Bueno! Lo siento por lo mal grammatico, pero tal vez podriamos hacer una conversacion asi sin tangentes.

Mira, la problema con las teorias de conspiraciones es la imposibilidad rufutarlas. De acuerdo, hay un diferencia entre politicos reales y teorias de conspiraciones, pero ellos lo que creen las teorias pueden usar lo mismo declaracion por ayudar sus demandas.

Como, "Si! Hay una gran diferencia, asi: Los politicos son inccorrectos! Son mentiras!"

y asi y asi y asi, continuaria por todo el tiempo...

Muy bien, estoy de acudero tambien.

Él está loco, y él busca una lucha, cuando no hay lucha a tener.

Él tiene gusto del sonido de su voz. Pero pienso que todos lo hacemos, a veces.

N.B.
Mi español es una poca mierda

Gramsci wrote:Muy bien, estoy de acudero tambien.

Él está loco, y él busca una lucha, cuando no hay lucha a tener.

mmmmmmmm...... te gusta comer conflicto? mmmmmmmm... conflicto!! queiro follarlo!

Él tiene gusto del sonido de su voz. Pero pienso que todos lo hacemos, a veces.

peor, tener gusto del sonido de los claves al tecleo. Pero lo mismo por todos de nosotros aqui... la fuenta de opiniones y misinformaciones!

N.B.
Mi español es una poca mierda

Yo lo mismo!

mira, estamos conspirando con la mascara de lenguaje... dios mio!!!!!

Gramsci wrote:

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.

No, you liar. Chomsky was the first word in my quote that you selected to make your first post. That is the record. The point of my original quote was exclusively related to Chomsky. My post preceded your post, and you quoted from my post to make your post.

Here it is, reposted for the eight time for the embarrassing liar Gramsci:

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.

Here it is, in context.

So your beef here isn't that your not a loony quack, but that I haven't acknowledged that Chomsky was in the original post I quoted?

So it isn't about you being wrong about Latin America being a conspiracy theory, but me not acknowledged that you see Chomsky as the only source on Latin politics?

Ok, then:

Bob, you mentioned Chomsky in one of your posts. The problem here is that I don't see Chomsky one of your fellow nuts but a serious political commentator. Which is the opposite of you Bob.

That's that then.

... so when are you helping out down at the local community centre?

Wood Goblin wrote: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.

I see that your gross incomprehension of the English language continues. My analogy:

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?

You shamelessly reduce the level of inferior work by the mechanic to the level of one scratch left unretouched. My analogy was to a car with significant mechanical difficulties. You made this statement earlier, because you were too much of a coward to endorse the official history of 9/11:

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.

Now you have compared the failures of the 9/11 Commission and the failures of the Bush administration to react to terror warnings to be analogous to a perfectly-repaired auto, other than one scratch.
You have not stated yet whether you believe that 'the Bush administration showed little interest in terrorist activity' because of deliberate ignorance and laziness or because of pure incompetence. It's a critical point, so if you have the guts to specify, please do. I would also like to know how you are personally engaged in efforts to demand a new investigation, since you say right here that one is needed:

wood goblin wrote:attempted to cover the tracks of their own ineptitude and disinterest in the matter after the attacks--which should be investigated.

Now, we shall examine the events that followed 9/11. You state your opinion :

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.

You should then state whether an administration with such a wanton disregard for protecting the public prior to 9/11 and such ambitions to deceive the public after 9/11 should then once again deserve the public's trust and receive carte blanche to make wars and ratchet up the police state to fight a war on terror that is entirely predicated on a response to a terror attack that occurred when they were asleep on the job.

Gramsci wrote:So your beef here isn't that your not a loony quack, but that I haven't acknowledged that Chomsky was in the original post I quoted?

So it isn't about you being wrong about Latin America being a conspiracy theory, but me not acknowledged that you see Chomsky as the only source on Latin politics?

No, you moronic liar. The point is not that Chomsky was in my original post. The point of the quote that you used from me was that Chomsky described secret efforts by the CIA to destabilize Latin American governments. You claimed that Chomsky's descriptions of meddling by the CIA were not descriptions of conspiracies, and you claimed that the reason these events could not be described as conspiracies was because they were broadcast on American television as they happened.

So far, you have lied about what I said in the thread, what Chomsky said in his books, what you said in the thread, what you saw on television, and what television networks you saw it on, and you have tried to make the argument be about everything that it isn't, namely overt US military actions.

Here it is, reposted for the ninth time for the embarrassing liar Gramsci:
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.

clocker bob wrote: You claimed that Chomsky's descriptions of meddling by the CIA were not descriptions of conspiracies, and you claimed that the reason these events could not be described as conspiracies was because they were broadcast on American television as they happened.

You retard, no I didn't, I claimed that what happened in LatAm wasn't conspiracy theory. Not that it wasn't a conspiracy. You're trying to play with words. The only reason I can see why is that you just feel like a fight...

"Chomsky's descriptions of meddling by the CIA were not descriptions of conspiracies". No, I claimed they weren't conspiracy theories in they way you are trying to frame them, and that they were fact, and not just that but fairly common news on most other countries TV screens. Or is the reason I knew about LatAm/US relations in my early teens because I was more obsessed with geo-politics than fucking lego. Try reading!

As far as the gringo TV comment, what the fuck Bob? If you read what I wrote I said, every time, that the US media didn't report on what was going on, I also say that that is not surprising, considering that big multinationals are hardly going to start shitting all over other multinationals...

As I said Bob, it seems that the main reason you get all pissy about this isn't conspiracy theory vs realpolitik but you like to think that you are the holder of some kind of secret knowledge and it make you feel special that you are savvy to all stuff that other people are either too blind or too indoctrinated to see or understand... so when someone says, "that's not a conspiracy theory" you get all upset, because your special secret knowledge is now not so secret and special. It's a common character flaw Bob, most people don't like being shown be fucking retards. But you seem to be pretty good at achieving that all by yourself.

Has it every occurred to you that you turn off people to the causes you claim to have a passion for by being a total wanker? As I said you are a hinderance to progressive change because your personal ego is more important than the movement.

Well Bob, sorry but most of the stuff you bring up is either obvious to anyone with half a brain, old news or pure nuttery.

Gramsci wrote:

clocker bob wrote: You claimed that Chomsky's descriptions of meddling by the CIA were not descriptions of conspiracies, and you claimed that the reason these events could not be described as conspiracies was because they were broadcast on American television as they happened.

You retard, no I didn't, I claimed that what happened in LatAm wasn't conspiracy theory. Not that it was a conspiracy. You're trying to play with words. The only reason I can see why is that you just feel like a fight...

"Chomsky's descriptions of meddling by the CIA were not descriptions of conspiracies". No, I claimed they weren't conspiracy theories in they way you are trying to frame them.

You're such a moron. Find the word 'theory' in my quote. A hidden policy is a conspiracy, and that is a correct term for what Chomsky described, you pretentious beat off.

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.

As long as there are well executed conspiracies,
there will continue to be conspiracy theories.

Not Crap.
Good Conspiracy Theorists are doing a service.