The Wellstone Conspiracy (A valid debating technique?)

Great Debates
1

There really is no low to which the Democrats won’t sink. After Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton met with Torricelli, they convinced him to drop out of the race even though the deadline was way past for such actions.

The Democrats could not afford to lose.

The Minnesota situation was much more troublesome. Wellstone had agreed to serve only two terms when he started, so this campain was losing some credibility for him and the Democrats. Being very liberal to boot, it was going to be hard for him to eke this one out. Clearly he had to be replaced.

Clinton and Kennedy of course knew that they could never get away with the same trick they pulled with Torricelli, and clearly Wellstone wasn’t the kind of man to back out of a race.

Fortunately Bill and Ted had an exxxxxxcelleeeent idea. Both had experience dealing with pesky problems, and know when somebody has to take one for the team. After whitewater and all, Bill had wracked up a body count higher than Rambo, so it was thought that it was best to let Ted handle it. Ted of course has experience with ways to kill people vehicularly. There was that thing on the bridge, back in the 60s, but more recently recall the incident of Ted’s pesky nephew.

Does anybody really believe that the means of death between John-John and Wellstone are purely coincidence? On the eve of such and important Senate race?

Ted Kennedy had the plane tampered with so it would crash, killing Wellstone and his family and aides, so that he could be replaced in the race, and Walter Mondale could hold onto the majority.

The Democrats, have proved that they’ll do anything to hold onto power. They’ll lie, they’ll cheat, they’ll steal.

Bill Clinton killed for money at Whitewater, and he Federally perjured himself to cover up a BJ. With that kind of track record, how are we supposed to beleive he wouldn’t lie and kill for something as important as this?

Of course it was the Clinton administration’s 8 years of lies, deceit, and anything goes laissez faire attitude for business management, that led to the speculative excesses of the 1990, and the subsequent accounting scandals as scores of liberal CEOs and managers sought to imitate the POTUS.

And like rats fleeing a sinking ship, they turn around and try to blame it on the Republicans. Typical. But, what more do you expect from a Democrat?

Ted Kennedy of course is no stranger to termination with extreme prejudice. One will notice, that there’s been a lot of murders and deaths around this fine upstanding member of the Boston political elite. Coming from a background of gangsters and rum runners this is hardly surprising. What is surprising is the gall of the Democrats, in assuming the public won’t catch on.

As the little brother, and let’s face it, not the smartest of the bunch, there was bound to be some fraternal jealousy. How much bitter rage must Ted have felt as he waited in the grassy knoll? And poor Bobby, poor poor Bobby. And that girl. He pulled her out, and she swam free. How was it Ted’s fault if she decided to swim back into the car and drown herself.

And then, with John-John’s growing ascendancy in the public eye, how could we expect Ted to abide? It was just not in his nature.

Maybe we believe after the first. Maybe after the second. How many must die before it is no longer a coincidence? Before we take note?

So, Ted was clearly the man for the job.

The pieces fit perfectly. There is a long history of this kind of thing with the ole Democrats. The lying the cheaing, the corruption, the campaigns of murder. Character (and other kinds) of asassination.

Following on the heels of the Torricelli scandal, it is all too obvious what really happened last Friday.

The only question of course is where was Al Gore?

Pulling the strings, as usual.

This of course is inspired by the “Are Republicans Evil” thread, and the various Krugman/Bush conspiracy threads.

I’ve been fighting a lot of this kind of bullshit and innuendo recently. It’s very easy to do. Make shit up. Put shit together.

The thing is though, that it’s a lot of work to disprove this kind of thing. Everything in the above scenario could have happened.

In order to prove it didn’t requires some complex explaining. In order to deny it you give it credibility and if you keep making up chains of innuendo and lies like the one I just completed, their simple mass takes on inertia on it’s own.

The accusation doesn’t have to be true. It doesn’t need to be factual. All you need is a whole lot of them, get the other guy denying and explaining, and all of a sudden the question becomes “if the guy is innocent why does he spend all his time denying and refuting wrongdoing?”

If you throw enough mud, some of it will stick.

It’s an interesting thing about lies. The Bible doesn’t say “don’t lie.” A world without lies is silly. Anybody who’s ever had their wife ask them if this dress makes them look fat, knows that there are good lies.

What the Bible says is “Don’t bear false witness against your neighbor.”

Don’t sling mud. Don’t make shit up about other people. That’s the sin. That’s the evil. Lies, and irresponsible innuendo that undermine the real arguments.

It seems to me that when you start doing this kind of thing, you intrinsically show your own corruptibility, your own lack of moral integrity.

That’s all you show.

2

I’m sorry; your bullshit rant appears to have been posted in the wrong forum. Please have it moved where I can respond in the style most appropriate.

3

It is not a bullshit rant xenophon41 it is a valid question deserving of a reasonable answer. Am I to take it that you can not provide one without resorting to poor language and/or attacks to Scylla’s character?

4

So this is what it would be like if Ted Rall were a Republican…

5

Scylla said:

This is why we always say in debates around here (and anywhere else) that the person making the claim is the one who has to back it, not the other way around. Admittedly, that doesn’t necessarily work very well in the world of politics, but perhaps it’s something they ought to try.

And, xenophon41, perhaps you should have read the entire OP before posting your response…

6

And, here, I was all set to show that this was one more Republican-orchestrated plane crash like the one in Missouri (although that one backfired on them). I shoulda knowed that Scylla would get his hoary conspiracy in before I could post my hoary conspiracy.

7

From what I’ve read about John John, I’m not sure offing him was a horribly bad idea.

8

tomndebb said:

Ah, but did it? Ashcroft is now the Attorney General, with far more power than he would have had as a mere Senator.

