won't sell advertising or subscriptions, and it won't help the rich keep control.

Major media shape public opinion. They don't have a function to provide facts and have not had that function for many years. Instead they manipulate what information we get in the selection of stories to run, in cherry-picking facts and twisting facts, and in dressing up their faux version of current events through marketing techniques.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 3011/29/2011

Link to the article on Time Magazine covers for the domestic market and the international market, showing media manipulation of information in the United States.

That other link is bad, apparently.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 3211/29/2011

[quote]Documents released under the Clinton administration prove FDR and his cabinet knew the Japanese were planning an attack on Pearl Harbor, but they allowed it to happen so the populace of the US could be goaded into entering WW2. 99% of people will call you crazy if you point this fact out.

You can't just make things up and call them facts. That's why 99% of people will call you crazy.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 3311/29/2011

Now, though, according to Robert Stinnett, author of Simon & Schuster’s Day Of Deceit, we have the proof. Stinnett’s book is dedicated to Congressman John Moss, the author of America’s Freedom of Information Act. According to Stinnett, the answers to the mysteries of Pearl Harbor can be found in the extraordinary number of documents he was able to attain through Freedom of Information Act requests. Cable after cable of decryptions, scores of military messages that America was intercepting, clearly showed that Japanese ships were preparing for war and heading straight for Hawaii. Stinnett, an author, journalist, and World War II veteran, spent sixteen years delving into the National Archives. He poured over more than 200,000 documents, and conducted dozens of interviews. This meticulous research led Stinnet to a firmly held conclusion: FDR knew.

“Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars,” was Roosevelt’s famous campaign statement of 1940. He wasn’t being ingenuous. FDR’s military and State Department leaders were agreeing that a victorious Nazi Germany would threaten the national security of the United States. In White House meetings the strong feeling was that America needed a call to action. This is not what the public wanted, though. Eighty to ninety percent of the American people wanted nothing to do with Europe’s war. So, according to Stinnett, Roosevelt provoked Japan to attack us, let it happen at Pearl Harbor, and thus galvanized the country to war. Many who came into contact with Roosevelt during that time hinted that FDR wasn’t being forthright about his intentions in Europe. After the attack, on the Sunday evening of December 7, 1941, Roosevelt had a brief meeting in the White House with Edward R. Murrow, the famed journalist, and William Donovan, the founder of the Office of Strategic Services. Later Donovan told an assistant that he believed FDR welcomed the attack and didn’t seem surprised. The only thing Roosevelt seemed to care about, Donovan felt, was if the public would now support a declaration of war. According to Day Of Deceit, in October 1940 FDR adopted a specific strategy to incite Japan to commit an overt act of war. Part of the strategy was to move America’s Pacific fleet out of California and anchor it in Pearl Harbor. Admiral James Richardson, the commander of the Pacific fleet, strongly opposed keeping the ships in harm’s way in Hawaii. He expressed this to Roosevelt, and so the President relieved him of his command. Later Richardson quoted Roosevelt as saying: “Sooner or later the Japanese will commit an overt act against the United States and the nation will be willing to enter the war.”

To those who believe that government conspiracies can’t possibly happen, Day Of Deceit could prove to them otherwise. Stinnett’s well-documented book makes a convincing case that the highest officials of the government—including the highest official—fooled and deceived millions of Americans about one of the most important days in the history of the country. It now has to be considered one of the most definitive—if not the definitive—book on the subject. Gore Vidal has said, “...Robert Stinnet has come up with most of the smoking guns. Day Of Deceit shows that the famous ‘surprise’ attack was no surprise to our war-minded rulers...” And John Toland, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of the Pearl Harbor book, Infamy, said, “Step by step, Stinnett goes through the prelude to war, using new documents to reveal the terrible secrets that have never been disclosed to the public. It is disturbing that eleven presidents, including those I admired, kept the truth from the public until Stinnett’s Freedom of Information Act requests finally persuaded the Navy to release the evidence.”

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 3411/29/2011

The lack of serious Occupy Wall Street coverage by the New York Times and WNYC is proof enough of the OP's claim. I always enjoy reading NPR's ombudsman trying to wriggle his way out of this conflict:

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 3511/29/2011

-- Wadah Khanfar resigns as head of Al Jazeera after Wikileaks reveals that he was in constant contact with U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency -- he surpressed news articles to at the behest of the U.S. intelligence community. See link.

No one is immune.

Most of us here have been noting Al Jazeera's position as a media source for information we cannot get from our corporate outlets.

Then we find out this.

The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency was in constant contact with the editor of Al Jazeera, Wadah Khanfar and had a say in Al Jazeera's coverage, especially of the Iraq War.

When the Wikileaks came out with the information, Wadah Khanfar promptly resigned. He said there was no connection between his resignation and the Wikileaks information.

