Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
The US GOP Primary Results/Prediction thread [UPDATE: Santorum suspends campaign]

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NEXT
 

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Seekster:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

I don't like anyone getting banned. Having every perspective on the political spectrum provides good context, whether it be the extreme right (powder) the middle right (Seekster) the middle left (Stagnant) or the extreme left (Bym). I may disagree with you on a lot Seekster, but I don't want you banned.

I figured if they were going to ban powder they would ban Bym at somepoint if they are consistent. It wasnt just that their views were extreme its that they were regularly disrespectful and insulting in how they expressed their views. I'm with you though, I would prefer that people not be banned (unless you know they are out there making advertising posts or trying to get you to download something that gives you a virus and stuff like that). I would prefer instead that they be allowed to remain here so we can ridicule them. Same general reason I am for freedom of speech when it comes to groups like the KKK or those idiots that try and deny the Armenian Genocide or even the 9/11 truthers. Let them spout their nonsense and then let them be criticized and exposed. It does no good to make them into victims.

Let's not get too out there. The 9/11 conspiracy has merit. Entirely possible? Yes. Plausible? Not really. But I can see the government turning a blind eye to the events as they occurred at the least. Blowing up the towers? Missile hitting the Pentagon? Doubtful. Being willfully ignorant to start a false-flag operation? Entirely possible.

But, like Oswald or Waco, we may never truly know what happened.

Actually im bored enough so lets go there for a bit. 9/11 conspiracy has no merit to it what so ever. The sheer number of people who would have to keep quiet about that sort of plot is staggering. Plus everything has been checked and double checked to death and is consistent with the official story. In my experience most truthers disagree on what version of events they agree with so before I go further in my criticisms which version of events do you personally subscribe to?

Oh we know what happened to Oswald, he got shot by Jack Ruby ^_^.

We know what happened to Waco...Dr. Pepper (the beverage was invented in Waco, TX).

Seriously though the Kennedy thing is much to do about nothing, Oswald shot and killed Kennedy. I don't see any inconsistencies in the official story. With Waco I am not really privy to the details but I think its entirely plausible that the Dividians just burned the complex themselves.

Seekster:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Seekster:

I figured if they were going to ban powder they would ban Bym at somepoint if they are consistent. It wasnt just that their views were extreme its that they were regularly disrespectful and insulting in how they expressed their views. I'm with you though, I would prefer that people not be banned (unless you know they are out there making advertising posts or trying to get you to download something that gives you a virus and stuff like that). I would prefer instead that they be allowed to remain here so we can ridicule them. Same general reason I am for freedom of speech when it comes to groups like the KKK or those idiots that try and deny the Armenian Genocide or even the 9/11 truthers. Let them spout their nonsense and then let them be criticized and exposed. It does no good to make them into victims.

Let's not get too out there. The 9/11 conspiracy has merit. Entirely possible? Yes. Plausible? Not really. But I can see the government turning a blind eye to the events as they occurred at the least. Blowing up the towers? Missile hitting the Pentagon? Doubtful. Being willfully ignorant to start a false-flag operation? Entirely possible.

But, like Oswald or Waco, we may never truly know what happened.

Actually im bored enough so lets go there for a bit. 9/11 conspiracy has no merit to it what so ever. The sheer number of people who would have to keep quiet about that sort of plot is staggering. Plus everything has been checked and double checked to death and is consistent with the official story. In my experience most truthers disagree on what version of events they agree with so before I go further in my criticisms which version of events do you personally subscribe to?

Oh we know what happened to Oswald, he got shot by Jack Ruby ^_^.

We know what happened to Waco...Dr. Pepper (the beverage was invented in Waco, TX).

Seriously though the Kennedy thing is much to do about nothing, Oswald shot and killed Kennedy. I don't see any inconsistencies in the official story. With Waco I am not really privy to the details but I think its entirely plausible that the Dividians just burned the complex themselves.

Like I said in my post, I subsribe to the events of "Government knew about the attacks, did nothing to stop them to start a false-flag operation". That's easy enough to keep secret.

Oswald? Too much data against Oswald acting alone, and too many coincidences for it to be logical.

Waco? Either one, neither would have surprised me.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Seekster:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Let's not get too out there. The 9/11 conspiracy has merit. Entirely possible? Yes. Plausible? Not really. But I can see the government turning a blind eye to the events as they occurred at the least. Blowing up the towers? Missile hitting the Pentagon? Doubtful. Being willfully ignorant to start a false-flag operation? Entirely possible.

But, like Oswald or Waco, we may never truly know what happened.

Actually im bored enough so lets go there for a bit. 9/11 conspiracy has no merit to it what so ever. The sheer number of people who would have to keep quiet about that sort of plot is staggering. Plus everything has been checked and double checked to death and is consistent with the official story. In my experience most truthers disagree on what version of events they agree with so before I go further in my criticisms which version of events do you personally subscribe to?

Oh we know what happened to Oswald, he got shot by Jack Ruby ^_^.

We know what happened to Waco...Dr. Pepper (the beverage was invented in Waco, TX).

Seriously though the Kennedy thing is much to do about nothing, Oswald shot and killed Kennedy. I don't see any inconsistencies in the official story. With Waco I am not really privy to the details but I think its entirely plausible that the Dividians just burned the complex themselves.

Like I said in my post, I subsribe to the events of "Government knew about the attacks, did nothing to stop them to start a false-flag operation". That's easy enough to keep secret.

Oswald? Too much data against Oswald acting alone, and too many coincidences for it to be logical.

Waco? Either one, neither would have surprised me.

When you say "false flag operation"...to me that sounds like you are suggesting that it was guys the government hired who hijacked the planes and flew them into buildings...are you suggesting that?

As to the government not knowing...this is the same intelligence service that told us that Saddam was building WMDs so its entirely plausible that they did not know about it though of all the conspiracy theories the idea that they knew about it and just didnt do anything to stop it is the hardest to debunk because its ultimately baseless. No scrap of evidence has emerged suggesting that the government knew about the attacks ahead of time. Sure in retrospect if you put the pieces together you can know what generally might happen but even that is not enough to actually prevent an attack.

