Is anyone else tired of the so-called "voices of reason" around here?

[DerekG]

I'd like to think that the majority of people here realize the Bush administration is comprised of criminals, many of whom harbor a rather disturbing disregard for human life. Again, this is an assertion held by legions.

So why is it whenever a story surfaces that could be perceived as beneficial to BushCo (9/11; anthrax; Wellstone's murder; beheading), we're assailed by the "voices of reason"? Their suggestions are familiar by now:

"Don't jump to conclusions."
"That tin-foil hat is strapped pretty tight."
"Now is not the time."
"I'm ashamed to be of the DU today."

Or, my favorite:

"You're making us look terrible."


Despite the fact that administrations of a far lesser degree of maliciousness have employed murder and deception as a means to an end, and despite the fact that this regime has an eerie resemblance to those fun-loving denizens of the Third Reich, we're supposed to devolve into a state of naivete.

If I want to question my government, or construct a theory (no matter how inane), even at the VERY MOMENT I am relayed of tragedy, I don't feel it necessary to be told to honor decorum or be tepid in response.

In other words: if there was a terrorist attack tomorrow, no one here should be inhibited to post a theory of how the government might have fomented it. After all, haven't the last three and a half years convinced us that Bush is capable of anything?

[jeff30997]

1. I could't agree more with you.

And BTW "You're making us look terrible." is my favorite too.

[jonnyblitz]

11. i wanna smack people when they write that.

biggest copout line to do NOTHING ever!

[bvar22]

2. But decorum and appeasement...

....worked so well in 2000 and 2002.

[allalone]

91. yeah

it worked great in Czechoslovakia in the 30's too.

[DrWeird]

3. They're as bad as freepers

and probably are.

Speaking up is what DU is for.

[jonnyblitz]

12. yup.n/t

[telamachus]

21. Don't you think

that there is a range of opinion within the framework of who is 'allowed' posting privileges on DU forums?

[DrWeird]

78. mmhmm.

Which is why this "stop saying that, what will the freepers think?" argument is so damn phony.

[djg21]

56. As bad as Freeper?

Freepers are right wing nuts who are intolerant of anyone who doesn't share their precise views. What do we call people on the left who are intolerant of those who don't share their precise views? Anything aside from "hypocrits"?

Grow up! Reasonable minds can differ. This is a discussion board, and unless there is room for disagreement, there simply can be no discussion.

[DrWeird]

79. Exactly.

And that's why the "voices for reason" who say thinks like "stop saying that, the freepers will take it out of context" and "I'm ashamed to be a DUer" and all that crap everytime somebody says something progressive are as bad as freepers.

This is Democratic Underground and if somebody doesn't like what we have to say they can fuck off.

[RC]

4. The real 'Voices of Reason' around here, espouse

LIHOP & MIHOP. The evidence against this criminal administration is so overwhelming, how can anyone in good conscience, vote for bu$h/cheney?

[cornfedyank]

55. key word "good"

i hope shrub et al are more dumb than evil.
the key to a successful ambush is to kill before they know what hit them. That is why i can wait for the movie to find out if MIHOP. friends, if that happened we are already dead.

screw Yertle the president

[xchrom]

5. since reagan the american neighborhood has become dangerous

conservatives are in the middle of an extraodinary take over.
but a lot of liberals and moderates can't/won't see it.
the conservatives are happy to drive you into poverty, shoot you if you are say an abortion doctor, take away your health care, outsource your job, get timothy mcveigh types to blow your ass up, send your children to an endless war for the sake of corporate profits and global instability that benefits them, etc.
uh yeah -- there's a lot to feel moderate about -- well they can have extreme things happen to them -- i just don't them to take me with them.
IT'S NOT SAFE OUT THERE -- and many, many americans HATE liberals, social dems, environmentalists, gay folk, etc with an extraordinary passion.

[Joe the Revelator]

6. Oh man...lol

So on one hand its ok if YOU question everything put before you, but if someone on DU questions you that person is now "freeper" scum? Give me a break.

Not all of us are willing to see boogymen in the shadows over everything that comes down the pike. Yes there are some strange things that happen,and yes conspiracies and cover ups DO exist, but more often then not SOME of us on here end up sounding like the freaky freepers who accused the big dog of snuffing out Mr. Foster.

All I'm saying is that if you support a radical line of reasoning, then expect some other people to disagree with you. That does NOT in-turn make your dissenters "freepers".

[xchrom]

7. yeah -- lol -- funny

:eyes:

[Joe the Revelator]

8. The hypocrisy is whats funny....nt

[Media_Lies_Daily]

48. Your post proved DerekG's point.

[DerekG]

19. What are you talking about?

I never accused anyone of being a freeper--what part of my message did you get that from?

