Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Guest HorseloverFat

Con job

Recommended Posts

Guest HorseloverFat

Of course there is no way I can prove this, but I am damm sure Cheney somehow 'conned' Bush into this diaster Iraq.

I mean...why did Cheney chose himself as VP?

Expain that right wingers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by HorseloverFat:

Of course there is no way I can prove this, but I am damm sure Cheney somehow 'conned' Bush into this diaster Iraq.

I mean...why did Cheney chose himself as VP?

Expain that right wingers.


How absurd is it to make an assertion that has absolutely no evidence or basis in fact.

Funny how lefties have gotten so desperate...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest HorseloverFat

If Clinton can be believed, Bush told him on inauguration

day 2001 he was going after Saddam Hussein.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest HorseloverFat

And I have to admit 'Iambic Pentamter' is somwhat confusing.

Somewhat like your right wing version of reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

OMG, where the heck do these freaks come from?

A conspiracy behind every corner..

Dude, get a grip on reality, PLEASE!! LOL

NO, ROFLMAO!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest HorseloverFat

That's the whole problem with you right wing scumbags.

You have no .ucking idea.

And yes, I miss your diatribe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by HorseloverFat:

That's the whole problem with you right wing scumbags.

You have no .ucking idea.

And yes, I miss your diatribe.


Oddly enough, the one who says that everyone else has no idea is the one who actually has no idea.

Now cut the crap and begin respecting EVERYONE on these boards immediately or I'll delight in banning you. We don't call people "scumbags" around here (or any other flame for that matter), regardless of what they believe in.

Ideas are welcome here (even absurd ones). Flame wars are not.

You've been warned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It helps when presenting such ideas to back them up with at least some form of reason. Now you've all heard of PNAC (newamericancentury.org) from previous threads, and most of you have sloughed it off as totally irrelevant. However there is some evidence there that supports the original posters point, even if it is just suspicion and conjecture at this point, it's all at least a little bit more than coincidental.

I urge everyone who hasn't done so to view the site, especially the letters and statements section. I do want to present the names of those known to be participants/supporters of this 'organization' in case some of you have forgotten.

(There are more, but these are the most familiar)

William J. Bennett

Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney

I. Lewis Libby

Dan Quayle

Donald Rumsfeld

Paul Wolfowitz

Richard L. Armitage

John Bolton

Richard Perle

Now any reasonable person could easily draw a correlation between the stance of this organization and the events that have happened since Bush has been in office, add to that the names listed above and it's not too hard to come to the conclusion that the Iraq war was not simply the logical extension of our fight on terrorism but was a foregone conclusion and intent before Bush was even elected.

I don't think Horse's statement, as brief as it may have been, is all that far-fetched.

Here's my conspiracy theory:

This organization was desperate to usher in their vision of a new world order and needed a malleable, impressionable president in the White House, but who? How about that inarticulate son of a former president Dubya? He's got a grudge against Saddam for having tried to assassinate his dad and reason to finish the job his father started with the Gulf War.

Now, this'll make you all think I'm crazy, but I remember to this day the first time I saw GW on tv during the primaries for the elections in 2000. I knew right then he was going to be president and that he was going to be railroaded into the White House. I don't know how, I'm not psychic, but my sense at that time was that this was a man being foisted on the voting population, though I didn't know the reasons for it.

9/11 was the greatest gift PNAC could have wished for because now with their man in the oval office and their cronies in his cabinet, they didn't have to carefully plan a reason or justification for him to present their ideas to the country, they had a golden opportunity handed to them and took full advantage of it. They then proceeded to make a total frickin mess out of the situation and here we are today.

I know, this is the stuff of novels right? Or is it? (Dun...dun...dahhhhhhh)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. Conspiracy theories are typically the whacked-out creation of egomaniacs who have to continuously remind themselves that they're smarter than the rest of us. They tend to do so by creating ideas and connections that the rest of us WON'T see (because they usually don't substantially exist) and then assume that they are the smart ones because the rest of us DON'T see them.

What's usually lacking, though?

The beef.

I'm not necessarily saying that you're some kind of egomaniac; just making a general observation.

Supported by:

quote:


That's the whole problem with you right wing scumbags.

You have no .ucking idea.


Yeah, we have no idea. You're right. You're so smart...