My Grandfather still swears up and down that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor ahead of time and that Amellia Earhart got shot down spying on the Japanese for what its worth. Until they find Earhart's plane or a letter to Roosevelt saying "the Japs are gonna attack but dont tell anyone just get the carriers out of Pearl Harbor" you can't prove anything and I dont see any problems whatsoever with the official story.

Im not a JFK conspiracy buff nor do I care much about it (lived about 15 minutes from Dallas almost all my life and never once been to the site where it happened) but what data makes it impossible for Oswald to have been the shooter? From what programs I have seen on the matter there is a lot of circumstantial evidence but nothing that really says he couldnt have killed Kennedy. I think it makes for an interesting story but without hard evidence to discredit the official account I see no reason why Oswald could not have acted alone.

And yeah with Waco, I could care less...though I do like Dr. Pepper.

Seekster:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Seekster:

Actually im bored enough so lets go there for a bit. 9/11 conspiracy has no merit to it what so ever. The sheer number of people who would have to keep quiet about that sort of plot is staggering. Plus everything has been checked and double checked to death and is consistent with the official story. In my experience most truthers disagree on what version of events they agree with so before I go further in my criticisms which version of events do you personally subscribe to?

Oh we know what happened to Oswald, he got shot by Jack Ruby ^_^.

We know what happened to Waco...Dr. Pepper (the beverage was invented in Waco, TX).

Seriously though the Kennedy thing is much to do about nothing, Oswald shot and killed Kennedy. I don't see any inconsistencies in the official story. With Waco I am not really privy to the details but I think its entirely plausible that the Dividians just burned the complex themselves.

Like I said in my post, I subsribe to the events of "Government knew about the attacks, did nothing to stop them to start a false-flag operation". That's easy enough to keep secret.

Oswald? Too much data against Oswald acting alone, and too many coincidences for it to be logical.

Waco? Either one, neither would have surprised me.

When you say "false flag operation"...to me that sounds like you are suggesting that it was guys the government hired who hijacked the planes and flew them into buildings...are you suggesting that?

As to the government not knowing...this is the same intelligence service that told us that Saddam was building WMDs so its entirely plausible that they did not know about it though of all the conspiracy theories the idea that they knew about it and just didnt do anything to stop it is the hardest to debunk because its ultimately baseless. No scrap of evidence has emerged suggesting that the government knew about the attacks ahead of time. Sure in retrospect if you put the pieces together you can know what generally might happen but even that is not enough to actually prevent an attack.

My Grandfather still swears up and down that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor ahead of time and that Amellia Earhart got shot down spying on the Japanese for what its worth. Until they find Earhart's plane or a letter to Roosevelt saying "the Japs are gonna attack but dont tell anyone just get the carriers out of Pearl Harbor" you can't prove anything and I dont see any problems whatsoever with the official story.

Im not a JFK conspiracy buff nor do I care much about it (lived about 15 minutes from Dallas almost all my life and never once been to the site where it happened) but what data makes it impossible for Oswald to have been the shooter? From what programs I have seen on the matter there is a lot of circumstantial evidence but nothing that really says he couldnt have killed Kennedy. I think it makes for an interesting story but without hard evidence to discredit the official account I see no reason why Oswald could not have acted alone.

And yeah with Waco, I could care less...though I do like Dr. Pepper.

By False-Flag, I mean that the U.S. recieved intel about the hijacking and their plans for the planes, but did nothing. Part of this was to gather more information, part of it was to let it occur to justify the rapid expansion of the military budget, increase soldier recruitment during a heavily down period, and increase general feelings of patriotism when the nation was still split over the 2000 Election debacle.

There is a massive amount of information that suggests the same thing occured with Pearl Harbor because a large percentage of people wanted to engage in the war, but Congress needed a justified reason. As far as Earhart goes, I doubt it. Probably just a plane malfunction.

The data the suggests Oswald did not act alone was the bullet trajectory compared with how Kennedy's head reacted. The bullet struck, but Kennedy's head snapped forward, not backwards as the trajectory suggested it should. Ruby killing Oswald made it more suspicious because Oswald had threatened to tell the whole truth at his trial, and Ruby was under investigation for several racketeering and tax evasion charges.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Seekster:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Like I said in my post, I subsribe to the events of "Government knew about the attacks, did nothing to stop them to start a false-flag operation". That's easy enough to keep secret.

Oswald? Too much data against Oswald acting alone, and too many coincidences for it to be logical.

Waco? Either one, neither would have surprised me.

When you say "false flag operation"...to me that sounds like you are suggesting that it was guys the government hired who hijacked the planes and flew them into buildings...are you suggesting that?

As to the government not knowing...this is the same intelligence service that told us that Saddam was building WMDs so its entirely plausible that they did not know about it though of all the conspiracy theories the idea that they knew about it and just didnt do anything to stop it is the hardest to debunk because its ultimately baseless. No scrap of evidence has emerged suggesting that the government knew about the attacks ahead of time. Sure in retrospect if you put the pieces together you can know what generally might happen but even that is not enough to actually prevent an attack.

My Grandfather still swears up and down that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor ahead of time and that Amellia Earhart got shot down spying on the Japanese for what its worth. Until they find Earhart's plane or a letter to Roosevelt saying "the Japs are gonna attack but dont tell anyone just get the carriers out of Pearl Harbor" you can't prove anything and I dont see any problems whatsoever with the official story.

Im not a JFK conspiracy buff nor do I care much about it (lived about 15 minutes from Dallas almost all my life and never once been to the site where it happened) but what data makes it impossible for Oswald to have been the shooter? From what programs I have seen on the matter there is a lot of circumstantial evidence but nothing that really says he couldnt have killed Kennedy. I think it makes for an interesting story but without hard evidence to discredit the official account I see no reason why Oswald could not have acted alone.

And yeah with Waco, I could care less...though I do like Dr. Pepper.

By False-Flag, I mean that the U.S. recieved intel about the hijacking and their plans for the planes, but did nothing. Part of this was to gather more information, part of it was to let it occur to justify the rapid expansion of the military budget, increase soldier recruitment during a heavily down period, and increase general feelings of patriotism when the nation was still split over the 2000 Election debacle.