[Joe the Revelator]

83. 3 or 4 posts down from your orginal one posts after yours....

"They act like freepers......and probably are".

We don't need that assnine type of rhetoric. If you can't listen to views that are not the same as yours maybe it you (in general terms) who has the problem.

[Pithlet]

70. Thank you

Not agreeing or accepting everything that is posted on DU does not equal Freeper. People are free to post whatever they like, and question whatever they like. It is no more wrong to question a post on DU than it is to question something we see on TV.

[bowens43]

9. Some people just can't get it through their heads

that this year it's more than politics. It' a war. If bush is in the oval office another four years the harm that is done will be irreparable. They will use any means to win. They will lie, cheat , steal and I have no doubt that there is no crime that they would not commit to solidify their grip on power. I think it is prudent to suspect the worst of this administration. Nothing they say can be accepted at face value. I will not give this administration the benefit of the doubt.


It's war.

[cornfedyank]

57. hassert wants national sales tax. shrub wants 100%estate tax cut

We, the people all live in a Yellow Submarine.

[AntiCoup2K4]

68. Shrub wants the estate tax cut because his Daddy's about due for.....

...his eternal transfer to Hell.

And we can't have the IRS taking all that money made from drug dealing and terrorism over the last 4 decades, can we? Not to mention the interest still coming in from the money grandpa made off the backs of concentration camp labor in the early 40's.

[jonnyblitz]

10. yeah I dont feel all that welcome here anymore...

I have piercings and tats and apparently if the likes of me is seen protesting in New York swingvoters will flock in droves to the polls to vote for Bush. This utter nonsense about "DON"T GO, DON'T GO to the protest because it will make us look bad is PATHETIC!! SomeDEMS aren't as librul and open minded as they think they are. I have republican family members that aren't this narrow minded and they APPARENTLY don't have much confidence Kerry winning if they are getting this fucking pathetic...

[Warren DeMontague]

13. If you would just put on a 3 piece suit...

there would be no problem.
;)

[bowens43]

14. Agreed.

Was that going on here? I missed it. It is pathetic. We have a not only a right to challenge this administration , we have an obligation to do so. I hope that the streets of New York are so full of protesters that New York is shut down. I hope that the disruption is so great that Republican delegates can't get the Garden.

[Chovexani]

72. YES!!!

You know, I can see where they are coming from with that stuff, but it's the tone that bothers me. That "wear a suit" thread got really ugly...I'm a good liberal, I'm only 23 but I registered Dem on my 18th birthday and have only ever voted for Dems in the few elections I have been old enough to vote in...I really don't need to be called names because I wear black all the time and have purple hair.

I'm proud to be a freak and I feel like even more of an outsider on DU lately. I'm not sure I'm even going to protest tomorrow. The way these threads have gone lately I guess I am just feeling like my voice does not matter...

[Carson]

95. Isn't Kerry's campaign somewhat similiar?

He is distancing himself from the label of "liberal", all for electability (sp?).

"Don't look too different, act too different." seems to be the motto for lots of people.

[DavidFL]

15. Yes...

I left another political discussion site because it had changed from a place where you could actually learn something into discussions being limited to what's considered "mainstream" or "conventional wisdom", and the people running the site often used the "suggestions" you listed, but eventually the unwritten policy became posters who don't toe the line were banned. There's nothing to learn from a site like that. I have heard from reliable sources, though, that a member of that site posts under seperate aliases there, as well as spreads disinformation about DU there, too, and posts here at DU as well. I also get suspicious of people who come to forums like this and appoint themselves board nannies, or seek to limit or halt discussion, because they usually also come with an agenda. If I wanted propaganda, I'd stick to "mainstream" corporate news as my source of information.

Anyway, the way I look at it is that we are all adults here and we should be free to make up our own minds about what we choose, or choose not to, believe from an internet forum where posters can remain anonymous, except for what they choose to share about themselves. I don't agree with everything posted here and everyone who posts here, but I learned that's what the "hide thread" and "ignore poster" functions are for. I just don't think it should be up to me or anyone, except the moderators enforcing the site's policies of course, to decide what can or cannot be discussed in an open forum like this. The reason I continue to come here and like it is because of these free discussions as I always end up learning things beyond what's published in newspapers or shown on TV.

[T Town Jake]

16. "Is anyone else tired of the so-called "voices of reason" around here?"

...No, not really. It's how we win elections and get good stuff done in the interim. You might want to quit pontificating just long enough to pick up a history book now and again, and read a page or two about how progressive ideals really get moved forward in the real world.
I'd recommend you start with studies of the disparate careers of William Jennings Bryan and FDR and then get back to me...