Khanfar admits that Arab countries don't want to be the next to face popular uprisings. These other countries think Al Jazeera can teach people how to revolt and want Al Jazeera to tone down its coverage.

The United States also can't do what it wants to establish a compliant dictator in Egypt to replace Mubarak, to control Iraqi oil, or to crush Occupy Wall Street if it has to deal with media that print whatever news they want.

Can't have that.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 3611/29/2011

[quote] No one is immune.

[quote]Most of us here have been noting Al Jazeera's position as a media source for information we cannot get from our corporate outlets.

Now this? You should have already noted that Al Jazeera was a tool of the Qatari government and that its coverage reflected the alliances of its ruler.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 3711/29/2011

R31, I used to think The New York Times was trustworthy until I read a report (I think it was by Carl Bernstein of The Washington Post) that revealed the CIA has many people planted at the NYT.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 3811/29/2011

R37:

Yes, that connection is worrisome, obviously.

For a long time we have taken hope in the independent media, meaning the internet, to keep reports coming in from unbiased sources, but the internet kill switch is always a possibility.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 3911/29/2011

[quote] Later Donovan told an assistant that he believed FDR welcomed the attack and didn’t seem surprised.

That's your idea of a "fact" proving that FDR (and his cabinet) knew about Pearl Harbor in advance?

You prove my point

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 4011/29/2011

Let's get away from the FDR/Pearl Harbor debate and get back on track.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 4111/29/2011

R38:

The last independent blow against this regime from the New York Times was the Pentagon Papers in 1971. After that, they have followed the prevailing line.

No doubt the C.I.A. has people on staff at the New York Times here and abroad. Aren't all foreign correspondents spies until proven otherwise? Wasn't "Foreign Correspondent" a Hitchcock movie?

I am serious. If you want sources in a foreign hotspot, you have to hondle for information and that means reaching an accommodation with the intelligence forces at home and in the country where you are working.

If you are looking for mitigation for Kanfar, that's where it is. If Al Jazeera wants a presence in Iraq where the U.S. armed forces are the law, then Al Jazeera has to go along to get along to a certain extent.

As to the C.I.A. at The New York Times. Starting with the Bay of Pigs and Kennedy's threat to disband the C.I.A., the agency has recruited agents on deep cover and seeded them everywhere.

There are certainly agents who cooperate with the C.I.A. while they pursue journalism. There are agents on campus, watching for dissent and also recruiting from the student body.

There are agents recruited in college and put into long-term service working up the political ladder so they can become staff members at the White House, Congress, etc.

That expansion of operations came about after the Bay of Pigs when the C.I.A. decided it had to protect its own existence against the possibility of a president who would turn traitor, meaning try to get rid of the C.I.A.

One reason the White House hates leeks is that it keeps them from going about business but it also points out the fact that there are plenty of staff members all over Washington who have dual allegiances, often to the C.I.A.

That's one reason presidents have a lot less power than we think they do. They are being watched.

Look at it this way also. Look at the history of the people who became movers and shakers at the C.I.A., the F.B.I., and all those other secret agencies. How many came from Wall Street, the Ivies, banking backgrounds, or political connections going back generations?

Get a number and then compare that to how many people headed up those agencies who got their start as union organizers, peace advocates, and civil rights leaders.

That's not a conspiracy. It's just the system protecting itself by keeping its enforcement organizations in safe hands following policies that it finds profitable in more than one meaning of the word.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 4211/29/2011

R42, you make some good points. The reason many people believe in what is called 'conspiracy theory' has more to do with common sense, fact, reality, history and the nature of politics and human nature.

Powerful organizations are ruthless, corrupt and evil and will do anything to protect themselves. That is beyond dispute, and yet people try to dispute it. It's not 'conspiracy' so much as it is age-old realities of corruption and evil and institutional power. They try to put down people as 'conspiracy' nuts whereas most of us are just simply students of history who can read and see.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 4311/29/2011

No wonder out country can't admit that it is not a democracy...maybe it never was? One thing for sure. We are completely run by our military industrial complex and they do not care about individual rights. Any of us could be arrested at any time and never be allowed a trial by a jury of our peers. Our democracy is simply a fantasy that our media propagates.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 4411/29/2011

"We are completely run by our military industrial complex"

Exactly. And do you notice how this speech, despite being given by a major President of the United States, is rarely shown by the mainstream media or talked about?

It was given by the last good Republican President we had.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 4511/29/2011

R43:

Yes, exactly. That's what I was getting at.

Friend of mine poo-pooed the idea that the crackdown on OWS was organized at the highest levels in this country, that the security agencies and the White House were on board with what happened, the president was out of the country, and the assaults followed similar patterns over a short time frame. Seemed obvious to me.

