Normally I try to avoid getting too upset about things like this (really!), and try even more to avoid bothering other people with them, but this...this is just disgusting. I'm cross-posing this across several public forums I visit, so you may see this repeated. You may think I'm being foolish, overreacting, acting childish, whatever. But the following is written in complete, stark honesty.

Throughout this thread, you may want to stop reading, thinking "I've seen all this before". But I ask you - please, keep reading.

First, the setup. This is long, but please bear with me.

There is a site called Conservapedia. It is a "conservative" (in the American political sense) alternative to Wikipedia, started by people who got frustrated with Wikipedia. It's been around for several years, and it's generated a fair amount of interest in several ways. A lot of it's faults (and there are many) have been documented on a site called Rationalwiki, which was set up by people kicked off Conservapedia for trying to counter the creator's attempts to do stuff like say there is a real, dangerous link between abortion and breast cancer. Unfortunately, Rationalwiki is down for another week or so, so the Wikipedia article will have to suffice.

The thing that always gets to me, however, is that Conservapedia is (or rather is supposed to be) the online component of a homeschooling program for teenagers taught by the site's owner/founder, Andrew Schlafly ("Aschlafly"). He is the son of Phylliss Schlafly, a female American "conservative" activist known in previous decades for dangerously disingenuous rhetoric and completely unashamed hypocrisy (she basically preached that women should stay in the kitchen and please their husband while she went on nation-wide book/speaking tours).

People pay Andrew Schlafly to teach their children history, math, economics and other subjects as an alternative to public schools. Conservapedia was created in part as a resource for them, and Schlafly continues to promote it as such, even when does things like - this is not a joke - begin rewriting the Bible to be more conservative (rather, his definition of conservative). I want you to keep this in mind. He, "Aschlafly", is a real person. He teaches real children.

At the Conservapedia wiki, Aschlafly has a dozen or so active admins. Some of these people, as far as observers can tell, are....well, "for real". They really do believe the things they write there. They really believe in the honesty (or rather, the "truth") of the claims they make. Among these are Ed Poor, Rob Smith (aka RobS), "Karajou", "DeanS", "RJJensen" and "TerryH". Several of these people used to edit at Wikipedia, and several still do, such as Ed Poor, who often boasts about the number of articles he has created and his time at the project.

(As an aside on Poor, nearly all of those articles were "stubs" that others ended up having to work on to make worth anything, which leads Ed Poor to say that he is a proud supporter of collaboration. He also is a member of the Unification Church (aka a "moonie") and believes that all unrepentant homosexuals should be imprisoned or put in mental institutions, because he believes they should be considered either immoral criminals or mentally ill.)

There is at least one admin there ("TK", apparently Terry Koeckritz) who has jumped back and forth between Conservapedia and Rationalwiki, has been previously banned at both for stirring up trouble, and who several people have reported (from conversation with him) is only around to stir up trouble, which is why he spends most of his time reverting innocent edits, accusing others of being "parodists" (there to made the project look bad) and posting inflammatory things on the front page (in the "news" section). He is a troll, and to a certain extant a parodist himself. He is not the first blatant parodist that has been made an admin and given power over the site, although he is currently the only one who hasn't been permabanned. (There is much suspicion by those watching Conservapedia that the admin "Jpatt" is a parodist, but it's also possible he is simply a pathologically dishonest and contemptible human being)

That's the setup - Conservapedia attracts all manner of people: innocent editors, blatant and subtle parodists, power-hungry trolls, people who want to simply correct errors, and those who are genuinely, certifiably idiotic or inhumanly hateful towards those they disagree with. At the top of it all is, again, Andrew Schlafly. Real person. Teaches real children.

On the evening of August 25th, American Democratic Senator Edward "Ted" Kennedy died after a year long struggle with a malignant brain tumor.

