Alarming News

April 24, 2007

More on the world’s most intricate and flawlessly executed plan ever, ever

“1/4 of the country is retarded”, said Stan Marsh in the episode of South Park on 9/11 conspiracy theorists (summary here), referring to the 25% of Americans who believe 9/11 was an inside job. John Kerry, for once, seems to pick the not-retarded side, so says Allah. We’ll see how long that lasts.

I see 9/11 “Truth” stickers all over New York now, it’s really sick. Commenter natesnake at Hotair asks “Who wants to give the over/under on how many years before the Truthers’ version of events is included in U.S. history books?” I’m so afraid he’s right and the 1/4 of Americans who are retarded will infect the rest of us.

Posted by Karol at 10:19 AM |
Technorati Tags:
Comments

Where does this 25% number come from? That doesn’t seem right.

Posted by: Peter at April 24, 2007 at 10:39 am

The South Park episode says that 25% of Americans believe 9/11 was an inside job. I don’t know, it sort of seems about right to me.

Posted by: Karol at April 24, 2007 at 10:40 am

Here is a Scripps News Poll that has 1/3 of Americans suspecting some type of 9/11 government conspiracy: http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll

Posted by: Karol at April 24, 2007 at 10:47 am

The polls I have seen generally reflected at least 25% believing that the government has concealed info or failed to take action to stop the attacks; but I don’t think I have ever seen a number for the crazy folk who believe the government actually did it.

Posted by: Alceste at April 24, 2007 at 10:51 am

Come on, Karol. Next you’ll be trying to convince me that the Holocaust actually happened.

Posted by: Not Dawn Summers at April 24, 2007 at 11:16 am

COMMENT DELETED. Long, rambling 9/11 conspiracy nonsense.

Posted by: Myra M. Jackson at April 24, 2007 at 2:28 pm

Actually, my own experience leads me to believe the number is closer to the poll Karol cited. The 25% number is a little low. At least one out of three American adults is a complete retard.
At first I thought it was an affectation to piss other people off, but nope. These people really believe what they’re saying despite the thousands of eyewitnesses to actual events.

Posted by: Eric at April 24, 2007 at 6:48 pm

The South Park episode says that 25% of Americans believe 9/11 was an inside job. I don’t know, it sort of seems about right to me.
The Internet at its very best: citing “South Park” to bolster your political point because “it sort of seems about right.”

Posted by: Michael at April 24, 2007 at 8:26 pm

And by the way,
It’s time we started letting them know they’re retards. This kind of stupidity isn’t harmless.

Posted by: Eric at April 24, 2007 at 8:51 pm

“The Internet at its very best: citing “South Park” to bolster your political point because “it sort of seems about right.”
Acknowlege the shallow mindless snark! And keep going!

Posted by: Radical Redneck at April 25, 2007 at 1:27 am

Michael,
Do you believe 9/11 was an inside job ?

Posted by: BadBoyInASuit at April 25, 2007 at 2:25 am

Redneck:
Not shallow at all, or mindless, either. Karol bills herself as a political consultant, and this is, for the most part, a political blog. This is how she makes her political decisions? South Park? Because it kinda sorta maybe feels right? Interesting.
BadBoy:
I have no idea. I haven’t given it much thought.

Posted by: Michael at April 25, 2007 at 9:23 am

Michael, don’t be willfully stupid. I was being flip in my comment about it seeming right and, it turns out, polls show the numbers of retarded Americans even higher than the numbers quoted by South Park.

Posted by: Karol at April 25, 2007 at 12:59 pm

More evidence of massive ‘tarditude.

Posted by: Mark Poling at April 25, 2007 at 1:59 pm

I’m not following the “willfully stupid” part.
Every single solitary day I read opinions by poster here and at other Right-leaning sites that I frankly don’t understand. Reason, as they say, seems to have left her throne. I’ve seen so many opinions I don’t understand voiced here that I am willing to accept just about anything as sincere (if absurdly wrongheaded).
The idea of basing one’s opinion on South Park is really no farther out there than other stuff I’ve read on this site, so it wasn’t clear to me that you were joking.

Posted by: Michael at April 25, 2007 at 2:24 pm

Michael, I wasn’t ‘joking’, just being flip. Yes, the statistic is from a cartoon, a smart cartoon, but it seemed about right based on the interactions I have with people in my everyday life and I also produced evidence that the number was pretty close to reality (and, in fact, giving Americans the benefit of the doubt). So what, exactly, is your beef?

Posted by: Karol at April 25, 2007 at 2:47 pm

Michael,
Do you believe 9/11 was an inside job?
BadBoy:
I have no idea. I haven’t given it much thought.
Welcome to the 25% crowd!

Posted by: scot at April 25, 2007 at 8:38 pm

Scot:
I have found it better not to have an opinion on a subject if I haven’t given much thought to it. I understand that many other people like to opine first and then think–or even opine and not think at all–but I disagree. If that makes me a bad person, then I guess that I’ll have to say, “Guilty as charged.” Unrepentent, but guilty.

Posted by: Michael at April 25, 2007 at 9:07 pm

Michael,
Rest assured, I do not consider you ‘bad’ at all. Your reasoning, however, is not at all convincing. One of the most shocking events in our lifetime, and you have no opinion on it? Who might have done it? And why? You write that you ‘haven’t given it much thought.’ I can’t help but feel that what you really mean is that you haven’t yet armed yourself with enough ammunition to make a go of what will likely be a rather unfavorable argument. Your advocation of ‘thinking before opining’ sounds noble, but I detect an ugly moral equivalence at play.
“Did the holocaust really happen?”
“Did America truly land on the moon?”
“Does the Earth orbit the sun, or is it the other way around?”
“Did the Cardinals win the world series last year?”
You can see how a reply of ‘I don’t know, I haven’t given it much thought’ to any of these questions will not only be dismissed as insincere, but will also invite scorn.

Posted by: scot at April 25, 2007 at 9:44 pm

Here’s what I don’t get, Scot: you’re taking me to task for not having a sitdown and cogitating about some conspiracy theory. I’m willing to accept the consensus of various commissions, etc. that bin Laden was behind it, but no–you really seem to want me to explore the Truthers’ tale.
If I did, though, wouldn’t I be, in the parlance of this site, a “retard?”
It seems like you berate me for not digging into the Truther story while you lie in wait to attack me if I then do begin to dig into the Truther story.
That doesn’t seem sporting.

Posted by: Michael at April 25, 2007 at 10:34 pm

you’re taking me to task for not having a sitdown and cogitating about some conspiracy theory.
No. I was taking you to task for pretending not to have an opinion about the truthers. As it turns out, you do have an opinion, just not a strong one (I’m willing to accept the consensus of various commissions, etc. that bin Laden was behind it.)
but no–you really seem to want me to explore the Truthers’ tale.
Not at all.
If I did, though, wouldn’t I be, in the parlance of this site, a “retard?”
Yes you would.
It seems like you berate me for not digging into the Truther story while you lie in wait to attack me if I then do begin to dig into the Truther story.
I berated you for not having an opinion about something you do actually have an opinion about. My error was in assuming that you were perfectly willing to believe in a fantastic conspiracy theory, but simply lacked the arguments to make your stand. For that, my apologies.

Posted by: scot at April 26, 2007 at 12:32 am

Scot,
Bro, you sure took Michael to the cleaners.
It’s going to be difficult in the future for Michael to have credibility here in discussing terrorism, the war, and related issues when he has admitted he hasn’t even thought about whether or not we were REALLY attacked on 9/11.
Ironically, Michael was mocking Karol for taking something political from “South Park”—particularly, on this issue of 9/11—yet at least “South Park” has bothered to think about 9/11—unlike Michael.

Posted by: BadBoyInASuit at April 26, 2007 at 5:52 pm

Nice try, BadBoy.
First of all, your comment assumes that I ever had credibility here. I never have, as far as I know, and you can’t lose something you never had.
I’ve never felt the need to question the official version of the events of September 11. The narrative seems pretty straightforward. The preponderance of evidence backed up the Commission’s story. My acceptance of this is a bad thing? I guess I’m not getting that part of it. Would it make you more comfortable if I were a Truther?
Also: you’re equating my acceptance of the Administration’s version of events with belief in the political viability of cartoons. Why? Since when did you begin to think that the Administration was no more reliable than a cartoon?
To be honest, I don’t think you actually do have contempt for my belief in the official story surrounding September 11. I think that you’re just desperate to take something that I post–anything–and try to make it look bad, even if it means twisting back on your own beliefs to make it happen.
In the interest of handing you some more earth-shattering ammunition to use against me, I’ve never read a single shred of Holocaust-denier literature, either. I have absolutely no idea what Holocaust deniers believe. I know of the existence of Holocaust deniers, but I’ve never explored their ideas, because of the overwhelming weight of the evidence that the Holocaust actually happened.
Are you now going to chastise me for not making an intensive exploration of the subtle arguments put forward by Deniers?
If there’s dog poop on the bottom of your shoe, you don’t need to explore the possibility that there’s no dog poop on you shoe. It’s right there for you to see.
Better luck next time, my friend.

Posted by: Michael at April 26, 2007 at 7:39 pm

Scot, excellent undressing of a circular argument.
I’ll buy you a drink at the next blogger party.
The term obtuse [Michael] comes to mind for some reason.

Posted by: Dan the Fiscal Conservative at May 11, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Post a comment