He wanted evidence. Without evidence nothing like that took place, he claimed.

He is working from a conspiracy mindset, and if that is the blueprint you have in your head for what happens, then you want meetings, and minutes of the meetings, cabals, under-the-table payoffs, informants, secret passwords, invisible ink, etc.

The truth is both more mundane and more threatening.

Political leaders in this country know mass demonstrations in the streets can be very dangerous to the established order -- it's happening all over the world at this very moment. Hell, it's been obvious to the established order since, when, 1789? Even earlier than that.

There are ways to deal with crowd control, most of the techniques and weapons have been developed right here in the good ole U.S. of A.

Ask the activists in Cairo and Tunis where the gas canisters are made that are killing demonstrators as you are reading this -- Jamestown, PA.

Neo-liberal think tanks and military strategists have worked out contingency plans to deal with domestic unrest, the U.S. mastered that art in Central America over the last two centuries.

To set repression in motion is not a question of secret plots of evil-doers twirling their moustaches in the shadows.

It's a question of mayors, their aides, their police, and national security forces reaching a consensus and carrying out policy already established.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 4611/29/2011

Since 2011 the government has set up two dozen cyberwar authorities, with tens of thousands of people involved. Everything you read on the internet it already being filtered through a gigantic disinformation campaign bigger than any propaganda effort in world history. And if they don't like what you say, they just SPIKE your computer. I have friends on PC's who have never had a virus bomb or unexplained freeze and shut down in 7-10 years, whereas I get them every month or so, sometimes several times a day. And when I start to use their computer, I still get them.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 4711/29/2011

[quote]And if they don't like what you say, they just SPIKE your computer. I have friends on PC's who have never had a virus bomb or unexplained freeze and shut down in 7-10 years, whereas I get them every month or so, sometimes several times a day.

Have you tried wrapping your computer in tin foil?

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 4811/29/2011

R48 in today's world you can no longer tell paranoia by the view that the government is watching and interfering with them. The government is watching and interfering with ALL of us all the time!

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 4911/29/2011

Umm, hmmm, R49. And how does that make you feel?

[puffing on pipe, taking notes]

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 5011/29/2011

Is this Ron Paul person contractually obligated to appear in every Internet thread that ever appears in the known universe?

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 5111/29/2011

It doesn't make me feel anything. I can't "give up" just because some ananoymous 20 something retard prick in a secret suburban office park in Maryland is being paid to contest my opinions or harrass me.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 5211/29/2011

Have you often felt "nothing" in response to threats?

[staring at pre-columbian pottery on shelf, glancing at clock discreetly]

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 5311/29/2011

Yes, usually. I am an adult. Adults have enemies. it is the nature of things.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 5411/29/2011

Tell me about these enemies.

[counting the seconds until minute 45]

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 5511/29/2011

You aren't accomplishing anything R55.

People know they are no longer safe and that the cause is uncontrolled government spying. If you want to look for clinical paranoia, you are going to have to devise a new test.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 5611/29/2011

R55 and R56:

This back and forth is a good example of why activists on the left stay away from conspiracy discussions.

You can spend time trying to chase down conspiracies or you can spend the same time, energy, and money building organizations to fight back.

Yes, once in a while you will come across hard evidence that powerful people did ugly things in conjunction with other powerful people to get things worked out to benefit themselves, and they did it in secret.

As an example, everyone knows that extremely rich capitalists, Bush and Koch families come to mind, made fortunes cooperating with the Nazis.

What have you gained when you expose this? Does it help recruit? Does it make this or that organization within the 99 percent stronger? Does it increase the wealth, the health, or the combative power of working people? As compared to other things you could be doing, that is?

Does knowing where the Koch money came from originally help build support for unions in Wisconsin?

To a very small degree, perhaps, but putting that energy into building a general strike is a much better use of resources.

We don't have money and time like the other side has. We have to ration our resources, and chasing conspiracy theories is usually a waste of time.

When you bring some secret activity forward, what it does is give the other side a chance to control the discussion:

"Where is your evidence?"

"That evidence is bad."

"You are a conspiracy nut."

"How about this conspiracy over here -- the one with working people in on it? How about that, huh?"

No matter how you slice it, if you stand in opposition to the established regime, the concept of conspiracy gets used to muddy the waters against the forces of liberation.

As one person put it, there is no credible evidence that the Bush administration orchestrated 9/11, but it would be no surprise at all if they encouraged conspiracy theories.

Why would the power players encourage conspiracy talk about 9/11 or anything else?

Because it plays into their hands -- it is better for the rest of us to go around chasing shadows than to fight all the stuff that came out of 9/11: the loss of civil liberties, the was in Iraq, Guantanamo, water-boarding, and on and on.