This was the Conservapedia article before the news hit:
http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php? … did=696122

Here is the first edit made after his death:
http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php? … did=696122

I urge you to click "newest edit" and follow each new "diff" to see what was added to the article in the wake of his death.

(You will notice, I hope, that the edits by RJJensen are somewhat respectable. He is basically the only editor there with any expertise in anything, and has actually edited at Citizendium, a Wikipedia alternative which relies on people whose credentials can be verified. His faults lie in a tendency to add in unnecessary editorial commentary to his writing, such as when he says that the Sierra Club currently wants to dynamite Hetch Hetchy dam - a pretty dramatic mixing of the fact that early Sierra Club members wanted it to be legally dynamited and the fact that the Sierra Club still opposes it's existence)

But more than that, I want you to see this:

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php? … did=685076
http://preview.tinyurl.com/TedKennedyTalk
http://preview.tinyurl.com/chappawatergate

(note, especially, "What a scumbag.  A killer.  Go ahead, Ted, sue me.  Oh, you can't, your dead." This comment is by one of the site's most prolific contributors, who has frequently had the blessing and commendation of the site's creator)

Once again, follow the "diffs". This in particular is part of RobSmith's obsession with what he finds in FBI files, as he is utterly convinced that his heroes (Jospeh McCarthy, Reagan, Nixon and several others) are basically the only reason that the US isn't a brutal communist dictatorship right now (although he's been slavering over every single bit of journalism he can find that implies that Obama is filling the government with a new wave of communist terrorists in order to overthrow the American Dream). Based on how often he calls anything he disagress with "commie rot", I would swear he was parodist, but he's been at the site for years and has been trying to push stuff on Wikipedia for even longer as Nobs(various numbers), which has gotten him repeatedly blocked - a repression of some unknown internet rights he has that he compares to the repression of human rights in North Korea.

But I've saved the "best" for last. This is what I really want to show you. This is why I made this topic.

Conservapedia's front page, which often says everything you need to know about the site, updated with the news:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/conservapediatedken

(I won't talk about "Conservative" the editor - he's an unbelievable mess of craziness in his own right. Google "Ken DeMyer" if you want to dive into the rabbit hole)

TK revised that posting, in what may have been his only frontpage edit(s) to not directly troll RationalWiki and others watching the site.

And then comes Aschlafly. I cannot help but repeat again that this is Andrew Schlafly, an American lawyer who represents dangerous quack scientists and educates children in an attempt to counter "liberal thinking" (such as America being discovered by Vikings before Columbus, or women being capable of being as good as math as men, or that the war in Iraq was unnecessary, or that the globe may be in any way getting abnormally warmer). He does not doing anything strictly illegal, it is true. But he promotes (and gains money from advocating for) bad science, constantly creates or allows libelous commentary on his site, indoctrinates children against his opponents....ugh. Let me just give you these links.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/aschlaflykennedy1

http://preview.tinyurl.com/aschlaflykennedy2

http://preview.tinyurl.com/aschlaflykennedy3

"We trust Ted Kennedy understands now."

There are vicious, dishonest and even dangerous people out there along the whole spectrum of what Schlafly represents the fringe of - conservatives like Glenn Beck, hardcore evangelical Christians like Pat Buchanan, all manner of anti-intellectuals, quack-science promoters and historical revisionists. Most of them wield far more power and influence than Schlafly ever will.

But when I think about the fact that Andrew Schlafly is paid by parents to educate their children in the things he believes, it makes me physically sick.

What he's doing isn't illegal. I support his right to do it. But how he is using that right disgusts me more than I can ever express.

I wish I knew what to end this topic with. I know all of you already know that people like this exist, that things like this are said and spread around and believed and used in education. I just had to talk about this somewhere, and I ended up posting it here.

I wish there was something I could do about Schlafly, something to show more people what he's really like, what he really believes. I wish I could give you an address to write to, a number to call, a way to get this noticed via Digg or Reddit or anything else.

