Sometimes you just wonder how dumb Trump and co are!  They put out a TV ad calling the media 'fake news' and then wonder why none of them other than Fox News would run it.

Truly stupid people...

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/donald-trump-team-furious-after-abc-cbs-and-nbc-refuse-to-run-fake-news-election-campaign-ad/ar-BBAP8fp?ocid=spartandhp

longweekend58 wrote on May 8^th, 2017 at 12:40pm:

Sometimes you just wonder how dumb Trump and co are!

I tend to think of them as the dumbest people on the planet, +1.

greggerypeccary wrote on May 8^th, 2017 at 12:42pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 8th, 2017 at 12:40pm: Sometimes you just wonder how dumb Trump and co are!  I tend to think of them as the dumbest people on the planet, +1.

I admit to laughing at the idiocy and naivete of Trump and co about putting up and ad that essentially lies about everything and then blasts the media and then trying to run it on.... the media.

They have no understanding of anything much at all.

longweekend58 wrote on May 8^th, 2017 at 12:40pm:

Sometimes you just wonder how dumb Trump and co are!  They put out a TV ad calling the media 'fake news' and then wonder why none of them other than Fox News would run it. Truly stupid people... http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/donald-trump-team-furious-after-abc-cbs-and-nbc-refuse-to-run-fake-news-election-campaign-ad/ar-BBAP8fp?ocid=spartandhp

surely weak end .. you are NOT serious ..

what a true joke you have become ..

http://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Video/201611/2016-11-08T03-04-02-9Z--1280x720.video_1067x600.jpg

longweekend58 wrote on May 8^th, 2017 at 12:46pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on May 8th, 2017 at 12:42pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 8th, 2017 at 12:40pm: Sometimes you just wonder how dumb Trump and co are!  I tend to think of them as the dumbest people on the planet, +1. I admit to laughing at the idiocy and naivete of Trump and co about putting up and ad that essentially lies about everything and then blasts the media and then trying to run it on.... the media. They have no understanding of anything much at all.

yes a great laugh all round ..

your msnbc heros get you into so much trouble weak end ,

as if you need their help ..

http://15130-presscdn-0-89.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Screen-Shot-2016-08-10-at-7.42.08-PM-701x377.png

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZw4jSmsP0w

MSNBC FAKE NEWS exposed compilation PT 1

:D :D :D :D

Interesting that Trump's team used the First Amendment to condemn the media for not running its advertising.

They took the argument that freedom of speech should protect government propaganda, ensuring that private companies broadcast its messages in full, according to Trump's "daughter in law" staffer.

Lara Trump - another family adviser to the president. I wonder if Trump's pets are on the payroll.

I just worked it out, fattie. You literally dont understand the difference between a lie and a prediction that fails.

no wonder you dont understand anything at all.

Big Donger wrote on May 8^th, 2017 at 12:56pm:

Interesting that Trump's team used the First Amendment to condemn the media for not running its advertising. They took the argument that freedom of speech should protect government propaganda, ensuring that private companies broadcast its messages in full, according to Trump's "daughter in law" staffer. Lara Trump - another family adviser to the president. I wonder if Trump's pets are on the payroll.

All that shows is how little they understand of the first amendment or the concept of 'free speech'. it is the right to SPEAK, not the the right to expect anyone at all to listen or to repeat it.

longweekend58 wrote on May 8^th, 2017 at 12:57pm:

I just worked it out, fattie. You literally dont understand the difference between a lie and a prediction that fails. no wonder you dont understand anything at all.

The Light is not a critic, Longy. He doesn't need to understand anything. The Light's role is simply to pass the propaganda on and let others be the judge.

