Welcome to Gaia! ::

Some people have a real problem with thinking that the whole world is out tgo get them. No matter how they try everything is their enemy. Some of them choose to isolate those feelings into doomsday theories so that they can feel validated in their feelings as others think the same things.

Soon enough they actually start to believe themselves and in turn form a public that others that began the same way they did can feel validated in front of.

(Sorry I'm not doing very well articulating my thoughts right now but I think you can get the gist of my thinking.)

I, myself, am one of those "Loonies".

I think that the presidents (the grand majority anyway) where free masons, 9/11 was (to at least some extent) planned/executed by your government, and JFK was shot by more than one individual.
That doesn't make me think you're insane if you don't agree, I just don't think you're right. Zippity-doo-da.
That's what America was founded on; freedom on all levels, so shouldn't that be especially true in our own minds?

Basically making the generalization that theorist=hostile-and-insane is making the McCarthy-style leap that Communist/Socialist/Marxist=(Not only the same thing but also)Radical Terrorist.

Side-Note; I'm also a Socialist.


(And this probably SO alienated me)

I don't think Non-Capitalists are Radical Terrorists, nor do I think the US government is free of blame from 9/11. There are some facts that point towards some presidents being free masons, but I wouldn't know much about that. I'm honestly not well-informed enough to form an opinion on conspiracy theories or lack thereof.

I'd rather play Sudoku than talk about the government, even if that makes me a lamb in the minds of the more radical thinkers.

Please . . .

If you're going to associate yourself with the term "conspiracy theorist," the least you can do is acknowledge that the word "theorist" implies making a hypothesis, not a conclusion, and more evidence and information is necessary to prove that anything you would dub a "conspiracy theory" is an absolute fact.

I won't call you "insane," but I will say you are in no position to say who is right and who is wrong if all you have are theories.

But you're certainly defining the term "conspiracy theorist" in a way that is completely different from the definition accepted by society if you're going to assert that what you believe is actually something greater than a theory (in other words, not a theory).

The way I look at it is this;
You could call Buddhism Christianity, a Rose a Tulip or a rock a cloud; does that make those things what you're calling them? ******** no. My point being that I may use the word "theory", does that mean it's what I truly think it is?

Again, by the same coin, by using the name "Commie" I've given the connotation that I'm anti-American or in the least more supportive of a foreign power.
Does that mean I am? No. Does that mean it's the title I like? No. Will the majority recognize it? Yes.
I'm sorry for attempting to make this easy.

If you're going to peck and prod at the terminology that society has deemed and my use of it to give people a better idea of my beliefs (in a non-religious sense), then I doubt this will develop into anymore than a vocabulary-based pissing-contest.
Of which I do not care to partake.

LV; I don't seem to be following completely, who are the "those people"? The "Theorists"?
If so, yes, it would be in all facets of modern society and all we've come to know as "Everyday Life" would be stricken right through with a bold-face marker.

But isn't that happening right now? With governmental actions slowly seeping into our personal lives and becoming no better than the Totalitarian states we faced off with in the 40s and 50s, how do we have any guarantee that our current lives won't be disrupted tomorrow? Blind trust in our government.

Now I don't mean to say that in such a manner as to attempt to make you or anyone else sound ignorant, I'm just saying; the only thing that's assuring tomorrow's freedom today is the government's whimsy.

My main example is that of the Patriot's Act. This Act (now in effect) allows the government with so much as the suspicion you're a "Terrorist", which is just this generation's go-to-guy, they can override your fourth Amendment rights allowing them full access to all your items, information and otherwise without warrant or consent.
This also branches out as to include wire-tapping and other listening implants in "Undesirable" homes.

Maybe I'm paranoid,
maybe you're scared,
maybe a rocket will fall out of the sky and ignite all persons wearing green with white phosphorous.

Who knows?

Thank you for confessing your love of ******** and raping 8-year-olds. Your statements have been forwarded to the proper authorities.



But did you really confess to that? ******** no. My point being that, contrary to what every single person on Gaia with socialist and communist ideals I've happened to cross paths with wants to argue, language cannot be this subjective. If words and language could be interpreted this freely on an individual level and any word can mean, literally, anything, then communication between two or more people and the sharing of ideas would be completely impossible, and if I can't subjectively interpret everything you just said as a criminal confession, then we can't supply any definition we want to the words "Buddhism," "rock," "rose," and "theory" other than the ones recognized in an English dictionary.



This is a non-issue and completely irrelevant. The impressions (that's what the word "connotation" implies--a personal impression) people have of something based on individual preferences, values, and experiences has absolutely nothing to do with what a word REALLY means and fails to explain ANYTHING being discussed here.



You're replacing the definition for the term "theory" with the one for "fact" and are very likely using the word (in the way you're using it) to describe events which lack sufficient evidence in order to be called "fact" in the first place. Quite frankly, if any word you are using can potentially mean something other than what it means in English, I'm not sure if anyone you're trying to convey an idea towards, myself included, can determine what your beliefs actually are. If you want people to properly understand you, cut the bullshit and use English words the way they're intended to be used.



The Constitution of the United States of America and the system of checks and balances detailed within it, for one. The only reason why the Executive Branch managed get anything done was because of support from both the House of Representatives and Senate, but with a Democratic majority in both Houses now, we have a divided government, and with the president's approval rating hovering around 25%, the Executive Branch is less likely to get any support from Congress.



This system of government was intentionally designed to prevent something like this from ever happening! The president can't just wake up one morning and say, "You know, I think I'm going to persecute everyone who speaks negatively of me today." One, it's against the Constitution so he can't decide on a whim to do such a thing without being tried with treason. Two, he would need support from 3/4 of Congress to amend the Constitution to give him this kind of authority, and he would never receive that much support from the legislature so he could do something as selfish as that.



The key phrase here is "with so much as the suspicion that you're a terrorist." Are you conspiring to commit mass murder on US soil for the sole purpose of dismantling the United States government? If not, then the government isn't interested in your phone calls and e-mail.

Also, if one of the key requirements for issuing a warrant is suspicion of a crime, as stated in the 4th Amendment, and the USA PATRIOT Act requires such suspicion in order for these powers to be exercised, how exactly is this overriding my 4th Amendment rights? Additionally, consent is irrelevant if they have suspicion and a warrant.