There are many ways to assassinate a president. We just saw one of those ways yesterday, in Georgia. And you'll see it again if RFK Jr. gets too popular.
Once again, the conservatives in this group who are also LNers show a level of cognitive dissonance that is staggering.
They deny the scandalous corruption surrounding the JFK assassination...while they live in happening against them in real time.
LNers can't be saved. And that's why I haven't been online in a while.
Who cares?
Who cares?
Such patriotism.
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 5:15:46?PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
Who cares?
Such patriotism.
So you think it's your patriotic duty to accuse all sorts of government officials of being complicit
in the assassination of JFK without a scrap of evidence to support such allegations.
So you think it's your patriotic duty to accuse all sorts of government officials of being complicit
in the assassination of JFK without a scrap of evidence to support such allegations.
Just to catch you up, David, Corbutt stopped responding to me when I
started posting the Bugliosi's 53 Reasons - Refuted... He just
couldn't stand it.
Seeing a hero of his being knocked into the dust, and nothing he could
do about it. So he just ran...
Just to catch you up, David, Corbutt stopped responding to me when I..
started posting the Bugliosi's 53 Reasons - Refuted... He just
couldn't stand it.
..
Just to catch you up, David, Corbutt stopped responding to me when I
started posting the Bugliosi's 53 Reasons - Refuted... He just
couldn't stand it.
lol, Ben still evidence-bombing the believers into irrelevancy. It's worth coming back to see!
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 4:35:27 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:He thinks Trump of today is just like JFK in 1963. And vice versa. "They" assassinated JFK because he was a threat and they are assassinating, in a different way, Trump because he too is a threat. The idea that JFK was opposed by the Establishment the
There are many ways to assassinate a president. We just saw one of those ways yesterday, in Georgia. And you'll see it again if RFK Jr. gets too popular.
Once again, the conservatives in this group who are also LNers show a level of cognitive dissonance that is staggering.
They deny the scandalous corruption surrounding the JFK assassination...while they live in happening against them in real time.
LNers can't be saved. And that's why I haven't been online in a while.Who cares?
There are many ways to assassinate a president. We just saw one of those ways yesterday, in Georgia. And you'll see it again if RFK Jr. gets too popular.
Once again, the conservatives in this group who are also LNers show a level of cognitive dissonance that is staggering.
They deny the scandalous corruption surrounding the JFK assassination...while they live in happening against them in real time.
LNers can't be saved. And that's why I haven't been online in a while.
So you think it's your patriotic duty to accuse all sorts of government officials of being complicitThere sure is a hell of a lot of evidence for someone to say "without a scrap of evidence."
in the assassination of JFK without a scrap of evidence to support such allegations.
But who cares?
Just to catch you up, David, Corbutt stopped responding to me when I started posting the Bugliosi's 53 Reasons - Refuted... He just
couldn't stand it.
Seeing a hero of his being knocked into the dust, and nothing he couldIt would be a shame if Corbutt the Patriot happened upon the book "Chaos" by Tom O'Neill, which better than anything chronicles what a true scum Bugliosi was and always has been.
do about it. So he just ran...
Just to catch you up, David, Corbutt stopped responding to me when I started posting the Bugliosi's 53 Reasons - Refuted... He just..
couldn't stand it.
lol, Ben still evidence-bombing the believers into irrelevancy. It's worth coming back to see!
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 3:35:27 PM UTC-5, David Drummond wrote:
Boris the Truther dropped this clunker on the group:1963/1964 America might've voted for whomever "the other guy" was in 1964. No need for sniper teams hiding behind bushes and secret kidnap teams stealing his corpse for pre-autopsy autopsies, etc. Simply employ those MSM contacts the CIA had in their hip
There are many ways to assassinate a president. We just saw one of those ways yesterday, in Georgia. And you'll see it again if RFK Jr. gets too popular.
Once again, the conservatives in this group who are also LNers show a level of cognitive dissonance that is staggering.
They deny the scandalous corruption surrounding the JFK assassination...while they live in happening against them in real time.Weird.
The one with cognitive dissonance is you, Boris. JFK could've been efficiently "removed" from office with similar dirty tricks some of us think were employed against Trump in 2020. JFK was so compromised with his personal life that a much more prudish
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 7:09:35 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 3:35:27 PM UTC-5, David Drummond wrote:
prudish 1963/1964 America might've voted for whomever "the other guy" was in 1964. No need for sniper teams hiding behind bushes and secret kidnap teams stealing his corpse for pre-autopsy autopsies, etc. Simply employ those MSM contacts the CIA had inBoris the Truther dropped this clunker on the group:
There are many ways to assassinate a president. We just saw one of those ways yesterday, in Georgia. And you'll see it again if RFK Jr. gets too popular.
Once again, the conservatives in this group who are also LNers show a level of cognitive dissonance that is staggering.
They deny the scandalous corruption surrounding the JFK assassination...while they live in happening against them in real time.Weird.
The one with cognitive dissonance is you, Boris. JFK could've been efficiently "removed" from office with similar dirty tricks some of us think were employed against Trump in 2020. JFK was so compromised with his personal life that a much more
As late as 1988, Gary Hart's presidential ambitions were torpedoed by photos of him with his
girlfriend, Susan Rice, published by the National Enguirer.
This led to the off color joke:
Q: What's the difference between Republican women and Democrat women.
A: Republican women have Bush in their heart.
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 5:28:01?PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
There sure is a hell of a lot of evidence for someone to say "without a scrap of evidence."
So you think it's your patriotic duty to accuse all sorts of government officials of being complicit
in the assassination of JFK without a scrap of evidence to support such allegations.
But who cares?
OK, list the three best pieces of evidence you have that someone other than Oswald took part
in the crime. I've made this challenge countless times over the years and few CTs have even
attempted to answer.
If you dispute that, list the three best pieces of evidence you have
either that Oswald was innocent or that someone other than Oswald was involved in either murder, using material from your website or any
other source you like.
1. _____________________________________
2. _____________________________________
3. _____________________________________
The one with cognitive dissonance is you, Boris. JFK could've been efficiently "removed" from office with similar dirty tricks some of us think were employed against Trump in 2020. JFK was so compromised with his personal life that a much more prudish1963/1964 America might've voted for whomever "the other guy" was in 1964. No need for sniper teams hiding behind bushes and secret kidnap teams stealing his corpse for pre-autopsy autopsies, etc.
It would be a shame if Corbutt the Patriot happened upon the book "Chaos" by Tom O'Neill, which better than anything chronicles what a true scum Bugliosi was and always has been.Bugliosi's character has zilch to do with the question of whether or not there was a conspiracy
to kill JFK.
He thinks Trump of today is just like JFK in 1963. And vice versa. "They" assassinated JFK because he was a threat and they are assassinating, in a different way, Trump because he too is a threat.
The idea that JFK was opposed by the Establishment the way Trump is opposed is truly bizarre.
The idea that indicting him is some type of "assassination" is even more bizarre. In fact, the "assassination" of Trump is helping him get the nomination.
These folks really do think there's a secret covert powerful "they" that controls things.
The people who were in power in 1963 are all dead.
But another powerful group has replaced them.
And for whatever reason covering up the murder of JFK 60 years ago.
Including the media.
Weird how when it comes to someone like, say, Roger Craig, he's a kook with questionable character. Yet Bugliosi, who threatened, intimidated, stalked and bribed witnesses, as well as beat women, speaks gospel on all things.It would be a shame if Corbutt the Patriot happened upon the book "Chaos" by Tom O'Neill, which better than anything chronicles what a true scum Bugliosi was and always has been.Bugliosi's character has zilch to do with the question of whether or not there was a conspiracy
to kill JFK.
OK, list the three best pieces of evidence you have that someone other than Oswald took part
in the crime. I've made this challenge countless times over the years and few CTs have even
attempted to answer.
OK, list the three best pieces of evidence you have that someone other than Oswald took part
in the crime. I've made this challenge countless times over the years and few CTs have even
attempted to answer.
instantly pivoted to the "jet effect" theory to immediately explain away that which they previously believed to be true. To be a LNer is to believe the jet effect both exists and doesn't exist at the same time.OK, list the three best pieces of evidence you have that someone other than Oswald took partCTers don't answer because they know it's a waste of time. Inasmuch as if someone said to me, "I dare you to talk to that brick wall," I would just respond with "why bother?"
in the crime. I've made this challenge countless times over the years and few CTs have even
attempted to answer.
Because for instance, the brick wall believes that JFK's head was thrown forward due to a shot from behind, because that's what asshole Dan Rather told them. Then when the Z-film came out showing his head was in fact thrown back, the brick wall
To be a LNer is to believe that objects with greater mass do not produce greater momentum, which defies the laws of physics.
To be a LNer is to disbelieve the findings of the autopsy report, but believe its conclusions.re born, because doctors can't be trusted to know. In 1963 Land, LNers profess their trust in the medical experts who say alll the right things. But the dozens of them who attested to a large absence of bone and scalp in the occipital/parietal area were
Today, progressive leftists who want you to get the Covid jab will tell you to trust the doctors, because they are medical experts who know more than you. Then those same leftists will proclaim that doctors are "just guessing" a baby's gender when they'
So my question is, why should I post three pieces of evidence to someone who believes that men can get pregnant?
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 7:10:16 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
OK, list the three best pieces of evidence you have that someone other than Oswald took part1.The way authorities denied Oswald his Constitutional rights.
in the crime. I've made this challenge countless times over the years and few CTs have even
attempted to answer.
2.The way authorities tampered with the evidence.
3.The way authorities tampered with the witnesses.
https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1652/evidence-witness-intimidation-tampering
https://gil-jesus.com/the-police-lineups/
Professional law enforcement people would never stoop to such unethical tactics against a suspect they knew was guilty.
No professional would ever risk having a solid case thrown out of court on a technicality.
But these are exactly the types of tactics one would use if one were trying to frame an innocent man for a crime he did not commit.
The trolls can cry all they want.
The truth is that there is more than a shadow of a doubt that Oswald was guilty.
And it's all here:
www.gil-jesus.com
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 5:58:14 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 7:10:16 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:None of the above is evidence that anybody other than Oswald took part in the crime. Who
OK, list the three best pieces of evidence you have that someone other than Oswald took part1.The way authorities denied Oswald his Constitutional rights.
in the crime. I've made this challenge countless times over the years and few CTs have even
attempted to answer.
2.The way authorities tampered with the evidence.
3.The way authorities tampered with the witnesses.
does it implicate? Even if the above were true, which it is not, it is not evidence others were
involved nor preclude Oswald from being the lone assassin.
https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1652/evidence-witness-intimidation-tampering
https://gil-jesus.com/the-police-lineups/
Professional law enforcement people would never stoop to such unethical tactics against a suspect they knew was guilty.You don't think cops ever bend the rules to try to make a case against a suspect they believe
is guilty? Are you that naive?
No professional would ever risk having a solid case thrown out of court on a technicality.Welcome to the real world, Gil.
But these are exactly the types of tactics one would use if one were trying to frame an innocent man for a crime he did not commit.Your premise is that cops only bend the rules if they are trying to make a case against an
innocent man. More often it happens when cops know they have the right man but don't have
a solid enough case.
Neither of these things was true in the JFK assassination. The cops knew
Oswald was the assassin and they had a wealth of evidence to prove it. They had no reason to
bend the rules.
The trolls can cry all they want.Not in the minds of people who look at the evidence objectively. That excludes you since you
The truth is that there is more than a shadow of a doubt that Oswald was guilty.
have admitted to being Oswald's defense counsel. You are acting just like one would expect of
an attorney who is defending a client he knows committed the crime with which he is accused.
To get your client off, you need to conceal the truth from the jury.
You need to manufacture
doubt where none exists.
And it's all here:
www.gil-jesus.comA collection of your lame arguments with little actual evidence to support them.
Bugliosi never claimed to witness things related to the JFK assassination.
Bugliosi never claimed to witness things related to the JFK assassination.Yet he has all the answers.
Or should I say, all the answers you need to hear.
instantly pivoted to the "jet effect" theory to immediately explain away that which they previously believed to be true. To be a LNer is to believe the jet effect both exists and doesn't exist at the same time.Because for instance, the brick wall believes that JFK's head was thrown forward due to a shot from behind, because that's what asshole Dan Rather told them. Then when the Z-film came out showing his head was in fact thrown back, the brick wall
To be a LNer is to believe that objects with greater mass do not produce greater momentum, which defies the laws of physics.It is a myth--
If JFK's rearward movement is your best piece of evidence of a conspiracy, I can't wait to see
what #2 is.i
To be a LNer is to disbelieve the findings of the autopsy report, but believe its conclusions.
they're born, because doctors can't be trusted to know. In 1963 Land, LNers profess their trust in the medical experts who say alll the right things. But the dozens of them who attested to a large absence of bone and scalp in the occipital/parietal areaToday, progressive leftists who want you to get the Covid jab will tell you to trust the doctors, because they are medical experts who know more than you. Then those same leftists will proclaim that doctors are "just guessing" a baby's gender when
Leave it to a conspiracy hobbyist to try to change the subject when they get painted into a
corner.
So my question is, why should I post three pieces of evidence to someone who believes that men can get pregnant?When did I say men could get pregnant. This is a feeble attempt by you to redirect the dialogue.
threatened to expose dark underbellies (recall JFK's speech about secret societies).He thinks Trump of today is just like JFK in 1963. And vice versa. "They" assassinated JFK because he was a threat and they are assassinating, in a different way, Trump because he too is a threat.Not just a threat, but the *same kind* of threat. Peace over war, which starves the Military Industrial Complex. Both threatened to drain the swamp (though JFK used the words "shatter it into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds"). Both
The idea that JFK was opposed by the Establishment the way Trump is opposed is truly bizarre.Yeah, it's like impossible or something.
The idea that indicting him is some type of "assassination" is even more bizarre. In fact, the "assassination" of Trump is helping him get the nomination.Is it? Because they're still trying to say the Constitution disqualifies him from running.
These folks really do think there's a secret covert powerful "they" that controls things.Nonsense. Everything happens exactly the way my TV tells me it happened, and no one is ever lying about anything.
The people who were in power in 1963 are all dead."I killed a cockroach, that means there are no more cockroaches." - Steven Galbraith
But another powerful group has replaced them.It's the same group, with different political leanings. In 1963 they were far-right fascists who killed a liberal; today they are far-left communists who are killing conservatives.
And for whatever reason covering up the murder of JFK 60 years ago.For whatever reason!
Just one from me because we'll be going around in circles again. So, your argument is the same media that revealed the crimes of the CIA and FBI, the abuses by the "cockroaches" that you refer to also covered up for - lied - for them in their murder ofIncluding the media.
We already covered this. The media doesn't lie. The media never lies. Fiery but mostly peaceful.
instantly pivoted to the "jet effect" theory to immediately explain away that which they previously believed to be true. To be a LNer is to believe the jet effect both exists and doesn't exist at the same time.Because for instance, the brick wall believes that JFK's head was thrown forward due to a shot from behind, because that's what asshole Dan Rather told them. Then when the Z-film came out showing his head was in fact thrown back, the brick wall
Just one from me because we'll be going around in circles again. So, your argument is the same media that revealed the crimes of the CIA and FBI, the abuses by the "cockroaches" that you refer to also covered up for - lied - for them in their murder ofJFK?
Who exposed the crimes/abuses by these cockroaches? Wasn't it the media?
Bugliosi never claimed to witness things related to the JFK assassination.Yet he has all the answers.
Or should I say, all the answers you need to hear.You'll notice that unlike corrupt DAs like Bugliosi and plagiarists like Gerald Poseur, CTs and critics never profess to have all the answers.
Critics have only the gall to ask questions. But to "patriots" like John Corbett and other linear-thinking imbeciles, merely asking questions is crime enough.