Except, WE are the ones who base our opinions on hard evidence - not unsupported speculation.

Thank God the world works OUR way and not yours.

Now, that being said, there is an irony here...

Conservatives often accuse the Clinton administration of not doing enough to fight terrorism. Liberals, then, ALWAYS shoot back by implying the Bush didn't do enough either, prior to 9/11. That response surely implies that liberals agree that more should have been done, but don't blame Clinton because Bush didn't do it either.

But, then liberals often come back with this Iraq war was premeditated nonsense and act as though its condemning the administration.

But the thing is, if that theory was true ... then why are liberals saying that Bush wasn't doing enough when clearly he was trying to?

This method of trying to have it both ways implies that the left really doesn't know what's going on. But it just HAS to be bad because the country doesn't trust them enough to be in charge of it.

Now, as far as your conspiracy theory goes, despite the fact that you have absolutely no evidence, I find it even MORE difficult to buy into because of the nature of our times.

How in the HELL can an administration stage an election AND a WAR when it can't even keep Scooter Libby's name away from the NY Times? We have a non-stop barrage of leaks (with evidence, mind you) about damned near EVERYTHING and yet somehow the most vast and far-reaching conspiracy of our time remains hushed with only a few SPECULATORS GUESSING that something MAY have happened.

Why is it that conspiracy theorists always ignore any impact that outside events and nature would have unless it falls right in line with the theory?

Because, deep down, they know it's wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by HorseloverFat:

That's the whole problem with you right wing scumbags.

You have no .ucking idea.

And yes, I miss your diatribe.

Dude, if you are going to debate right wingers, which I am proudly one, bring facts, historical precedent, and leave your emotions at the door.

Never mind, if you did that, you wouldn't be a liberal, my bad, please go back to your normally scheduled thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Dude, if you are going to debate right wingers, which I am proudly one, bring facts, historical precedent, and leave your emotions at the door.


I'd wonder what will the facts, historical or real, help? There is always a method to turn them into a perverted conspiracy mongering BS. If I bring you with some statistic, you'd doubt the credibility of the author or you'd just blame statistic inaccuracy or whatever twist in reality that comes in mind.

Anyway, Grizzle just linked a page(above) which explains a lot IMO as well. Same d00ds with those crazy ideas(Wolfowitz as Leo Strauss' pupil have seen forthcoming destruction of morale of american's unless something is done) are now in highest positions of power. And you wonder why?

-v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Anyway, Grizzle just linked a page(above) which explains a lot IMO as well. Same d00ds with those crazy ideas(Wolfowitz as Leo Strauss' pupil have seen forthcoming destruction of morale of american's unless something is done) are now in highest positions of power. And you wonder why?

I don't know ... maybe hard work?

Why is it that liberals almost always see great success as a conspiracy but want to excuse poor behaviors which result in there being an underclass?

Work hard ... be smart ... get ahead in life.

Like I said, this conspiracy stuff is nonsense. No proof = nothing.

Thank God our legal system doesn't work on the "coincidence" system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by aramike

Work hard ... be smart ... get ahead in life.

Like I said, this conspiracy stuff is nonsense. No proof = nothing.


Get ahead in life, for what? We are but falling leaves(as to quote some artist), all paths leads to the cemetary.

So, one guy called Adolf Hitler wrote Mein Kampf where he poses his ideas of racial purity and all kind of nonesense. Then about half century later dozens of guys wrote stuff like PNAC hoping for catalysing events like Pearl Harbor... Well, you don't have to get hit with the bat to know that it'll hurt.

-v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Get ahead in life, for what? We are but falling leaves(as to quote some artist), all paths leads to the cemetary.

By that absurdly silly logic, why complain about poverty then? If you use THAT line of thinking, ANYTHING should be okay with everyone. "Hey, why should I care if you're hungry? We all are gonna just die anyway!"

I'll tell you what... even better, why should anyone work hard to become a doctor, an inventor, etc.

"Some Artist" clearly had no appreciation for the things in life that allowed him to live and therefore articulate stupid thoughts such as that. Heh, why invent language? Why NOT just commit suicide? Why get ahead?

Thank God people like "Some Artist" don't run the world.

Umm, no dice.

quote:


So, one guy called Adolf Hitler wrote Mein Kampf where he poses his ideas of racial purity and all kind of nonesense.

