Is Belief in Chemtrails a Bad Thing?

[Joe]

Debunking their fears would work, but in a sense, chemtrails is one of those theories that are based on fear, for why else would people have interest in chemtrails? Mostly the concerns that people bring up with regards to chemtrails boils down to either planes are out there trying to poison us, or they are out there trying to solve global warming while consequently also negatively affecting our health. Whichever way it is, they don't like it, and the only reason not to like it boils down to some kind of fear. If the belief is that it won't affect us in anyway, I don't see the chemtrail theory gaining much traction in interest.

In 1967 we lived on a dead end street with woods at the end . They would fog out the woods with DDT which at the time was considered safe . We played in the fog of DDT . Where were the conspiracy theorist then to warn us ? Just tell them it Geoengineering and David Keith is a nice guy . There has been no attacks against any airliners by the Chemmies .

 

[Joe]

If the folks that never say anything are the most dangerous, then what is dangerous is the BELIEF itself. The belief, couped with the natural fear that some have of anything they don't really understand. Fertile ground for someone to react.

Most scientists agree that the Earth is entering a period of major climate change. At the least, there is ample evidence that human activity is making it worse. Just because you prefer warm weather to cold, doesn't mean we can afford to ignore the impact on others. Of course, one would need to care about folks in other areas.

Climate has been changing for billions of years . A warmer planet may benefit mankind . What if we went into another Ice age ? Most scientist are payed by government making them Shills for the government and the Carbon Tax fraudsters . I could give you multiple examples of beliefs that are dangerous . It is a dangerous world we live in . and it has always been that way. You sound like Cass Sunstein ? ​

 

[RolandD]

In 1967 we lived on a dead end street with woods at the end . They would fog out the woods with DDT which at the time was considered safe . We played in the fog of DDT . Where were the conspiracy theorist then to warn us ? Just tell them it Geoengineering and David Keith is a nice guy . There has been no attacks against any airliners by the Chemmies .

How does this compare? DDT was never a secret. When the dangers of it were finally determined, it was banned world wide, even though controlled use could still be beneficial.

 

[Cairenn]

Let me ask you this, should the US and countries with 'high land' allow residents of places like many island nations and low lying countries to emmigrate to them? Millions of folks will lose their land. They will need to be resettled somewhere else. Why not in the coutries that made the problem worse?

 

[Joe]

How does this compare? DDT was never a secret. When the dangers of it were finally determined, it was banned world wide, even though controlled use could still be beneficial.

Its danger was a secret . When were the dangers determined ? I believe it would have saved more lives then taken . Maybe it wasnt a danger at all ? Maybe the fact that it would have saved too many lives in the third world is why it was banned ? But that's just another conspiracy . Or maybe we are all just looking for answers to questions and since we live in a world of lies and deception no one knows who to believe ? Should conspiracies be banned ? Maybe religion too ? Or Freethinking ?

 

[Joe]

Let me ask you this, should the US and countries with 'high land' allow residents of places like many island nations and low lying countries to emmigrate to them? Millions of folks will lose their land. They will need to be resettled somewhere else. Why not in the coutries that made the problem worse?

what about all the frozen land that becomes avalable ? Have you seen what Maldives looks like ? A sandbar ? We have feet for a reason .

 

[Rico]

In 1967 we lived on a dead end street with woods at the end . They would fog out the woods with DDT which at the time was considered safe . We played in the fog of DDT . Where were the conspiracy theorist then to warn us ? Just tell them it Geoengineering and David Keith is a nice guy . There has been no attacks against any airliners by the Chemmies .

Eh? DDT and chemtrails are two different things, and at least you know they were doing it. With chemtrails, there is currently no good evidence to indicate they are spraying, especially not in regards to the white streaks you see in the air. You seem to imply that the conspiracy theorist is some sort of champion because he has his suspicions, but that's a little bit unreasonable when there is nothing to go on and what 'evidence' that currently exist can so easily be debunked.

As to no attacks against any airliner by chemmies, perhaps not. However, there have been pilots being harassed by chemmies, and there are certainly ample of threats. Every once in a while I would see on the news of someone aiming lasers at airplanes and pilots getting eye injuries from such attacks, and coincidentally, I also sometimes hear of chemtrail theorists bragging about doing the same thing. While I cannot concisely form a link without evidence, it sometimes does beg the question 'if' there is a link, and in this case, it's a little more justified.