There is an old expression, "Keep your eye on the solution, not on the problem." Conspiracies are part of the problem, but what we need to look at is the solution.

Here is the problem, and it is larger than conspiracies.

When very rich powerful people make the decisions for our society, and they make those decisions to favor them and their friends in perpetuity, very bad things happen to the rest of us.

One of the techniques they use is conspiracies. That should be obvious.

The question is not to point out the conspiracies when they use them, and not to stop them from using conspiracies, or to entertain daydreams about putting different rich people in office who will not use conspiracies as often or ever, but to get power out of their hands and into ours.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 5712/01/2011

The Dems use "Conspiracy Theory" the Repugs use "Political Correct" Both terms are used to brainwash people and control the sheep otherwise known as the American people.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 5812/01/2011

There is highly credible evidence, namely the stand-down of the air force. That can't be "explained away" without admitting that all the trillions spent on the air force has been stolen. You say don't bother exposing crimes, just organize workers, but workers' issues are subject to the same distortions of mentality that make people dismiss obvious conspiracies that are right in front of their faces. You can't fight the propaganda state by narrowing your focus. Part of its power is that the wide net it casts (what in high school we used to call a "spread" of lies that a team would do when they didn't have any substantive arguments) is mutually sustaining, which is why conservatives START all their arguments with lies about history and tradition.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 5912/01/2011

You don't have to resort to conspiracy theory to understand that the ruling regime manipulates the facts we are allowed to see for their own ends.

That's not an Air Force conspiracy, that's Fox News.

To change this system, you need a mass movement. To build a mass movement you need a common vision of what the problems are, what the solutions might be, and what strategies to use to get from here to there.

To keep everybody on the same page and to bring in as much effort and skill from as many supporters as possible, the tactics, the tasks, and the objectives have to be based in common sense and verifiable within everyone's daily experience.

When you bring in conspiracy theory, you are doing just the opposite. You are bringing in people who want the movement to recognize their individual insight as having special value.

They above all others have seen into deep secrets. They have it figured out based on inside knowledge and specialized research not generally available to the public.

So then what? You get this faction thinking that the mob killed JFK, another faction thinking it was LBJ, and a third saying it was the C.I.A., a fourth saying it had to be Bush, and nothing gets done.

Which is exactly what the regime wants -- each of us running around with our hair on fire saying, "Look at me! I know what really happened on the Mary Celeste, at Pearl Harbor, in Dallas, on 9/11, or whenever! Every other person is ignorant or complicit!"

That's divisive not unifying.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 6012/01/2011

Complete and utter bullshit R60, done in the name of lies. It is the evidence which suggests the conspiracies. The multiplicity of suspects is due to the nature of the victim in the case of JFK, namely the POTUS has legions of enemies and some mobsters liked to claim credit for it. There is very little multiplicity in the case of 9.11 since the possible players (USG, Israel) is very small. Nor is there any great conflict between supporters of different theories, nor do their hobby horses prevent organizing around different issues, nor are there hundreds of people who think they will get rich or famous by finding the one true cause. All you are doing is trying to launch a vitriol of personal hate towards conspiracy theorists and that accomplishes nothing. Not everyone in the world is a great organizer of revolutionary movements. And in today's world, provocateurs, saboteurs, and polices spies are part of EVERY organization, meaning that it is more important to change the mind of the unorganized public than it is to create a group that is going to be shot down anyway. It is changing the public mind, and particularly those of the police and army, which ultimately will sabotage government efforts to prevent revolution.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 6112/01/2011

And in changing the public mind, every argument that finds a niche is useful.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 6212/01/2011

"People don't mention it anymore, but remember when Obama asked people to report disloyal talk to the WH?"

Proof that this a thread for freepers with low IQs!

"That's why people like Ron Paul are hated by the media and so many lies are spread about him. They threaten to expose TPTB, and they hate it!"

No, Ron Paul represents "TPTB" with his homophobic ways! He is trying to stop gay marriage because he despises gay people like you. Ron Paul is a joke, the only people who like him are uneducated redneck guys who hate gays and think that only straight people are entitled to "freedom"

Whining about evil government is for uneducated freeper rednecks. You all sound like a bunch of Timothy McVeigh wannabes.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 6312/01/2011

It is most definitely a conspiracy when we have spent trillions of dollars building an air force that doesn't exist.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 6412/01/2011

R63, you're part of the problem. You parrot bullshit about Ron Paul (he's a racist homophobe who wants to throw granny out on the street) without knowing what you're talking about.

I would say that Paul is the least homophobic of all the people running for prez- including Obama!

