ARE DUers "OBSESSESED WITH THE NEED FOR CONSPIRACY?"

[JohnWxy]

I recently saw a poll placed on DU which appeared to be asking the question "Are Duers obsessed with the need for conspiracy. But it wasn't a question. It was phrased as a statement: "DUers are obsessed with the need for conspiracy" - which was followed by a question mark.

What was purported to be 'poll' offered two rediculous scenarios:

The tragic mistakes in West Virginia were actually an attempt by the Bush administration to disparage East Coast media outlets?

The fact that some of the 9/11 Hijackers took a gambling cruise on Jack Abramoff's ill gotten boat is proof positive that Bush knew that the attacks were coming.

Now you could vote "Yes" or "No" - but what are you voting for?:

Does "Yes" mean "yes, DUers are obsessed with the need for conspiracy" meaning the scenarios offered are indeed rediculous and DUers generally believe them and are idiots.

or "No" meaning that DUers are NOT "obsessed with the need for conspiracy" meaning these absurd scenarios ARE believable - which means you are an idiot.


Now some people may have thought voting "No" meant you were saying

- these scenarios are rediculous and nobody would believe them. But according to the "question" (actually it was a statement followed by a question mark, in the subject line ("Poll question: DUers are obsessed with the need for conspiracy ?") - a no vote meant "NO DUers are NOT obsessed with the need for conspiraacy and these scenarios are therefor, believable" !!

... and that voting "Yes" meant these rediculous scenarios ARE believable, which would mean YOU are an idiot.


Now, I don't know for sure what is going on here, but could this be an attempt by "certain parties" to make DUers look like complete idiots - or to denigrate any questioning of official propaganda. Keep in mind those same "certain parties" could very well be the people voting in the poll!

Just thought I would make this observation. REmember there are people out there who seek to disrupt any attempts at real communications by people attempting to find out what is really going on. Note: I am NOT saying the person presenting this poll even understands that they MAY have been duped into something. These scenarios could have been raised on DU before being mentioned in the poll but then, they could have been posted by those same "certain parties" who then answered the "poll".

[MADem]

1. Two good ways to handle a lousy poll question

1--Challenge the premise, the question itself, and/or the wording. Call for clarity.

2--Ignore the thing, and watch it sink like a stone. The bad ones usually do.

[patdem]

2. Certainly sounds like YOU believe in conspiracy theories! n/t

[TheWatcher]

6. Considering how many of those so-called conspiracy therioes have become

News stories, I think he has a valid reason to.

[JohnWxy]

15. REgarding techniques of Disruption of communications

What I am talking about is the Neo-con program of undermining public debate of issues. It involves disruption, disinformation and the promotion of phony controversies. It also involves attempts to denigrate critical thinking and asking questions and not accepting simple programmed answers from those in power.

I suppose most DUers have DU on their Favorites list and don't arrive here by using Google. But if you Google "Democratic Underground" look at the second and third hard links in the list:

The 10 Worst Quotes From The Democratic Underground For 2003 ...
Right Wing News is the best source on the net for conservative news, views, &
interviews.
www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/du.php - 24k - Cached - Similar pages

Right Wing News (Conservative News and Views)
Michael Moore & The Democratic Underground Post Of The Day: Nazi Traitors In The
White House. Look out -- there are Nazi traitors in the White House -- or ...
www.rightwingnews.com/archives/week_2003_10_12.PHP - 76k - Cached - Similar pages
< More results from www.rightwingnews.com >

I am talking about the Neo-con tactics undermining of effective communications thriugh disruption and dissinformation. These activiites have been widely discussed by others.

I suggest you read The Republican Noise Machine by David Brock. Look up Grover Norquist and Frank Luntz in the index and see what Brocks has to say about their activities. This book is perhaps one of the most important books written in the last 15 years.

Another good read (so as to not lose the forest for the trees) is Banana Republicans by Rampton and Stauber.

Here is a bit from the above link to THe Nation article on Norquist (emphasis my own):

Launched in 1993 to rally conservatives against President Clinton's healthcare plan, Norquist's invitation-only, off-the-record Wednesday meetings started small, with a dozen or so activists in attendance; a year later, it had grown to forty-five, including representatives of the National Rifle Association, on whose board Norquist serves; the Christian Coalition; the Heritage Foundation; and staffers from Gingrich's office. Since the arrival of President Bush, attendance has climbed to more than a hundred--including representatives of the White House, the Republican National Committee and the House and Senate leadership. Reporters and editors from conservative media outlets are frequent attendees, along with a smattering of corporate lobbyists.

At one recent meeting, topics of discussion ranged from a report on allegedly wasteful federal spending to the campaign of a potential challenger to a Democratic Congressional incumbent. Norquist introduced the day's speakers and allotted ten or fifteen minutes to each. "The meeting functions as the weekly checklist so that everybody knows what's up, what to do," says Kellyanne Fitzpatrick, a conservative pollster who has been a regular attendee for years. Often, more informal get-togethers--along with fundraisers and dinner parties--take place at Norquist's Capitol Hill home, where, she says, the door is always open "and there is always Chinese food."

