It doesn't matter who wins!

[marklang500]

Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

This one hurts. Yikes.

[ThoughtAddict]

Originally Posted by marklang500

Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

This one hurts. Yikes.

Wrong on many levels.

[Dan.Linehan]

Transparency != Big Brother.

Crucial reading: The Transparent Society: Will Technology Force Us to Choose Between Privacy and Freedom?

[Dan.Linehan]

Anyway, it definitely does matter who wins. Just based on the taxation structure alone:

McCain and Obama Tax Plans Charted

Not to mention spending on energy alternatives, foreign affairs, accountability, etc.

[Eric Revelin]

Alex Jones is a conspiratorial fearmonger. He operates from a place of anger and powerlessness and encourages people to do the same. His opinion isn't worth the time of day.

I don't support the democrats or republicans, but I secede that Obama would be a better choice than McCain. The system is broken, it's corrupt, and I don't think either of the current candidates are being wholly forthright and that either of them will live up to the ideals they claim to have. However, Obama represents something very positive, and while a symbol alone cannot change the world it'd be a step in the right direction. What defines a good leader is the impact he has on his people and aside from the few who have taken politics too far (there's always people like that) it seems he's encouraging people to create a better tomorrow.

I'm going to vote for Nader because I want to see a viable third party rise in the future, and because Nader represents what I want from our next president. I'm hoping that the third party candidates will get enough votes that the winner will be forced to look at their stances and adopt them when he takes the reins of the White House.

Your vote does make a difference. The only reason to believe that it doesn't is because you think of yourself as insignificant and powerless. (Unless you're like Steve.) We're not doomed, society isn't going to collapse into an oppressive authoritarian regime anytime soon. Not unless we resign ourselves to that fate and tell our prospective leaders, "Do what you want; there's nothing we can do."

[marklang500]

I agree that the fear and conspiracy theories are not to be taken too heavily when they are not backed by facts. But I do NOT believe that the mere point of view that something is a "conspiracy theory" is enough to discredit it. I believe that facts are facts.

I have a particular pet peeve when someone discredits an idea or a notion without addressing the facts of that idea or notion. "That's just a conspiracy theory" is never a valid argument. Also not valid arguments are: "that guys an idiot" or "Alex Jones is a fear mongerer" or "he works for Fox news".

Of course I do agree that it does matter that we vote. But there are some striking facts proposed in that article that deserve to be addressed. If they are lies, well then the article is trash. But if they are true, then we have a new ballgame.

Wrong on many levels.

Well now, that depends. There are two pieces to this article.
1. Facts
2. Speculation
To which part are you saying are wrong on many levels? I, like you, prefer facts over speculation. So we can agree to write off the speculation. Let's look at the "facts" presented, and try to see if they are true. I'll do my own speculation on my own time.

From the Article of the OP:

Mark [Zbigniew] is foreign policy adviser to Senator [Obama]. So who is foreign policy adviser to Senator McCain this year? The envelope please!...McCain’s foreign policy adviser this year is Ian Brzezinski, the other Zbigniew son.

If this is factual, then this article is no longer simply "poppycock", but foundational. Of course I could do without all the flourishes.

Here's one article that give some credence to the statement above:
Media Matters - MSNBC's Brzezinski asked if McCain is "the perfect candidate" without disclosing that her brother advises him

[Eric Revelin]

Originally Posted by marklang500

I agree that the fear and conspiracy theories are not to be taken too heavily when they are not backed by facts. But I do NOT believe that the mere point of view that something is a "conspiracy theory" is enough to discredit it. I believe that facts are facts.

I agree with that notion, however claims require evidence, and the more extraordinary the claims are the more solid the evidence needs to be.

The truth is that most ideas that fall under the conspiracy category are so ill-thought out or have so little to back them that it's not worth looking into. It's a matter of time management; it's a waste of life to pursue each theory and arrive at nothing.

