Questions you want answered (P&C Edition)

Demosthenes wrote:
IHateDRM wrote:
See this is kind of my problem, the only argument I have against this crap is how absurd it is on face value, which is in this case a perfectly valid argument but does me no good when I'm in a situation were I'm forced to deal with this nonsense, when this is my only argument its too easy to dismiss based on how I "Just don't understand how the world works".

"The head of the CIA can't keep a mistress a secret... but somehow a plot to overthrow America with such a convoluted plan was never leaked by anyone is the last 5 years? While a large group of people (the other Democratic primary contenders' campaigns, McCain's campaign, Mitt Romney's campaign, and the entirety of the right wing crazy media) have been constantly digging into everything they can on him to knock him down a peg?"

Well you see she doesn't believe in conspiracy theory because eventually someones going to talk, which is the problem, she is convinced that she has seen enough evidence to prove all of this which Glen Beck claims to have.

When in reality all she's done is set herself up in a position were you can't in any way criticise her with out insulting ether her faith because she once got in a car accident and only buckled up because a voice in her head told her to just moments before, so therefore that little voice in her had that most people would simply call common sense most be god telling her things and of course as an atheist I just don't understand, and I can't in any way criticise Reagan or his polices because I wasn't alive in the Eighties so I couldn't understand how great it was, and I can't criticise the military because then I'm just insulting her and my Korean war vet grandfather and again I've never been in the military so I just can't understand what its really like.

And as you can probably tell that's pretty much every thing Glen Becks always going on about. But the more I think about it the more I realize there's probably not much I or anyone else can do to help, Which is frankly the worst part.

IHateDRM wrote:
And as you can probably tell that's pretty much every thing Glen Becks always going on about. But the more I think about it the more I realize there's probably not much I or anyone else can do to help, Which is frankly the worst part.

Watch the Glen Beck stuff and research it yourself. I know from watching his chalk board shows that he is either outright wrong on several of his facts or he greatly exaggerates or overlooks key points to make them fit his narrative.

You can then talk to her about those points and, perhaps, she might see she's getting bamboozled by him. Unfortunately, she's likely to just believe the crazy even more fervently because the human mind is distinctly irrational.

I feel your pain, though. I just had to explain to my own mother today that she and my father weren't going to have all their money taken to pay for Obamacare. She was absolutely certain that they would have to pay loads of extra taxes because they have money invested in the stock market and the fine folks at CNBC--which my parents watch everyday--have repeatedly said that anyone who invests is going to have to pay for Obamacare.

Even though I told her that the tax only kicked in if they made more than $250,000 from their investments (which they don't come remotely close to) and that disbursements from retirement accounts didn't count towards that income, I'm very certain she still "knows" in her gut that her taxes are going to go up next year because of Obama and Obamacare.

She was also very pleased that Obama said he'd be willing to consider all things for the upcoming fiscal cliff because he was way too partisan last year when he offered ten dollars in spending cuts for every one dollar in tax increases unlike the House Republicans...

Robear wrote:
Simple. Obama was born in Kenya, of a Kenyan Muslim father, and grew up in Malaysia attending a radical Islamic madrassa (where he was also conditioned as a Soviet sleeper agent, probably through contacts his mother had.) He was then brought to America, with a faked background, and proceeded to use his foreign Communist and Islamic contacts to get contacts in the American radical leftist underground, developing a career as a "community organizer" where he could agitate quietly and move himself into a position of power, in order to corrupt and damage the American government from within.

It succeeded beyond his wildest dreams, and now that he doesn't have to worry about re-election, his true agenda will be seen sooner rather than later. Expect the economy to go to hell, the persecution of Christians and patriots, wholesale outlawing of the weapons of freedom, the effective enslavement of the economy to Chinese interests, martial law declared in red states after government agitators create incidents, the nationalization of key industries, and ultimately the redistribution of wealth by force a la Mao.

(Did I miss any major conspiracy theory? Oh, right, imposition of Sharia Law in the Federal court system. But that almost goes without saying, doesn't it?)

Yes you forgot that he is also an atheist, and you apparently also forgot fema camps
(do I get bonus points for finding a video that menages to prove why this is all crazy while still accusing the Illuminati of trying to hide the truth?)

OG_slinger wrote:

Watch the Glen Beck stuff and research it yourself.

I'm all for researching things yourself, but you just suggested to someone that they watch Glen Beck. No one deserves that.


Oh Robear, that right there. That's why I love you. Your truly detailed and crazy quantities of sourcing are all well and good. But that was probably the funniest thing I've seen all day, and that includes all the awesome moments of awkwardness in the Picture thread in Everything Else today.

I can't make this stuff up. I just summarize.


Yes you forgot that he is also an atheist, and you apparently also forgot fema camps

I should have slipped in the atheist thing with the Soviets, but it's not something I hear around here. "Radical Muslim" is favored locally.

And everyone knows it was Bush who set up the FEMA camps to detain American citizens after a declaration of martial law on ginned-up grounds. Different kind of truth-telling entirely...

Robear wrote:

I should have slipped in the atheist thing with the Soviets, but it's not something I hear around here. "Radical Muslim" is favored locally.