I believe people like him - conservatives or liberals, religious or atheist, layman or expert - who are fully convinced they know the one and only truth in the world and everyone who disagrees is wrong....they are poisoning everything they touch. They sicken me. And I wish I knew how to stop them.

i try not to get too involved with politics.. just enough so that i can understand steven colbert's and john stewart's jokes

Excellent post!  It's both sad and hilarious that a site like Conservapedia even exists, and it still baffles me that some of these people think the way they do.  Reality has a well-known liberal bias, after all.

So these people are altering the bible in their own way to act as a vehicle for their opinions and beliefs? I'm not a follower of religion in any way, but even that strikes me as morally bankrupt. Repugnant.

My thoughts exactly.

Conservapedia sounds like a vapid, pathetic joke of a site. Anyone who openly and primarily defines themselves as "conservative" probably has their priorities backwards.

Thanks for the good (disturbing) read. Don't let it get to you too much. Schlafy is not reaching enough people to make a difference. But, sadly enough, he is affecting SOME people. And just one is too much for me to stomach at times.

That was probably, actually, the only thing that didn't bother me. They're not rewriting it. They're making an English translation using a particular set of rules. For example, they're going the opposite path of the TNIV: instead of gender neutral and gender-inclusive pronouns, they intentionally give everything male pronouns, unless it's about a girl (or a concept like "faith" or "wisdom," they sometimes go feminine).

I read very large sections of their translation, particularly going after hotbed sections like anti-homosexuality verses and whatnot. None of it seemed askew or offensive to me (no more than in any other translation, that is).

There is a critical movement of conservative Christians who distrust most English translations of the Bible because they come from SCHOLARS and INTELLECTUALS, and those people have a liberal bias! These conservatives tend to claim that the KJV (1611 King James translation) is the best way to go. But then, sometimes, they try to make their own translations. This is but one example.

Personally, I think stuff like Conservapedia is hilarious, in that thrilling both-funny-and-scary sense. Its an example of that fun sort of American stupidity I mentioned in the thread below (I saw you looking the other way, but I know y'all read it ), and stuff like this is why I even keep track of US political discourse. While we're on that track, what's up with this wacky kookster:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-KGukuety0

and then later:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if3wVXSMw4M

Exactly what I'm talking about. So_damn_hilarious_!

Politics aside, there's no good reason to be so damned smug when someone passes away.

Ugh, Faux News...  Ensuring that rational, intelligent political discourse in this country will never happen, one retarded right-wing redneck at a time.

Some people believe in the concept of Absolute Truth. Not even facts are absolute. An example is the recent demotion of Pluto.

Philip K. Dick wrote a book about this topic, actually. Its title is The World Jones Made. In that book, people that made absolute statements without the ability to provide backing evidence were locked up. As an example from that book, a person would be locked up for stating a certain brand of soda is better than another. And everyone promoting religious doctrine was locked up, cause they couldn't prove it. One man was not locked up - Jones. He claimed to be able to see the future and he actually could. That was probably the most amusing material I've ever read, when the government agents realized they couldn't send him to prison.

Do you mean to infer that there is only one correct and acceptable view of politics? I assume not as that would be just as absurd and ridiculous as the nut jobs who put together Conservapedia.

Making comments like that is what makes rational, intelligent political discourse impossible.

I have no problems with conservatives that can string together a coherent, rational argument *without* the use of lies and fear-mongering.  Sadly, Fox News and a large percentage of its uneducated audience seem to be incapable of such dialogue.  If the recent bat-shit craziness at town hall meetings isn't proof of that, I don't know what is.

Those town hall meetings have been crazy, for a lot of different reasons. Did you hear about the DNC's commercial about the supposed crazy Republicans that have been trying to basically take down the country? One of the quotes is something about how "they" (Republicans, who are STILL Americans) are upset that "they" didn't get their seat in the White House so they're deliberately trying to take down the health care bill. This is also in light of Obama (not him directly, of course) busing people to the NH town hall meeting recently. And then there was this blog on the White House official site asking people to report "fishy" things told to them about the reform in "casual conversation". That's only a few steps away from reporting your neighbor to the Gestapo - granted, that's an extreme analogy, but I hope you can see where I'm going with it; I'll touch on that again in a bit.

