Why anti-conspiracy thinking is destroying America
Thalia
this forum are doing their country no favours. Denial amongst citizens
of wrongdoing by people in important positions, who act together,
either be joining in or looking the other way, whether it is in the
finance, intelligence or military sectors, is giving people in power
the go-ahead to behave as they please - which of course, is usually to
benefit themselves. They are rarely investigated because they might
put a spotlight on the elephant in the room - conspiracy!!!!!
Read this article by a long-time investigator of financial wrong-
doing, Jack Blum.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jack-blum/shadow-elite-are-they-res_b_423884.html
The best bit is this paragraph:
"Despite the desperate need for such an investigative approach,
throughout my career I have been constantly perplexed by the reception
to it. A frequent response by newspaper columnists and pundits was to
dub me a "conspiracy nut." Another common response was to call my
evidence "anecdotal," a word uttered with a dismissive sneer."
And then the world scratches its head when the GFC came along. There
are a LOT of people who are responsible for making corrupt decisions
that caused the GFC, but will anyone be held accountable? Nope. They
will get bonuses and huge salaries, and the cycle continues. (and this
will be Obama's fault of course!)
I love his "dismissive sneer" comment - bit of that going on around
here!
John Blubaugh
> This title may sound dramatic, but the anti-conspirators who inhabit
> this forum are doing their country no favours. Denial amongst citizens
> of wrongdoing by people in important positions, who act together,
> either be joining in or looking the other way, whether it is in the
> finance, intelligence or military sectors, is giving people in power
> the go-ahead to behave as they please - which of course, is usually to
> benefit themselves. They are rarely investigated because they might
> put a spotlight on the elephant in the room - conspiracy!!!!!
>
> Read this article by a long-time investigator of financial wrong-
> doing, Jack Blum.
>
>
> The best bit is this paragraph:
>
> "Despite the desperate need for such an investigative approach,
> throughout my career I have been constantly perplexed by the reception
> to it. A frequent response by newspaper columnists and pundits was to
> dub me a "conspiracy nut." Another common response was to call my
> evidence "anecdotal," a word uttered with a dismissive sneer."
>
> And then the world scratches its head when the GFC came along. There
> are a LOT of people who are responsible for making corrupt decisions
> that caused the GFC, but will anyone be held accountable? Nope. They
> will get bonuses and huge salaries, and the cycle continues. (and this
> will be Obama's fault of course!)
>
> I love his "dismissive sneer" comment - bit of that going on around
> here!
You are correct, of course, and this is why Americans are the most hated
people on the planet. Most people around the world think that we cause
most of what happens to us (terror attacks) by refusing to mind our own
business and by pillaging the planet's resources. But, the right wingers
here never intend to visit any other country or even leave their home
states for the most part. They are responsible for the scorn that is
heaped on the rest of us Americans. It is a very small group but very
vocal. I get a kick out of their denials about JFK. If the Warren Report
had concluded that LBJ was behind the assassination then they would all be
on that bandwagon. There credo is "My country right or wrong." They don't
really care which.
JB
Robert Harris
The word "conspiracy" or conspiracist has become a terrible misnomer. For
example, it's totally illogical to label anyone as a "9/11 conspiracist",
since pretty much everyone believes that attack was a conspiracy. The only
dispute is about who the conspirators were.
Likewise, we never apply that term to people who agree to conspiracies
that are generally accepted by the media - the holocaust, Watergate,
terrorism, etc.
What we really need is a new term, defining someone who hold beliefs,
conspiratorial or otherwise, outside of the mainstream. Ideally, this word
should be neutral and carry no derogatory connotation. That way, we are
free to add our own adjectives, like "brilliant" or "idiotic".
As things stand now, it is much too easy to demean an adversary by simply
labelling him a "conspiracist" or "CT". Of course, that is just a form of
bigotry, which comes from people who either cannot or will not go to the
trouble of actually proving that their adversaries are wrong.
ALL arguments, need to be judged on their merits.
Robert Harris
j leyden
The Huffington Post, eh. So that's where you got your uninformed,
distorted view of America, Thalia. I remember when Arianna Huffington was
running around appearing on TV and elsewhere as a spokesperson for
conservatism, it distressed me greatly. I thought, "I don't want this
woman speaking for me." So when she did as 180 degree turn, I was greatly
relieved. You need to round out your reading list, Thalia.