Bugliosi never claimed to witness things related to the JFK assassination.Yet he has all the answers.
Or should I say, all the answers you need to hear.
So, your argument is the same media that revealed the crimes of the CIA and FBI, the abuses by the "cockroaches" that you refer to also covered up for - lied - for them in their murder of JFK? They exposed these
cockroaches, e.g. Cointelpro, the CIA Family Jewels, et cetera and they also cover up for them? For 60 years now? Is this your view?
Who exposed the crimes/abuses by these cockroaches? Wasn't it the media? And government, e.g., Church Committee? But you think they also covered up for them? Do you think this makes any sense at all?
Because he looks at the evidence correctly.
Or should I say, all the answers you need to hear.That is an accurate statement. It's accurate because he looks at the evidence correctly.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:17:39 AM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
instantly pivoted to the "jet effect" theory to immediately explain away that which they previously believed to be true. To be a LNer is to believe the jet effect both exists and doesn't exist at the same time.Because for instance, the brick wall believes that JFK's head was thrown forward due to a shot from behind, because that's what asshole Dan Rather told them. Then when the Z-film came out showing his head was in fact thrown back, the brick wall
The "jet effect" was debunked by me a long time ago.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/jet-effect.mp4
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:34:24 AM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:children ? That they could convince people to voluntarily allow them to inject them with a substance for which there is no data on its long-term effect ?
So, your argument is the same media that revealed the crimes of the CIA and FBI, the abuses by the "cockroaches" that you refer to also covered up for - lied - for them in their murder of JFK? They exposed theseWould you in your wildest dreams believe that the same deep state that exposed state-sponsored murder by US government agencies and that brought down Richard Nixon would now be party to hiding the fact that mandatory COVID-19 vaccines could kill your
cockroaches, e.g. Cointelpro, the CIA Family Jewels, et cetera and they also cover up for them? For 60 years now? Is this your view?
Who exposed the crimes/abuses by these cockroaches? Wasn't it the media? And government, e.g., Church Committee? But you think they also covered up for them? Do you think this makes any sense at all?
I'm not anti-vax, but who would be so foolish to allow something to be injected into their body which they know nothing about ?I'll try again: Why would the media expose the crimes/abuses by the CIA/FBI and then cover up for their murder of JFK? Why expose one and not the other?
And one which provides immunity only for its manufacturer ?
Millions. I can't tell you how many people have admitted to me that, "If I knew then what I know now, I would have never taken it".
And these same people claim they will not take any boosters.
Like I've said, I'm not against vaccines that have been tested and approved, but It'll be a cold day in hell when I become a lab rat for the pharmecutical industry.
Now people are suddenly dropping dead at rates never seen before.
Wake the fuck up, professor.
Your devotion to the deep state, no matter who is running it, touches my heart.
instantly pivoted to the "jet effect" theory to immediately explain away that which they previously believed to be true. To be a LNer is to believe the jet effect both exists and doesn't exist at the same time.Because for instance, the brick wall believes that JFK's head was thrown forward due to a shot from behind, because that's what asshole Dan Rather told them. Then when the Z-film came out showing his head was in fact thrown back, the brick wall
To be a LNer is to believe that objects with greater mass do not produce greater momentum, which defies the laws of physics.It is a myth--
Boring.
And your answer does nothing for the fact that you require a bullet to do two contradictory things at once. Hey, did your little Mythbusters TV show explain the "jet effect" of skull pieces and effluence flying backwards and smacking Bobby Hargis inthe face?
Oh wait, you'll tell me the breakneck velocity of the limo's speed at the time supplanted the bullet's forward-thrusting impact. Naturally.
Did Mythubsters also get around to explaining how an entrance wound in the throat could occur from behind? Or was that covered during the commercial break?
If JFK's rearward movement is your best piece of evidence of a conspiracy, I can't wait to see
what #2 is.i
No response I see. I guess you COULD wait to see what #2 was.To be a LNer is to disbelieve the findings of the autopsy report, but believe its conclusions.
they're born, because doctors can't be trusted to know. In 1963 Land, LNers profess their trust in the medical experts who say alll the right things. But the dozens of them who attested to a large absence of bone and scalp in the occipital/parietal areaToday, progressive leftists who want you to get the Covid jab will tell you to trust the doctors, because they are medical experts who know more than you. Then those same leftists will proclaim that doctors are "just guessing" a baby's gender when
Leave it to a conspiracy hobbyist to try to change the subject when they get painted into aI see Corbett the Patriot believes a large absence of bone and scalp in the occipital/parietal area constitutes "changing the subject." LNers, as we all know, see things differently from normal people.
corner.
If you'd comprehended the point I was making,So my question is, why should I post three pieces of evidence to someone who believes that men can get pregnant?When did I say men could get pregnant. This is a feeble attempt by you to redirect the dialogue.
you would have seen it wasn't a redirect of the dialogue at all. But LNers don't usually understand things not spoonfed directly to them.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 10:12:51 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:children ? That they could convince people to voluntarily allow them to inject them with a substance for which there is no data on its long-term effect ?
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:34:24 AM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
So, your argument is the same media that revealed the crimes of the CIA and FBI, the abuses by the "cockroaches" that you refer to also covered up for - lied - for them in their murder of JFK? They exposed theseWould you in your wildest dreams believe that the same deep state that exposed state-sponsored murder by US government agencies and that brought down Richard Nixon would now be party to hiding the fact that mandatory COVID-19 vaccines could kill your
cockroaches, e.g. Cointelpro, the CIA Family Jewels, et cetera and they also cover up for them? For 60 years now? Is this your view?
Who exposed the crimes/abuses by these cockroaches? Wasn't it the media? And government, e.g., Church Committee? But you think they also covered up for them? Do you think this makes any sense at all?
their children. So they made a killer vaccine and took it themselves?I'm not anti-vax, but who would be so foolish to allow something to be injected into their body which they know nothing about ?
And one which provides immunity only for its manufacturer ?
Millions. I can't tell you how many people have admitted to me that, "If I knew then what I know now, I would have never taken it".
And these same people claim they will not take any boosters.
Like I've said, I'm not against vaccines that have been tested and approved, but It'll be a cold day in hell when I become a lab rat for the pharmecutical industry.
Now people are suddenly dropping dead at rates never seen before.I'll try again: Why would the media expose the crimes/abuses by the CIA/FBI and then cover up for their murder of JFK? Why expose one and not the other?
Wake the fuck up, professor.
Your devotion to the deep state, no matter who is running it, touches my heart.
Does that make any sense?
Try answering that please and not give us/me all of this gibberish about the vaccines and pharmaceutical industry. For crissakes, the same evil people who made this supposed killer vaccine took the damned vaccine. And gave it to their families and
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 10:22:58 AM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:your children ? That they could convince people to voluntarily allow them to inject them with a substance for which there is no data on its long-term effect ?
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 10:12:51 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:34:24 AM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
So, your argument is the same media that revealed the crimes of the CIA and FBI, the abuses by the "cockroaches" that you refer to also covered up for - lied - for them in their murder of JFK? They exposed theseWould you in your wildest dreams believe that the same deep state that exposed state-sponsored murder by US government agencies and that brought down Richard Nixon would now be party to hiding the fact that mandatory COVID-19 vaccines could kill
cockroaches, e.g. Cointelpro, the CIA Family Jewels, et cetera and they also cover up for them? For 60 years now? Is this your view?
Who exposed the crimes/abuses by these cockroaches? Wasn't it the media? And government, e.g., Church Committee? But you think they also covered up for them? Do you think this makes any sense at all?
their children. So they made a killer vaccine and took it themselves?I'm not anti-vax, but who would be so foolish to allow something to be injected into their body which they know nothing about ?
And one which provides immunity only for its manufacturer ?
Millions. I can't tell you how many people have admitted to me that, "If I knew then what I know now, I would have never taken it".
And these same people claim they will not take any boosters.
Like I've said, I'm not against vaccines that have been tested and approved, but It'll be a cold day in hell when I become a lab rat for the pharmecutical industry.
Now people are suddenly dropping dead at rates never seen before.I'll try again: Why would the media expose the crimes/abuses by the CIA/FBI and then cover up for their murder of JFK? Why expose one and not the other?
Wake the fuck up, professor.
Your devotion to the deep state, no matter who is running it, touches my heart.
Does that make any sense?
Try answering that please and not give us/me all of this gibberish about the vaccines and pharmaceutical industry. For crissakes, the same evil people who made this supposed killer vaccine took the damned vaccine. And gave it to their families and
Look for one of them to bring up Jim Jones's Kool-Aid.Or one will say there were "two" vaccines? Two Oswalds, two autopsies, two shooters: why not two vaccines? The killer one they gave us and a good one they took.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 10:31:27 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:your children ? That they could convince people to voluntarily allow them to inject them with a substance for which there is no data on its long-term effect ?
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 10:22:58 AM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 10:12:51 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:34:24 AM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
So, your argument is the same media that revealed the crimes of the CIA and FBI, the abuses by the "cockroaches" that you refer to also covered up for - lied - for them in their murder of JFK? They exposed theseWould you in your wildest dreams believe that the same deep state that exposed state-sponsored murder by US government agencies and that brought down Richard Nixon would now be party to hiding the fact that mandatory COVID-19 vaccines could kill
cockroaches, e.g. Cointelpro, the CIA Family Jewels, et cetera and they also cover up for them? For 60 years now? Is this your view?
Who exposed the crimes/abuses by these cockroaches? Wasn't it the media? And government, e.g., Church Committee? But you think they also covered up for them? Do you think this makes any sense at all?
their children. So they made a killer vaccine and took it themselves?I'm not anti-vax, but who would be so foolish to allow something to be injected into their body which they know nothing about ?
And one which provides immunity only for its manufacturer ?
Millions. I can't tell you how many people have admitted to me that, "If I knew then what I know now, I would have never taken it".
And these same people claim they will not take any boosters.
Like I've said, I'm not against vaccines that have been tested and approved, but It'll be a cold day in hell when I become a lab rat for the pharmecutical industry.
Now people are suddenly dropping dead at rates never seen before.I'll try again: Why would the media expose the crimes/abuses by the CIA/FBI and then cover up for their murder of JFK? Why expose one and not the other?
Wake the fuck up, professor.
Your devotion to the deep state, no matter who is running it, touches my heart.
Does that make any sense?
Try answering that please and not give us/me all of this gibberish about the vaccines and pharmaceutical industry. For crissakes, the same evil people who made this supposed killer vaccine took the damned vaccine. And gave it to their families and
are two Trumps? They sure do like to push the "twos" ideas.Look for one of them to bring up Jim Jones's Kool-Aid.Or one will say there were "two" vaccines? Two Oswalds, two autopsies, two shooters: why not two vaccines? The killer one they gave us and a good one they took.
Irony is that Trump takes credit for the vaccines, for pushing for them, "Operation Warp Speed". The same Trump they believe the "deep state"/Establishment wants to assassinate. Yes, Trump is secretly working for "them". Or I guess, they can say there
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 10:13:42 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Because he looks at the evidence correctly.
Or should I say, all the answers you need to hear.That is an accurate statement. It's accurate because he looks at the evidence correctly.
Yeah, that Bugliosi has a history if looking at evidence correctly.
Remember when he accused his milkman of fathering his son ?
https://youtu.be/2wPIng0hGxQ
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 10:53:12 AM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:kill your children ? That they could convince people to voluntarily allow them to inject them with a substance for which there is no data on its long-term effect ?
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 10:31:27 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 10:22:58 AM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 10:12:51 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:34:24 AM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
So, your argument is the same media that revealed the crimes of the CIA and FBI, the abuses by the "cockroaches" that you refer to also covered up for - lied - for them in their murder of JFK? They exposed theseWould you in your wildest dreams believe that the same deep state that exposed state-sponsored murder by US government agencies and that brought down Richard Nixon would now be party to hiding the fact that mandatory COVID-19 vaccines could
cockroaches, e.g. Cointelpro, the CIA Family Jewels, et cetera and they also cover up for them? For 60 years now? Is this your view?
Who exposed the crimes/abuses by these cockroaches? Wasn't it the media? And government, e.g., Church Committee? But you think they also covered up for them? Do you think this makes any sense at all?
and their children. So they made a killer vaccine and took it themselves?I'm not anti-vax, but who would be so foolish to allow something to be injected into their body which they know nothing about ?
And one which provides immunity only for its manufacturer ?
Millions. I can't tell you how many people have admitted to me that, "If I knew then what I know now, I would have never taken it".
And these same people claim they will not take any boosters.
Like I've said, I'm not against vaccines that have been tested and approved, but It'll be a cold day in hell when I become a lab rat for the pharmecutical industry.
Now people are suddenly dropping dead at rates never seen before. Wake the fuck up, professor.I'll try again: Why would the media expose the crimes/abuses by the CIA/FBI and then cover up for their murder of JFK? Why expose one and not the other?
Your devotion to the deep state, no matter who is running it, touches my heart.
Does that make any sense?
Try answering that please and not give us/me all of this gibberish about the vaccines and pharmaceutical industry. For crissakes, the same evil people who made this supposed killer vaccine took the damned vaccine. And gave it to their families
there are two Trumps? They sure do like to push the "twos" ideas.Look for one of them to bring up Jim Jones's Kool-Aid.Or one will say there were "two" vaccines? Two Oswalds, two autopsies, two shooters: why not two vaccines? The killer one they gave us and a good one they took.
Irony is that Trump takes credit for the vaccines, for pushing for them, "Operation Warp Speed". The same Trump they believe the "deep state"/Establishment wants to assassinate. Yes, Trump is secretly working for "them". Or I guess, they can say
There is plenty of hypocrisy on both ends of the political spectrum when it comes to vaccines.
The vaccine came out while Trump was still in office and rather than given him credit for cutting
through the red tape, it was mostly the Democrats who were the anti-vaxxers. They weren't
going to risk taking a vaccine that Trump had made available without the usually testing protocols.
Then when Biden came to office, it was mostly those on the right who resisted taking the jab
because it became Biden's vaccine.
I think it's rather stupid to make healthcare decisions based on politics. I'm not going to listen to
any of the talking heads on Fox, CNN, or MSNBC when deciding whether to get vaccinated or not.
I listened to what my doctor had to say. I have no idea what his politics are. I just know I trust
him and when he told me he thought I should get vaccinated, I listened to him. Could he be
wrong. There's always that possibility but I like my odds better following his advice rather than
ignoring it.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 10:53:12 AM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:kill your children ? That they could convince people to voluntarily allow them to inject them with a substance for which there is no data on its long-term effect ?
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 10:31:27 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 10:22:58 AM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 10:12:51 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:34:24 AM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
So, your argument is the same media that revealed the crimes of the CIA and FBI, the abuses by the "cockroaches" that you refer to also covered up for - lied - for them in their murder of JFK? They exposed theseWould you in your wildest dreams believe that the same deep state that exposed state-sponsored murder by US government agencies and that brought down Richard Nixon would now be party to hiding the fact that mandatory COVID-19 vaccines could
cockroaches, e.g. Cointelpro, the CIA Family Jewels, et cetera and they also cover up for them? For 60 years now? Is this your view?
Who exposed the crimes/abuses by these cockroaches? Wasn't it the media? And government, e.g., Church Committee? But you think they also covered up for them? Do you think this makes any sense at all?
and their children. So they made a killer vaccine and took it themselves?I'm not anti-vax, but who would be so foolish to allow something to be injected into their body which they know nothing about ?
And one which provides immunity only for its manufacturer ?
Millions. I can't tell you how many people have admitted to me that, "If I knew then what I know now, I would have never taken it".
And these same people claim they will not take any boosters.
Like I've said, I'm not against vaccines that have been tested and approved, but It'll be a cold day in hell when I become a lab rat for the pharmecutical industry.
