jump to last post 1-18 of 18 discussions (53 posts)

The right is becoming conspiracy theory obsessed.

  1. Josak profile image61
    Josakposted 4 years ago

    In counter to any logic or evidence.
    Obama is a Muslim
    Obama was born in Kenya
    The Media is controlled by liberals
    Snopes and factcheck are liberal agencies
    Obama is going to take away our guns with the international arms treaty (it was finalised and completely respected gun ownership within nations). Credit goes to Jacsxon who was the only conservative I saw admit they were wrong on this one.

    And the list of similar conspiracy theories goes on and on and on it's tragic and demonstrates a complete disconnect with the facts.  It's especially hilarious when conservatives attempt to smear fact finding bodies because the facts rarely agree with what they are arguing. Until we move past these ridiculous paranoias there will be no political progress and the political divide will never be mended.

    1. 0
      SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      lol Nice lumping firstly. Like everyone who is against Obama has made claims he is a Muslim or not born here. Simply false but you are a good little Democrat because that is exactly what they do.
      As for the media, not controlled, that is not what the claim is at all. Controlled makes it seem like no one is allowed to speak the truth. Biased is the word. And that is just a fact. The majority of the people working in the media are Democrats, and their bias shows.
      I've not heard anyone say anything about Factcheck but Politifact is run by the Tampa Bay Times and is definitely left leaning. Either way, I don't see any difference in that than the left around here decrying Fox News.
      As for the treaty, I don't understand really because it was never ratified. I thought perhaps it simply was not covered so I did check again and the last news for it I can find is that it was suspended in July of this year. If you have a link I'd appreciate it. So, no, it wasn't ratified I'm pretty certain and it would need a vote in the Senate. Oh unless the President just issued another Executive Order that is. Again, that is no different than the posturing on the left how anyone not wanting to pay for someone else's birth control means they are anti-birth control and all the people of the country will never again be able to obtain birth control.

      1. American View profile image60
        American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I guess he missed the story the other day of the former CNN journalist who quit as gone public on how they control her stories and told her the narrative she was going to use.

        1. lone77star profile image90
          lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Wow, @AV, that's a hot little tip. Can you give us a link on this one?

          Living 5 years outside of the States, I had discovered how biased the American news media was, but keep discovering more and more that seems to show the Corporate Party media is a control freak.

      2. 0
        Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Politifact explains their rulings.  They don't issue them by decree.  You are free to agree or disagree with what they say based on the evidence they provided.  They also cite everything.  Calling them left-leaning, and then dismissing them completely is a lack of thought.

        It's not Politifact's fault that the right engages in chicanery and illusion when mindlessly ingesting the opinions of their CEOs and pastors.

    2. Onusonus profile image86
      Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Most conservatives don't subscribe to the birther movement, but the ones who do make the front page because liberals like to use it to further their false claims of racism on the right.
      No group in America has historically subscribed to conspiracy theories more than the liberal/progressives.
      Liberals are so enthralled with false rhetoric that they can't even tell if they are quoting Sarah Palin or Tina Fey. In 2010 when a few black congressmen were walking through a tea party crowd the media insisted that those racist tea partiers spat on them and called them the N-word which never happened. Andrew Breitbart even put out a $100,000 reward if anybody could produce any proof that such an incident took place. doxens of cameras were rolling that day and so far no bites.
      The liberal media did however, almost universally ignore the Kenneth Gladney beating by some SEIU members at a town hall meeting for Obama. More liberal mob violence.
      And how about the Rand Paul head stomp that never happened. Or the death of that census worker, or when Kieth Olberman lectured McCain and Palin for two solid weeks about someone in a crowd who shouted out "Kill him" referring to the president, (Which never happened, no evidence what so ever), at a Palin campaign rally. Even the secret service verified that it never happened.

      That's just a few from the last campaign but the list goes on and on from 19/11 truthers, to October surprises, the "Innocence" of the Rosenbergs, the "Innocence" of Mumia Abu Jamal, 150,000 women die from anorexia every year, global cooling (circa 1976), global warming (Circa 2000), the Duke Lacrosse team gang raping a stripper (she confessed that she lied), OJ was innocent, Bush shirked his national guard duty (no proof), Clinton "didn't have sex with that woman", and everything that Michael Moore says is gospel.