JGL
> This title may sound dramatic, but the anti-conspirators who inhabit
> this forum are doing their country no favours. Denial amongst citizens
> of wrongdoing by people in important positions, who act together,
> either be joining in or looking the other way, whether it is in the
> finance, intelligence or military sectors, is giving people in power
> the go-ahead to behave as they please - which of course, is usually to
> benefit themselves. They are rarely investigated because they might
> put a spotlight on the elephant in the room - conspiracy!!!!!
>
> Read this article by a long-time investigator of financial wrong-
> doing, Jack Blum.
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jack-blum/shadow-elite-are-they-res_b_4...
Anthony Marsh
> This title may sound dramatic, but the anti-conspirators who inhabit
> this forum are doing their country no favours. Denial amongst citizens
> of wrongdoing by people in important positions, who act together,
> either be joining in or looking the other way, whether it is in the
> finance, intelligence or military sectors, is giving people in power
> the go-ahead to behave as they please - which of course, is usually to
> benefit themselves. They are rarely investigated because they might
> put a spotlight on the elephant in the room - conspiracy!!!!!
>
Look at how many Germans denied that there were concentration camps even
when they lived right next to them. US Generals had to force the
townsfolk to visit the death camps and see for themselves what they had
been denying.
cdddraftsman
> This title may sound dramatic, but the anti-conspirators who inhabit
> this forum are doing their country no favours. Denial amongst citizens
> of wrongdoing by people in important positions, who act together,
> either be joining in or looking the other way, whether it is in the
> finance, intelligence or military sectors, is giving people in power
> the go-ahead to behave as they please - which of course, is usually to
> benefit themselves. They are rarely investigated because they might
> put a spotlight on the elephant in the room - conspiracy!!!!!
>
> Read this article by a long-time investigator of financial wrong-
> doing, Jack Blum.
>
>
> The best bit is this paragraph:
>
> "Despite the desperate need for such an investigative approach,
> throughout my career I have been constantly perplexed by the reception
> to it. A frequent response by newspaper columnists and pundits was to
> dub me a "conspiracy nut." Another common response was to call my
> evidence "anecdotal," a word uttered with a dismissive sneer."
>
> And then the world scratches its head when the GFC came along. There
> are a LOT of people who are responsible for making corrupt decisions
> that caused the GFC, but will anyone be held accountable? Nope. They
> will get bonuses and huge salaries, and the cycle continues. (and this
> will be Obama's fault of course!)
>
> I love his "dismissive sneer" comment - bit of that going on around
> here!
# 1
Q : What Con spiracy thinking brings on ? :
Fear and hatred of allegedly powerful groups.
George Johnson, Architects of Fear: Conspiracy theories and paranoia
in American politics.
A deep-seated need for order.
Mary Dery, The Pyrotechnic Insanitarium.
Reaction to the intense fear that we are being controlled by powerful
external forces.
Timothy Melley, Empire of Conspiracy : The culture of paranoia in
postwar America.
A : A 'Paranoid Mentality'.
----------
# 2
* Conspiracists often declare if our fellow citzenery do not wake up/
recognize the danger confronting us it will be too late.
* Conspiracy Theories : Solve the underlying problem by explaining WHY one
perceives oneself as powerless, disrespected, unappreciated & ignored.
* Solution : Simplify the problem : Malevolent powerful beings, secretly
are responsible = The Evil Minions of Conspiracy.
* Final Result : Hatred based upon an irrational thought process.
----------
# 3
The difference between CTer's/LNer's and the reason conspiracy is
nothing more than a hollow belief system :
* CTer's 'intellectual conspiracy habits' allows 'buffs' to accept the
most outlandish sources as creditible w/out 'critical/skeptical thinking
skills' ever considered when it supports conspiracy ....
Then ....
You apply in huge abundance 'critical/skeptical thinking skills' when
evidence points at the only suspect with solid physical evidence against
him in the world :
LHO.
end ....
tl ...
..
