Fresh Air Interview with CT Expert

[SmartyPants]

I found this interview (http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=13&prgDate=06-18-2009&view=storyview) on NPR's Fresh Air website. It's a pretty decent primer on current conspiracy theorists' paranoia, thought and motivation, a few minor disagreements from me notwithstanding. It's about half-hour; just thought I'd pass it along for those interested.

[LightinDarkness]

Wow, I normally respect NPR but this was turned into a political propaganda segment. How nice of Mr. Bertlet to satisfy the partisan masses of Huffington Post by describing conspiracy as a totally right-wing phenomena while completely IGNORING all the looney left-wingers who, for example, bought into 9/11 woo whole sale because they hated Bush. The left wingbats are still upset over on Daily Kos for not being able to post about 9/11 woo.

You can also tell from his list of publications that Bertlet is a DNC party hack.

NPR had an excellent opportunity to educate people on the CT movement and its dangers, and it just ensured a significant part of its listeners won't take this topic seriously now.

[CurtC]

Uh, it's been several days since I listened to that interview, but didn't he explicitly mention the acceptance of 9/11 CTs by the far-left?

[LightinDarkness]

Uh, it's been several days since I listened to that interview, but didn't he explicitly mention the acceptance of 9/11 CTs by the far-left?

I do stand corrected. There are a few minutes of "oh yeah some left-wingers do that" and 90% of the interview was Mr. Berlet using the hasty generalization fallacy to make it look like all right wingers murdered George Tiller and the museum guard.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, it is this sort of partisan hackery that ignores the real issue here. That both sides feel the need to use the horrible murders of innocent people to score political points is sad.

[Brainster]

It's valid to point out that the right wing is more paranoia-tinged than the left, and more prone to believing in crazy conspiracies.

Where Berlet goes off the rails is in his attempts to tie the Tiller shooting to Bill O'Reilly's rants against Tiller, saying that this creates the millieu in which such a killing can take place. Of course Berlet would not like that standard applied to the common leftist tactic of comparing every conservative politician unfavorably to Hitler. Suppose some deranged lefty were to kill O'Reilly in retaliation; would Berlet happily confess to his "moral if not legal" responsibility?

[SmartyPants]

Understand that Bertlet is mainly being interviewed on the current and active CT culture, which, no doubt, is being dominated by the extreme right wing, partly as a result of Obama's election. And by right wing, I don't mean the rational republicans and conservative libertarians.

Also, he did, as Curt C said, explicitly mention 9/11 Truth as a movement primarily from the left wing. On that, I have some disagreements. It's biggest cheerleader is Alex Jones, I think, who considers himself a paleo-conservative.

Also, Light, you're kind of making Bertlet's point with this statement:

The left wingbats are still upset over on Daily Kos for not being able to post about 9/11 woo.

Exactly. The far left Daily Kos, which I don't read, is at least trying to reign in the some of the crazy over there.

While balanced investigation and reporting is necessary, it doesn't hold that both the left and right wing are 50/50 in loony conspiratorial thinking; certainly not at the moment. Nor is it responsible to make half an interview about "conservative" conspiracies and "liberal" conspiracies if most of the conspiracies are coming from the right wing, which they are. It's very clear that Bertlet differentiates the rational right-leaning people from conspiracy theorists, and I didn't hear anywhere in the interview where equates all right wingers with George Tiller. He never says anything like "conservatives are inherently conspiritorial," which indeed would be pretty biased and stupid.

Had this interview taken place 5 years earlier, I suspect there would have been information about left wing Bush/Farenheit 9/11 conspiracies. But there's no doubt that many conspiracies, if not most, are rooted in conservative circles (and Bertlet has some good, basic background information on a few conspiracies). That's not at all to say that most conservatives believe in that stuff, and Bertlet never makes that inference. In fact, I didn't even detect much political discussion.

