I listened to the entire thing, finally. You are right and I beg pardon for being wrong. I am still very suspicious.
Since you admit you are mistaken about what Kennedy was actually talking about, for what specific reason are you still suspicious?
Can you provide a link so that we may listen to it too?
Edited to add: Nevermind-there is an audio on Budget Player Cadet’s link.
What’s your take on Ross Perot? Remember the Presidential Debate where he described to Herbert Walker Bush and Bill Clinton and the rest of us on his idea about globalizing the economy?
Actually it was the North American Free Trade Agreement at the time, that he ran against, and I didn’t find out until after I voted for Bill who signed it anyway to the chagrin of all unions.
I now believe Perot was right on the money. Just look at the recent thread where the man dismisses Rand Paul about not extending unemployment benefits. Since the great “sucking sound” of our jobs going to Mexico, the entire economy is now globalized. And ol’ Ross said it won’t stop until their living standards improve to meet our declining ones, and we’re talking global now, not just Mexico.
I really do not like what’s going on and I think a big fix for the whole world is to get everyone to just stop borrowing money. Period. I stopped borrowing money years ago, and it’s working for me.
If our outgo exceeds our income our upkeep will be our downfall.
Grow your own food.
Keep your powder dry.
Peace.
This makes absolutely no sense.
Perot’s predictions on NAFTA never really came to pass. But there’s no free trade agreement with the rest of the world, especially China where a lot of low level manufacturing jobs have gone. NAFTA or not, those jobs would have gone overseas.
“Vague generally disquieting things happened after somebody made (wrong) specific, and disquieting predictions”. That’s a poor basis for building a viewpoint.
Yeah, we get it. There’s a general feeling of unease and such. People have felt that to varying degrees for all of recorded history. That’s no reason to jump to conspiracies.
Ok I’ll go repair my page and clean it up, thanks. I have quite a collection.
I’m still a “right wing gun nut”, “birther”, “truther”, “CT-er”. I can’t help it. Half the nation is dependent while I enjoy being independent as best I can, I see big brother intruding more and more…
Pleased to exchange these words, and I will correct my crap on my page. Thanks again.
I took a lump sum cash distribution on my annuity to pay cash for my new home and Uncle Sam is taxing the bejeezus out of me.
Why don’t they leave me alone? They’re still going to print more out of thin air. Why bother me in the first place?
As someone who believes in certain aspects of conspiracy theories, I thought I’d weigh in:
I think people who dismiss conspiracy theories out of hand are just as bad as the ones who buy into them wholesale. There is a ton of misinformation floating around the internet regarding traditional conspiracy theories. Members of the Obama adminstration have even realized the benefit of this (See: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585). By making the theory absurd, they discredit it. And all you really have to do is plant the seed of absurdity and the conspiracy theorists will drive themselves insane creating new, illogical theories. So you get things like the controlled demolition of tower 7, or the planes were holograms, or a missile hit the pentagon. All of this is patently false and the people who believe it are misguided.
However, the idea there may have been members of the US government involved in the 9/11 attacks, at least peripherally, shouldn’t be dismissed just because it sounds absurd. It’s probably happened before. For instance, there is evidence the Oklahoma City Bombings were instigated by an FBI agent provocateur (See: They Are Lying to You About the Oklahoma City Bombing - Antiwar.com Original) so, it’s not outside the realm of possibility that the 9/11 attacks were part of a greater conspiracy. (Note: I’m not saying this is proof, but if the good Scott Horton is to be believed, certain parts of the government have a good track of instigating attacks on US soil.)
Let me say right now: I don’t know for sure. But neither do you. So, let’s not presume.
For one, before the NSA exploded into a gargantuan mess, it’s surveillance was relatively focused. They were listening in to most of the 19 hijackers’ phone calls coming out of Yemen at the time (See Shadow Factory by James Bamford). They were aware they were planning an attack. One of the lower level analysts (the name escapes me at the moment, but the story is detailed extensively by Bamford in the aforementioned book) even submitted a report on the likelihood of an attack to the higher-ups, but the report was stonewalled as irrelevent. That to me seems suspicious. It could, I’ll admit, be the result of general bureaucratic incompetence. It could also be the result of a conspiracy of negligence. Remember when Rahm Emanuel had the debacle awhile ago for saying something along the lines of “Never let a good disaster go to waste”? This line of logic is nothing new; it goes all the way back to Machiavelli, probably further. Is it so implausible the Bush adminstration allowed the attacks to occur? I’m not saying they were instrumental in the planning, but it’s certainly possible, and in my opinion, probable, they knew exactly what was going to happen and did nothing to stop it from happening. They didn’t exactly have a good track record at telling the truth to the public (WMDs anyone?).
Anyway, that’s my two cents. Anyone who is certain one way or the other is kidding themselves. I have similar feelings on the Kennedy assassination, by the way.
Because whether you like it or not, you live in a society of human beings. It sucks, but it’s the case.
Way more than half of the nation is dependent on others, but that’s a good thing, it allows for specialization of labor. If everyone must provide their own food, provide their own security, build their own home, and so forth, then there can be no full-time engieers, scientists, soldiers, artists, or anything like a modern economy that produces great wealth and comfort.
Also, I’m not sure how being right-wing, a gun-nut, or striving for independence is related to believing in conspiracy theories. Perhaps you can explain.
I admit, I do think there’s an element of mental illness - of unconvincability and certainty in the face of evidence - that defines a great many conspiracy theorists. I wish it weren’t so, but in my time in journalism and as a politician I’ve seen all forms of this and when questioned it becomes and endless loop of self-justification and disbelief, regardless of the data presented.
Or, to sum up.
Those terms are individual derrogatory comments I’ve collected along the way from different episodes. One can doubt that a paper fire can destroy a steel framed fire proof building and still take Obama’s online posting of his birth certificate at face value.
A truther doesn’t necessarily have to be a birther. I just happen to sympathize with all of them.
I see, I didn’t realize you meant all those labels weren’t self-imposed, though on re-read I guess the quotes around them should have been a tip-off. Thanks for clearing that up.
You’re welcome smarty pants.
Want my opinion on The Theory of Evolution while I’m at it?
I think a tornado has a better chance of roaring through a trailer park and leaving behind a gleaming Boeing 747-400 all fueled and ready for take off.
Ok, good to know. If you want to debate these individual topics (gun rights, 9/11, Obama’s citizenship status, evolution, living independently, etc), it’d be a good idea to start threads on them, or search for previous ones and add to them. That’s how this forum works.
I was always under the impression that Science was supposed to be a Truth Movement.
How do you explain the collapse of a couple of skyscrapers in less than 30 seconds without providing data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the buildings?
It is pretty funny that the nation that put men on the Moon and talks about STEM education and Critical Thinking isn’t full of people who ask such questions. 
Conspiracies and psychology are irrelevant to physics.
Haven’t psychologists heard of experiments like Pavlov’s Dog? So why don’t they expect physicists to do experiments to test the collapsing skyscraper theories?
psik
Unfortunately not all of them get out of bed in the morning every day, feel like it or not, and go to work.
I sympathize with the conservative rant against redistributing my wealth to someone else who can’t even get up and do the dishes.
Did you know more is spent on corporate subsidies than welfare?
Is this thread supposed to be about conspiracy theorists, or the conspiracy theories themselves?
ROFL
Who gets called a “conspiracy theorist” and what is a “conspiracy theory” by people who can’t figure out the physics? :smack:
psik