Wood Goblin wrote:

clocker bob wrote:If conspiracy theories suck, why are people listening?

If people are listening, then how can conspiracy theories suck?

If Dave Matthews Band sucks, then why are people listening?

If people are listening, then how can Dave Matthews Band suck?

Your mind is blown. Here's why my analogy works and your revision of it doesn't:

Are you, Wood Goblin, in the Dave Matthews Band? Are you in the audience for his music? I'm assuming no to both questions. You are IN the mainstream left. If OTHER MEMBERS of the mainstream left are listening to what you consider to be bad music ( dave matthews band ) OR are listening to what you consider to be bad analysis ( conspiracy theories ), then the question is incumbent upon you, a member of a group that is displaying behavior that you disagree with, to explain the behavior. Your choice is one of these:

The DMB ( or conspiracy theories ) are better than I admit.

My fellow members in the left are dumber than I admit.

Read this slowly, meatball: if conspiracy theories have traction in YOUR left, then explain that- either by praising the conspiracy theories or by insulting your own fellow lefties. You cannot say this:

"Conspiracy theories are bad and the left is listening." That sentence does not compute.

Wood Goblin wrote: The 911Truth documentary types are self-aggrandizing twerps who can't help but feed their own persecution complexes. What they call "skepticism" is merely a reflexive dismissal of the "official" story, regardless of whether that official story is true.

Then you should have no reluctance to sign this statement:

"I, Wood Goblin, U.S. citizen, find the explanation for the events of 9/11 presented by the Kean Hamilton commission to be satisfactory in every respect, and I oppose any new investigation of the terrorist attacks, by public officials or private citizens".

If you can't sign it, explain why.

Let's deconstruct this sentence from talking out of both sides of his mouth noncommital twerp Wood Goblin:

wood goblin wrote:What they call "skepticism" is merely a reflexive dismissal of the "official" story, regardless of whether that official story is true.

Talk about trying to have it three different ways. WG wants to use words that don't lock him in to calling the official story true and that don't lock him out of approving of skepticism, but despite being afraid to endorse the official story himself and being afraid to oppose skepticism of the official story himself, he wants the luxury of defining the permissible skepticism of others regarding the official story.

clocker bob wrote: "I, Wood Goblin, U.S. citizen, find the explanation for the events of 9/11 presented by the Kean Hamilton commission to be satisfactory in every respect, and I oppose any new investigation of the terrorist attacks, by public officials or private citizens."

Yut called. He wants his strawman argument back.

Wood Goblin wrote:

clocker bob wrote: "I, Wood Goblin, U.S. citizen, find the explanation for the events of 9/11 presented by the Kean Hamilton commission to be satisfactory in every respect, and I oppose any new investigation of the terrorist attacks, by public officials or private citizens."

Yut called. He wants his strawman argument back.

You're a gutless pussy. Either support the official story, or support efforts to improve it. There is no middle ground or abstention here, gasbag.

clocker bob wrote:

Wood Goblin wrote:

clocker bob wrote: "I, Wood Goblin, U.S. citizen, find the explanation for the events of 9/11 presented by the Kean Hamilton commission to be satisfactory in every respect, and I oppose any new investigation of the terrorist attacks, by public officials or private citizens."

Yut called. He wants his strawman argument back.

You're a gutless pussy. Either support the official story, or support efforts to improve it. There is no middle ground or abstention here, gasbag.

No middle ground? How about this, asshat: I believe that several al Qaeda members hijacked some planes and flew them into the WTC and Pentagon. I believe that a plane, not a missle, hit the Pentagon. I think that all the nonsense about timed explosions is just that--nonsense. But I *also* believe the Bush administration showed little interest in terrorist activity and attempted to cover the tracks of their own ineptitude and disinterest in the matter after the attacks--which should be investigated.

Sounds like middle ground to me.

Wood Goblin wrote: But I *also* believe the Bush administration showed little interest in terrorist activity and attempted to cover the tracks of their own ineptitude and disinterest in the matter after the attacks--which should be investigated.

Then you are a conspiracy theorist. Get yourself a white house press pass and explain your concerns about the Administration's efforts to cover up their prior knowledge of the attacks, and that is what Tony Snow will call you.

Sounds like middle ground to me.

No, you only think that because you're an idiot. And a coward. If you hire a mechanic to fix your car and he proclaims the car to be fixed, bills you and returns to you a car that has strange knocking noises, do you say that the mechanic has 'fixed ' your car in any normal definition of that word? If a terrorist attack occurs and the government tasks itself to explain how it happened, and the government produces a report that you believe to contain inaccuracies and omissions, then do you call that report satisfactory? No, like in the case of the car, you say you want a refund. Once you say that the 9/11 commission report is inadequate in any respect, you become an opponent of your gov't and a conspiracy theorist, because in the eyes of your government, the 9/11 commission report is the Final Word.

Whenever you stop thinking that you can have these matters both ways, you will end your hypocrisy and become a conscious citizen, like me. Right now, you're a sheep who tries to sneak complaints about his government into his rhetoric without having the guts to challenge the government's control over the public record directly.

Jerk off. Stop lying.

My friend brought his 2002 Honda Civic in to have the wheel rotated, some scratches retouched, and the fluid levels checked, and the mechanic did a poor job retouching one of the scratches and later insisted that, no, he did a great job. You're insisting that he brought a '72 GTO to have the top taken off, mags and fat meats put on the back, and tubs thrown under the bottom.

When others point to definitve proof that the car was in fact a 2002 Civic, you call them liars and ask them to disregard their proof (photos, recollections, and a car title) because of the shoddy touch-ups.

Earwicker wrote:Often I think you're clever and funny. In this argument you come across as a pathetic bully

and you're wrong.

What argument?

I disagreed with Bob that what happen in South American was some kind of conspiracy theory, he brings up Chomsky and I spend three of four posts having try and figure out what the hell Chomsky has to do with any on this, apart that Bob seems to think that Chomsky not on being on TV every night indicates a surprising conspiracy. It's nuts, if you look at my posts I said, again, it's hardly surprising i.e. a "conspiracy theory" that a bunch of big US corporations that are probably owned or in cahoots with other big corporation that may have interests in Latin America aren't about to shit wear they eat...

There is no "wrong" because the only thing I've put forward is that Chomsky not being on TV to talk about Latin America is hardly surprising, and not an indication of a conspiracy theory.

It's not fucking rocket science, there is a huge red 4x4 Lexus with tinted windows and a sweet sound system between Realpolitik and conspiracy theory.

Gramsci wrote:It's not fucking rocket science, there is a huge cavern between Realpolitik and conspiracy theory.

Better change "cavern" to "chasm" or Bob will be on your semantics like stink on a monkey.

todavia, de acuerdo señor.

gio wrote:

Gramsci wrote:It's not fucking rocket science, there is a huge cavern between Realpolitik and conspiracy theory.

Better change "cavern" to "chasm" or Bob will be on your semantics like stink on a monkey.

todavia, de acuerdo señor.

Gracias, yo lo cambió. ¡Está mucho mejor ahora!