I have a suggestion, I think it might help with our conspiracy theory...

addiction. Maybe there should be a conspiracy theory forum. That way GD could be cleaned up a little. It seems to me a lot of people don't like seeing an entire days worth of posts devoted to conspiracy theories, but it isn't right to censor people, so there should be a place set aside for these kind of theories. That way it wouldn't damage the credibility of other posters on DU in general, and people could still talk about their skepticism. I don't know if y'all would consider doing that or if it would even be a good idea at all, but it seems to me that it would be the best of both worlds.

:popcorn:

:-)

Of course. :D

we at DU are getting too close to the truth and that is why you are suggesting that DU develop a conspiracy theory forum. That way casual visitors to DU - who might not know about a DU conspiracy theory forum - might never be exposed to the truth.

Am I right or am I just being too paranoid?

















he said 'tongue in cheek'

You have discovered our secret plan! :scared:
















:rofl:

It's hidden from the main pages.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=125

It should be a general conspiracy theory place.

I am reminded of those who say christianity is based on myth.. and others say it is based on fact. What more do you need to know, my kindred, to realize...YOU are living in a fascist state? Tell me...which theories disturb you? I'll back them up with fact...Then I'll point you to a website where you may find yourself more comfortable.

because people who believe in conspiracy theories don't consider them to be conspiracy theories.

Maybe you could title it something like:

"VERY, VERY SERIOUS GOVERNMENT COVERUPS AND PLANS THAT 90 PERCENT OF DU IS TOO NAIVE TO BELIEVE IN"

If only because back in 199-something 70% of Americans "still" believed the there's a government conspiracy involved in the assassination of JFK. That fact was then cited as the reason for producing a program that tried to debunk JFK CTs.

Looks to me like in general people are not naive about what the government is capable of.

because I went to sleep early. I am going back to bed...goodnight, and don't expect me to respond until morning.

Problem identified and solved!

That's a conspiracy theory too. There happens to be a hell of a lot of evidence, but it's kind of like the theory of gravity, it hasn't been completely "proven" yet.

What I'm saying is it can be hard to draw the line sometimes, regarding which theories are worthy of discussion and which aren't. Part of DU is people debunking crap that's floating around the net already, whether it's a bulk e-mail attributed to George Carlin or some guy that thinks SHARK'S WITH LAZER BEAMS ARE WHAT REALLY HIT THE PENTAGON! FOR REAL!!!1! ;-)

is that why you are trying to shut us down.

:shrug:

Let me suggest you step out of your 'box' for a minute.

this is (at least) the second thread you have started tonight claiming that 'the Cuckoo' theories will derail us.

In your world would 'election anomalies' be a theory?

How about 9/11?

swift boating?

the "liberal media"?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:bounce:

together with all twelve members of PNAC, for years and recycling each other, cause there are only about "twelve". So that discussion of politics is just that .. politics.

I think when something happens - some new bit of information hits the fan.. it does get thrown around a bit. And pot stirrers arrive. And then some real sceptics join in. But within a day or so - the proof is overwhelming and the sceptics go back to more real issues.. politics.

For sure denying that there was an evil little group planning on jihad in Canada is insulting and frustrating.. but that seems to be over and done with.. that troublemaking.

It means that the real discussion on the meat of the issue -is put off by that period of time where the conspiracy pot stirrers encourage skepticism when ample evidence abounds.

But I don't see how one could go about choosing what is a conspiracy theory and what is rightfull speculation.. right off the bat? Maybe after a bit. Of course that still means the DU doesn't get the the heart of the matter in the first days..which is terribly frustrating. Perhaps.. people who are original posters should have the option of choosing to allow conspiracy talk in their thread or not.. and then all conspiracy talkers could be ignored if they post.. once the "not propaganda" option has been pressed. Then.. if Karl Dove logs on LOL and posts the topic THE UN Kills more people than it saves..it should be disbanded" and people cannot respond with "you mean birth control don't ya? You just want to not face any oversight or world body more powerful than Halliburton" - well if those posts were not allowed to be there and the Admin disagreed that the original Dove post.. was not propaganda..they could lock the whole thread.

Just brainstorming.

If you choose the option to not allow conspiracy talk (disagreement with the whole premise of the topic of your post) then you have to pass the mustard in terms of how accepted in the news, in the journals and blogs, your topic is.

Don't know really.

Is a conspiracy theory still a conspiracy theory if there's really a conspiracy? . . .

inquiring minds want to know . . .

--that our overlords withhold from us. Then there wouldn't be so many people with the itch to get their Magic Markers out and fill in the blank spaces with pictures that may or may not correspond to the original puzzle pieces.

Less freedom of information = more speculation. The Sheeple buy the party line. The intelligent connect the dots.

Beware those who want to apply the "Conspiracy Theory" labels.

As in, large conspioracies don't exist?

No Iran-Contra, no Bay of Pigs, no election fraud 2000 (the very reason why DU was created)...

Silly me. I thought I saw a confirmed DOD document that admitted as much in the Washington Post.