Now people are suddenly dropping dead at rates never seen before. Wake the fuck up, professor.I'll try again: Why would the media expose the crimes/abuses by the CIA/FBI and then cover up for their murder of JFK? Why expose one and not the other?
Your devotion to the deep state, no matter who is running it, touches my heart.
Does that make any sense?
Try answering that please and not give us/me all of this gibberish about the vaccines and pharmaceutical industry. For crissakes, the same evil people who made this supposed killer vaccine took the damned vaccine. And gave it to their families
there are two Trumps? They sure do like to push the "twos" ideas.Look for one of them to bring up Jim Jones's Kool-Aid.Or one will say there were "two" vaccines? Two Oswalds, two autopsies, two shooters: why not two vaccines? The killer one they gave us and a good one they took.
Irony is that Trump takes credit for the vaccines, for pushing for them, "Operation Warp Speed". The same Trump they believe the "deep state"/Establishment wants to assassinate. Yes, Trump is secretly working for "them". Or I guess, they can say
There is plenty of hypocrisy on both ends of the political spectrum when it comes to vaccines.I think that's mostly true but the idea/claim that the creators of the vaccine knew it will kill us, that it will give us heart problems, but took it themselves is silly. These conspiracists see evil forces lurking everywhere - in the government, in the
The vaccine came out while Trump was still in office and rather than given him credit for cutting
through the red tape, it was mostly the Democrats who were the anti-vaxxers. They weren't
going to risk taking a vaccine that Trump had made available without the usually testing protocols.
Then when Biden came to office, it was mostly those on the right who resisted taking the jab
because it became Biden's vaccine.
I think it's rather stupid to make healthcare decisions based on politics. I'm not going to listen to
any of the talking heads on Fox, CNN, or MSNBC when deciding whether to get vaccinated or not.
I listened to what my doctor had to say. I have no idea what his politics are. I just know I trust
him and when he told me he thought I should get vaccinated, I listened to him. Could he be
wrong. There's always that possibility but I like my odds better following his advice rather than
ignoring it.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 10:24:48 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:kill your children ? That they could convince people to voluntarily allow them to inject them with a substance for which there is no data on its long-term effect ?
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 10:53:12 AM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 10:31:27 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 10:22:58 AM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 10:12:51 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:34:24 AM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
So, your argument is the same media that revealed the crimes of the CIA and FBI, the abuses by the "cockroaches" that you refer to also covered up for - lied - for them in their murder of JFK? They exposed theseWould you in your wildest dreams believe that the same deep state that exposed state-sponsored murder by US government agencies and that brought down Richard Nixon would now be party to hiding the fact that mandatory COVID-19 vaccines could
cockroaches, e.g. Cointelpro, the CIA Family Jewels, et cetera and they also cover up for them? For 60 years now? Is this your view?
Who exposed the crimes/abuses by these cockroaches? Wasn't it the media? And government, e.g., Church Committee? But you think they also covered up for them? Do you think this makes any sense at all?
and their children. So they made a killer vaccine and took it themselves?I'm not anti-vax, but who would be so foolish to allow something to be injected into their body which they know nothing about ?
And one which provides immunity only for its manufacturer ?
Millions. I can't tell you how many people have admitted to me that, "If I knew then what I know now, I would have never taken it".
And these same people claim they will not take any boosters.
Like I've said, I'm not against vaccines that have been tested and approved, but It'll be a cold day in hell when I become a lab rat for the pharmecutical industry.
Now people are suddenly dropping dead at rates never seen before. Wake the fuck up, professor.I'll try again: Why would the media expose the crimes/abuses by the CIA/FBI and then cover up for their murder of JFK? Why expose one and not the other?
Your devotion to the deep state, no matter who is running it, touches my heart.
Does that make any sense?
Try answering that please and not give us/me all of this gibberish about the vaccines and pharmaceutical industry. For crissakes, the same evil people who made this supposed killer vaccine took the damned vaccine. And gave it to their families
there are two Trumps? They sure do like to push the "twos" ideas.Look for one of them to bring up Jim Jones's Kool-Aid.Or one will say there were "two" vaccines? Two Oswalds, two autopsies, two shooters: why not two vaccines? The killer one they gave us and a good one they took.
Irony is that Trump takes credit for the vaccines, for pushing for them, "Operation Warp Speed". The same Trump they believe the "deep state"/Establishment wants to assassinate. Yes, Trump is secretly working for "them". Or I guess, they can say
There is plenty of hypocrisy on both ends of the political spectrum when it comes to vaccines.If I may point out one general difference there, I think those "on the right" started to look at the actual results of the vaccine (mixed; it certainly didn't STOP Covid, which was the original promised claim) and grew skeptical.
The vaccine came out while Trump was still in office and rather than given him credit for cutting
through the red tape, it was mostly the Democrats who were the anti-vaxxers. They weren't
going to risk taking a vaccine that Trump had made available without the usually testing protocols.
Then when Biden came to office, it was mostly those on the right who resisted taking the jab
because it became Biden's vaccine.
This was due more to real-world experience and not just because it became Biden's vaccine. I had Covid and still took the jab when the vaccine became available. I haven't gotten any booster shot (and will not), and I've had Covid at least one othertime since being vaccinated. The shot is more akin to a seasonal flu shot, and not a true vaccine. It should be optional.
The left (now that Trump is gone) is "all in" on nonstop Covid vaccines forever. I still see people wearing masks in public, even when driving in their car or walking at a park, ALONE. I tell myself, "There goes a Democrat."
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 11:24:48 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:kill your children ? That they could convince people to voluntarily allow them to inject them with a substance for which there is no data on its long-term effect ?
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 10:53:12 AM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 10:31:27 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 10:22:58 AM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 10:12:51 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:34:24 AM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
So, your argument is the same media that revealed the crimes of the CIA and FBI, the abuses by the "cockroaches" that you refer to also covered up for - lied - for them in their murder of JFK? They exposed theseWould you in your wildest dreams believe that the same deep state that exposed state-sponsored murder by US government agencies and that brought down Richard Nixon would now be party to hiding the fact that mandatory COVID-19 vaccines could
cockroaches, e.g. Cointelpro, the CIA Family Jewels, et cetera and they also cover up for them? For 60 years now? Is this your view?
Who exposed the crimes/abuses by these cockroaches? Wasn't it the media? And government, e.g., Church Committee? But you think they also covered up for them? Do you think this makes any sense at all?
and their children. So they made a killer vaccine and took it themselves?I'm not anti-vax, but who would be so foolish to allow something to be injected into their body which they know nothing about ?
And one which provides immunity only for its manufacturer ?
Millions. I can't tell you how many people have admitted to me that, "If I knew then what I know now, I would have never taken it".
And these same people claim they will not take any boosters.
Like I've said, I'm not against vaccines that have been tested and approved, but It'll be a cold day in hell when I become a lab rat for the pharmecutical industry.
Now people are suddenly dropping dead at rates never seen before. Wake the fuck up, professor.I'll try again: Why would the media expose the crimes/abuses by the CIA/FBI and then cover up for their murder of JFK? Why expose one and not the other?
Your devotion to the deep state, no matter who is running it, touches my heart.
Does that make any sense?
Try answering that please and not give us/me all of this gibberish about the vaccines and pharmaceutical industry. For crissakes, the same evil people who made this supposed killer vaccine took the damned vaccine. And gave it to their families
there are two Trumps? They sure do like to push the "twos" ideas.Look for one of them to bring up Jim Jones's Kool-Aid.Or one will say there were "two" vaccines? Two Oswalds, two autopsies, two shooters: why not two vaccines? The killer one they gave us and a good one they took.
Irony is that Trump takes credit for the vaccines, for pushing for them, "Operation Warp Speed". The same Trump they believe the "deep state"/Establishment wants to assassinate. Yes, Trump is secretly working for "them". Or I guess, they can say
the media, even here (that's you <g> not me). It's why when they talk about non-assassination issues they are just flat out illogical. The assassination is just one more event they see where these dark forces control the world. It's silly.There is plenty of hypocrisy on both ends of the political spectrum when it comes to vaccines.
The vaccine came out while Trump was still in office and rather than given him credit for cutting
through the red tape, it was mostly the Democrats who were the anti-vaxxers. They weren't
going to risk taking a vaccine that Trump had made available without the usually testing protocols.
Then when Biden came to office, it was mostly those on the right who resisted taking the jab
because it became Biden's vaccine.
I think it's rather stupid to make healthcare decisions based on politics. I'm not going to listen toI think that's mostly true but the idea/claim that the creators of the vaccine knew it will kill us, that it will give us heart problems, but took it themselves is silly. These conspiracists see evil forces lurking everywhere - in the government, in
any of the talking heads on Fox, CNN, or MSNBC when deciding whether to get vaccinated or not.
I listened to what my doctor had to say. I have no idea what his politics are. I just know I trust
him and when he told me he thought I should get vaccinated, I listened to him. Could he be
wrong. There's always that possibility but I like my odds better following his advice rather than
ignoring it.
Again: the claim is the same media that exposed the abuses by these dark forces that conspiracists mention also covered up for their murder of JFK? Why would they both expose their crimes *and* cover up for them? Did the CIA order them (OperationMockingbird) to coverup the assassination but gave them a green light on everything else? It's how conspiracy believers have to argue both "A" and not "A" in order for their conspiracy to work.
Oswald took his rifle, got tragically lucky and killed JFK. He left the building and then shot Tippit. Why? Probably a mix of personal and political reasons but he probably couldn't explan it either. People want - need - it to be more - but it's not.
If you'd comprehended the point I was making,I didn't even comprehend you made a point.
Because he looks at the evidence correctly.Yeah, that Bugliosi has a history if looking at evidence correctly.
Or should I say, all the answers you need to hear.That is an accurate statement. It's accurate because he looks at the evidence correctly.
Remember when he accused his milkman of fathering his son ?
https://youtu.be/2wPIng0hGxQ
United States are planted Soros assets, and why is that any less crazy?Because he looks at the evidence correctly.Yeah, that Bugliosi has a history if looking at evidence correctly. Remember when he accused his milkman of fathering his son ?
Or should I say, all the answers you need to hear.That is an accurate statement. It's accurate because he looks at the evidence correctly.
https://youtu.be/2wPIng0hGxQAfter reading "Chaos" by Tom O'Neill I'm more than a little convinced that Bugliosi was a planted Intelligence asset. Naturally the LNers will scoff at that idea, but remember conservatives like Chuck and Bud believe half the District Attorneys in the
Because he looks at the evidence correctly.Yeah, that Bugliosi has a history if looking at evidence correctly. Remember when he accused his milkman of fathering his son ?
Or should I say, all the answers you need to hear.That is an accurate statement. It's accurate because he looks at the evidence correctly.
https://youtu.be/2wPIng0hGxQAfter reading "Chaos" by Tom O'Neill I'm more than a little convinced that Bugliosi was a planted Intelligence asset. Naturally the LNers will scoff at that idea,
but remember conservatives like Chuck and Bud believe half the District Attorneys in the United States are planted Soros assets, and why is that any less crazy?
I don't know what the actual percentage is but there are a lot of George Soros backed Democrat
prosecutors who got elected in some of our biggest cities and the result is crime is now out
of control. New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Los Angeles. All Soros puppets and criminals now
know they can commit their crimes with impunity. The people who elected those scumbags
deserve everything bad that happens to them. I now laugh when I read about the rampant
crime there. When I read about a victim, I just say to myself, odds are he voted for the Soros
candidate and I don't feel an ounce of remorse for them.
much figured out as you think you do.I don't know what the actual percentage is but there are a lot of George Soros backed DemocratNot that I disagree with most of this, but...you have to realize that what you wrote sounds just as dumb to many people as "Bugliosi might be a CIA asset" sounds to you. Don't think you're above JFK assassination CTers, because you don't have nearly as
prosecutors who got elected in some of our biggest cities and the result is crime is now out
of control. New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Los Angeles. All Soros puppets and criminals now
know they can commit their crimes with impunity. The people who elected those scumbags
deserve everything bad that happens to them. I now laugh when I read about the rampant
crime there. When I read about a victim, I just say to myself, odds are he voted for the Soros
candidate and I don't feel an ounce of remorse for them.
I don't know if Bugliosi was a CIA asset. What I'm saying is if it's true, I would not be at all surprised.
Because he looks at the evidence correctly.Yeah, that Bugliosi has a history if looking at evidence correctly. Remember when he accused his milkman of fathering his son ?
Or should I say, all the answers you need to hear.That is an accurate statement. It's accurate because he looks at the evidence correctly.
https://youtu.be/2wPIng0hGxQ
After reading "Chaos" by Tom O'Neill I'm more than a little convinced that Bugliosi was a planted Intelligence asset.
Naturally the LNers will scoff at that idea, but remember conservatives like Chuck and Bud believe half the District Attorneys in the United States are planted Soros assets, and why is that any less crazy?
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 2:57:27 PM UTC-5, David Drummond wrote:against guns but is okay with light sentences if you commit crimes with guns. Hard to figure. So far, the majority of voters like Don Willis and David Healy (who are Lefties) in Blue states are voting for this approach.
Because he looks at the evidence correctly.Yeah, that Bugliosi has a history if looking at evidence correctly. Remember when he accused his milkman of fathering his son ?
Or should I say, all the answers you need to hear.That is an accurate statement. It's accurate because he looks at the evidence correctly.
https://youtu.be/2wPIng0hGxQ
After reading "Chaos" by Tom O'Neill I'm more than a little convinced that Bugliosi was a planted Intelligence asset.Oh, c'mon.
Naturally the LNers will scoff at that idea, but remember conservatives like Chuck and Bud believe half the District Attorneys in the United States are planted Soros assets, and why is that any less crazy?Where did I ever write that? It's true that Soros is giving scads of cash to elect these liberal D.A.s, but it's because of similar views on being lax on crime. The Left apparently wants more crime, the Right does not. The Left is simultaneously
The good guys are going to be forced to shoot them. One way or another, we are going to have
to protect ourselves from the scum. It would be better if they were thrown in jail, but putting
them in the cemetery works too.
It's true that Soros is giving scads of cash to elect these liberal D.A.s, but it's because of similar views on being lax on crime.
It's true that Soros is giving scads of cash to elect these liberal D.A.s, but it's because of similar views on being lax on crime.So this is what I want you to understand....you don't actually KNOW this for a fact. You believe it, and you are so certain in your conviction that in your mind it has just been assumed to be fact.
And maybe it is a fact. But you don't KNOW it. You have no EVIDENCE of it. In fact, you have less evidence of this than a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. And if I were a pro-Soros (aka, Lone Nut) imbecile I'd be proclaiming that this statement of yoursis a logical fallacy, you are begging the question, and that you are a kook (I'd also call you an anti-Semite to shut down your argument).
Certainly no major media outlet in the country would take your position over mine in that matter.
And so there you would have it....the "historically accepted narrative."
I know you're a conservative and so now I hope you understand the point I was making with this thread. But you're also a LNer, so I know you don't understand it.
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:02:06 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:yours is a logical fallacy, you are begging the question, and that you are a kook (I'd also call you an anti-Semite to shut down your argument).
Well, DUH!!!It's true that Soros is giving scads of cash to elect these liberal D.A.s, but it's because of similar views on being lax on crime.So this is what I want you to understand....you don't actually KNOW this for a fact. You believe it, and you are so certain in your conviction that in your mind it has just been assumed to be fact.
And maybe it is a fact. But you don't KNOW it. You have no EVIDENCE of it. In fact, you have less evidence of this than a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. And if I were a pro-Soros (aka, Lone Nut) imbecile I'd be proclaiming that this statement of
There are some things that are intuitively obvious. This is one of them.
Certainly no major media outlet in the country would take your position over mine in that matter.
And so there you would have it....the "historically accepted narrative."
