tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post6268360466185917726..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: On Conspiracy TheoriesRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-86116626296970149842007-09-29T05:13:00.000-04:002007-09-29T05:13:00.000-04:00Great post!It's of special interest to me as I gre...Great post!<BR/><BR/>It's of special interest to me as I grew up with a family steeped in such theories. They're issues I still wrestle with.<BR/><BR/>CMAAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-17212080284947839632007-09-28T13:34:00.000-04:002007-09-28T13:34:00.000-04:00Barry wrote:---Take time off from Bill O'Reilly an...Barry wrote:<BR/>---<BR/>Take time off from Bill O'Reilly and the Murdoch <B>mind control machine</B> to do some research on your own to uncover Cheney's history and the ties he has to the oil industry (emphasis added).<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>Yes, your denial of conspiracies is shining through.<BR/><BR/>Barry said:<BR/>---<BR/>I'll make it easy for you, just start with Google and you'll have 10,000 sites to choose from who have dug data.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>Yes, and if you Google "Jewish conspiracies" you get 2,130,000 matches. <I>OMG IT MUST BE TRUE!!!!</I><BR/><BR/>barry said:<BR/>---<BR/>What is laughable here is that irrespective of what hard evidence is given to ultra-cons of the ill that ultra-cons are responsible for they will rarely (if ever) own up.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>A) The correct word to use is "irregardless" not irrespective (haven't you been paying attention???) :-P<BR/><BR/>B) I find it ironic that you're criticizing people who label others on the political spectrum when all you've done is call me a neocon and, now, an ultra-con.<BR/><BR/>C) I'd love to see "hard evidence." I'll I've sene is your tenuous linking of random events and pretending that those links are meaningful rather than <I>DEMONSTRATING</I> that they are meaningful. Re-read my post, Barry. You're looking like an idiot.<BR/><BR/>BTW, I totally dig how you try to link Christians, the GOP, Cheney's gay daughter, Murdoch, Hillary, and Kerry all into your same argument. I'd give you an honorary PHD in Conspiriology (PHD = Piling it Higher and Deeper, of course).Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-10053200112514778422007-09-28T07:58:00.000-04:002007-09-28T07:58:00.000-04:00I find it interesting that people on the far-right...I find it interesting that people on the far-right feel compelled to blunt or play down any realities that might be used to assign responsibility for serious blunders occuring in the Bush administration. Almost like it's their job.<BR/><BR/>How could it be that these knights in shining armor who profess alone to holding all virtues of men in America ever be sullied by moderates or, God forbid, liberals who seek to prove that the knights were having us on all the time. <BR/><BR/>What heretical thoughts. How dare these people doubt our leaders?<BR/><BR/>There is a huge difference between conspiracy and fact. <BR/><BR/>And, the important point here is that nobody in this country cares a flip about conspiracies. We are interested in what did and is taking place: we're after the facts.<BR/><BR/>The fact is that Cheney has had the closest of ties to the American oil industry going back before Bush Senior. While Secretary of Defense under the current president's father he orchestrated the invasion of Iraq. Lest anybody be fooled, it wasn't for humanitarian reasons or for the hummus--it was for resources. He did it again, using 9/11 as a springboard, under this president. But don't take a moderates word for all this. Check the facts. Take time off from Bill O'Reilly and the Murdoch mind control machine to do some research on your own to uncover Cheney's history and the ties he has to the oil industry. I'll make it easy for you, just start with Google and you'll have 10,000 sites to choose from who have dug data.<BR/><BR/>What's next? Will we hear of the denial of real corruption seeped within the Republican base as if it's impossible to think that they could be responsible for ill? That they don't actually walk the talk after all? The making of rules which they don't feel compelled to follow themselves? The removal of checks and balances so needed to keep corporations in line? The willingness to corrup the legislative and judicial systems to suit only their needs and not what is in the best interest of the country?<BR/><BR/>What is laughable here is that irrespective of what hard evidence is given to ultra-cons of the ill that ultra-cons are responsible for they will rarely (if ever) own up.<BR/><BR/>Why is it that you can spew venom about homosexuals in this country and yet strangely remain silent when it comes to prominent Republicans who are gay, like Cheney's daughter?<BR/><BR/>Where's your placards and banners denouncing that?<BR/><BR/>What people on the extreme right cannot grasp, particularly christians, is that the GOP could not possible have anything but the best interest of the people in this country as a motive for everything they do. <BR/><BR/>Most Americans, finally, have picked up on the real ill that the Bush administration is responsible for, but there will always (and I mean always) be those for whom facts will not sway their steadfast trust in Republicans.