Hodgman, you need to read that article more carefully.

The fact that Al-Qaeda was created by western intelligence and has always been controlled by these interests demonstrates that the Al-Qaeda threat is one of the greatest ongoing hoaxes in world history.

Without bothering to go hunt for articles, infowars is a 9/11 "truth" site, that believes Bin Laden was in fact working as a CIA agent in 2001. He died of kidney failure in 2002 and ever since, the NSA has been just been making fake bin laden tapes.

They're also big on the "vaccines cause mental retardation" thing. And basically any other bat shit crazy thing you can come up with. The U.N. is going to take my guns. Mind control chips and frequencies.

Or, I'm a person who doesn't think that you, the government, or those being reported on should get to decide who's viewpoints are valid or not, for me, and for the rest of the people of this country. If you want to ignore a particular report, you're free to do so. Its everyone's right to choose where their information comes from, its no one's right to choose for you.

If you don't like what you see on the television, you get to change the channel, not petition to shut down the station.

You have a serious problem with creating strawmen. Infowars is free to exist. I don't want them shut down. If for no other reason, it's better for them to post about their crazy little fantasies than to live them out like the Boston bombers and Timothy McVeigh.

I do not, however, think government officials should answer any of their questions. The same way I don't think Obama should have fetched the governor of Hawaii to verify his birth certificate was legit, because some crazy racists think Obama was born in Kenya because look how black he is!

I don't think the John Birch Society was a good thing. I am grateful to William Buckley and the conservative establishment at the time for squashing it. Now it has been reborn as the Tea Party and everyone like you stood back and went "Who am I to suggest these people are unhinged"? Now these flakes have taken over a significant portion of government.

You have a serious problem with creating strawmen. Infowars is free to exist. I don't want them shut down. If for no other reason, it's better for them to post about their crazy little fantasies than to live them out like the Boston bombers and Timothy McVeigh.

I do not, however, think government officials should answer any of their questions. The same way I don't think Obama should have fetched the governor of Hawaii to verify his birth certificate was legit, because some crazy racists think Obama was born in Kenya because look how black he is!

I don't think the John Birch Society was a good thing. I am grateful to William Buckley and the conservative establishment at the time for squashing it. Now it has been reborn as the Tea Party and everyone like you stood back and went "Who am I to suggest these people are unhinged"? Now these flakes have taken over a significant portion of government.

Its good that Inforwars exists for no other reason than that it gives nut-jobs someplace non-violent to channel their energies? And I'm the one creating strawmen?

I'm no Birther, but there's something seriously off-kilter with the notion that would-be government officials should be free to ignore a question relating to their basic legitimacy, simply because they decide that the question is indignant. The whole hub-bub could have been avoided by simply providing the birth certificate. Surely it would have been less trouble, and less vulnerable to continued "conspiracies" than recruiting the Hawaiian governor. Last time I checked, being a citizen was a requirement for the job of commander in chief and, at least in theory, the POTUS was accountable to all of the American people. Why have the requirement if there's no need for proof? Whom did he prove it to that alleviates the need to prove it openly? When and how does any candidate prove their citizenship? Why isn't the birth certificate of every presidential candidate a public record as a simple matter of procedure?

I'm no Tea-partier either, I've said time and again that my qualm with today's politics is that you have to choose product A (conservative, but to the point of trampling basic rights, and pretending not to spend too much of your money) or product B (liberal, but to the point of trampling basic rights, and openly spending all your money--because its good for you), but its somehow my fault that the Tea-party grabbed some power, not because I voted for them (I certainly didn't), but because I didn't vociferously decide that they were illegitimate for everyone else who did? Maybe you think this whole voting thing is silly? Perhaps we should just stop and allow officials to appoint their own successors?

I mean, without being personal here, because its not -- I find the very notion that anyone would just throw up their hands and say "Well, this is what they tell me. It passes Occam's Razor. It must be true." is disturbing to say the least. If I ever ended up a defendant in a criminal, or even civil, trial, I certainly wouldn't accept someone like that sitting on my jury. I hope you wouldn't either.

Hodgman, you need to read that article more carefully.

Quote: The fact that Al-Qaeda was created by western intelligence and has always been controlled by these interests demonstrates that the Al-Qaeda threat is one of the greatest ongoing hoaxes in world history.

Without bothering to go hunt for articles, infowars is a 9/11 "truth" site, that believes Bin Laden was in fact working as a CIA agent in 2001. He died of kidney failure in 2002 and ever since, the NSA has been just been making fake bin laden tapes.
They're also big on the "vaccines cause mental retardation" thing. And basically any other bat shit crazy thing you can come up with. The U.N. is going to take my guns. Mind control chips and frequencies.

And since we're making accusations of logical fallacies, let me point out that this is essentially ad hominem -- You're attacking infowars itself, rather than the legitimacy of the "facts" they're putting forward in support of their thesis. Even then, the points you use to do so are tangentially-related at best.

The whole hub-bub could have been avoided by simply providing the birth certificate.

Which he did. Multiple times. Once in 2008 when he released the certificate of live birth and once in 2011 when he released the long form birth certificate. Seriously, you spout this kind of bullshit and you think you aren't a conspiracy theorist? He only recruited the Hawaiian governor when the nut jobs decided that the birth certificates must have been forged. So, yes, he did try the sensible, rational approach first. It just doesn't work with people like you.

What people like me? I said plainly that I'm not a Birther, and nothing I said should indicate that having provided a birth certificate isn't perfectly acceptably proof to me. I'm not standing on the street corner demanding it. Frankly I never questioned his place of birth, and I hold little sympathy for the question itself. I didn't follow the whole deal much as a result, I couldn't have told you whether it was ever actually provided or not. But that's besides the point, because I'm not trying to satisfy any Birthers with any of these arguments I'm making.

