Conspiracy Theorist Conspiracy Theorists

120 posts / 0 new
Last post
B9sus4 B9sus4's picture
Conspiracy Theorist Conspiracy Theorists

This guy belonging to Bam, this guy called Cass Sunstein, I think he's what we must call a Conspiracy Theorist Conspiracy Theorist. That is, he's one of them as is makes theories about thems as makes theories about them that conspires to do stuff. in fact, they -- thems as makes the theories about thems as conspires -- often forms themselves into groups.. in other words, they conspire to theorize about thems as conspires to do stuff. So, it's clear this man, Cass Sunstein -- who is no doubt very clever.. got a big degree and all from Harvard (hey.. same place Iggy was at!).. is theorizing about these conspirators who are conspiring to theorize about thems as conspire to do stuff.. And furthermore, not content to merely theorize about them.. he's entered into some kind of.. well.. conspiracy to theorize about them with some other folks.. in fact.. with the current Administration of the United States government. And they plan to go abroad on the Internets and do stuff. Do stuff to fuck 'em up. Like go on websites and say things to confuse 'em. Sort of like this.

Anyhow, the Conspiracy Theorist Conspiracy Theorist Conspiracy is an idea of this guy, this Cass Sunstein guy who is attached to Bam in some way. So, we can agree this a conspiracy from the top down. Doing stuff is all beyond merely theorizing about it. 

So. It's a Conspiracy Theorist Conspiracy Theorist Conspiracy.

I've long suspected as much.

My Cat Knows Better My Cat Knows Better's picture
skdadl

Well, no, B9 has a point, although a link to Sunstein's stupid article would have been helpful, B9. Sunstein is one of Obama's flashy advisers (took me a bit to get the "Bam" reference, B9), and I kind of expect him to be gassy and pompous and not half as smart as he thinks he is -- not unlike Ignatieff, as you hint, B9.

 

Anyway, he wrote a gassy and pompous article proposing that the government have people out there trolling the intertubes and causing trouble on, eg, 9/11 truther blogs or groups. Presumably they wouldn't stop there but would be playing cute with many of the rest of us who are critical of Obama in any way. Some people, including Sunstein himself, seem to think that this is somehow a new thought, or that it hasn't already been happening for a long time and most of us know it.

 

I'm not sure when he wrote the article that's been discussed a bit around the 'sphere over the last month or so, but he has written to this topic as an academic (ha) before. And the FBI have been performing stupid tricks like this forever, tracking sales of ingredients to make falafels, eg, in San Francisco, or hiring agents provocateurs to wangle invitations to "vegetarian potlucks" in Minneapolis last year, and so on. The RCMP, and no doubt everyone's intel services, do the same stuff.

 

In online communities with any kind of history, trolls stick out like sore thumbs. I don't think that Cass Sunstein and his preppy crew are much of a threat, but they're irritating.

B9sus4 B9sus4's picture

Aha. Yes, I've looked at the tinfoil beanie site a few times. I like the REAL ones.. serious paranoids concerned with HAARP now, etc., buy hats, coats, and bedding with copper wires wove into them. I had a look at Alec Jones website forum where they discuss HAARP. They are worried about tinnitus, concerned this means the Evil Ones are operating their big giant HAARP harp up there in Alaska. So some kindly fellow tells 'em to relax and they tell him to fuck off, ie., he must be ONE OF THEM!

The real problem with Conspiracy Theorist Conspiracy Theorists is they tend to be irony challenged and have no sense of humour. Take the 911 thing.. if THEY had just shut up about it and let folks ponder it, it would have submerged by now, like the UFO thing or becoming an enduring hobby like the herbal freaks and the JFK crowd. But by hiring professional assholes and cheap liars to "debunk" it they've just created a huge spector of doubt that drives even marginally sane people nuts with resentment. Intelligent people get irate when you insult their intellect with transparent bullshit. In disinfo you either go big -- hire some REAL serious bullshitters -- or hang it up Jim.

THEY should have done the latter.

6079_Smith_W

I guess this is as good a thread as any to weigh in.

I don't actually mind conspiracy theory threads, no matter how unproductive they are. In fact, the less productive the better.. They kind of work like flypaper, so the conspiracy theories don't come and bother me someplace else.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Personally, I hate them.  Although I admit to finding aspects of conspiracy theories and their proponants fascinating.