[DerekG]

27. And this post pertains to the thread how, exactly?

I'm not waging a campaign against rationalism (hence the "so-called"), but I am concerned with posters being dismissed when it's quite obvious that we're dealing with a reactionary administration. You'll recall that Northwoods was stopped only through the efforts of Kennedy; I doubt our little Caligula would express similar qualms to his Joint Chiefs.

And thanks, much, for the condescending remarks regarding historical ignorance.

[RobinA]

98. Sooooo....

nothing said about this administration can be dismissed as nonsense because they are "reactionary"?

If you can post it, someone else can post that that you're off base. There's also nothing wrong with a discussion of whether certain lines of "thinking" fuel the other side. The operative word here is "discussion."

[mopaul]

17. all 'theories' must be ridiculed & dismissed immediately

it's easier to simply accept everything that comes out of the white house as gospel truth. osama did 9-11. we'll get him dead or alive. forget osama, it was saddam. we're safer now. islam is a great religion, so we must wipe it out. arabs went around asking to take flying, but not landing lessons. excuse me? why would an arab say that outloud? i want to learn to fly, but not land a jetliner please. i'll tell you why, someone went around setting up a phony alibi in the weeks proceeding 9-11 to make it look as though arabs did it.

the next morning after the attack, all the photos and names of the 'hijackers' published. how convenient. it stinks, and if i point out that it stinks, i get ridiculed and dismissed by many here.

sometimes the truth is so awful that you don't want to accept it.

[Pepperbelly]

40. that WAS very odd, wasn't it?

The first and foremost question that brings to mind is if they knew so much about them, how in the fuck did it happen?

Nothing at all wrong with pointing out incongruent facts and speculating about their meaning ... how they fit with different theories. My only problem is concluding they are so without adequate facts to base the conclusion on.

What pisses me off is either dismissing theory out of hand or conflating theory with fact.

[psychopomp]

46. "someone went around setting up a phony alibi in the weeks proceeding 9-11

to set off the "Clash of Civilizations."

That is about the best explanation that I have read so far.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

51. The PNAC game-plan.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

50. You have done nothing but point out obvious truths that quite a few...

...DUers have refused to acknowledge.

If you go back to the hours immediately following the assassination of John Kennedy, how was it possible that such a detailed profile of Lee Harvey Oswald was available for distribution to the press?

How was it possible that his "crypto" clearance as a USMC radar operator for the U-2 operation in Japan, and his employment by the CIA were hidden for so many years?

And then when faced with the truth of conspiracy, how do so many people deny it?

How do people so easily dismiss the obvious?

[AntiCoup2K4]

69. They dismiss the obvious because they cannot face the ugly truth.

In both cases of 11-22-63 and 9-11-01 it is blatantly obvious that the "official stories" are 100% steaming piles of bullshit with more holes than a brick of swiss cheese. Yet many people reject the facts because accepting them would mean that you also accept that "elements" within the US government are in fact inherently evil and not opposed to cold blooded murder as a means to an end. In the case of Dallas, it was one murder (or two, counting the silencing of Oswald the patsy). And the similar script for 4-4-68 in Memphis and 6-5-68 in Los Angeles.

Obviously 9-11-01 proves that one murder at a time is no longer enough to shock the American people into submission. The best part of the shock value that day, in fact, was the potential numbers quoted early on. Death toll as high as 50,000 was mentioned in early reports. Actually, when you think about it, a final death toll of about 2700 people for 2 110 story buildings, while tragic, is considerably lower than most would have predicted. Unfortunately, this is also why I believe their next planned event (and "they" can be whoever you believe "they" are - but in my view it's not an old man in a cave hooked up to a dialysis machine)will be designed for high causualties - at least 10,000 if not higher

[Lost147]

54. half of the posts on these forums

are just conjectures with no evidence to back them up! Bush maybe a lousy and corrupt president but if he was HALF as bad as you try and make him out I think there would be a riot in front of the white house demanding his blood, republicans included! However not all theories should be dismissed there are quite a few with quite enough evidence to arouse suspicion.

[CanIgonow]

60. To me the epiphany came when Sy Hersh confirmed the torture

of children at Abu Ghraib.That we have a buch of depraved animals going around setting up secret prisons around the world, incarcerating hundreds if not thousands of people,American,British, Iraqi and other citizens without benefit of legal counsel and denying access to these prisoners by the Red Cross was bad enough.To add to these war crimes, Rumsfeld and his cronies have added the sodomy of children in front of their mothers and sodomy of mothers in front of their children to their catalog of heinous crimes.