If you've read any more into my Birther diatribe than "what's wrong with asking" then you are reading too much into it. I'm not here to defend any theory, but I defend absolutely that we should never simply be patted on the head and sent to bed with a glass of warm milk. I did not raise the questions to defend the Birther worldview, I raised them because Blades' previous counterargument seemed to be that the question can, and should, just be ignored. And no, I don't believe there's any need to keep proving ones facts to whatever level is demanded by someone unwilling to accept reasonable proof, but then your response should simply be to redirect to said proof.

I'm trying my damndest here to avoid putting words in other people's mouths, I'd like it if I could be afforded the same courtesy.

As fun as this argument is I think a more important point here is that the Czech Republic embassy had to issue a statement explaining they aren't Chechnya.

Yay education standards \o/

http://www.mzv.cz/washington/en/czech_u_s_relations/news/statement_of_the_ambassador_of_the_czech.html

I'm trying my damndest here to avoid putting words in other people's mouths, I'd like it if I could be afforded the same courtesy.

How am I putting words in your mouth? You implied Obama never provided his birth certificate. Your exact words, which I even quoted in my post:

The whole hub-bub could have been avoided by simply providing the birth certificate.

Which he did. I never claimed you were a birther. Birthers will at least admit he provided a birth certificate, even if they think it's a forgery. There's nothing wrong with asking if he's a citizen. There is something wrong to continue to ask for a birth certificate when the man already has shown two separate versions and when independent media fact checkers have looked at the physical copy of the original and certified the authenticity. You don't want to be taken for a tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist? Maybe you should stop spouting conspiracy theories like Obama never supplying a copy of his birth certificate or the government is out to frame the right wing for the Boston bombing.

How am I putting words in your mouth? You implied Obama never provided his birth certificate. Your exact words, which I even quoted in my post:

The whole hub-bub could have been avoided by simply providing the birth certificate.

He implied that Obama never provided his birth certificate until 2011 (or whenever it was), not as part of a conspiracy theory, but saying that it could've been handled better by releasing it earlier. It was pointed out that it was released earlier, and Ravyne admitted that he wasn't aware of that. Or, at least that's how I interpret this sentence:

I couldn't have told you whether it was ever actually provided or not, but...

Meaning, he didn't know whether it was actually provided (earlier than 2011 or whenever) or not, but that specific conspiracy theory wasn't the point he was trying to make, nor did he believe Obama was not a citizen, and that it was just an example.

In an attempt to bring this back on-topic: (info from about 10 hours ago)
One of the two suspected bombers is dead, the other is now on the run.
They stole a car and shot a MIT campus police guard.

Still no known motive. They are both reportedly muslim, but it sounds like it was more casual-religion than anything radical, so the money seems to be on depression/mental-problems/over-medication in my opinion.

Ah, they just caught the second bombing suspect alive! [link]

Interestingly, that article states that the dead bomber was previously reported as a terror suspect:

"The FBI questioned him two years ago for terrorist ties at the request of a foreign government, but cleared him, according to the AP."

Maybe I'm wrong about it not being terrorist-related.

As fun as this argument is I think a more important point here is that the Czech Republic embassy had to issue a statement explaining they aren't Chechnya.

Yay education standards \o/

http://www.mzv.cz/washington/en/czech_u_s_relations/news/statement_of_the_ambassador_of_the_czech.html

hahaha aww man now I understand this convo that happened a few mins ago

<Akiraa> so the chicago bombers are czech
<Akiraa> the US will invade a random central europe country now
<Maestro> Chicago?
<Akiraa> eh, boston
<Maestro> I thought it was Boston
<Maestro> well then they will have to invade US then
<Maestro> 10 years in the US means you are a citizen one way or another
<Akiraa> democracy may be coming to slovenia soon
<Maestro> Akiraa, is that where you are from??
<Akiraa> no, but stray bombs may fall all over that part of europe
<Akiraa> as part of the bombs-not-food program :p
<Maestro> ok im going to assume you are drunk right now
<Maestro> because you are making no sense
<Maestro> where does Slovenia come into any of this
<Akiraa> the boston bombers came from the czech republic
<Maestro> no
<Akiraa> therefore, some random country in their general area may receive democracy soon :p

<Maestro> they are from Chechyna (sp?)
<Akiraa> alright :p

I'm no Tea-partier either

I never said you were. I said people like you stood back and treated their rants as reasonable. If I thought you were one of them, I would have said so.

Maybe you think this whole voting thing is silly? Perhaps we should just stop and allow officials to appoint their own successors?

Again, I am not suggesting taking anyone's rights away. I am suggesting that somoe people hold illogical positions that are so far outside of reality as to be dangerous. I can respect far left and right positions. I respect William Buckley, who is very conservative. But he was reality based.

My issue with the Tea Party is not that they're too conservative. It's that they are almost universally uninformed and paranoid about things that do not exist.

I mean, without being personal here, because its not -- I find the very notion that anyone would just throw up their hands and say "Well, this is what they tell me. It passes Occam's Razor. It must be true." is disturbing to say the least. If I ever ended up a defendant in a criminal, or even civil, trial, I certainly wouldn't accept someone like that sitting on my jury. I hope you wouldn't either.

If you're wanting me to pass a sheeple test, fine. I gave Spare Change and truther stuff a fair trial. I really wouldn't put a staged terrorist event beyond the ability of government. The problem is, the case is piss poor. And my first thought in a terrorist incident is that yes, it's probably just a few lone people, as opposed to a government wide conspiracy.