.
cdddraftsman
> this forum are doing their country no favours. Denial amongst citizens
> of wrongdoing by people in important positions, who act together,
> either be joining in or looking the other way, whether it is in the
> finance, intelligence or military sectors, is giving people in power
> the go-ahead to behave as they please - which of course, is usually to
> benefit themselves. They are rarely investigated because they might
> put a spotlight on the elephant in the room - conspiracy!!!!!
>
> Read this article by a long-time investigator of financial wrong-
> doing, Jack Blum.
>
>
> The best bit is this paragraph:
>
> "Despite the desperate need for such an investigative approach,
> throughout my career I have been constantly perplexed by the reception
> to it. A frequent response by newspaper columnists and pundits was to
> dub me a "conspiracy nut." Another common response was to call my
> evidence "anecdotal," a word uttered with a dismissive sneer."
>
> And then the world scratches its head when the GFC came along. There
> are a LOT of people who are responsible for making corrupt decisions
> that caused the GFC, but will anyone be held accountable? Nope. They
> will get bonuses and huge salaries, and the cycle continues. (and this
> will be Obama's fault of course!)
>
> I love his "dismissive sneer" comment - bit of that going on around
> here!
Sounds like another version of the 'Blame Game' that conspiracy always
uses . Take a incredibly complex equation were there is plenty of blame to
be had all around and focus it on a particular group or person you just so
happen to dislike and distrust (ususally the result of an irrational
thought process) .
Balarney sandwiches like your post are handed out everyday on the hour .
It's silly headed at best and you don't fool anyone .
tl
bigdog
> This title may sound dramatic, but the anti-conspirators who inhabit
> this forum are doing their country no favours. Denial amongst citizens
> of wrongdoing by people in important positions, who act together,
> either be joining in or looking the other way, whether it is in the
> finance, intelligence or military sectors, is giving people in power
> the go-ahead to behave as they please - which of course, is usually to
> benefit themselves. They are rarely investigated because they might
> put a spotlight on the elephant in the room - conspiracy!!!!!
>
> Read this article by a long-time investigator of financial wrong-
> doing, Jack Blum.
>
>
> The best bit is this paragraph:
>
> "Despite the desperate need for such an investigative approach,
> throughout my career I have been constantly perplexed by the reception
> to it. A frequent response by newspaper columnists and pundits was to
> dub me a "conspiracy nut." Another common response was to call my
> evidence "anecdotal," a word uttered with a dismissive sneer."
>
> And then the world scratches its head when the GFC came along. There
> are a LOT of people who are responsible for making corrupt decisions
> that caused the GFC, but will anyone be held accountable? Nope. They
> will get bonuses and huge salaries, and the cycle continues. (and this
> will be Obama's fault of course!)
>
> I love his "dismissive sneer" comment - bit of that going on around
> here!
I don't dispute that people in power act in ways to benefit themselves.
That has been going on as long as we have had people in power. I don't
doubt that a lot of people have made corrupt decisions which contributed
the financial meltdown. We have ample evidence of that. I dispute that
anyone in power had anything to do with the assassination of JFK because
there is no evidence of that. All the evidence points to one guy, Lee
Harvey Oswald. Are you going to try to tell us that only people in power
commit evil acts? Are you going to tell us that individuals, acting on
their own, never commit attrocities?
Bud
> On 1/15/2010 11:24 AM, Thalia wrote:
>
> > This title may sound dramatic, but the anti-conspirators who inhabit
> > this forum are doing their country no favours. Denial amongst citizens
> > of wrongdoing by people in important positions, who act together,
> > either be joining in or looking the other way, whether it is in the
> > finance, intelligence or military sectors, is giving people in power
> > the go-ahead to behave as they please - which of course, is usually to
> > benefit themselves. They are rarely investigated because they might
> > put a spotlight on the elephant in the room - conspiracy!!!!!
>
> Look at how many Germans denied that there were concentration camps even
> when they lived right next to them. US Generals had to force the
> townsfolk to visit the death camps and see for themselves what they had
> been denying.
This is what happens when there is a reality to show, it can be
shown.
> > Read this article by a long-time investigator of financial wrong-
> > doing, Jack Blum.
>
> >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jack-blum/shadow-elite-are-they-res_b_4...
