Bush - "Without a Doubt" NY Times Mag.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 21 2004, 09:46 PM
Sorry Bingo, but to be defined a conspiracy theorist because I do not agree with those on the right here is insulting. You don't think so because it agrees with your politics. That is every bit as insulting, and to those that agree with me as wellWhatever. Again, that's your calland we all live with it.

BTW... George Will was just on Sean Hannity's syndicated radio show talking about the election and how close it was. Guess what they evoked? You guessed it, fear! They ended their analysis saying that its too close to call and that its time America was afraid. Fear would get them through this election and the right candidate elected. How did you put that? "Wow, you can imagine my surprise!" The mindless right preying upon mindless fear? Say it isn't so.

Its the mindless right AND mindless left preying on the fears of the electorate.

Elect GW Bush and he'll lead us into more wars.

Elect John Kerry and he'll lead us into the hands of atom-bomb armed terrorists.

They're both doing it. Obviously.

Cowperson

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Oct 21 2004, 09:40 PM
So you have to believe in conspiracies to be considered smart?

The more elaborate, multi-layered and improbable . . . . the smarter that makes you?

Not likely.

"Conspiracy theories are one way to make sense of what happened and regain a sense of control. Of course, they're usually wrong, but they're psychologically reassuring. Because what they say is that everything is connected, nothing happens by accident, and that there is some kind of order in the world, even if it's produced by evil forces. I think psychologically, it's in a way consoling to a lot of people."- Michael Barkun, political scientist, Syracuse University and author of book on the culture of conspiracies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...9-2004Oct6.html

The point is, how is that any different than what George Bush does (and others), and howcome he doesn't get labeled a "conspiracy theorist" the same way and by the same people?

It's because labeling something as a "conspiracy theory" is to undermine its value. People only label something as a conspiracy theory as a way to ridicule it.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

You know Cow, you're right on the money. Both camps are down in the gutter rolling around getting dirty. Its pathetic on both sides. I guess the part that really just rubs me the wrong way is that the right has a better voice in supporting their claims than the left. For years we heard how unbalanced things were, well its worse now. It sucks to be in the middle of this election. I wish the vote were taking place tomorrow just to get it the hell over with!

:angry:

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 21 2004, 03:46 PM
Sorry Bingo, but to be defined a conspiracy theorist because I do not agree with those on the right here is insulting. You don't think so because it agrees with your politics. That is every bit as insulting, and to those that agree with me as wellWhatever. Again, that's your calland we all live with it.

Both sides are using fear Lanny ...

When have I called you a conspiracy theorist for disagreeing with me? I don't believe in conspiracies as a rule regardless of what direction they point. Go ahead ... test me? I hate them all.

I give my dad hell all the time for Roswell. I don't believe JFK was shot by anyone other than Oswald, and I don't believe some of the stuff you said about 911.

Conspiracies are exciting and sexy, I can understand the appeal, but I just don't happen to agree with them.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Oct 21 2004, 09:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Oct 21 2004, 09:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Oct 21 2004, 09:40 PM
So you have to believe in conspiracies to be considered smart?#

The more elaborate, multi-layered and improbable . . . . the smarter that makes you?#

Not likely.

"Conspiracy theories are one way to make sense of what happened and regain a sense of control. Of course, they're usually wrong, but they're psychologically reassuring. Because what they say is that everything is connected, nothing happens by accident, and that there is some kind of order in the world, even if it's produced by evil forces. I think psychologically, it's in a way consoling to a lot of people."- Michael Barkun, political scientist, Syracuse University and author of book on the culture of conspiracies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...9-2004Oct6.html

The point is, how is that any different than what George Bush does (and others), and howcome he doesn't get labeled a "conspiracy theorist" the same way and by the same people?

It's because labeling something as a "conspiracy theory" is to undermine its value. People only label something as a conspiracy theory as a way to ridicule it. [/b][/quote]
I see your point although I don't think its as simple as you're making it.

I've made the point before that a lot of those folks objecting to the rationale for the war on Iraq actually didn't, more often than not, come out and say they were opposed because there was no WMD in Iraq.

Mostly they were objecting on moral grounds, or on grounds inspectors needed more time, or on grounds the case wasn't proven (different than declaring nothing was there), on grounds the threat wasn't specific to the USA, etc, etc.

Few actually said there was nothing there, including most opponents of the conflict. As one example, our friend RougeUnderoos will concede he was among the dissenters, objecting to the war but surprised as GW Bush that zero WMD was actually there and also surprised American troops weren't killed in droves by chemical weapons.

In that sense, the majority, including opponents, shared GW Bush's conspiracy theory. And he at least had the CIA director declaring a "slam dunk" on the matter.

Someone coming along and saying no plane crashed into the Pentagon is suffering from pure dementia.

Cowperson

[Lurch]

Its the mindless right AND mindless left preying on the fears of the electorate.

Elect GW Bush and he'll lead us into more wars.

Elect John Kerry and he'll lead us into the hands of atom-bomb armed terrorists.

To be fair, Bush (and Bush presidencies generally) has a track record regarding wars. Not clear to me its fearmongering any more than Bush saying Kerry is likely to lead the country in a more liberal direction (for better or worse, depending on your POV). Given that Kerry has no track record one way or the other wrt terrorism, its a different class of innuendo.

You know Cow, you're right on the money. Both camps are down in the gutter rolling around getting dirty. Its pathetic on both sides. I guess the part that really just rubs me the wrong way is that the right has a better voice in supporting their claims than the left. For years we heard how unbalanced things were, well its worse now. It sucks to be in the middle of this election. I wish the vote were taking place tomorrow just to get it the hell over with!

The far right does have a better voice than the far left, but that's simply b/c there are far more far righties in America. Within the moderate band of the political spectrum, I just don't see a bias in the mainstream media taken as a whole that you seem to. You see unbalance from your end of the teeter, while there are those on this site that see bias from their end of the totter. If the media toed the "Lanny Line", it seems pretty clear there would be bias, so its only natural you get fed up given your perspective.

[Flame On]

Originally posted by Bingo@Oct 21 2004, 07:28 PM
Maybe I should just let this stuff be, but why do those on the left on this site insist in talking in absolutes?


So I guess I can deduce that I too would not be thinking in a christian manner if I felt going to Iraq was a good idea?

First I'm stupid, then insane, and now I'm no longer even a Christian.

YOU ... you think the Iraq war was a bad idea. I respect you for your opinion and don't really feel the need to convince you otherwise. But someone that does think it was a good idea, isn't wrong. Nor are they stupid or insane.

Can't you guys see that?

I'd just like to point out that you mention talking in absolutes, then almost the next line surmise that if you we disagree that going to war in Iraq is in keeping with Christian faiths that we think you're not Christian.
An example of talking in absolutes if ever I saw one.

Anyway I just can't believe that any Christian worth their salt, thinks that if Jesus came down and had one decision to make based on those who spoke up for peace and those who spoke up for war, that the peace ones wouldn't do slightly better from "The Prince of Peace".