In any case, what if one day they do end up shooting down a civilian airliner? A lot of the 'evidence' cited by chemtrail theorists do have civilian airliners in them after all. What then? Pray that that day never happens, but if it does, there are some conspiracy theorists of whom I think should be carrying the blame, particularly if the information they keep bringing up has been wrong all along.

 

[MikeC]

Continued belief in something that you have been shown is rubbish is, at eh least, indicative of gullibility.

So from that point of view belief in chemtrails is useful for con artists as it identifies potential marks.

 

[Joe]

Eh? DDT and chemtrails are two different things, and at least you know they were doing it. With chemtrails, there is currently no good evidence to indicate they are spraying, especially not in regards to the white streaks you see in the air. You seem to imply that the conspiracy theorist is some sort of champion because he has his suspicions, but that's a little bit unreasonable when there is nothing to go on and what 'evidence' that currently exist can so easily be debunked.

As to no attacks against any airliner by chemmies, perhaps not. However, there have been pilots being harassed by chemmies, and there are certainly ample of threats. Every once in a while I would see on the news of someone aiming lasers at airplanes and pilots getting eye injuries from such attacks, and coincidentally, I also sometimes hear of chemtrail theorists bragging about doing the same thing. While I cannot concisely form a link without evidence, it sometimes does beg the question 'if' there is a link, and in this case, it's a little more justified.

In any case, what if one day they do end up shooting down a civilian airliner? A lot of the 'evidence' cited by chemtrail theorists do have civilian airliners in them after all. What then? Pray that that day never happens, but if it does, there are some conspiracy theorists of whom I think should be carrying the blame, particularly if the information they keep bringing up has been wrong all along.

Sounds like your fear mongering ? Lasers ? That would be kind of hard unless they are landing to get it in their eyes at least in a commercial airliner . Just because you disagree with someone on whether or not chemtrails are real doesnt mean you can blame all of them for making threats . Should they be banned ? maybe take all of hem and stick them in a FEMA camp with Alex Jones ? Freedom can be dangerous sometimes . Muslims ran planes into buildings because of their beliefs should we ban Islam ? We havent yet ?

 

[Joe]

Continued belief in something that you have been shown is rubbish is, at eh least, indicative of gullibility.

So from that point of view belief in chemtrails is useful for con artists as it identifies potential marks.

Ok what about Religion ? Some say its rubbish ? some say they are all con artist ? Some say they are gullible ? Should we ban Religion ? Its called Freedom of Expression .

 

[Rico]

Sounds like your fear mongering ? Lasers ? That would be kind of hard unless they are landing to get it in their eyes at least in a commercial airliner . Just because you disagree with someone on whether or not chemtrails are real doesnt mean you can blame all of them for making threats . Should they be banned ? maybe take all of hem and stick them in a FEMA camp with Alex Jones ? Freedom can be dangerous sometimes . Muslims ran planes into buildings because of their beliefs should we ban Islam ? We havent yet ?

I wasn't blaming them, and as I said, I do not have evidence to link them. It does beg the question, however, and the 'threats' are a valid concern. If something does happen because a plane was shot down for suspected 'spraying', then they should carry the responsibilities as well, especially if they had been spewing out information that was wrong.

And yeah, lasers. Stuff like this: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/07/jetblue-pilot-suffers-eye-injury-from-green-laser/. No, it may not have been a chemmie, but these occurrences happen a lot (thousands of reported cases in fact), and I do know that some theorists actually say that they've aimed lasers at planes.

Also, as a point note, I'm not imposing blame on people for their beliefs alone. People can believe what they want. It's when these beliefs leads to harm on others where such people should really take on the burden of responsibility. Putting faith into debunked rubbish that subsequently instills fear in others that would make them exclaim threats, for instance.

 

[Pete Tar]

Sounds like your fear mongering ? Lasers ? That would be kind of hard unless they are landing to get it in their eyes at least in a commercial airliner . ...

No it happens, and it's a serious offence. Kind of similar to people who throw rocks at cars from overpasses. It's sociopathic.