Oh, and when they do judge it, to forgive them.

longweekend58 wrote on May 8^th, 2017 at 12:57pm:

I just worked it out, fattie. You literally dont understand the difference between a lie and a prediction that fails. no wonder you dont understand anything at all.

thats right weak end ,

I actually overstand all illusion of which you are embroiled within

that is ok and cool and yet you know your place

continue your understance

namaste

▲

longweekend58 wrote on May 8^th, 2017 at 12:58pm:

Big Donger wrote on May 8th, 2017 at 12:56pm: Interesting that Trump's team used the First Amendment to condemn the media for not running its advertising. They took the argument that freedom of speech should protect government propaganda, ensuring that private companies broadcast its messages in full, according to Trump's "daughter in law" staffer. Lara Trump - another family adviser to the president. I wonder if Trump's pets are on the payroll. All that shows is how little they understand of the first amendment or the concept of 'free speech'. it is the right to SPEAK, not the the right to expect anyone at all to listen or to repeat it.

and yet where does free speech end and hatespeech and lies begin ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Hh82CX8BPQ

Above The Law Bill Maher Claims Trump Having Sex With Ivanka

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEVm2t8w6Q8

Maher: Ivanka is Trump's daughter-wife

Big Donger wrote on May 8^th, 2017 at 12:59pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 8th, 2017 at 12:57pm: I just worked it out, fattie. You literally dont understand the difference between a lie and a prediction that fails. no wonder you dont understand anything at all. The Light is not a critic, Longy. He doesn't need to understand anything. The Light's role is simply to pass the propaganda on and let others be the judge. Oh, and when they do judge it, to forgive them.

on that he is amply qualified since it is obvious he understands very little of anything on any topic.

longweekend58 wrote on May 8^th, 2017 at 12:56pm:

Interesting that Trump's team used the First Amendment to condemn the media for not running its advertising. They took the argument that freedom of speech should protect government propaganda, ensuring that private companies broadcast its messages in full, according to Trump's "daughter in law" staffer. Lara Trump - another family adviser to the president. I wonder if Trump's pets are on the payroll.

All that shows is how little they understand of the first amendment or the concept of 'free speech'. it is the right to SPEAK, not the the right to expect anyone at all to listen or to repeat it.[/quote]

Sure, but Trump's team are hardly constitutional lawyers or even experienced in government.

Lara Trump's expertise is probably real estate or home making.

It's hard to find good help these days.

it_is_the_light wrote on May 8^th, 2017 at 1:02pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 8th, 2017 at 12:58pm: Big Donger wrote on May 8th, 2017 at 12:56pm: Interesting that Trump's team used the First Amendment to condemn the media for not running its advertising. They took the argument that freedom of speech should protect government propaganda, ensuring that private companies broadcast its messages in full, according to Trump's "daughter in law" staffer. Lara Trump - another family adviser to the president. I wonder if Trump's pets are on the payroll. All that shows is how little they understand of the first amendment or the concept of 'free speech'. it is the right to SPEAK, not the the right to expect anyone at all to listen or to repeat it. and yet where does free speech end and hatespeech and lies begin ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Hh82CX8BPQ Above The Law Bill Maher Claims Trump Having Sex With Ivanka

But Trump can say all the lies he wants and you dont have a problem with it? If you want credibility you need to be non-partisan.  The outcome of any defamation suit will tell you how true or not it this claim is. If trump sues, then you sill see that it is probably false as a defence against defamation is truth. But if he refuses to sue, then it is probably true given that Trump has a habit of suing anyone and everyone - as long as there is no risk to himself.

Big Donger wrote on May 8^th, 2017 at 1:04pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 8th, 2017 at 12:56pm: Interesting that Trump's team used the First Amendment to condemn the media for not running its advertising. They took the argument that freedom of speech should protect government propaganda, ensuring that private companies broadcast its messages in full, according to Trump's "daughter in law" staffer. Lara Trump - another family adviser to the president. I wonder if Trump's pets are on the payroll. All that shows is how little they understand of the first amendment or the concept of 'free speech'. it is the right to SPEAK, not the the right to expect anyone at all to listen or to repeat it.