I know you're a conservative and so now I hope you understand the point I was making with this thread. But you're also a LNer, so I know you don't understand it.We understand that Oswald murder JFK and officer Tippit. We wonder why after all these years,
the CTs still can't figure it out.
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:39:44 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:yours is a logical fallacy, you are begging the question, and that you are a kook (I'd also call you an anti-Semite to shut down your argument).
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:02:06 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
Well, DUH!!!It's true that Soros is giving scads of cash to elect these liberal D.A.s, but it's because of similar views on being lax on crime.So this is what I want you to understand....you don't actually KNOW this for a fact. You believe it, and you are so certain in your conviction that in your mind it has just been assumed to be fact.
And maybe it is a fact. But you don't KNOW it. You have no EVIDENCE of it. In fact, you have less evidence of this than a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. And if I were a pro-Soros (aka, Lone Nut) imbecile I'd be proclaiming that this statement of
There are some things that are intuitively obvious. This is one of them.
Certainly no major media outlet in the country would take your position over mine in that matter.
And so there you would have it....the "historically accepted narrative."
Fuck off, Ray Epps.I know you're a conservative and so now I hope you understand the point I was making with this thread. But you're also a LNer, so I know you don't understand it.We understand that Oswald murder JFK and officer Tippit. We wonder why after all these years,
the CTs still can't figure it out.
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:02:06 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:yours is a logical fallacy, you are begging the question, and that you are a kook (I'd also call you an anti-Semite to shut down your argument).
Well, DUH!!!It's true that Soros is giving scads of cash to elect these liberal D.A.s, but it's because of similar views on being lax on crime.So this is what I want you to understand....you don't actually KNOW this for a fact. You believe it, and you are so certain in your conviction that in your mind it has just been assumed to be fact.
And maybe it is a fact. But you don't KNOW it. You have no EVIDENCE of it. In fact, you have less evidence of this than a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. And if I were a pro-Soros (aka, Lone Nut) imbecile I'd be proclaiming that this statement of
There are some things that are intuitively obvious. This is one of them.Soros has explained numerous times - he's quite open about it - why he supports these so-called progressive/reform prosecutors. It's not a secret. We're not assuming things or guessing about it.
Certainly no major media outlet in the country would take your position over mine in that matter.
And so there you would have it....the "historically accepted narrative."
I know you're a conservative and so now I hope you understand the point I was making with this thread. But you're also a LNer, so I know you don't understand it.We understand that Oswald murder JFK and officer Tippit. We wonder why after all these years,
the CTs still can't figure it out.
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:39:44 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:yours is a logical fallacy, you are begging the question, and that you are a kook (I'd also call you an anti-Semite to shut down your argument).
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:02:06 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
Well, DUH!!!It's true that Soros is giving scads of cash to elect these liberal D.A.s, but it's because of similar views on being lax on crime.So this is what I want you to understand....you don't actually KNOW this for a fact. You believe it, and you are so certain in your conviction that in your mind it has just been assumed to be fact.
And maybe it is a fact. But you don't KNOW it. You have no EVIDENCE of it. In fact, you have less evidence of this than a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. And if I were a pro-Soros (aka, Lone Nut) imbecile I'd be proclaiming that this statement of
There are some things that are intuitively obvious. This is one of them.
Certainly no major media outlet in the country would take your position over mine in that matter.
And so there you would have it....the "historically accepted narrative."
Soros has explained numerous times - he's quite open about it - why he supports these so-called progressive/reform prosecutors. It's not a secret. We're not assuming things or guessing about it.I know you're a conservative and so now I hope you understand the point I was making with this thread. But you're also a LNer, so I know you don't understand it.We understand that Oswald murder JFK and officer Tippit. We wonder why after all these years,
the CTs still can't figure it out.
Here: https://www.georgesoros.com/2022/07/31/why-i-support-reform-prosecutors/
or here: https://nypost.com/2022/08/01/george-soros-vows-to-keep-backing-woke-das-despite-urban-crime-spikes/
In this world it's called evidence.
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:46:12 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:yours is a logical fallacy, you are begging the question, and that you are a kook (I'd also call you an anti-Semite to shut down your argument).
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:39:44 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:02:06 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
Well, DUH!!!It's true that Soros is giving scads of cash to elect these liberal D.A.s, but it's because of similar views on being lax on crime.So this is what I want you to understand....you don't actually KNOW this for a fact. You believe it, and you are so certain in your conviction that in your mind it has just been assumed to be fact.
And maybe it is a fact. But you don't KNOW it. You have no EVIDENCE of it. In fact, you have less evidence of this than a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. And if I were a pro-Soros (aka, Lone Nut) imbecile I'd be proclaiming that this statement of
There are some things that are intuitively obvious. This is one of them.
Certainly no major media outlet in the country would take your position over mine in that matter.
And so there you would have it....the "historically accepted narrative."
Fuck off, Ray Epps.I know you're a conservative and so now I hope you understand the point I was making with this thread. But you're also a LNer, so I know you don't understand it.We understand that Oswald murder JFK and officer Tippit. We wonder why after all these years,
the CTs still can't figure it out.
Who the fuck is Ray Epps?
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 11:53:18 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:of yours is a logical fallacy, you are begging the question, and that you are a kook (I'd also call you an anti-Semite to shut down your argument).
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:46:12 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:39:44 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:02:06 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
Well, DUH!!!It's true that Soros is giving scads of cash to elect these liberal D.A.s, but it's because of similar views on being lax on crime.So this is what I want you to understand....you don't actually KNOW this for a fact. You believe it, and you are so certain in your conviction that in your mind it has just been assumed to be fact.
And maybe it is a fact. But you don't KNOW it. You have no EVIDENCE of it. In fact, you have less evidence of this than a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. And if I were a pro-Soros (aka, Lone Nut) imbecile I'd be proclaiming that this statement
insurrectionist," but anyone else they could possibly track down and locate has had jail time. Not this guy.There are some things that are intuitively obvious. This is one of them.
Certainly no major media outlet in the country would take your position over mine in that matter.
And so there you would have it....the "historically accepted narrative."
Fuck off, Ray Epps.I know you're a conservative and so now I hope you understand the point I was making with this thread. But you're also a LNer, so I know you don't understand it.We understand that Oswald murder JFK and officer Tippit. We wonder why after all these years,
the CTs still can't figure it out.
Who the fuck is Ray Epps?He's the guy clearly egging people on during the January 6th protests to enter the Capitol building (but he personally doesn't trespass or damage the grounds, etc.). Suspicious behavior. For some weird reason, the FBI hasn't arrested him as an "
Not sure why Boris the Truther is comparing you to Ray Epps, but remember Boris the Truther also thinks 9/11 was an "inside job" of some sort.
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:52:23 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:of yours is a logical fallacy, you are begging the question, and that you are a kook (I'd also call you an anti-Semite to shut down your argument).
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 11:53:18 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:46:12 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:39:44 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:02:06 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
Well, DUH!!!It's true that Soros is giving scads of cash to elect these liberal D.A.s, but it's because of similar views on being lax on crime.So this is what I want you to understand....you don't actually KNOW this for a fact. You believe it, and you are so certain in your conviction that in your mind it has just been assumed to be fact.
And maybe it is a fact. But you don't KNOW it. You have no EVIDENCE of it. In fact, you have less evidence of this than a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. And if I were a pro-Soros (aka, Lone Nut) imbecile I'd be proclaiming that this statement
insurrectionist," but anyone else they could possibly track down and locate has had jail time. Not this guy.There are some things that are intuitively obvious. This is one of them.
Certainly no major media outlet in the country would take your position over mine in that matter.
And so there you would have it....the "historically accepted narrative."
Fuck off, Ray Epps.I know you're a conservative and so now I hope you understand the point I was making with this thread. But you're also a LNer, so I know you don't understand it.We understand that Oswald murder JFK and officer Tippit. We wonder why after all these years,
the CTs still can't figure it out.
Who the fuck is Ray Epps?He's the guy clearly egging people on during the January 6th protests to enter the Capitol building (but he personally doesn't trespass or damage the grounds, etc.). Suspicious behavior. For some weird reason, the FBI hasn't arrested him as an "
Not sure why Boris the Truther is comparing you to Ray Epps, but remember Boris the Truther also thinks 9/11 was an "inside job" of some sort.
Isn't that funny, Chucky? The same John who goes on a rant about how the right-wing needs to grab their guns and threatening to put people in the cemetery doesn't know who Ray Epps is.
Makes you wonder how someone that uninformed about something so current is at the same time so schooled and knowledgeable about something as distant as the JFK assassination. You're clearly talking to a >complete moron or a glowie. Either way good luck.
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:02:11 PM UTC-5, David Drummond wrote:statement of yours is a logical fallacy, you are begging the question, and that you are a kook (I'd also call you an anti-Semite to shut down your argument).
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:52:23 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 11:53:18 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:46:12 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:39:44 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:02:06 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
Well, DUH!!!It's true that Soros is giving scads of cash to elect these liberal D.A.s, but it's because of similar views on being lax on crime.So this is what I want you to understand....you don't actually KNOW this for a fact. You believe it, and you are so certain in your conviction that in your mind it has just been assumed to be fact.
And maybe it is a fact. But you don't KNOW it. You have no EVIDENCE of it. In fact, you have less evidence of this than a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. And if I were a pro-Soros (aka, Lone Nut) imbecile I'd be proclaiming that this
insurrectionist," but anyone else they could possibly track down and locate has had jail time. Not this guy.There are some things that are intuitively obvious. This is one of them.
Certainly no major media outlet in the country would take your position over mine in that matter.
And so there you would have it....the "historically accepted narrative."
Fuck off, Ray Epps.I know you're a conservative and so now I hope you understand the point I was making with this thread. But you're also a LNer, so I know you don't understand it.We understand that Oswald murder JFK and officer Tippit. We wonder why after all these years,
the CTs still can't figure it out.
Who the fuck is Ray Epps?He's the guy clearly egging people on during the January 6th protests to enter the Capitol building (but he personally doesn't trespass or damage the grounds, etc.). Suspicious behavior. For some weird reason, the FBI hasn't arrested him as an "
luck.Not sure why Boris the Truther is comparing you to Ray Epps, but remember Boris the Truther also thinks 9/11 was an "inside job" of some sort.
Isn't that funny, Chucky? The same John who goes on a rant about how the right-wing needs to grab their guns and threatening to put people in the cemetery doesn't know who Ray Epps is.So?
Makes you wonder how someone that uninformed about something so current is at the same time so schooled and knowledgeable about something as distant as the JFK assassination. You're clearly talking to a >complete moron or a glowie. Either way good
Or John simply didn't know who Ray Epps is. Now he does.
I follow MLB baseball and NHL hockey very closely. MLS soccer or NBA basketball? Little to no interest. Does it follow that if I'm informed and interested in the MLB or NHL that I need to follow those other sports?
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:13:54 PM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:yours is a logical fallacy, you are begging the question, and that you are a kook (I'd also call you an anti-Semite to shut down your argument).
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:39:44 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:02:06 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
Well, DUH!!!It's true that Soros is giving scads of cash to elect these liberal D.A.s, but it's because of similar views on being lax on crime.So this is what I want you to understand....you don't actually KNOW this for a fact. You believe it, and you are so certain in your conviction that in your mind it has just been assumed to be fact.
And maybe it is a fact. But you don't KNOW it. You have no EVIDENCE of it. In fact, you have less evidence of this than a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. And if I were a pro-Soros (aka, Lone Nut) imbecile I'd be proclaiming that this statement of
The first link was to a *statement* not a newspaper article made by Soros that he published on his website. Soros also wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal where he explained his views.There are some things that are intuitively obvious. This is one of them.
Certainly no major media outlet in the country would take your position over mine in that matter.
And so there you would have it....the "historically accepted narrative."
Henry Seinzant is very clear in his assertion that newspaper articles are NOT evidence. Show me paper trails.Soros has explained numerous times - he's quite open about it - why he supports these so-called progressive/reform prosecutors. It's not a secret. We're not assuming things or guessing about it.I know you're a conservative and so now I hope you understand the point I was making with this thread. But you're also a LNer, so I know you don't understand it.We understand that Oswald murder JFK and officer Tippit. We wonder why after all these years,
the CTs still can't figure it out.
Here: https://www.georgesoros.com/2022/07/31/why-i-support-reform-prosecutors/
or here: https://nypost.com/2022/08/01/george-soros-vows-to-keep-backing-woke-das-despite-urban-crime-spikes/
In this world it's called evidence.
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:21:48 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:of yours is a logical fallacy, you are begging the question, and that you are a kook (I'd also call you an anti-Semite to shut down your argument).
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:13:54 PM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:39:44 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:02:06 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
Well, DUH!!!It's true that Soros is giving scads of cash to elect these liberal D.A.s, but it's because of similar views on being lax on crime.So this is what I want you to understand....you don't actually KNOW this for a fact. You believe it, and you are so certain in your conviction that in your mind it has just been assumed to be fact.
And maybe it is a fact. But you don't KNOW it. You have no EVIDENCE of it. In fact, you have less evidence of this than a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. And if I were a pro-Soros (aka, Lone Nut) imbecile I'd be proclaiming that this statement
There are some things that are intuitively obvious. This is one of them.
Certainly no major media outlet in the country would take your position over mine in that matter.
And so there you would have it....the "historically accepted narrative."
The first link was to a *statement* not a newspaper article made by Soros that he published on his website. Soros also wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal where he explained his views.Henry Seinzant is very clear in his assertion that newspaper articles are NOT evidence. Show me paper trails.Soros has explained numerous times - he's quite open about it - why he supports these so-called progressive/reform prosecutors. It's not a secret. We're not assuming things or guessing about it.I know you're a conservative and so now I hope you understand the point I was making with this thread. But you're also a LNer, so I know you don't understand it.We understand that Oswald murder JFK and officer Tippit. We wonder why after all these years,
the CTs still can't figure it out.
Here: https://www.georgesoros.com/2022/07/31/why-i-support-reform-prosecutors/
or here: https://nypost.com/2022/08/01/george-soros-vows-to-keep-backing-woke-das-despite-urban-crime-spikes/
In this world it's called evidence.
That's here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-i-support-reform-prosecutors-law-enforces-jail-prison-crime-rate-justice-police-funding-11659277441
For me, a statement/piece written *by* a person is not a newspaper article *about* a person.
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 4:37:26 PM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:of yours is a logical fallacy, you are begging the question, and that you are a kook (I'd also call you an anti-Semite to shut down your argument).
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:21:48 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:13:54 PM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:39:44 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:02:06 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
Well, DUH!!!It's true that Soros is giving scads of cash to elect these liberal D.A.s, but it's because of similar views on being lax on crime.So this is what I want you to understand....you don't actually KNOW this for a fact. You believe it, and you are so certain in your conviction that in your mind it has just been assumed to be fact.
And maybe it is a fact. But you don't KNOW it. You have no EVIDENCE of it. In fact, you have less evidence of this than a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. And if I were a pro-Soros (aka, Lone Nut) imbecile I'd be proclaiming that this statement
There are some things that are intuitively obvious. This is one of them.
Certainly no major media outlet in the country would take your position over mine in that matter.
And so there you would have it....the "historically accepted narrative."
George Soros just turned 93. Living proof that the good die young.The first link was to a *statement* not a newspaper article made by Soros that he published on his website. Soros also wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal where he explained his views.Henry Seinzant is very clear in his assertion that newspaper articles are NOT evidence. Show me paper trails.Soros has explained numerous times - he's quite open about it - why he supports these so-called progressive/reform prosecutors. It's not a secret. We're not assuming things or guessing about it.I know you're a conservative and so now I hope you understand the point I was making with this thread. But you're also a LNer, so I know you don't understand it.We understand that Oswald murder JFK and officer Tippit. We wonder why after all these years,
the CTs still can't figure it out.