6079_Smith_W

I just think they are useful to have someplace where I don't have to interact with them.

But yes, very amusing sometimes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3er7IZLRek

jas

I'm actually pretty confused. Not only is the OP of this thread unintelligible, but are there people here who are actually stating that speculation about the JFK assassination is unfounded? Are you fucking kidding? What on earth would make you think you have the full story on that event? Seriously, on what information do you base your opinion?

Although I find this incredible, I can kind of ignore it for the most part - maybe because I don't come across it too much except in the odd kooky internet thread. But jokes about 9/11 and about the people who are pointing out stupidly, gobsmackingly obvious, glaring problems with the official story I find deeply offensive, as I would jokes about any other state crime which involved the murders of thousands (and counting) people. That's not a laughing matter, and that people dismiss questions about it as "conspiracy theory" and make sneering comments about common-sense, stupidly obvious objections to the official narrative is, to me, the profoundest ignorance and no longer deserves consideration or courtesy. In fact, deserves the same measure of derision and disrespect as those who do it feel so entitled to mete out.

That those who make make such comments are morons is not really the point anymore. The problem is that they are continually given platforms such as this one to spew their bile and their idiotic, uninformed and wilfully, defiantly ignorant bleatings (as in, "I'm stupid and I know it, so suck on it.") It's this proud and stubborn stupidity, like many aspects of America itself that, frankly, acts like a disease to open and common sense discourse. Why don't we all just go back to the Dark Ages, where we can give power to those who claim to have a similar monopoly on knowledge? Would you like that? Does that make sense to you? Do you give any thought at all to the garbage you spew before you spew it? It doesn't look like you do.

This de facto declaration of open season on so-called conspiracy theories, and naive, uncritical -- indeed silly -- acceptance of silly official accounts is not only irrational but beneath the level of the kind of engaged critical thinking that so many of you make claim to. In fact, it demonstrates pretty much the exact opposite -- or at the very least that there are specific subjects upon which many of you are unable to exercise any rational thought or self-control.

MegB

This thread was opened well over three years ago, so unless anyone has any silly official accounts to convey, or irrational thought processes to share ...

6079_Smith_W

Nah...

Just revived it to make a point about flypaper.

But I will say something jas.

Personally, it's not the denial or acceptance or censoring of these theories I have a problem with; it is usually the attitudes of those who promote them.

Can anyone say with a straight face that they don't get enough exposure?

I fully accept that there might - might -  be some things we don't know about 9-11. The Kennedy assassination? Also quite possible.Thing is, I am able to accept that and go on about the rest of my business. Or deal with other things right down to why animal control doesn't come and deal with my neightbour's damned cat without imagining that it all part of the conspiracy.

The problem I have is with some people who are obsessed with turning every conversation to that, and simply will not stop. I have only ever had to unfriend one person on FB, and it was someone who did that to me repeatedly. I told him to stop. He didn't. I told him to stop or I would unfriend him. He didn't. What choice did I have?

Well apparently none, since in unfriending him I obviously proved I was part of the conspiracy and don't really think for myself.

 

A Montreal Paul

Jas, I'm sorry your feelings have been hurt, but seriously - if you put opinions out there no one has any obligation to not point out the problems with them. You have a right to be treated with respect, but your opinions do not. And you know, whatever problems there may be with the "official story" of 9-11, to my knowledge these are fairly minor compared with the holes in the far-fetched tales I've heard of "what really happened" on that day. Any story that requires thousands of people (not just government officials, but scientists, engineers and airport employees) to be part of an elaborate conspiracy to murder thousands of people in complete secrecy strains credulity from the very start.

Indeed, all the 9-11 "truther" stories have an odd inconsistency with regards to the state's alleged motives. Consider: if the state really had the power to kill thousands of people with complete impunity while terrorizing thousands of others into a complicit silence on the matter, surely they would have the power to engage in the repressive and warlike policies of their choosing without having to "convince" the people to let them do so, let alone by using such a fantasticallty elaborate scheme to stage an event like 9-11.

jas

A defender of the official 9/11 silly stories is asking me to consider his opinion. Because he says he's thought about it. He knows all about the 9/11 "conspiracy theories" and he's come to some kind of conclusion on them.

