patrick.net

Robert Sproul says

Do you acknowledge that one of the primary means of stifling ANY inquiry into alternative scenarios and coverups has become the dismissive, screeching, appellation "Conspiracy!"

I contend that in EVERY case, OK City, Boston, 911, prior knowledge and institutional ineptitude (and perhaps even nefarious plotting) were easily hidden by this means.

Err, Gary's the one who spends his time 'screeching conspiracies'. Shouldn't you be directing that comment at him? And the name isn't the issue. It's the complete and utter lack of facts that he brings to the table, the huge number of baseless assertions, that is the major problem with what he does.

Robert Sproul says

I am more interested in knowing what really happened (Cheney orchestrating WMD disinformation) that pointing and laughing at someone who thinks Cheney smuggled thermite into WTC in his girdle.

Fine, but the whole point is that the very avalanche of nut job conspiracy theories littering the internet directly distracts people from asking the more relevant questions. He is weakening the ability to effectively question what the government is doing by making every bloody thing out to be a giant orchestrated Zionist conspiracy. If too many people start going off the loony deep end, then they are forfeiting the right to be taken seriously and making it harder for those people with legitimate concerns.

Obamacare is NOT a myth.

lostand confused says

Elvis is alive-here is my proof.

Just when I think I've become desensitized to things on the interwebs someone posts a picture of camel-toe Elvis. Oh my eyes! My eyes! For the love of god make it stop!

Bigsby says

avalanche of nut job conspiracy theories littering the internet

When Cass Sunstien has his way and this is made illegal, will the "more relevant questions" then be answered?
I don't think so.
But I apologize. I am reflexively prattling on, quite in opposition to my new mantra of "ohm mani i-don't-give-a-fuck-about-any-of-it hum" and certainly not in the spirit of your thread.

One thing I am sure of though, is this:
"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers" -- Thomas Pynchon

Robert Sproul says

When Cass Sunstien has his way and this is made illegal, will the "more relevant questions" then be answered?

I don't think so.

I think the right of someone to accuse the parent of a murdered child of being an actor and a CIA agent without foundation shouldn't necessarily be completely free of consequences - some (plenty) of the stuff anonymously put up is clearly defamatory and those people could be taken to court. Baseless accusations like that in everyday life wouldn't go unanswered. It is the anonymity of the internet that has empowered individuals like Gary to say the things he does that he would never say face-to-face. I don't think restricting his sort of nonsense (I'm not in favour of that because of where it may potentially lead and that it simply isn't practical) will necessarily prevent the more relevant questions being asked. I think it may actually strengthen the hand of individuals because the true searching questions will require actual consideration of the facts rather than throwing up ridiculous photo comparisons or fact free Youtube videos and may consequently be taken more seriously. It's the loss of rigorous analysis that we are talking about here and the claims of authority that utterly unqualified people make. Every idiot behind a keyboard is now claiming to be an expert on events they have little to no actual knowledge of. Every idiotic piece of 'evidence' has suddenly morphed into 'definitive proof.' This isn't an effective way of making governments accountable.

Bigsby,
Well you succeeded in bringing all the crazies out.
It's always to have a home.

Robert Sproul says

All that these crooked fuck-sticks in Washington DO is "Conspire!" to delude us and manufacture our consent.

People are deluded by politicians because they want to be. Everyone wants something that someone else pays for. Any person offering sensible practticle solutions has zero chance of winning an election. No one has to manufacture "our" consent.

bob2356 says

No one has to manufacture "our" consent.

Oh, I think the Imperial War Machine is built entirely on lies and propaganda and manufactured consent. (30 overseas military incursions since WWII) Americans innately resist foreign-wars-for-corporate-profit unless there is a Great Melodrama, complete with a one dimensional Villain, presented to them.

The Bush and Obama administrations have "conspired" to create an elaborate legal rationale that gives them permission to kill or indefinitely detain YOU at their whim.
Shit…I guess I am a Conspiracy Nut Job

bob2356 says

Robert Sproul says

All that these crooked fuck-sticks in Washington DO is "Conspire!" to delude us and manufacture our consent.