      1. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You don't notice in any of this that the person who first raised the birth certificate question was HILLARY CLINTON!
        That was one of her big campaign things and it kinda stuck. It will die off and then when they need to make people look stupid someone on MSNBC will bring it up out of the clear blue and all of a sudden there are people talking about it again.
        But...conveniently...Hilary is never mentioned as the author.

        1. Onusonus profile image86
          Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That's news to me.

        2. Billy Hicks profile image87
          Billy Hicksposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Let me preface this by saying I wasn't there, nor do I have any "inside knowledge" of either of the 08 campaigns.

          That being said, I would be willing to bet you dollars to donuts that it was someone from the Obama campaign that leaked the "Birther" story. David Plouffe is the Yoda of modern political strategy, and this is right in his wheelhouse.

  2. prettydarkhorse profile image62
    prettydarkhorseposted 4 years ago

    Could be a distrust in other group of people, people in general or racism. Paranoia is not good wink

  3. ahorseback profile image54
    ahorsebackposted 4 years ago

    As long as they keep us divided and throwing rocks at each other , they win ! Throwing words like racists or the likes only serves the greater evil! -Government as it is !  Keep on keepin on though ! You guys are good at it !

  4. rebekahELLE profile image91
    rebekahELLEposted 4 years ago

    Politico has nothing to do with the Tampa Bay Times.  I don't know who owns it.  Politifact is an independent, nonpartisan, project of the Tampa Bay Times.   
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … olitifact/

    Read a little history about who owns it and find out the facts.

    Posts on forums are perfect examples of how lies and conspiracies are spread.

    1. American View profile image60
      American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      From Politifacts own Web site which clearly never says is independent. It clearly says "Every day, reporters and researchers from PolitiFact and its partner news organization" At the head is CEO Paul Tash, very popular in the Democratic organization. Posts on Forums are not always lies, like this one, some people just not informed.

      More from the website where it discusses who owns it and funds it

      "The short answer is this: PolitiFact is a project of the Tampa Bay Times and its partner news organizations to help you find the truth in American politics. (See more about our mission on the "About Us" page.) The Times is the biggest newspaper in the Tampa Bay area and it has the largest circulation of any paper in Florida, so the advertisers and subscribers help foot the bills for PolitiFact.

      Since 2010, we have partnered with other news organizations that operate PolitiFact sites in the states. Most of these partners are newspapers such as the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the Austin American-Statesman (both part of the Cox chain) and the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Star-Ledger of Newark and the Oregonian (all part of the Advance chain). We have one radio partner, New Hampshire Public Radio.

      We accepted underwriting for our PolitiFact Florida project from foundations that seek to improve news coverage or civic discourse. We received money from the Knight Foundation, Craigslist Charitable Fund, and the Collins Center for Public Policy.

    2. Billy Hicks profile image87
      Billy Hicksposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      “Kindly do not attempt to cloud the issue with facts.”


  5. 0
    SassySue1963posted 4 years ago

    My apologies. I did use the wrong word, though I was thinking the right word. Associated is the word. It is indeed a project of the Tampa Bay Times and you do realize that all non-partisan means is they CLAIM not to be biased. It is indeed biased just as the Tampa Bay Times is biased even though they are supposed to be an objective news source. Can I apply this same logic then to Fox News? They are a self-proclaimed objective news source. Fair and Balanced, We Report You Decide. See how that works there?

  6. rebekahELLE profile image91
    rebekahELLEposted 4 years ago

    I don't argue with those who have made up their mind about what something is or isn't.  That's why you believe what you believe.  If you or others who believe Politifact is left leaning, you will only read it with that bias. 
    The Tampa Bay Times is owned by the Poynter Institute but daily operations (of the paper) are run by the current CEO.

    1. 0
      SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I'll take that as a "no" on the Fox News thing then huh? smile

      edit: I did forget to mention that you are correct. I stated Politico when I meant PolitiFact.

      1. rebekahELLE profile image91
        rebekahELLEposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That was my point with my initial response.  You made a false statement about Politco being owned by the Tampa Bay Times.  So I corrected it.  Lies and conspiracies are spread by false statements and opinion based 'facts'.  Whether by oversight or innocently making a mistake in writing, readers may not know a statement is false unless it's corrected.