There is a massive amount of information that suggests the same thing occured with Pearl Harbor because a large percentage of people wanted to engage in the war, but Congress needed a justified reason. As far as Earhart goes, I doubt it. Probably just a plane malfunction.

The data the suggests Oswald did not act alone was the bullet trajectory compared with how Kennedy's head reacted. The bullet struck, but Kennedy's head snapped forward, not backwards as the trajectory suggested it should. Ruby killing Oswald made it more suspicious because Oswald had threatened to tell the whole truth at his trial, and Ruby was under investigation for several racketeering and tax evasion charges.

I don't think that is what false flag means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag

Also thats a lot of trouble to go through to achieve an end that was likely to have occurred anyway. America is damn proud of its military and military spending would continue to increase but maybe at a lower level.

I think you are grasping at straws with no evidence there. More importantly you are making outrageous accusations without any proof which is going to get you into trouble outside of an internet forum. Probably not with the government but think about what you are accusing the government of for a second there. It does not reflect well on you to make such accusations without any evidence.

I've looked at the evidence on Pearl Harbor and while I will admit that yes FDR wanted into the war and yes its a very convenient coincidence that all US aircraft carriers had left Pearl Harbor prior to the attack...its not an inconceivable one. Outside of refueling or repair there is little reason for an aircraft carrier to just sit in port collecting barnacles. Plus the Japanese had the means and the motivation to attack the United States. Furthermore after all these years not a shred of convincing evidence has emerged to support the idea that Roosevelt knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor before hand. Now is it possible that FDR had received reports that an attack was imminent somewhere in the Pacific? Oh must likely yes but keep in mind the Japanese were engaged in diplomacy until just before Pearl Harbor. The general feeling seemed to be that if the Japanese were going to attack they would at least wait until their diplomats were on a ship headed home. The circumstantial evidence is intriguing but its just that, circumstantial.

Like I said I havnt kept up with the latest version of the Kennedy Conspiracy theories though the Jack Ruby thing has always been curious. I mean did the guy really love Kennedy THAT much?

As for Oswald saying he would tell "the whole truth" at his trial, well that hardly means anything. Oswald seemed to believe he was falsely accused and was being held illegally and nonsense like that. He was a troubled man with a troubled past. I doubt very much he was even capable of telling the truth himself by that point.

Seekster:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Seekster:

When you say "false flag operation"...to me that sounds like you are suggesting that it was guys the government hired who hijacked the planes and flew them into buildings...are you suggesting that?

As to the government not knowing...this is the same intelligence service that told us that Saddam was building WMDs so its entirely plausible that they did not know about it though of all the conspiracy theories the idea that they knew about it and just didnt do anything to stop it is the hardest to debunk because its ultimately baseless. No scrap of evidence has emerged suggesting that the government knew about the attacks ahead of time. Sure in retrospect if you put the pieces together you can know what generally might happen but even that is not enough to actually prevent an attack.

My Grandfather still swears up and down that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor ahead of time and that Amellia Earhart got shot down spying on the Japanese for what its worth. Until they find Earhart's plane or a letter to Roosevelt saying "the Japs are gonna attack but dont tell anyone just get the carriers out of Pearl Harbor" you can't prove anything and I dont see any problems whatsoever with the official story.

Im not a JFK conspiracy buff nor do I care much about it (lived about 15 minutes from Dallas almost all my life and never once been to the site where it happened) but what data makes it impossible for Oswald to have been the shooter? From what programs I have seen on the matter there is a lot of circumstantial evidence but nothing that really says he couldnt have killed Kennedy. I think it makes for an interesting story but without hard evidence to discredit the official account I see no reason why Oswald could not have acted alone.

And yeah with Waco, I could care less...though I do like Dr. Pepper.

By False-Flag, I mean that the U.S. recieved intel about the hijacking and their plans for the planes, but did nothing. Part of this was to gather more information, part of it was to let it occur to justify the rapid expansion of the military budget, increase soldier recruitment during a heavily down period, and increase general feelings of patriotism when the nation was still split over the 2000 Election debacle.

There is a massive amount of information that suggests the same thing occured with Pearl Harbor because a large percentage of people wanted to engage in the war, but Congress needed a justified reason. As far as Earhart goes, I doubt it. Probably just a plane malfunction.

The data the suggests Oswald did not act alone was the bullet trajectory compared with how Kennedy's head reacted. The bullet struck, but Kennedy's head snapped forward, not backwards as the trajectory suggested it should. Ruby killing Oswald made it more suspicious because Oswald had threatened to tell the whole truth at his trial, and Ruby was under investigation for several racketeering and tax evasion charges.

I don't think that is what false flag means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag

Also thats a lot of trouble to go through to achieve an end that was likely to have occurred anyway. America is damn proud of its military and military spending would continue to increase but maybe at a lower level.

I think you are grasping at straws with no evidence there. More importantly you are making outrageous accusations without any proof which is going to get you into trouble outside of an internet forum. Probably not with the government but think about what you are accusing the government of for a second there. It does not reflect well on you to make such accusations without any evidence.

I've looked at the evidence on Pearl Harbor and while I will admit that yes FDR wanted into the war and yes its a very convenient coincidence that all US aircraft carriers had left Pearl Harbor prior to the attack...its not an inconceivable one. Outside of refueling or repair there is little reason for an aircraft carrier to just sit in port collecting barnacles. Plus the Japanese had the means and the motivation to attack the United States. Furthermore after all these years not a shred of convincing evidence has emerged to support the idea that Roosevelt knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor before hand. Now is it possible that FDR had received reports that an attack was imminent somewhere in the Pacific? Oh must likely yes but keep in mind the Japanese were engaged in diplomacy until just before Pearl Harbor. The general feeling seemed to be that if the Japanese were going to attack they would at least wait until their diplomats were on a ship headed home. The circumstantial evidence is intriguing but its just that, circumstantial.

Like I said I havnt kept up with the latest version of the Kennedy Conspiracy theories though the Jack Ruby thing has always been curious. I mean did the guy really love Kennedy THAT much?