Yeah... no. I agree with closing this thread. Too stupid to engage.

wage zombie

Thanks, jas.

A Montreal Paul

Jas: You say I ask you to "consider" my point of view, which I do not, so kindly stop putting words in other people's mouths. Respond to what I actually say or say nothing if you can't think of an answer. I am not here to educate you: it is not my job to force the blinkers off those who have backed their own minds into a corner. But if you're going to complain about other people treating your opinions unfairly, I have every right to point out to everyone that you are wrong to complain, and if you don't like people contradicting you, well, that's just too bad, isn't it?

wage zombie

A Montreal Paul wrote:

And you know, whatever problems there may be with the "official story" of 9-11, to my knowledge these are fairly minor compared with the holes in the far-fetched tales I've heard of "what really happened" on that day.

The US government should be held to a much higher standard than concerned people trying to sort out what truth they can find in an endless stream of propaganda.

Quote:

Indeed, all the 9-11 "truther" stories have an odd inconsistency with regards to the state's alleged motives. Consider: if the state really had the power to kill thousands of people with complete impunity while terrorizing thousands of others into a complicit silence on the matter, surely they would have the power to engage in the repressive and warlike policies of their choosing without having to "convince" the people to let them do so, let alone by using such a fantasticallty elaborate scheme to stage an event like 9-11.

Consider, if a, surely b.  I don't see how the relationship between a and b is relevant.  Nor do I think that a implies b.

We'll never know what really happened that day, and given everything else going on, it's probably not worth talking about.

But your arguments are weak.

LULU la loba LULU la loba's picture

rabble wont let me say  the world chemtrail that is not a consperiacy its a fact.

there is lots of science on it and i have offered lots of links, but because trolls attacked me, my tread got stopped

LULU la loba LULU la loba's picture

here is a fact. osama bin laden was arrested the day before the last canadian election.

the usa could have picked any day to catch him or say they caught him.

 

those are facts, my therory is

by arresting osama bin laden the day before the canadian election could give law and order conservitives a boost

we know usa takes a big interest in thier biggest trading partner.

this is ny theroy and not one i found on the web.

 

 

LULU la loba LULU la loba's picture

building seven is proof enough for me. pulled not hit by any plane.

follow the power. after 911 law and order won

Sineed

Actually, (and I can't believe I'm doing this, but what the hell...) Building Seven's collapse is the strongest argument against a conspiracy. I mean, after you've made your point, why bother collapsing this smaller, less consequential building hours later?

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Noooooooooo Sineed! Noooooooo......

Sineed

Catchfire wrote:

Noooooooooo Sineed! Noooooooo......

Must....stop...typing....

Okay so I stepped away from the keyboard for a few hours, and now I'm making a veggie pizza with leeks, potatoes, fresh rosemary, and some sort of farmer's market equivalent to mozzarella, using sheep's milk cheese. 

And I found these really weird cukes, called lemon cucumbers. I'm going to sacrifice a few into the salad tonight.

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

I just saw (and bought) those for the first time a few weeks ago! They were lovely and refreshing. I don't know what government is behind them though...

6079_Smith_W

Oh... so you assume they are from this planet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEStsLJZhzo

jas

While we're giggling about stuff we are too stupid to have a clue about, anybody got any Fukushima jokes?

Tee hee!

sherpa-finn

Always happy to oblige. I think this was from Three Mile Island days, so perhaps a bit dated ....

jas

I just want to encourage people communicating in forums such as this to recognize dynamics of mediated public discourse that act to marginalize many specific discussions. Discussions that, once thus marginalized, have their marginalization justified by their marginalization. "We don't discuss conspiracy theories because they're conspiracy theories." "Look, no one else of any credibility is discussing them either." And little to no examination occurs as to who is doing the defining and why. So it's a very convenient, and self-perpetuating way for either specific interests, or simply groupthink, to control what gets talked about.

A thread closed today that I was expecting would be closed, if nothing else than for length. Several of my posts were removed, however, making the recent conversation in there somewhat unintelligible. The posts contained links to pictures that some posters here found offensive.