[SmartyPants]

Brainster, you were much more concise than me. However, I would say that some commentators, Beck much more than O'Reilly, are helping to legitimize some of the fears that drive these nuts. I don't really think, though, that they're (Beck excluded) actively trying to encourage CTists into violence to work on their behalf.

As someone who considers himself to be liberal with some libertarian leanings, it drove/drives me crazy when those on left would compare Bush to Hitler.

[Brainster]

Understand that Bertlet is mainly being interviewed on the current and active CT culture, which, no doubt, is being dominated by the extreme right wing, partly as a result of Obama's election. And by right wing, I don't mean the rational republicans and conservative libertarians.

I agree.

Also, he did, as Curt C said, explicitly mention 9/11 Truth as a movement primarily from the left wing. On that, I have some disagreements. It's biggest cheerleader is Alex Jones, I think, who considers himself a paleo-conservative.

I suspect he has used that term on himself; I'd classify him more as an extreme libertarian, almost a survivalist. If you look at the people who follow Jones, they are quite different from the people who follow, say, David Ray Griffin. The divide is generational; older Troofers tend to be radical remnants of the paranoid left that was very active in the late 1960s/early 1970s.

Exactly. The far left Daily Kos, which I don't read, is at least trying to reign in the some of the crazy over there.

For which I often congratulate them.

While balanced investigation and reporting is necessary, it doesn't hold that both the left and right wing are 50/50 in loony conspiratorial thinking; certainly not at the moment. Nor is it responsible to make half an interview about "conservative" conspiracies and "liberal" conspiracies if most of the conspiracies are coming from the right wing, which they are. It's very clear that Bertlet differentiates the rational right-leaning people from conspiracy theorists, and I didn't hear anywhere in the interview where equates all right wingers with George Tiller. He never says anything like "conservatives are inherently conspiritorial," which indeed would be pretty biased and stupid.

I have pointed out on SLC that the paranoid left largely disappeared from the American scene in the late 1970s. Distrust of the federal government flourished on the left during the late 1960s and early 1970s; hence the crazy conspiracy theories about who killed JFK, and what was really behind the war in Vietnam. But there was an inherent tension between fear of the federal government on the one hand, and reliance on that federal government to enact the left's social and economic programs. Indeed, I suspect this is why conspiracy theories are much stronger on the right than the left; because it is easier to get conservatives worried about the evil gubbermint.

[LightinDarkness]

It's valid to point out that the right wing is more paranoia-tinged than the left, and more prone to believing in crazy conspiracies.

Please provide your peer reviewed evidence for this. There are none, because this is false. Where have you been for the past 8 years?


Where Berlet goes off the rails is in his attempts to tie the Tiller shooting to Bill O'Reilly's rants against Tiller, saying that this creates the millieu in which such a killing can take place. Of course Berlet would not like that standard applied to the common leftist tactic of comparing every conservative politician unfavorably to Hitler. Suppose some deranged lefty were to kill O'Reilly in retaliation; would Berlet happily confess to his "moral if not legal" responsibility?

He uses this sort of hasty generalization to blame everyone on the right for these murders.

[LightinDarkness]

Exactly. The far left Daily Kos, which I don't read, is at least trying to reign in the some of the crazy over there.

Yet again, hasty generalization fallacy. While Kos does not specifically allow 9/11 woo, they will let in almost any other woo that slams the right, as does the Huffington Post, Crooks and Liars, and the rest of the loony left-wing blog roll.


While balanced investigation and reporting is necessary, it doesn't hold that both the left and right wing are 50/50 in loony conspiratorial thinking; certainly not at the moment. Nor is it responsible to make half an interview about "conservative" conspiracies and "liberal" conspiracies if most of the conspiracies are coming from the right wing, which they are. It's very clear that Bertlet differentiates the rational right-leaning people from conspiracy theorists, and I didn't hear anywhere in the interview where equates all right wingers with George Tiller.