 

[Joe]

Any single threat should be addressed towards the person making the threat . If You threatened me I cant blame Metabunk or anyone else . To say that someones belief in Chemtrails or anything is bad is denying them their right to free expression or freedom of speech . Freedom of speech is to protect all speech even that which some may find offensive . Freedom can be dangerous . We need to deal with people as individuals not blame all for the few .

 

[JRBids]

In some respects, I agree, but only partially. I think people are entitled to their beliefs, but it also depends on the context of such belief and how it influences others.

Chemtrails, in my opinion, isn't exactly a healthy belief. It is nothing like spirituality or anything that is there to benefit individuals. The interest in chemtrails lies strictly in conspiracy and/or a proposed threat. The greater problem of this particular theory adds to the fact that it targets real airplanes with real people no matter which angle you support. We're not just talking about governments here; people are looking up at real planes and saying they are a threat, and this has escalated to the point where some people are trying to do something about it through violence. To make this problem worst, much of the proposed evidence involves pictures taken showing regular civilian airliners and nothing else substantial. It is precisely the same as framing someone for a crime going off suspicion alone without sufficient evidence to prove it.

Quite frankly though, I don't mind if a person just believes in chemtrails. It's when they band together and spew out poor evidence, non-contextual information, and making claims saying they are true in-spite of it all while antagonizing real planes and real people where belief in chemtrails can indeed be a bad thing.

In some ways CTers have a religion though. Have their own lingo: sheeple, banksters, fraudsters, shill. It's own chants: WAKE UP! LOOK UP! It's a cult-like religion too, if you disagree with any of them you're banned from their forums or videos. Even has threats just like a religion: one day you'll see we were right then you'll be sorry. And like religion, some would say it's chief belief is in the existence of something imaginary.

 

[Rico]

Any single threat should be addressed towards the person making the threat . If You threatened me I cant blame Metabunk or anyone else . To say that someones belief in Chemtrails or anything is bad is denying them their right to free expression or freedom of speech . Freedom of speech is to protect all speech even that which some may find offensive . Freedom can be dangerous . We need to deal with people as individuals not blame all for the few .

Hypothetical scenario:

If 'Mr. A' kills an innocent person because 'Mr. B' convinced Mr. A that that innocent person was a threat when really that person was not, who should take the blame? Should it be only 'Mr. A' who carried out the deed take the blame, or should 'Mr. B' be responsible as well for convincing 'Mr. A' to do this?

 

[Joe]

No it happens, and it's a serious offence. Kind of similar to people who throw rocks at cars from overpasses. It's sociopathic.

I meant his fear mongering of shooting down planes . I know its serious offense . But just because a Chemmie says he does it doesnt mean he telling the truth . He would be stupid to admit it . He would be stupid to lie about it too .

 

[Mick West]

I meant his fear mongering of shooting down planes . I know its serious offense . But just because a Chemmie says he does it doesnt mean he telling the truth . He would be stupid to admit it . He would be stupid to lie about it too .

Plenty of stupid people point lasers at planes. Plenty of stupid people own guns. It's a very real concern.

 

[Joe]

Hypothetical scenario:

If 'Mr. A' kills an innocent person because 'Mr. B' convinced Mr. A that that innocent person was a threat when really that person was not, who should take the blame? Should it be only 'Mr. A' who carried out the deed take the blame, or should 'Mr. B' be responsible as well for convincing 'Mr. A' to do this?

Sure if I was watching [h=1]An Inconvenient Truth and decided to attack a oil executive should Al gore be blamed ? For my crime and my stupidity ? Its like everyone on this form wants to blame everyone for a individuals action ???? We are not BORG we are not a Collective we are Individuals ! Blame only the individual . [/h]

 

[JRBids]

Sure if I was watching An Inconvenient Truth and decided to attack a oil executive should Al gore be blamed ? For my crime and my stupidity ? Its like everyone on this form wants to blame everyone for a individuals action ???? We are not BORG we are not a Collective we are Individuals ! Blame only the individual .

People blame music for things too. I do think, though, that a MOVEMENT whose aim (other than whining on forums) is to stop "them" from poisoning us, bears more responsibility for the actions of its followers.