...and he was defeated by his own ideology of "rightness". Hitler may have won if he went for Moscow rather than Stalingrad. But, by going against the common wishes of those who served him (because his version of "right" was inflexible), he was destroyed.

The disgustingly beautiful thing about Hitler is that he is all the proof I need against liberalism: everyone, and I mean damned-near EVERYONE, sought to appease him. He was only defeated, however, by staying the course.

So, while all you Chamberlains out there keep trying to tell us how we're creating more terrorists by fighting them (which is actually LOL preposterous; I mean, we also created more Nazi soldiers by fighting back - SO WHAT? Should be allow Nazism to exist because to face it we temporarily perpetuate it to a localized extent?), doesn't mean that OTHER ideas won't turn out to be the right ones.

Or, are you Hitlerian in your inflexibility?

quote:


Then about half century later dozens of guys wrote stuff like PNAC hoping for catalysing events like Pearl Harbor...

First of all, that is ABSURD and why you aren't to be taking seriously. Sure, a dozen guys wrote PNAC. But the BS (and thick, stinky BS) comes in by their hoping to be a catalyst for events such as Pearl Harbor. That is UNEVIDENCED speculation, and a conspiracy all its own.

Get it yet? Conspiracy theories are often the results of themselves. You have to literally make events mean WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO MEAN for your theory to be true. Why? Because NO EVIDENCE SUPPORTS IT.

quote:


Well, you don't have to get hit with the bat to know that it'll hurt.

Perhaps not.

But someone does...

Meaning ... we have to learn lessons from each other. (Ahem, Chamberlain)

[ 10-03-2006, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: aramike ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest HorseloverFat

Evidently, the 'some artist' in question is :

Artist: SENTENCED

Album: THE FUNERAL ALBUM (2005).

However, it's just a guess.

And yes, I will try not to be a 'Ninnyhammer'.

But I am sure there is something to my original hypothesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Voli0:

quote:

Originally posted by aramike

Work hard ... be smart ... get ahead in life.

Like I said, this conspiracy stuff is nonsense. No proof = nothing.


Get ahead in life, for what? We are but falling leaves(as to quote some artist), all paths leads to the cemetary.

So, one guy called Adolf Hitler wrote Mein Kampf where he poses his ideas of racial purity and all kind of nonesense. Then about half century later dozens of guys wrote stuff like PNAC hoping for catalysing events like Pearl Harbor... Well, you don't have to get hit with the bat to know that it'll hurt.

-v


That was just a feeling, and feelings aren't necessarily logical... That wasn't meant to be a any sort of intellectual statement.

-v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Voli0:

That was just a feeling, and feelings aren't necessarily logical... That wasn't meant to be a any sort of intellectual statement.

-v

I would hope not.

And liberals work off "feelings" all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

OK. Conspiracy theories are typically the whacked-out creation of egomaniacs who have to continuously remind themselves that they're smarter than the rest of us. They tend to do so by creating ideas and connections that the rest of us WON'T see (because they usually don't substantially exist) and then assume that they are the smart ones because the rest of us DON'T see them.

That's interesting, but it would seem to me that a cynical, skeptical and suspiscious mind, moreso than ego, would be the reasons why.

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

Now, as far as your conspiracy theory goes, despite the fact that you have absolutely no evidence, I find it even MORE difficult to buy into because of the nature of our times.

How in the HELL can an administration stage an election AND a WAR when it can't even keep Scooter Libby's name away from the NY Times? We have a non-stop barrage of leaks (with evidence, mind you) about damned near EVERYTHING and yet somehow the most vast and far-reaching conspiracy of our time remains hushed with only a few SPECULATORS GUESSING that something MAY have happened.

An election doesn't have to be 'staged' especially with an electoral college, all one needs to do is focus on those few key states that could guarantee victory, play a little dirty politics and roll the dice. Great if they win, if not try, try again. What's so impossible about that?

It is curious though, how the 2000 election was one of the most hotly contested in history...

There is nothing illegal about a group of people getting together to share common ideas and attempt to implement them, it should only be a concern if those people have political power and could control the country and foreign policy. This ain't no group of power brokers planning a real estate deal.