The pictures that were referenced are real images. Real images of an event that, if we accept the reality of the images, contradict the accepted and mass-mediated narrative of that event. Even just looking at them for a few moments, an intelligent person would notice elements about these real pictures that do not jibe with the official narrative of that event. An event which figures prominently in our current political and somewhat fictionalized 'war on terror' landscape.

I am guessing, but don't care enough to ask, that the justification in part for the removal of those posts was that some of the images portrayed some gory or disturbing scenes. While I support the mods in their accepted and justified gatekeeping function here on Babble, I do think there were some other motivations for removing them as well.

As occurs on any forum, I think some posters here don't want to raise certain discussions for fear of being censured. And this silence gives a false impression of consensus on certain undiscussed issues. And this false impression of consensus is used to further the marginalization of these topics.

Hopefully we are moving beyond the era where the term "conspiracy theory" can be used uncritically and without raising some suspicion about the motives of those who use it. While I understand why the left has been historically concerned about its credibility, at some point, as I've encouraged before, it does need to engage some common sense. In many things, but also in deciding which topics are worthy of discussion. And perhaps also in realizing how some discussions might save a whole lot of other discussions that occur endlessly and ultimately get us nowhere further.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Just to add my 2 cents on suposed 'conspiracy theories'

I bring you the Reagan years.

The Reagan administration was one of the most corrupt,criminal, crooked andruthless governments of the 20th century.

Dangerous social conservatives who were bent on killing the 'hippie' movement.

Job #1 the assassination of John Lennon.

Job #2 the assassination of the sexual revolution when AIDS was created in a petri dish.

Job #3 draconian zero tolerance policy in concert with the proliferation of crack cocaine.

Job #4 Hinckley's family were personal friends of the Republican party. Reagan's supposed assassination attempt was a carefully planned stunt. At the time Raygun's support was low. The story of him being shot in the stomach and him walking into the hospital on his own accord was BOGUS.

And I haven;t even touched Iran-Contra and South American death squads,

Thank you,I needed to get that off my chest.

jas

That's interesting, Alan. While I would question that a lab-created virus targeted gays specifically from some homophobic shadow government agenda, the notion that some viruses have military origins is neither new nor all that controversial. But without getting into an actual argument about the HIV virus, I would use it as an example of how such a conversation would transpire here on Babble and other similar forums.

A condensed version:

JP: Look here, some documents showing that military labs were developing a retrovirus in the late '70s as a potential biowarfare agent.

Babble: * tumbleweeds *

Debunker 1: These conspiracy theories really burn my toast. How despicable to insult the memory of those we've lost to AIDS!

JP: It's not a conspiracy theory. These are actual declassified documents.

Babble: * tumbleweeds *

Debunker 2: That blogger is an anti-vaxxer.

Random Babbler: I lost my best buddy to AIDS. I would appreciate if the conspiracy theorists would show some sensitivity on this topic.

Mod steps in: While there may be some credibility to the notion that viruses have been studied in biowarfare programs, I would ask all here to show some sensitivity on this topic. JP, this is a warning.

Debunker 1: Here's an article by the WHO debunking the AIDS in a petri dish claim.

JP: That doesn't debunk anything. It says there are competing theories about the origins of HIV.

Debunker 1: Here's Dr. A debunking this tripe.

Debunker 2: He also has a good one on how conspiracy theorists might actually have this newly discovered mental illness.

JP: Didn't Dr. A also write some articles in the '70s "debunking" the links between smoking and cancer? Yes, here's one.

Debunker 1: * tumbleweeds *

Debunker 2: That blogger JP linked to also believes in shape-shifting reptilians. Haw haw.

Random Babbler 2: I guess shape-shifting reptilians started AIDS.

Debunker 2: Haw haw.

Debunker 1: Haw haw.

JP: Where do you see that on his site, Debunker 2?

Random Babbler 3: I find this conversation utterly upsetting. Why is this on Babble?

Mod steps in: I can see this will be going nowhere. JP, please don't start another thread on this topic. Closing.


alan smithee alan smithee's picture

You're right,jas.

People should realize that there is no such thing as coincidences in politics and governments.

I'd like healthy discussions about a multitude of things that smell rotten.

I'd include the recent 'terror attacks' in Ottawa and St-Jean.

jas

alan smithee wrote:

I'd include the recent 'terror attacks' in Ottawa and St-Jean.