 

[Joe]

Plenty of stupid people point lasers at planes. Plenty of stupid people own guns. It's a very real concern.

Mick there has always been stupid people and with the state of our education system it isn't getting any better . Plenty of stupid people driving , Plenty of stupid people running some countries too .

 

[Joe]

People blame music for things too. I do think, though, that a MOVEMENT whose aim (other than whining on forums) is to stop "them" from poisoning us, bears more responsibility for the actions of its followers.

Sure Rap Music seems a bit more of a danger to society . But that its still freedom of speech .

 

[Mick West]

Sure if I was watching An Inconvenient Truth and decided to attack a oil executive should Al gore be blamed ? For my crime and my stupidity ? Its like everyone on this form wants to blame everyone for a individuals action ???? We are not BORG we are not a Collective we are Individuals ! Blame only the individual .

So if I hire someone to kill someone, then I'm not responsible, because I did not do it?

If I encourage a crazy guy to knife a bum, then am I not responsible?

If I repeatedly and convincingly tell a crazy guy that planes are poisoning him with Morgellons, and he shoots a plane in the fuel tank, and 203 people die? Is what I did not at least in the realms of "a bad thing"?

 

[Joe]

"Conspiracy Theories" and government infiltration

Sunstein co-authored a 2008 paper with Adrian Vermeule, titled "Conspiracy Theories," dealing with the risks and possible government responses to false conspiracy theories resulting from "cascades" of faulty information within groups that may ultimately lead to violence. In this article they wrote, "The existence of both domestic and foreign conspiracy theories, we suggest, is no trivial matter, posing real risks to the government’s antiterrorism policies, whatever the latter may be." They go on to propose that, "the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups",where they suggest, among other tactics, "Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action." They refer, several times, to groups that promote the view that the US Government was responsible or complicit in the September 11 attacks as "extremist groups." They also suggest responses: "We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories."
Sunstein and Vermeule also analyze the practice of recruiting "nongovernmental officials"; they suggest that "government can supply these independent experts with information and perhaps prod them into action from behind the scenes," further warning that "too close a connection will be self-defeating if it is exposed." Sunstein and Vermeule argue that the practice of enlisting non-government officials, "might ensure that credible independent experts offer the rebuttal, rather than government officials themselves. There is a tradeoff between credibility and control, however. The price of credibility is that government cannot be seen to control the independent experts." This position has been criticized by some commentators, who argue that it would violate prohibitions on government propaganda aimed at domestic citizens. Sunstein and Vermeule's proposed infiltrations have also been met by sharply critical scholarly critiques.
Sunstein responded to criticism, captured on video, and claimed: "I have written hundreds of articles, and I remember some and not others. That one I don’t remember very well.... But whatever was said in that article, my role in government is to oversee federal rulemaking in a way that is wholly disconnected from the vast majority of my academic writing, including that.'

Content from External Source

 

[JRBids]

Sure Rap Music seems a bit more of a danger to society . But that its still freedom of speech .

I'm not following where anyone wants to prohibit someone's freedom of speech. Saying that comments like "I'd like to buy a missile" "We need a few SAMs" or "Someone should shoot down a plane" are dangerous because they may give someone the idea to actually DO IT is the truth.

 

[Joe]

So if I hire someone to kill someone, then I'm not responsible, because I did not do it?

If I encourage a crazy guy to knife a bum, then am I not responsible?

If I repeatedly and convincingly tell a crazy guy that planes are poisoning him with Morgellons, and he shoots a plane in the fuel tank, and 203 people die? Is what I did not at least in the realms of "a bad thing"?

Thats not the same because you hired or told them to kill . If someone says to take a plane down then they are just as guilty . But that doesnt make the rest of the Chemmies responsible which is my point . You said a CRAZY guy . So like Lanza its the crazy guys fault . not his mom not his games not his gun . If someone told Adam that those kids were a threat to him then maybe he is to blame . But doubt they would find him guilty in a court . I dont by into the morgellons or even the fact that it dangerous at all . Its not up to me to convince them either. I do try sometimes .

 

[Joe]

I'm not following where anyone wants to prohibit someone's freedom of speech. Saying that comments like "I'd like to buy a missile" "We need a few SAMs" or "Someone should shoot down a plane" are dangerous because they may give someone the idea to actually DO IT is the truth.