Anthony Marsh
>
> The word "conspiracy" or conspiracist has become a terrible misnomer. For
> example, it's totally illogical to label anyone as a "9/11 conspiracist",
> since pretty much everyone believes that attack was a conspiracy. The only
> dispute is about who the conspirators were.
>
It's a shorthand way of calling people kooks. If someone does not agree
with the government story that person is a conspiracist and therefore a
kook, and "reasonable people" do not have to listen to kooks. Of course
the government prosecutes conspiracies every day, but that's ok because
the government is always right. Anyone who disagrees with the official
government conspiracy theory is a kook.
Sorta like the Catholic Church ex-communicating people on Tuesday for NOT
giving mass in Latin and then on Wednesday ex-communicating people for
giving mass in Latin.
> Likewise, we never apply that term to people who agree to conspiracies
> that are generally accepted by the media - the holocaust, Watergate,
> terrorism, etc.
>
In fact we penalize those who don't accept the official conspiracy theory.
> What we really need is a new term, defining someone who hold beliefs,
> conspiratorial or otherwise, outside of the mainstream. Ideally, this word
> should be neutral and carry no derogatory connotation. That way, we are
> free to add our own adjectives, like "brilliant" or "idiotic".
>
Dissenters.
John McAdams
Of course, that most certainly applies to politicians that Thalia
likes!
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Steve Thomas
Can you say Housing Bubble?
Grizzlie Antagonist
>This title may sound dramatic, but the anti-conspirators who inhabit
>this forum are doing their country no favours.
Oh, that's OK. I don't really "inhabit" this forum. It's
extraordinarily difficult to physically ensconse oneself in a virtual
setting.
At most, I only "lurk in" or "visit" the forum.
I'm not looking to do my country any favors. I'm not looking to do
your country any favors either.
> Denial amongst citizens
>of wrongdoing by people in important positions, who act together,
>either be joining in or looking the other way, whether it is in the
>finance, intelligence or military sectors, is giving people in power
>the go-ahead to behave as they please - which of course, is usually to
>benefit themselves.
Didn't you support Obama? Isn't he behaving as he "pleases"? Isn't
that for the purpose of benefiting himself? Did Obama kill JFK?
> They are rarely investigated because they might
>put a spotlight on the elephant in the room - conspiracy!!!!!
Most of the conspiring going on in Washington these days is actually
being performed by the donkeys, not the elephants. I don't suppose
that it's the type of conspiring that you have any objection to.
>Read this article by a long-time investigator of financial wrong-
>doing, Jack Blum.
>
>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jack-blum/shadow-elite-are-they-res_b_423884.html
>
>The best bit is this paragraph:
>
>"Despite the desperate need for such an investigative approach,
>throughout my career I have been constantly perplexed by the reception
>to it. A frequent response by newspaper columnists and pundits was to
>dub me a "conspiracy nut." Another common response was to call my
>evidence "anecdotal," a word uttered with a dismissive sneer."
>
>And then the world scratches its head when the GFC came along. There
>are a LOT of people who are responsible for making corrupt decisions
>that caused the GFC, but will anyone be held accountable? Nope. They
>will get bonuses and huge salaries, and the cycle continues. (and this
>will be Obama's fault of course!)
Shoot, he's only the President of the United States. What could he
possibly have to do with it? The people with bonuses and huge
salaries seem to be quite comfortable with him.
If you're not willing to apportion any of the blame to him, you're
really giving him the go-ahead to behave as he pleases. You're not
doing your country any favors.
Why do the Brits and the Aussies spell "favors" with a "u" anyway?
Don't you know that's wrong?
>I love his "dismissive sneer" comment - bit of that going on around
>here!
I am devastated by the notion that Jack Blum's feelings have been
hurt. Who would do such a thing? And who is Jack Blum?
Thalia
>
> - Show quoted text -
Of course, there are lone nuts, and there are conspiracies. Each
situation is different.
Thalia
wrote:
> On 15 Jan 2010 11:24:28 -0500, Thalia <thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >This title may sound dramatic, but the anti-conspirators who inhabit
> >this forum are doing their country no favours.
>
> Oh, that's OK. I don't really "inhabit" this forum. It's
> extraordinarily difficult to physically ensconse oneself in a virtual
> setting.