Then you selectively listened to the interview. Bertlet is a DNC party hack, and it absolutely DOESN'T hold that on side is some how more conspiratorial than other when there is absolutely no evidence for it.

Most of the conspiracies aren't coming from one side.


Had this interview taken place 5 years earlier, I suspect there would have been information about left wing Bush/Farenheit 9/11 conspiracies. But there's no doubt that many conspiracies, if not most, are rooted in conservative circles (and Bertlet has some good, basic background information on a few conspiracies). That's not at all to say that most conservatives believe in that stuff, and Bertlet never makes that inference. In fact, I didn't even detect much political discussion.

And yet he somehow seemed to ignore all those years...because he isn't a expert on analyzing the conspiracy theory movement. Hes a political party hack, and the fact that NPR interviewed him for this is sad.

[LightinDarkness]

Indeed, I suspect this is why conspiracy theories are much stronger on the right than the left; because it is easier to get conservatives worried about the evil gubbermint.

Peer reviewed citation needed. This is not based in reality.

[Brainster]

Please provide your peer reviewed evidence for this. There are none, because this is false. Where have you been for the past 8 years?

My peer-reviewed evidence? I published it in the Bentham Open Journals. Where have I been for the past 8 years? Well for 3+ I've been debunking the 9-11 conspiracy theories, and for most of the 8 I've been laughing at idiot left-wingers from my political blog.

Are there conspiracy theories on the Left? Certainly. The older folks at 9-11 Truth meetings are almost all lefties. The dolts who said that Bush stole Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004, like Fitrakis and Freeman and those dopes were all lefties.

But conspiracy theories are much more popular on the right, particularly grand, overarching conspiracy theories. As a center-right person myself I have been appalled at the Birther stuff (as I was appalled at the idiot Trig Trutherism from Andrew Sullivan), and this new crap about how Bill Ayers must have wrote Obama's first book. The North American Union? Promoted at Newsmax and Human Events, major right-wing outlets.

[LightinDarkness]

My peer-reviewed evidence? I published it in the Bentham Open Journals. Where have I been for the past 8 years? Well for 3+ I've been debunking the 9-11 conspiracy theories, and for most of the 8 I've been laughing at idiot left-wingers from my political blog.

Ah, the same publishing-for-money scam that Jones et. all did? Try again. Please provide peer reviewed evidence. Peer review doesn't mean I send in a check and whatever I write gets published as long as the check is large enough.


But conspiracy theories are much more popular on the right, particularly grand, overarching conspiracy theories.

Much of the health woo and new age woo comes from the left-wing. In fact, most anti-corporation (OMG WALMART IS KILLING US) does too. The conspiracies behind these flavors of woo are all grand and overarching.

There is no evidence for this and you have presented none. Please see:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html

If you are going to make the claim that more conspiracies come from one side of the spectrum over the other overall, then provide the peer reviewed evidence.

[LightinDarkness]

My peer-reviewed evidence? I published it in the Bentham Open Journals. Where have I been for the past 8 years? Well for 3+ I've been debunking the 9-11 conspiracy theories, and for most of the 8 I've been laughing at idiot left-wingers from my political blog.

Ah, the same publishing-for-money scam that Jones et. all did? Try again. Please provide peer reviewed evidence. Peer review doesn't mean I send in a check and whatever I write gets published as long as the check is large enough.


But conspiracy theories are much more popular on the right, particularly grand, overarching conspiracy theories.

There is no evidence for this and you have presented none. Please see:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html

I'm not going to keep going around in circles on this. I asked for peer reviewed evidence, you use hasty generalization fallacies. Rinse, repeat. I'm just going to ignore the thread. Might check back every now and then to see if that evidence ever appears.

[Brainster]

Ah, the same publishing-for-money scam that Jones et. all did? Try again. Please provide peer reviewed evidence. Peer review doesn't mean I send in a check and whatever I write gets published as long as the check is large enough.