        Fox News?  I value my time too much.  We all know it's not fair and balanced.  smile

  7. JSChams profile image60
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    Josak my friend yes there is some of that under the heading ridiculous.
    I know from experience though that you believe entities such as the Huffington Post unbiased which is silly. They are highly biased. Other entities with at least biased personnel: MSNBC.ABC.NBC,CBS, NYT, that's just a few media sources.
    Then there are the folks that think I suppose that Wikipedia are all professionally produced articles........

    Bias exists and most of it leans left. The editorial page of my local paper may as well just go ahead and print their pages slanted left in the type itself because it is almost like we live in San Francisco here.

  8. Jonathan Janco profile image82
    Jonathan Jancoposted 4 years ago

    There is not a single news source that is unbiased. Never was and never will be. That is the very first thing I learned in college as a broadcasting major. The second thing I learned is how to make a news story seem objective. And even if you are presenting the news with a pure intent to be objective, your own opinions and views will naturally come out regardless. As for the news in the major media today, most of it is biased towards keeping people ignorant. It is not right or left usually, just a barrage of junk.

  9. rebekahELLE profile image91
    rebekahELLEposted 4 years ago


    But when it comes to the question of "Who is PolitiFact?" or "Who pays for PolitiFact?", we can assure you that no one is behind the scenes telling us what to write for someone else's benefit. We are an independent, nonpartisan news organization. We are not beholden to any government, political party or corporate interest. We are proud to be able to say that we are independent journalists. And for that, we thank Nelson Poynter.

    quote from the link I previously posted

    Exactly.  If you read the site, they have articles with links and sources regarding their information.

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Politifact is probably the most central fact checking organization, but they still lean left.

      1. 0
        Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Even so, you can check out the evidence they use to come to their conclusions yourself, and most of the time, even if you disagree, you can at least see where they are coming from. 

        They also read their e-mails.  I e-mailed them about Jon Stewart's Fox News' claim and they used my e-mail as an example of readers who disagreed.  They didn't change their ruling, but they do try to be fair.

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Oh, I know that, and I give them credit for being responsible with their sources and reasoning.

          But many of their conclusions are clearly biased, and probably not apparent to many readers. For crying out loud, they rated the claim that Romney wants to raise taxes on the middle class 'half true'... based entirely on his plan to 'cut taxes 20% across the board'.

          There is NO half-truth in it, not at all.

          Their system should be changed.

          Misleading/Out of Context

          That's really all that is needed. If you want to really get into it, you can have mostly true(like if a figure isn't quite right), but none of the half-true, half-false stuff.

          1. 0
            Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I think you're right about them needing to revamp their rating system.  I've never understood what half true and mostly false were anyway.

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I can understand calling something 'mostly true', if the principle is correct but minor details are off.

              But if something is completely false, how can it be half-true?

              I've noticed they are slightly more lenient with Obama than with R's... not all the time, but it happens. Probably just who is working on it at the time.

              Also, they place too much emphasis on interviews they get from 'experts' at times.

    2. American View profile image60
      American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      ( Holds head in hand shaking it it back and forth)

      Typical, believing a statement over facts. The Tampa Bay Times is an extremely left-leaning newspaper, I know I read it for five years when I lived in Florida. You can check the other organizations involved as well and you will find that they to are left-leaning. This is far from and independent group. Independent would mean they would not be getting their salaries paid for by the Tampa Bay Times.They also list some of the other contributors of other left wing newspapers and some of the donators

      It would almost be like Rupert Murdoch starting a new network called Fox fact checking, you know darn well the facts that they find will be to the right. Even now during the convention I got more fun watching all the news stations doing their fact checks on the speeches. It was amazing all the different takes on the facts, needless to say none of them agreed with each other.

  10. ahorseback profile image54
    ahorsebackposted 4 years ago

    The moment you begin "fact checking " with one place , one sight ,your in trouble , your better off to read them all and make up your own mind ! Thats what most are incapable of !

    1. American View profile image60
      American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Very true

  11. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

    No steel frame building has ever fallen from fire in history, except three on nine/one/one. These three were controlled demolitions - true or false?

    1. JSChams profile image60
      JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Just because something never happened before does not mean it can't or won't give the right circumstances.
      That's the first time those circumstances have been in place.

      1. lone77star profile image90
        lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Ah, but @JSChams, the answer is really "True." Why?

