election success is always the result of "conspiracy"

there is always a vast network of people working together, in ways large and small, behind the candidates for any major office. some are decent, honest "little people", some are self-interested fat cats, some are just in it for the power and fame, some are paid dirty tricksters, some are fervently working for their vision of the greater good. some will be smart, some will be devoted, some will be generous, some will be cynical, some will be crooks, and some will follow the crooks. some votes will always be stolen, we are constantly assured.
so, we know there was a republican "conspiracy" to install *, legitimately or not, again, just as there was a democratic "conspiracy" to elect john kerry. why is it so hard to believe that there were the required number in the party of power, money, greed, and war to tip the balance?
all great crimes require conspiracy. are those the throw around the canard of "conspiracy theory" suggesting that there have been no great crimes in history? that such a thing is unlikely, if not impossible? perhaps they should take a look at human history.

necessarily a "conspiracy."

Conspiracy, in both denotation and connotation, refers to criminal or subversive activity.

If there were democrats working together to break election law in order to get Kerry election than you could legitimately claim there was a democratic conspiracy. Who knows? There certainly could have been I suppose. But to lump all campaign workers, volunteers and activists as conspiracists isn't semantically accurate.

I prefer to reserve the label for nefarious activities rather than typical campaign efforts to elect the candidate of your choice.

you missed the point.

Assuming that you're a monopoly channel for Jesus' will on earth. That's conspiratorial thinking.

O8)

at least all our "conspirators" are flesh and blood.

design. Dictionary.com uses a "conspiracy of wind and..." as an example in definition 4 of conspiracy. Thus, the illegal element need not be express to use the term in the English language, i.e. there need not be a true criminal or subversive element at all.

The illegal element need not be criminal either, since there are civil conspiracies in addition to criminal conspiracies.

Objecting to the main post above misses its educational content: conspiracies in the sense of people working together are an awfully common thing. If one adds even a bit of civil or criminal illegality, you have a proper use of the legal term conspiracy, (as an allegation at least), which is its core definition. It may fail of proof, but the usage of the word is proper at that point.

Another important thing about the cultural function of "conspiracy theory" as an attack on others is that it is used to seemingly discredit those who publicly talk about what has been deliberately kept secret by others.

Thus, with regard to matters deliberately kept secret, one is necessarily faced with a choice of saying nothing, being a "conspiracy theorist" for thinking about connections and possibilities, or having a middle position of "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" because to stray into the area of making any inferences would be to subject oneself to criticism as a "conspiracy theorist".

It's one way to shut people up while still claiming to have freedom of speech and thought. One would think that a healthy respect for freedom of expression would result in the response to "conspiracy theory" being factual rebuttal, and not a version of mockery.

how does it bounce off them and stick to us? aarrrggghhh!