Even after this depravity has been revealed, we have people here at DU and in the mainstream(another convenient word)press not willing to admit to the possibility that we may actually have gangsters and thugs in power at Washington,D.C. who would carry out murders and mayhem if it suits them.I agree with Gov.Jennifer Granholm that we must cast our lot with the least among us as the Bible asks us to do.Nothing else will wash away our sins of silence in the face of this evil.

[Nlighten1]

18. Those people come and go....

just ignore them if they bother you.

[robcon]

20. As one of those "voices of reason" I disagree.

I think maybe 90% of the wacky posts on topics like "9/11; anthrax; Wellstone's murder; beheading" have no basis in fact. I think evidence trumps wild speculation.

[The Flaming Red Head]

44. Wellstone was murdered

A plane crash is the easiest thing in the world for this bunch.

Martyrs are too inconvenient.

To me Wellstone is a Martyr no matter what the official report says happened. I know in my heart that they killed him for political expediency.

[stickdog]

73. So who sent anthrax in the mail and for what purpose?

Why hasn't the culprit been caught? What happened to the investigation?

Do you really think Berg's beheading video showed Zarqawi cutting off a live person's head?

Finally, what caused both pilots in Wellstone's plane to not notice the plane's speed, direction or even stall warning horn (nor make any attempt to use contact ATC) over than last two minutes of flight?

Yes, many of the theories espoused here are speculative and some are even ridiculous. But when the official stories of 9/11, the anthrax killer, Wellstone's crash and Nick Berg's beheading are analyzed carefully, they are almost without exception even more incredible.

[Cat Atomic]

22. Much of this conspiracy stuff is just parnoid bullshit.

And almost all of it is a waste of energy. It's your energy and if you want to spend it "proving" that Herve Villachez killed Kennedy on behalf of the Whip Cream industry, go right ahead. But it does look ridiculous, and yes- alot of people will disregard everything you say after that. That's just the truth.

[mopaul]

24. I now ridicule you

yeah, just suck up your white house lies and enjoy them. yeah, real articulate alright. grassy knollism. vince foster is still alive.

don't think outside the envelope of the official propaganda line please. don't make waves. don't ask hard questions or listen to any other ideas. only YOU could possibly be correct all the time, and all others are merely ridiculous

[Cat Atomic]

28. Alright. And you just keep on "making waves".

[mopaul]

29. it takes all kinds

i'm the hell raising kind. would you have me eliminated?

[Cat Atomic]

33. "Hell raising"? Do you really think the right wing is afraid of

these conspiracy tales?

Getting out and pushing for actual progress is hell raising.

[mopaul]

37. i will tolerate you, and i will listen to you without ridiculing you

lee oswald acted alone right? osama attacked us right? bush is a decent christian man right? bush acted churchillian after the attack right? they killed 3 thousand with boxcutters right? the official white house story sounds utterly insane to me, but you seem to eat it right up like candy. to each his own

[Cat Atomic]

38. Well, thanks for not ridiculing me.

[mopaul]

41. your welcome dammit

i enjoy listening to all sides, pro, con, wacky theory or logical notions, we all have the same goal.

[jeff30997]

53. LOL ! Hey mopaul !

I love your reply !

Oh,BTW, did you know you were wanted(alive silly,not dead)?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x671933

If you heard about it from someone else, then fogetaboutit.

[sangh0]

92. Some welcome

Your first post declared that you were ridiculing Cat Atomic. Now you're claiming you don't ridicule

[LoZoccolo]

102. Funny that conspiracy theorists tell you to question everything...

...but the minute you question their conspiracy theory, they snap a fan belt and accuse you of being gullible.

[CanIgonow]

61. McNamara,in his glory days as the Evil Consiglieri of the

Johnson administration, sent his minions to ridicule everyone who questioned the official version of the Gulf ofTonkin "incident".Forty years later, he admitted it was a manufactured incident as a pretext for war which resulted in the deaths of thusands of young Americans and millions of Vietnamese.Yet, this war criminal walks amongst us with his prestige and privileged life intact,shedding crocodile tears.

I think there are two practices in our public life that ensure that citizens will be deprived of the transparency that is needed to make informed judgements about our rulers.The first of course is the system that classifies every piece of information no matter how trivial as vital to national security.The second is the principle of plausible deniability which simply arose almost like the Divine Right of Kings that I thought was dead with the Magna Carta.These two pernicious practices have just about wiped out the transparency that is vital for citizens.Along with this loss of transparency has come the ability of our rulers to lie at will destroying what Norman Mailer has called a modicum of trust between the rulers and the governed.It is in this vacuum that citizens like MoPaul who have doubts are thrust into their role of questioning the official version of 9/11,the Anthrax Scare,the alert system and what have you.MoPaul did not create this problem.People in power in our capital are the culprits who deny access to information and after hiding behind these classification system and deniability, ridicule citizens who question their version of events.

