GoBills808 Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 (edited) speaking of conspiracy theories... would the Main Stream Morons perpetuating the Russian Hacking/Collusion with the Trump campaign be considered such? i mean... they have absolutely no evidence, at all. yet they continue to push the stories hard. wacky tin foil hat crap for sure.... Brennan just said that not only did the Russians 'brazenly interfere' with our 2016 presidential election, but he both saw and knew of intel and information showing 'contact and interactions' between Russian officials and Trump team members. *And there's a difference between reasonable skepticism and using politicized conspiracies to forward a personal agenda. Edited May 23, 2017 by GoBills808 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 Brennan just said that not only did the Russians 'brazenly interfere' with our 2016 presidential election, but he both saw and knew of intel and information showing 'contact and interactions' between Russian officials and Trump team members. *And there's a difference between reasonable skepticism and using politicized conspiracies to forward a personal agenda. Brennan has a large stake in the outcome of this investigation. His word alone shouldn't be evidence of anything as he's pushed faulty intel before (see 2003). Now if he backs up his claims today with evidence, I'll listen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 Brennan just said that not only did the Russians 'brazenly interfere' with our 2016 presidential election, but he both saw and knew of intel and information showing 'contact and interactions' between Russian officials and Trump team members. *And there's a difference between reasonable skepticism and using politicized conspiracies to forward a personal agenda. Brennan also said that drone strikes have never killed a single non-combatant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 Brennan has a large stake in the outcome of this investigation. His word alone shouldn't be evidence of anything as he's pushed faulty intel before (see 2003). Now if he backs up his claims today with evidence, I'll listen. Brennan also said that drone strikes have never killed a single non-combatant. Brennan is exactly the kind of dude I hate bringing up to try to make a point, because ^^ this, obviously...but I think there's enough evidence coming to light that it justifies the investigation and the resources expended. Comey will shed further light. As will Flynn's documents once they're obtained. Until then it's more of the same speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 Brennan is exactly the kind of dude I hate bringing up to try to make a point, because ^^ this, obviously...but I think there's enough evidence coming to light that it justifies the investigation and the resources expended. Comey will shed further light. As will Flynn's documents once they're obtained. Until then it's more of the same speculation. My point being: something isn't true just because the person saying it has a name. When you argue "so-and-so said this, so it must be true" you're simultaneously arguing that all the other stupid **** so-and-so said must be true because they're so-and-so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 My point being: something isn't true just because the person saying it has a name. When you argue "so-and-so said this, so it must be true" you're simultaneously arguing that all the other stupid **** so-and-so said must be true because they're so-and-so. I guess I could argue that both claiming Iraq had WMDs and no collateral damage from drones could be the result of misinformation as opposed to a deliberate attempt mislead and constitute a fundamental difference in kind to outright fabrication of multiple instances and pieces of evidence which is what the two of you seem to be saying...but I'd rather not. Besides, I agree with you on the so-and-so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 I guess I could argue that both claiming Iraq had WMDs and no collateral damage from drones could be the result of misinformation as opposed to a deliberate attempt mislead and constitute a fundamental difference in kind to outright fabrication of multiple instances and pieces of evidence which is what the two of you seem to be saying...but I'd rather not. Besides, I agree with you on the so-and-so. I'm saying arguments to authority are bull ****. I'm not saying **** about "outright fabrication of multiple instances and pieces of evidence." Largely because we have a paucity of evidence. We have a surfeit of rumor and gossip. And for God's sake people...stop with the "Bush lied about WMDs!" nonsense. None of you knows **** about what you're talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 So is the Manchester bombing just Trump getting back at the Brits for tipping off the FBI about Manafort having a gimlet with a Russian hooker/spy in a Manhattan bar that precipitated the investigation(s) that has(have) since gone full gatortard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 Conspiracy believers democrats please repeat after me: Wikileaks leaking John Podesta's embarrassing emails is not "election hacking." Reminder: "email hacking" takes 3 fewer characters than "election hacking.", but that's not what the average democrat wants to hear. YouGov poll: 52% of Democrats believe Russia tampered with the vote totals to get Trump elected president Is this the Wikileaks Trump likes or the