Bloobird wasn't the only one complaining about your posts about Florida. And he had 700+ posts in that thread, so he did more than just wait for you to post something he objected to.

The gist of my proposal was to tackle one conspiracy at a time -- so that people can't complain that you throw them out and then just move onto the next when you get challenged. You've indicated that you want to convince us of the validity of your position and that Sandy Hook was one that you wanted to discuss, so I thought that that would be a good starting place. If you have an alternative suggestion which would allow you to accomplish your objective while minimizing the annoyance to people who dislike conspiracy theory discussion then I'll listen.

As it stands the national review being a cia front isn't exactly a hard conspiracy to show.

And it is certainly not something that is worthy of all this.

Lol

How does this compare to hacking podesta's password as being password and falling for going to some site labeled googlescam.com because the guy he asked accidently said it was fine instead of saying it wasn't fine?

For a CIA organization they've been oddly focused on undermining the CIA's conclusions about Russian interference, and the investigation in general.

I fully appreciate your rationale behind this. I understand what sorts of problems it would cause if I was throwing out multiple major conspiracy theories at once in this thread.

But what i have suggested here is not a major conspiracy involving media cover up, months of planning, crisis actors, etc.

That the cia has media connections and that some publications are establishment mouthpieces should be taken as a given--this is my point for ianaww.

Bloobird could have avoided this with a simple Google search. But instead of even caring about the truth he would rather go after me.

In fact he didn't even have to google he could have just clicked on the article I linked to.

This post deserves a long response I think but it'll have to be later.

Suffice it to say it'll be how the narrative is controlled and about keeping people in their media bubbles and things along that line.

Dude collect yourself you are raving.

You didn't answer the part about most spending being done after the election.

There is also the fact that some of their efforts went to promote liberal causes like black lives matter. As far as I can tell mostly they were involved in race baiting although I haven't looked too deeply and race-baiting is a preferred liberal hobby.

Sorry I need beer.

I clicked on the article, it was an awfully written mess with some absurdly weak 'evidence' of nothing much in particular.

but come on, it's another conspiracy theory

isn't it clear how everyone feels about those yet?

So your official stance on the Russian conspiracy to influence our election has changed from total hoax to so successful they doubled down on their investments.

Something like that.

the reason I stopped posting here for ages was that the volume of bull**** from the likes of VMF got too much for me to bother to slog through

now we've got kokiri, who may be one of the best posters I've seen on any politics board, getting fed up of posting in this thread because of the conspiracy nonsense

it'd be quite nice if POG politics wasn't the laughing-stock of all the other politics threads, which is quite impressive given the usual awful standard of those

I like kokiri too don't worry.

anyway if people do want a srs debate:

Why the hell do we not tax capital gains at death? Srsly, you could do away with inheritance/estate tax, and just impose a sensible rate of capital gains tax on all untaxed gains at the point of death.

There's so many benefits over the current system, particularly:

1. Encourages transactions (as there's no longer a penalty for selling as opposed to holding until death)
2. Taxes income that would otherwise go untaxed
3. Is more easily explainable as 'fair' than inheritance/estate tax, and probably wouldn't have such a bad press
4. Might bring capital gains tax and some of the absurd ways that people can avoid paying it back into the spotlight a bit.

everyone likes kokiri

I can't believe he has an enemy in the world

How people feel about things is irrelevant for the purposes of this thread.

There is a whole book written on fake cia conservatism. So if you didn't like that article there is more.

Everyone in this thread has different ideas on things and what counts as a conspiracy for one person might be considered completely standard for someone else.

This simply cannot be a thread for close-mindedness. There are other threads on 2p2 for that purpose.

seems not
'if you didn't like this, there's more' is not a great selling point
it seems your line is way out of whack with basically everyone else's

What matters Bloobird is that I am not going to attempt to subvert any discussion you want on capital gains taxes or anything else.

So why don't you treat me the same as I treat you?

because half the thread isn't sick of my discussions of capital gains taxes

yet

Given that you already post politics in multiple other places on 2p2 and given that I only post here and given that I am the op of these threads and given that they were founded discussing a conspiracy theory:

I ask that you give me some latitude to post a completely standard thing about the national review without causing a major fracas.

I do? Certainly not regularly. I probably have <50 posts across all other politics threads.
It's a conspiracy theory. Literally a day after you were asked by the mod of the thread to stop posting conspiracy theories.

Bloo,

What is your desired endgame here?

idk?

I don't like letting this kind of conspiracy nonsense go unchallenged, as it gives it tacit acceptance and credibility to outside observers. I think this kind of stuff is harmful and should be challenged.

However, I also don't really want endless debates on conspiracies to dominate the thread, as it's pretty clear most people are sick of them.

Hence why I'm trying to pin Luckbox down to one theory rather than a million different ones he can jump into and out of.