I've heard people say that atheists are secretly all Muslims. True story.

Demyx wrote:
Robear wrote:

I should have slipped in the atheist thing with the Soviets, but it's not something I hear around here. "Radical Muslim" is favored locally.

I've heard people say that atheists are secretly all Muslims. True story.

I literally can't tell if this is a joke....

Seth wrote:

I literally can't tell if this is a joke....

No, seriously. I would dig it up but I really don't feel like searching for it.

The idea is that atheists never criticize Muslims, only Christians (which is blatantly false, but a number of Christians with a persecution complex believe this). Therefore some atheists are actually secretly Muslims who want to tear down Christianity by getting Christians to renounce their faith.

.....well you learn something new every day, I guess. Yikes.

I constantly find myself wishing I could hotlink articles and papers in mid-air while talking to people in meatspace about things like this. When you're just verbally arguing it's far too easy for people to fall back on "well I believe" or "this guy I trust on TV told me this and I know he wouldn't lie." Even on here we occassionally have source wars where we have formal studies that contradict each other and if often seems to come down to which source has the better pedigree to determine which one we generally side with.

As an example, this year my brother-in-law suddenly decided to develope a strong political opinion based on a few conversations he'd had with some of the other guys on his electrical construction crew. If I were to engage him in an honest debate about some of the theories he's tossing around by sitting him down in front of a PC and flat-out showing him the facts of the matter through historical documents, interviews, research papers, etc. he would just discount it all as being from obviously biased sources or simply sources that had bought into the mainstream lies about said topic. THERE IS NO ARGUING WITH SOME PEOPLE. I've simply had to accept that and move on. Even in the face of actual evidence to the contrary some people will simply not listen.

Demyx wrote:
Seth wrote:

I literally can't tell if this is a joke....

No, seriously. I would dig it up but I really don't feel like searching for it.

The idea is that atheists never criticize Muslims, only Christians (which is blatantly false, but a number of Christians with a persecution complex believe this). Therefore some atheists are actually secretly Muslims who want to tear down Christianity by getting Christians to renounce their faith.

They're obviously not familiar with Sam Harris. He's very anti-Islam.

Kehama wrote:
I constantly find myself wishing I could hotlink articles and papers in mid-air while talking to people in meatspace about things like this. When you're just verbally arguing it's far too easy for people to fall back on "well I believe" or "this guy I trust on TV told me this and I know he wouldn't lie." Even on here we occassionally have source wars where we have formal studies that contradict each other and if often seems to come down to which source has the better pedigree to determine which one we generally side with.

As an example, this year my brother-in-law suddenly decided to develope a strong political opinion based on a few conversations he'd had with some of the other guys on his electrical construction crew. If I were to engage him in an honest debate about some of the theories he's tossing around by sitting him down in front of a PC and flat-out showing him the facts of the matter through historical documents, interviews, research papers, etc. he would just discount it all as being from obviously biased sources or simply sources that had bought into the mainstream lies about said topic. THERE IS NO ARGUING WITH SOME PEOPLE. I've simply had to accept that and move on. Even in the face of actual evidence to the contrary some people will simply not listen.

Evidence against the existence of a conspiracy is part of the conspiracy, lack of evidence for the existence of a conspiracy is part of the coverup. Replace conspiracy with political belief and coverup with bias and it still works reasonably well.

Demyx wrote:
Seth wrote:

I literally can't tell if this is a joke....

No, seriously. I would dig it up but I really don't feel like searching for it.

The idea is that atheists never criticize Muslims, only Christians (which is blatantly false, but a number of Christians with a persecution complex believe this). Therefore some atheists are actually secretly Muslims who want to tear down Christianity by getting Christians to renounce their faith.

You should have them watch Religilous. Bill Maher generally annoys me for being obnoxious with his beliefs (see the last like 5 minutes of that movie), but this was a good example of an athiest poking holes at most Western and Middle Eastern religious beliefs (with commentary track stating if Eastern religions kept it up, he'd be poking at them too later).

Kehama wrote:
I constantly find myself wishing I could hotlink articles and papers in mid-air while talking to people in meatspace about things like this. When you're just verbally arguing it's far too easy for people to fall back on "well I believe" or "this guy I trust on TV told me this and I know he wouldn't lie." Even on here we occassionally have source wars where we have formal studies that contradict each other and if often seems to come down to which source has the better pedigree to determine which one we generally side with.

I saw someone on a Facebook recently post, "Well I disagree with your facts." Without shame or irony.

IMAGE(https://www.motherjones.com/files/mojo-obama-conspiracy.png)

Edit: The source actually gives some origins of these theories.

Georgia State House Republican Caucus meets, discusses Obama's plan to cede control to UN via Agenda 21.


The main focus of the event was something called Agenda 21, which conservatives warn is move towards dictatorship by “expanding public transportation routes and preserving open space as part of a United Nations-led conspiracy to deny property rights and herd citizens toward cities.” Former Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich even “explicitly repudiate[d] what Obama has done on Agenda 21″ during a primary debate last year.