        Scientific method. Scientists, Engineers and Architects speak out on 9/11

        Iron microspheres by the ton! Those prove that iron had been previously molten and atomized by a forceful blast of air while the iron was significantly above its melting point. Possibly as much as 1500 metric tons, based on percentages found in the 9/11 concrete dust, proves that only controlled demolition could've created these microspheres. I don't think there were tons of steel wool in the fire zones of each building.

        Also, there is a massive energy deficit in each building, if gravity was the only force for collapse. 60+% free-fall acceleration for the towers and 100% free-fall for at least 8 floors of WTC7, plus near-perfect free-fall for the remainder of WTC7's collapse took most of the potential energy of each building. There was insufficient PE left for,
        * Bending or breaking all of the undamaged steel beams
        * Complete pulverization of the more than 500,000 metric tons of concrete in the buildings
        * Blowing that concrete dust over all of lower Manhattan
        * Heating up that dust as felt by nearby witnesses
        All of these together require far more than the original PE.

        We could speculate that Martians did it, or gremlins, or that it was an act of God, but controlled demolition seems to fit the bill quite nicely.

        And controlled demolition implies quite strongly that 9/11 was an inside job. The Bush family-run security company which oversaw the WTC, plus the CIA which was a tenant of WTC7 could've been entirely incompetent while Al Qaeda spent many long weeks placing the necessary explosive charges and thermitic cutters, but somehow I don't think incompetence was at work.

        If incompetence caused the greatest failures in US aviation history all to occur on the same day, then why did the officers responsible for those failures all get promotions? Incompetence, or quiet complicity?

        1. American View profile image60
          American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          While this steel building did not fully collapse, what is you answer to the fact a steel building did experience a collapse under fire with no jet fuel involved. This event was prior to 9/11 yet everyone says it never happened before.

          Heat sink? Really? We are stretching now. The exterior was aluminum alloy. It was chosen over steel on the exterior because being a weak metal, it had more flexibility than steel to withstand the bending a building of that height does from the winds. I wonder what the melting rate of the skin was?

          http://www.youtube.com/http://en.wikipe … sor_Tower_(Madrid)watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=j4MjsVnasLA


    2. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this


      Skip to 6:00.

      Steel beam breaks under it's own weight after 3 minutes, 50 seconds of 2000 degree heat. Jet fuel burns right around that temperature, and this was a largely enclosed fire, meaning that temperatures can build.

      1. lone77star profile image90
        lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        @JaxsonRaine, I saw the video, but it has major flaws!

        First off, you must've missed the fact that they loaded it with 3000 pounds of weights, so you're wrong when you say that it breaks under its' own weight.

        The test was not a proper test because of several factors:
        * The steel beam used was not the same type used in the WTC. They admitted that they scaled back the weights to simulate the loading experienced in the building.
        * The steel beam in the test could not hold as much heat in its cross section as a WTC beam because it was smaller (lighter weight), so would naturally fail sooner.
        * The steel beam in the test was used in isolation. In the WTC, all steel beams were connected in a gigantic lattice work -- a skeleton of steel. Since all metals are excellent thermal conductors, the skeleton of the building would've acted as a heat sink, drawing excess heat away from the area of  heat excess.
        * The National Geographic fire test was a controlled test, with highly concentrated fire held underneath the beam. The conditions in the WTC were anything but controlled and ideal for a fire. Question: Was there a pit of fuel underneath any of the steel beams in the WTC? Imagine a floor with many gallons of fuel poured onto it. How long would the fuel stay on a flat surface with openings at the edges (stairs, breaks in the floor from the collision, elevators, etc)?

        1. American View profile image60
          American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The experiment does have its flaws but the results is on the money. Steele begins to twist and move at 600°F, this experiment was just over 2000° and the steel beam only lasted just over 3 min.

          Steel is steel, whether it be an I-beam that stands four inches tall or 20 inches tall, whether it's a steel cannon or steel barrel from a rifle, no matter what it is it will begin to distort at 600°F. Just because it's bigger or small doesn't change whether or not it will melt at 1500°, because it 1500°F it will melt.