If the fact that the same men involved in PNAC end up in the highest of government offices, then world events happen to coincide with their publicy stated world views doesn't raise at least *some* suspicion in ones mind then they are either extremely naive or willfully foolish.

The term is conspiracy theory, not conspiracy fact. No one has to believe any of it and it doesn't require proof. Regardless of any truth behind it, it's really just a reflection of the business of politics anyway.

There's more handshaking and nepotism going on than is good for a healthy government, but that's exactly how our government operates. The idea that this administration is just a cabal of neo-cons who's own ideology failed them, is not outside the realm of possibility with the current state of politics in this country is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


That's interesting, but it would seem to me that a cynical, skeptical and suspiscious mind, moreso than ego, would be the reasons why.

I'll stick with ego. Without an enhanced sense of self-importance, skepticism and cynicism isn't likely in cases where the evidence DOES NOT support the theories.

Therefore, without any actual proof of their proclamation, the egotist feels said assertion is still solid enough to assert.

Why would a logical person do such a thing?

Either they want to be known as the "smart ones" who found "it" first should it turn out to be true or, more likely (as most conspiracy theories are not proven), they feel that THEY are on to something that NO ONE ELSE is onto...because... no one else is smart enough to "see" it.

I'll believe its the nature of simply a skeptical mind when conspiracy theorists begin to admit when they are proven wrong.

More often, they attribute any proof as to their being wrong as a conspiracy in itself.

Therefore, they can't POSSIBLY be wrong.

That's ego.

quote:


An election doesn't have to be 'staged' especially with an electoral college, all one needs to do is focus on those few key states that could guarantee victory, play a little dirty politics and roll the dice. Great if they win, if not try, try again. What's so impossible about that?

Considering that I was arguing against an election being "staged", that's irrelevent.

You can't argue my counterpoint to an election being staged with an argument as to how staging an election isn't really the topic.

If you want to debate the electoral college system, however, I'm game in another thread as you're WAY oversimplifying it.

quote:


It is curious though, how the 2000 election was one of the most hotly contested in history...

So? If NASCAR has the closest race in history it doesn't mean there's a conspiracy ... it means simply that they had the closest race in history.

Sometime face value is what it is.

quote:


There is nothing illegal about a group of people getting together to share common ideas and attempt to implement them, it should only be a concern if those people have political power and could control the country and foreign policy. This ain't no group of power brokers planning a real estate deal.

So - the only people who should have political power in this nation are people who don't share common ideas and attempt to implement them? HUH?

That's absurd.

I have a feeling that what you REALLY meant was that people who share common ideas that are DIFFERENT from your own has no place in political power.

Thank God that our democracy allows for ideas to be shared.

Dude, when you VOTE, you're voting for people to get into power who have ideas that YOU SHARE, hopefully.

quote:


If the fact that the same men involved in PNAC end up in the highest of government offices, then world events happen to coincide with their publicy stated world views doesn't raise at least *some* suspicion in ones mind then they are either extremely naive or willfully foolish.

Or, maybe they aroused SOME suspicion, found that NO EVIDENCE justified that suspicion, and was SMART enough to move on.

quote:


The term is conspiracy theory, not conspiracy fact. No one has to believe any of it and it doesn't require proof.

This statement seemingly contradicts your earlier statement that it would be "foolish" to not be suspicious.

A fool would ignore facts, not mere coicidences.

Oh, and by the way, the "coincidences" that we would all be foolish to ignore are VERY, VERY thin.

In fact, events have to be looked at in a very specific light and WITHOUT regard for certain OTHER facts in order to even call events "coincidences".

This is why a somewhat liberally-biased media hasn't picked up on these so-called coincidences.

quote:


There's more handshaking and nepotism going on than is good for a healthy government, but that's exactly how our government operates.

Trust me - you do NOT want to go back and debate which side of the aisle has practiced more nepotism in the White House. It doesn't look good for the left.

quote:


The idea that this administration is just a cabal of neo-cons who's own ideology failed them, is not outside the realm of possibility with the current state of politics in this country is it?

See, that statement in and of itself is flawed because you have to be of the OPINION that the ideology has failed to even BEGIN to look at events in the light needed to create these so-called coincidences.

I tend to prefer to look at FACTUAL coincidences that exist DESPITE the light in which I look at them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×