While I am not a Republican, I do not agree with what the White House is trying to do right now (nor do I agree with what the White House did over the past eight years). Do we need health care reform? Probably. Do we need to give the government exclusive control over this stuff? Absolutely not. Should the large percentage of America that has benefits and private insurance have to suffer or give up their options so the smaller percentage can get government-controlled health care? Definitely not. What I want to hear Obama tell the country is what is in the bill in plain language as opposed to what is not in the bill. Go on record, and tell people what is in this bill that is going to be voted on very soon. He's trying to dispel the rumors (some of which I believe are fact), but he's not affirming anything with concrete discussions about what's in that bill. I've read a lot of the bill in its raw form (which can be downloaded here), and in its current form I think it will be a disaster, and yes, I believe that it reeks of socialism that doesn't necessarily support the less fortunate as it does purposely take away from the fortunate and give the government control over things that most people currently have control over. There are some other things in there that are strange, such as the government being authorized to not only have Americans' bank account information, but to also take money out of people's accounts whenever and for whatever reason under the blanket of health care costs (Section 1173A.a.4). Um... what?

Now I'm rambling. Anyway, the way I see it is this, kind of continued from our posts on Facebook: it seems to me like the Democratic Party is trying to split the country in two. By labeling it as an "Us" VS "Them" things escalate to the bat-shit craziness that you mentioned in many different scenarios and because of many different topics. People have actually stopped talking to me because I have spoken out against some things that Obama has done and because of my feelings toward having him in office. I'm not going to stop talking to you because you're a liberal and you poke fun of things that come from the opposite side of your viewpoints. Regardless of where someone falls on the political spectrum, they are still a human being, and it seems like recently that "Us VS Them" mentality has caused a lot of distortion from both sides as well as a split between the political spectrum that seems more vast and deep than it has been previously. If and when things turn around in this country - and I mean actually turn around, not watching commercials about Obama bringing hope and about vague promises that have yet to be upheld - then I'll start having hope. But now? Having crap like Conservapedia and the DNC funded anti-Republican propaganda, I'm just too reluctant to trust in anything.

Here's what the blog says:

"These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation.  Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

What exactly do you think the White House will do with those e-mails? Do you honestly think that they're going to trace them back to the original senders and have them arrested and sent to concentration camps? Or could it be that they're just trying to find out what inaccuracies are being spread? I just can't see how you can jump from what they said to "OMG! Nazis!"

I'm asking that question myself. Here's the actual text:
"(4) REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFIC STANDARDS- The standards under this section shall be developed, adopted and enforced so as to
...
(C) enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice;"

Here's how some people are trying to spin it (found on various websites):

"Page 59 HC Bill lines 21-24: The government will have direct access to you banks accounts for elective funds transfer."
"Requires the ability to have electronic funds transfer from insured account to the federal government automate reconcilliation..."
"Page 59:  The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer."

Even the way they're trying to distort it says that direct electronic funds withdrawal is optional. You know who else has optional electronic funds transfer? Cable companies, colleges, credit cards and, oh, private insurers. The government already allows for direct deposit of Social Security payments, but there's still the option of receiving a check. My understanding is that the same would hold true in reverse for health care. You could give them access to your bank account, or you could send in checks or pay by credit card if you wish. Of course, that's assuming the text is even referring to individuals in the first place. Nowhere does it mention "individual bank accounts," much less how the government can take money out of it "whenever and for whatever reason" they want.