<BR/><BR/>This, to me, is amazing. <BR/><BR/>Hillary, like Kerry before her, is a gigantic threat to this country (Sauve que peu!!!). Let's just never mind that the clown that's in there right now has spent more money and done more damage to this country than any five presidents put together.<BR/><BR/>But, we'll try not to think or talk about that (certainly not in public), it's too painfull.<BR/><BR/>BarryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-41234778231084716012007-09-27T21:46:00.000-04:002007-09-27T21:46:00.000-04:00Jim wrote:---I would observe that there are conspi...Jim wrote:<BR/>---<BR/>I would observe that there are conspiracies, which I can because I've been involved in little ones.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>Actually, this was part of my point. Little conspiracies are possible, but the big conspiracies people sensationalize aren't. A conspiracy can be vast only if it doesn't do anything vast; or it can be pinpointedly specific as long as it isn't continuous. A huge conspiracy is immediately obvious because it sticks out from the everyday random events that occur--if all fifty witnesses testifying against a mob boss suddenly die, it's fairly obvious this wasn't accidental. Likewise, if a small and localized conspiracy continues too long it's obvious too: if my TV reception goes out every time my neighbor points some kind of device at my house, but not when he doesn't, the correlation becomes obvious.<BR/><BR/>The only way a conspiracy can work is if it remains small scale. If it has results that are large scale, it's immediately obvious that there was a conspiracy involved. And a disclosed conspiracy doesn't do the conspirators any good (else why would they need the conspiracy in the first place?).<BR/><BR/>In any case, to answer Vytautas's challenge attempt, it should first be noted that part of the reason that a link can always be made is because a link could be <I>anything</I> that correlates. For fun, this time I'll provide a numerological correlation.<BR/><BR/>For instance, we can number the English alphabet where A = 1, B = 2, ... Y = 25, Z = 26. Since E = 5, and the song title is E5I50; the E5 shows us that the numerological approach is warranted. Thus:<BR/><BR/>HEAVEN AND HELL = 111<BR/>ANDREW JACKSON = 138<BR/>FLAT EARTH = 91<BR/><BR/>Now HEAVEN AND HELL could also be arranged as HEAVEN + HELL; which = 92.<BR/><BR/>This must be the prefered method, for everyone can see that HEAVEN + HELL is only 1 greater than FLAT EARTH (92 > 91 by 1). Since I50 is clearly not related to the alphabet (as I = 9, not 50) I more likely refers to the Roman numeral I, which gives us the difference between HEAVEN + HELL and FLAT EARTH.<BR/><BR/>That we are on the right track is indicated by the fact that 91 + 92 = 183, which is an anagram of ANDREW JACKSON (138). In fact, we are simply reversing the last two digits, which we have reason to do because the 50 in E5I50 is obviously the ASCII equivalent to 2. (Note that the 50 is the last two digits of E5I50 too, providing verification for this.)<BR/><BR/>Numerology is obviously the correct way to go on this. Jackson was the 7th president, and 7 is the number of perfection (or Heaven). When Jackson was 13 years old, a British soldier struck him with a sword because Jackson refused to polish the English soldier's shoes. 13 - 7 = 6, and 6 is the number of hell; it should also be noted that Jackson survived 13 duels, another omen. <BR/><BR/>Therefore we have numerology verifying that Andrew Jackson's belief in a flat earth was the inspiration for Heaven and Hell's song E5I50. (Note that this is true even if the facts Vytautas gave us are completely wrong.)Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-72165589785607857642007-09-27T17:35:00.000-04:002007-09-27T17:35:00.000-04:00I will take up the conspiracy challange. Here are ...I will take up the conspiracy challange. Here are two events: Heaven and Hell opened up their concert with the song (instramental) E5I50 last Saturday. And Andrew Jackson (the former president) believed the earth was flat. The first I know from experience and the last one my history teacher taught me.Vytautashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10563655929016752682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-59959098911364144632007-09-27T08:50:00.000-04:002007-09-27T08:50:00.000-04:00I would observe that there are conspiracies, which...I would observe that there are conspiracies, which I can because I've been involved in little ones. However, conspirators are typically as good at covering their tracks as they are at conspiring. Your point is very good in that whether there are conspiracies or merely kooky theories (which is more often the case), God is yet sovereign.Jim Pembertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01446388434272680014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1427024191575272822007-09-27T07:07:00.000-04:002007-09-27T07:07:00.000-04:00Peter,True enough. But I bet Louis 16th would hav...Peter,<BR/><BR/>True enough. But I bet Louis 16th would have laughed in 1788 that there was a conspiracy against him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com