People are deluded by politicians because they want to be. Everyone wants something that someone else pays for. Any person offering sensible practticle solutions has zero chance of winning an election. No one has to manufacture "our" consent.

Inciting a mob to riot or inciting a nation to violent conflict are essentially the same task. Tell a string of truth and lies that creates a narrative people will want to believe, either because they hope it's true, or because they're afraid it's true, or maybe just because it confirms natural suspicions about "the other."

Don't believe normal people can be incited to do awful acts of horrible violence?
Tell that to the Tutsis in Rwanda. The surviving ones, anyway. The massacre of millions began with persistent radio programming that encouraged violence between ethnic groups. The Hutus outnumbered their neighbors and struck first.

bgamall4 says

The solution is to boycott the banksters and force the government to raise wages, and force the corporations to raise wages or risk destruction of their businesses.

Forcing them to raise wages is exactly what will destroy businesses.
When is everyone gonna realize there is no free lunch.

Robert Sproul says

The Bush and Obama administrations have "conspired" to create an elaborate legal rationale that gives them permission to kill or indefinitely detain YOU at their whim.

Shit…I guess I am a Conspiracy Nut Job

Except there's an enormous difference between what you are talking about and arguing the sort of nonsense that Gary and a few others seem enthralled by. I believe there was a good deal of manipulation going on in the lead up to military action in Iraq and Afghanistan because there was and is nothing new, though it wasn't particularly necessary in the US from what I saw but was in the UK and other countries as there was a good deal of on the ground opposition to getting involved. That is not the same as saying that your own government planted the explosives in NYC and brought down the towers to start the war, or somehow carried out the world's largest hoax in Sandy Hook in front of the world's media for an end that doesn't appear to have even remotely been attempted let alone implemented.

bgamall4 says

This is what you don't understand Bigsby. The Taliban went to Texas in 1997. They were going to let Unocal or another company build a pipeline to Halliburton oil in the Caspian Sea. They then refused to do it and the Taliban became enemy number 1. Cheney wanted to go to war against the Taliban but could not without an excuse. He created the excuse to avoid being labeled a war criminal. That excuse was Al Qaida and the towers. PNAC said that they needed a new Pearl Harbor, Bigsby. That was code for a false flag.

If you can't see that you are seriously dense.

They're taking an awfully long time to build that pipeline... You can say X and you can say Y, but your Z conclusion is invariably just a bit of conspiratorial speculation without any hard evidence supporting it. And it's one thing talking about the taliban and Afghanistan as there has been an enormous amount of meddling in that country by foreign powers over the centuries, it's entirely another to post the utter drivel you favour about Sandy Hook/Boston/giant zionist whatever.

bgamall4 says

This is what you don't understand Bigsby. The Taliban went to Texas in 1997. They were going to let Unocal or another company build a pipeline to Halliburton oil in the Caspian Sea. They then refused to do it and the Taliban became enemy number 1. Cheney wanted to go to war against the Taliban but could not without an excuse. He created the excuse to avoid being labeled a war criminal. That excuse was Al Qaida and the towers. PNAC said that they needed a new Pearl Harbor, Bigsby. That was code for a false flag.

If you can't see that you are seriously dense.

So because they wanted to build a pipeline they had to - Create 911, invade 2 countries, Spend more then a $trillion, end up killing hundreds of thousands of people. All for a pipeline so we can have oil.
And if you can't see that, you are seriously dense.
Do you realize it's cheaper to just buy the oil in the open market?

bgamall4 says

Oil companies don't think in years. They think in decades. The pipeline is still an issue, and if you don't think Cheney is interested in middle east oil why don't you read up on Genie Energy?

Eh? The primary reason anyone has an interest in the Middle East is because of the oil. Do you think most countries would be anywhere near as interested in that region if it didn't?

bgamall4 says

The Taliban went to Texas in 1997 and it takes British media to tell us or we would not even know about it. Then the Taliban didn't build it and that gave Cheney motive for 9/11.

As the taliban came to power in 1996, I'm sure there was a great deal of behind the scenes contact going on. What is strange about that? It's an important geo-political region. And your final sentence is just pure speculation. Your claims about what happened on the day of 9/11 are simply without evidential support. As is what you say about Sandy Hook, Boston...