Id like and I will are two different things . Id like to be a millionaire doesnt mean I will .

 

[Mick West]

Id like and I will are two different things . Id like to be a millionaire doesnt mean I will .

It means you would if you could.

 

[Joe]

It means you would if you could.

In that case yes . But destruction never !

 

[Mick West]

"Conspiracy Theories" and government infiltration

Sunstein co-authored a 2008 paper with Adrian Vermeule, titled "Conspiracy Theories," dealing with the risks and possible government responses to false conspiracy theories resulting from "cascades" of faulty information within groups that may ultimately lead to violence. In this article they wrote, "The existence of both domestic and foreign conspiracy theories, we suggest, is no trivial matter, posing real risks to the government’s antiterrorism policies, whatever the latter may be." They go on to propose that, "the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups",where they suggest, among other tactics, "Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action." They refer, several times, to groups that promote the view that the US Government was responsible or complicit in the September 11 attacks as "extremist groups." They also suggest responses: "We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories."
Sunstein and Vermeule also analyze the practice of recruiting "nongovernmental officials"; they suggest that "government can supply these independent experts with information and perhaps prod them into action from behind the scenes," further warning that "too close a connection will be self-defeating if it is exposed." Sunstein and Vermeule argue that the practice of enlisting non-government officials, "might ensure that credible independent experts offer the rebuttal, rather than government officials themselves. There is a tradeoff between credibility and control, however. The price of credibility is that government cannot be seen to control the independent experts." This position has been criticized by some commentators, who argue that it would violate prohibitions on government propaganda aimed at domestic citizens. Sunstein and Vermeule's proposed infiltrations have also been met by sharply critical scholarly critiques.
Sunstein responded to criticism, captured on video, and claimed: "I have written hundreds of articles, and I remember some and not others. That one I don’t remember very well.... But whatever was said in that article, my role in government is to oversee federal rulemaking in a way that is wholly disconnected from the vast majority of my academic writing, including that.'

Content from External Source

Have you read the paper? I mean really read it, and considered what each paragraph means.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1084585_code254274.pdf?abstractid=1084585&mirid=1

Because Luke Rudkowski, who did the YouTube hit piece quoted on Sunstein appear not to have read it, or is deliberately misunderstanding it.

At least read the abstract:

Many millions of people hold conspiracy theories; they believe that powerfulpeople have worked together in order to withhold the truth about some important
practice or some terrible event. A recent example is the belief, widespread in some parts
of the world, that the attacks of 9/11 were carried out not by Al Qaeda, but by Israel or
the United States. Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks,
including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant
challenges for policy and law. The first challenge is to understand the mechanisms by
which conspiracy theories prosper; the second challenge is to understand how such
theories might be undermined. Such theories typically spread as a result of identifiable
cognitive blunders, operating in conjunction with informational and reputational
influences. A distinctive feature of conspiracy theories is their self-sealing quality.
Conspiracy theorists are not likely to be persuaded by an attempt to dispel their theories;
they may even characterize that very attempt as further proof of the conspiracy. Because
those who hold conspiracy theories typically suffer from a “crippled epistemology,” in
accordance with which it is rational to hold such theories, the best response consists in
cognitive infiltration of extremist groups. Various policy dilemmas, such as the question
whether it is better for government to rebut conspiracy theories or to ignore them, are
explored in this light.

Content from External Source

Do you disagree with anything in that? Do you disagree with anything in Sunstein's paper?

 

[Joe]

Have you read the paper? I mean really read it, and considered what each paragraph means.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1084585_code254274.pdf?abstractid=1084585&mirid=1

Because Luke Rudkowski, who did the YouTube hit piece quoted on Sunstein appear not to have read it, or is deliberately misunderstanding it.

