71 votes

Conspiracy Theorists Here on the DP

Dear DP,

Sorry to break it to you, but YES there ARE Conspiracy Theorists on this website. In my own personal life, I started researching "The Illuminati" about 5 years ago. Yes I do believe they exist, and yes I do believe they are working behind the scenes to bring forth a "New World Order."

That being said, it was my conspiratorial mind that brought me to the Liberty Movement, so like it or not, we are a part of the movement. Yes, I keep the conspiracy stuff to a minimum here, because yes this site is about Limited and Constitutional Government first and foremost. But the attacks on Conspiracy Theorists should stop. At the end of the day we are all on the same team.

Unfortunately there is a lot of dis-/misinformation on the subject of the Illuminati, so YES there are a lot of "conspiratards" out there. They just haven't figured it out yet, and are probably in it for "Conspiratainment" anyways. Just because there are a few crazies out there, doesn't mean we are all whackos or nutters. Even I have subscribed to some off-the-wall stuff, but my mind is not closed off to debunkers and I have been debunked before. I am ok with that. All I am after is the TRUTH. Nothing more, and nothing less.

That is all.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Jingoism, yeah, put me off

Jingoism, yeah, put me off the whole patriotism thing. Just too convenient for the state.

Tell me honestly, if you came and read the DP during the Boston bombings what would be your impression?

Look at the truther threads. How many people even try to deny it anymore. Look at the Lusitania thread. People conveniently forgetting that under international law even if Germany was to sink the ship, it had to ensure the safety of the passengers first.

Look at the reptilian and David Icke thread Straight Sativa put up. Not to mention endless Tesla free energy threads by people who don't have an inkling about science.

The people just LOVE a conspiracy.

The economics threads receive exactly one comment which is by the OP and says 'Bump' in a lonely forlorn way, the actual science threads get inundated by pseudo science and the religious threads....don't even get me started =D

I don't even know why I come here anymore, except that it is strangely addictive =[

The jingoism turned me off too

Especially when I see/hear people cheer civilian deaths in the Mid-East, or write it off as inevitable, yet are dumbfounded at just 'why' so many people across the globe call Americans hypocrites.

If I was new to DP/RP at the time of the bombing threads, yeah it would've turned me off a bit (especially since I know people who were there), but I wouldn't have written off Ron Paul because of it. I understand the 'guilt by association' argument, and agree that some of the stuff posted here can do more harm than good, but at the same time I'd rather that than people being overly cautious when it comes to controversial material.

Yeah, I hate seeing economics threads fall off the front page so quickly, except for anything to do with Bitcoin it would seem (nothing against Bitcoin, just saying). I try to stay away from the religious threads, but I can never help myself from getting sucked in, heh.

A signature used to be here!

Just curious.... How many of

Just curious.... How many of you have read, None dare call it Conspiracy by Larry Abraham? Then followed it up with, Call it Conspiracy by the same author?

This is the problem.

With knowledge comes responsibility. Many can not get their minds around what they would have to do to protect themselves and family from those wishing to do harm. So they call those of us who see what is going on and can prove with facts, conspiracy nuts. It's all about being made uncomfortable. Some people do not want to be uncomfortable. Easy as that.

egapele's picture

I'm in this for my kids

who already know the truth.

The truth doesn't get people on our side elected.

Your truth is yours, representatives are OURS.

I'm DIY-CSI now.

I'm DIY-CSI now.

mike

Check my post below on Dov Zakheim. You should know about this guy.

michael

seen this vid?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no7njj7K1kM
what ya think??

Truth is all around, you just have to be able to see it

Here's one most people missed. 2.3 trillion missing and Donald Rumsfeld says "they tell me". Who's they? I'd say it's a safe bet that "THEY" are the ones who took the 2.3 trillion.

http://www.dailypaul.com/276116/hey-rummy-where-is-the-missi...

Rumsfeld answered the question. It means he is not complicit, just an idiot.