Sure, but Trump's team are hardly constitutional lawyers or even experienced in government.

Lara Trump's expertise is probably real estate or home making.

It's hard to find good help these days. [/quote]

ACtually, there are hundreds of amply-qualified and experience people to help him run the government. He just doesnt want to use any of them.

longweekend58 wrote on May 8^th, 2017 at 1:06pm:

Big Donger wrote on May 8th, 2017 at 1:04pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 8th, 2017 at 12:56pm: Interesting that Trump's team used the First Amendment to condemn the media for not running its advertising. They took the argument that freedom of speech should protect government propaganda, ensuring that private companies broadcast its messages in full, according to Trump's "daughter in law" staffer. Lara Trump - another family adviser to the president. I wonder if Trump's pets are on the payroll. All that shows is how little they understand of the first amendment or the concept of 'free speech'. it is the right to SPEAK, not the the right to expect anyone at all to listen or to repeat it. Sure, but Trump's team are hardly constitutional lawyers or even experienced in government. Lara Trump's expertise is probably real estate or home making. It's hard to find good help these days.

ACtually, there are hundreds of amply-qualified and experience people to help him run the government. He just doesnt want to use any of them.[/quote]

Yes, but he doesn't trust them.

We will make Amrrika great again, no?

Big Donger wrote on May 8^th, 2017 at 1:25pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 8th, 2017 at 1:06pm: Big Donger wrote on May 8th, 2017 at 1:04pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 8th, 2017 at 12:56pm: Interesting that Trump's team used the First Amendment to condemn the media for not running its advertising. They took the argument that freedom of speech should protect government propaganda, ensuring that private companies broadcast its messages in full, according to Trump's "daughter in law" staffer. Lara Trump - another family adviser to the president. I wonder if Trump's pets are on the payroll. All that shows is how little they understand of the first amendment or the concept of 'free speech'. it is the right to SPEAK, not the the right to expect anyone at all to listen or to repeat it. Sure, but Trump's team are hardly constitutional lawyers or even experienced in government. Lara Trump's expertise is probably real estate or home making. It's hard to find good help these days. ACtually, there are hundreds of amply-qualified and experience people to help him run the government. He just doesnt want to use any of them.

Yes, but he doesn't trust them.

We will make Amrrika great again, no? [/quote]


when you are a paranoid schizophenic lunatic like Trump then you dont trust ANYONE.

longweekend58 wrote on May 8^th, 2017 at 1:40pm:

Big Donger wrote on May 8th, 2017 at 1:25pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 8th, 2017 at 1:06pm: Big Donger wrote on May 8th, 2017 at 1:04pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 8th, 2017 at 12:56pm: Interesting that Trump's team used the First Amendment to condemn the media for not running its advertising. They took the argument that freedom of speech should protect government propaganda, ensuring that private companies broadcast its messages in full, according to Trump's "daughter in law" staffer. Lara Trump - another family adviser to the president. I wonder if Trump's pets are on the payroll. All that shows is how little they understand of the first amendment or the concept of 'free speech'. it is the right to SPEAK, not the the right to expect anyone at all to listen or to repeat it. Sure, but Trump's team are hardly constitutional lawyers or even experienced in government. Lara Trump's expertise is probably real estate or home making. It's hard to find good help these days. ACtually, there are hundreds of amply-qualified and experience people to help him run the government. He just doesnt want to use any of them. Yes, but he doesn't trust them. We will make Amrrika great again, no?

when you are a paranoid schizophenic lunatic like Trump then you dont trust ANYONE.[/quote]

He's already held back releasing White House visits and minutes for the next four years. If he follows Bush's lead, he'll prevent information releases after his presidency. Trump has even made his staff sign non-disclosure agreements, meaning they can be sued if they go to the media.

Imagine if Obama had tried that. Imagine if Obama had put all his family members into key positions like a black version of the Beverly Hillbillies. Imagine if Obama had even tried putting out ads saying how great he was doing at taxpayer expense.

