clocker bob wrote:Tell me that the explanations in Chomsky's books for the US interventions in Latin America appeared on American television screens as the events unfolded, because that is what you wrote.

No it is not what I wrote, it is what you put in my mouth. As always you switch to a Gringo-centred world view, "America, america, america", you're like a broken record. Why should we give a fuck if Americans have a shitty media. I knew America was behaving like asshats in Latin America through watching mainstream news in New Zealand, BBC, TVNZ as a teenager.

American media is just another private corporation like United Fruit, what the fuck do you expect?

I recommend you read this...

gio wrote: In truth, I know almost nothing about conspiracy theories. I have a bias, and I write them off.

gio wrote: Maybe one out of a thousand is on to something.

Gio, does your mouth ever get jealous about all the talking your ass gets to do?
Nice non sequitur there, Einstein: "I know almost nothing about conspiracy theories, but I know that maybe one out of a thousand is on to something"


Here, since you have the master list and you know which one out of a thousand is 'on to something', I'll let you pick. I'll make it way easier though, since even I don't know one thousand conspiracy theories- gio, make a list of any ten conspiracy theories. Tell me the nine you are prepared to debunk first, and then tell me the one that might be 'on to something'. How's that? That's one hundred times easier than backing up this silly statement:

gio wrote: Maybe one out of a thousand is on to something.

Gramsci wrote:

clocker bob wrote:Tell me that the explanations in Chomsky's books for the US interventions in Latin America appeared on American television screens as the events unfolded, because that is what you wrote.

No it is not what I wrote, it is what you put in my mouth. As always you switch to a Gringo-centred world view, "America, america, america", you're like a broken record. Why should we give a fuck if Americans have a shitty media. I knew America was behaving like asshats in Latin America through watching mainstream news in New Zealand, BBC, TVNZ as a teenager.

American media is just another private corporation like United Fruit, what the fuck do you expect?

I recommend you read this...

You fucking retard, here is the exchange again:

clocker bob wrote:

Chomsky doesn't deny the manipulation of Central American and South American governments by US intelligence operatives. Why he doesn't label these operations as conspiracies, I don't know.

gramsci wrote:
That would probably be because this all happened on TV in the bright light of day... i.e. it wasn't a "theory".

Douchebag, if Chomsky is writing about US intelligence operatives interfering in the affairs of Latin American governments, then the people who need to hear that message are the citizens of the United States, because it's their government sponsoring the dirty tricks, and it's the citizens' responsibility to correct them through the American political system. Therefore, the fact that the information about US policy was not on American television screens means that there was a conspiracy to conceal the US meddling from the American television viewer. Now, for the fifth time, tell me if the information contained in Chomsky's books was on display on American television screens, as you claimed previously, you fatuous asswipe.

"Oh, Bob, but I saw it all on the Azores Island Broadcasting Company, so it was all out in the open".- Gramsci the Numbskull

Antero wrote:The problem is that you guys are complete whores for anything with the tiniest bit of potential faux-meat hanging off of it, which is why the fact that you assume you're surrounded by moles and plants is worthless - you guys bite anyhow. You say, "This is a theory! Let's add it to the pot!"

Fuck you. It is you who forces the bad theories on us and tries to make us answer for them, because you are too gutless and lazy to do the work yourself, loser.

antero wrote:If you guys actually think your community is compromised (which it easily is) and your stories are potential plants, I would think the conclusion would be to do more research and discard ludicrous and unsupported theories. Somehow, however, you never fail to bring those along for the ride.

More evidence of a what a gutless windbag you are. Situation: conspiracy theorist community is compromised. Who does antero blame for this? The directors of the plants and moles? Aww, hell no- Antero blames the man who was tossed in the lake, not the asshole who threw him in. Gutless scumfuck- say something with an ounce of balls for once in your life.

"There are some good conspiracy theorists, but their work has a hard time getting fair treatment, because even though I know that the community is compromised ( by people not under the good CT's control ) and even though the controlled media is organized against them ( by people not under the good CT's control ), I, antero, still feel very comfortable blaming the good CT's for the whip marks across their backs".

That about sum it up, you failed leftist?

Gramsci wrote:
I recommend you read this...

This book, as far as I remember, focuses exclusively on the American Mainstream Press.
Do you consider Chomsky to be switching to a Gringo centred world view 'America America America' like a broken record? Or is the accusation of cultural prejudice only reserved for people you deem conspiracy theorists?

Gramsci you as good as said that what Chomsky has written about re Central and Southern America was on TV at the time for all to see.

That just isn't true.
Sure the fact that there were wars /social conflicts/revolutions taking place in the South and Central Americas was in the mainstream press but the involvement of the American intelligence services was not revealed until later.

If the dealings of the Iran Contra affair were all conducted on tv there wouldn't have been the need for such a big expensive court case when it all got unearthed would there?

Isn't Antero's argument kind of like saying - because there are holocaust deniers who get their books published we shouldn't bother studying anything about the holocaust because the historical waters have been muddied by misinformation and lies?

Earwicker wrote:

Gramsci wrote:
I recommend you read this...

This book, as far as I remember, focuses exclusively on the American Mainstream Press.
Do you consider Chomsky to be switching to a Gringo centred world view 'America America America' like a broken record? Or is the accusation of cultural prejudice only reserved for people you deem conspiracy theorists?