Much of the health woo and new age woo comes from the left-wing. In fact, most anti-corporation (OMG WALMART IS KILLING US) does too. The conspiracies behind these flavors of woo are all grand and overarching.

There is no evidence for this and you have presented none. Please see:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html

If you are going to make the claim that more conspiracies come from one side of the spectrum over the other overall, then provide the peer reviewed evidence. Otherwise, you have provided no evidence and people who use evidence as a basis for decision making will dismiss your claim.

Okay, fair enough. If you include the anti-corporate stuff as conspiracy theorizing, which is reasonable, then perhaps the amount of conspiracy theories from the right-wing is matched by those from the left. I do think that anti-government conspiracy theories are much more popular on the right, but please don't ask me for peer-reviewed papers that prove it.

[SmartyPants]

Light, are you seriously comparing health woo and new age woo with illuminati stuff? It's not even a close call in terms of scale or conspiracy.

Where have you been for the past 8 years?

Mostly Missouri. You do understand that Berlet wasn't covering the past 8 years, yes? Did you not see my response to this earlier where I said if the interview had taken place a few years ago, there would have been less emphasis on right wing conspiracies and more emphasis on Iraq conspiracies? And if there wouldn't have been, I would have complained and not posted it. I'm sure the main reason he was even interviewed was because of the recent news and the fact that the conspiracies surrounding the murders are based in right wing fear. That's just a fact. Not saying all right wingers are like that (or even 90% of them) and neither was Berlet. You don't need a peer-reviewed journal to figure that out.

These aren't hasty generalizations. The current social and political climate appears to have given rise to right wing conspiracy theories. They just happen to have a grander scope with some followers willing to commit acts of violence; not totally unlike what happened when Clinton was in office. When a Republican is elected again, there will be crazy, paranoid liberal conspiracists coming out of the woodwork - but it won't be on the same in terms of size or scope; it never has been (Kennedy Assassination, maybe...but even that, in my opinion, has plenty of crossover).

Yet again, hasty generalization fallacy. While Kos does not specifically allow 9/11 woo, they will let in almost any other woo that slams the right, as does the Huffington Post, Crooks and Liars, and the rest of the loony left-wing blog roll.

Like? Can you show a peer reviewed journal where I might find this to be true? And what do you make of Daily Kos, Huffington Post, etc "not specifically allowing" 9/11 woo?

Then you selectively listened to the interview. Bertlet is a DNC party hack, and it absolutely DOESN'T hold that on side is some how more conspiratorial than other when there is absolutely no evidence for it.

I didn't selectively listen. I don't agree with everything Berlet said, but he did give good basic background information on a lot of the overarching conspiracy theories out there. Whether he's a hack, I don't know. Is it relevant? Possibly. He does work for the progressive Political Research Associates, which, admittedly, is slanted against the extreme right wing. But there is plenty of evidence that the current and relevant conspiracies are right-based. That's not the same thing as saying, as I think you are and Berlet is not, that one side is more conspiracy prone than the other.

And yet he somehow seemed to ignore all those years...because he isn't a expert on analyzing the conspiracy theory movement. Hes a political party hack, and the fact that NPR interviewed him for this is sad.

He wasn't ignoring them all those years just because NPR, or anybody else, didn't contact him for an interview. If you listened to the interview, you'd know he's been studying conspiracy theories for at least 25 years. You can argue whether that makes him an expert, but he at least had a working knowledge on the history and what makes these groups tick.

And here, if you want criticism of a "left wing conspiracy," here's Chip debating David Ray Griffin on Democracy Now (http://www.democracynow.org/2004/5/26/the_new_pearl_harbor_a_debate) from 5 years ago (and no, you don't need to inform me of Democracy Now's political bent; I'm well aware of it). Happy?

[LightinDarkness]

Okay, fair enough. If you include the anti-corporate stuff as conspiracy theorizing, which is reasonable, then perhaps the amount of conspiracy theories from the right-wing is matched by those from the left. I do think that anti-government conspiracy theories are much more popular on the right, but please don't ask me for peer-reviewed papers that prove it.