FactCheck.org has a great article on the most common misconceptions being spread: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty … t-hr-3200/

Honestly? I don't know. I don't think it would be that extreme at first (despite there being civilian concentration camps already in place in the U.S.), but I wouldn't be surprised if this "flagged" people in the government's database. I guess the real question you should be asking is not what exactly would that White House do with those emails, but why they wanted to collect them in the first place. Since when does the U.S. government want to know when people are saying fishy things about a health care plan that they don't agree with and are speculating things about. You know, people can do that and say those things. It's exercising freedom of speech, and it's in the Bill of Rights that is currently in the process of being undermined and subverted thanks in part to the good ol' Patriot Act (which has nothing in the bill about going after foreign terrorists - you know, like the ones that Bush was hunting down after 9/11). If someone says something unconstitutional or against what the president is going for, it's possible that they can be labeled as a terrorist and prosecuted and detained as such. In any (ANY) state of "emergency", whether it be, oh, say the pending massive economic collapse of the U.S. dollar or a widespread Swine Flu outbreak (speaking of which, did anyone read this article on the front page of USA Today this week?), the president can declare a national state of emergency which, thanks to the Patriot Act, will allow martial law to be enabled within the U.S and will change the way our country is run.

Here are some of the executive orders that are in the Patriot Act that... well, you'll see:

10990 - allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
10995 - allows the government to seize and control the communication media.
10997 - allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.
10998 - allows the government to seize all means of transportation, including personal cars, trucks or vehicles of any kind and total control over all highways, seaports, and waterways.
10999 - allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.
11000 - allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.
11002 - designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.

I'm not making this shit up. I wish I was.

Some people might see this as a way of governmental continuation and resource allocation to keep society going, but I see it as a way to further strip people's rights away so that when the time comes when there are changes in the country and people revolt, the government can then control people - not help them. Basically, these EO's would give the government control of all modes of transportation, public and personal, all roads and ports, all media, all natural resources (including food and the farms where it is grown), and would not only "mobilize" people like you and me to work under the government in work brigades but there would also be a USPS-driven census and registration of everyone. If that's not a total police state, I don't know what is. There's even a wacky bill being tossed around that would give the government control over the internet. I doubt that would actually come to pass, "cyberspace emergency" or not, but the fact that people are pushing for this shit just shows what kind of people actually have their hands in the destiny of this country.

I appreciate you posting that and sharing the FactCheck site, but I don't trust FactCheck and I still don't trust that bill. I'm not going to be complacent because of what some site tells me - I want the president of the United f---ing States of America to go public, on TV, and bullet-point the entire bill. Don't throw accusations around, don't deflect questions and push things on the Republicans - just TALK ABOUT THE BILL. That's it. Until he does that, I am going to stand firm in my beliefs about the bill. I don't trust him and I don't trust who he is working for. In the past seven or so months since Obama has been in office, he has filled his cabinet with members of the Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission, as well as people that are in big banking, he has spent billions and billions of dollars, has had his hands in the automobile industry and is now getting his feet wet with health care. He and his campaign have already put their dirty paws all over the media (anyone who turned on a TV or opened a magazine in the months before the election could clearly see that). What's next? Oh, right. The Constitution and, maybe if we're lucky, a reality TV show or two to keep our minds of what is really going on around us.

So, yeah. I'm sure that plenty of people who are supportive of this bill and are supportive of Obama in office will have plenty to say and may think that I'm black helicopter conspiracy crazy, and that's perfectly fine, but do you know what? I believe what I believe, and I truly feel that we are just starting to come over the crest of a massive socialist wave that has been gathering power for years that will not only knock this great country down from what it once was but will also force widespread changes that will take away our civil liberties and will break our America down to a mere corpse of the country our forefathers envisioned and built.

I seriously, seriously hope that I am wrong with what I think is going on here with the big picture, but only time will tell.

Don't forget to mention the FEMA internment camps, Zane.

