Why people believe in conspiracy theories

[Bro. Curtis]

I got one!!!!!!!!!!

There is a bi-partisian conspiracy going on, right now, to destroy America via immigration reform. I'm in constant communication with Tom Tancredo (Tank, as his friends know him) and you may want to visit his site, and join us in fighting the Bush administrations attempt to subvert the will of the American people. Join us now!!!!!

 

[James_Newman]

When the evidence was presented, and folks were allowed to challenge it, it came out that Reagan's administration was dishonest to the American people. It included hearings, if I remember correctly.

I was very young when it occured and I only have vague recollections of Ollie North having no recollection. But what if it was not allowed to be challenged, and there were no hearings. Would that mean that there was no conspiracy and that anyone who suggested the govt was selling arms to Iran to fund militants in Nicaragua hated the Reagan administration?

 

[James_Newman]

I got one!!!!!!!!!!

There is a bi-partisian conspiracy going on, right now, to destroy America via immigration reform. I'm in constant communication with Tom Tancredo (Tank, as his friends know him) and you may want to visit his site, and join us in fighting the Bush administrations attempt to subvert the will of the American people. Join us now!!!!!

Does Tank's plan to save America include a tamper-proof national ID?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I'm so glad you asked.....


Moderator: Mr. Tancredo, do you agree with the need for a national tamper-proof ID card?
Tancredo: We do not need a national -- I do not think we need a national ID card, much for the reasons that Dr. Paul said. We absolutely need a verifiable Social Security card. They are two separate things. I believe that we can accomplish the former without jeopardizing individuals liberties...
Moderator: But you say legally you have to be who you say you are?
Tancredo: Pardon me?
Moderator: You have to be the person on that card.
Tancredo: That is absolutely what I'm saying. It's got to be verifiable, absolutely.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18478985/page/20/

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I was very young when it occured and I only have vague recollections of Ollie North having no recollection. But what if it was not allowed to be challenged, and there were no hearings. Would that mean that there was no conspiracy and that anyone who suggested the govt was selling arms to Iran to fund militants in Nicaragua hated the Reagan administration?

There was a conspiracy to hide the truth from America, and I don't buy Ollie's or Reagan's selective memory loss on the issue.

 

[James_Newman]

I'm so glad you asked.....


Moderator: Mr. Tancredo, do you agree with the need for a national tamper-proof ID card?
Tancredo: We do not need a national -- I do not think we need a national ID card, much for the reasons that Dr. Paul said. We absolutely need a verifiable Social Security card. They are two separate things. I believe that we can accomplish the former without jeopardizing individuals liberties...
Moderator: But you say legally you have to be who you say you are?
Tancredo: Pardon me?
Moderator: You have to be the person on that card.
Tancredo: That is absolutely what I'm saying. It's got to be verifiable, absolutely.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18478985/page/20/

This may be a topic for a different thread, but what does he suggest to make a social security card verifiable, or more verifiable than the one in my wallet?

 

[Rufus_1611]

There was a conspiracy to hide the truth from America, and I don't buy Ollie's or Reagan's selective memory loss on the issue.

Do you believe Oliver North was involved in a program designed to suspend the constitution?

Representative Jack Brooks - "Colonel North, in your work at the NSC, were you not assigned at one time to work on plans for the continuity of government in the event of a major disaster?"
Senator Daniel Inouye -"I believe that touches upon highly sensitive and classified area, so may I request that you not touch upon that please."
Representative Jack Brooks - "I was particularly concerned because I have read in the Miami papers and several others that there had been a plan developed by that same agency, a contingency plan in the event of an emergency that would suspend the American Constitution."
Senator Daniel Inouye - "May I request that that matter not be touched upon."
(Source: http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...=3&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)

 

[Bro. Curtis]

This may be a topic for a different thread, but what does he suggest to make a social security card verifiable, or more verifiable than the one in my wallet?

I don't know. I write him, all the time, so I'll write him tonite. His staff has been very good at answering my questions, so far.

 

[James_Newman]

I had trouble with the link, this works
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5912390886871235156

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Do you believe Oliver North was involved in a program designed to suspend the constitution?

I don't know about him, per se, but Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, & Bill Clinton, all off the top of my head had plans to suspend it. Lincoln is, so far the only one to do it, again, off the top of my head.


"(He has) no more use for the Constitution than a tomcat has for a marriage license!" House speaker Joe Cannon on the perceived abuse of power by Theodore Roosevelt in 1904

 

[Conservative Christian]

It would seem that you prefer opinion over fact.

You are definitely a prime example of a conspiracy theorist.