Actually he was telling the truth this time

I thought he was lying too but 2.3 trillion seemed such an excessive amount of money to just say you were missing also. In context of the speech, he is basically pitching for more money to upgrade DoD financial systems and saying that they cannot track that much in transactions because of their outdated system.

"The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible."
http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=430

Of course they got the money and this article states:
"DoD financial experts, Zakheim said, are making good progress reconciling the department's "lost" expenditures, trimming them from a prior estimated total of $2.3 trillion to $700 billion. And, he added, the amount continues to drop."
http://web.archive.org/web/20031224193817/http://www.defense...

But you can make up your own mind, just thought I'd share the information.

Rumsfeld's speech is not 'proof'

He freely admits, that "THEY TOLD HIM".

In other words, he didn't have a clue himself.

So using Rumsfeld's old "cover-his-ass" speech as your proof is a bit vapid.

As for Zakheim, thanks for the link, I had not known about this guy, he stinks to high heaven. Here's the buzz on this clown:

http://rense.com/general75/latest.htm

I wouldn't trust Zakheim's word as far as I could spit.

If you had actual proof other than Rumsfeld's speech such as actual documentation that would be great mrbengal.

With all the quality work done on 9/11, I can't believe Zakheim's name has hardly been even mentioned.

If you believe 9/11 was an inside job, then Zakheim HAS to know about it, because he controls the money.

I don't see where I said

I don't see where I said proof, and I believe proof to be a personal judgment rather than a certain thing for everyone. What constitutes as proof to me of something, does not necessarily constitute as proof for anyone else.

"So using Rumsfeld's old "cover-his-ass" speech as your proof is a bit vapid."

That is the speech from 9/10/2001, the day before 9/11, that I linked to. If you read the whole speech it's pretty obvious he's laying out the case for his DoD budget and I would think saying we've "lost" 2.3 trillion dollars wouldn't help that case much.

Dov Zakheim is only commenting because he was in the Comptroller position at that time, he is not responsible for not knowing where the 2.3 trillion is because that is total untracked expenses before he was in the DoD, the $2.3 trillion was found in a 1999 audit, 2 years before Zakheim worked for the Bush DoD. That article also states that "these "unsupported" transactions do not mean the department ultimately cannot account for them, she advised, but that tracking down needed documents would take a long time".

There's more on it here if you want to see more detailed explanation of what I am saying. But like I said, make up your own mind. I'm just sharing information and you asked if I had anymore documentation.

Even though I disagree mrbengal

You get +1 from me for the Zakheim link, that was just great!

If any of you know a person researching 9/11, please pass this information to them.

For those of you who know the job of a chief financial officer and comptroller, you know that no one could possibly lose that sum of expense.

I served as a CFO myself for 4 years for a mid-sized trucking company. It is their job to track expenses, the biggest expenses first and then on down the chain. Not just track and approve expenses, but also to VERIFY expenses. The largest are always first, it's common sense.

This Zakheim guy could not possibly be that incompetent. That means he is lying

sharkhearted's picture

"All I am after is the TRUTH. Nothing more, and nothing less."

I like that line and I agree.

The TRUTH must be the goal, always. Whether it is found on the surface....or way way down the proverbial rabbit hole.

What's the alternative to finding the truth? Going after and propagating lies?? I'll take the former. And I wear the epithet "truther" as a badge of honor.

Whether its getting to the bottom of Benghazi, or helping expose the crime of fractional reserve lending and the Federal Reserve, or searching for the real back-stories behind these mysterious mass shootings we have been having, or calling for a new independent investigation for 9-11...everyone everywhere should want the truth.

Nice post!

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

You mean like the "missile" thread?

You know, the thread where you went around calling everyone who so much as doubted that a missile was fired at a burning fertilizer plant government agents? The thread where you kept wanting to meet people face to face so you could "work things out" with them? Because it sure didn't seem like you gave much of a shit about the truth then; seemed like you were doing little more than chest-beating.