Yes.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Don't forget the so-called "sinking" of the Titanic.

Pretty clever way to hide a warship you're going to need a few years later, eh?  Dress it up like a party boat, say it hit some ice cubes, and now it lies harmlessly at the bottom of the ocean.  Did you hear that, Germany??

C'mon folks.  If ice is now harder than steel, can someone please explain how ice picks work then??  There was an excellent three hour YouTube video that explained it all (e.g. if the ship really "sank" then where are all the bodies?  Don't bodies float?) but of course THEY couldn't just sit by and allow this so the video was made to disappear without a trace.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Yeah. But what does the Titanic have to do with any branch of the government?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

The "R" in "RMS Titanic" stands for "Royal".  Same "R" and same "Royal" as in RAF, Royal Navy, and incidentally "Royal family".

The same Royal family who surely bankrolled the expedition to "find" the rusted pieces of metal that we're supposed to believe were once softer than ice.

sherpa-finn

Mr Magoo wrote: The "R" in "RMS Titanic" stands for "Royal". Same "R" and same "Royal" as in RAF, Royal Navy, and incidentally "Royal family".

Well, the R may have stood for Royal, - but the MS stood for Mail Service. So its not at all like the Royal Air Force or Royal Navy - which are effectively owned if indirectly controlled by the Head of State.

While there were a few gov't owned mailships, most of them (including the Titantic which was of course owned by White Line, and the Lusitania which was owned by Cunard) were privately owned ships providing mail services to the Royal Mail. And had "RMS" appended to their commercial names for status - a bit like Robertson's marmalade has the little royal insignia on it, indicating that this is what Liz spreads on crackers and feeds the corgis every morning. 

Sorry for the interruption. Back to the tales of dark consipiracy....  

KenS

Not to mention that Navy ships have always been His/Her Majesty's Ship- HMS, not RMS.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
While there were a few gov't owned mailships, most of them (including the Titantic which was of course owned by White Line, and the Lusitania which was owned by Cunard) were privately owned ships providing mail services to the Royal Mail.

So Britain needed the largest ship in the world at the time TO SEND POSTCARDS??

Quote:
Not to mention that Navy ships have always been His/Her Majesty's Ship- HMS, not RMS.

Of course they were not going to advertise that it was really a warship.  That's the whole point.  Don't worry Germany, the world's largest WARSHIP is really just a floating mail truck, and anyway, it's harmlessly at the bottom of the sea now.

What do you suppose was underneath those Potemkin smokestacks?  MORE MAIL??  LOL!

I notice that if you Google "Titanic" you get NONE of this.  Just enless references to Hollywood's obedient attempt to sanitize the whole story in 1997.  Don't worry, everyone, it was really all about a handsome fellow and his young lady friend -- until the world's largest "mail ship" hit some ice that was harder than steel and then it sank, just like the government said. 

ygtbk

Mr. Magoo wrote:

The "R" in "RMS Titanic" stands for "Royal".  Same "R" and same "Royal" as in RAF, Royal Navy, and incidentally "Royal family".

The same Royal family who surely bankrolled the expedition to "find" the rusted pieces of metal that we're supposed to believe were once softer than ice.

You left out the Reptilians. WHY did you leave out the Reptilians!?!? See:

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/10/17/david-ickes-theory-of-the-reptilian-human-hybrid-apocalypse/

C'mon, Sheeple!!!!!!!!!

[ETA: More exciting punctuation]

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Let's not be ridiculous.

ygtbk

alan smithee wrote:

Let's not be ridiculous.

<in-character>

But it links George W. Bush to Princess Di, and Madonna to Celine Dion!!! Everything is finally coming together!!!!

</in-character>

Yeah, you're right.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

alan smithee wrote:

Let's not be ridiculous.

Why stop now?

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

There's a difference between a credible theory and a ridiculous urban legend.

Coincidences and political agendas do not exist. Governments,especially Conservative ones,are ruthless,corrupt and criminal.

You can make a case for theories involving the CIA and CSIS since the 1950's.

Reptillian shape shifters? Get a tin foil hat.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

alan smithee wrote:

There's a difference between a credible theory and a ridiculous urban legend.

One could not credibly use this thread - any of it - to argue that statement.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Timebandit wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

There's a difference between a credible theory and a ridiculous urban legend.