Here: https://www.georgesoros.com/2022/07/31/why-i-support-reform-prosecutors/
or here: https://nypost.com/2022/08/01/george-soros-vows-to-keep-backing-woke-das-despite-urban-crime-spikes/
In this world it's called evidence.
That's here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-i-support-reform-prosecutors-law-enforces-jail-prison-crime-rate-justice-police-funding-11659277441
For me, a statement/piece written *by* a person is not a newspaper article *about* a person.
When he finally kicks the bucket, I'll try hard to say something good about him. Something like
this:
George Soros is dead........GOOD!!!
The first link was to a *statement* not a newspaper article made by Soros that he published on his website. Soros also wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal where he explained his views.
That's here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-i-support-reform-prosecutors-law-enforces-jail-prison-crime-rate-justice-police-funding-11659277441
For me, a statement/piece written *by* a person is not a newspaper article *about* a person.
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:02:11 PM UTC-5, David Drummond wrote:statement of yours is a logical fallacy, you are begging the question, and that you are a kook (I'd also call you an anti-Semite to shut down your argument).
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:52:23 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 11:53:18 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:46:12 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:39:44 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:02:06 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
Well, DUH!!!It's true that Soros is giving scads of cash to elect these liberal D.A.s, but it's because of similar views on being lax on crime.So this is what I want you to understand....you don't actually KNOW this for a fact. You believe it, and you are so certain in your conviction that in your mind it has just been assumed to be fact.
And maybe it is a fact. But you don't KNOW it. You have no EVIDENCE of it. In fact, you have less evidence of this than a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. And if I were a pro-Soros (aka, Lone Nut) imbecile I'd be proclaiming that this
insurrectionist," but anyone else they could possibly track down and locate has had jail time. Not this guy.There are some things that are intuitively obvious. This is one of them.
Certainly no major media outlet in the country would take your position over mine in that matter.
And so there you would have it....the "historically accepted narrative."
Fuck off, Ray Epps.I know you're a conservative and so now I hope you understand the point I was making with this thread. But you're also a LNer, so I know you don't understand it.We understand that Oswald murder JFK and officer Tippit. We wonder why after all these years,
the CTs still can't figure it out.
Who the fuck is Ray Epps?He's the guy clearly egging people on during the January 6th protests to enter the Capitol building (but he personally doesn't trespass or damage the grounds, etc.). Suspicious behavior. For some weird reason, the FBI hasn't arrested him as an "
Not sure why Boris the Truther is comparing you to Ray Epps, but remember Boris the Truther also thinks 9/11 was an "inside job" of some sort.
Isn't that funny, Chucky? The same John who goes on a rant about how the right-wing needs to grab their guns and threatening to put people in the cemetery doesn't know who Ray Epps is.So?
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 5:06:13 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:statement of yours is a logical fallacy, you are begging the question, and that you are a kook (I'd also call you an anti-Semite to shut down your argument).
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 4:37:26 PM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:21:48 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:13:54 PM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:39:44 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:02:06 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
Well, DUH!!!It's true that Soros is giving scads of cash to elect these liberal D.A.s, but it's because of similar views on being lax on crime.So this is what I want you to understand....you don't actually KNOW this for a fact. You believe it, and you are so certain in your conviction that in your mind it has just been assumed to be fact.
And maybe it is a fact. But you don't KNOW it. You have no EVIDENCE of it. In fact, you have less evidence of this than a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. And if I were a pro-Soros (aka, Lone Nut) imbecile I'd be proclaiming that this
There are some things that are intuitively obvious. This is one of them.
Certainly no major media outlet in the country would take your position over mine in that matter.
And so there you would have it....the "historically accepted narrative."
George Soros just turned 93. Living proof that the good die young.The first link was to a *statement* not a newspaper article made by Soros that he published on his website. Soros also wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal where he explained his views.Henry Seinzant is very clear in his assertion that newspaper articles are NOT evidence. Show me paper trails.Soros has explained numerous times - he's quite open about it - why he supports these so-called progressive/reform prosecutors. It's not a secret. We're not assuming things or guessing about it.I know you're a conservative and so now I hope you understand the point I was making with this thread. But you're also a LNer, so I know you don't understand it.We understand that Oswald murder JFK and officer Tippit. We wonder why after all these years,
the CTs still can't figure it out.
Here: https://www.georgesoros.com/2022/07/31/why-i-support-reform-prosecutors/
or here: https://nypost.com/2022/08/01/george-soros-vows-to-keep-backing-woke-das-despite-urban-crime-spikes/
In this world it's called evidence.
That's here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-i-support-reform-prosecutors-law-enforces-jail-prison-crime-rate-justice-police-funding-11659277441
For me, a statement/piece written *by* a person is not a newspaper article *about* a person.
When he finally kicks the bucket, I'll try hard to say something good about him. Something like
this:
George Soros is dead........GOOD!!!The only good billionaire is a dead billionaire.
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 4:02:37 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:statement of yours is a logical fallacy, you are begging the question, and that you are a kook (I'd also call you an anti-Semite to shut down your argument).
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:02:11 PM UTC-5, David Drummond wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:52:23 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 11:53:18 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:46:12 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:39:44 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:02:06 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
Well, DUH!!!It's true that Soros is giving scads of cash to elect these liberal D.A.s, but it's because of similar views on being lax on crime.So this is what I want you to understand....you don't actually KNOW this for a fact. You believe it, and you are so certain in your conviction that in your mind it has just been assumed to be fact.
And maybe it is a fact. But you don't KNOW it. You have no EVIDENCE of it. In fact, you have less evidence of this than a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. And if I were a pro-Soros (aka, Lone Nut) imbecile I'd be proclaiming that this
insurrectionist," but anyone else they could possibly track down and locate has had jail time. Not this guy.There are some things that are intuitively obvious. This is one of them.
Certainly no major media outlet in the country would take your position over mine in that matter.
And so there you would have it....the "historically accepted narrative."
Fuck off, Ray Epps.I know you're a conservative and so now I hope you understand the point I was making with this thread. But you're also a LNer, so I know you don't understand it.We understand that Oswald murder JFK and officer Tippit. We wonder why after all these years,
the CTs still can't figure it out.
Who the fuck is Ray Epps?He's the guy clearly egging people on during the January 6th protests to enter the Capitol building (but he personally doesn't trespass or damage the grounds, etc.). Suspicious behavior. For some weird reason, the FBI hasn't arrested him as an "
Not sure why Boris the Truther is comparing you to Ray Epps, but remember Boris the Truther also thinks 9/11 was an "inside job" of some sort.
You're an idiot, Chuck. And you're incapable of spotting red flags. Which is pretty much consistent with your belief that Oswald acted alone.Isn't that funny, Chucky? The same John who goes on a rant about how the right-wing needs to grab their guns and threatening to put people in the cemetery doesn't know who Ray Epps is.So?
When someone uses right-wing tropes calling for violence--especially GUN violence, which leftists are targeting specifically--it doesn't take a January 6 to sniff fed.
You're the reason conservatives are losing the institutional war. Also, how come you can't prove Soros's DA funding? Are you a kook?
Soros's statement as to what he wants prosecutors to do is supported by the fact that he donated to prosecutor's campaigns who campaigned on what he wants to do. We have his statement on his proposals on criminal reform, his money going to campaigns forThe first link was to a *statement* not a newspaper article made by Soros that he published on his website. Soros also wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal where he explained his views.I don't give a shit what his statement is. Oswald's statement is that he was a patsy. Are we just going to *believe* statements now? Or are you ready to concede that a statement is not evidence? I'll wait.
That's here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-i-support-reform-prosecutors-law-enforces-jail-prison-crime-rate-justice-police-funding-11659277441
For me, a statement/piece written *by* a person is not a newspaper article *about* a person.
My statement was about using guns to protect ourselves from the criminal element that Soros
backed prosecutors won't put in jail. Are you saying leftists are all criminals? How else would
you have concluded that I was targeting leftists?
Are you denying Soros has funded the DAs in New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Los Angeles,
just to name a few?
Soros's statement as to what he wants prosecutors to do is supported by the fact that he donated to prosecutor's campaigns who campaigned on what he wants to do.
We have his statement on his proposals on criminal reform,
his money going to campaigns for candidates who endorsed his views,
and the prosecutors following through with those policy views once in office.
It's not *just* his statement. A statement may be *credible* evidence if what is stated is corroborated by other evidence.
Soros's statement is supported by other evidence.
What your point is all of this is a complete mystery to me.
He thinks he's playing "gotcha" with evidence and what we ask conspiracy believers to show to prove their conspiracy. As in, "You don't accept our evidence but you accept evidence of Soros supporting progressive/reformer prosecutors." It's silly timein conspiracy world.
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 5:29:28 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:statement of yours is a logical fallacy, you are begging the question, and that you are a kook (I'd also call you an anti-Semite to shut down your argument).
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 4:02:37 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:02:11 PM UTC-5, David Drummond wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:52:23 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 11:53:18 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:46:12 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:39:44 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:02:06 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
Well, DUH!!!It's true that Soros is giving scads of cash to elect these liberal D.A.s, but it's because of similar views on being lax on crime.So this is what I want you to understand....you don't actually KNOW this for a fact. You believe it, and you are so certain in your conviction that in your mind it has just been assumed to be fact.
And maybe it is a fact. But you don't KNOW it. You have no EVIDENCE of it. In fact, you have less evidence of this than a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. And if I were a pro-Soros (aka, Lone Nut) imbecile I'd be proclaiming that this
insurrectionist," but anyone else they could possibly track down and locate has had jail time. Not this guy.There are some things that are intuitively obvious. This is one of them.
Certainly no major media outlet in the country would take your position over mine in that matter.
And so there you would have it....the "historically accepted narrative."
Fuck off, Ray Epps.I know you're a conservative and so now I hope you understand the point I was making with this thread. But you're also a LNer, so I know you don't understand it.We understand that Oswald murder JFK and officer Tippit. We wonder why after all these years,
the CTs still can't figure it out.
Who the fuck is Ray Epps?He's the guy clearly egging people on during the January 6th protests to enter the Capitol building (but he personally doesn't trespass or damage the grounds, etc.). Suspicious behavior. For some weird reason, the FBI hasn't arrested him as an "
He thinks he's playing "gotcha" with evidence and what we ask conspiracy believers to show to prove their conspiracy. As in, "You don't accept our evidence but you accept evidence of Soros supporting progressive/reformer prosecutors." It's silly time inNot sure why Boris the Truther is comparing you to Ray Epps, but remember Boris the Truther also thinks 9/11 was an "inside job" of some sort.
You're an idiot, Chuck. And you're incapable of spotting red flags. Which is pretty much consistent with your belief that Oswald acted alone.Isn't that funny, Chucky? The same John who goes on a rant about how the right-wing needs to grab their guns and threatening to put people in the cemetery doesn't know who Ray Epps is.So?
When someone uses right-wing tropes calling for violence--especially GUN violence, which leftists are targeting specifically--it doesn't take a January 6 to sniff fed.My statement was about using guns to protect ourselves from the criminal element that Soros
backed prosecutors won't put in jail. Are you saying leftists are all criminals? How else would
you have concluded that I was targeting leftists?
You're the reason conservatives are losing the institutional war. Also, how come you can't prove Soros's DA funding? Are you a kook?Are you denying Soros has funded the DAs in New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Los Angeles,
just to name a few?
class are both punished AND branded far-right, which is the same as being a terrorist. And Biden's DOJ is actively trying to bait such terrorists, even if they have to invent them themselves (see Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot). And here you come alongMy statement was about using guns to protect ourselves from the criminal element that SorosCriminal elements in states with a Soros-backed DA are a protected class. They are free to do what they like without consequences. I'm sure you realize that. Just as I'm sure you realize that anyone who tries to protect themselves from the protected
backed prosecutors won't put in jail. Are you saying leftists are all criminals? How else would
you have concluded that I was targeting leftists?
As I said, you're either a moron or a fed. And seeing as you deny a massive Intelligence plot occurred in Dallas, I still say you're either/or.
connection.Are you denying Soros has funded the DAs in New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Los Angeles,You haven't provided any evidence showing this, at least no evidence which comes close to the standards that CTers are required to live up to for the entertainment of LNer hard-ons such as yourself. In fact, no one here has yet proven the Soros
just to name a few?
I'm still waiting.
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 5:42:06?PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
..
Just to catch you up, David, Corbutt stopped responding to me when I
started posting the Bugliosi's 53 Reasons - Refuted... He just
couldn't stand it.
lol, Ben still evidence-bombing the believers into irrelevancy. It's worth coming back to see!
If you think what Benny Yellowpanties posts is evidence, it's clear you don't understand what
constitutes evidence.
I'll try again: Why would the media expose the crimes/abuses by the CIA/FBI and then cover up for their murder of JFK? Why expose one and not the other?
Does that make any sense?
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:17:06?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 10:13:42?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Because he looks at the evidence correctly.
Or should I say, all the answers you need to hear.That is an accurate statement. It's accurate because he looks at the evidence correctly.
Yeah, that Bugliosi has a history if looking at evidence correctly.
Remember when he accused his milkman of fathering his son ?
https://youtu.be/2wPIng0hGxQ
Bugliosi apparently had some real skeletons in his closet regarding his personal behavior.
So did JFK.
Just curious, but what does Bugliosi's accusations about the milkman fathering his son have to do with his work regarding the JFK assassination?
I'll answer for you: NOTHING.
I'll try again: Why would the media expose the crimes/abuses by the CIA/FBI and then cover up for their murder of JFK? Why expose one and not the other?
It's amusing to note that EVERY SINGLE TACTIC critics now use was
first used by believers.
dishonesty. Using LN tactics, a believer would be unable to prove the color blue is blue. Their bullshit is so tiring, exacerbated by the fact that they really think they're the smart ones.It's amusing to note that EVERY SINGLE TACTIC critics now use wasThe insidious thing about LN tactics is you can use them to "disprove" anything, even things anyone would know to be true. There is virtually not a single thing they can prove when those same tactics are applied against them. It is such an obvious
first used by believers.
Our tactic is to look at the correct things correctly. You should try it sometime.
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 6:43:23?PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:dishonesty. Using LN tactics, a believer would be unable to prove the color blue is blue. Their bullshit is so tiring, exacerbated by the fact that they really think they're the smart ones.
The insidious thing about LN tactics is you can use them to "disprove" anything, even things anyone would know to be true. There is virtually not a single thing they can prove when those same tactics are applied against them. It is such an obvious
It's amusing to note that EVERY SINGLE TACTIC critics now use was
first used by believers.
Our tactic is to look at the correct things correctly. You should try it sometime.
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 08:53:08 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:17:06?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 10:13:42?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote: >>> Because he looks at the evidence correctly.
Or should I say, all the answers you need to hear.That is an accurate statement. It's accurate because he looks at the evidence correctly.
Yeah, that Bugliosi has a history if looking at evidence correctly.
Remember when he accused his milkman of fathering his son ?
https://youtu.be/2wPIng0hGxQ
Bugliosi apparently had some real skeletons in his closet regarding his personal behavior.
So did JFK.
Just curious, but what does Bugliosi's accusations about the milkman fathering his son have to do with his work regarding the JFK assassination?
I'll answer for you: NOTHING.
You're lying again, Chuckles. A person's personal character ALWAYS
has a bearing on the statements he makes.
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 03:32:26 -0700 (PDT), John Corbettas much figured out as you think you do.
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 8:42:25?PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
Not that I disagree with most of this, but...you have to realize that what you wrote sounds just as dumb to many people as "Bugliosi might be a CIA asset" sounds to you. Don't think you're above JFK assassination CTers, because you don't have nearly
I don't know what the actual percentage is but there are a lot of George Soros backed Democrat
prosecutors who got elected in some of our biggest cities and the result is crime is now out
of control. New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Los Angeles. All Soros puppets and criminals now
know they can commit their crimes with impunity. The people who elected those scumbags
deserve everything bad that happens to them. I now laugh when I read about the rampant
crime there. When I read about a victim, I just say to myself, odds are he voted for the Soros
candidate and I don't feel an ounce of remorse for them.