>
> At most, I only "lurk in" or "visit" the forum.
>
> I'm not looking to do my country any favors. I'm not looking to do
> your country any favors either.
>
> > Denial amongst citizens
> >of wrongdoing by people in important positions, who act together,
> >either be joining in or looking the other way, whether it is in the
> >finance, intelligence or military sectors, is giving people in power
> >the go-ahead to behave as they please - which of course, is usually to
> >benefit themselves.
>
> Didn't you support Obama? Isn't he behaving as he "pleases"? Isn't
> that for the purpose of benefiting himself? Did Obama kill JFK?
>
> > They are rarely investigated because they might
> >put a spotlight on the elephant in the room - conspiracy!!!!!
>
> Most of the conspiring going on in Washington these days is actually
> being performed by the donkeys, not the elephants. I don't suppose
> that it's the type of conspiring that you have any objection to.
>
>
>
>
>
> >Read this article by a long-time investigator of financial wrong-
> >doing, Jack Blum.
>
>
> >The best bit is this paragraph:
>
> >"Despite the desperate need for such an investigative approach,
> >throughout my career I have been constantly perplexed by the reception
> >to it. A frequent response by newspaper columnists and pundits was to
> >dub me a "conspiracy nut." Another common response was to call my
> >evidence "anecdotal," a word uttered with a dismissive sneer."
>
> >And then the world scratches its head when the GFC came along. There
> >are a LOT of people who are responsible for making corrupt decisions
> >that caused the GFC, but will anyone be held accountable? Nope. They
> >will get bonuses and huge salaries, and the cycle continues. (and this
> >will be Obama's fault of course!)
>
> Shoot, he's only the President of the United States. What could he
> possibly have to do with it? The people with bonuses and huge
> salaries seem to be quite comfortable with him.
>
> If you're not willing to apportion any of the blame to him, you're
> really giving him the go-ahead to behave as he pleases. You're not
> doing your country any favors.
>
> Why do the Brits and the Aussies spell "favors" with a "u" anyway?
> Don't you know that's wrong?
>
> >I love his "dismissive sneer" comment - bit of that going on around
> >here!
>
> I am devastated by the notion that Jack Blum's feelings have been
> hurt. Who would do such a thing? And who is Jack Blum?
Good to see you back Grizzlie, I have missed your completely
irrelevent posts.
cdddraftsman
> On 1/15/2010 11:24 AM, Thalia wrote:
>
> > This title may sound dramatic, but the anti-conspirators who inhabit
> > this forum are doing their country no favours. Denial amongst citizens
> > of wrongdoing by people in important positions, who act together,
> > either be joining in or looking the other way, whether it is in the
> > finance, intelligence or military sectors, is giving people in power
> > the go-ahead to behave as they please - which of course, is usually to
> > benefit themselves. They are rarely investigated because they might
> > put a spotlight on the elephant in the room - conspiracy!!!!!
>
> Look at how many Germans denied that there were concentration camps even
> when they lived right next to them. US Generals had to force the
> townsfolk to visit the death camps and see for themselves what they had
> been denying.
>
>
From the reactions of the towns folk on news reels very few had any idea
what was going on in the camps . Their collective reactions were one of
shock and horror . The camps were guarded with barbed wire electrified
fences and machine gun towers , so how could they be in denial ? I think
most didn't want to know what their government told them was none of their
business so they didn't pry .
tl
Grizzlie Antagonist
Yes, you have. You've missed a great deal. It all goes completely
over your head.
That's why you've had to settle for being a conspiracy theorist. It's
the lowest common denominator.
cdddraftsman
wrote:
Good one ! I found out a long time ago it's not wise to mess with a
grizzly bear ! :-)
tl
Thalia
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
None of it goes over my head. It just never quite seems to deal with
the actual thrust of my argument.
If you think that picking on what word I have used, ie "inhabit" is
challenging the post in any way, well then you need to attend debating
school. Yes, Brits and Aussies spell words the way they are supposed
to be spelt, after all the English invented the English language (you
might not be aware of that) Also, bringing up Obama like the Lone Nuts
love to do is silly. The "Obama does it too!" argument is tedious, and
wrong. Not sure how Obama is benefitting himself through his actions.