9

“A valid debating technique?” – The OP

Yes, in the netherworld of the Democratic Underground. Proving, once again, that nuts fall from all the trees.

No evidence necessary, just an abiding belief that your political opponents are intrinsically evil.

For example:

Premise - A small plane crashes with a Democratic Senator aboard.

Second Premise - All Republicans are evil and plot murder.

Conclusion - Absent any evidence, ignoring the danger inherent in aviation, obviously the Republicans killed the Senator - and, presumably, Amelia Earhart, Buddy Holly, and Aaliyah (sp?).

10

Say, just curious:

How many big name politicans have died in plane crashes in the last 20 years, and what percentage were Democrats?

11

Wellstone was going to WIN. He was starting to pull away. His lead over Coleman had doubled in the past couple of weeks. He wasn’t in trouble, he had it locked up. So much for THAT theory.

12

Its about time someone had the courage to come out firmly opposed to mud slinging, lies and innuendo. We need some more expert testimony.

Perhaps we can get some people from the staff of American Spectator. You remember them, don’t you? Blew the lid off the Troopergate scandal, got to the bottom of the whole Arkansas coke smuggling ring. Not to mention the defilement and debasement of the innocent ingenue, Paula Jones, the Heidi of the Ozarks.

Or howzabout Matt Drudge? Make him an advisor, Correspondent Emeritus, or some such. Who else would have had the courage to boldly expose the Wellstone plot to bus thousands of Socialist youth to Minnesota to register and vote on Election Day. Or maybe it was from Minnesota. Anyway, Minnesota was definitely involved, and there is no denying the fact that Wellstone’s name was mentioned. Go ahead, try and deny it!

And lest you think this is less than verifiable, well, be advised that no less a journalistic paragon of integrity than Rush Limbaugh, yes, the Orca of the Airwaves, has lent his untarnished reputation. And I won’t hear any snide innuendos about “sexual orientation” as to Drudge and Limbaugh. It is well known the Rush’s sexual preference is money. So don’t go there. I’m warning you.

For balance, we would have to mention Paul Krugman, who has repeatedly, habitualy, and consistently published opinions that are clearly at variance with the real facts, as established by Scylla to his entire satsifaction.

Now, of course, one cannot help but see a bit of oneself here. (“Judge not, lest ye be judged” as the Good Book says. “For my brother Esau is a hairy man, and I am a smooth man”, it says elsewhere. Wise words, indeed.)

What with “…and the various Krugman/Bush conspiracy threads…” its kind of hard not to see some of oneself. But one is gullible, and easily misled by the dark conspiracies of the New York Times, Washington Post, London Guardian They cook up these quotes, these dates, these documents and statements, and heck, they look real. Like they’re reporting on real events, actual happenings.

And even after being firmly advised otherwise by the World’s Foremost Authority, yet, in my blindness, I persist in thinking that they are telling the truth! I can well understand becoming disheartened, and refusing to pander to my ignorance by answering pointed, direct questions. I mean, it must be so tiresome to argue with someone who simply won’t listen!

Not that I would know anything about that, or anything.

So fie on you, you correspondents, you editorial hacks! Don’t try to confuse me with your “facts”, your “documents”, your “quotes”! Scylla said it, he believes it, and that settles it!

13

Shortly after the Wellstone crash, a buddy of mine suggested that it was somehow too “convenient” to be pure coincidence, that an avowed enemy of Ashcroft dies right before an election. I responded to that the way I respond to the JFK conspiracy freaks. To suggest such a thing, embedded within your own political fantasies, is to do nothing more than cheapen the life of the tragedy’s victim. I find conspiracy theories occasionally amusing when they’re vague, but when they involve tragic events I find them offensive. Using a dead man to prey on political fears and advance one’s own agenda. Despicable.

So an excellent point, Scylla. Don’t let 'em get away with this junk.

14

Just wondering, is there ANY evidence AT ALL - I’ll take one state trooper with a grudge - that Wellstone was killed by anything other than a run-of-the-mill plane crash?

15

I’d settle for a hoary marmot myself.

16

I like cake!

17

Since the Dems have stepped on the collective toes of the GOPs, the GOPs must now step back.

How old are you, anyway?

18

Conspiracy theories are fascinating to me in that they provide concrete evidence of a lack of transparency. In the event that common sense and cheap suggestions are proposed, and then rejected - it becomes much more interesting =)

-Justhink

19

In this instance - I believe freezing rain was the attribution - you have to consider the use of weather changing devices for warfare purposes; direct violation of UN charter. Oops, does such a thing even exist? It’s nebulous on this case – tons of black boxes which attack sensibility and fuel the imagination.

As a general principle on conspiracy theories, I take this stance (until I succeed at my omniscient AI project=P):

Figure out all the non-transparencies which allow the theory to be formulated.

Find ways to simplify the process and make it cheaper, yet more transparent.

Propose the process.

Wait. =)

-Justhink

20

I started a thread on the Wellstone death here in GD.

Unfortunately, the hamsters ate my OP, the thread driveled on for a bit, and then got locked.Have a look if you are interested.

I was surprised, however, that there were accusations that I thought Wellstone was part of a conspiracy to get out of a race in which he was no better than even. A conspiracy which involved him dying. WTF?

FWIW, the original thread title was supposed to be “Wellstone Has a Better Excuse than Torriccelli” for being replaced late in the race, and went on to request the board’s ideas on whether this meant that Norm Coleman, the Republican, would win the Senate race and return control of the Senate to the Republicans.

It just struck me as odd that conspiracy theories reared their heads almost at once, out of thin air. Same in a Pit thread on the same subject. Also odd that the ones accused of conspiring are Democrats, not Republicans.

Regards,
Shodan
Twelve posts to a thousand. Woo hoo!