I don't know if Bugliosi was a CIA asset. What I'm saying is if it's true, I would not be at all surprised.
I figured out a long time ago Oswald was the assassin and there isn't a doubt in my mind about
that.
On what basis?
You can't say. You refuse to cite the evidence for
your beliefs...
I'm also aware that there isn't a scrap of compelling evidence he had even a single
accomplice.
Begging the question...
And, of course, **NOTHING** would be "compelling" to you should you
decide it's not in your interest.
What I can't figure out is how people can look at the evidence and have any doubt
that Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK.
Simple... we actually *LOOK* at the evidence... the very same evidence you're terrified of. Such as the NAA testing.
If people want to postulate he was acting on behalf
of others, then they should present their case with real evidence, not speculation. Anyone who
still argues Oswald did not fire the shots is simply not a person who should be taken seriously.
Don't worry, we don't take *YOU* seriously.
It's amusing to note that EVERY SINGLE TACTIC critics now use was
first used by believers.
The insidious thing about LN tactics is you can use them to "disprove" anything, even things anyone would know to be true. There is virtually not a single thing they can prove when those same tactics are applied against them. It is such an obviousdishonesty.
Using LN tactics, a believer would be unable to prove the color blue is blue. Their bullshit is so tiring, exacerbated by the fact that they really think they're the smart ones.
On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 16:27:45 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)
So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
Wrong. Hitler could pontificate on the sanctity of human life, the ideas he expressed wouldn`t be wrong just because they were coming from Hitler. Arguments stand or fall on their own merits, what Ben is proposing is true ad hominem, not his mistakenbelief about what it is.
belief about what it is.
Wrong. Hitler could pontificate on the sanctity of human life, the ideas he expressed wouldn`t be wrong just because they were coming from Hitler. Arguments stand or fall on their own merits, what Ben is proposing is true ad hominem, not his mistaken
This is coming from someone that has called every important witness to this plot a kook, fruitcake or retard. Including medical experts and highly decorated police officers.
belief about what it is.Wrong. Hitler could pontificate on the sanctity of human life, the ideas he expressed wouldn`t be wrong just because they were coming from Hitler. Arguments stand or fall on their own merits, what Ben is proposing is true ad hominem, not his mistaken
This is coming from someone that has called every important witness to this plot a kook, fruitcake or retard.
Including medical experts
and highly decorated police officers.
On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 16:58:26 -0700 (PDT), David Drummond <borisba...@gmail.com> wrote:mistaken belief about what it is.
Wrong. Hitler could pontificate on the sanctity of human life, the ideas he expressed wouldn`t be wrong just because they were coming from Hitler. Arguments stand or fall on their own merits, what Ben is proposing is true ad hominem, not his
This is coming from someone that has called every important witness to this plot a kook, fruitcake or retard. Including medical experts and highly decorated police officers.Keep in mind that Chickenshit is molesting his own mother again...
he's claiming I said something he can't quote me saying.
even more suspect.Ben said this...
"A person's personal character ALWAYS has a bearing on the statements he makes."
Ad hominem literally means "against the man".
"This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument."
https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Ad-Hominem.html
Exactly what they are doing to Bugliosi.Except Bugliosi's penchant for witness intimidation and illegal activity is not irrelevant. It demonstrates these are lengths which are acceptable within his moral compass to reaching the conclusions he needs to reach. His immunity in the matter is
By siding with Bugliosi, you seem to believe that truth requires coercion. This is as far from irrelevant as you can get.
even more suspect.Ben said this...
"A person's personal character ALWAYS has a bearing on the statements he makes."
Ad hominem literally means "against the man".
"This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument."
https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Ad-Hominem.html
Exactly what they are doing to Bugliosi.Except Bugliosi's penchant for witness intimidation and illegal activity is not irrelevant. It demonstrates these are lengths which are acceptable within his moral compass to reaching the conclusions he needs to reach. His immunity in the matter is
By siding with Bugliosi, you seem to believe that truth requires coercion.
This is as far from irrelevant as you can get.
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 8:19:48 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:even more suspect.
Ben said this...
"A person's personal character ALWAYS has a bearing on the statements he makes."
Ad hominem literally means "against the man".
"This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument."
https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Ad-Hominem.html
Exactly what they are doing to Bugliosi.Except Bugliosi's penchant for witness intimidation and illegal activity is not irrelevant. It demonstrates these are lengths which are acceptable within his moral compass to reaching the conclusions he needs to reach. His immunity in the matter is
opposite of science is.By siding with Bugliosi, you seem to believe that truth requires coercion. This is as far from irrelevant as you can get.
I mean, if we really want to play the ad hominem game, I'm happy to point out that LNers are forced to align themselves with wife beaters, plagiarists, the head of the CIA, bankers, known liars like Marina and Hoover, aristocrats and...whatever the
The same way today's fringe leftists are obliged to side with pedophiles.
Ben said this...
"A person's personal character ALWAYS has a bearing on the statements he makes."
Ad hominem literally means "against the man".
"This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument."
https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Ad-Hominem.html
Exactly what they are doing to Bugliosi.
Also, how come you can't prove Soros's DA funding?
What would you accept?
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 4:02:37 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:statement of yours is a logical fallacy, you are begging the question, and that you are a kook (I'd also call you an anti-Semite to shut down your argument).
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:02:11 PM UTC-5, David Drummond wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:52:23 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 11:53:18 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:46:12 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:39:44 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:02:06 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
Well, DUH!!!It's true that Soros is giving scads of cash to elect these liberal D.A.s, but it's because of similar views on being lax on crime.So this is what I want you to understand....you don't actually KNOW this for a fact. You believe it, and you are so certain in your conviction that in your mind it has just been assumed to be fact.
And maybe it is a fact. But you don't KNOW it. You have no EVIDENCE of it. In fact, you have less evidence of this than a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. And if I were a pro-Soros (aka, Lone Nut) imbecile I'd be proclaiming that this
insurrectionist," but anyone else they could possibly track down and locate has had jail time. Not this guy.There are some things that are intuitively obvious. This is one of them.
Certainly no major media outlet in the country would take your position over mine in that matter.
And so there you would have it....the "historically accepted narrative."
Fuck off, Ray Epps.I know you're a conservative and so now I hope you understand the point I was making with this thread. But you're also a LNer, so I know you don't understand it.We understand that Oswald murder JFK and officer Tippit. We wonder why after all these years,
the CTs still can't figure it out.
Who the fuck is Ray Epps?He's the guy clearly egging people on during the January 6th protests to enter the Capitol building (but he personally doesn't trespass or damage the grounds, etc.). Suspicious behavior. For some weird reason, the FBI hasn't arrested him as an "
Not sure why Boris the Truther is comparing you to Ray Epps, but remember Boris the Truther also thinks 9/11 was an "inside job" of some sort.
Isn't that funny, Chucky? The same John who goes on a rant about how the right-wing needs to grab their guns and threatening to put people in the cemetery doesn't know who Ray Epps is.So?
You're an idiot, Chuck. And you're incapable of spotting red flags. Which is pretty much consistent with your belief that Oswald acted alone.
When someone uses right-wing tropes calling for violence--especially GUN violence, which leftists are targeting specifically--it doesn't take a January 6 to sniff fed.
You're the reason conservatives are losing the institutional war.
Also, how come you can't prove Soros's DA funding?
Are you a kook?
Ben said this...
"A person's personal character ALWAYS has a bearing on the statements he makes."
Ad hominem literally means "against the man".
"This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument."
https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Ad-Hominem.html
Exactly what they are doing to Bugliosi.Except Bugliosi's penchant for witness intimidation and illegal activity is not irrelevant.
It demonstrates these are lengths which are acceptable within his moral compass to reaching the conclusions he needs to reach.
His immunity in the matter is even more suspect.
By siding with Bugliosi, you seem to believe that truth requires coercion.
This is as far from irrelevant as you can get.
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 8:19:48 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:even more suspect.
Ben said this...
"A person's personal character ALWAYS has a bearing on the statements he makes."
Ad hominem literally means "against the man".
"This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument."
https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Ad-Hominem.html
Exactly what they are doing to Bugliosi.Except Bugliosi's penchant for witness intimidation and illegal activity is not irrelevant. It demonstrates these are lengths which are acceptable within his moral compass to reaching the conclusions he needs to reach. His immunity in the matter is
By siding with Bugliosi, you seem to believe that truth requires coercion. This is as far from irrelevant as you can get.I mean, if we really want to play the ad hominem game,
I'm happy to point out that LNers are forced to align themselves with wife beaters,
plagiarists,
the head of the CIA, bankers, known liars like Marina
and Hoover, aristocrats and...whatever the opposite of science is.
The same way today's fringe leftists are obliged to side with pedophiles.
Also, how come you can't prove Soros's DA funding?
It has been on the table for almost sixty years.What would you accept?I'm not going to do your homework for you. Lay out your scenario. Let's see it.
Also, how come you can't prove Soros's DA funding?
What would you accept?I'm not going to do your homework for you. Lay out your scenario. Let's see it.
The burden of proof is on you. Then we'll discuss it and see if your tinfoil beanie theory holds water.
I mean, if we really want to play the ad hominem game,I`m not playing that game at all, you are.
I'm happy to point out that LNers are forced to align themselves with wife beaters,Like your hero Oswald?
plagiarists,
I didn`t need Posner to write a book at all.
These crimes are easily solved.
the head of the CIA, bankers, known liars like MarinaOf course you want to disregard the person who had the most insight to give on this reclusive loner. If you listened to her you might be able to figure these simple things out, and we wouldn`t want that to happen.
and Hoover, aristocrats and...whatever the opposite of science is.You keep making this empty claim that science is on your side, but you neglect to show that it is.
The same way today's fringe leftists are obliged to side with pedophiles.Fringe? The fringe is the one or two sane ones.
The "I know you are but what am I" argument in lieu of presenting the evidence.I mean, if we really want to play the ad hominem game,I`m not playing that game at all, you are.
I'm happy to point out that LNers are forced to align themselves with wife beaters,Like your hero Oswald?
plagiarists,
I didn`t need Posner to write a book at all.The "I accidentally admitted that I knew who you were talking about" argument in lieu of presenting the evidence.
These crimes are easily solved.The "Solving murders is easy" argument in lieu of presenting the evidence.
The "I forgot Marina contradicted herself constantly, oftentimes within the same breath" argument in lieu of presenting the evidence.the head of the CIA, bankers, known liars like MarinaOf course you want to disregard the person who had the most insight to give on this reclusive loner. If you listened to her you might be able to figure these simple things out, and we wouldn`t want that to happen.
The "I didn't read the autopsy report" argument in lieu of presenting the evidence.and Hoover, aristocrats and...whatever the opposite of science is.You keep making this empty claim that science is on your side, but you neglect to show that it is.
The "I unwittingly admitted I'm a pedophile" argument in lieu of presenting the evidence.The same way today's fringe leftists are obliged to side with pedophiles.Fringe? The fringe is the one or two sane ones.
Also, how come you can't prove Soros's DA funding?
What would you accept?
I'm not going to do your homework for you. Lay out your scenario. Let's see it. The burden of proof is on you. Then we'll discuss it and see if your tinfoil beanie theory holds water.
Also, how come you can't prove Soros's DA funding?
What would you accept?
I'm not going to do your homework for you. Lay out your scenario. Let's see it. The burden of proof is on you. Then we'll discuss it and see if your tinfoil beanie theory holds water.
The evidence isn`t the problem. The problem is your inability to process information correctly.
the head of the CIA, bankers, known liars like MarinaOf course you want to disregard the person who had the most insight to give on this reclusive loner. If you listened to her you might be able to figure these simple things out, and we wouldn`t want that to happen.
The "I forgot Marina contradicted herself constantly, oftentimes within the same breath" argument in lieu of presenting the evidence.You ask for evidence then contrive reasons to disregard the evidence.
The autopsy report is evidence, stupid.The "I didn't read the autopsy report" argument in lieu of presenting the evidence.and Hoover, aristocrats and...whatever the opposite of science is.You keep making this empty claim that science is on your side, but you neglect to show that it is.
You brought up pedophilia, projecting much?The "I unwittingly admitted I'm a pedophile" argument in lieu of presenting the evidence.The same way today's fringe leftists are obliged to side with pedophiles.Fringe? The fringe is the one or two sane ones.
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 8:12:34 PM UTC-5, David Drummond wrote:
Also, how come you can't prove Soros's DA funding?
What would you accept?
I'm not going to do your homework for you. Lay out your scenario. Let's see it. The burden of proof is on you. Then we'll discuss it and see if your tinfoil beanie theory holds water.Na. You're shifting the burden, not me. Clever attempt. If you're not going to believe Soros himself proclaiming he will continue to back progressive District Attorneys, then I guess you're beyond reach:
https://mynbc15.com/news/nation-world/soros-doubles-down-says-he-will-continue-to-elect-liberal-prosecutors-in-wsj-op-ed
WASHINGTON (TND) — In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, billionaire philanthropist George Soros doubled down on his intentions to keep working to elect “reform-minded prosecutors,” and challenged his critics who have blamed recent spikes in crime ontheir policies.
“I have supported the election (and more recently the re-election) of prosecutors who support reform,” Soros wrote in his Sunday editorial published by the WSJ. “I have done it transparently, and I have no intention of stopping.”increasing more quickly in jurisdictions without reform-minded prosecutors.”
Soros’s critics say he has fueled a crime crisis via his support of liberal prosecutors that has led to rampant theft, record homicide rates and an overall apathetic attitude among criminals who do not fear retribution for their crimes.
But Soros challenged this notion in his editorial, arguing “the research I’ve seen says otherwise.”
“The most rigorous academic study, analyzing data across 35 jurisdictions, shows no connection between the election of reform-minded prosecutors and local crime rates,” Soros wrote. “In fact, violent crime in recent years has generally been
But, according to the Capital Research Center, which tracks left-wing nonprofits, Soros-funded groups have helped elect liberal prosecutors in cities like Philadelphia, Albuquerque, N.M., Jackson, Miss., and Austin, Texas, all of which saw recordhomicide rates in 2021, according to Fox News.
Former San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin, who was recalled after his “reform-minded” policies were blamed for uncontrolled crime, did not receive direct contributions from Soros funded PACS. However, according to The Washington Times, heraised hundreds of thousands of dollars from donors associated with Soros.
Soros was also a direct and major political donor of Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascón, another prosecutor who is very close to getting recalled due to controversial, criminal-friendly policies in L.A.giving them the money to run their office. Democratic politicians turn their back towards crime because they’re taking their marching orders from George Soros,” Terrell continued. “Every prosecutor in Democratic cities are controlled by George
“George Soros controls every Democratic city criminal justice system. You know why?” Fox News contributor Leo Terrell asked in reference to Soros’s Op-Ed. “Because he’s providing the money to George Gascon, to Alvin Bragg, to Kim Fox. He’s
END.but you're taking a page out of your fellow JFK Truther Ben Holmes' playbook and arguing simply to argue. Eristic argumentation. You are arguing for conflict and not clarity.
Whom Soros funds, the groups he's formed and financially backed, etc. is all available online and well known. Based on what I've read here about your basic political leanings (to the Right, like me) you AGREE Soros backs leftist causes of all types,
Don't do that.
There's really no point in arguing with Bud. He's a whacky
conspiracy theorist. He believes there is a massive plot amongst
researchers to amass giant bodies of evidence showing a conspiracy to assassinate JFK in order to undermine the CIA.
The autopsy report is evidence, stupid.
