The Controlled Left

Oh ya man, all them damn libs are like so controlled... unlike the conservatives... we cant trust democrats, republicans, communists, socialists... coz they are all controlled by the illuminati... but yea, we can trust the libertarian party... *rolls eyes*
Claiming to be libertarian puts you in uncle sams hands like claiming to be anything else... none of you can say that you are less controlled than anyone else.
Both ignorant conservative and ignorant liberal look to the news media for answers, but both intelligent conservatives/liberals ignore the news media's bullshit.

Rat is as controlled as any religious right fanatic, as any liberal pro-censorship idiot... he's just controlled by different groups/ideas.

Hippy-ism isnt a clique, it's a movement...

 

I'm not a member of the Libertarian Party, Mui. I don't belong to any party.

 

I don't pay much attention to what is Left or Right, but rather right or wrong.

 

Rat


I don't pay much attention to what is Left or Right, but rather right or wrong.



I think that is your difficulty you really believe your right wing viewpoint is the ‘truth’ and is ‘right’. The thing is what you see as being ‘truth’ and what you believe to be ‘right’ is coloured by your right wing political viewpoint.



This means that you associate most left wing views as being wrong and most right wing views as being right.



The problem is that many of the things you claim to be examples of ‘truth’ do not stand up to scrutiny and are shown to be just your opinion and many of your political views can be shown to have the opposite result than the one you claim for them.



This throws into question your judgment as to what is right or wrong and your competence in distinguishing what is truth from what is your personal opinion.

 

Big fucking deal! What is your point?

You say I am a "right-winger" and that my viewpoint, to me, is the only truth.

Well, couldn't the same be said for you; a leftie who thinks his viewpoint is the only truth?

Don't be a hypocrite all your life.

Everything is based on personal opinion. I am entitled to my opinion, as you are yours.

So, once again. . . WHAT ARE YOU GETTING AT?

 

The liberal media isn't controlled, at least not in the way you say it is. The truth is, a person who is considered a "bastard communist dirty liberal" here is a moderate anywhere else. This country is definitely very far to the right, and the liberal media really isn't very liberal at all.

All sides of the media, including the left, are controlled in that their news networks would lose funding for dispensing any "extreme" liberal views (remember, OUR happy medium between left and right is truly very conservative.) The general population will quickly get pissed at any news network who's views are truly liberal, because, in general, the American population leans to the right.

Releasing only news that satisfies the people? Definitely. Controlled by a shadowy global elite and their lizard-alien allies? nah.

 

Try learning the definition of conservative, then get back to me.

The fact is, there is no such thing as Right and Left, since the majority of people that subscribe to either label are buying into the same lie, except it's sold as something different via empty rhetoric.

And who said anything about "lizard space aliens"?

So because some 18 year old kid tells me the media isn't controlled (actually you contradicted yourself by later admitting it IS controlled), I am supposed to believe you, despite the fact that I presented evidence showing both sides are controlled, while you presented no proof at all?

 

"conservative" today has a different meaning than in the past. The whole idea behind it used to be minimal government involvement in anything. Today, that only applies to the conservative agenda economically - big business gets all the breaks and no restrictions from the government. But Conservatives of today love nothing more than controlling the personal lives of everyone and eliminating personal freedom. it is the political agenda of these people - todays conservatives - that I refer to.


"The fact is, there is no such thing as Right and Left, since the majority of people that subscribe to either label are buying into the same lie, except it's sold as something different via empty rhetoric."
You know, there is a lot of truth to that statement.

"So because some 18 year old kid tells me the media isn't controlled (actually you contradicted yourself by later admitting it IS controlled), I am supposed to believe you, despite the fact that I presented evidence showing both sides are controlled, while you presented no proof at all?"

I SAID:
"The liberal media isn't controlled, AT LEAST NOT THE WAY YOU SAY IT IS." I suppose if you turned the comma into a period, and the "at least not" into "It is controlled differently from," then you might be able to say I contradicted myself.

You keep bringing up my age. How is my age relevant? I can just as easily say I can't be bothered with the opinions of some 24 year old bum who lives in his parents basement. I'd be making some assumptions there, but hey, so are you.

And finally, you did NOT present any "evidence" besides some chart with a bunch of names, organizations, and arrows. Otherwise, you just dispensed details of a scenario you believe to be true, as did I. Neither of us "proved" anything.

 

And I bring up the space-lizards so often, by the way, because although YOU never mention them, they seem to be present on any website that shares your conspiracy theories, which is why I accuse you choosing which information can and can not be believed within a source. I have followed links YOU provided to websites that contained, in addition to the illuminati theories you intended to show us, lizard-alien and mind-control tower theories you did NOT intend to show us. Thus, you prove that you believe some information from a source and disregard other information from that same source. I just don't think conspiracy theory sites give two shits about spreading any kind of truth when they include lizard-alien stories, and that completely destroys their credibility, and even the credibility of those stories you would like to believe.

 

You are right. The large majority of today's conservatives are not conservative at all (ie: George Bush and his followers), they are brownshirt, brainwashed fascists who are falling for the big lie.

Yeah, you are making assumptions. I too apologize for assuming, but I get very frustrated when people try to tell me how things are when they haven't done an ounce of research on what they're trying to discredit.

So what you're saying is that you chose to ignore the chart because it's too complicated and confusing for you to follow?

 

No, you bring the "space lizards" up in an attempt to discredit me. It's the same tactic others in here use to divert from the topics they know nothing about, yet feel the need to discredit based on their media-conditioned/society-conditioned reality and programmed policing of the herd mentality.

I don't know about you, but the only so-called "conspiracy sites" in which I see reptilians mentioned are sites by people like David Icke and Zacharius Sitchin, who, in my opinon, are brilliant researchers, though I don't agree with everything they say.

All I will say is that there is so much about our own existence as humans that remains a total mystery. Unless you know the exact origins of mankind, you shouldn't mindlessly laugh at people who have spent years studying such things.

 

It's not about discrediting you (although it certainly does). It's about intellectual honesty. How can you cut-and-paste conspiracy articles from websites and tell us they're legitimate, when those same websites also run stories that even you acknowledge are pure lunacy? Are these sensationalist sources really the best you can find? If so, what does that say about your conspiracy theories?

Many of the websites you cite post equally stupid stories though. Rense.com has a whole section devoted to "This month in UFOs." WhatReallyHappened.com links to some credible sources, but the underlying tone is so unbelievably anti-semitic I find it hard to believe that anyone who isn't a skinhead can take them seriously.

So you're saying that these lizard-man stories might have some credibility?

 

First of all, what defines "conspiracy articles"?

Please, show me some of the articles I have posted as of lately (within the past two months), in which you believe to be "conspiracy articles."

If a mainstream source runs an article about Bigfoot or a UFO sighting (as several mainstream publications have), does that automatically make them illegitimate, too?

Many famous people have reported to see UFO's, from Buzz Aldrin to Ronald Reagan, to John Lennon. Does this make them kooks?

On the other hand, all I have ever seen you do is regurgitate rhetoric that is fed to you via the mainstream media. Even most skeptical, non-conspiracy theorists don't trust the mainstream media. Yet you have stated several times that you believe the mainstream media is always accurate and truthful.

But what does that have to do with articles I have posted from Rense, that originate from sites like The New Scientist and News With Views, neither of which are conspiracy sites dealing with UFO's?

Are people like Stanton Friedman -- a nuclear physicist -- who investigates UFO's, a kook? Of course he holds multiple advanced degrees and is probably far more intelligent than you.

What advanced degrees do you hold?

Also, what makes you believe you know all the answers to the universe and that your conditioned reality is true reality?

Anti-semitic? How? Because it tells the truth?

Again, the anti-semitic excuse has been used time and time again in an attempt to shut people up from exposing the truth behind the murderous zionists, most of whom have nothing to do with the land known as Israel.

To a brainwashed mama's boy like yourself, anything that speaks against the actions of the Jews is "anti-semitic." Is it safe to assume you are Jewish yourself? I know you support the war in Iraq and Bush's treasonous alliance with the Jews, but maybe you should analyze a little more before drawing conclusions.

Little do you know, most Jews are completely against Zionism and its murderous, exploitative actions.

I don't know. But if you hold all the answers to the universe and the origins of mankind, please let me know.

 

I'd define conspiracy articles as any article that makes extraordinary claims of a coverup without offering any evidence at all.

As you asked, here are a few recent threads where you've touted conspiracy theories:

[A HREF="http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79520"]This article starts off sanely enough, then devolves into "Politicians and international bankers can manipulate national economies at will, much in the way the media manipulates your mind, and a decision has been made to impoverish Americans"[/A]

[A HREF="http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76360"]This is an obvious unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.[/A]

[A HREF="http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73859"]This article is both a conspiracy theory and an outright lie. You wouldn't even vouch for its accuracy after it was proven to be false.</A]

No, but if they ran such stories on a regular basis and implied that they had some credibility (as Rense does), I would certainly begin to question the integrity and fact-checking methods of that source.

Have any of those people said that they saw space aliens in a flying saucer, or did they claim to see an unidentified flying object? There's a difference. If they claimed the former, then yes, they're kooks as far as this subject is concerned.

I've never stated that the mainstream media is ALWAYS accurate or truthful (although compared to your websites, they are MUCH more accurate and truthful). They make mistakes like everyone else, they often over-report trivial stories and under-report important stories, and every news station puts its own spin on the news. However, mainstream sources don't routinely distort the facts, or just make shit up, the way your conspiracy websites do. They're in business to make money, and it's in their financial interest to keep their credibility and reputation by basically reporting the facts.

Don't you understand that articles from Rense don't just appear in a void? Look at the big picture, and how horrible Rense's overall credibility is. I don't understand how you can just pick and choose which articles you believe from various websites, if you aren't going to investigate each of them personally. You cite the New York Times, then criticize others for citing the New York Times. You cite Rense, then acknowledge that they post lots of information that is questionable at best.

Here's a hypothetical example: Suppose I found an article that provided some interesting environmental statistics. Then I looked at the main page of the website and found that other articles on the website provided "statistics" regarding the intelligence of black people. Do you think I'd still put much faith in those environmental statistics? Probably not.

I've never heard of him so I have no idea.

If you must know I'm working on a PhD. Not that this is relevant to the subject at hand. You can have lots of advanced degrees and be extremely intelligent...and still be a nutcase.

I've never claimed that I hold all the answers to everything. While it may not always be easy to identify what is right, there are lots of things that I'm pretty confident saying are just plain wrong (such as the Skull and Bones Society controlling the world).

When practically every other article on the website is about Israeli atrocities, holocaust denial, or refers to "Jewish groups" in the headline in an unfavorable light, it makes me wonder if perhaps there is a MOTIVE behind the articles.

Whether or not the individual articles are true, the sheer number of them about the same subject makes me believe that this website definitely has an anti-semitic vendetta.

I'm not Jewish.
I support neither the war in Iraq, nor any "treasonous alliance with the Jews" which I'll assume refers to Israel. Just because I support Israel's right to exist, and I don't partake in every gleeful knee-jerk reaction to bad news from Iraq, doesn't mean I support the agenda you described. I've barely mentioned Israel in any thread for months.

Perhaps it's YOU who needs to analyze my positions before drawing conclusions about me.