          As you talk about the steel in the World Trade Center's being connected as lattice, it should be pointed out that this building was constructed like no other. When you consider the loads consider this, since the main supports of the building were on the inside core, and the outside perimeter steel was closer than normal, there was no interior steel support columns, only those spanning from the exterior to the interior. This design was to free up floor space to be wide-open not intrusive of columns. In order to do that the spans of that steel were over 35 feet long much longer than normal buildings are. So when you say it's connected like lattice is connected like lattice with huge openings and not small ones. This Design Was Unique, it was done so to absorb the impact of an airplane, and we can see it did that. But it was also designed that in the event of a collapse it was to collapse within its own footprint, something truthers don't like to admit to.

          To answer your question? We all know liquid will seek its own level, provided it's on a level plane. Show me one building ever being constructed with floors level, they're not. It doesn't have to be much of the slope, even as little as 1 inch in 5 to 10 feet, that's enough to get fluid going in that direction. So it's easy to conceive that not all the jet fuel rolled off that floor and down the elevator shafts or stairwells. Remember that during construction the steel trusses are not flat when they are originally installed. That is so when the concrete is poured for the floor the trusses will give a little. If they don't give enough in the middle will be higher and fluid will drain to each side, if the middle settles just a little too much, then fluid would accumulate in the middle. Unfortunately, this no real way to know where the jet you flowed or pooled up on those floors that that day.

          For me the biggest flaw of  that test was it was done outside in and open pit. While the temperatures reached over 2000°, in reality it was unconfined. What they should have done was built a small building or room, enclosed it, and then set fire. That would've been much more realistic. In an enclosed situation it would've been extremely hotter in the fire. In addition the fire would've acted differently because inside of an enclosed container how it gets its oxygen to burn would be different. In the pit ,fire was not spreading, inside of a building at that he it would've been taking off like wildfire, spawning multiple flash overs in its wake.

    3. ahorseback profile image54
      ahorsebackposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Knolyourself , OH GOD!!!!! Still? 9/11   A conspiracy of the right .....please .   Some people are just a little to bright for common sense.

  12. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

    That is the flaw of deductive logic. If all are deducted whatever is left must be true, does not account for the singular instance. On the other hand one can only guess as well, that these were first time circumstances.

  13. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

    "This maximum flame temperature is reduced by two-thirds if air is used rather than pure oxygen. The reason is that every molecule of oxygen releases the heat of formation of a molecule of carbon monoxide and a molecule of water. If pure oxygen is used, this heat only needs to heat two molecules (carbon monoxide and water), while with air, these two molecules must be heated plus four molecules of nitrogen. Thus, burning hydrocarbons in air produces only one-third the temperature increase as burning in pure oxygen because three times as many molecules must be heated when air is used. The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C.

    But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range.2,3 It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best."

    1. 0
      SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Did I completely miss something? Because this has absolutely no bearing on anything in this thread.

      1. lone77star profile image90
        lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Perhaps you missed the line about "conspiracy theory."

        He's merely giving facts to support one theory that some would like demonized.

        1. 0
          SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Actually it was about the conservatives and conspiracy theories.

    2. American View profile image60
      American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      So you think a residential fire is only 500 degrees C.  Below are the temperature of fire in different states. Structure fires are generally orange and white. Those temps are are the flame source, add in a confined space that does not allow that heat to disapate, add in the equation for super heat, and you have a much hotter environment than 500 degrees C. Do not believe me, go suit up and enter a burning dwelling. A typical residential fire is between 2000 and 3000 degrees F

      Temperatures of flames by appearance
      The temperature of flames with carbon particles emitting light can be assessed by their color:[10]

      Just visible: 525 °C (980 °F)
      Dull: 700 °C (1,300 °F)
      Cherry, dull: 800 °C (1,500 °F)
      Cherry, full: 900 °C (1,700 °F)
      Cherry, clear: 1,000 °C (1,800 °F)
      Deep: 1,100 °C (2,000 °F)
      Clear: 1,200 °C (2,200 °F)
      Whitish: 1,300 °C (2,400 °F)
      Bright: 1,400 °C (2,600 °F)
      Dazzling: 1,500 °C (2,700 °F)

  14. lone77star profile image90
    lone77starposted 4 years ago

    @Josak, this is quite funny. I used to consider myself left leaning -- compassion for people and getting the government to help. Now I see how pitifully wrong that is because it always leads to concentration of power and money in the hands of a few and eventual abuses, plus less help for the intended recipients. That seems counterintuitive, but that's the way it works time and time again.