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 6512/01/2011

Timothy McVeigh gave us the first form of the PATRIOT Act back in 1995. Elohim City, where he stayed briefly, was crawling with government agents, even German agents.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 6612/01/2011

As the US Empire crumbles, and the lower and middle classes suffer due to Federal Reserve inflation, corporate control of govt, illegal wars and massive debt then you will wish Ron Paul had been elected in 2008.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 6712/05/2011

So, people that say that the NDAA is just for "bad" people should read this link.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 6808/21/2012

R68

The sheeple here will defend anything the government does as long as a democrat does it.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 6909/02/2012

[quote]Since 2011 the government has set up two dozen cyberwar authorities, with tens of thousands of people involved. Everything you read on the internet it already being filtered through a gigantic disinformation campaign bigger than any propaganda effort in world history. And if they don't like what you say, they just SPIKE your computer. I have friends on PC's who have never had a virus bomb or unexplained freeze and shut down in 7-10 years, whereas I get them every month or so, sometimes several times a day. And when I start to use their computer, I still get them.

You know, there are drugs that can help you. There is something wrong with the chemistry of your brain if you truly believe something like this. I'm not trying to be insulting, I just wish you would get some help.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 7009/02/2012

R70

I don't know if you've noticed, but the government now has the power to kill you without any due process. Taking over a computer is just small potatoes.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 7109/02/2012

I do believe in the possibility of conspiracy, although I'm not a tin hat NWO extremist just looking for the next Illuminati link.

I do find it interesting, though, that Americans seem to have an oddly discrete view of history.

The actions of their government--assassinating or deposing foreign leaders, infiltrating media, etc. that happened from Iran-Contra back to the Second World War are all subjects of scholarly research now. Books by legitimate historians take these things as fact, even as they argue over motivation, detail, etc.

Yet, if you mention the same things happening today you're labeled crazy.

If you would have shown people a newsreel in 1954, then asked the average person on the street, or even on campus, if they thought the CIA was involved in deposing Jacopo Arbenz at the behest of a American produce company, you would been thought mad.

Now, that is accepted history.

With the same interests, many times the same families, still in powerful positions in America, why is it so hard to believe that TPTB continue to do things to maintain their status?

As I said, I'm not a tin hat-I'm not a truther for example. I've read a couple of excellent engineering writers who explained the technical aspects of 9/11 without the need for a conspiracy.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 7209/02/2012

Could you sum up the excellent engineering writing explaining the technical aspects of 9/11 in your own words, R72?

You must have a pretty firm grasp of them if they were good enough to convince you.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 7309/02/2012

America has gone to war under false pretenses countless times.

1812.

1848.

1898.

1917.

1964.

1970.

Think of all the interventions in Mexico, in the Dominican Republic, in Haiti over the years.

Think of the dozens of trumped up wars against Native Americans.

How can ANYONE consider the U.S. system of government as uniquely virtuous?

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 7409/03/2012

R74, cognitive dissonance- be it in the form of Republicans who believe that the GOPigs will cut spending/taxes and regulations, or Democrats who believe that the Asses will protect civil liberties and end overseas wars- is endemic to "partisan politics" and the reason it will never work...and will eventually destroy millions of lives.

Lenin didn't have the US media.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 7509/07/2012

.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 7609/26/2012

I do wish the Libertarian idiot would stop bummping these threads.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 7709/26/2012

R77, if people would quit calling anything that they disagree with "conspiracy" (despite their lack of knowledge on the subject) then you would be right to dismiss this thread.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 7812/14/2012

[quote]I do wish the Libertarian idiot would stop bummping these threads.

Just do what most of us do: read them for their entertainment value. He doesn't have the foggiest idea what he's talking about, of course, but he's hilarious when challenged on the drivel he posts here. There definitely isn't any point in taking him seriously.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 7912/14/2012

I just don't understand what he's doing here. Libertarians hate gay people. Not only that, they hate most people.

I can't take them seriously when they are talking about policies affecting American citizens. They have no real frame of reference outside of their bizarro little people-hating world.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 8012/14/2012

R80

Your ignorance is amazing. Libertarians love people, much more than Rethugs or Demoncrats. We just don't want to kill them, or put them in jail, or harass them to show our love...unlike your masters.

Step off the plantation, slave. Once you taste freedom, you will hate your masters.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 8112/14/2012

[quote]Step off the plantation, slave. Once you taste freedom, you will hate your masters.

Man, I love this nutcase.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 8212/14/2012

[quote]I don't know if you've noticed, but the government now has the power to kill you without any due process. Taking over a computer is just small potatoes.

Uh-huh.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 8312/15/2012

[quote]I don't know if you've noticed, but the government now has the power to kill you without any due process. Taking over a computer is just small potatoes.

I'm surprised someone who actually believes something like this wouldn't clear her cookies more often.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 8412/15/2012

It's a fact R84, not a matter of "belief."