Obama was a cleanskin, who has somehow been painted by Trump and Fox as being corrupt. All the Light could pin on Obama was fake child abuse allegations and his wife supposedly being a man.

CNN, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo - all liberal lowlives.

Look at the so-called comedy they put out, only fit for toilet walls.
Newt Gingrich nailed it about these people.

bogarde73 wrote on May 8^th, 2017 at 2:55pm:

CNN, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo - all liberal lowlives. Look at the so-called comedy they put out, only fit for toilet walls.

Goebbels likes his comedy high-brow.


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_UURsFGI0ahk/SvSCQNWaoiI/AAAAAAAAQwk/th1boCcris0/s400/a.jpg

I do like a level of sophistication.

"Cock-holster" and such like don't do it for me, but I guess some people find it funny.
You get a laugh out of some of this American toilet humour?
I worked for a while with a comic who told us about working as a "toilet comic" in a club somewhere in the US. He was meant to be low-brow because he only did a short spot while people were going to the bathroom between the main acts.

FACTS:

Newsprint, & Media that transmit on publicly owned airwaves (Radio & TV), have the right to determine if they wish to run non-candidate, political advertisements....or other advertisements for that matter.

Newsprint:     http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/can-a-newspaper-refuse-to-run-a-letter-or-advertisement/

Over the Air Media:    http://lwv.org/content/background-laws-regulations-covering-broadcasters-and-campaign-advertising





The First Amendment is a directive to government, what the government is forbidden to do regarding the Rights of the People.

It does not restrict, nor empower the Rights of private individuals or organizations.




Quote:

Amendment I (1791) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

bogarde73 wrote on May 8^th, 2017 at 3:13pm:

I do like a level of sophistication. "Cock-holster" and such like don't do it for me, but I guess some people find it funny. You get a laugh out of some of this American toilet humour? I worked for a while with a comic who told us about working as a "toilet comic" in a club somewhere in the US. He was meant to be low-brow because he only did a short spot while people were going to the bathroom between the main acts.

So now you have to comment on their comedy because you can no longer criticise their reporting?  Have you finally accepted that they arent fake news after all?

Panther wrote on May 8^th, 2017 at 3:21pm:

FACTS: Newsprint, & Media that transmit on publicly owned airwaves (Radio & TV), have the right to determine if they wish to run non-candidate, political advertisements....or other advertisements for that matter. Newsprint: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/can-a-newspaper-refuse-to-run-a-letter-or-advertisement/ Over the Air Media: http://lwv.org/content/background-laws-regulations-covering-broadcasters-and-campaign-advertising The First Amendment is a directive to government, what the government is forbidden to do regarding the Rights of the People. It does not restrict, nor empower the Rights of private individuals or organizations. Quote: Amendment I (1791) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

wrong. again.

longweekend58 wrote on May 8^th, 2017 at 3:24pm:

Panther wrote on May 8th, 2017 at 3:21pm: FACTS: Newsprint, & Media that transmit on publicly owned airwaves (Radio & TV), have the right to determine if they wish to run non-candidate, political advertisements....or other advertisements for that matter. Newsprint: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/can-a-newspaper-refuse-to-run-a-letter-or-advertisement/ Over the Air Media: http://lwv.org/content/background-laws-regulations-covering-broadcasters-and-campaign-advertising The First Amendment is a directive to government, what the government is forbidden to do regarding the Rights of the People. It does not restrict, nor empower the Rights of private individuals or organizations. Quote: Amendment I (1791) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. wrong. again.

So, if I'm wrong, you are saying that Newsprint & the media MUST RUN EVERY AD they are asked to/paid to run?????

The FACTS I presented say they don't have to run Trump's ads.

In your haste to personally disagree with anything I post, I think you ignored/overlooked the FACTS.....