Now Bud the kook thinks Humes, Boswell and Finck were in on the plot
to impeach the deep state by fabricating a giant BOH wound absent of
bone and scalp in the occipital/parietal area, when ANYONE with eyes
can watch the Z-film and see there is no wound at the back of his head
at all; Kennedy's HAIR isn't even out of place back there.
Bud is a kook!
Soros' donations can be found here: https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?name=George+Soros. He's given *directly* to candidates and to PACs that then give the money to progressive DA candidates, e.g. Gascon in LA, Krasner in Philadelphia,Bragg in NY (he indicted Trump),
But this is a meaningless discussion since he's not interested in whether Soros did give to progressive candidates. He's playing a "gotcha" game that he thinks exposes our inconsistency when we examine evidence implicating Oswald versus evidence ofSoros' donations.
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 8:12:34?PM UTC-5, David Drummond wrote:
Also, how come you can't prove Soros's DA funding?
What would you accept?
I'm not going to do your homework for you. Lay out your scenario. Let's see it. The burden of proof is on you. Then we'll discuss it and see if your tinfoil beanie theory holds water.
Na. You're shifting the burden, not me.
On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 18:12:33 -0700 (PDT), David Drummond <borisba...@gmail.com> wrote:
Also, how come you can't prove Soros's DA funding?
What would you accept?
I'm not going to do your homework for you. Lay out your scenario. Let's see it. The burden of proof is on you. Then we'll discuss it and see if your tinfoil beanie theory holds water.That will neveer happen. Chuckles will be the first to tell you that
he doesn't have a scenario.
Of course, all that means is that he's a coward.
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 8:12:34 PM UTC-5, David Drummond wrote:
Also, how come you can't prove Soros's DA funding?
What would you accept?
I'm not going to do your homework for you. Lay out your scenario. Let's see it. The burden of proof is on you. Then we'll discuss it and see if your tinfoil beanie theory holds water.Na. You're shifting the burden, not me. Clever attempt. If you're not going to believe Soros himself proclaiming he will continue to back progressive District Attorneys, then I guess you're beyond reach:
https://mynbc15.com/news/nation-world/soros-doubles-down-says-he-will-continue-to-elect-liberal-prosecutors-in-wsj-op-ed
WASHINGTON (TND) — In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, billionaire philanthropist George Soros doubled down on his intentions to keep working to elect “reform-minded prosecutors,” and challenged his critics who have blamed recent spikes in crime ontheir policies.
“I have supported the election (and more recently the re-election) of prosecutors who support reform,” Soros wrote in his Sunday editorial published by the WSJ. “I have done it transparently, and I have no intention of stopping.”increasing more quickly in jurisdictions without reform-minded prosecutors.”
Soros’s critics say he has fueled a crime crisis via his support of liberal prosecutors that has led to rampant theft, record homicide rates and an overall apathetic attitude among criminals who do not fear retribution for their crimes.
But Soros challenged this notion in his editorial, arguing “the research I’ve seen says otherwise.”
“The most rigorous academic study, analyzing data across 35 jurisdictions, shows no connection between the election of reform-minded prosecutors and local crime rates,” Soros wrote. “In fact, violent crime in recent years has generally been
But, according to the Capital Research Center, which tracks left-wing nonprofits, Soros-funded groups have helped elect liberal prosecutors in cities like Philadelphia, Albuquerque, N.M., Jackson, Miss., and Austin, Texas, all of which saw recordhomicide rates in 2021, according to Fox News.
Former San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin, who was recalled after his “reform-minded” policies were blamed for uncontrolled crime, did not receive direct contributions from Soros funded PACS. However, according to The Washington Times, heraised hundreds of thousands of dollars from donors associated with Soros.
Soros was also a direct and major political donor of Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascón, another prosecutor who is very close to getting recalled due to controversial, criminal-friendly policies in L.A.giving them the money to run their office. Democratic politicians turn their back towards crime because they’re taking their marching orders from George Soros,” Terrell continued. “Every prosecutor in Democratic cities are controlled by George
“George Soros controls every Democratic city criminal justice system. You know why?” Fox News contributor Leo Terrell asked in reference to Soros’s Op-Ed. “Because he’s providing the money to George Gascon, to Alvin Bragg, to Kim Fox. He’s
END.but you're taking a page out of your fellow JFK Truther Ben Holmes' playbook and arguing simply to argue. Eristic argumentation. You are arguing for conflict and not clarity.
Whom Soros funds, the groups he's formed and financially backed, etc. is all available online and well known. Based on what I've read here about your basic political leanings (to the Right, like me) you AGREE Soros backs leftist causes of all types,
Don't do that.Soros' donations can be found here: https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?name=George+Soros. He's given *directly* to candidates and to PACs that then give the money to progressive DA candidates, e.g. Gascon in LA, Krasner in Philadelphia,
On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 08:06:24 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:Bragg in NY (he indicted Trump),
Soros' donations can be found here: https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?name=George+Soros. He's given *directly* to candidates and to PACs that then give the money to progressive DA candidates, e.g. Gascon in LA, Krasner in Philadelphia,
Soros' donations.But this is a meaningless discussion since he's not interested in whether Soros did give to progressive candidates. He's playing a "gotcha" game that he thinks exposes our inconsistency when we examine evidence implicating Oswald versus evidence of
Of course, the true "gotcha" is that you're a coward unwilling to
debate a knowledgeable critic.
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 10:08:05?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:Bragg in NY (he indicted Trump),
On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 08:06:24 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Soros' donations can be found here: https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?name=George+Soros. He's given *directly* to candidates and to PACs that then give the money to progressive DA candidates, e.g. Gascon in LA, Krasner in Philadelphia,
Soros' donations.But this is a meaningless discussion since he's not interested in whether Soros did give to progressive candidates. He's playing a "gotcha" game that he thinks exposes our inconsistency when we examine evidence implicating Oswald versus evidence of
Of course, the true "gotcha" is that you're a coward unwilling to
debate a knowledgeable critic.
The evidence isn`t the problem. The problem is your inability to process information correctly.There's really no point in arguing with Bud. He's a whacky conspiracy theorist. He believes there is a massive plot amongst researchers
to amass giant bodies of evidence showing a conspiracy to assassinate JFK in order to undermine the CIA.
The massive conspiracy to absolve Oswald continues. Now Marina is in on this whacky plot:the head of the CIA, bankers, known liars like MarinaOf course you want to disregard the person who had the most insight to give on this reclusive loner. If you listened to her you might be able to figure these simple things out, and we wouldn`t want that to happen.
https://www.deseret.com/1988/9/28/18779524/oswald-s-widow-believes-he-didn-t-act-alone
Marina once again conspiring with the deep state to absolve Oswald, this time insisting there was no motive on LHO's part:The "I forgot Marina contradicted herself constantly, oftentimes within the same breath" argument in lieu of presenting the evidence.You ask for evidence then contrive reasons to disregard the evidence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yR4YyaAZF54
If there was no motive, that leaves only means and opportunity. Which pretty much impugns everyone who was in DP that day, because all the witnesses had opportunity, and any one of them who owned a gun had means. Being Texas, that was likely all ofthem.
And yet Bud doesn't want to disregard the person who had the most insight to give on this reclusive loner.
Bud is a kook who actually believes the conspiracy theorist Marina. He even referred to her as "evidence." Twice. "You ask for evidence then contrive reasons to disregard the evidence."
Bud is a kook!
Now BudThe autopsy report is evidence, stupid.The "I didn't read the autopsy report" argument in lieu of presenting the evidence.and Hoover, aristocrats and...whatever the opposite of science is.You keep making this empty claim that science is on your side, but you neglect to show that it is.
the kook thinks Humes, Boswell and Finck were in on the plot to impeach the deep state by fabricating a giant BOH wound absent of bone and scalp in the occipital/parietal area, when ANYONE with eyes can watch the Z-film and see there is no wound at theback of his head at all; Kennedy's HAIR isn't even out of place back there.
Bud is a kook!
Once again Bud invokes the "I know you are but what am I" defense, because conspiracy theorists like Bud cannot actually discuss the evidence.You brought up pedophilia, projecting much?The "I unwittingly admitted I'm a pedophile" argument in lieu of presenting the evidence.The same way today's fringe leftists are obliged to side with pedophiles.Fringe? The fringe is the one or two sane ones.
What a kook!
Soros' donations can be found here: https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?name=George+Soros. He's given *directly* to candidates and to PACs that then give the money to progressive DA candidates, e.g. Gascon in LA, Krasner in Philadelphia,Bragg in NY (he indicted Trump),
But this is a meaningless discussion since he's not interested in whether Soros did give to progressive candidates. He's playing a "gotcha" game that he thinks exposes our inconsistency when we examine evidence implicating Oswald versus evidence ofSoros' donations.
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 12:13:55 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:against guns but is okay with light sentences if you commit crimes with guns. Hard to figure. So far, the majority of voters like Don Willis and David Healy (who are Lefties) in Blue states are voting for this approach.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 2:57:27 PM UTC-5, David Drummond wrote:
Because he looks at the evidence correctly.Yeah, that Bugliosi has a history if looking at evidence correctly. Remember when he accused his milkman of fathering his son ?
Or should I say, all the answers you need to hear.That is an accurate statement. It's accurate because he looks at the evidence correctly.
https://youtu.be/2wPIng0hGxQ
After reading "Chaos" by Tom O'Neill I'm more than a little convinced that Bugliosi was a planted Intelligence asset.Oh, c'mon.
Naturally the LNers will scoff at that idea, but remember conservatives like Chuck and Bud believe half the District Attorneys in the United States are planted Soros assets, and why is that any less crazy?Where did I ever write that? It's true that Soros is giving scads of cash to elect these liberal D.A.s, but it's because of similar views on being lax on crime. The Left apparently wants more crime, the Right does not. The Left is simultaneously
We need our guns now more than ever. If these liberal prosecutors aren't going to jail the bastards,
The good guys are going to be forced to shoot them. One way or another, we are going to have
to protect ourselves from the scum. It would be better if they were thrown in jail, but putting
them in the cemetery works too.
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 11:41:35 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:against guns but is okay with light sentences if you commit crimes with guns. Hard to figure. So far, the majority of voters like Don Willis and David Healy (who are Lefties) in Blue states are voting for this approach.
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 12:13:55 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 2:57:27 PM UTC-5, David Drummond wrote:
Because he looks at the evidence correctly.Yeah, that Bugliosi has a history if looking at evidence correctly. Remember when he accused his milkman of fathering his son ?
Or should I say, all the answers you need to hear.That is an accurate statement. It's accurate because he looks at the evidence correctly.
https://youtu.be/2wPIng0hGxQ
After reading "Chaos" by Tom O'Neill I'm more than a little convinced that Bugliosi was a planted Intelligence asset.Oh, c'mon.
Naturally the LNers will scoff at that idea, but remember conservatives like Chuck and Bud believe half the District Attorneys in the United States are planted Soros assets, and why is that any less crazy?Where did I ever write that? It's true that Soros is giving scads of cash to elect these liberal D.A.s, but it's because of similar views on being lax on crime. The Left apparently wants more crime, the Right does not. The Left is simultaneously
We need our guns now more than ever. If these liberal prosecutors aren't going to jail the bastards,
The good guys are going to be forced to shoot them. One way or another, we are going to have
to protect ourselves from the scum. It would be better if they were thrown in jail, but putting
them in the cemetery works too.
I am huge believer in this principle and I'm nowhere near a "gun nut". One of the most disastrous things going on in our day is a return to going soft on crime and lightly punishing pedophiles, drug lords, and killers.
Bragg in NY (he indicted Trump),
Soros' donations can be found here: https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?name=George+Soros. He's given *directly* to candidates and to PACs that then give the money to progressive DA candidates, e.g. Gascon in LA, Krasner in Philadelphia,
Soros' donations.But this is a meaningless discussion since he's not interested in whether Soros did give to progressive candidates. He's playing a "gotcha" game that he thinks exposes our inconsistency when we examine evidence implicating Oswald versus evidence of
Steven cites a far-right website as "evidence," because Steven believes in some kooky conspiracy theory that was propagated for the sole purpose of undermining the integrity of the deep state.of whatever I like?
Steven is a nut.
Steven also fails to establish that these donations are real, or that they are from THAT George Soros as opposed to some random guy with the same name. But what can you expect from a whacky fringe website? Hey, can I cite Gil Jesus's website as evidence
What a kook Steven is!
The massive conspiracy to absolve Oswald continues. Now Marina is in on this whacky plot:
https://www.deseret.com/1988/9/28/18779524/oswald-s-widow-believes-he-didn-t-act-aloneWho cares what she believes?
And yet Bud doesn't want to disregard the person who had the most insight to give on this reclusive loner.And you do, because you have no interest in what actually occurred.
the back of his head at all; Kennedy's HAIR isn't even out of place back there.Is explaining to an idiot that the autopsy report is evidence.The autopsy report is evidence, stupid.Now Bud
the kook thinks Humes, Boswell and Finck were in on the plot to impeach the deep state by fabricating a giant BOH wound absent of bone and scalp in the occipital/parietal area, when ANYONE with eyes can watch the Z-film and see there is no wound at
The massive conspiracy to absolve Oswald continues. Now Marina is in on this whacky plot:
lol, well THAT was a fast pivot. Now it's "Who cares what Marina believes?"https://www.deseret.com/1988/9/28/18779524/oswald-s-widow-believes-he-didn-t-act-aloneWho cares what she believes?
She's only the person who had the most insight to give on this reclusive loner. Bud asks for evidence and then contrives reasons to disregard the evidence. What a kook!
I mean...I *don't* disregard her. Like...I actually just cited her twice.And yet Bud doesn't want to disregard the person who had the most insight to give on this reclusive loner.And you do, because you have no interest in what actually occurred.
And remind me again what you said? "Who cares what she believes?"
I'm actually quite amazed at how bad you are at this.
Remember when AOC said the 2020 rioters just wanted bread? You're currently on par with that level of intellectual dishonesty. I'll tell you now, this will be hard to top.the back of his head at all; Kennedy's HAIR isn't even out of place back there.
Is explaining to an idiot that the autopsy report is evidence.The autopsy report is evidence, stupid.Now Bud
the kook thinks Humes, Boswell and Finck were in on the plot to impeach the deep state by fabricating a giant BOH wound absent of bone and scalp in the occipital/parietal area, when ANYONE with eyes can watch the Z-film and see there is no wound at
And Bud just topped it. With silence.
The massive conspiracy to absolve Oswald continues. Now Marina is in on this whacky plot:
You are too stupid to make the distinction between what he she believes and what she knew.lol, well THAT was a fast pivot. Now it's "Who cares what Marina believes?"https://www.deseret.com/1988/9/28/18779524/oswald-s-widow-believes-he-didn-t-act-aloneWho cares what she believes?
She told the WC what she knew. What she told the WC implicated her husband.
She's only the person who had the most insight to give on this reclusive loner.
And remind me again what you said? "Who cares what she believes?"Now all you need to do is figure out what "belief" means.
at the back of his head at all; Kennedy's HAIR isn't even out of place back there.I'm actually quite amazed at how bad you are at this.I`m great at using words you don`t understand.
Remember when AOC said the 2020 rioters just wanted bread? You're currently on par with that level of intellectual dishonesty. I'll tell you now, this will be hard to top.
Is explaining to an idiot that the autopsy report is evidence.The autopsy report is evidence, stupid.Now Bud
the kook thinks Humes, Boswell and Finck were in on the plot to impeach the deep state by fabricating a giant BOH wound absent of bone and scalp in the occipital/parietal area, when ANYONE with eyes can watch the Z-film and see there is no wound
The autopsy places the large wound on the side of Kennedy`s head using anatomical landmarks. Coincidently those landmarks put it right where it can be seen in the z-film.