This whole "prove it *wasn't* a conspiracy" mindset is no different than that idiot cop in NYC who said "prove you *aren't* a terrorist."

There's a difference between wanting to know the truth, and attempting to make events fit one's worldview and passing it off as undeniable proof while insulting/accusing/threatening those who say otherwise.

A signature used to be here!

egapele's picture

This thread has been up all day and is getting old

stop the fake arguing

Got a call from Campaign for Liberty pleading for help on the national ID issue and this thread has been bumped up all day.

Also, Rand Paul was almost 20 plus points ahead of everyone on an Iowa poll today.

Puleeeeez, enough already, Bushwackers.

up all day? u mean like..

BEAR EATS MONKEY! - ? or GIANT SNAIL!! - ??

BTW, you seemed to enjoy..

"Me thinks you've been gone, emalvani
Submitted by egapele on Wed, 05/08/2013 - 22:00. Permalink
because yours are the posts that ALWAYS catch my eye. Nothing worth anything here lately and I have been forced to post stuff I know you would have put up.
I've missed you and am glad to see your stuff."

http://www.dailypaul.com/284884/video-deadly-giant-snail-fou...

egapele's picture

Wow, just two downvotes

and the thread disappeared. Not bad.

IF you love the truth

and are not motivated by some personality disorder/ desire for attention/ escape from the never-ending b0redom of the parents' basement, here is what I suggest. Heck, I suggest it regardless, for anyone concerned about being a good person:

Evaluate not only the mainstream news critically but the alternative news critically.

If you don't know whether a building can fall down under certain circumstances, don't accept a point of view hook line and sinker just because it is pushed by your friends, by a website, or by a group that you belong to, as an example.

If you don't know whether a body will bleed out if the legs are blown off, why buy into a very elaborate and crazy theory that the Boston event was a false flag/hoax/ no victim event?

And if you have no idea what goes on in a courtroom, please stop with the nonsense sovereign citizen garbage - which doesn't even follow libertarian theory to begin with.

When you do these things, I would also suggest it is better for the liberty movement if you keep your "I believe anything that contradicts the mainstream media"-style conspiracy hobby to conspiracy websites and not to the Daily Paul or libertarian events. These conspiratorial points of view are not libertarian issues.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

egapele's picture

Y'all get paid

by the word?

no

depends upon the client, sometimes by the hour, or by the month. Never by the word though. Thank you for playing.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

I never get anything but

I never get anything but defensive profanity-filled tirades when I ask supposed sovereigns how to go about something like refusing to have money withheld from a paycheck or how to drive around without a license. I think none of them are adults, but just bullshitters living in their parents' basements. I don't even know where they get the red ink thing from.

But what here indicates this is a site for just libertarianism?

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

egapele's picture

If you have to ask,

you don't need to be here.

You're wrong

and just to illustrate it:

Why don't you answer his questions, HMMM?

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Does it remind you of how you refused repeatedly to answer mine?

Remember when I directly asked you several times to address James Madison's notes from the constitutional convention, in which he wrote that the vote to strike the emit bills clause had "cut off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debt"?

I'm still waiting for a reasoned response from you on that subject, how should I interpret your refusal to answer my questions? Is your silence on the subject assent to my claim that a paper currency is clearly unconstitutional based on the historical facts?

In case you need a refresher on the subject the pertinent information is cited below. While I highly recommend reading George Bancroft's entire treatise for a fuller historical context (assuming you haven't already...), if nothing else reading these two paragraphs will give you the gist of it.

The eighth clause of the seventh article, in the first draft of the constitution, was as follows: "The legislature of the United States shall have the power to borrow money and emit bills on the credit of the United States." The journal of the convention for August 16th makes this record: "It was moved and seconded to strike out the words 'and emit bills,' "and the motion to strike out these words "passed in the affirmative. Yeas: New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia — 9. Nays: New Jersey, Maryland — 2." So the convention, by a vote of more than four to one, refused to grant to the legislature of the United States the power "to emit bills on the credit of the United States."