...and from the link on Luntz:

Reprimanded
According to Salon.com, "In 1997, Luntz was formally reprimanded by the American Association for Public Opinion Research for his work polling on the GOP's 1994 'Contract with America' campaign document. Luntz told the media that everything in the contract had the support of at least 60 percent of the general public. Considering the elementary phrasing of that document (stop violent criminals, protect our kids, strong national defense), it seems almost laughably uncontroversial. But one of AAPOR's 1,400 members wasn't so amused, and filed a complaint requesting to see Luntz's research and a verification of the figure. Luntz's response? He couldn't reveal the information because of client confidentiality." 4

and about the Banana Republicans:

Banana Republicans is the latest book by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber of the Center for Media and Democracy. The bestselling authors of Weapons of Mass Deception lay bare how the "right-wing conspiracy," as represented by the national GOP and its functionaries in the media, lobbying establishment and electoral system, is undermining dissent and squelching pluralistic politics in America.

How a GOP echo chamber methodically spreads its views through conservative media giants and highly placed columnists, journalists, and opinion makers.

How, even within its own environs, the national Republican Party has squelched disagreement and moderation, stripping traditional oversight agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, of mission and influence.

How GOP leaders have strong-armed powerful lobbying firms into exclusively hiring Republicans, so that even K Street is political, rather than merely opportunistic.

How corporate-funded think tanks and Republican Party pundits have equated disagreement with treason, and the government has used its power to punish dissent.

Also read Worse than Watergate by John Dean and The Book on Bush by Eric Alterman.

ANy books you have read on the subject, that you would like to recommend to me, I would certainly be interested in hearing about.

[Redstone]

3. I don't have any doubt about the integrity of the DUer who posted

that poll. Why do you?

And why so long after the fact?

Redstone

[JohnWxy]

17. I did, the same day, more than once

nobody should be immune to questioning, right?

I don't get on here every day, howerver.

[soothsayer]

4. That's what THEY want you to believe....

[leftstreet]

5. LOL! n/t

[fooj]

7. I have a question...

Where in this definition does it imply "conspiracy" equals "crazy"?

con·spir·a·cy (kn-spîr-s) KEY

NOUN:
pl. con·spir·a·cies
1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.
3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.

Just another "Let the RW define us" moment...

Peace.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

8. This is one of the most whacked out conspiracy theories I've seen on DU

congrats on that.

Oh, and were you saying that anyone who voted yes are Idiots? I didn't even see the poll, but I wouldn't need to in order to know that calling DU'ers Idiots is not gonna get you very far.

[Zodiak]

9. I posted on the thread

but refused to participate in the poll because the wording was biased and based upon the premise that unusual hypotheses should be disparaged as "conspiracy theories", citing a couple of examples that hardly represent the mainstream DUer's ideas of reality.

I traded licks with the OPer and that was that.

I did not think it anything more than poor wording and a little haughtiness on the OP's part (I personally do not like threads designed just to disparage other DUers), and I stated it as such. I do not think it was an advertent or inadvertent attempt to give ammo to freepers, though.

[Al-CIAda]

10. OT: Putting a question mark at the end of a declarative statement is a

pet peeve of mine as well. It is the typing version of what is referred to as 'upspeak'.

ex:"I'm going to the store?"

...er, I don't know, are you?

[Beelzebud]

11. Why are you asking these questions? WHO do YOU work for?

:D

[djeseru]

12. Hmm, not sure about this one...

...let me put on my tinfoil hat to think it over... :D

[applegrove]

13. We need to define conspiracy theory. Really - it is just name calling

when people in power start to get found out. But if you believe in something for which there is no proof and you are not witness to it - and there is years and years of proof otherwise - then you may be a conspiracy theorist.

When you are dealing with a nepharious like Rove or some of the neocons (who love the dark arts), you do have to look under the hood. We all speculate. You just have to be discerning.

Yes you are right - much of the looking under the hood has shown a pattern of lies. So in some instances and in many cases (abrahamoff, plame, election 2000, games in election 2004, yes - they are getting together to plot bad stuff in order to gain some semblance of self esteem for themselves (socipaths have no inherent self- esteem, they have to steal it every day from people and see their greatness reflected back).

So yes - people who think Bush did 9/11 are conspiracy theorists. People who don't trust the neocons - well neocons are not exactly hiding - they are very well known and have published their papers all over the place - and their utopian visions and it is obvious they want to experiment and force it on all sorts of areas - so to be called a conspiracy theorist when it is obvious - that is just plain stupid on the part of the person who is call ing you the conspiracy theorist. Like the neocons are not well known for being "crazies" and "working together" & "cultlike". All that stuff is out on the table and is obvious.

So be discerning. And if you don't know the absolute answer to something 1) because you were not witness 2) a pattern of evidence from witness has not developed, than just say you are speculating.

Once it has been debuncked by proof - proof by the witness(es) - then you must say "that theory is not true".

Of course there are people who pretend one thing and are another - and they are mess up in this administration. And some of them are facing justice and some of them never will. And it is not wrong to not put anything past these people - especially for the victims of these monsters. Victims are witnesses. But you don't know until you have a pattern of witness statements or unless you are a witness yourself.

Let's not let the word scare us. Let's take it on like we have everything else. Let's own that word. So they cannot throw it around to shut us up or divide us.

Rule of thumb - if you are speculating - admit it.

[stopbush]

14. Rumour has it that there's a conspiracy at DU to keep

conspiracy theory threads going like mad. :)

[rucky]

16. It's a conspiracy of rotten spelling!

sorry.