As for Oswald saying he would tell "the whole truth" at his trial, well that hardly means anything. Oswald seemed to believe he was falsely accused and was being held illegally and nonsense like that. He was a troubled man with a troubled past. I doubt very much he was even capable of telling the truth himself by that point.

As far as 9/11 goes, the government lying to further its own interests has been one of the constants through human history.

As far as Ruby goes, allegedly the government offered him a reduced sentence for his other charges if he killed Oswald. This falls under the theory that LBJ ordered the assassination, and the government hired Oswald, and then sold him out when they were done. When Oswald threatened to disclose this, they had someone else kill him.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Seekster:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

By False-Flag, I mean that the U.S. recieved intel about the hijacking and their plans for the planes, but did nothing. Part of this was to gather more information, part of it was to let it occur to justify the rapid expansion of the military budget, increase soldier recruitment during a heavily down period, and increase general feelings of patriotism when the nation was still split over the 2000 Election debacle.

There is a massive amount of information that suggests the same thing occured with Pearl Harbor because a large percentage of people wanted to engage in the war, but Congress needed a justified reason. As far as Earhart goes, I doubt it. Probably just a plane malfunction.

The data the suggests Oswald did not act alone was the bullet trajectory compared with how Kennedy's head reacted. The bullet struck, but Kennedy's head snapped forward, not backwards as the trajectory suggested it should. Ruby killing Oswald made it more suspicious because Oswald had threatened to tell the whole truth at his trial, and Ruby was under investigation for several racketeering and tax evasion charges.

I don't think that is what false flag means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag

Also thats a lot of trouble to go through to achieve an end that was likely to have occurred anyway. America is damn proud of its military and military spending would continue to increase but maybe at a lower level.

I think you are grasping at straws with no evidence there. More importantly you are making outrageous accusations without any proof which is going to get you into trouble outside of an internet forum. Probably not with the government but think about what you are accusing the government of for a second there. It does not reflect well on you to make such accusations without any evidence.

I've looked at the evidence on Pearl Harbor and while I will admit that yes FDR wanted into the war and yes its a very convenient coincidence that all US aircraft carriers had left Pearl Harbor prior to the attack...its not an inconceivable one. Outside of refueling or repair there is little reason for an aircraft carrier to just sit in port collecting barnacles. Plus the Japanese had the means and the motivation to attack the United States. Furthermore after all these years not a shred of convincing evidence has emerged to support the idea that Roosevelt knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor before hand. Now is it possible that FDR had received reports that an attack was imminent somewhere in the Pacific? Oh must likely yes but keep in mind the Japanese were engaged in diplomacy until just before Pearl Harbor. The general feeling seemed to be that if the Japanese were going to attack they would at least wait until their diplomats were on a ship headed home. The circumstantial evidence is intriguing but its just that, circumstantial.

Like I said I havnt kept up with the latest version of the Kennedy Conspiracy theories though the Jack Ruby thing has always been curious. I mean did the guy really love Kennedy THAT much?

As for Oswald saying he would tell "the whole truth" at his trial, well that hardly means anything. Oswald seemed to believe he was falsely accused and was being held illegally and nonsense like that. He was a troubled man with a troubled past. I doubt very much he was even capable of telling the truth himself by that point.

As far as 9/11 goes, the government lying to further its own interests has been one of the constants through human history.

As far as Ruby goes, allegedly the government offered him a reduced sentence for his other charges if he killed Oswald. This falls under the theory that LBJ ordered the assassination, and the government hired Oswald, and then sold him out when they were done. When Oswald threatened to disclose this, they had someone else kill him.

But not to THAT extent. Once again you are accusing the government of looking the other way on the greatest single terrorist attack in American history all to get a boost in military spending which it could have gotten anyway and with less effort and maybe to get a temporary boost to recruitment from a short wave of patriotism which it didnt need so badly that it would overlook something like this. What's more you are making all those accusations based on nothing but your own suspicions as far as I can tell. Thats just sick dude.

I do not see any reason to doubt the official story, do you?

Ah yes, conspiracy theories are fun so long as you take them with huge handfuls of salt. When you don't...you end up like that guy who got punched by Buzz Aldrin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buzz_Aldrin#Hoax_allegations

Did I mention that I freaking LOVE Buzz Aldrin?

Alright, I finally had a few free minutes to look for the Puerto Rico results (which I have yet to find a complete tally for). Regardless, the delegates are clearly in Romney's favor so I've already tossed his delegates into his column.

As a heads up, I will likely not be able to see the polls close in Illinois tonight. Feel free to use the thread as a discussion platform the returns. Hopefully I will get the results up within 24 hours.

How this thread got into the conspiracy theory territory I will never know. Regardless, keep it up! Keep those posts coming!

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Seekster:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Like I said in my post, I subsribe to the events of "Government knew about the attacks, did nothing to stop them to start a false-flag operation". That's easy enough to keep secret.

Oswald? Too much data against Oswald acting alone, and too many coincidences for it to be logical.

Waco? Either one, neither would have surprised me.

When you say "false flag operation"...to me that sounds like you are suggesting that it was guys the government hired who hijacked the planes and flew them into buildings...are you suggesting that?

As to the government not knowing...this is the same intelligence service that told us that Saddam was building WMDs so its entirely plausible that they did not know about it though of all the conspiracy theories the idea that they knew about it and just didnt do anything to stop it is the hardest to debunk because its ultimately baseless. No scrap of evidence has emerged suggesting that the government knew about the attacks ahead of time. Sure in retrospect if you put the pieces together you can know what generally might happen but even that is not enough to actually prevent an attack.

My Grandfather still swears up and down that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor ahead of time and that Amellia Earhart got shot down spying on the Japanese for what its worth. Until they find Earhart's plane or a letter to Roosevelt saying "the Japs are gonna attack but dont tell anyone just get the carriers out of Pearl Harbor" you can't prove anything and I dont see any problems whatsoever with the official story.

Im not a JFK conspiracy buff nor do I care much about it (lived about 15 minutes from Dallas almost all my life and never once been to the site where it happened) but what data makes it impossible for Oswald to have been the shooter? From what programs I have seen on the matter there is a lot of circumstantial evidence but nothing that really says he couldnt have killed Kennedy. I think it makes for an interesting story but without hard evidence to discredit the official account I see no reason why Oswald could not have acted alone.