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

Eh? The primary reason anyone has an interest in the Middle East is because of the oil. Do you think most countries would be anywhere near as interested in that region if it didn't?

It breeds conspiracy, Einstein.

Certainly in your mind...

bgamall4 says

So, you are wanting us to believe that the New Pearl Harbor that the PNAC neocons said was needed just happened by accident? They just got lucky, Bigsby? Do you really believe that?

Tell us in your own words that they spoke about a need for a New Pearl Harbor and when it happened a year later they just got lucky. I can't wait to hear that come out of your lips.

You already know my answer to that, so why bother asking? I don't share the same views you peddle on this. And you are misquoting what PNAC said.

bgamall4 says

Liar, PNAC said that in order to enter the middle east with the PNAC plan, a new Pearl Harbor would speed up the process. And a year later they got what they wanted.

Why don't you put your tin foil hat on and say they were lucky. That is what you believe you cretin.

According to Wikipedia, your Pearl harbour comment is actually this: 'Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor."'
That you can then argue that they capitalized on what happened is entirely different to stating (without evidence) that they instigated it, organized the placing of magical silent explosives...

Robert Sproul says

Oh, I think the Imperial War Machine is built entirely on lies and propaganda and manufactured consent. (30 overseas military incursions since WWII) Americans innately resist foreign-wars-for-corporate-profit unless there is a Great Melodrama, complete with a one dimensional Villain, presented to them.

Bullshit, there is a big percentage of the population willing to go to war. Or at least for other peoples kids to go to war using borrowed money. The neocon chickenhawk crowd doesn't need any encouragement of any kind. Perhaps you don't remember but the few people who actually questioned the Iraq war (or any other war) were branded unpatriotic, unamerican, and disloyal by a pretty overwhelming majority.

Remember this Conspiracy Whack Job:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/9RC1Mepk_Sw
Anybody that pretends to know what they are up to, (why strive to completely destabilize the M.E.? It beats the hell out of me) or what they are capable of is fooling themselves. I don't presume to try.

bob2356 says

a pretty overwhelming majority.

Who were presented with, nay force-fed a:
Robert Sproul says

Great Melodrama, complete with a one dimensional Villain

lostand confused says

Elvis is alive-here is my proof.

That can't be Elvis. Elvis doesn't have a camel toe.

It's a "man-gina". Real men have massive, ponderous moose knuckles.

bgamall4 says

So, Bigsby, prove they got lucky with the New Pearl Harbor. Prove it.

What do you mean 'prove it'? You are saying they blew up the towers on 9/11. I'm saying they didn't. The evidence supports me, not you. Terrorists flying planes into the buildings brought the towers down, not pre-planted demolition charges. And I don't need to argue that 'they got lucky' with it because they didn't - their views were fucked up, their ideas about what would happen in the Middle East were fucked up, and once the US and allied forces invaded Iraq, the military finished the job of fucking up a country that was already very fucked. In the process thousands upon thousands of lives were needlessly lost and trillions of dollars completely wasted for absolutely nothing. There's nothing 'lucky' about that.

And you can keep pressing the dislike button as much as you like Gary, but you aren't offering anything at all except baseless assertions and the most extreme of conspiracy views.
Why not go to that website on Sandy Hook I put up before and actually read one of the articles this time before dismissing the whole site simply because it doesn't conform to your desired conspiracy slant. Chose any one of the articles that person wrote and explain why they are wrong. Don't resort to daft Youtube videos or stupid side-by-side photos. Use actual evidence to make your points rather than outlandish and unsupported assertions. It really shouldn't be that difficult for you to disprove what that person says about Sandy Hook if the weight of evidence actually supported your claims. I look forward to some thoroughly researched counters to the articles written on that site.

Bigsby says

Why not go to that website on Sandy Hook I put up before and actually read one of the articles this time

That has a great article on taking revenge in the courtroom against the human trash who propagate this stuff.

I hope some of the Sandy Hook people will extract monetary compensation from these slimes. I will gladly help them do so.