Rethink that one......  https://i.imgsafe.org/c589185.gif

Panther wrote on May 8^th, 2017 at 3:31pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 8th, 2017 at 3:24pm: Panther wrote on May 8th, 2017 at 3:21pm: FACTS: Newsprint, & Media that transmit on publicly owned airwaves (Radio & TV), have the right to determine if they wish to run non-candidate, political advertisements....or other advertisements for that matter. Newsprint: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/can-a-newspaper-refuse-to-run-a-letter-or-advertisement/ Over the Air Media: http://lwv.org/content/background-laws-regulations-covering-broadcasters-and-campaign-advertising The First Amendment is a directive to government, what the government is forbidden to do regarding the Rights of the People. It does not restrict, nor empower the Rights of private individuals or organizations. Quote: Amendment I (1791) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. wrong. again. So, if I'm wrong, you are saying that Newsprint & the media MUST RUN EVERY AD they are asked to/paid to run????? The FACTS I presented say they don't have to run Trump's ads. In your haste to personally disagree with anything I post, I think you ignored/overlooked the FACTS..... Rethink that one......

I was referring to your claim that somehow the 1st amendment does not grant freedom of speech to individuals or private companies.

longweekend58 wrote on May 8^th, 2017 at 3:41pm:

Panther wrote on May 8th, 2017 at 3:31pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 8th, 2017 at 3:24pm: Panther wrote on May 8th, 2017 at 3:21pm: FACTS: Newsprint, & Media that transmit on publicly owned airwaves (Radio & TV), have the right to determine if they wish to run non-candidate, political advertisements....or other advertisements for that matter. Newsprint: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/can-a-newspaper-refuse-to-run-a-letter-or-advertisement/ Over the Air Media: http://lwv.org/content/background-laws-regulations-covering-broadcasters-and-campaign-advertising The First Amendment is a directive to government, what the government is forbidden to do regarding the Rights of the People. It does not restrict, nor empower the Rights of private individuals or organizations. Quote: Amendment I (1791) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. wrong. again. So, if I'm wrong, you are saying that Newsprint & the media MUST RUN EVERY AD they are asked to/paid to run????? The FACTS I presented say they don't have to run Trump's ads. In your haste to personally disagree with anything I post, I think you ignored/overlooked the FACTS..... Rethink that one...... I was referring to your claim that somehow the 1st amendment does not grant freedom of speech to individuals or private companies.

It doesn't.......the American People already had the Rights of FREE SPEECH, of FREEDOM of RELIGION, of PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY, & THE RIGHT TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution  simply says that Congress (the Government) is forbidden to make any laws prohibiting the already existent Rights of the People......

Re-Read the text of the First Amendment.......NOW.........it grants NOTHING WHATSOEVER, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!



Quote:

Amendment I (1791) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Existing Rights, not granted Rights......  ;)

Does anyone else wish to join, after reading the exact wording of the First Amendment to the US Constitution,  wish to join longweakend58 in his insistence that it.....GRANTS Americans the Right to the Freedom of Speech mentioned within it?

Any takers???

Anyone? ......  Anyone at all?????

Panther wrote on May 8^th, 2017 at 7:50pm:

Does anyone else wish to join, after reading the exact wording of the First Amendment to the US Constitution,  wish to join longweakend58 in his insistence that it.....GRANTS Americans the Right to the Freedom of Speech mentioned within it? Any takers??? Anyone? ......  Anyone at all?????

This was already pointed out by a non-constitutional lawyer here, dear. Namely moi.

Lara Trump begs to differ.

longweekend58 wrote on May 8^th, 2017 at 3:22pm:

bogarde73 wrote on May 8th, 2017 at 3:13pm: I do like a level of sophistication. "Cock-holster" and such like don't do it for me, but I guess some people find it funny. You get a laugh out of some of this American toilet humour? I worked for a while with a comic who told us about working as a "toilet comic" in a club somewhere in the US. He was meant to be low-brow because he only did a short spot while people were going to the bathroom between the main acts. So now you have to comment on their comedy because you can no longer criticise their reporting?  Have you finally accepted that they arent fake news after all?