I say that if we disbelieve anything they say, let them waive these classification system and throw open all the information that we need to form our judgement as citizens,including the orders that were given to NORAD and the FAA on that fateful day.

[bobthedrummer]

76. Not the stuff that I post about, Cat Atomic-much of it is documented

from the DoD, FBI, CIA and other alphabet soup privatized outfits like Dyn Corp., Vinnell, Eagle...
The press I use most is from the UK-BBC, Guardian, Independent plus NYT, and WaPo.
There are drugs, there are sex slaves and there are criminal cults.

Nato force "feeds Kosovo sex trade"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,2763,1211248,00.html

The CIA, Mind Control and Children (a talk by John Rappoport)
http://www.nlp-mindcontrol.com/cia_children_mind_control.htm

Operation/MH CHAOS
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/CensorsBooks_SecretsCIA.html

Cat Atomic-there are real conspiracies, of course.;)

[NashVegas]

23. I Prefer to Be Called a Voice of Logic

Thanks very much.

If people run around NYC this weekend smashing things, it stands to reason the BFEE is going to make political hay of it. It stands to reason they already have a strategy in place to deal with it.

How will lefties counter that strategy and deny the RNC a tool to use against us?

It's not so much to ask, is it?

[mopaul]

26. conform. adapt. wear a suit and tie. don't be offensive. be a clone

don't protest, don't be a dirty hippy, don't embarrass us all.
logic is wrong about half the time

[TomNickell]

34. Logic is, by definition, always right....

Logic is wrong half the time?

Huh?

Sanity never goes out of style.

[mopaul]

39. atta's wallet, in perfect condition without dust on it, found the next day

does that sound logical to you? or that arab men went around asking how to fly BUT NOT LAND a jetliner? does that sound logical to you?

it don't to me

[vincent_vega_lives]

96. Yes

It is perfectly logical. Plausibility is not logic.

[ljm2002]

59. Logic is always right, eh?

Logic is based on premises -- accepted first facts. And if those are wrong, then the logical conclusions based on them are also wrong, no matter how impeccable the logic.

Also, logic itself is limited: check Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem for proof that even within well defined logical systems, there are statements generated by the system, that cannot be proven (or disproven) within the system.

And what's the relevance to this discussion? Merely this: logic is only part of the picture. There's a reason that phrases like "it doesn't pass the smell test" persist... they reflect the truth that there is such a thing as a "gut feeling", or a "nose for a story".

Don't get me wrong: ultimately, logic must be applied. No argument from me on that score. But there is a place for speculation too, and logic cannot do the job of speculation, as well as vice versa.

[LoZoccolo]

103. Yeah, that's exactly what he was saying.

Wonder if you'll post another batch of your rave-ups to remind yourself that not everyone thinks you're some kind of fanatic.

[ContinentalOp]

89. One major problem with all of the "behave at the protests" nonsense:

"If people run around NYC this weekend smashing things, it stands to reason the BFEE is going to make political hay of it. It stands to reason they already have a strategy in place to deal with it."

And likewise, if people DON'T smash things you can bet the BFEE has a strategy in place for paid provocateurs to get the ball rolling. And you can bet wherever a few bad apples are creating mayhem there will be cameras ready to pick up the "violent treasonous liberals" trying to destroy America.

Of course, this is just another loony conspiracy theory so feel free to go into heavy ridicule mode.

[Q]

25. Those who rebel against the status quo...

...are known as the 'others'. The Others are always the political scapegoat and enemy of the state. The state can't function or run smoothly with the others in the way of 'progress'.

- Another poster on this thread mentioned 'history' and how to 'win elections' with moderation. But this very country wouldn't exist if moderation was the approach instead of revolution. We fled England's oppression...only to recreate something just like it 200 years later.

- The Founders knew and wrote that democracy was an experiment that could only succeed with a free press and the participation of the people. They warned us that a few powerful people with lots of money could take control of the government, use it for their own purposes and enslave the people. It's indeed frightening that it was done so easily and right before our eyes.

[Pepperbelly]

30. if thinking is muddy, there is nothing wrong with pointing out the flaws.

and whether or not someone is "tired" of it is irrelevant.

I love the Simpsons but I am not as willing as the citizens of Springfield to join a lynch mob. Jumping to conclusions is ordinarily the result of impatience but one should wait on data to make conclusions.

[TomNickell]

35. Muddy logic would be an improvement.....

One despairs, sometimes, for the American Educational System.

