HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
By Tom Pain
Sept. 16, 2006 I’ve often engaged in the mind-expanding trip of debating liberals, socialists, and Democrats. As illuminating as that can be for the average clinical psychiatrist, having spent my university days on the opposite end of the campus, it reminds me more of an earlier time, and grade, in my education. While the content of their arguments is squarely within the academic realm of those bearded, tweedy, tie-dyed, pipe-smoking professors, the logic and chain of evidence regresses towards my high school days, when hallucinogens were more in vogue than the powdery study aids of my college era. If you’ve ever taken Timothy Leary’s famous advice and wondered why you’ve not experienced the traumatic "flashbacks" the establishment warned would result, just talk to a liberal, socialist, or Democrat – the walls melt, colors intensify, and spiders spew from your navel. Don’t, I repeat, don’t, do this during your child-bearing years unless spatulas frequently disappear in your kitchen – in which case, a "flipper" baby will come in handy. Frequently, as you dodge spittle from a L-S-D, they will answer your honest questions with what are, essentially, conspiracy theories comprising random, disconnected events that on the surface can seem connected which sufficient applications of ’shrooms, peyote, and other, non-organic, psychedelics. At every critical juncture in these theories, the required piece of solid evidence is missing. However, you might just as well point out the absence of wings to the tripper about to demonstrate his ability to fly off the dorm building’s roof, as point out that absence of evidence to the L-S-D. Both logic and bird-to-be fall to the ground with a "splat." The L-S-D typically dismisses your request for evidence with ethereal explanations that basically say, "Whoa, dude, the pigs and fat cats are copping out, man. They got some bad acid or something, man. It ain’t groovy, you need to split that scene. Here, I got some good s**t, pop this tab." (Translation: "Republicans or Bush is just lying.") That’s the gist of their argument - Presidents, government bureaucrats, the governments of our allies, Senate investigating committees, and anyone else that opposes their view are just colored chips in a kaleidoscope of lies. Catch an L-S-D after he’s come down, and before the next trip, and he’ll offer another rationale – "Hey man, I’m hip to the establishment’s lies, I know because they don’t say anything." (Translation: The proof that Republicans / Bush are lying is that they don’t say what I think the truth is.) Here’s an example culled from our Rebuttals section, from a U-K L-S-D: The proof that Bush conspired to justify the Iraq war by exaggerating Iraqi attempts to secure uranium is that he has not provided the Top Secret evidence that proves they did. Of course, if Bush had done so, it would reveal our intelligence-gathering methods to the enemy. And strong circumstantial evidence has been presented by civilian researchers, but that means nothing to him. It his psychedelic world, nothing equals something, even if the explanation of nothing makes perfect sense. Another outrageous example of that duplicity is the L-S-D nutjobs that claim a government conspiracy was responsible for blowing up the Pentagon on 9/11. It was not a hijacked plane that slammed into the building, it was a missile. Ask them about the planeload of Americans that never made it to its destination that day, and all you get are dreamy descriptions of the colorful flames from the Pentagon fire. "There was no plane," they tell you, "that is just a government lie with cooperation from the airlines." Of course, the families of those passengers still wonder what happened to their loved ones. Pop a tab yourself; buy into these hallucinations. Even as you dance among the daisies, eventually you start to ask yourself, "Where is everyone else?" (Mr. Leary warned not to take a trip by yourself) It would take the complicity of dozens, if not hundreds or thousands, of people to pull off these conspiracies alleged. Yet, although news leaks seem epidemic today, none of these many people ever leak any proof that these conspiracies happened. Tired of fighting these idiots, I’ve decided to adopt their strategy for once. I’ve dreamed up a massive conspiracy involving liberals - albeit, without psychedelic assistance. If the L-S-Ds deny it, they’re just lying. To wit: ABC News, like the rest of the major network news stations, has a major credibility problem. They are rightly seen as biased and liberal. I believe that they hatched a plan to appear more balanced, without actually doing so. A recent news item receiving major coverage is the supposed lies contained in an ABC documentary, "The Path to 9/11." Supporters of the Clinton administration, and "BJ" Clinton himself, have heartily complained about inaccurate portrayals in the film of several people and events in that administration suggesting failures on their part to prevent 9/11 or capture/kill Osama bin Laden. It appears their complaints are accurate and that ABC edited the show before it was aired to meet their demands. It is my belief that including those inaccuracies was intentional and meant to make ABC seem to be just as biased to the right, on occasion, as they are to the left, on occasion – the perception of fair and balanced. As part of the scheme, Clinton was included at the outset so he could garner PR as a man defending his honor. By proving the inaccuracy of parts of the portrayal of his administration, it casts doubt over all of the portrayal of his administration that will be seen in the film. Now, ABC is free to edit the film to remove any responsibility for 9/11 from BJ, and present a more liberal perspective – which they wanted to do all along but could not have gotten away with except for this strategy. Of course, the resulting publicity from these contrived events also worked to create interest in the film and increase ratings. It’s a win/win for the liberals! Needless to say, I can’t prove this – just as the liberals can’t prove their hallucinations. But I ask you, do you think it more likely that the President is a lying, blood-thirsty war monger who schemed blow up the Pentagon, than it is likely that the media are propagandists looking to increase liberal support? Did Bush absolutely know that Iraq had not sought uranium, and choose to invade the country anyway, or did ABC use the old "tail wags the dog" strategy? And compare this film to any of the propaganda films disparaging Republicans that have been released. Were the Republicans’ complaints heeded? Were their complaints even given the airplay, the detail, that Clinton’s were? The films came out exactly as produced, with cries of encouragement and explanations of the lies as "reasonable conclusions" by liberals. Remember L-S-Ds, if you disagree with this theory, you’re lying and I can prove it by citing what you didn’t say. ------------ About the author Tom Pain: Just an American boy with so much common sense, it hurts. Email: thomas.pain@hughes.net Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