For the interpretation of this record, Madison, the best possible witness, has left this note: "Striking out the words cut off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts."

Source:

A PLEA FOR THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES

Wounded in the House of Its Guardians

by George Bancroft

1884

http://www.constitution.org/gb/gb-plea.htm

Uh ok

a particular individual's notes on the eight clause of the seventh article of the first draft of the Constitution?

That has some relevance, but that relevance is very small to any point other than a study of what his frame of mind was at that particular time. I undestand you believe you are an expert on that particular piece of minutia. Given the level of faux sov citizen crap here, I seriously doubt it, but even if you are, I'm not going to either "pretend" to know that (because who would) or go research it. I have better things to do with my time.

Any while you may claim to have read "all of Bancroft's treatise" I'll instead satisfy myself with having studied things that actually became law, not the color of shirt that ben franklin was wearing on a certain day, or the favorite breakfast food of George Washington, or any other peripherally obscure thing you are blathering about.

If you can't summarize your point, with citation to something remotely relevant, your point is also not remotely relevant.

If on the other hand, you like to haul out obscure references that no one knows anything about, and claim supreme knowledge of them, then you are doing the very thing that you sov cit nutburgers accuse lawyers of doing. In closing, you may find a good Constitutional Law hornbook fascinating and perhaps a gateway to the real world.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

james madison is the primary author of the constitution

I think his notes from the constitutional convention in regards to a paper currency are particularly relevant.

No one said anything about the color of Ben Franklin's shirt or the favorite breakfast food of George Washington, you really are being ridiculous. If you have nothing intelligent to say I suggest you stop replying, you only make yourself look more foolish with every silly remark you make.

I am talking about an important vote that took place at the constitutional convention where the Supreme Law of the Land was drafted and sent off to the states to be ratified. I have summarized my point for you multiple times with citation to relevant sources, but sadly it seems that you are to intellectually lazy to consider those sources on their merits without prejudice. Too bad. I feel sorry for you. Perhaps I have wasted my time casting pearls before swine.

Anyway I never said I was a "sovereign citizen", not really sure why you would even bring that topic into the conversation as it is completely irrelevant to the subject at hand. Are somehow you claiming anyone who thinks that paper currency is unconstitutional is a "sovereign citizen"? Is Ron Paul also a "sovereign citizen" since he agrees with me that paper currency is unconstitutional?

if you have a point

then get to it.

If you're just going to throw around references to beyond-obscure sources, then I'm not going to play. James Madison is no doubt one of the founders but his thoughts on the constitution, especially as contained in "notes" he kept of a first draft of a portion of it, aren't more relevant than other documents as to framers' intent. It is usually the sovereign citizens who do that - they dig up ancient, basically unused documents and claim to have huge knowledge of them, but don't know the basics that everyone else is aware of.

I never said I disagreed about paper currency or with RP on that issue. The real issue isn't whether it is paper, however, but whether it is asset-backed.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

the notes were taken at the constitutional convention

The notes were made during an important vote at the constitutional convention, if you can't even get the basic facts right I am afraid this conversation is going nowhere as you don't seem to have very good reading comprehension skills. The notes are particularly relevant to the issue, I never said they were more relevant than other documents as to the framer's intent, if you look at those other documents you will find that those documents also reveal the founder's anathema to a paper currency. In fact I even linked you to information which cites other such documents, but you clearly didn't bother to look at the information I directed you to. What do you have against reading? Bancroft's treatise provides an excellent historical overview of the issue, why are you so afraid of it? The guy personally established the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis in 1845, it is not as if he lacks credibility; you ought to give him a chance before you write him off, you might find his work enlightening.

egapele's picture

with a MINUS reception rating?

at the daily paul of all places? lol