 

"All I will say is that there is so much about our own existence as humans that remains a total mystery. Unless you know the exact origins of mankind, you shouldn't mindlessly laugh at people "

Billions of years ago, the earth was forming. The heat and lava and fire were finally calming down, and the earth was covered with puddles and lakes and oceans of warm water. All the chaos and commotion of a forming earth left the air full of electrical inequality, or charges. They were constantly equaling out, or discharging, through the air and water. Well, what do you know, scientific experiments in which electrical currents were sent through water with the same properties as the water that would have existed in the early days of the earth produced the proteins necessary for life. Trap those proteins in a bubble, and you have your origin for life. Granted, the chances of any electrical discharge creating proteins in such a way that they arrange themselves into a coherent piece of DNA, is small; maybe one in a billion. But how many electrical discharges do you think there were? I'd guess millions of billions. Alot of scientists believe that virusus came before true single celled organisms in evolution. A virus is, essentially, nothing but a sack containing a strand of dna made from those essential proteins, and is not considered a living organism.

Where do we come in? Well, we bear so much similarity to so many other living creatures, who have many of the same organs we do, many of which reproduce in almost exactly the same manner, and every single one of them is built in the same basic way - millions of single cells containing strands of DNA attatched together to form a single creature. Under observation, nature SCREAMS at us that we came from these other creatures, and science suggests these creatures came from single celled organisms, who came from virusus, who came from lucky protein-filled bubbles.

I suppose it's my opinion, and I suppose it must be fed by the elitist banker-controlled discovery channel because I learned of the electrical discharge through water thing from that channel, but it makes a hell of a lot more sense than claims that aliens brought humans to earth. Where did the aliens come from? Did different aliens mysteriously bring those aliens to THEIR home planet? And where did the aliens who created the aliens who created us originate from?

 

To recap

Rat claims that all the ‘left’ is controlled by his shadowy conspirators.

The original post had a link to something he seemed to claim supported this assertion.

On a closer look that ‘proof’ didn’t seem to hold up to scrutiny.

Therefore the assertion seems to be very much in doubt.

Rat has been asked to defend the ‘proof’ and the assertion but continues to refuse to.

To me that means he is either unwilling or unable to do so.

So undefended the assertion can do nothing else but fall.

 

Balbus Don't take it so personally, Rat believes the Right is controlled as well, it is just that he saw the article and thought he would post it to see what the opinions were of everyone on the site. It is sort of fucked up that Rat can't even post any article and not get attacked by all of you, why don't you just either be quiet and keep your nasty attacks to yourself, or actually try to give something more to the conversation. Rat doesn't believe 100% everything he posts, it is just that he goes to these websites and sees interesting stuff that he would like to share with you guys, I don't see why you take on to him so harshly.

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

Thank you, Dan. Thank you for being one of the few open-minded people on this website. People like Balbus have a chip on their shoulders, and they don't like hearing anything that goes against what they want to believe.

 

**

Hi Dan

We’ve talked before about Rat and you seem to have complied with the view that he is dishonest. Are you now saying that nothing he says can be trusted and that he doesn’t believe in the things he says and posts here? That he is bit of a Walter Mitty character, a fantasist that cannot distinguish fact from fiction?

Dan I think that is a crueller thing to say than anything I ever could have.

**

This is a political debating forum if someone posts something here it is going to get debated, the kind of posts that are inflammatory are going to be debated more strongly than others. Are you claiming that what Rat wrote in the original post is not ‘supposition innuendo and opinion” are you going to argue that my view of the article is incorrect? In fact Dan what are you adding to the conversation on this subject (except to slur Rats character)?

 

**

Dear Rat

I could treat you like Dan suggests, like a fantasist that doesn’t believing in the things you post but I would rather give you a bit more respect and the opportunity to explain your views as if you did know what you are talking about.

However if you continue to leave undefended your views as you have in so many threads I suppose I would have to accept the view that you don’t have a clue what you are talking about.

**

So do you stand by the article you linked to that you seemed to imply showed the ‘control of the left’ and will you defend it against my view that on closer inspection that claim seems very wildly exaggerated and most probably false?