Seems like they use it to describe anything that they don't want the US to know more about and to squelch any questions which they don't want to answer. Such as the SPP actually creating North American Union. But the facts are as they stand, that this is EXACTLY what they are doing.. Opinions?
2007-10-13 12:13:47 · 10 answers · asked by Fedup Veteran 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I think they have. I believe it has been used as propaganda to slander the reality of a possible theory or theories. The populace is conditioned to attach a negative stigma to the term, which then results in people rejecting certain possibilities simply because they are labeled "conspiracy theory" by the government and media outlets.
I would also like to point out that it is a known fact that there is a conspiracy in regard to Abraham Lincoln's assassination. Volumes are devoted to his life and death. However, historians have yet to unravel the mysteries surrounding his assassination.
When one has a pretty good understanding of psychology and has enough sense to take notice of the constant conditioning we are subjected to, the idea of a conspiracy is not outlandish.
Those who have researched facts surrounding the 9/11 tragedy cannot truthfully admit there hasn't been facts kept from the public. There are just too many lose ends to suggest we know the reality of the circumstances and the scale of the events that took place.
Another example as you mentioned, the North American Union, isn't covered by the media. Most people don't even know of this, but why? Because, information is kept from us. If it isn't discussed by the corporate media, which is owned by a handful of huge companies with political power, then the average citizen is ignorant on the subject.
2007-10-13 12:56:51 · answer #1 · answered by Primary Format Of Display 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
My favourite undertaking might have been the President stepping as much as the rostrum, asserting the dying of OBL and asserting no greater desirable tips could be impending because of the fact the action replaced into categorized and incredibly gentle. that could mean no elected politicians, no speaking heads get to spill little bits of tips they are starting to be conscious approximately and it would teach a President who gave a fact and does no longer work together on it greater desirable. The administration has vacillated, replaced the help and admittedly, has created the resultant havoc and question raising. which will have been planned or, the tip consequence of people engaged in something they don't seem to be qualified for.
2016-11-08 05:48:01 · answer #2 · answered by ritzer 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am glad that Mitt Romney has stated he would oppose a NAFTA Super Highway, but since he is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, he may want to explain why the president of that organization, Richard N. Haass, has repeatedly called for countries to give up their national sovereignty.
“The Council on Foreign Relations is the American Branch of a society which originated in England…(and)… believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established.”-Caroll Quigley, member of CFR and mentor to Bill Clinton
“The main purpose of the..(CFR)… is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all powerful, one world government.”-Admiral Chester Ward, former CFR member and Judge Advocate General of the US Navy
“Once the ruling members of the CFR shadow government have decided that the US Government should adopt a particular policy…the very substantial research facilities of (the) CFR are put to work to develop arguments, intellectual and emotional, to support the new policy…and to confound and DISCREDIT, intellectually and politically, any opposition.“-Admiral Chester Ward
Other CFR members include George W. Bush, Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Jim Gilmore, Newt Gingrich, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edward, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson.
I wish the NAU was still just a theory…
By the way, if you don’t like the dollar, wait till you see the ‘Amero’
2007-10-13 13:05:14 · answer #3 · answered by lilly4 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I think that the term Conspiracy Theorist is used by anyone that is uncomfortable thinking about issues that are hard for them. I also think that there are certain elements that act like "Conspiracy Theorists" and spout utter nonsense in order to discredit those with real questions.
2007-10-13 12:32:54 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
It's a conspiracy in itself!
Sometimes the facts show some people some insight, and that is not desired by the goverment.
2007-10-13 12:21:16 · answer #5 · answered by Jim! 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Remember what BushFraud told us after 9/11...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K5M0xtxQVQ
Download examples of government sponsored terrorism before 9/11
"010725alexjoneswarns911b"
http://www.archive.org/details/911_44
2007-10-13 12:46:42 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
YES!!! The words plague free thinkers!
2007-10-13 18:17:31 · answer #7 · answered by Jerry H 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's only overused as a term because there is a plethora of idiots that fit the description. A conspiracy theorist is not interested in the truth, only in one-upmanship in a subclass of intellectuals that think they are smarter than everyone else in the room.
2007-10-13 12:27:57 · answer #8 · answered by Salsa Shark 4 · 2⤊ 7⤋
Yes, very much so.
2007-10-14 00:07:11 · answer #9 · answered by Avner Eliyahu R 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What are you? Some kind of conspiracy theorist or something?
2007-10-13 12:22:46 · answer #10 · answered by James L 7 · 3⤊ 4⤋