And yeah with Waco, I could care less...though I do like Dr. Pepper.

By False-Flag, I mean that the U.S. recieved intel about the hijacking and their plans for the planes, but did nothing. Part of this was to gather more information, part of it was to let it occur to justify the rapid expansion of the military budget, increase soldier recruitment during a heavily down period, and increase general feelings of patriotism when the nation was still split over the 2000 Election debacle.

There is a massive amount of information that suggests the same thing occured with Pearl Harbor because a large percentage of people wanted to engage in the war, but Congress needed a justified reason. As far as Earhart goes, I doubt it. Probably just a plane malfunction.

The data the suggests Oswald did not act alone was the bullet trajectory compared with how Kennedy's head reacted. The bullet struck, but Kennedy's head snapped forward, not backwards as the trajectory suggested it should. Ruby killing Oswald made it more suspicious because Oswald had threatened to tell the whole truth at his trial, and Ruby was under investigation for several racketeering and tax evasion charges.

o god i love conspiracy theorists.

it is a complete myth that kennedys head snapped the wrong way, physics says so. even mythbusters did an episode on it. you are unfortunately a victim of hollywood, believe it or not bullets do not send people flying backwards.

as for earhart http://news.discovery.com/history/amelia-earhart-resting-place.html

whenever people think the government is covering something up you have to remember something. the whitehouse could not keep a blowjob that involved 2 people a secret, how the hell are they going to keep hundreds if not thousands of people in check.

reonhato:
-snip-

Ah interesting post. One thing that if funny about conspiracy theorists is that it assumes the government or even just the CIA has far more power than it actually has. In the CIA's case it often likes to encourage conspiracy theories because while the CIA can't be everywhere at once they would like you to think they can be. In reality though it literally does not have the funding to even be most places at once.

Whats this about conspiracies?? Ugh. Oh well. I still With Movie Bob, But here we go...

9/11 conspiracies: Really, in the face of logic, there is nothing to these. The CIA is not omnipresent, it is not Omniscience. They just dropped the ball and shit hit the fan. It is as simple as that. And if they DID know, it was too late to do anything about it. From what I have read and heard, they DID know about these guys, but nothing was sending off warning bells, and when they DID find something unusual, the terrorist where already on a plane and couldnt be stopped.

Pearl Harbor: This one is not even up for debate. It happened over 60 years ago. We have found out pretty much all we can. And here is what it is: We DID know the Japanese where mad enough that they were going to do something rash. This was confirmed when a MASSIVE fleet of japanese ships left for...they didnt know. Ideas ranged from The Phillipines, to Midway, to Wake, but no one though Pearl would be attacked. It was believe to be un-attackable. Then, we found out that the Japs were attacking Pearl, but the word was too slow to get there on time (in one of histories cruel fates, the letter saying Pearl was going to be attacked was in Admiral Kimmels hands less than 5 minutes after the attack.) There is not conspiracy, the Japs caught us with our pants down, we were arragent and cocky enough to think a position impossible to attack, get over it.

JFK: Most of the evidence falls in the face of science and reason. His head flung back because water is wierd in that it moves in the opposite direction of what hits it. That is why water splashes UP when you drop something in it. Most else is at best circustancial, at worst completely made up. It confounds me to know end that 68% of americans believe that there was a coverup of what happened to Kennedy.

BOOM headshot65:
Japs

I'm sorry, you are not an octogenarian WWII vet, and nor are you in a 1940s Bugs Bunny cartoon. The word "Jap" is pretty fucking offensive.

Tyler Perry:

BOOM headshot65:
Japs

I'm sorry, you are not an octogenarian WWII vet, and nor are you in a 1940s Bugs Bunny cartoon. The word "Jap" is pretty fucking offensive.

I only refer to the Japanese of WW2 as "Japs". Same as how I refer to the Germans of WW2 as "Nazis" or "Krouts". It is soldier slang for talking about your enemy. I am talking about our former enemies. If I had called modern day Japanese "Japs", I could understand why you would be so butthurt, but I am not. So you are blowing a simple word out of proportion.

EDIT: Also, I notice Seekster said "Jap" too, but you didnt complain at him....why??

Jap. Good lord people its like saying Brit. Its just short for Japanese. Tyler your not even Japanese. In any case I don't see how the short for Japanese is offensive but if a Japanese person prefered I not use the term (and honestly I don't use it much anyway) then out of respect I wouldnt use it.

By the way, Romney just kicked arse in Illinois.

BOOM headshot65:

Tyler Perry:

BOOM headshot65:
Japs

I'm sorry, you are not an octogenarian WWII vet, and nor are you in a 1940s Bugs Bunny cartoon. The word "Jap" is pretty fucking offensive.

I only refer to the Japanese of WW2 as "Japs". Same as how I refer to the Germans of WW2 as "Nazis" or "Krouts". It is soldier slang for talking about your enemy. I am talking about our former enemies. If I had called modern day Japanese "Japs", I could understand why you would be so butthurt, but I am not. So you are blowing a simple word out of proportion.

EDIT: Also, I notice Seekster said "Jap" too, but you didnt complain at him....why??

Then presumably you'd also casually refer to 1950s-'70s Vietnamese troops as "gooks", "dinks" and "slant-eyes", right?

Seekster:
Jap. Good lord people its like saying Brit. Its just short for Japanese. Tyler your not even Japanese. In any case I don't see how the short for Japanese is offensive but if a Japanese person prefered I not use the term (and honestly I don't use it much anyway) then out of respect I wouldnt use it.

It's offensive because the word "Jap" is most memorable for its use in American racist WW2-era dehumanising propaganda, specifically because it's easy to place into memorable slogans, e.g.: "Alaska: Death Trap for the Jap", "The Murdering Japs", "How to Spot a Jap", etc.

This is why it isn't "just short for Japanese" like the way "Brit" is short for "British". Calling somebody a "Brit" doesn't have NEARLY the same historical connotations. It's like saying "chink" is short for "Chinese". So what? It's still considered offensive, and they're both considered ethnic slurs.

