Welcome to Tyranny; population... youFollow

Dumb and weak? That sucks man, I'm sorry.

Hey. Next time you're going to link to some conspiracy revealing article. Could you link to the first page of the damn article. I seriously read that, thought the whole time "this is the worst article I've ever read. I have no clue what they're talking about", then realized I was reading page 2 of 3. Was kind of amusing really.

I was amused when I saw "dailycaller" in the status bar of Firefox. I started laughing immediately, remembering seeing Tucker Carlson get hit in the leg during a softball game and wail like a small child for what seemed like hours. Oh, days before camera phones, how quaint you were. I didn't read the article, the memory was enough entertainment for me.

Life experience has taught me

Any word or series of words that follows this and doesn't consist solely of "poorly" is pretty much guaranteed to be wrong.

Edited, Oct 31st 2013 6:47pm by Smasharoo

Something about a roommate selling meth and guns?

So what you are saying is... everything has to be spelled out for you; good to know. You can't, for example, look at event A and event B, and jump to conclusion based on available information?

And if you can, why is meth more likely?

Of course I *can*. Anyone can. The issue is whether you should in any given situation. In this particular one, I don't assume that when the police conduct a raid on a home and collect a bunch of documents from that home, that the fact that some of those documents happen to include notes which include source names for a journalist living at the home, that the entire raid (event A in this case) was staged in order to obtain those notes so as to discover that journalists sources and thus protect a completely unrelated government agency from being outted for some so far unnamed (but implied) wrongdoing.

Follow me? My first assumption is: "They grabbed every computer and document in the home, just like they do for any sort of raid". Want to know why? Because that's the most obvious and logical explanation for the events which happened. Leaping to a conspiratorial explanation when a much more likely and reasonable one exists isn't terribly productive. Now, as I said earlier, if there were some indication that the weapons raid wasn't legitimate for some reason, then I might *maybe* allow for the possibility that there was an ulterior motive here besides "we screwed up", but the article never makes that claim. It ignores whether the raid was legitimate and instead focuses on the fact that the papers seized didn't have anything to do with weapons, also ignoring the fact that those taking the documents can't know what they contain until after they take them.

It's backwards logic, starting with the assumed conclusion and then listing only the facts that support it, while ignoring all the ones that don't. That's why it's a bunk conspiracy theory.

Have you checked the calibration lately?

Fire requires an adequate amount of oxygen.

Anything the current administration does or says that might be deemed good for the country is clearly a real conspiracy cuz democrats don't love america in the right way.



Edited, Nov 1st 2013 5:12pm by Elinda

Exactly. I want the promise of hand jobs for all from my next candidate. I'm not saying he personally has to deliver.

Do you live in a swing that way state?

You are right. And also late to the party. If you read the initial posts ( who does that ), you would know that I am not disagreeing with you. I am, however, curious about what Gbaji considers non-bunk.