One could not credibly use this thread - any of it - to argue that statement.

Please continue to believe everything your government and their moutpieces tell you. It keeps the agendas alive.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

That's pretty black and white.  Not drinking my kool-aid?  You MUST therefore believe EVERYTHING the government tells you. 

I mean, look at it this way - You and jas are demanding that we believe everything YOU tell us...  And if we regard it as unfounded and improbable, we're just gullible.  Excuse me? 

I'll take the reptilians over you lot, any day.  They're at least amusing and we don't have to go to the lengths of denying other peoples' tragedies to make ourselves feel all smart and in the know.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Why stop now?

The only reason I can offer is that the people who'd like us to look the other way would like us to look the other way.  And most people will.  So let's obey, shall we?

The ROYAL "Mail Ship" Titanic was just some boat that hit some frozen WATER and sank.  End of story.

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I bet you believe the Warren Commission too.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Is that you believe it to be the case enough for you?  Care for some evidence, or are you good with that?  Oh, wait, evidence is probably tampered with...  Yeah, let's just go with the latest fever-dream, yeah, that's the ticket. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Want evidence?

Hit a piece of ice with something made of steel, like a hammer.

Which breaks?  The steel, or the ice??

jas

I'll try not to spam this link tonight but it pertains to so many recent discussions that have occurred on Rabble, including this one.

TEDx talk: Astroturf and media manipulation - Sharyl Attkinson

"Hallmarks of astroturf include use of inflammatory language such as 'crank' 'quack' 'nutty' 'lies' 'paranoid' 'pseudo' and 'conspiracy'. Astroturfers often claim to debunk myths that aren't myths at all. Use of the charged language tests well. People hear something's a myth, maybe they find it on Snopes and they instantly declare themselves too smart to fall for it.

... Beware when interests attack an issue by controversializing or attacking the people, personalities and organizations surrounding it, rather than the facts. Astroturfers tend to reserve all their public skepticism for those exposing wrongdoing rather than the wrongdoers themselves. In other words, instead of questioning authority, they question those who question authority."

sherpa-finn

BTW, Babblers - Mr Magoo is just having us on with all the Titanic talk. "Surely ice doesn't break steel!". 

Even back in the day of the post sinking inquiry, the engineers who designed and built the ship acknowledged that the structural vulnerability of the Titanic was related to teh risk of the steel buckling under pressure sufficient to pop the rivets. This diagnosis was confirmed 80 years later when the wreck was discovered and examined.

That said, I was four-square behind the reptilian shape shifter thesis until I saw that both Kris Kristofferson and Box Car Willle were included in their numbers. That was just a shape shifter too far for me.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Ah, Sharyl Atkisson. Darling of Fox News and the rabid right, because Benghazi, amirite?

Quote:
Now, the conspiratorially minded among us are obviously not going to be swayed by DOJ’s report. After all, they’re the government, and Attkisson is accusing the government of hacking her, so clearly this is just a coverup, right? Well, perhaps. The office of the inspector general is an independent office, but maybe it’s possible that Obama got his hooks into them and is forcing them to play a role in the conspiracy. But it’s important to remember that this investigation was done at Attkisson’s request and with her cooperation, so she’d be hard-pressed to dismiss DOJ’s report just because she disagrees with what they found.

For conservatives, the inspector general’s report won’t matter because they’re already convinced that Attkisson was the victim of a government hack, probably ordered by Obama himself as retaliation for her Benghazi reporting. Way back in October, Fox News was reporting on “the highly sophisticated hacking of Sharyl Attkisson’s computers,” taking the former CBS correspondent’s allegations at face value and calling it “chilling stuff.” “Watch Someone in The Government Take Over Sharyl Attkisson’s Computer,” blared a headline at Townhall, which had already somehow “confirmed” that “Sharyl Attkisson’s Computer Was Hacked, Heavily Monitored By The Federal Government.” For the right, Attkisson’s story is too important to let contrary evidence – or any evidence, really – intrude upon its self-evident truth.

Perhaps tin foil celebs like Ms Atkisson get called the things they do because the shoe fits. ETA link. http://www.salon.com/2015/02/02/a_right_wing_hack_undone_sharyl_attkisso...

Pages

Topic locked