[CanIgonow]

62. You picked the wrong culprit.In this thread I have posted my view

that what prevents us from making informed judgements are two of the most pernicious practices that the Bush adminsitration has used to great advantage.First is the system of classifying every piece of information, no matter how trivial or significant, as vital to national security.This classification system works just like the system adopted by the Shamans and Priests of ancient civilzations.They bar acces to the vat majority of citizens to information and lets only a privileged few in.These people, like the Committee members like Joe Biden, can then strut around talking down to citizens on behalf of the people who provide access to them.The second is the principle of plausible deniability which absolves any person in power of any knowledge of embarrassing or criminal knowledge of acts committed with their approval.

I believe unless we deny men in power these two tools that they use to manipulate public discourse, there cannot be any real democracy.In this particular case, I say let them permit all air defense commanders to testify under oath and all FAA personnel to release the records of their conversations on 9/11.Without this, your so called blaming the educational system and sighing about how we do not know what we are saying amounts to,to be charitable, nothing but hogwash.

[ContinentalOp]

88. Why do you despair for the American Educational System?

It's not doing a good enough job of creating unquestioning, unthinking automatons for your taste? All these dirty, protesting, questioning, conspiracy-mongering hippies just needed a little more discipline in their younger lives eh?

[Q]

42. Wait on data?

- And where will this 'data' come from? The self-serving corporate media?

- How long will you wait? What kind of data will convince you? From what sources?

[mopaul]

43. yeah, let's wait till all the data is in.

what's it been now, mmmmmm 3 years or so? 40 years after jfk's murder, people still disagree about who did it.

[vincent_vega_lives]

97. People also disagree

as to whether we really landed on the moon. People can disagree with anything.

Sometimes the "data" is irrelevant.

[Pepperbelly]

47. for example ....

on the LIHOP and the MIHOP area, I have followed the evidence as it has developed and have seen the good rough outlines of what it takes to prove something. A conclusion is only a aha!-moment after looking at the facts.

For example, as Mopaul noted above, re: the immediate "identification" of the hijackers was so very odd. It struck me immediately as not something that seemed plausible. It is diffiuclt enough in a small, controlled environment to come up with this-is-what-happened information even within a week or two of an incident not comparing to 9-11 in magnitude or complexity. And information has developed that supports the speculation.

I evaluate as I come across data. That's all any of us can do.

[Q]

49. What about actively seeking out that data...

...instead of waiting for it to 'come along'? I hope you're not waiting for the Bushies or their media to bring it to you?

[Pepperbelly]

52. {{sigh}}

When I typed the phrase that I used, I knew that you would say exactly what you did say.

I chose the words I chose to illustrate the point. Whether you "actively" seek or whether you wait for it to swim by, you reach the point where you "come across" the data. I did investigations for a number of years ... homicides and such ... and no matter how hard I looked for data, when I found it, it was acquired, whether I got it on purpose, by luck or through some mental process that occurs in the sub-concious.

So what I am saying is that when you come across data, you add it into the mix and see if it supports and of the theories.

And to bring it back into focus on political issues, you come across data as you do. You can read published reports, scan document dumps, read government reports, evaluate photos ... whatever you do but what is important is to not get in front of the data. To do so destroys your ability to evaluate, turning you instead into an advocate. When your data is sufficient in YOUR mind, then draw your conclusion and become an advocate.

[vincent_vega_lives]

99. On the internet?

That seems to be the source of most of this "data".

[TomNickell]

31. Not Decorum; Logic, Integrity, Sanity...... Sigh.......

Be as undecorus as you want. Call Bush any names you want.

But if you make an accusation of murder and mahem without -some- kind of evidence or valid logic, if you make a theory that makes gov't employees cartoon villains, if you make a theory that makes less sense than the plot of the last James Bond movie, if your theory attributes supernatural powers to Bush, if you rely on 'evidence' from self-proclaimed experts on Right Wing web sites while ignoring legitimate expert opinion, if you continue to repeat 'theories' that have been conclusively refuted many times;

then,

you are doing nothing but making yourself a Fool. And, by extension, the rest of the people who ue this Board for exchange of information and ideas are also made to look like fools.

If you -really- want to defeat Bush, you need to deal with 'mainstream' logic and evidence--arguments that can convince the 'mainstream' voter. There are -plenty- of those, as you point out.

On the other hand, if you want to pursue the hobby of Conspiracism, 'Military Affairs and Terrorism' is the place for you. Go to it.

[mopaul]

36. 'he that sayeth, 'thou fool', is a fool himself'

see, you just called millions of people fools. you have resorted to cheap ridicule and making the crazy symbol with your finger.

many of us here in DU qualify as fools according to your strict rules. how is it that only YOU have the correct and pure truth?
how is it that you are NOT a fool, but we are? arrogant snob.