Context matters.

hardlymotivated:
Then presumably you'd also casually refer to 1950s-'70s Vietnamese troops as "gooks", "dinks" and "slant-eyes", right?

I have never heard those before. I just go by what I have heard from soldiers I have talked to. Most of the time, they refered to them as "Commies". Or "Pajamas" if they were talking about the Vietcong.

hardlymotivated:
It's offensive because the word "Jap" is most memorable for its use in American racist WW2-era dehumanising propaganda, specifically because it's easy to place into memorable slogans, e.g.: "Alaska: Death Trap for the Jap", "The Murdering Japs", "How to Spot a Jap", etc.

News Flash: Every Nation, and Every Army, in Every war, has dehumanized thier enemies. Why? Because it is easier to shot the guy shooting at you when your not thinking "Oh crap, I am depriving some child of his father. What Kind of monster am I?" Its something you dont think about, because if you do, it gets you killed, and now YOU are depriving your children of a father.

BOOM headshot65:

hardlymotivated:
It's offensive because the word "Jap" is most memorable for its use in American racist WW2-era dehumanising propaganda, specifically because it's easy to place into memorable slogans, e.g.: "Alaska: Death Trap for the Jap", "The Murdering Japs", "How to Spot a Jap", etc.

News Flash: Every Nation, and Every Army, in Every war, has dehumanized thier enemies. Why? Because it is easier to shot the guy shooting at you when your not thinking "Oh crap, I am depriving some child of his father. What Kind of monster am I?" Its something you dont think about, because if you do, it gets you killed, and now YOU are depriving your children of a father.

Do tell: what part of my post led you to believe that I didn't already know this? The phrase "No poop, Poirot" springs to mind. The ramifications are obvious.

Did my mention that it was American propaganda touch a nerve, or something? I'm genuinely puzzled by your response.

"Dink" is relatively uncommon (it's definitely in Apocalypse Now, might be in Platoon too, come to think of it), but "gook" has been around for about 100 years now and is pretty famous; "slant-eyed" and variants thereof are quite well-known slurs against East Asians, so I'm surprised you haven't heard of the latter two before.

It's just dawned on me how off-topic this is, so this'll be my last post on the subject in this topic, but if you feel like continuing in PMs or in a different thread or whatever, I'm down.

hardlymotivated:

BOOM headshot65:

Tyler Perry:

I'm sorry, you are not an octogenarian WWII vet, and nor are you in a 1940s Bugs Bunny cartoon. The word "Jap" is pretty fucking offensive.

I only refer to the Japanese of WW2 as "Japs". Same as how I refer to the Germans of WW2 as "Nazis" or "Krouts". It is soldier slang for talking about your enemy. I am talking about our former enemies. If I had called modern day Japanese "Japs", I could understand why you would be so butthurt, but I am not. So you are blowing a simple word out of proportion.

EDIT: Also, I notice Seekster said "Jap" too, but you didnt complain at him....why??

Then presumably you'd also casually refer to 1950s-'70s Vietnamese troops as "gooks", "dinks" and "slant-eyes", right?

Seekster:
Jap. Good lord people its like saying Brit. Its just short for Japanese. Tyler your not even Japanese. In any case I don't see how the short for Japanese is offensive but if a Japanese person prefered I not use the term (and honestly I don't use it much anyway) then out of respect I wouldnt use it.

It's offensive because the word "Jap" is most memorable for its use in American racist WW2-era dehumanising propaganda, specifically because it's easy to place into memorable slogans, e.g.: "Alaska: Death Trap for the Jap", "The Murdering Japs", "How to Spot a Jap", etc.

This is why it isn't "just short for Japanese" like the way "Brit" is short for "British". Calling somebody a "Brit" doesn't have NEARLY the same historical connotations. It's like saying "chink" is short for "Chinese". So what? It's still considered offensive, and they're both considered ethnic slurs.

Context matters.

Of course not those terms are actual slurs. Jap is not the slur term for the Japanese.

Yeah context matters and I am not using the term as a form of derision. I really like the Japanese and would never insult them.

Still if its too much of a disctraction then its actually easier just to use Japanese instead of the short form and avoid all this bs about people acting all offended.

Now more on topic, Mitt Romney owned in Illinois last night.

hardlymotivated:
It's just dawned on me how off-topic this is, so this'll be my last post on the subject in this topic, but if you feel like continuing in PMs or in a different thread or whatever, I'm down.

It was stated by the OP he doesnt care about off topic-ness because it is more post for him, but all righty then.

BOOM headshot65:

hardlymotivated:
It's just dawned on me how off-topic this is, so this'll be my last post on the subject in this topic, but if you feel like continuing in PMs or in a different thread or whatever, I'm down.

It was stated by the OP he doesnt care about off topic-ness because it is more post for him, but all righty then.

What happened to the tin foil hat team?

Anyways, Illinois results have been added to the OP. Sorry for the delay. Shit's been happening. Last night, my neighbor kept me up with the banging, gunfire, and a commando raid. It's been quite a week...

Also, the gaffe du jur is "[the campaign is] almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again" referring to Romney's strategy when he is the nominee. Considering how most Republicans view Romney as a opportunistic moderate who will literally say anything to get the nomination and then abandon those statements like fresh roadkill the moment he has to attract independents, it hasn't gone over very well...

BOOM headshot65:

I only refer to the Japanese of WW2 as "Japs". Same as how I refer to the Germans of WW2 as "Nazis" or "Krouts". It is soldier slang for talking about your enemy. I am talking about our former enemies. If I had called modern day Japanese "Japs", I could understand why you would be so butthurt, but I am not. So you are blowing a simple word out of proportion.

And you ain't a fuckin' GI, either, so can it.

BOOM headshot65:
EDIT: Also, I notice Seekster said "Jap" too, but you didnt complain at him....why??

Because I didn't see it.

The Gentleman:
Last night, my neighbor kept me up with the banging, gunfire, and a commando raid.

Commando Raid???! O_o

Also, the gaffe du jur is "[the campaign is] almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again" referring to Romney's strategy when he is the nominee. Considering how most Republicans view Romney as a opportunistic moderate who will literally say anything to get the nomination and then abandon those statements like fresh roadkill the moment he has to attract independents, it hasn't gone over very well...