At least read the abstract:

Many millions of people hold conspiracy theories; they believe that powerfulpeople have worked together in order to withhold the truth about some important
practice or some terrible event. A recent example is the belief, widespread in some parts
of the world, that the attacks of 9/11 were carried out not by Al Qaeda, but by Israel or
the United States. Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks,
including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant
challenges for policy and law. The first challenge is to understand the mechanisms by
which conspiracy theories prosper; the second challenge is to understand how such
theories might be undermined. Such theories typically spread as a result of identifiable
cognitive blunders, operating in conjunction with informational and reputational
influences. A distinctive feature of conspiracy theories is their self-sealing quality.
Conspiracy theorists are not likely to be persuaded by an attempt to dispel their theories;
they may even characterize that very attempt as further proof of the conspiracy. Because
those who hold conspiracy theories typically suffer from a “crippled epistemology,” in
accordance with which it is rational to hold such theories, the best response consists in
cognitive infiltration of extremist groups. Various policy dilemmas, such as the question
whether it is better for government to rebut conspiracy theories or to ignore them, are
explored in this light.

Content from External Source

Do you disagree with anything in that? Do you disagree with anything in Sunstein's paper?

There are somethings I agree and some I disagree with . The reason conspiracies exist In my opinion is the investigations are incomplete . There is no trust in Politics . The main stream media doesnt do its job . So you get third parties like Alex Jones attempting to answer questions people want answers to . Cass Sunstein has some really strange beliefs and his wife Samantha Power and Soros is the reason for us in Libya Ill read it in full and let you know what I think . http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...mpion-samantha-power-to-chair-genocide-panel/

 

[JRBids]

There are somethings I agree and some I disagree with . The reason conspiracies exist In my opinion is the investigations are incomplete . There is no trust in Politics . The main stream media doesnt do its job . So you get third parties like Alex Jones attempting to answer questions people want answers to . Cass Sunstein has some really strange beliefs and his wife Samantha Power and Soros is the reason for us in Libya Ill read it in full and let you know what I think . http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...mpion-samantha-power-to-chair-genocide-panel/

Glenn Beck? Surprise surpise he connects "Mrs Cass Sunstein" (obviously Beck finds this perjorative in some way, I find it an effort to mimize her a woman) with his very own "spooky guy" Soros. Glenn Beck is just another guy who is getting very rich selling you his stuff and the stuff his sponsors sell. Alex Jones only wishes to aspire to his level of success one day. If I read the comments under any Blaze article I would be embarrassed to associate myself with his fans by citing him. I do miss checking in to listen to his insanity since he was removed from the radio, though.

Alex Jones, Glenn Beck, they don't attempt to answer questions, they attempt to scare as many people as possible into buying heirloom seeds, gold or whatever in by any means possible, even lying.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Joe,
I know that you find these threats of violence morally reprehensible.
My question to you is, this, what have you or any other chemtrails related website done about that?

I see Muslims that have organized against other Muslims who advocate violence.

What have you personally, or any other chemtrails believer ever done to stop this?
Because if you haven't, I'm wondering if you will, and how?
Can you give me a straight answer?

 

[Joe]

Joe,
I know that you find these threats of violence morally reprehensible.
My question to you is, this, what have you or any other chemtrails related website done about that?

I see Muslims that have organized against other Muslims who advocate violence.

What have you personally, or any other chemtrails believer ever done to stop this?
Because if you haven't, I'm wondering if you will, and how?
Can you give me a straight answer?

I only know of a few Muslims dr Zuhdi Jasser
. My site even though you disagree trys not to link fear , I barely go on other sites . actually Im here more ?

 

[Joe]

Glenn Beck? Surprise surpise he connects "Mrs Cass Sunstein" (obviously Beck finds this perjorative in some way, I find it an effort to mimize her a woman) with his very own "spooky guy" Soros. Glenn Beck is just another guy who is getting very rich selling you his stuff and the stuff his sponsors sell. Alex Jones only wishes to aspire to his level of success one day. If I read the comments under any Blaze article I would be embarrassed to associate myself with his fans by citing him. I do miss checking in to listen to his insanity since he was removed from the radio, though.

Alex Jones, Glenn Beck, they don't attempt to answer questions, they attempt to scare as many people as possible into buying heirloom seeds, gold or whatever in by any means possible, even lying.

Really and the what main stream media do you listen to ?

 

[Mick West]

treasurecoastskywatch is now known as "Joe".

 

[Mick West]

Really and the what main stream media do you listen to ?