Please don't misunderstand - you have no argument from me that anti-government conspiracy theories are more popular on the right. Conservative ideology is founded on mistrust in government. It only makes sense that you would find more anti-government conspiracies on that side. Although it isn't exclusive to the right, any time the government does anything that benefits the rich the left gets in on it too.

There are certainly more types of conspiracy theories on one side or the other. Anti-government on the right, anti-corporation on the left. I simply have not seen any evidence that the overall quantity of conspiracies is more prevalent on one side or the other.

[SmartyPants]

Please don't misunderstand - you have no argument from me that anti-government conspiracy theories are more popular on the right. Conservative ideology is founded on mistrust in government. It only makes sense that you would find more anti-government conspiracies on that side. Although it isn't exclusive to the right, any time the government does anything that benefits the rich the left gets in on it too.

There are certainly more types of conspiracy theories on one side or the other. Anti-government on the right, anti-corporation on the left. I simply have not seen any evidence that the overall quantity of conspiracies is more prevalent on one side or the other.

Well what did you think Berlet was talking about and was supposed to be talking about? Conspiracies not anti-government? That's the whole thing. Berlet, best that I can remember, wasn't even hypothesizing that there is one side with more conspiracies than the other. But he was saying that the current climate has allowed more anti-government CTists to come forward. That's true.

[LightinDarkness]

Light, are you seriously comparing health woo and new age woo with illuminati stuff? It's not even a close call in terms of scale or conspiracy.

Please provide peer reviewed evidence for this claim. Its wrong, so you won't find any.



Mostly Missouri. You do understand that Berlet wasn't covering the past 8 years, yes? Did you not see my response to this earlier where I said if the interview had taken place a few years ago, there would have been less emphasis on right wing conspiracies and more emphasis on Iraq conspiracies? And if there wouldn't have been, I would have complained and not posted it. I'm sure the main reason he was even interviewed was because of the recent news and the fact that the conspiracies surrounding the murders are based in right wing fear. That's just a fact. Not saying all right wingers are like that (or even 90% of them) and neither was Berlet. You don't need a peer-reviewed journal to figure that out.

Its not a fact that the recent murders of Tiller are based on right wing fear. Its called hasty generalization. This is a elementary fallacy conspiracy theorists often use. You do indeed need a peer reviewed journal if you are going to assert such things.


These aren't hasty generalizations. The current social and political climate appears to have given rise to right wing conspiracy theories.

No, they don't, and the facts do not support this statement. In the case of the Holocaust Museum shooting, the guy had been steeped in woo for the past 40 years. Same with the Tiller murderer (radical anti-abortion isn't new). Trying to convey that it is some sort of right-wing paranoia that inspired these acts are indeed hasty generalizations.


They just happen to have a grander scope with some followers willing to commit acts of violence; not totally unlike what happened when Clinton was in office. When a Republican is elected again, there will be crazy, paranoid liberal conspiracists coming out of the woodwork - but it won't be on the same in terms of size or scope; it never has been (Kennedy Assassination, maybe...but even that, in my opinion, has plenty of crossover).

The facts do not support this.


Like? Can you show a peer reviewed journal where I might find this to be true? And what do you make of Daily Kos, Huffington Post, etc "not specifically allowing" 9/11 woo?

I find the irony of you making huge claims without evidence and then demanding peer reviewed evidence for something that is widely known hilarious. But OK:

Bradley, R. 2005. Paranoia, Conspiracy Theories, and the Presidential Election of 2004. Cultural Studies & Critical Methodologies, 5(3): 338-345.

Jones, Laura. 2009. "How do the American People know...?": Embodying post 9/11 conspiracy discourse. GeoJournal.