Meh, Really, Romney NEEDS to attract the independents to get the election. So there may be people running that I agree with more in terms of thier policy, but Romney is the only one that stands a chance in the General Election, which is what really matters. Besides, just like everything else he has said, people have over-reated or taken it the wrong way:

"I dont care about the very poor"

What he ment: "I want to help the majority of this country and concentrate on the very poor, who have a safety net, later"
What people heard: "I dont care about the poor because I am some evil, greedy buisness man."

"I have a Ford Mustang and a Dodge truck, and my wife has 2 Cadillacs."

What he ment: "Look, Mr. Autobuilder, I am buying the cars you built with you own hands in a factory here in America."
What people heard: "Look at me, I am rich enough to afford 2 Cadillacs. Thats about $100,000 right there people."

and now his campain manager says: "He is almost like an Etch-a-Sketch. We can shake him up and start over."

What he ment: "After every election, he can switch gears to win the next location without slowing down."
What people heard: "He will say anything to get elected."

BOOM headshot65:
Meh, Really, Romney NEEDS to attract the independents to get the election. So there may be people running that I agree with more in terms of thier policy, but Romney is the only one that stands a chance in the General Election, which is what really matters. Besides, just like everything else he has said, people have over-reated or taken it the wrong way:

"I dont care about the very poor"

What he ment: "I want to help the majority of this country and concentrate on the very poor, who have a safety net, later"
What people heard: "I dont care about the poor because I am some evil, greedy buisness man."

"I have a Ford Mustang and a Dodge truck, and my wife has 2 Cadillacs."

What he ment: "Look, Mr. Autobuilder, I am buying the cars you built with you own hands in a factory here in America."
What people heard: "Look at me, I am rich enough to afford 2 Cadillacs. Thats about $100,000 right there people."

and now his campain manager says: "He is almost like an Etch-a-Sketch. We can shake him up and start over."

What he ment: "After every election, he can switch gears to win the next location without slowing down."
What people heard: "He will say anything to get elected."

The message you're trying to portray matters little if a different message suits the narrative. A lot of people (and I mean a lot of people) view Mitt Romney as essentially an automaton with just a handful of passionless speeches. He tries to look angry, but he just can't emote in front of a camera. He's the polar opposite of his father, who was full of passion and willing to challenge his party on issues like war (it was Vietnam) and poverty. His son, on the other hand, looks like a Just For Men ad minus the emotion. He routinely says whatever people want to hear as if he's giving a time-share lecture (At least Gingrich has the mad scientist passion behind his crazy pandering).

BOOM headshot65:

The Gentleman:
Last night, my neighbor kept me up with the banging, gunfire, and a commando raid.

Commando Raid???! O_o

Also, the gaffe du jur is "[the campaign is] almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again" referring to Romney's strategy when he is the nominee. Considering how most Republicans view Romney as a opportunistic moderate who will literally say anything to get the nomination and then abandon those statements like fresh roadkill the moment he has to attract independents, it hasn't gone over very well...

Meh, Really, Romney NEEDS to attract the independents to get the election. So there may be people running that I agree with more in terms of thier policy, but Romney is the only one that stands a chance in the General Election, which is what really matters. Besides, just like everything else he has said, people have over-reated or taken it the wrong way:

"I dont care about the very poor"

What he ment: "I want to help the majority of this country and concentrate on the very poor, who have a safety net, later"
What people heard: "I dont care about the poor because I am some evil, greedy buisness man."

"I have a Ford Mustang and a Dodge truck, and my wife has 2 Cadillacs."

What he ment: "Look, Mr. Autobuilder, I am buying the cars you built with you own hands in a factory here in America."
What people heard: "Look at me, I am rich enough to afford 2 Cadillacs. Thats about $100,000 right there people."

and now his campain manager says: "He is almost like an Etch-a-Sketch. We can shake him up and start over."

What he ment: "After every election, he can switch gears to win the next location without slowing down."
What people heard: "He will say anything to get elected."

Well if Mitt Romney and Barrack Obama work together, Obama can help convince Conservative voters to vote for Mitt and Romney can convince more Independents to vote for him (Mitt).

I don't really know what Obama can say to attack Mitt (that is both factual and effective anyway). Yeah he is rich, the only people who care about that are voting for Obama anyway because they already buy the class warfare thing. Oh Mitt has trouble connecting with people, yeah so does Obama. The luster from 2008 has faded greatly and Obama has been exposed as just another typical politician. Also I can guarantee you that Romney's camp has had an answer to the Romney-care question that everyone and their dog, cat, and goldfish, know Obama is going to ask Romney in their first debate.

I think it will be a pretty close election barring something crazy happening (then again this is American politics so crazy happens fairly often).

Also on a personal note, I will know longer be directly answering every single quoted reply to my posts. Real life has become hectic and stressful enough. I will occasionally respond to replies I find interesting or worthwhile.

i think its safe to say santorum has louisiana, only 30% done but santorum 47% to romney 27%, exit polls showing santorum to have a big win.

edit: seems most places have already called it for santorum

Seekster:
Suspended for 14 days

You bastard! Who else is going to provide the GOP perspective without sounding like a mental case if you're gone!?! This thread is on basic life support as it is!

*Calms down with a nice tea*

Anyways, Santorum has won a +20% margin in Louisiana. No surprises there. However, Gingrich pulled third behind Romney, suggesting that he is no longer a viable candidate even in his southern stronghold.

Preliminary Results posted. Full data will be posted when available.

The Gentleman:

Seekster:
Suspended for 14 days

You bastard! Who else is going to provide the GOP perspective without sounding like a mental case if you're gone!?! This thread is on basic life support as it is!

*Calms down with a nice tea*

Anyways, Santorum has one a +20% margin in Louisiana. No surprises there. However, Gingrich pulled third behind Romney, suggesting that he is no longer a viable candidate even in his southern stronghold.

What the flying fuck? Seekster suspended?

What is the world coming to? I don't think I've ever seen him post anything close to breaking a rule.