Actually they don't need access to your computer. Or your house. They can sit outside and kill you with sound waves.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 8512/15/2012

"The passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) through the Senate last Thursday saw the culmination of a ten-year crusade by Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) to make the law of war apply on US soil," says Amnesty International in its statement.

Amnesty says that Senator Graham’s avowed military detention of "affiliated terrorists" captured on US soil "is not the only arrow in the military quiver."

"If the war on terror is being fought on US soil the military would also now have the authority to do what it does best – engage the enemy with kinetic force. In other words, for those of you who don’t like euphemisms, to kill people."

Amnesty points out: "As if on cue, CIA general counsel Stephen Preston and Pentagon general counsel Jeh Johnson" confirmed last week that US citizens do not have immunity they are "at war with the United States."

CodePink issued a statement Thursday about NDAA FY 2012 stating, "The 2012 NDAA effectively leaves the door wide open for human rights abuses so egregious that if they were to take place almost anywhere else in the world (Iran, for instance, or North Korea—or Afghanistan and Iraq for that matter), Congress would, at the very least, pretend to express outrage.

"Within the United States, however, passing legislation that has the potential to turn a democracy into a police state of Orwellian proportions is presented not only as acceptable, but necessary, all in the name of 'national security.'

NDAA 2012 codifies President George W. Bush's declaration boasted for the world to hear shortly after the mass murder on September 11, 2001, "You are either with us, or you're with the terrorists," an oxymoron considering the former president is a wanted man for criminal activities including torture.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 8612/15/2012

r83, as you can see, the NDAA allows for the murder of US citizens, on US soil, if they piss off the government.

Is that something you want? Or is it just that since a democrat passed it you are too much of a pussy to stand up to it?

Here is Glenn Greenwald, a hardcore liberal, on the NDAA.

----

Condemnation of President Obama is intense, and growing, as a result of his announced intent to sign into law the indefinite detention bill embedded in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). These denunciations come not only from the nation’s leading civil liberties and human rights groups, but also from the pro-Obama New York Times Editorial Page, which today has a scathing Editorial describing Obama’s stance as “a complete political cave-in, one that reinforces the impression of a fumbling presidency” and lamenting that “the bill has so many other objectionable aspects that we can’t go into them all,” as well as from vocal Obama supporters such as Andrew Sullivan, who wrote yesterday that this episode is “another sign that his campaign pledge to be vigilant about civil liberties in the war on terror was a lie.” In damage control mode, White-House-allied groups are now trying to ride to the rescue with attacks on the ACLU and dismissive belittling of the bill’s dangers.

For that reason, it is very worthwhile to briefly examine — and debunk — the three principal myths being spread by supporters of this bill, and to do so very simply: by citing the relevant provisions of the bill, as well as the relevant passages of the original 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), so that everyone can judge for themselves what this bill actually includes (this is all above and beyond the evidence I assembled in writing about this bill yesterday):

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 8712/15/2012

[quote]They can sit outside and kill you with sound waves.

Assuming you're not a troll, you really don't believe that.

[quote]as you can see, the NDAA allows for the murder of US citizens, on US soil, if they piss off the government.

No, it doesn't. You don't understand how the government works. You don't understand how reality works.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 8812/15/2012

R88-

The NDAA says, in clear language, that the US can kill ANYONE if they are suspected- not convicted, just suspected- of being a terrorist.

Why must you constantly apologize for your corrupt and evil government? Is it because a black man sits on the throne? Or just because he is a democrat?

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 8912/20/2012

[quote]The NDAA says, in clear language, that the US can kill ANYONE if they are suspected- not convicted, just suspected- of being a terrorist.

Link? From a credible source?

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 9012/20/2012

It's true R90.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 9112/21/2012

If you study the propaganda machines of governments during past wars you'll be able to spot propaganda today.

Favorites are those government studies being fed to us during the evening news. The preventing cancer ones can always be linked to a suffering industry like fishing or farming. Remember the fish oil fad? What about green leafy vegetables? See correlating crises right around the time those studies were released. Years later we learn of conflicting reports when the study was recreated by a non government agency, usually a university. Different conclusion but it comes years later when the government already achieved their goal with gullible consumers. Never trust a government study.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 9212/21/2012

It's always been this way OP. Propaganda is not just something the Soviets and right-wing dictators use. FOX "news"and MSNBC are perfect examples!

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 9312/21/2012

When I saw the 9/11 attacks live, I asked a simple question:

"Don't we have F-15s?"

Allowing 9/11, Pearl Harbor, or even the Boston Massacre is far from tinfoil-hat territory.