If you have evidence of that Obama is bribe taking or other such
activities, you need to tell the police. Of course, Bush (Why did this
have to happen while I was President?") who was the President when the
GFC actually happened and also approved the big bailouts, had nowt to
do with it (in your parallel universe at least) If you don't know who
Jack Blum is, try doing a bit of research. Tip: read the bio attached
to the article.
bigdog
>
> Of course, there are lone nuts, and there are conspiracies. Each
> situation is different.
At last, we agree on something. Lincoln was killed by a conspiracy.
Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy were killed by lone nuts.
Bud
> the actual thrust of my argument.
What argument did Blum present? It seemed he was complaining that people
arch their eyebrows, point their fingers at their temples and rotate them
is a circle, or use the Woody Woodpecker laugh anytime he give his opinion
on a subject. This is usually indicative that he is saying stupid shit in
public, and it just might be that it isn`t the world that is wrong, it is
him.
Grizzlie Antagonist
>might not be aware of that).
"Brits and Aussies spell words the way they are supposed to be spelt."
"Spelt." "Spelt." "Spelt."
Bravo for one of life's little ironies.
> Also, bringing up Obama like the Lone Nuts
>love to do is silly. The "Obama does it too!" argument is tedious, and
>wrong.
Not in the least. It absolutely goes to the thrust of your debate.
In his book, "Suicide of the West", James Burnham remarks, ""Suppose you
observed over a period of time that I was frequently exercised over
threats to the freedom of Christians but seldom, if ever, exercised over
threats to the freedom of Jews. You would then be entitled to suspect
that it was not just freedom, plain and simple, that I primarily
valued."
Your readers are entitled to suspect that you do not primarily value
honesty and integrity in American leadership.
> Not sure how Obama is benefitting himself through his actions.
Maybe in the same nebulous undefinable way that the supposed
"conspirators" whose windmills you are tilting against benefit
themselves by their supposed actions.
>If you have evidence of that Obama is bribe taking or other such
>activities, you need to tell the police.
I summoned a keystone cop from Australia and I'm now waiting for him
to conclude his walk across the bottom of the Pacific Ocean and onto
dry land where he can begin his trek to Washington.
> Of course, Bush (Why did this
>have to happen while I was President?") who was the President when the
>GFC actually happened and also approved the big bailouts,
Did you say, "also"?
Who else approved of "big bailouts"?
> had nowt to
>do with it (in your parallel universe at least) If you don't know who
>Jack Blum is, try doing a bit of research. Tip: read the bio attached
>to the article.
I will, when I have the chance. Right now, I'm reading how I can give
myself a home perm.
Thalia
>
> What argument did Blum present? It seemed he was complaining that people
> arch their eyebrows, point their fingers at their temples and rotate them
> is a circle, or use the Woody Woodpecker laugh anytime he give his opinion
> on a subject. This is usually indicative that he is saying stupid shit in
> public, and it just might be that it isn`t the world that is wrong, it is
> him.
this attitude is exactly what the problem is!!!!! If he aint a neocon then
he aint got nothing relevent to say!!!
Here is a bio of Jack Blum:
Jack Blum is a Washington lawyer who specializes on issues of money
laundering, financial crime, and international tax evasion. He spent
fourteen years as a Senate investigator with the Senate Antitrust
Subcommittee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He played a
central role in the Lockheed Aircraft bribery investigation of the 1970's
which led to the passage of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and in the
investigation of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. He is
currently chair of Tax Justice Network USA, and the Violence Policy
Center.
I don't think the man is an idiot.
The thrust of the article is that Blum says that when his investigations
found that there were people behaving in a conspiratorial manner, these
claims would be derided as that of a "conspiracy nut." Of course this is
obvious, you are wearing your blinkers once again.
I hope it is people like you who have been affected by the GFC because it
is this stubborn refusal to believe that people in positions of power and
authority could do anything wrong and if they do its best swept under the
carpet, and where the foxes are left guarding the hen house, and left
investigating when the chickens go missing that lead to things like the
GFC, which is really just a massive corruption case, and guess what,
no-one will ever go to jail or even be given a rap over the knuckles, just
like 9/11. Its pathetic, and I don't get it. It seriously reminds me of
teh Roman Empire - have you ever read about the decline of the greatest
Empire in history? You should.