Wikileaks Trump Trump hates? Brennan just said that not only did the Russians 'brazenly interfere' with our 2016 presidential election, but he both saw and knew of intel and information showing 'contact and interactions' between Russian officials and Trump team members. *And there's a difference between reasonable skepticism and using politicized conspiracies to forward a personal agenda. Thats what I heard him say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 So is the Manchester bombing just Trump getting back at the Brits for tipping off the FBI about Manafort having a gimlet with a Russian hooker/spy in a Manhattan bar that precipitated the investigation(s) that has(have) since gone full gatortard? No no no. This is all part of the Koch brothers nefarious plot to enforce IPv6 upon the world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 IPv6 Bastards. Hexidecimal no bueno. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted May 24, 2017 Author Share Posted May 24, 2017 (edited) speaking of conspiracy theories... would the Main Stream Morons perpetuating the Russian Hacking/Collusion with the Trump campaign be considered such? i mean... they have absolutely no evidence, at all. yet they continue to push the stories hard. wacky tin foil hat crap for sure.... You realize Trump himself agrees that Russia tried to interfere in our election? As do people who have access to more intel than anyone on this board. The vigor with which so many are eager to think there is a vast right and left conspiracy, replete with assassinations and gigantic cover ups of more-than epic proportions, all in order to ... what... fuel the military industrial complex or whatever you all think. It's stunning. With no leaks. And your sources are conjecture plus attention whores like Assange and the guy who popped up yesterday, a thoroughly discredited well known thief. The desire for a good narrative outweighs the simple explanations. You are using Occam's cinder block to slice bread. Edited May 24, 2017 by Benjamin Franklin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 "The US government never cut deals with Nazis... That's just a conspiracy theory." (proven to be true, Operation Paperclip) "The US government isn't listening to your calls or reading your email... That's just a conspiracy theory." (proven to be very true, Snowden leaks) "The US government doesn't engage in propaganda or subvert the free press domestically and abroad... That's just a conspiracy theory." (proven to be ongoing and very true, Operation Mockingbird / Church committee) "The US government has never studied mind control or its applications in espionage and assassinations... That's just a conspiracy theory." (proven to be true and ongoing, MK-Ultra documents released through FOIA) "The US government would never purposefully infect poor people with diseases and not tell them about it just for research... That's just a conspiracy theory." (proven to be true, Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments) "The US government doesn't engage in false flags designed to mislead the country into war... That's just a conspiracy theory." (proven to be true, Gulf of Tonkin, Operation Northwoods, and to some degree the WMD in Iraq) "The US government doesn't actively subvert counter culture movements in clear violation of the constitution... That's just a conspiracy theory." (proven to be true and ongoing, COINTELPRO) "The US government doesn't profit from the narcotics trade... That's just a conspiracy theory." (proven false through numerous sources and leaks including Webb and Mena Arkansas) "The US government doesn't arm, fund, or negotiate with terrorist organizations... That's just a conspiracy theory." (proven false, Iran Contra, AQ/ISIS in Syria's civil war) Yup. Those stupid "conspiracy theorists" are such fools to dare question the unimpeachable integrity of the powers that be/were. Ignore the man behind the curtain, he's just a conspiracy theory. You forgot Global Warming Err Hoax, Tax cuts pay for themselves, trickle down economics, Benghazi, Obama was born in Kenya, Iraq has weapons of Mass Destruction, Valerie Plame, Torture Works, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 You forgot Global Warming Err Hoax, Tax cuts pay for themselves, trickle down economics, Benghazi, Obama was born in Kenya, Iraq has weapons of Mass Destruction, Valerie Plame, Torture Works, So, are you saying that you believe all those are conspiracies, conspiracy theories, nonsense, or were you just not paying a damned bit of attention again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 So, are you saying that you believe all those are conspiracies, conspiracy theories, nonsense, or were you just not paying a damned bit of attention again? Who cares? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 You realize Trump himself agrees that Russia tried to interfere in our election? As do people who have access to more intel than anyone on this board. The vigor with which so many are eager to think there is a vast right and left conspiracy, replete with assassinations and gigantic cover ups of more-than epic proportions, all in order to ... what... fuel the military industrial complex or whatever you all think. It's stunning. With no leaks. And your sources are conjecture plus attention whores like Assange and the guy who popped up yesterday, a thoroughly discredited well known thief. The desire for a good narrative outweighs the simple explanations. You are using Occam's cinder block to slice bread. personally, i don't subscribe to a great many of the conspiracy theories, though i do consider myself a conspiracy theorist. i do however, approach the elites in a much different way than it sounds like you do. i think they're all guilty as sin and wouldn't trust them any farther than i could throw them and even then, quite possibly not that much. how the hell can you trust any of them when they have to pass laws before they can read whats in them? i think to blindly trust your government is asking for a great deal of trouble, as did a great many of our forefathers. one might think that someone with the handle, Benjamin Franklin would know and understand that. Assange is an attention whore? i'm not quite sure where you get that from but i don't think that is really the case. he has been thrust into the spotlight by information that he received. of which i might add that he has never been wrong, not once. by, 'the guy who popped up yesterday', i as guessing you are referring to Kim Dotcom. do you know the story behind what happened to him or are you just taking the MSM's crap as gospel? again i ask you, what do you have against the truth? it seems there is a covert agenda in play, there has to be, that or you are simply afraid of the paradigm that you exist in being altered. all those Podesta emails were verified as being authentic by the DKIM (you can't fake that). the truth is the light that shines in dark evil places and does not allow it to fester unbridled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted May 24, 2017 Author Share Posted May 24, 2017 personally, i don't subscribe to a great many of the conspiracy theories, though i do consider myself a conspiracy theorist. i do however, approach the elites in a much different way than it sounds like you do. i think they're all guilty as sin and wouldn't trust them any farther than i could throw them and even then, quite possibly not that much. how the hell can you trust any of them when they have to pass laws before they can read whats in them? i think to blindly trust your government is asking for a great deal of trouble, as did a great many of our forefathers. one might think that someone with the handle, Benjamin Franklin would know and understand that. Assange is an attention whore? i'm not quite sure where you get that from but i don't think that is really the case. he has been thrust into the spotlight by information that he received. of which i might add that he has never been wrong, not once. by, 'the guy who popped up yesterday', i as guessing you are referring to Kim Dotcom. do you know the story behind what happened to him or are you just taking the MSM's crap as gospel? again i ask you, what do you have against the truth? it seems there is a covert agenda in play, there has to be, that or you are simply afraid of the paradigm that you exist in being altered. all those Podesta emails were verified as being authentic by the DKIM (you can't fake that). the truth is the light that shines in dark evil places and does not allow it to fester unbridled. Dotcom (Jesus, really?) has a dubious history. Assange is a chaos agent. The ties to Rich are the stuff of smoke, mirror, and the desire for narrative. I have nothing against the truth, and am happy when it comes out. But am happier to believe in the simpler explanations than the world-scale conspiracies. Franklin's quote "Three can keep a secret if two are dead" rings as true today as ever, especially in the age of the Internets. Podesta, Wasserman Schulz, etc....there are always bad and mistaken actors. Part of a wide-ranging conspiracy? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 again i ask you, what do you have against the truth? it seems there is a covert agenda in play, there has to be, that or you are simply afraid of the paradigm that you exist in being altered. all those Podesta emails were verified as being authentic by the DKIM (you can't fake that). the truth is the light that shines in dark evil places and does not allow it to fester unbridled. He said today we are living in the greatest era of peace and health ever known. That should tell you everything you need to know. His beef with the truth is that he has no clue how to discern reality from propaganda, and he has repeatedly proven that truth isn't his goal. Comfort is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted May 24, 2017 Author Share Posted May 24, 2017 He said today we are living in the greatest era of peace and health ever known. That should tell you everything you need to know. His beef with the truth is that he has no clue how to discern reality from propaganda, and he has repeatedly proven that truth isn't his goal. Comfort is. And it is. Low rate of conflict. Vast diseases largely eradicated. Starvation in epic decline. Infant mortality incredibly low. None of this says we can't do better. But it's a long ways from the end of times narrative that gets headlines. I lean into reality. You lean into narrative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 And it is. Low rate of conflict. You're still sticking to it, despite the fact that every single 16 year old in America today has never lived a single day without their country being in multiple wars. Like I said, truth isn't what you're after. Comfort is. Even if that comfort is a blatant distortion of reality and facts it's fine with you. You're a good drone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts