The Greatest Conspiracy Theory Ever Told

[BeFree]

There was this guy, about 2010 years ago, who was a radical liberal.

He fed the poor, healed the sick, and railed against the establishment.

So a few nameless leaders gathered together and had him eliminated.

They conspired together to get rid of this fine man. And they did. And they got away with it. But today, their conspiracy is widely recognized.

And some people to this day still deny conspiracies exist. Gawd.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[BeFree]

2. Heh

You again? I thought you were done here?
Really, don't you have better things to do?

[SDuderstadt]

9. Don't you? n/t

[BeFree]

16. Nah

Destroying the bushco myth is a high priority for me.
It is a good thing to do. Don't you think?

[SDuderstadt]

18. I think...

indicting, prosecuting and convicting Bush for the crimes he actually did commit, rather than yammer on and on that "911 was an inside job" with no evidence would do far more about the "Bushco" myth, dude.

[BeFree]

22. Well, we disagree

No reason to be rude and crude, dude. Calm down. Take a lesson from Obama.

[SDuderstadt]

25. How about more actual evidence and..

less questioning of my motivation, dude?

And, I'm perfectly calm. So, how about taking that pledge, dude? Raise your right hand and repeat after me:

"I, (state your name), hereby pledge that I will quit poisoning the debate as a means of trying to win". Now, was that so hard, dude?

[BeFree]

26. That's funny, haha

In order to destroy bushco, I will pledge to do what ever I can, by any means necessary and am allowed to do on DU, when posting on DU.

Outside of DU, I almost never do anything that even has any appearance of supporting bushco. In fact, it's pretty much all anti-bushco all the time. But it's odd, some folks just don't want to hear the truth. Like climate change denial which has finally been beaten down to a small core of crazies who are still in denial. We are winning.

Same with bushco. Whatever it takes to end the bushco stranglehold on US politics, I will do it.

[SDuderstadt]

29. "some people just don't want to hear the truth"

No, dude. If what you claim is the truth, you'd have actual evidence of it. You start lashing out at people when they actually dare to ask you for it.

I'm all in favor of ending the Bush "stranglehold on U.S. politics", whatever that means. The problem is it's not going to happen with illogical people like you purporting to lead the way, dude.

[BeFree]

31. Me? Leading the way?

Haha.

If there is any illogic here, it is the side that wishes to control the free flow of information. Like with climate change. Same shit, different day.

[SDuderstadt]

34. The actual illogic is you claiming that...

our "side" is trying to control the free flow of information, dude. How, precisely, is asking you for evidence of your goofy claims trying to "control the free flow of information"???

You have your own forum here to propound your goofy claims. That hardly sounds to me like the free flow of information is, in any way impeded. Why you object to pople taking issue with your claims and asking for evidence is inscrutable, dude.

[BeFree]

35. Hey dude

I like to argue as much as anybody, but I don't much like going round and round with this stuff.

Suffice to say that if you believe that there is NO control on the free flow of information in this country, then we TOTALLY disagree.

Oh, BTW, get spell check, dude. It's like I am reading freeperville pages with all your bad spellings.

[SDuderstadt]

37. Dude...

we were talking about DU and my "side", not the entire country. Can you follow a simple conversation? And, of course, you had to invoke "freeperville" again, as a way of implying that I'm a freeper, thus, again, poisoning the debate.

Please point to any misspellings that aren't typos, dude.

[BeFree]

39. Thank you

For spell checking your post. Much appreciated.

Typos, in this day and age, have ready remedies and we all thank everyone here for any effort making DU pages rise above the crappy spelling we see on sites such as freepville.

I mean, aren't those people embarrassed when they go back and read their misspelled words? Have they no decency at all?

[SDuderstadt]

41. Dude...

either point to a misspelled word or show where I edited a post AFTER you accused me of misspelling anything. Take your time. My guess is I used a word above your head, so your first thought is I "misspelled" it.

[BeFree]

44. We all make mistakes

Its ok, spell check is your, and my, friend.
Evidently freepers can't quite get the hang of it, eh?
They are so embarrassing.
Was reading freeper comments in my local rag-site, gawd, what idiots!!

[SDuderstadt]

45. Are you retracting your false accusation, dude?

I'd settle for that, but an apology would be better.

[BeFree]

3. And

I find it curious that you would use this time to try and make a case that Jesus never existed. Curious, indeed.

[SDuderstadt]

4. Why, precisely, is it...

curious, dude? You don't like being called on your belief in myths?

[BeFree]

5. Doesn't bother me a bit

Challenges to my faith, from people, is nothing.
Just curious that you would do it here, and now.

[SDuderstadt]

6. Jesus, dude...

Your OP is about the Jesus myth. Duh.

[BeFree]

7. And what is yours?

That bush didn't have a clue?
Hell, that one is already almost a dead theory.
Yet, here you are, still.
I find that to be curious.

[SDuderstadt]

8. Show me where I said that, dude...

while you're at it, please provide concrete evidence tht "9/11 was an inside job". I hope you're not still trying to claim I'm some sort of Bush supporter, dude.

And, do only "truthers" have a right to be here or something? I owe you no explanation of why I''m here, dude.

[BeFree]

11. So Are you saying that bush did have a clue?

Where do you stand? Cut the rude and crude and take a position for once.
My impression is that you think bush had no clue whatsoever and therefore
is not responsible in any way for 9/11.

Otherwise, why are you here?

[SDuderstadt]

14. Dude...

I have said repeatedly that Bush failed to take terrorism seriously and most of his actions after 9/11 were irresponsible and that he should be indicted, prosecuted and convicted for them. But that doesn't, in and of itself, prove MIHOP or even LIHOP.

How many fucking times do I have to say this, dude? Your need for validation of your goofy claims and theories isn't my problem.

[BeFree]

15. Ahhhh

We are talking before 9/11, which you so rudely step away from.
Why are you afraid to discuss the bushco actions before 9/11?

[SDuderstadt]

17. Rudely?

What the fuck are you babbling about now, BeFree? Did you notice where I said Bush failed to take terrorism seriously? How on earth is that avoiding discussion of his actions before 9/11?

At this point, I honestly can't tell if your cognitive abilities are so impaired that you can't follow normal conversations or it's a deliberate ruse so you can effect permanent strawman arguments so you have something to "argue" against that is more in line with your poor debate skills. Your constant attempts to poison the debate are easily detectable.

I'm going to ask you politely one last time to quit implying that I am somehow trying to defend "Bushco", dude.

[BeFree]

21. Defend bushco?

....Indefensible. Even you know better.

But what is in question is how much bush knew before 9/11. We all know he appeared incompetent, duh.

The crux to the problem, and one that the BS-9/11 commission ducked, was how much bushco knew before the date. The evidence that is there, suggests that they knew what was going to happen, and were even warned by outside sources.

One stance is that they were just incompetent, and our stance is that they had a hand in it to some degree.

The question here is why do you think being so rude and crude is going to make your point, whatever it is, more acceptable?

It just seems to me you are stuck on the incompetence theory. But that theory has been proven to be very incomplete. However, if you want to stop there, then say so.

Beating around the bush just makes you appear to be what you appear to be.

[SDuderstadt]

27. And, "what do I appear to be", dude?

Is this another one of your backhanded insinuations? Isn't openly calling for the indictment, prosecution and conviction of Bush enough for you to drop your underhanded insinuation that I somehow defend Bush?

If you have some sort of concrete evidence that Bush either made or deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, I'm all ears. However, I categorically reject your implication that Lee Hamilton, Tim Roemer, Richard Ben-Veniste, Jamie Gorelick and Bob Kerrey were somehow complicit in covering up either MIHOP or LIHOP. Going around rationalizing your inability to find a smoking gun makes you look petty, dude.

[BeFree]

30. Actually

They never examined MIHOP, so yes, they covered up that possibility.
We do know MIHOP was possible.

Its like in criminal cases... if there is only one suspect investigated and no other suspects are investigated, the case is incomplete. And knowing what a criminal bunch bushco is, and not investigating them in this case, is indeed, a coverup.

Remember Bob Graham's, Senate report that was covered up?
There were a lot of avenues for investigation that were never taken and/or covered up.
How anyone can claim that the investigation was complete and not covered up is beyond me. So all I can do is ascribe to that belief is that it is more coverup.

That is what appears to be the case here. Convince me otherwise. I'm all ears.

[SDuderstadt]

40. Dude...

how, specifically, did they not examine MIHOP? If they undertook to find the facts, would that not have uncovered MIHOP?

The very fact that you accuse Hamilton, Ben-Veniste, Gorelick, Roemer and Kerrey of covering up MIHOP is appalling. If you have any actual evidence of this, please approach the U.S. Attorney in your state. I'll even coach you on what charges to suggest, dude.

Your "you're either for us or against us" false dilemma arguments remind me of the very person you claim to oppose. Maybe we should refer to this as "BeFreeco". Tu quo, dude?

[BeFree]

43. heh

Sorry to upset you again, but no, they did not try to find all the facts.
Even the widows understand that. Especially the widows.

If you feel that you are against us, that is your problem, not mine.

I am only for uncovering and openly examining all the evidence wherever it may lead. And that's why I love it here, because over the years much evidence has been uncovered by plain people, despite the official's attempts at coverup.