I didn't selectively listen. I don't agree with everything Berlet said, but he did give good basic background information on a lot of the overarching conspiracy theories out there. Whether he's a hack, I don't know. Is it relevant? Possibly. He does work for the progressive Political Research Associates, which, admittedly, is slanted against the extreme right wing.

As someone who monitors think tanks, Political Research Associates is hysterically left-wing. It isn't against the extreme right, its against everything that isn't left. It makes Brookings look independent.

Lets see..career of radical partisanship, partisan book, employed by radical political hack outfit, talks only about right-wing conspiracies...could he at all be a good source?


But there is plenty of evidence that the current and relevant conspiracies are right-based.

Nope. Citation needed.


That's not the same thing as saying, as I think you are and Berlet is not, that one side is more conspiracy prone than the other.

He says both, although both are wrong.


He wasn't ignoring them all those years just because NPR, or anybody else, didn't contact him for an interview. If you listened to the interview, you'd know he's been studying conspiracy theories for at least 25 years. You can argue whether that makes him an expert, but he at least had a working knowledge on the history and what makes these groups tick.

He has a working knowledge of partisan propaganda.


And here, if you want criticism of a "left wing conspiracy," here's Chip debating David Ray Griffin on Democracy Now (http://www.democracynow.org/2004/5/26/the_new_pearl_harbor_a_debate) from 5 years ago (and no, you don't need to inform me of Democracy Now's political bent; I'm well aware of it). Happy?

No. Going on a hysterically left-wing show to note an obvious hysterical left-wing conspiracy is wrong does not show anything. If he had debased all of the conspiracies, it would have been impressive.

[LightinDarkness]

Well what did you think Berlet was talking about and was supposed to be talking about? Conspiracies not anti-government? That's the whole thing. Berlet, best that I can remember, wasn't even hypothesizing that there is one side with more conspiracies than the other. But he was saying that the current climate has allowed more anti-government CTists to come forward. That's true.

False. Citation needed. The left went into full fledged hysteria mode from day 1 after Bush got elected, and the conspiracy theories didn't stop until January. Bush stole the elections (twice), Bush made the human disasters after Katrina occur on purpose, Bush is waging wars for oil....and of course 9/11. All of these were and are anti-government.

Bertlet is painting a partisan picture and is blind to the facts.

[SmartyPants]

You are really trying to get on the ignore list, aren't you? I wasn't even replying to you.

Anyways -
False. Citation needed.

Wait, so even if you post on a thread, I have no right to reply to it just because you weren't addressing me specifically?

I don't even know what I need a citation for. That Berlet was went on NPR specifically to discuss the current climate for conspiracy theories, which are anti-government based (and are, as you agree, right wing in nature)? Honestly, stop it with the peer-review stuff. It's not warranted here.

And by the way, go ahead and put me on ignore. We're really not even disagreeing, but you're the one who decided to turn this into a political thread. Would it be out of line to suggest that you're p.o.ed simply because I posted something from NPR?

And instead of pithy responses, can you at least provide some follow up other than "the facts do not support this." You want peer-reviewed journals from me, I think it's only fair that you provide some follow up.

I find the irony of you making huge claims without evidence and then demanding peer reviewed evidence for something that is widely known hilarious

So you don't understand I was being sarcastic there?

No. Going on a hysterically left-wing show to note an obvious hysterical left-wing conspiracy is wrong does not show anything. If he had debased all of the conspiracies, it would have been impressive.

What did you think of Loose Change v. Popular Mechanics? And by the way, it does show something: He's debating against, as you call it, a left-wing conspiracy theory. And he was doing it 5 years ago. Why would he need to debate all the conspiracies? He was there to debate Griffin.

[LightinDarkness]

Wait, so even if you post on a thread, I have no right to reply to it just because you weren't addressing me specifically.

Actually when I'm responding to someone else you harassing me really isn't needed. You can troll me in your own replies as you are here.