Gramsci you as good as said that what Chomsky has written about re Central and Southern America was on TV at the time for all to see.

That just isn't true.
Sure the fact that there were wars /social conflicts/revolutions taking place in the South and Central Americas was in the mainstream press but the involvement of the American intelligence services was not revealed until later.

If the dealings of the Iran Contra affair were all conducted on tv there wouldn't have been the need for such a big expensive court case when it all got unearthed would there?

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

The fuck I said any such thing... try reading my posts instead of reading Bob's nonsense.

Bob said that America's behaviour in Latin America was some kind of secret. Bullshit.

Then he pipes up with Chomsky and now you're assuming I started some kind of debate about Chomsky's writing.

Weird.

Gramsci wrote:
The fuck I said any such thing... try reading my posts instead of reading Bob's nonsense.

People can read the post- here's the direct link, if anyone thinks I am taking anything out of context:
gramsci plucks out a clocker bob quote to give himself a reason to post to this thread.

Here it is in its entirety:

clocker bob wrote:Chomsky doesn't deny the manipulation of Central American and South American governments by US intelligence operatives. Why he doesn't label these operations as conspiracies, I don't know.

gramsci wrote:That would probably be because this all happened on TV in the bright light of day... i.e. it wasn't a "theory".

What most people regard as conspiracy theories simply show they have a totally naive understanding of global capitalism and relationships of power.

Ooooh, "those bad men that own all the stuff are conspiring to keep their stuff and maybe get some more!!!"

Surprise, fucking surprise.

END REPOST

gramsci wrote:Bob said that America's behaviour in Latin America was some kind of secret. Bullshit.

No, Gramsci said this about what Chomsky wrote about Latin America:

gramsci wrote:this all happened on TV in the bright light of day... i.e. it wasn't a "theory".

Since Gramsci used a quote by an American ( me ) on a Chicago, IL, USA based discussion forum about American intelligence operations that were described by an American author ( Chomsky ) but were not covered accurately by the American mass media, one could safely assume that when gramsci stated that all these events 'happened on TV in the bright light of day' (* not the wars, but the intelligence operations ), gramsci was referring to American news coverage of American military and intelligence actions. But no- it was all a big mistake- when gramsci cherrypicked the quote of clocker bob, American for his cheap shot, we were all supposed to know that gramsci meant that Chomsky's theories had wide airing on the TV networks of NZ! ( And frankly, I don't believe that would prove to be true either ).

Your successive lame explanations are becoming more and more embarassing, matthew... oh, sorry, I mean Gramsci. Most people find being called 'wrong' more acceptable than being called a liar, but maybe not you- you are tipping on the edge on this one, Gramsci. One more obfuscation out of you and you'll be both wrong and a liar.

clocker bob wrote: Your successive lame explanations are becoming more and more embarassing, matthew... oh, sorry, I mean Gramsci.

Umm. I'm still trying to figure out why you keep ranting on about about Chomsky. I said American intervention in Latin America is hardly news to most people and your only defence is that Chomsky wasn't on TV so people didn't know it was happening? Then proceed to attack me for not stepping into your retarded world. You're using the Chewbacca Defence.

...

Seriously, save some money and actually travel out of your bedroom and meet some of these people you seem to care so much about. You do nothing help the people you claim have concern for, your only concern is inflating your own ego with "I know secret stuff you guys don't know" caca del toro.

You are a boring bedroom radical that has never got his hands dirty.

Gramsci wrote:

clocker bob wrote: Your successive lame explanations are becoming more and more embarassing, matthew... oh, sorry, I mean Gramsci.

Umm. I'm still trying to figure out why you keep ranting on about about Chomsky.

Because that was what you began your reply with- a direct reference to Chomsky:

First, you quoted me saying this:

clocker bob wrote:

Chomsky doesn't deny the manipulation of Central American and South American governments by US intelligence operatives. Why he doesn't label these operations as conspiracies, I don't know.

The essence of my statement is that, when Chomsky described concealed US efforts to manipulate foreign governments, he is describing conspiracies, because the executors of these policies strived to keep them secret from the US public and media. Hence, Chomsky describes conspiracies in his books. You followed with this:

gramsci wrote:

That would probably be because this all happened on TV in the bright light of day... i.e. it wasn't a "theory".

You were very obviously trying to answer my question about why Chomsky didn't describe his reporting to be about conspiracies. Why would you attempt to answer any question other than the one I asked about Chomsky, since I asked no other question? You realized once I pointed it out to you that you had said a very dumb thing about the US media in your rush to cheap shot me, and now you are trying to roller skate around your stupid words.

Once again: I asked you to show me that the content of Chomsky's books on Latin America had a mirror image on US network news, which you said existed. You have refused to do so, because you're a lying, obfuscating blowhard. Again, if Chomsky described plans by the US government that were not covered as they happened by the US TV media ( as you claimed they were ), then the plans described by Chomsky qualify as conspiracies, because most if not all facets of them were not publicized by the US government, nor were they publicized by the US media at the time, nor are they described in full even decades later by the US media, so therefore, you are unable to describe obvious conspiracies as conspiracies. That's a reflection on your credibility, as are your subsequent lies about what you initially said.