Ain't DU great?

[SDuderstadt]

46. Dude...

I don't know of a single widow that believes MIHOP, do you?

Again, have you even read the 911 Commission Report? Do you disagree that they were harshly critical of the Bush administration's failure to prevent 911?

If you're going to accuse good Democrats like Hamilton, Ben-Veniste, Roemer, Kerrey and Gorelick of covering up MIHOP, you'd better have some fucking evidence because they would not only be guilty of being accessories after the fact, they would also be guilty of treason, dude.

You also keep implying the 9/11 Commission of being part of "Bushco", however, again, if you had the slightest idea what the fuck you're talking about, you'd know the Commission was created by and responsible to Congress. Last I checked, Congress is the Legislative, not the Executive branch. Do you understand how our system of government actually works, dude?

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[CJCRANE]

19. I'm going to disagree with both you and BeFree.

I believe that Jesus did exist because they found his bones in Israel (and those of Mary Magdalene) in the late 20th century. This probably also means that he wasn't the son of God.

[SDuderstadt]

20. How did they know they were...

Jesus' bones?

[CJCRANE]

23. IIRC It had something to do with a special name for Mary Magdalene

which was on one of the urns (the others had the accepted names for Jesus, Joseph etc on them). The name had only been discovered recently by scholars of some old parchments (the Dead Sea Scrolls or something similar).

James Cameron did a documentary about it a few years ago (I never watched it but I read a few articles about it).

[SidDithers]

10. And, like most conspiracy theories, that story is a work of fiction...nt

Sid

[BeFree]

12. Really?

And your proof is....? Gosh Sid, if you can prove that it's all fiction
or that bushco was not involved in 9/11, you'd be rich. But you aren't. Shame, eh?

[SDuderstadt]

24. Dude...

this is just more of your lack of critical thinking skills in action.

You're committing the logical fallacy known as "trying to sdhift the burden of proof". You're the one claiming the Bible is true and that "Bushco was 'involved' in 9/11". Sid (or anyone else, for that matter) doesn't have to prove the Bible is fiction or that "Bushco" wasn't involved in 9/11. He just needs to point out that you have (rather abjectly) failed to prove your claims.

Evidence, dude. Find a smoking gun and even I'll believe "9/11 was an an inside job". But merely waving you arms and flogging the same baseless assertions that have been totally debunked only makes you look like a zealot, dude.

[BeFree]

28. No

What I told Sid was that if he could prove his assertions, he'd be rich.

Well, is he? Can he prove his assertion?

[SDuderstadt]

32. Jesus, dude...

Your cognitive abilities are so poor, you can't even characterize your own post properly. You asserted that Sid isn't rich, which implies that he hasn't proved that the Bible is fiction or that "Bushco" wasn't involved in 9/11.

Now what you're doing is a hybrid of "begging the question" and "trying to shift the burden of proof". However, the reality is that until you can prove your claims, you shouldn't expect people to just accept them uncritically. Quit poisoning the debate, BeFree.

[BeFree]

33. He hasn't proved anything?

So, we agree?

Or did Sid? You've lost me. Of course, it could just be the rudeness and crudeness that makes it all seem like so much bullshit.

[SDuderstadt]

36. Dude...

he doesn't have to disprove your claims. YOU need to prove them.

You could really avoid a lot of the acrimony here by taking a simple critical thinking class. Your local community college will have them.

And, the "rudeness and crudeness" is a direct result of your underhanded tactics. Maybe you should stop poisoning the debate, dude.

[BeFree]

38. Eh?

Sid made a claim. An assertion.
Should he prove his claim or not?

If he could prove it, then my claim is he'd be rich. That's just common sense.

[SDuderstadt]

42. Dude...in order to disprove YOUR claim...

all Sid has to do is point out that you haven't proven it. Do you get that?

[JackRiddler]

47. I've got some bad news for you...

The likelier conspiracy involved fiction texts written decades after these supposed events and presented as fact, attributed to authors known as Luke, Mark, John and Matthew.

Or this Roman emperor named Constantine and a bunch of bishops at a conference in the town of Nicea somewhere around 325 if memory serves, making up some stuff about how the rabble rouser in Palestine was literally the son of some God character who lives in the sky, looks like a guy, and created the universe.

[BeFree]

48. heh

Well, whatever. It's a theory.
Be free to believe whatever you like. Ok by me. I mean, it's old history.
Just figured the idea would be a conversation starter.

[RoccoR5955]

49. There's also a conspiracy involving a talking snake.

So let's not even to there.
It's called MYTHOLOGY!

[f11killerbeing]

50. eas

Haha nice