Well first I wouldn't grace some of the stuff reported to have been said on the major networks as comedy.
Comedy is an art, that stuff is degenerate filth.
Maybe you enjoy it, I don't know.

Second, I belong to that part of society, which I believe to be the majority (and falling audiences & readership seem to confirm this), that now sees the mainstream media almost everywhere as a tool of those people who arrogantly call themselves "progressives" and have given up all pretence of balance in their views & presentations.

So your moronic scribblings fall on deaf ears I'm afraid.

longweekend58 wrote on May 8^th, 2017 at 3:22pm:

bogarde73 wrote on May 8th, 2017 at 3:13pm: I do like a level of sophistication. "Cock-holster" and such like don't do it for me, but I guess some people find it funny. You get a laugh out of some of this American toilet humour? I worked for a while with a comic who told us about working as a "toilet comic" in a club somewhere in the US. He was meant to be low-brow because he only did a short spot while people were going to the bathroom between the main acts. So now you have to comment on their comedy because you can no longer criticise their reporting?  Have you finally accepted that they arent fake news after all?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKK7R89Ymg4

President Trump: "CNN and MSNBC are fake news" Crowd Chants "CNN SUCKS!"

bogarde73 wrote on May 8^th, 2017 at 3:13pm:

I do like a level of sophistication. "Cock-holster" and such like don't do it for me, but I guess some people find it funny. You get a laugh out of some of this American toilet humour? I worked for a while with a comic who told us about working as a "toilet comic" in a club somewhere in the US. He was meant to be low-brow because he only did a short spot while people were going to the bathroom between the main acts.

The thing is with the cock holster comment, do you understand the context? COlbert was essentially saying that after Trump basically insulted a journalist and his show to his face, that the journalist had too much integrity to fight back, whereas he didn't, so it wasn't so much the content of the insults but the notion of insulting back that was the joke.

That Trump as is full of lies.

How is Light not getting angry about it being fake news?  These aren't bad predictions, they're outright lies.

SadKangaroo wrote on May 9^th, 2017 at 3:33pm:

That Trump as is full of lies. How is Light not getting angry about it being fake news?  These aren't bad predictions, they're outright lies.

Light posits the difference between truth and lies as "semanticisms".

And so it is.

Big Donger wrote on May 9^th, 2017 at 3:36pm:

SadKangaroo wrote on May 9th, 2017 at 3:33pm: That Trump as is full of lies. How is Light not getting angry about it being fake news?  These aren't bad predictions, they're outright lies. Light posits the difference between truth and lies as "semanticisms". And so it is.

The moment the words "fake news" are posted we just get the same youtube clips over and over.  It's so pointless because they're debunked in an instant.

SadKangaroo wrote on May 9^th, 2017 at 3:38pm:

Big Donger wrote on May 9th, 2017 at 3:36pm: SadKangaroo wrote on May 9th, 2017 at 3:33pm: That Trump as is full of lies. How is Light not getting angry about it being fake news?  These aren't bad predictions, they're outright lies. Light posits the difference between truth and lies as "semanticisms". And so it is. The moment the words "fake news" are posted we just get the same youtube clips over and over.  It's so pointless because they're debunked in an instant.

1.      10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always “sheep”, “shills”, patsies of a Zionist controlled government etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say “no thanks”, you’ll be called a “sheep” again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they’re pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero’s “cui bono?” (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up), ” do your own research”, and Conan Doyle’s “once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth”. What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply “eliminate the impossible” (i.e. say the official account can’t stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on “cui bono?” (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam’s Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have “open minds” and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It’s a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by “swamping” – piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the “official” account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the “official” account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it’s “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It’s always a conspiracy. And it is, isn’t it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.





SOUND FAMILIAR?????