[stickdog]

74. Tom, for some reason you obviously feel strongly about this.

I wonder why.

As a thought experiment, what would you say to someone who suspected the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a sham before McNamara admitted as much more than 30 years later?

Are these sorts of suspicions simply outside the bounds of political propriety until the wars they foment are long over?

Remember the Maine.

Remember the Lusitania.

Remember Pearl Harbor.

Remember the Gulf of Tonkin.

Remember 9/11.

[TomNickell]

90. I've explained this many times.

I don't think Conspiracism, or Conspiracy Hobbyism, is an inocuous pass-time. It is the stuff of Witch Hunts and Inquisitions and Holocausts and McCarthyism and the Michigan Milita and Timothy McVeith and the Current Republican Party. It belongs to the hard, hating Right and I would just as soon leave it there. To have a Conspiracy, you need Conspirators--some group you can label as non-human and hate.

For a historical review I suggest you read the classic essay on the subject: The Paranoid Style in American Politics by Douglas Hofstadter. A quick Google search will find the text for you.

As to your specific examples--I don't see what these have to do with the question. Yes, the Gov't can create a crisis and use it to make a war. But that really counters the Conspiracy Mindset; the Gov't doesn't -need- to take the risk of hiring suicide pilots to fly planes into buildings. They have better ways.

LBJ didn't need to fake an incident. He -found- or -provoked- an incident and then used it.

-Maybe- the Gov't deliberately ignored warnings about Pearl Harbor. The suspicion was around from the beginning, I imagine. But -nobody- suggests that those weren't Japanese pilots flying Japanes planes. -That's- what the 9/11 hobbyists would have us believe.

The wild speculations do nothing but block out serious analysis. For a full 2 years following 9/11, anyone suggesting that Bush might have been insufficiently diligent in his efforts against terrorists could be dismissed with the label of 'Conspiracy Nut'.

Much of the stuff mentioned in the original post is just silliness--Beheadings? Bush doesn't benefit and there is no possible evidence. But, we get days of morbid speculation anyway. These threads are too butt-head stupid to have any long-term effect. They are just grotesque, in bad taste, playing games with tragedy.

[kayell]

101. "the Gov't doesn't -need- to take the risk of hiring suicide pilots "

Time for you to read up on Project Northwoods.

[WoodrowFan]

105. THANK YOU`

:yourock:

[CanIgonow]

85. I suggest that you direct your demand for logic, decorum etc.to

our man from Abu Ghraib, Donald Rumsfeld, who, in one of his press confernces about not finding any WMD's in Iraq which helped him launch a war said, "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence".When you can expound the logic behind these words uttered by one of the despicable criminals our country has had the misfortune to produce, come back and tell us how we are all not logical.

[dbt]

32. Right ON, DerekG!

Ironically enough, one cannot reason with these "voices of reason." They live for flame wars. The core of their existence is to save you from yourself.

If you post here that the sky is blue, six people will immediately appear to assure you that "it's not and here's why." It took me two freaking years to learn to ignore them!

:evilgrin:
dbt

[Q]

45. Certainly you could come up with a better example...

...than the 'sky is blue' scenario? I would bet that NO ONE would disagree that the sky is MOSTLY blue...except for the pollution that colors the sky in most cities.

- Some people believe in magic and blind faith. Others want proof.

[QC]

64. Or, if you post that the sky is blue,

then eight people will immediately accuse you of being a brainwashed tool of the IBM/PNAC/PPI/CNN/CIA/Windsor/Bush conspiracy, which seeks to solidify its power over the international banana trade by convincing the weak-minded that the sky is blue when it actually isn't.

Works both ways, you know.

[wurzel]

58. It must have been like this in Russia under the Communists.

Vladimir would come home and switch on the TV to have some talking head spewing out the latest government garbage about how good everything is. To trust their leaders. And he must have known, even if our CIA didn't, that the system was falling apart. In the end his whole country drowned in a sea of lies. We are being lied to far too much and far too casually to survive.

[K-W]

63. Yah, everyone who doesnt agree with you is a Jerk!!!!

What on earth are you talking about? Your tired of people who dont agree with you expressing themselves? Thats just peachy.

they have as much right to tell you they think your theory is outlandish and embarassing as you have to post it.

[QC]

65. Yeah, it's funny how so many advocates of free speech don't realize

that it goes both ways. Like that old saying, "Free speech for me but not for thee."

[TexasSissy]

66. Nope. Voices of reason are a good thing.

Some of the extreme theories are just that: extreme theories. Some are not, but some are. And kudos to the brave souls who post the voice of reason and say so.