    Now, I'm not right, left, conservative, liberal, progressive or whatnot. I'm simply American.

    Conspiracy? Why is it George W. Bush gets to give his conspiracy theory and everyone else has to shut up?

    We don't need conspiracy theories to know that things are not normal in America.

    The facts show us that clearly enough.

    Fact: Conspiracies exist! Hey! Let's look at the elephant standing in the room and acknowledge that conspiracies are not a fantasy. Our fellow Hubber, @Josak seems to insinuate that a conspiracy is automatically something to be demonized or dismissed. Hitler did it. America has done it countless times. Look at Operation Northwoods. That was a conspiracy to provoke war based upon a lie.

    Fact: UnPatriot Act and the ability of the government to invade your privacy without a warrant.

    Fact: TSA pat downs, including private parts for the little children. Ye gads. A 4-year-old terrorist? I would rather go back to being free and risk terrorism than have tyranny and so little security.

    Fact: NDAA with its indefinite detention clauses for American citizens. Has the government become so lazy that they really need to be able to lock up people without protecting rights? And here's a petition to help stop the government's insanity on NDAA:

    Fact: Obama said that he wanted to keep the Gitmo prisoners locked up forever even if they are found not guilty! And if you were one of those at Gitmo? How would you feel?

    Fact: Obama has his "Kill List" which includes American citizens. No trial, no warrant, no access to an attorney or right of appeal -- Bang! You're dead by presidential executive order. How cool is that? The Power! And here's Obama's lame response when asked about it all:

    Fact: Now it is a felony to protest. Your first amendment rights have been eroded so that you cannot say anything negative to a politician or campaign worker who might be escorted by a secret service agent. Sieg heil!

    Fact: Obama went to war with Libya without even consulting Congress, much less getting the required declaration from them. Instead, he got his marching orders from the UN. The Constitution is again being eroded.

    Fact: Both the Demopublicans and Republicrats have eliminated voting from their conventions and they have dissolved any adherence to Roberts Rules of Order. See video evidence, below:

    RNC Scripted:

    DNC Scripted:

    Fact: Former VP Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, and that company received juicy war contracts in Iraq. But Halliburton has been guilty of overcharging and under delivering.

    I wonder how much Cheney made off of that conflict of interest.

    Fact: The late Hollywood producer and statesman, Aaron Russo, said in his last major interview that one of the Rockefellers told him of a Big Event which would give US Iraq and Afghanistan. This conversation took place 11 months before 9/11, showing prior knowledge of that event, because 9/11 was the "Big Event" which was used as a pretext for those wars. Mr. Russo could've been lying, but why would he? He died not long after the interview from cancer.

    If you would like a good laugh about the ludicrous Bush conspiracy theory, try this 5-minute video:

  15. JSChams profile image60
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    We are doing just what Josak wanted which is rambling about birth certificates and 9/11.

    1. 0
      SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Except that, perhaps, we've proven the opposite because the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are not "right".

      (see what I did there?lol)

      1. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The birth certificate and 9/11 are favorites.
        And yeah Rosie O'Donnell ....that great scientist...was the first to point out that steel doesn't melt.

        1. 0
          SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Ah Rosie O'Donnell, talk about conspiracy obsessed. I guess we've taken this thread full circle now. Proven that there are conspiracies from both sides.

  16. Repairguy47 profile image60
    Repairguy47posted 4 years ago

    Its hilarious that I'm reading that there is no liberal bias in the media. What about that conspiracy theory that Bush blew up the world trade center? I guess Fox news started that one?

    1. JSChams profile image60
      JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I really hate it because what we really didn't need was yet another forum taken up with stuff.

  17. ahorseback profile image54
    ahorsebackposted 4 years ago

    Yet I wonder once again .........., why  a president with such a lousy record of economics , trade deficits, lack of energy policy ,  jumbled up mess of foriegn policies,  record high unemployment rates , ever increasing deficit by a full one third  , record  inflationary gas prices , ccan still find time to play hoops and campain ?

  18. rrhistorian profile image61
    rrhistorianposted 4 years ago

    the truth hurts - but the shambles blunders on.
    I guess that is why the failure cannot shout about any positive accomplishments.

    but then - those who drink the koolaide are satisfied with their distressed positions.