Thalia
Nope, no agreement on me on JFK. Of course, you know that.
Chuck Schuyler
wrote:
>
> I will, when I have the chance. Right now, I'm reading how I can give
> myself a home perm.
If you need some perm tips, I know just the person who can help:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Photo_shows/Shackelford/ShackelfordMartin.jpg
Grizzlie Antagonist
wrote:
Yeah, but I'm not a rich man.
I can't afford to have Judyth come into my home and style my hair, as
this man obviously did.
She must have arranged his wardrobe as well. That JFK T-shirt is part
of the "what the well dressed man is wearing" look this year that was
recently featured on Gentleman's Quarterly.
And dig that look in his eyes! What sort of refreshments were they
serving at this convention?
Bud
Maybe after I get done arching my eyebrows, pointing my finger at my
temple and rotating it in a circle while giving the Woody Woodpecker
laugh.
claviger
> This title may sound dramatic, but the anti-conspirators who inhabit
> of wrongdoing by people in important positions, who act together,
> either be joining in or looking the other way, whether it is in the
> finance, intelligence or military sectors, is giving people in power
> the go-ahead to behave as they please - which of course, is usually to
> put a spotlight on the elephant in the room - conspiracy!!!!!
>
> doing, Jack Blum.
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jack-blum/shadow-elite-are-they-res_b_4...
>
> The best bit is this paragraph:
>
> "Despite the desperate need for such an investigative approach,
> throughout my career I have been constantly perplexed by the reception
> to it. A frequent response by newspaper columnists and pundits was to
> dub me a "conspiracy nut." Another common response was to call my
> evidence "anecdotal," a word uttered with a dismissive sneer."
>
> And then the world scratches its head when the GFC came along. There
> are a LOT of people who are responsible for making corrupt decisions
> that caused the GFC, but will anyone be held accountable? Nope. They
> will get bonuses and huge salaries, and the cycle continues. (and this
> will be Obama's fault of course!)
>
> here!
You would love the John Birch Society. They believe in the ultimate
worldwide conspiracy of international bankers known by several names:
the Illuminati, Bilderburgers, Trilateral Commission, and Council on
Foreign Relations. The Liberal media heaped ridicule upon them for
years with a "dismissive sneer". I used to think they were a bunch of
paranoids too, but now I'm not so sure. You and JBS have a lot in
common when it comes to foreign policy.
My own conspiracy theory is a little more fundamental. It has been my
observation that every level of government spends most of its waking
hours conspiring against tax revenue producers. This of course makes
them very popular with tax revenue recipients. The government itself
is the primary beneficiary and suction vortex for tax revenues, so as
you can see it has no incentive to lower taxes, even though that is
always the best economic stimulus of all. The first thing JFK did when
elected President was to push for a corporate tax cut to revitalize
the economy, and it worked! Maybe that's why the "shadow government"
had him assassinated. A President who wants to lower taxes is a threat
to the control group who want more power, not less. So JFK had to go.
As you always say, cui bono?
Anthony Marsh
Some conspiracy movements attract the most extreme from both sides of the
political spectrum. JBS had its own JFK conspiracy theories. Larouch has
been out pumping up the hatred at anti-Obama rallies. Alex Jones and his
fellow right wingers have their own theories about who was behind 9/11.
> My own conspiracy theory is a little more fundamental. It has been my
> observation that every level of government spends most of its waking
> hours conspiring against tax revenue producers. This of course makes
> them very popular with tax revenue recipients. The government itself
> is the primary beneficiary and suction vortex for tax revenues, so as
> you can see it has no incentive to lower taxes, even though that is
Then how do you explain all the tax loopholes they still have and the fact
that the top corporations do not pay any taxes at all?
> always the best economic stimulus of all. The first thing JFK did when
> elected President was to push for a corporate tax cut to revitalize
> the economy, and it worked! Maybe that's why the "shadow government"
It wasn't a tax cut for the richest. It went down through the middle class.
> had him assassinated. A President who wants to lower taxes is a threat
> to the control group who want more power, not less. So JFK had to go.
> As you always say, cui bono?
>
Good try, but we know you are a WC defender.
>
>
>
>