I don't even know what I need a citation for. That Berlet was went on NPR specifically to discuss the current climate for conspiracy theories, which are anti-government based (and are, as you agree, right wing in nature)? Honestly, stop it with the peer-review stuff. It's not warranted here.

Actually, it is warranted, and the fact that you've GOT NOTHING is a testament that you really just don't know what you are talking about. If you are going to claim that there are somehow now more anti-government conspiracies, provide the proof. Otherwise your just spreading Berlet's PRA propaganda.


And by the way, go ahead and put me on ignore. We're really not even disagreeing, but you're the one who decided to turn this into a political thread. Would it be out of line to suggest that you're p.o.ed simply because I posted something from NPR?

Ah, so you are a political hack? As suspected. Thanks for confirming. Back here in reality I listen to NPR all the time, my car antenna was stolen (with a note that someone took it because I had a masonic bumper sticker) and the local NPR is the only thing that comes through. I listen to it for 2 hours a day during my commute.


And instead of pithy responses, can you at least provide some follow up other than "the facts do not support this." You want peer-reviewed journals from me, I think it's only fair that you provide some follow up.

Wrong. I have provided you sources, you continue to stone wall. You refuse to provide anything to backup your assertions. You are wrong and are a troll. Nothing more than a partisan conspiracy theorist, so welcome to the ignore list where I put the rest of the woos and conspiracy mongers.

[SmartyPants]

Actually when I'm responding to someone else you harassing me really isn't needed. You can troll me in your own replies as you are here.

Okay, even though I felt what you were saying was relevant to the thread, I won't "troll" you anymore.

Actually, it is warranted, and the fact that you've GOT NOTHING is a testament that you really just don't know what you are talking about. If you are going to claim that there are somehow now more anti-government conspiracies, provide the proof. Otherwise your just spreading Berlet's PRA propaganda.

This is a serious question: Do demand peer-review journals in your day-to-day conversations? I admit that what I'm saying is not based on peer-review, but is an informed opinion.

Ah, so you are a political hack? As suspected. Thanks for confirming. Back here in reality I listen to NPR all the time, my car antenna was stolen (with a note that someone took it because I had a masonic bumper sticker) and the local NPR is the only thing that comes through. I listen to it for 2 hours a day during my commute.

Right, I must be a political hack, although I'm not the one flaming people based on their political ideologies (I made no bones in this thread about my political leanings and agreed with Brainster pretty much the whole way through this thread).

Wrong. I have provided you sources, you continue to stone wall. You refuse to provide anything to backup your assertions. You are wrong and are a troll. Nothing more than a partisan conspiracy theorist, so welcome to the ignore list where I put the rest of the woos and conspiracy mongers.

You provided a couple sources. Fine. I didn't provide any because I saw no need to. And if you think I'm a partisan conspiracy theorist/troll, I invite you to read my first 90 posts where you'll find out just how wrong that assertion is. Oh, but you can't do that because I'm on ignore. I hope it isn't because the truth hurts, but because it's for the best.

[SpitfireIX]

. . . Bertlet is a DNC party hack . . .


I read Bertlet's paper after listening to the NPR interview, and in it he blames all of the conspiracy theories spread about the Clintons for the failures of Bill Clinton's first term. :rolleyes:

[Brainster]

I read Bertlet's paper after listening to the NPR interview, and in it he blames all of the conspiracy theories spread about the Clintons for the failures of Bill Clinton's first term. :rolleyes:

Berlet is a man of the left, that's not seriously in question. I am sure that his critique of Clinton is from the portside.

[Walter Ego]

Originally Posted by LightinDarkness

You are really trying to get on the ignore list, aren't you?

I've just put you on my ignore list. Feel free to reciprocate.

[Par]

That LightinDarkness: what an unreasonable man.

[Par]

That LightinDarkness: what an unreasonable man.


Disclaimer: I can provide no peer reviewed evidence that LightinDarkness is, in fact, a man.

[Gaspode]

Back on topic please. Discuss the subject of the thread, not other members.