As for the internet, it has been so censored and corrupted that the public no longer understands, let alone could figure out how to solve, its ignorance. The internet was lost when the public refused to stand up to censorship by refusing to buy stuff advertised on websites which practice it. You go on a message board discussing restaurants, for example, you see someone get banned, are told they are a "troll," forget they exist, don't realize they were censored because their restaurant competes with one of the sponsors of the board, then scream bloody murder when you learn you could have gotten twice as good a meal at half the price there. Same thing with music and books: the internet allows anyone to publish and produce, yet even now the public wants to see contracts with major media companies as proof one's work is good.

If people refuse to think for themselves, no amount of activism will solve this problem.

On the bright side, people like us (those against this behavior) are quite the thron in the side of the rich and powerful. We counterbalance their existence a great deal, which raises the question of whether or not the two sides of this debate are merely entertainment pawns for the gods.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 9412/21/2012

Oh and I've always thought NIXON killed JFK, MLK, RFK, Malcolm X, and Jimmy Hoffa.

Look at the timeline: major figures, all enemies of Nixon's, all wiped out at the height of his power, and then, after 1975, nothing.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 9512/21/2012

A closer look at Nixon and Viet Nam, all the way up to Iran-Contra and Clinton. The reason the Democrats didn't pursue it is because their hands were just as dirty.

-----------

Party! June 17 marks the 40th anniversary of the biggest scandal in presidential history.

But did you ever wonder why Richard Nixon was forced from office if he had absolutely nothing to do with the precipitating event—the burglary of the Democratic National Committee offices in the Watergate office complex? The real story of the removal of an American president has been told in several important books…and yet most people have never heard it.

Here’s your chance. Because of the anniversary, we are reposting the first of our three-part excerpt, which ran in May. You click at the bottom to go on to Part 2.

Those who have already read it might consider sharing with friends. After all, it’s better to get the truth 40 years later, than never.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 9612/22/2012

George Victor, an admirer of FDR, says this-

----

He has a very nice book out called The Pearl Harbor Myth, which I believe is completely honest and well done in its documentation. I'm going to read a long excerpt from that book by George Victor:

"Roosevelt had already lead the United States into war with Germany in the spring of 1941; into a shooting war on a small scale. From then on, he gradually increased U.S. military participation. Japan's attack on December 7th enabled him to increase it further and to obtain a war declaration.

Pearl Harbor is more fully accounted for as the end of a long chain of events, with the U.S. contribution reflecting a strategy formulated after France fell in the spring of 1941. In the eyes of Roosevelt and his advisors, the measures taken early in 1941 justified a German declaration of war on the United States; a declaration that did not come, to their disappointment.

Roosevelt told his Ambassador to France, William Bullet, that U.S. entry into war with Germany was certain, but must wait for an incident, which he was confident the Germans would give us. Establishing a record in which the enemy fired the first shot was a theme that ran through Roosevelt's tactics.

He seems, eventually to have concluded, correctly as it turned out, that Japan would be easier to provoke into a major attack on the United States than Germany would be.

The claim that Japan attacked the United States without provocation was typical rhetoric. It worked because the public did not know that the administration had expected Japan to respond with war; to anti-Japanese measures it had taken in July 1941. Expecting to lose a war with the United States, and lose it disastrously, Japan's leaders had tried with growing desperation to negotiate. On this point, most historians had long agreed.

Meanwhile evidence has come out that Roosevelt and Hull persistently refused to negotiate. Japan offered compromises and concessions, which the United States countered with increasing demands. It was after learning of Japan's decision to go to war with the United States, if the talks "break down" that Roosevelt decided to break them off.

According to Attorney General, Francis Biddle, Roosevelt said he hoped for an incident in the Pacific to bring the United States into the European war."

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 9712/22/2012

This thread stinks of deluded eldergays.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 9812/24/2012

FDR pursued a policy he thought would force Japan into war starting in 1938. As far as Europe goes, we were already at war throughout 1941, having taken responsibilities for convoys in the western half of the ocean and establishing military control of Greenland after Denmark fell to the Nazis. FDR was able to keep that out of the news. Tactically, the decision not to watch the northern approaches to Hawaii was a bit of a give away, although one could argue that they were relying on radar. In any event, they moved the aircraft carriers out of Pearl, which means they expected something.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 9912/24/2012

[quote]This thread stinks of deluded eldergays.

Nah, just a nutty conspiracy freak who doesn't know the difference between reality and fantasy.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 10012/24/2012

No, this thread is filled with numerous "nutty conspiracy freaks" who are too smart to buy the bullshit that the media (owned and controlled by the biggest corporations in the world, with a vested interest in telling only the "PC" side of the story...victors write the history books and all that) and now, due to the Internet and the numerous pieces of factual information suppressed by TPTB have finally started to expose their criminal mendacity.

It is so fitting that Newsweek, which has been an adjunct of the CIA since inception, is finally dying a well-deserved death.