[autorank]

67. "I love the smell of internet passion...smells like victory." autorank

[kerry-is-my-prez]

71. Yeppers.

n/t

[HEyHEY]

75. I'm just tired of the people who condescend

To everyone on this board about everything from spelling to politics.

[JackDragna]

77. Yes, you SHOULD be inhibited.

If you don't have any evidence behind your theory, you're no better than Republicans who put together fantasies of Vince Foster or Ron Brown being murdered by Bill Clinton. I don't have much confidence in the ability of people on internet message boards to stumble on real conspiracies by accident. All of the really hot conspiracies I've seen here, things like Bush being being the Wellstone air crash or the killing of people related to the family, are specious at best. The Republican party, at this point, has little need of overt conspiracy to keep power. Why risk getting people arrested for political gain through the use of illegal schemes when the American public is so ready to give the Republicans the support they need from appeals to jingoism, emotion and heart-on-the-sleeve partiotism? It takes a big burden of proof for someone to prove a conspiracy and when you just "suggest" one and give a sly wink to us all regarding the evidence, you DO make this place look bad. You ARE jumping to conclusions. You ARE putting on the tinfoil hat and you DO make the rational among us ashamed to be here.

[Cleita]

80. Amen

:thumbsup:

[MirrorAshes]

81. You're welcome to your opinions, and so is everybody else

And frankly, I think you do yourself a disservice by dismissing those who may be fighting day in and day out to get Kerry elected, yet who also try not to focus on wild theories. Perhaps they even listen to them, consider them, even believe them, but realize that you cannot interject these things into a mainstream argument without the repubs dismissing you as "crazy".

Should we let them dictate the field of discussion? No, but at the same time it is sometimes far better to use arguments you know you can nail them on instead of arguments that only the DU faithful will take seriously.

[Jose Diablo]

82. Don't forget

decorum and civility.

[MrScorpio]

84. You'll get no call for civility or decorum from me

Those rat-fucking replicants deserve whatever contempt we can muster.

[welshTerrier2]

86. my two cents

eventually, we must come to the need for revolution in this country ... you cannot allow power to remain with the ruling class and expect to ever make any real progress ... all progress is illusory ... it is only the temporary swinging back and forth of the pendulum ...

having said that, i would urge at least a small degree of caution when using phrases criticizing the "voices of reason" ... we cannot lose sight of the importance of this election ... revolution must be waged when the groundwork for revolution has been properly prepared ... at this time, we are not even close ... reach too far, reach unrealistically, fail to work incrementally and you will set the movement back ...

this is not to say you should not have passion ... this is not to question many of the "tin foil" theories ... many of them likely reflect the truth ... but until this election is over, it would be foolish to do anything whatsoever that could help bush remain in office ... above all else, long-term or short-term, bush must go ... the price for not getting rid of him will be far too high ...

so i have no problem with the "wear a suit and tie to demonstrate" threads ... my statement to you is NOT to "honor decorum and be tepid in response" but rather to move your chess pieces in the right order and at the right time ... to bring only great passion without great wisdom will not get the job done ... keep your passion high but don't view pragmatism as its enemy ...

[underseasurveyor]

87. While it is never a bad thing to stop and think for a moment

I absolutely loathe the, 'makes us look bad' line and sometimes, you just gotta screw the decorum for a moment too damnit :mad:

Some voices of reason I appreciate around here. But they're not the ones who at the same time are trying to get you to shut up what you're saying. Moreover those voices of reason I like are the ones that DO offer more food for thought and more questions. And sometimes it leads to answers I'm uncomfortable with and maybe I don't like to hear either but there it is. The good and the bad and the truth of it.

[Javaman]

94. Maintaining Decorum is what got us here in the first place...

The less we speak out, the more were are assimilated into robots. Get pissed! Get angry! rock the boat! Tell them to shove it! This country was founded by people who were pissed off. If a freeper doesn't like it, well tough shit.
The less we exercise our freedoms the more people think they are a privilege an not a right. That's the fix we are in now. Walk tall and tell them that you are a democrat! Tell them it was our voice that gave us the 8 hour work day, health care, over time, unions, etc.
We are to be counted.

[sangh0]

93. Not tired at all

IMO, most of those who are "tired" of being challenged probably aren't very confident of their ideas if they think someone saying "You're making us look bad" is a serious threat.

[noiretextatique]

100. LOL

:thumbsup:

[Lerkfish]

104. I completely agree on some...others are not so bad...

if ALL they do is whine about it, then I dismiss them, but if they have other posts and just once in a while mention it, it holds more credibility to me.