I have a particular pet peeve when someone discredits an idea or a notion without addressing the facts of that idea or notion. "That's just a conspiracy theory" is never a valid argument. Also not valid arguments are: "that guys an idiot" or "Alex Jones is a fear mongerer" or "he works for Fox news".

No, those aren't valid arguments, but they are valid opinions. In my opinion, someone who works at Fox News should be highly scrutinized since Fox News is known for bending the truth or outright lying to the public. He shouldn't be immediately written off, but he needs to present something truly compelling during the first few moments he's on camera if what he says is to be taken seriously.

Alex Jones has presented so many ideas over the years that have very little backing, or that he's taken to extremes. Because of his track record he has to work that much harder to prove his credibility to someone who isn't already a fan. The odds that what he's presenting is bs or a misrepresentation of the facts is so high that I can't be bothered to spend my time sorting the truth from what he's saying.

It's not so much about what is and what isn't a valid argument so much as what's productive. Discussion surrounding articles like this usually turn into nothing more than a good bit of mental masturbation. There are exceptions, and there may well be important truths in the article at the start of the thread, but they can probably be uncovered through personal research. That's about the only way to get the facts since both the mainstream media and the alternative media are addicted to fear.

Fear doesn't automatically render an argument impotent, but I won't listen to fearmongers because they don't do what they say they're trying to do. They say they're trying to wake people up, to get them to take a look around and help put an end to NWO schemes and whatnot... But those schemes can't be proven to exist, and I can't help but feel totally powerless after reading a good number of conspiratorial articles. I'm more than capable of looking at the truth and acknowledging it even when it's very harsh, but truth doesn't invoke a sense of fear. There might be pain but it accompanies power. This is why Alex Jones, or any conspiracy theorist or theory, is a hard sell to someone like me. Understand that they get written off most of the time because they've made themselves look like they're not worth listening to over and over again.

Of course I do agree that it does matter that we vote. But there are some striking facts proposed in that article that deserve to be addressed. If they are lies, well then the article is trash. But if they are true, then we have a new ballgame.

There's plenty to suggest that there are things going on that the public is unaware of, but what exactly that is... Is nigh impossible to pin down in most cases. To say that there's corruption in politics, that the democrats and the republicans are largely the same, etc., is just stating the obvious. You can see that much in the mainstream news. As far as I can tell the only new stuff in this article is speculation.

Alex comes across as very sarcastic and harsh, and it feels like it's building upon an unsubstantiated argument with more arguments of its ilk. None of that implies professionalism; it isn't the way it should be written if he's trying to reach people with the truth. He's defeating his own cause. That itself has nothing to do with the facts, but there doesn't appear to be enough substance to bother digging deeper into what he has to say in order to prove or disprove it. Not for me, at least.

That's why I addressed the mindset: "My vote doesn't matter because I'm powerless/because the powers that be have already made the decision." Our choices always have an impact on our world, so regardless of what the truth may be, what we do this November and during the months and years that follow is of the highest importance. I'd say that one of the most important things you can do is try to uncover the truth, but I'd also say that you're not getting the truth from the mainstream media, regardless of whether it's C-Span or Fox News, and you're probably not getting it from the alternative media either. I'm not advocating ignorance, I'm encouraging people to do their own research as no form of media is wholly interested in conveying the pure, undiluted truth. This stuff only serves a positive purpose when it spurs us to become consciously informed.

[wachusettgirl]

Originally Posted by marklang500

I believe that facts are facts.

I have a particular pet peeve when someone discredits an idea or a notion without addressing the facts of that idea or notion.

Are you serious? In the first paragraph Jones says:
"There is a real danger that, unaddressed, the frustration of choosing between a Communist illegal alien raised by a Communist sex pervert and a POW traitor who is a Soviet front man could lead to an epidemic of Acid Reflux disease or even an outbreak of Restless Leg Syndrome."
This guy is a fear-mongering nutcase. Really.

[marklang500]

Like I said, I could do without the flourishes and mud slinging. But there are a few facts in there that deserve to be addressed.