I think it's interesting that there's a distinct difference between people like Beck and Jones on the one hand, and people like Olbermann, Maddow, and John Stewart on the other. It's the selling of stuff. Sure, Olberman and Stewart sell their own books sometimes, but that's perfectly reasonable. Beck and Jones though sell stuff for other people. They "shill" for stuff like gold coins, water filters, and safes - things that their message of fear promotes.



That always struck me as an indication of dishonesty,or at least a strong conflict of interest.

 

[Joe]

I think it's interesting that there's a distinct difference between people like Beck and Jones on the one hand, and people like Olbermann, Maddow, and John Stewart on the other. It's the selling of stuff. Sure, Olberman and Stewart sell their own books sometimes, but that's perfectly reasonable. Beck and Jones though sell stuff for other people. They "shill" for stuff like gold coins, water filters, and safes - things that their message of fear promotes.



That always struck me as an indication of dishonesty,or at least a strong conflict of interest.

Look at the price of gold ? Its called a target audience Fear is everywhere . I dont own Gold or a Liberty Safe . I dont agree with everything he says and he always says do your own research dont take my word . He sells lots of books . That is capitalism Mick . Why buy insurance other then the fact its mandatory . Fear of getting sick or crashing your car or your house blows away . Id say Jones goes overboard on fear bigtime ! Beck is trying to build a Media empire . he says the left has all of the networks minus Fox and thinks The Blaze will help tilt the balance somewhat . Look at the ratings Fox beats them all followed by Comedy central then the others like CNN MSNBC . Says a lot when a Comedy network beats out a news service for News ?

 

[Mick West]

Look at the price of gold ? Its called a target audience Fear is everywhere . I dont own Gold or a Liberty Safe . I dont agree with everything he says and he always says do your own research dont take my word . He sells lots of books . That is capitalism Mick . Why buy insurance other then the fact its mandatory . Fear of getting sick or crashing your car or your house blows away . Id say Jones goes overboard on fear bigtime ! Beck is trying to build a Media empire . he says the left has all of the networks minus Fox and thinks The Blaze will help tilt the balance somewhat . Look at the ratings Fox beats them all followed by Comedy central then the others like CNN MSNBC . Says a lot when a Comedy network beats out a news service for News ?

Well, if he's just trying to build a media empire and make money from selling stuff, then why believe what he says? He's just saying it to sell more stuff.

 

[Rico]

There are somethings I agree and some I disagree with . The reason conspiracies exist In my opinion is the investigations are incomplete . There is no trust in Politics . The main stream media doesnt do its job . So you get third parties like Alex Jones attempting to answer questions people want answers to . Cass Sunstein has some really strange beliefs and his wife Samantha Power and Soros is the reason for us in Libya Ill read it in full and let you know what I think . http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...mpion-samantha-power-to-chair-genocide-panel/

I think exploring possibilities are nice. If you think some investigations are incomplete, there is no harm into looking into it a little further.

However, I think it's worthwhile to do so with good reason too. If the investigations are incomplete, then you ask yourself why? What part of it is incomplete? What part of the investigation is invalid? And before you start coming up with a new theory, you also need to consider if alternatives make sense in the framework they are in. White streaks in the air for instance. There are a lot of conspiracy theorists who haven't really considered if it's possible for condensation to form, persist, and last, and I think this is where reasoning goes outfield.

As for Alex Jones... uh, ahem, I think he is one of those people that you should be critical about. Please, please, please do be critical about him. Yes, he thinks outside of the box, but the stuff he comes out with isn't in-line with reason. He comes up with stuff and draw weak connections between facts. How many predictions have he made that simply weren't true? Yeah it's nice to think outside of the box sometimes, but one should consider the overall picture too without ignoring the facts. When you make an argument with another party, you have to consider the opposing point of view too before you have any hope of coming out with the winning solution. Alex Jones answers questions, but he answers questions that people want, and he really doesn't tie them into any relevant facts.

 

[Joe]

Well, if he's just trying to build a media empire and make money from selling stuff, then why believe what he says? He's just saying it to sell more stuff.

Maybe he wants a media empire so he can spread the truth ? Cant do that without cash ? I love restoring old cars but I need a income . I cant do it for free . Jon Stewart aint exactly poor ? http://www.inquisitr.com/260777/super-rich-dude-jon-stewart-mocks-mitt-romney-for-being-rich/