WaPo - Zarqawi is a US Military PSYOP: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/09/AR2006040900890.html

The NY Times Played Along: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002314713

Zarqawi - Bush's Man For All Seasons: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FJ15Ak02.html

UPI (Moonie Times) - How the US Created the Zarqawi Myth: http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:2QuiYcfLZV0J:www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php%3FStoryID%3D20051110-014753-2561r+Claim:+U.S.+Created+al-Zarqawi+Myth&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

CIA Agent Says US Allowed Zarqawi to Escape: http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/us-allowed-zarqawi-to-escape/2006/04/30/1146335608444.html

How the US fuelled myth of Zarqawi the mastermind: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/04/wirq04.xml

Reputed Terrorist Al-Zarqawi Still Shrouded in U.S.-Fed Myth, Mystery: http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/1546

A collection of pix of our happily finally actually dead parrot: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2327738&mesg_id=2328504

A collection of previous links saying Zarqawi was dead, seriously injured or captured: http://www.conjur.com/blog/2005/11/20/zarqawis-dead-again-3rd-times-a-charm-eh

From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2006/04/10/GR2006041000097.html

But why do you hate Amurika and sane DU'ers?

:hi: Welcome to DU! :hi:

The definition for a "conspiracy theory" to my mind is a theory that is not supported by the facts but by some unclear suppositions and possible contingencies.

As far as I know, the facts all suggest that elections, beginning in 96 with Hagel's amazing 83% win in NE, are being stolen for candidates who were not elected. The only fact that supports the candidates who are said to have won is the read-out on the computer screens.

So you're essentially saying that we should continue allowing the main stream media define our party. No one here is saying the current administration is run by some alien force here (or some other random kooky idea). People bring up REAL issues about the war, the previous elections, and how our country is being run by evidence, both past and present. Others can draw their own conclusions, but it's not fair to marginalize ideas of merit because some people think they are too "out there", often based on how the mainstream media reports things and the continued thought that we should constantly be in the defensive.

The Democratic Party should not be in the defensive. We are right!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

a conspiracy theory - who defines it? And if we admit it is a theory, we aren't crazy. We know it's just a theory. It's freeper thinking to say you can't talk about anything or question anything without having to prove it absolutely true.

It is naive to insist that everything the government or even the media tells you is true. We know from past examples that powers-that-be have used the media to get the populace stirred up. It used to work, before we could come on the internet and discuss what we were getting.

While the government may be telling the truth sometimes, or even most of the time, just questioning it is not crazy. Sure it's crazy to freepers, but why should the wilfully ignorant run the world?

This idea was floated in the 9/11 forum as a way of separating 9/11 material from the other, often very speculative, material that is "dumped" there, and which reduces the credibility of the 9/11 forum at a time when it appears that the majority of people no longer believe in the official conspiracy theory.

The problem with the way the OP phrases the suggestion is that he is assuming that alternative views are basically wrong, and that this place would be garbage dump.

This was a proposal for a Parapolitics, Assassinations and Conspiracies Group that tried to take the concerns of the likely audience seriously and respectfully:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=84192#85049

Parapolitics, Conspiracies and Assassinations Group

Ever since John F. Kennedy was assassinated on the streets of Dallas, Americans of diverse political leanings have come to the conclusion that the political drama that plays out on the pages of our mainstream newspapers and mainstream television news programs, is not the entire political story, and perhaps not even the important political story. Many have concluded that beneath and behind the kabuki theater of Congressional voting, presidential speechmaking, diplomatic doubletalking, and military "cooperation," there are groups of wealthy and powerful people making agreements, implementing plans and founding institutions that affect the way we live, as much or more than our formal politics and economics. Some political scientists, alternative journalists and bloggers have called this deeper level of analysis by various names, such as "parapolitics," "deep politics" or even "high weirdness."

Although often dismissed as "conspiracy theories," a shocking number of times in recent American history, the darkest suspicions of the American public have proven to be true. For example, the Reagan administration was shown to have sold weapons to America's then arch-enemy, Iran, in order to secretly accumulate money that was used to pay for a war against Nicaragua that Congress had specifically forbidden the administration from carrying out.

During the Nixon administration, a burglary of the Democratic National headquarters in a Washington DC hotel, the Watergate, was shown to have been authorized at the highest levels of government, and covered up by the White House, and presumably the president himself, with the use of clandestine services such as the Central Intelligence Agency.

This group is dedicated to the idea that "theorizing" about "conspiracies" is not paranoid; it is prudent. Members are free to propose theories about the underlying operational behaviors of government and business, even if concrete evidence may be lacking. Appropriate topics include the role of drug cartels in politics and national security affairs; the role of the Central Intelligence Agency in recent history; the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy; the possibility of unconventional weaponry being developed by western military powers, including mind control and weather manipulation; and the existence of unconventional aircraft, whether of terrestial or non-terriestial origin, in the skies.

The only kinds of theories that will not be entertained in this Group are theories that are racist, anti-Semitic or offensive to broad sections of the DU membership. Moreover, alternative theories concerning the events of 9/11 should be confined to the 9/11 Forum.

I proposed a similar idea in 2004. Permission denied.

It's mission statement was:

The group will be a forum for the discussion of political power gained and maintained by subterfuge, secrecy, violence and deceit, which is hidden from the general public. The purpose of the group, a vivisection of the "Octopus."

Topics will include, but are not limited to, assassinations, black ops, false flags, CIA drug trafficking and money laundering, mind control, 9/11 and electoral theft.

Dialogue and constructive, respectful disagreement while working within the Deep Politics model will be welcome. Deniers and dismissive, ridiculing posts will be considered disruptive.

Members of the group should assume the baseline that Oswald was not a lonegunman. This should help keep whatever disagreements follow congenial, thoughtful and constructive.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2688493

I'd just like to know what subjects and theories about them you consider conspiracies. Thanks.

by grouping it with the more extreme ideas that float around here and putting it in the Tin Foil Forum. That way originalpckelly's credibility will remain intact.

Media should be crushed immediately.

:sarcasm:

If you have any suggestions regarding this site or
DU rules, please contact the Administrators.