...I clicked on the link and Seek got suspended for what is clearly a case of botched quote tags. I sent a pm to Nasrin about it. It's obviously a mistake.

evilneko:

The Gentleman:

Seekster:
Suspended for 14 days

You bastard! Who else is going to provide the GOP perspective without sounding like a mental case if you're gone!?! This thread is on basic life support as it is!

*Calms down with a nice tea*

Anyways, Santorum has one a +20% margin in Louisiana. No surprises there. However, Gingrich pulled third behind Romney, suggesting that he is no longer a viable candidate even in his southern stronghold.

What the flying fuck? Seekster suspended?

What is the world coming to? I don't think I've ever seen him post anything close to breaking a rule.

...I clicked on the link and Seek got suspended for what is clearly a case of botched quote tags. I sent a pm to Nasrin about it. It's obviously a mistake.

That's what I thought too. I wasn't sure who to PM since I've somehow managed to steer clear of modrage, which I often have a hard time doing on other forumz.

I know Daily Kos isn't that good but they had me rolling with this

Mitt Romney:
Romney said he has some connections to Wisconsin.

"One of most humorous I think relates to my father. You may remember my father, George Romney, was president of an automobile company called American Motors ... They had a factory in Michigan, and they had a factory in Kenosha, Wisconsin, and another one in Milwaukee, Wisconsin," said Romney. "And as the president of the company he decided to close the factory in Michigan and move all the production to Wisconsin. Now later he decided to run for governor of Michigan and so you can imagine that having closed the factory and moved all the production to Wisconsin was a very sensitive issue to him, for his campaign."

Romney said he recalled a parade in which the school band marching with his father's campaign only knew the Wisconsin fight song, not the Michigan song.

"So every time they would start playing 'On Wisconsin, on Wisconsin,' my dad's political people would jump up and down and try to get them to stop, because they didn't want people in Michigan to be reminded that my dad had moved production to Wisconsin," said Romney, laughing.

And Kos' response

Kos:

"Hello, human Wisconsin voters! I have a humorous anecdote to be related. My father once shut down a factory in Michigan, which was beneficial to the people of your state since you are not from Michigan. Then he ran for governor of Michigan and-you will like this, humans, because it is humorous-during one parade the children in the local marching band only knew how to play a song from your state, Wisconsin, as opposed to the state of Michigan where my father was attempting to gain higher office. This led to some unpleasantries because my father did not wish to bring further attention to his laying off of workers from the state he was now suggesting he lead. Is that not humorous? Yes, screw Michigan, am I right? Now that they have already voted, I can safely say that your state of Wisconsin is a much better state. Your cheese is quite definitely of the correct height. My parental unit was correct in transferring employment opportunities to your state instead of filthy Michigan, where the children do not even know the correct songs."

Romney really does need work on his human interaction protocols. His story amounted to "So my dad laid off all these people..."

In other news: Newt Gingrich has scaled back his campaign by 1/3rd, effectively signaling the end of his campaign in every way except officially (hence why I haven't banished him to the fatality section). Personally, I don't think his campaign is dead, as a shambling undead horror ran on spite and ego is a far more appropriate metaphor.

The Gentleman:
Personally, I don't think his campaign is dead, as a shambling undead horror ran on spite and ego is a far more appropriate metaphor.

You forgot cheese grits.

Okay, for those who forgot that a primary is going on for the GOP nominee for the US presidency, the next primary night is tomorrow . Due to some scheduling conflicts requiring me to operate at normal human hours, I will probably not be up to post the preliminary results, barring insomnia. Preliminary results will hopefully be posted sometime early the next day with final results as soon as 100% is reporting and I have forty free minutes to apply the results to the rest of the page.

As for the primaries themselves, Wisconsin will likely be Santorum's second-to-last stand (with the last one in Pennsylvania) against Romney. Romney has recently been polling in the lead in the state and will likely also win the more moderate Maryland and DC primaries by significant margins. More critically is the gap between primaries means that there would be a long swath of time where he will be strapped for cash while Romney racks up key establishment endorsements to solidify his place as the nominee.

Oddly appropriate capcha: Time will tell

My God, the last few pages of this thread are amusing as all hell! Love me some good conspiracy arguing.

OT: Were I to vote Republican, I probably would have voted for Huntsman. Good for the job, but doesn't act like an idiot so for some reason that means fuck him to the Right. Romney seems like a good second pick, but he just rubs me wrong for some reason. The rest(barring Ron Paul) are just too bat-shit insane of a choice to even consider. Ron Paul's a bit of an odd-ball. I don't hate him, but I don't like all of his policies. If Romney were to drop out for whatever reason, I'd vote for him.

D.C., Wisconsin, and Maryland results have been posted. Romney won almost all the delegates by most calculations and has broken the 50% mark of the 1,144 delegates in many of then. Santorum has vowed to stay in the race, causing some commentators to compare him to Reagan in 1976 (some blame him for Ford's loss to Carter due to Reagan staying in the race until the convention where Ford was just shy of the necessary delegates to win the nominations).

Next primaries are on April 24th: Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island. If Santorum stays in, Pennsylvania, his home state, will be the key contest to watch on that day, as demographics favor Romney.

wintercoat:

OT: Were I to vote Republican, I probably would have voted for Huntsman.

I wanted to as well, and I was PISSED when he dropped out...and begrudgingly threw my support to Romney considering Huntsman endorsed him (which I find ironic after a comment he had directed at Romney during the last debate he was in, but whatever.

The rest(barring Ron Paul) are just too bat-shit insane of a choice to even consider. Ron Paul's a bit of an odd-ball. I don't hate him, but I don't like all of his policies. If Romney were to drop out for whatever reason, I'd vote for him.

As A republican, I will vote for anyone, bar Santorum, although I will have to beat my head against a wall afew times before I will vote for Paul, considering I absolutely HATE his economic and isolation policies (his econs but WAY too much trust in the market and I am pro-intervention, so obviously I will not like isolation). Gingrich wouldnt be too bad (or at least as bad as people say he would be).

Captcha: Thats Right

So, you agree with me then, Mr. Captcha? Well, how can I argue with that.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked