misogynistic

Huh? "[A misogynist is a person who hates or doesn't trust women. Misogynist is from Greek misogynḗs, from the prefix miso- "hatred" plus gynḗ "a woman."]"

I don't have a copy to hand, but that's pretty much how Freakonomics describes it. Maybe a little more diplomatically, but that's the gist of what it says. I don't see how that makes it misogynistic.

But I'm sure you'll enlighten me.

Would it help if I'd mentioned that the sires of those unwanted pregnancies were also probably uneducated, careless, low income, probably unmarried men who behaved a lot like Bill Clinton and many other males, following their small head wherever it wanted to go, and took no responsibility for the children they might have fathered?

And there are actual conspiracies. The actual evangelical Christian religious conspiracy in the United States to dumb down science education and "teach the controversy". Or the actual political conspiracy of the Republican party to tell a lot of anti-abortion lies in order to secure that same high-turnout religious vote, because it only hurts women.

Yep, there are actual conspiracies! I fully agree with you about conspiracies to create wars and all kinds of other despicable things.

I just hope you realise that a conspiracy is a secret plan to do something illegal. No matter how "secret," a plan to change the rules or the law by legitimate political means is not a conspiracy.

Either way, the anti-abortion lies do not only hurt women, by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, it was the very introduction of legalised abortion that caused the dramatic drop in the US crime rate a couple(?) of decades ago. Why? Because all those unwanted, damned inconvenient nuisance children were no longer being born to uneducated, careless, low income, probably unmarried women who didn't want them in the first place, wouldn't care for them and wouldn't drag them up to be anything more than anti-social at best and deeply criminal at worst.

Obviously, Trump said whatever it took to get himself elected. Well done, I say. Shows "democracy" up for the farcical lie that it is.

Now let's see what he does. I suspect it will be far better than most of us can currently imagine. Or, it's all another conspiracy, to further push the USA towards a fascist state.

Your "quotes", John, not mine.

How revealing.

Of what? Please do dazzle us all with your undeniable wisdom.

Precisely!!!

So, which conspiracy theory is the more evidence based?

CGI video is the real stuff, hey?

C'mon, don't duck the question!

Blessed are the Believers!

I take it you go for the titanium strip on the runway story then?

Yep! Published as "Conspiracy theories".

Not published as Fact! Nor even as News.

That is my point, but I guess you didn't "get" that? What MSM outlet came out with the other conspiracy story AS the News, from the outset? And even, now?

I mean, published the real truth about 9/11, not as a "He said, She said, You decide" 'conspiracy theory' debate. That's not publishing the facts.

So, which Conspiracy Theory do you prefer to believe, then?

CT 1: Islamic Terrorists hijacked a couple of commuter planes, flew them into the Towers, and that brought them down (for what purpose?)

CT 2: God-fearing Americans devised a plan to justify war in the Middle East, and a hypocritical, purposeful "War on Terror", by fabricating a Terrorist Attack on the US via the WTC Towers story. Unknown US authorised Agents then set up the Towers with the necessary explosives, Thermite and/or whatever was else required, and "arranged" for a couple of planes (no doubt unmanned drones) to crash into the Towers. Since the planes would certainly not be sufficient to bring down the Towers (and certainly not in a safe, controlled, vertical drop as happened), the explosives etc were essential, in order to create the desired public indignation (without creating huge destruction in NYC).

As you'll see, they are both genuine conspiracy theories, so why does the "Official" (Government) one get called the News, and the other (more realistic, more evidence-based one) gets dismissed under the pejorative "conspiracy theory" label?

Have you actually done any research into the Truth on this question?

How about Concorde, then?

Hi. I have to agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments. I believe the MSM has a LOT to answer for, and by-and-large, has only itself to blame for its lack of "believability."

I attended a mini-seminar by a PR expert a few years back. He told us that only about 25% of the stories in the printed newspapers were "real" news stories. The rest were simply re-hashed Press Releases (spin articles) put out by vested interests.

I believe that ratio has very much worsened since then. Now, almost everyone is doing it. The PR guy worked (then) for a large local body and told us that they were doing it back then, and I can confirm that. They even did it internally on a regular basis. I couldn't even get a copy of one such internal publication under the LGOIMA Act. They refused to supply it. Can't remember why, but I happen to know that it had a story about me in it...

Anyway, what I'm getting to is that now, even the Government does this. Feeds misleading and dishonest spin stories to the lazy media. In New Zealand, the newspaper publishers are in the government's pocket, and just won't publish a lot of stories, because the government will retaliate.

Thus, it's almost impossible now to tell what is going on out there. Direct observation is not practical!

So, let's give a couple of examples. I know I'm going to be dissed as a Conspiracy Theorist for this! So be it.

1: What really caused the crash of the Concorde in Paris in 2000?

2. The 9/11 World Trade Centre fiasco: Inside job. Deliberate, carefully planned and executed demolition by the Americans. For the purpose of justifying war. You MSM guys: Please name some MSM outlets (ok, even one) which has published anything but the cover story about the terrorists hijacking planes and bringing the towers down that way...