I'm staying out of this discussion, its something for you Americans to debate amongst yourselves. I just wanted to say that the argument I hear from many opponents of Obama's healthcare plan that "presidents and prime ministers" from other countries flock to the US to get treatment because they "can't get it" in their own countries is complete and utter BS. This kind of big lie can only succeed because many Americans are convinced of their superiority in every field and know very little about conditions in other countries.

I guess what strikes me most about those Glenn Beck clips is how quick many people in the US are to drop any rational discussion and just go for the opponent's throat (and I'm not singling out conservatives here, I see it in every camp, as Zane showed a rational case can be made against the healthcare plan without bringing out the battle-axe). The uninitiated outside observer often gets the impression that the country is about to tear itself apart over a political issue (although I know that is exaggeration, political debating in the US has always been loud and aggressive, go read up on the 1896 presidential election for an example).

As you said, people are speculating, so they want to know what misconceptions are being spread in order to effectively address them: http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/

You may not be making it up, but the website where you got it from is. Those aren't in the Patriot Act and have nothing to do with the Patriot Act. Those orders were signed by JFK and LBJ because of the threat of Communism and nuclear warfare. As Popular Mechanics says, "Most of those have since been revoked, or rolled into a single, more comprehensive executive order signed by President Reagan. Safeguards were written into the current framework of responsibilities, declaring that any emergency preparation or actions "shall be consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States."

There's a lot to dislike about the Patriot Act, but it doesn't say anything about what's to be done during an emergency situation.

Did you read the linked article? It's clear that you're already getting some of your inaccurate information from third-party sources, so what makes you think FactCheck is any more or less biased than the websites you're reading now? And if you truly don't like FactCheck, why not try PolitiFact: http://www.politifact.com/

I haven't followed the entire conversation, but I will say that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional and should be repealed. Does anyone know if it expires at a certain time, and if not, what's the situation with it?

I'm not a conspiracy theorist at all, but I am definitely leery of the government, and think they should have as little control on people's lives as possible. That doesn't mean I'm against universal health coverage....

-avatar!

Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Either I took my info from a source that had their wires crossed, or I crossed them on my own. In my own defense it was almost 1 AM when I posted last night.  

I did, but my view when it comes to the government is that I will believe it when I see it. I do not trust the U.S. Government or any of the committees and groups that are operating outside yet in conjunction with it, such as the CFR, Federal Reserve, etc., and am inclined to believe more conspiratorial things because I believe the government is carrying on conspiracies against the American people. For example, I believe that 9/11 was not carried out by Bin Laden and his cronies, and the Towers were not attacked by a bunch of Al Queda members in a cave somewhere under a sand dune in the Middle East. There's no question in my mind that the government was either involved with the attacks or allowed (and possibly even assisted) the guilty parties to carry out the mission. I can recommend a couple of good books as well as some documentaries where I got my information from, and I'd be happy to pass them along. If you're interested send me a PM - I come here to talk in peace and don't want to get too off track here and bog the thread down more than I already have. Lots and lots of evidence from 9/11 - including eyewitness testimonies, video footage and holes in the government's official story - points lies and conspiracy from within our own government, from the 9/11 Commission Report (or the lack thereof, I should say), to the lack of wreckage both from Flight 93 as well as the "crash site" at the Pentagon to what I believe was a controlled demolition of the World Trade Centers (there's no way jet fuel took down all those buildings at free-fall speed, especially considering that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel) that keep me from believing otherwise.

I'll definitely poke around on PolitiFact, though. Thanks for the recommendation, man! I'm curious to see what else is on the site... I already got a good laugh out of the headline saying that Obama wants mandatory circumcisions, hahahaha!

you know, I was planning to come back in this thread and apologize for my earlier one-liner and tackle the problem with your thinking, which is that you've allowed yourself to come under the sway of "there has to be a hidden agenda" conspiracy FUD - the same stuff that was being alleged by the extreme moonbat crowd while Bush was president, starting with fears and suspicions about government intervention and control and then nosedives down, eventually reaching totally absurd shit like a North American Union, one world government, mass killings of minorities and whatever was going through David Icke's head at the time.

to no one's real surprise, with the Democrats now in power, the same conspiracy theories in new clothing have started being raved about by the conservative wingnuts at places like World Net Daily and Free Republic. But they're being far more successful than any of the moonbats were.

There are many good, legitimate reasons to fear government intervention and control, but once you start listening to the words of people who cry "conspiracy!", you yourself fall into that nosedive and have to pull up before it's too late, or else you'll find that every suspicion you share led you to be more susceptible to other suspicions you hear from people, and pretty soon you're placing faith in utter nonsense because the human brain isn't really suited for reverse gear.

that's what I was going to type out, only longer and more considerate.

But you're a truther. A f---ing truther. As far as I'm concerned, you've invalidated the intellectual worth of any future posts you make.

On second thought, there is something I'd like to say. I am not going to insult you personally and I am not going to pick a fight with you because of what you believe and what you have said, but do I take offense to the fact that you stated that the intellectual worth of all my future posts is negated because of something I believe in, despite me mentioning that I was posting in peace about it. Regardless of how you feel, or how anyone feels about what I have to say for that matter, I know that I am an intelligent person. Not only am I an intelligent person, but I am a kind person, too, with a big heart and with compassion and empathy for other people and animals. I'm at a point in my existence where I am not only happy with my life and my beliefs, but I am proud to live the life I am living and to have the beliefs that I have and to feel the things I feel. If someone has a problem with them, it's their problem, not mine, and your problem with me being a "truther" is just that: your problem. The fact that you chose to name-call and want to undermine my intelligence and intellect because of something that I believe in, despite my non-confrontational posts, is just a shame. So, go ahead. Call me a moonbat or a wingnut or whatever it is you choose to call me - I just sincerely hope that you won't write off other people because they may think differently, act differently or believe in different things than you.

Classy. Right or wrong, agree or disagree, crazy or not, I'd gladly take a discussion with Zane over one with you. You might as well be plugging your ears and saying "la-la-la-la-la-la-laaa!" Maybe next time you should actually bother making the long, considerate post. At least then you'd have something meaningful to contribute.

I agree with the general proposition that people ought to have some tolerance for positions that do not agree with their own.  But I think that everyone regards certain beliefs and viewpoints as being beyond the pale and patently unreasonable.  Haven't you ever written someone off because he held a view that was, to your mind, prima facie evidence of his mind being defective?

There's no point in talking to people who won't accept reason.

Of course there is. The audience is waitin for you to put some serious hurtin on all of them motherfucking bitchez, dawg. Get crackin!

*chews down some more popcorn*

It might help if you tried? I'm definitely not a conspiracy guy, but I haven't seen Zane ignore reason. It blows my mind that you can make that claim while not contributing any "reason" to the discussion yourself. You just tossed out a bunch of labels and then declared the discussion over.

If anyone here is trying to use reason, it ain't you.

okay

bullshit:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.asp

it didn't need to:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol … ge=4#steel

anything else?

Although everyone is of course entitled to his/her own opinion, I've seen and read the numerous 9-11 conspiracy theories, and they just don't hold water. I would be interested to know what Zane thinks truly happened? Mind you, I will try and disprove him, but not out of spite or anything, because Zane is an awesome guy

cheers,

-avatar!

Your attitude is evidence that you either don't see the point I'm trying to make or you just don't care. Regardless, I don't have anything meaningful to contribute so I guess it's time for me to take my own advice and hit the road. I hope that any further discussion is friendly or, since that's a lot to ask, intelligent and reasoned.

Agreed on all counts. The "enemy" here is misinformation, not the person. Zane's a stand-up guy from what I've seen.

The problem is that belief is a powerful thing, and once we choose to believe something we "seek out information that confirms what [we] already believe." So even if we see evidence to the contrary, oftentimes we just disregard it because we want so much to be right. You don't wanna know how long I believed in Santa Claus