When you wake up and realize that the government lies 99% of the time (and even a moron who causally peruses the facts that are easily available would come to that conclusion) then why don't you come back.

It takes a helluvalotta (mis)education to believe the bullshit they spin, so I'm assuming R100 has multiple PhDs.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 10112/24/2012

[quote](and even a moron who causally peruses the facts that are easily available would come to that conclusion) then why don't you come back.

LOL.... See, there's your problem. You're not smart enough to know the difference between fantasy and reality, so you unquestioningly believe everything you read on those websites you peruse.

And then you come here and resurrect all of your old threads, eager to share all of those words of wisdom, and, because you're a moron and a nutcase, all of these efforts of yours here are doomed to failure and you're met with (richly deserved) mockery and derision. Sucks to be you.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 10212/24/2012

And yet, R102, you feel the need to post things that have no basis in fact.

What's so scary?

If you had the facts on your side, you would say so. A troll-dar reveals-

You defend the murder of innocent people via drones.

You defend the bailouts of big corporations and banks.

You defend the government claims that assassination of US citizens without trial is justified by the war on terror.

You defend the PATRIOT Act.

You defend the imprisonment and murder of "dissidents".

Why should we believe you?

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 10312/24/2012

[quote]And yet, [R102], you feel the need to post things that have no basis in fact.

ROFL.... Considering your track record, you have no room to talk.

[quote]What's so scary?

Nothing. What are you so terrified of?

[quote]If you had the facts on your side, you would say so.

Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about you.

[quote]You defend the murder of innocent people via drones.

Nope.

[quote]You defend the bailouts of big corporations and banks.

Yup, and for very good reasons, reasons which you have never been able to address, much less refute.

[quote]You defend the government claims that assassination of US citizens without trial is justified by the war on terror.

Nope.

[quote]You defend the PATRIOT Act.

Nope.

[quote]You defend the imprisonment and murder of "dissidents".

Nope.

[quote]Why should we believe you?

Well, mostly because I'm not the one making shit up and lying on this thread: you are.

Now what was that you were saying about posting things that had no basis in fact?

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 10412/24/2012

R104, a troll dar shows you are lying.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 10512/24/2012

ROFL.... If it did, R105, you'd have actually posted the quotes. You can't, because you're lying.

See, here's the thing, moron. Pointing out that you are, in fact, a moron, is not the same thing as supporting whatever bit of idiocy you're railing against.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 10612/24/2012

R106, you better be careful. The government can kill you with sound waves!

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 10712/24/2012

That's the scariest thing about people like the government loving quisling at R104-

They believe that the government will always obey the law, and will never use the powers they have stolen -like the NDAA, PATRIOT Act, etc.- against "good people" when history shows that governments ALWAYS end up killing dissidents, even if they support the government.

Think of the 100Million people killed by Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot (all of which had disarmed the civilian population and made guns illegal) to the people calling for gun control in the US.

Every citizen should have access to every type of weapon the government has- that will stop them from killing us when we don't obey. It's the same reason nuclear weapons should be banned.

If you don't think our government is out of control, you aren't paying attention. Look at Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya...all have been attacked for no reason by our rulers. If you don't think they will do the same here, you're a fool.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 10812/25/2012

Honey child, the government can microwave you to death from a van sitting outside your house. You think ordinary people should have this power?

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 10912/25/2012

Cuckoo cuckoo

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 11012/25/2012

That he is, R110.

[quote]That's the scariest thing about people like the government loving quisling at [R104]-

ROFL... Oh, this should be good. I can't wait to see what new shit he's making up about me.

[quote]They believe that the government will always obey the law, and will never use the powers they have stolen

Yup, like I said, making shit up and lying. He can't use my own words against me, since there's nothing wrong with anything I've written, so he has to make shit up and pretend I said it. It's so much easier to conduct an argument when you supply both sides!

[quote]Think of the 100Million people killed by Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot (all of which had disarmed the civilian population and made guns illegal) to the people calling for gun control in the US.

Yes, because those two situations are just so directly comparable... This is why I never waste any time taking this nutcase seriously.

[quote]Every citizen should have access to every type of weapon the government has- that will stop them from killing us when we don't obey.

Q.E.D. I'm so glad I don't live in his world.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 11112/25/2012

Stop bumping all of your own threads and go shoot yourself.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 11301/29/2013

[quote]Then they would turn to the libertarians (who report the facts) and the people in DC would lose their jobs.

LOL.... Dear heart, you wouldn't know a "fact" if it bit you in the ass. Get a clue, and a life.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 11401/29/2013

[quote]Stop bumping all of your own threads and go shoot yourself.

r113 runs a porn house that has just filed suit against California for limiting his freedom of speech because the law now forces male porn actors to wear condoms.

by Thanks to the poster in the CIA thread for sharing thisreply 11501/29/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.