Thank you so much. It is extremely exhausting trying to convince people who are basing their opinions on emotion rather than logic. And in the end it probably is futile. But if I can get just one person to breathe the fresh air of the truth and logic, I will feel vindicated.
For decades Democrats have been winning in the public arena by appealing to emotion. Republicans have always tried to appeal to logic and reason and not always successfully. I too, felt that the Posner book was the straw that broke the camel's back of the conspiracy theories. No one should have their mind clouded by the awful ideas that the conspiracy theorists put forward -- when they do think that way they are setting themselves up for recruitment by the Democrats. Look at the arguments used against our actions in Iraq. They are similar -- based on a conspiracy by Halliburton, or a plan to impose martial law, or other nonsense.
Know the truth and the truth shall set you free someone once said. If you don't know the truth you are setting yourself up to be a possible slave to demagogues. "The government wasn't telling the truth in 1963, therefore they are not telling the truth now -- Vote Dean!"
Thank you again.
Thanks also for your thoughtful response. You've articulated the situation extremely well and I agree with you 100%, especially the part about Democrats appealing to emotions, while Republicans appeal to reason and logic. When you think about it, that pretty much sums up the difference between the two parties.
I'm sort of new around here, but please count on my support in any future battles with the conspiracy buffs. You've done yeoman work by yourself.
I've thought a lot about why the conspiracy theories continue to thrive, in spite of all rational evidence to the contrary. Read this quote from William Manchester. I think he summs it up well:
"Those who desperately want to believe that Kennedy was the victim of a conspiracy have my sympathy. I share their yearning. To employ what may seem an odd metaphor, there is an esthetic primnciple here. If you put the Holocost on one side of a scale and on the other put the Nazi regime - the greatest gang of criminals ever to seize control of a modern state - you have a rough balance: greatest crime, greatest criminals.
"But if you put the murdered President of the United States on one side of a scale and the wretched waif Oswald on the other side, it doesnn't balance. You want to add something weighter to Oswald. It would invest the President's death with meaning, endowing him with martydom.. He would have died for something. A conspiracy would, of course, do the job nicely. Unfortunately, there is no evidence whatever that there was one."
This Kennedy fascination is essentially media-driven. The media can't handle it that their beloved president was killed by a "lone-nut." The fact that he was a "left-wing lone nut" just adds insult to injury. They will keep searching, hoping to find something to give to Kemnnedy's death the stature they gave him in life.
By the way, I just posted a great editorial on the assassination from today's Chicago Sun-TImes. This may be the best I've ever read. Here's the link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1027455/posts