You've presented no facts whatsoever, I have. And as I previously noted, since Special Agent Sorrels was ACTUALLY THERE, his observations are important and would be admissable in court, while your opinions would not.

So it is obvious that YOU prefer opinion over fact.

I already clearly stated that SOME conspiracy theories do not have credibility, so I do not just accept any theory out there.

But it is SHEER FOOLISHNESS to reject ALL conspiracy theories, just because SOME turn out to be bunk.

If you reject all conspiracy theories, then you clearly reject the Bible and the Holocaust. Thus I am completely unable to take you seriously.

Hitler, the Nazis and their sympathizers conspired to systematically exterminate at least six million Jews, a massive undertaking that is hard to fathom, but it DID happen.

Eliminating just one prominent leader like JFK, would be a piece of cake compared to what the Nazis accomplished. And there is NO disputing that JFK was a controversial man from a controversial family.

Conspiracies that result in political assassinations are well documented throughout recorded history. Or doesn't the name of Julius Caesar mean anything to conspiracy deniers like yourself?

 

[Conservative Christian]

What about the Iran-Contra scandal. Was that a conspiracy?

I voted for Ronald Reagan twice, and anybody who would deny it was a conspiracy needs to get a brain.

 

[carpro]

You've presented no facts whatsoever, I have.

No you haven't.

You have presented only opinions.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Since 1951, when the outgoing president was
Harry Truman, I've heard the rumor that
the president scheduled to leave the presidency
was going to suspend the Constitution and
stay in office. Here is the list of presidents
Starred (*) presidents weren't even elected
as the president:

Harry Truman
Dwight Eisenhower
*L.B. Johnson
*Ford
Carter
Reagan
Bush #1
Clinton
Bush #2

The dumb thing about it is,
if a person is powerful enough
to take over from the president's
office, he/she might as well NOT
suspend the Constitution but just
take over.

 

[Conservative Christian]

Oswald acted alone.

Prove it.

Since Oswald was NEVER tried in a court of law, he MUST be considered innocent under U.S Constitutional law.

A person is innocent until proven guilty in this country, whether you like it or not.

Oswald has been convicted ONLY in the "court" of public OPINION, which is NO court at all.

Even after many hours of intense police interrogation, Oswald insisted on his innocence and that he was a "patsy".

Your proclamations of his guilt and that he acted alone, are merely unfounded opinions with no basis in reality.

Quite frankly, you don't know even know if he was guilty of the crime, much less if he acted alone!

NOBODY in Dallas that day saw Oswald fire that rifle. Shots were heard from the book depository, an unidentified figure was seen briefly in the window, and Oswald was allegedly arrested later in a movie theater.

In fact, multiple eyewitnesses on the street reported that they saw MORE than one shooter in the building.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

The burden of proof should be on the people who think he didn't act alone.

 

[Conservative Christian]

It would seem that you prefer opinion over fact.

Carpro the pot calling the kettle black! :laugh:

Not one person in Dallas that day can identify Oswald as the shooter in the book depository window.

It is sheer PRESUMPTION and OPINION that he was the shooter, and that he acted alone.

You have declared a man guilty though you possess virtually no knowledge of the case.

A man is innocent until proven guilty in this country, whether you like it or not.

Your method of guilt by declaration might have been the norm in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, but it won't float in America.

 

[Conservative Christian]

The burden of proof should be on the people who think he didn't act alone.

You are badly and sadly mistaken.

The clear burden of proof is on those who think he's guilty!

A man is innocent until proven guilty in this country. That's according to the U.S. Constitution and the laws of all 50 states.

Of the hundreds of people in Dealey Plaza that day, NOT ONE was able to identify Oswald as the shooter in the book depository window.

You can't even prove he's guilty, much less that he acted alone.

 

[LadyEagle]

I believe there was a shooter on the grassy knoll.


Since this is past the 10 page limit, the closing warning is being issued - this thread will be closed on sooner than 3:00 a.m. ET by one of the moderators.

LE

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

The burden of proof should be on the people who think he didn't act alone.

Think about that: Oswald was able to get how many shots at a moving target from the book depository building, including a wildly horrific head shot on President Kennedy with an old bolt-action rifle? That doesn't seem like a stretch to you? Let's not forget that magic bullet theory.

I know that the author of the article simply accepts the report without question, opting to call anyone who dares to question it a conspiracy theorist. I guess that is an easy way to attempt to stifle discussion. I am sure that James Earl Ray acted alone when he murdered Dr. King (not too far from my hotel).

Regards, Bro. Curtis,
BiR (in Memphis, TN)