The meeting of Republican lawmakers in Georgia was held on Oct. 11, but Bryan Long of the progressive group Better Georgia told the Atlanta Journal Constitution that his group delayed release of the video because of media focus on the presidential campaign. Better Georgia was able to record about 52 minutes of video before being escorted from the building.

The event also included Fox News contributor Dick Morris, who cautioned lawmakers that Obama would “force everyone into the cities from whence our ancestors fled.”

“Our own governments are doing this,” Searcy said of the Agenda 21 “conspiracy to transform America from the land of the free, to the land of the collective.”

Searcy explained that the government was using “a process known as the Delphi technique” to convince suburbanites to move into the inner cities.

“The Delphi technique was developed by the Rand Corporation during the Cold War as a mind-control technique,” the conservative activist insisted. “It’s also known as ‘consensive process.’ But basically the goal of the Delphi technique is to lead a targeted group of people to a pre-determined outcome while keeping the illusion of being open to public input.”

One slide presented at the meeting compared Obama’s alleged plot to “Stalin’s Five Year Plan” and “Mao Tse Tung’s Great Leap Forward.”

Raw Story (http://s.tt/1tzUP)

“The Delphi technique was developed by the Rand Corporation during the Cold War as a mind-control technique,” the conservative activist insisted. “It’s also known as ‘consensive process.’ But basically the goal of the Delphi technique is to lead a targeted group of people to a pre-determined outcome while keeping the illusion of being open to public input.”

Under supervision from the reverse vampires, of course.

*sob*

You can add Kansas, Tennessee, New Hampshire, and Arizona to the Agenda 21 tinfoilhattery list.

All of those states have held Congressional hearings on the so-called Agenda 21 conspiracy. The legislatures of Kansas and Tennessee have passed resolutions to "expose and condemn" Agenda 21, while the Houses of New Hampshire and Arizona have passed laws banning the "policies" of Agenda 21 from being implemented.

I think about things like this every time someone says that political power should be taken from the federal government and passed down to the states. If people think that their representatives in Washington, DC are incompetent idiots, just imagine the caliber of folks that are in their state legislatures. Actually, you don't have to. They believe in Bircher conspiracy theories.

What good is state government anyway? All the political and regulatory power should reside at the federal level.

Someone hand me the popcorn, thanks.

At least Agenda 21 makes more sense and sounds cooler than the birther theory!

Oh, who am I kidding, these people believe in the birther theory as well.

Sounds like something you'd hear from Alex Jones.

So if we have health care for all citizens we're communist.
If we invest in public transportation that helps people commute to cities we're taking away freedom and herding people into a global government.
If we teach/tolerate second languages in schools we're diluting American culture.

I'm starting to think a lot of these conspiracy theorists just really, really hate Europe. I bet the next conspiracy is that Obama is going to make us all drive on the left side of the road and drink only German beers.

I think they just hate. To ascribe a targeting mechanism gives too much credit where none is due. I think there are just enough black hearted misers out there.

KingGorilla wrote:
I think they just hate. To ascribe a targeting mechanism gives too much credit where none is due. I think there are just enough black hearted misers out there.

Now I'm starting to think of it in terms of an MMO. When a company patches out something or balances a class because it was horribly broken there will always be a group of players who scream and yell at the top of their lungs that any change to is going to break X forever and that the incompetent devs have now destroyed the game. I guess it's the same with the US. As the nation changes and evolves there will always be those that push back on every little change because it's not what they grew up with so therefore it can't be good.

Given some of what I have seen from Fox News. They are so deluded, it seems that they believe Leave it to Beaver was a documentary series. That kind of perverse delusion to think that a fictitious show was a form of reality can only be secluded and medicated away.

As the nation changes and evolves there will always be those that push back on every little change because it's not what they grew up with so therefore it can't be good.

I don't think it's quite as simple as all that. In a lot of cases, there is a (sometimes justified, even if selfish) fear that change is a zero-sum game, that a change that benefits someone must naturally result in harm to someone else.

I am speaking more directly Demyx to the culture and model by which a company or investment can be run into the ground and a small group can make large sums at the expense of a larger group (share holders, employees, customers). This is not confined to CEO bonus even after a company goes bankrupt or insolvent. This also extends to the housing crashes, mutual funds, etc.

I am not saying that the CEO is getting a bonus to spite the now jobless workers, rather that something is very broken in a system where he can run the company out and still have claim to nearly 2 million dollars in a bonus.

Oh, we were talking about different things, I didn't realize you were talking about how the rich are getting richer.

In which case they're also aided by a culture that emphasizes that your physical wealth is a huge component of your worth as a human being (a mindset I abhor) and the idea that if you have money you must have earned it through your own hard work.

But I definitely agree with this:

KingGorilla wrote:

I am not saying that the CEO is getting a bonus to spite the now jobless workers, rather that something is very broken in a system where he can run the company out and still have claim to nearly 2 million dollars in a bonus.

I doubt there are many CEOs who are saying to themselves "Nya-ha-ha, I'll take all the money and turn the workers out onto the street to starve!" It's probably more like, "I deserve this money and there's nothing stopping me from taking it, and I'm sure those people will find another job, it's not my problem." Which is why regulation is important.