h a l f b a k e r yTrying to contain nuts.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
A special election is held every year on the same date to elect the Secretary of Conspiracies who will be given clearance to review state documents and question elected and appointed officials.
The Secretary will be able to officially confirm or deny questions on data held by the State put to him
by leading Conspiracy Theorists without jeapordizing critical State Defense abilities (he or she will not reveal the location of secret projects, but may or may not verify their existence at his or her judgement.)
The one year term assures that the elected official will have to make some satisfactory effort to indulge those he represents or risk losing re-election the next year.
God help him if there is an anomolous election result for his own position, though. I must admit, I find this entire concept quite amusing, I hope I'm not the only one.
Press Secretary
http://en.wikipedia...use_Press_Secretary
Chief Propagandist position already exists [Noexit, Aug 05 2008]
[link]
|
| |
How will people know if the election isn't rigged by Men in Black ? |
|
| |
What if the Secretary is assasinated ? |
|
| |
Who put you up to this idea ? Is it funded by a Black Project ? |
|
| |
Who are you ? Are you really "Zimmy", or just someone pretending to be Zimmy ? What have you done with the real "Zimmy" ? |
|
| |
Who choses the leading Conspiract Theorists ? How do weh know that the choice isn't being manipulated by Them for Their own sinister ends ? |
|
| |
Are you looking at us ? We said, ARE YOU LOOKING AT US ? |
|
| |
How do we know you're not working for Them ? Oh, so you deny it ? That's just what you would say, of course. We don't think you can be trusted. Who put you up to this ? Who are you working for ? We're not paranoid. Definitely not. We know, because the voices in our heads tell us we're not paranoid. You're part of the conspiracy, aren't you ? Yes, this is a real gun. What do you care where we got it ? It's ours. OURS. OURS NOW, MUHWHAHAHAHAH ! Oh they said we were mad, Mad, MAD, MAAAADDDD ! But we'll show you. We'll show you ALL ! HAH ! YOU FOOLS ! WE'll CRUSH YOU LIKE BUGS ! MUHWHAHAHAHAHAH ! |
|
| |
Excuse us while we go off and take our medication. |
|
| |
PS [+] for thei idea - if it really IS your idea .... maybe the CIA are using their Brain Ray to beam it into your head. Best keep wearing the tinfoil hat, just in case. |
|
| |
you really thing the conspiricists would believe such an individual? |
|
| |
If the wrote in the Natrional Enquirer, yes. |
|
| |
isn't ART BELL the honorary czar of American Conspiracy? Could anyone really fill his shoes. Shame on you. |
|
| |
until his pay stub is published on ZOMGtheevilbastards haveconspiredagain.com |
|
| |
linky no worky Voice. Do you just freeform
this stuff or is it more of a compulsion? |
|
| |
So every year, the Conspiracy Secretary would produce a report saying that JFK was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone, that NASA really did send men to the moon and that the World Trade Center was not rigged with explosives, and every year the conspiracy nuts would say "Ehhhh, we don't like those answers, this Conspiracy Secretary is in league with the Illuminati/ the UN/ our alien overlords/ the international Jewish conspiracy/ the Government/ the black helicopters - let's elect a new one!". |
|
| |
You forgot the Knights Templar, the Jesuits, the Rosicrucians and the Reader's Digest. |
|
| |
[8th] Good point, - and Wikipedia, and the Carlyle Group. |
|
| |
... and my Religious Education teacher
in the 7th Year, Miss Young, who had
apparently actually met Jesus - in
person - had shook his hand, and had
been asked to tell all the children in
Dorset that there is more evidence to
suggest that Jesus was alive than Julius
Caesar. |
|
| |
My point to her at the time was that
unless she could refer to any evidence
to this "fact", other than simply by
banging her ruler on my desk and
saying it louder, then it would only be
reasonable to assume that her
hypothesis was based solely on the
length of Shakespeare's play Julius
Caesar against the comparatively longer
New Testament. That these fictional
works do not constitute evidence was a
notion altogether lost on her. |
|
| |
Sounds like just the sort of thing
somebody who's part of the coverup
would suggest. |
|
| |
But seriously, I know the conspiracy
mindset and they would deem the mere
existence of such a person as
irrefutable proof of.. well... you name it.
He could deny or confirm, he'd get the
same results. Kind of like the "messiah"
in Life of Brian. |
|
| |
Bun for an interesting concept though. |
|
| |
Yes, there is a reasonable degree of evidence, [spottedcat]. |
|
| |
[RayfordSteele], having read about it, I
disagree. However, rather than
instigating a religious debate (may Zeus
strike down any who does) my main
qualm with Miss Young was her
absolute refusal and apparent inability
to provide one shred of her
"indisputable" evidence, the which she
deemed a definitive and unquestionable
reason to believe in Jesus and devote
our lives to him. |
|
| |
When pressed for evidence to support
her "facts", she preferred rather to
break rulers on my desk. I was more
annoyed at her incapacity to form a
reasoned argument than her devout
religious beliefs, which she so
vehemently thrust down our throats
every Tuesday and Thursday afternoon. |
|
| |
There is only one conspiracy I wish there was someone with unrestricted access who could look into it for me. To me, it seems there are so many things that don't seem to add up. (I refrain from mentioning which one because sometimes people get very upset at me for doubting). |
|
| |
If there was just someone known in the Conspiracy Theory world (probably someone has made their name known amoung fellow Conspiracy peers) who had access and could give an indication, possibly: |
|
| |
"I understand the security reasons for not releasing information on this particular issue. After reviewing and verifing with relatively high confidence all information on this issue, I will stake my reputation on the fact that this issue is not an issue we should be concerned with" |
|
| |
And that statement on a very specific issue, say, the reason for certain military drills occuring on a certain day. (Ah! perhaps I've said too much!) |
|
| |