When a crazy nutjob is correct in his claims, does he get no credit? Or will a crazy nutjob NEVER be correct, even if his facts are true?

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by marklang500

Like I said, I could do without the flourishes and mud slinging. But there are a few facts in there that deserve to be addressed.

When a crazy nutjob is correct in his claims, does he get no credit? Or will a crazy nutjob NEVER be correct, even if his facts are true?

There are more accurate sources of information, simple as that.

[marklang500]

There are more accurate sources of information, simple as that.

I do agree Dan, but that's not at all a part of the question.

In fact, I linked to a more dependable source that backs up the initial claim from the Alex Jones site.

It is factual that two sons of the same very powerful Marxist are employed, one by each, by the two major political parties. That's all I am getting at. The OP article goes wild with speculation beyond that point, but the point itself is WORTH commenting on, don't you think?

[marklang500]

Additionally, those "more accurate sources of information" wouldn't go near this type of stuff with a 10 foot pole. EVEN IF IT IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

So those "more accurate sources of information" actually end up under-reporting in order to maintain thier status.

That delimma creates an actual need for the fringe news sources. But then they don't get proper recognition. WHat a predicament for us, the people. When something truely unbeleivable actually occurs, the only ones to report it will be mocked. Amazing!

[Dan.Linehan]

I'm not sure you actually visited my links. They aren't exactly mainstream.

[marklang500]

No, I did visit those links. I've been to a couple of them before. I'm sure I could pick a few articles from each and get people to jump on the "you're crazy for beleiving that stuff" bandwagon. What makes the OP article any different?

As far as the speculation goes, I like speculation. If we don't speculate then we are completely complacent. Period. The people in power don't tell you everything they are up to. They don't tell you thier 50 year goals. They tell you thier 4 year goals. Thier 8 year goals. But rest assured, they have 50 year goals.

[Dan.Linehan]

Hey, I predicted the banking collapses six months in advance.

US Bank Collapse?

I just don't see Alex Jones as a good source of information, personally.

[ar81]

Conspiracy theories give adrenaline to people with boring lives.
Except for that they are useless.

[marklang500]

Conspiracy theories give adrenaline to people with boring lives.

You're a poopie head. (tit-for-tat logic)

Except for that they are useless.

Except when they happen to be true.

[wachusettgirl]

No. You can't just dismiss "mainstream media" in one fell swoop, as if there is one anymore. We have public news and radio, cable news networks from around the world, local network news, and an abundance of news on the internet from journalistic sources everywhere. There most definately is a code of ethics among credible journalists when it comes to reporting stories and checking facts. This guy, Alex Jones, not only doesn't follow the code, but forgot to take his meds and fell into a sort of paranoid schizophrenic episode.

[selfimprovement]

The way to look at this is what will the country be like for the citizens after the election. A strong America is an America where people are in the unconditional responsibility for how they are creating their life. An Obama administration won't support people in being able to be responsible unless there is a huge shift in consciousness. So the question to ask yourself is... are the people around you able to make a monumental shift in consciousness? If not, then an Obama administration will dis-empower this country greatly to the point of where people would expect others to do it for them.

McCain will be a better candidate to support people being able to be unconditionally responsible for themselves, thus making a stronger America because everyone will be more likely and willing to stand in their own responsibility.

[Patty]

I've read Obama's autobiography, Dreams From My Father, written in 1995 after he became the first African American elected president of the Harvard Law Review and I've also read the undisputed facts about McCain's formative years. It makes me think of that quote about success....it's not where you are but how far you came to get to where you are. Obama absolutely defines personal responsibility! What an inspiration he is!

[yossarian]

Obama is not Jesus but he is a baby step in the right direction, and many small baby steps change the world. If it often those first few baby steps that are the hardest to take.

The bottom line is that Obama is the right DIRECTION, even if he is not perfect, he represents a change in the right direction. This is enough to justify voting.