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 9:36:25 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 18:12:33 -0700 (PDT), David Drummond <borisba...@gmail.com> wrote:
Also, how come you can't prove Soros's DA funding?
What would you accept?
I'm not going to do your homework for you. Lay out your scenario. Let's see it. The burden of proof is on you. Then we'll discuss it and see if your tinfoil beanie theory holds water.That will neveer happen. Chuckles will be the first to tell you that
he doesn't have a scenario.
Of course, all that means is that he's a coward.I've written that I don't have a scenario that DIFFERS from the historically accepted scenario, which you are familiar with and which can be found online.
You do.
You say Oswald was a totally innocent patsy. He wasn't involved in shooting JFK, JBC or JDT.
Gil agrees with you but says he's not a conspiracist and is focusing on evidence he believes would get Oswald sprung at trial. Perhaps Gil believes another lone nut killed JFK and the cops arrested the wrong guy?
Seems like a worthwhile endeavor. Preparing a defense for a dead client in a trial that's never
going to happen. One thing is for sure. His client will never be convicted. WTG, Gil.
them.The evidence isn`t the problem. The problem is your inability to process information correctly.There's really no point in arguing with Bud. He's a whacky conspiracy theorist. He believes there is a massive plot amongst researchers to amass giant bodies of evidence showing a conspiracy to assassinate JFK in order to undermine the CIA.
The massive conspiracy to absolve Oswald continues. Now Marina is in on this whacky plot:the head of the CIA, bankers, known liars like MarinaOf course you want to disregard the person who had the most insight to give on this reclusive loner. If you listened to her you might be able to figure these simple things out, and we wouldn`t want that to happen.
https://www.deseret.com/1988/9/28/18779524/oswald-s-widow-believes-he-didn-t-act-alone
Marina once again conspiring with the deep state to absolve Oswald, this time insisting there was no motive on LHO's part:The "I forgot Marina contradicted herself constantly, oftentimes within the same breath" argument in lieu of presenting the evidence.You ask for evidence then contrive reasons to disregard the evidence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yR4YyaAZF54
If there was no motive, that leaves only means and opportunity. Which pretty much impugns everyone who was in DP that day, because all the witnesses had opportunity, and any one of them who owned a gun had means. Being Texas, that was likely all of
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 10:55:21?AM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:them.
There's really no point in arguing with Bud. He's a whacky conspiracy theorist. He believes there is a massive plot amongst researchers to amass giant bodies of evidence showing a conspiracy to assassinate JFK in order to undermine the CIA.
The evidence isn`t the problem. The problem is your inability to process information correctly.
The massive conspiracy to absolve Oswald continues. Now Marina is in on this whacky plot:
the head of the CIA, bankers, known liars like MarinaOf course you want to disregard the person who had the most insight to give on this reclusive loner. If you listened to her you might be able to figure these simple things out, and we wouldn`t want that to happen.
https://www.deseret.com/1988/9/28/18779524/oswald-s-widow-believes-he-didn-t-act-alone
Marina once again conspiring with the deep state to absolve Oswald, this time insisting there was no motive on LHO's part:The "I forgot Marina contradicted herself constantly, oftentimes within the same breath" argument in lieu of presenting the evidence.You ask for evidence then contrive reasons to disregard the evidence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yR4YyaAZF54
If there was no motive, that leaves only means and opportunity. Which pretty much impugns everyone who was in DP that day, because all the witnesses had opportunity, and any one of them who owned a gun had means. Being Texas, that was likely all of
A lot of people had the opportunity but only one guy had the means.
That would be the guy who owned the murder weapon
and snuck it into his workplace in a brown paper sack which he had >constructed from materials in his employers shipping room.
On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 13:16:43 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Seems like a worthwhile endeavor. Preparing a defense for a dead client in a trial that's neverOnly believers & kooks make such claims.
going to happen. One thing is for sure. His client will never be convicted. WTG, Gil.
Strangely enough, critics are simply too smart to make such STUPID
claims...
The massive conspiracy to absolve Oswald continues. Now Marina is in on this whacky plot:
Fascinating. So you claim that she believes one thing but knows another.You are too stupid to make the distinction between what he she believes and what she knew.lol, well THAT was a fast pivot. Now it's "Who cares what Marina believes?"https://www.deseret.com/1988/9/28/18779524/oswald-s-widow-believes-he-didn-t-act-aloneWho cares what she believes?
I'm not even going to ask how that works. I guess what I'll ask is, what gives you the authority to decide which things she "knows" from which things she "believes." As you are an obvious expert on the human mind, we're all ears.
She told the WC what she knew. What she told the WC implicated her husband.Ah, so she knew something to be true, but told the WC otherwise?
We have a word for people like that. It's called liar.
How much insight could she have had? Nothing she believed turned out to be true.She's only the person who had the most insight to give on this reclusive loner.
What a kook!
I can tell you the root word of belief is "belie."And remind me again what you said? "Who cares what she believes?"Now all you need to do is figure out what "belief" means.
Which means to disguise or give a false impression of.at the back of his head at all; Kennedy's HAIR isn't even out of place back there.
You know...lie.
I'm actually quite amazed at how bad you are at this.I`m great at using words you don`t understand.
Remember when AOC said the 2020 rioters just wanted bread? You're currently on par with that level of intellectual dishonesty. I'll tell you now, this will be hard to top.
Is explaining to an idiot that the autopsy report is evidence.The autopsy report is evidence, stupid.Now Bud
the kook thinks Humes, Boswell and Finck were in on the plot to impeach the deep state by fabricating a giant BOH wound absent of bone and scalp in the occipital/parietal area, when ANYONE with eyes can watch the Z-film and see there is no wound
Still silence here.
Unfortunately Bud is unwilling to parse what he "believes" about the autopsy report versus what he "knows" to be true about it.
lol. lmao, even.
The autopsy places the large wound on the side of Kennedy`s head using anatomical landmarks. Coincidently those landmarks put it right where it can be seen in the z-film.Remind us which part of the occipital bone is on the side of the head.
We'll wait.
On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 13:22:44 -0700 (PDT), John Corbettthem.
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 10:55:21?AM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote: >>>
The evidence isn`t the problem. The problem is your inability to process information correctly.There's really no point in arguing with Bud. He's a whacky conspiracy theorist. He believes there is a massive plot amongst researchers to amass giant bodies of evidence showing a conspiracy to assassinate JFK in order to undermine the CIA.
The massive conspiracy to absolve Oswald continues. Now Marina is in on this whacky plot:
the head of the CIA, bankers, known liars like MarinaOf course you want to disregard the person who had the most insight to give on this reclusive loner. If you listened to her you might be able to figure these simple things out, and we wouldn`t want that to happen.
https://www.deseret.com/1988/9/28/18779524/oswald-s-widow-believes-he-didn-t-act-alone
Marina once again conspiring with the deep state to absolve Oswald, this time insisting there was no motive on LHO's part:The "I forgot Marina contradicted herself constantly, oftentimes within the same breath" argument in lieu of presenting the evidence.You ask for evidence then contrive reasons to disregard the evidence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yR4YyaAZF54
If there was no motive, that leaves only means and opportunity. Which pretty much impugns everyone who was in DP that day, because all the witnesses had opportunity, and any one of them who owned a gun had means. Being Texas, that was likely all of
A logical fallacy known as begging the question.A lot of people had the opportunity but only one guy had the means.
That would be the guy who owned the murder weaponCan yiou *prove* who owned that Mannlicher Carcano? Can you CITE the evidence so that others can examine it?
and snuck it into his workplace in a brown paper sack which he had >constructed from materials in his employers shipping room.Sheer speculation not founded on ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL!
This is the best you could do, Corbutt?
Remind us which part of the occipital bone is on the side of the head.Quite a bit of it...
https://www.health.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0029/448139/occipital.gif
We'll wait.
Remind us which part of the occipital bone is on the side of the head.Quite a bit of it...
https://www.health.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0029/448139/occipital.gifThe troll who looks at "all the correct things correctly" doesn't even understand the difference between bones and lobes. I can ask again if you'd like. Which part of the occipital BONE is on the side of the head? You can use this to help you...
Remind us which part of the occipital bone is on the side of the head.Quite a bit of it...
https://www.health.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0029/448139/occipital.gifThe troll who looks at "all the correct things correctly" doesn't even understand the difference between bones and lobes.
I can ask again if you'd like. Which part of the occipital BONE is on the side of the head? You can use this to help you...
https://training.seer.cancer.gov/anatomy/skeletal/divisions/axial.html
We'll wait.
Still waiting.
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 4:46:42?PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
Why do you pretend the defect was limited to the occipital bone?The troll who looks at "all the correct things correctly" doesn't even understand the difference between bones and lobes. I can ask again if you'd like. Which part of the occipital BONE is on the side of the head? You can use this to help you...
Remind us which part of the occipital bone is on the side of the head. >> > Quite a bit of it...
https://www.health.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0029/448139/occipital.gif
The defect was chiefly parietal, which means in was primarily on the
upper right side of the skull. Only the rear tip of
the defect extended into the occipital bone.
You're lying again, Corbutt.The troll who looks at "all the correct things correctly" doesn't even understand the difference between bones and lobes. I can ask again if you'd like. Which part of the occipital BONE is on the side of the head? You can use this to help you...Why do you pretend the defect was limited to the occipital bone?
Why don't you QUOTE David saying what you just claimed?
This is truly sad, that believers have to make up things to "refute" - because they can't deal with what is ACTUALLY said.
The defect was chiefly parietal, which means in was primarily on theAnd, as **NO** part of the occipital is anywhere other than the BACK
upper right side of the skull. Only the rear tip of
the defect extended into the occipital bone.
of the head - the large wound was in the back of the head. Indeed, a
good portion of the Parietal is ALSO in the back of the head.
On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 14:03:45 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 4:46:42?PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:You're lying again, Corbutt.
Why do you pretend the defect was limited to the occipital bone?The troll who looks at "all the correct things correctly" doesn't even understand the difference between bones and lobes. I can ask again if you'd like. Which part of the occipital BONE is on the side of the head? You can use this to help you...
Remind us which part of the occipital bone is on the side of the head.Quite a bit of it...
https://www.health.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0029/448139/occipital.gif
Why don't you QUOTE David saying what you just claimed?
This is truly sad, that believers have to make up things to "refute" - because they can't deal with what is ACTUALLY said.
The defect was chiefly parietal, which means in was primarily on theAnd, as **NO** part of the occipital is anywhere other than the BACK
upper right side of the skull. Only the rear tip of
the defect extended into the occipital bone.
of the head -
the large wound was in the back of the head. Indeed, a
good portion of the Parietal is ALSO in the back of the head.
You lose...
As believers do...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
You're lying again, Corbutt.The troll who looks at "all the correct things correctly" doesn't even understand the difference between bones and lobes. I can ask again if you'd like. Which part of the occipital BONE is on the side of the head? You can use this to help you...Why do you pretend the defect was limited to the occipital bone?
Why don't you QUOTE David saying what you just claimed?
This is truly sad, that believers have to make up things to "refute" - because they can't deal with what is ACTUALLY said.lol, Bud "believes" the occipital bone is on the side of the head, but he "knows" it's at the back.
The defect was chiefly parietal, which means in was primarily on the upper right side of the skull. Only the rear tip ofAnd, as **NO** part of the occipital is anywhere other than the BACK
the defect extended into the occipital bone.
of the head - the large wound was in the back of the head. Indeed, a
good portion of the Parietal is ALSO in the back of the head.
You're lying again, Corbutt.The troll who looks at "all the correct things correctly" doesn't even understand the difference between bones and lobes. I can ask again if you'd like. Which part of the occipital BONE is on the side of the head? You can use this to help you...Why do you pretend the defect was limited to the occipital bone?
Why don't you QUOTE David saying what you just claimed?
This is truly sad, that believers have to make up things to "refute" -
because they can't deal with what is ACTUALLY said.
The defect was chiefly parietal, which means in was primarily on the
upper right side of the skull. Only the rear tip of
the defect extended into the occipital bone.
And, as **NO** part of the occipital is anywhere other than the BACK
of the head - the large wound was in the back of the head. Indeed, a
good portion of the Parietal is ALSO in the back of the head.
lol, Bud "believes" the occipital bone is on the side of the head, but he "knows" it's at the back.
On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 14:24:37 -0700 (PDT), David Drummond <borisba...@gmail.com> wrote:
You're lying again, Corbutt.The troll who looks at "all the correct things correctly" doesn't even understand the difference between bones and lobes. I can ask again if you'd like. Which part of the occipital BONE is on the side of the head? You can use this to help you...Why do you pretend the defect was limited to the occipital bone?
Why don't you QUOTE David saying what you just claimed?
This is truly sad, that believers have to make up things to "refute" -
because they can't deal with what is ACTUALLY said.
The defect was chiefly parietal, which means in was primarily on the
upper right side of the skull. Only the rear tip of
the defect extended into the occipital bone.
And, as **NO** part of the occipital is anywhere other than the BACK
of the head - the large wound was in the back of the head. Indeed, a
good portion of the Parietal is ALSO in the back of the head.
lol, Bud "believes" the occipital bone is on the side of the head, but he "knows" it's at the back.He believes a lot of things that just aren't so...
He also believes that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy report was
describing the wound location...
but is TERRIFIED of quoting the
paragraph introducing that "A.B.C.D."
He also believes that the throat wound was dissected, despite sworn testimony to the contrary.
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 4:46:42 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
Remind us which part of the occipital bone is on the side of the head.Quite a bit of it...
https://www.health.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0029/448139/occipital.gifThe troll who looks at "all the correct things correctly" doesn't even understand the difference between bones and lobes. I can ask again if you'd like. Which part of the occipital BONE is on the side of the head? You can use this to help you...
Why do you pretend the defect was limited to the occipital bone?
The defect was chiefly parietal, which means in was primarily on the upper right side of the skull. Only the rear tip of
the defect extended into the occipital bone.
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 6:41:10?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 5:03:46?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 4:46:42?PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote: >>>>>[Raises hand] I know, I know! Because they are dishonest and have no interest in the truth so they try to isolate information so they can look at it incorrectly.
Why do you pretend the defect was limited to the occipital bone?The troll who looks at "all the correct things correctly" doesn't even understand the difference between bones and lobes. I can ask again if you'd like. Which part of the occipital BONE is on the side of the head? You can use this to help you...Remind us which part of the occipital bone is on the side of the head. >>>>> Quite a bit of it...
https://www.health.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0029/448139/occipital.gif
Is this what you "believe" or what you "know"?
Those things are opposable, allegedly.
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 5:03:46 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 4:46:42 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
Remind us which part of the occipital bone is on the side of the head.Quite a bit of it...
https://www.health.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0029/448139/occipital.gifThe troll who looks at "all the correct things correctly" doesn't even understand the difference between bones and lobes. I can ask again if you'd like. Which part of the occipital BONE is on the side of the head? You can use this to help you...
Why do you pretend the defect was limited to the occipital bone?[Raises hand] I know, I know! Because they are dishonest and have no interest in the truth so they try to isolate information so they can look at it incorrectly.
On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 16:23:57 -0700 (PDT), David Drummond <borisba...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 6:41:10?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 5:03:46?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 4:46:42?PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote: >>>>>[Raises hand] I know, I know! Because they are dishonest and have no interest in the truth so they try to isolate information so they can look at it incorrectly.
Why do you pretend the defect was limited to the occipital bone?The troll who looks at "all the correct things correctly" doesn't even understand the difference between bones and lobes. I can ask again if you'd like. Which part of the occipital BONE is on the side of the head? You can use this to help you...Remind us which part of the occipital bone is on the side of the head.Quite a bit of it...
https://www.health.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0029/448139/occipital.gif
Is this what you "believe" or what you "know"?
Those things are opposable, allegedly.It's a certainty that he can't cite for his empty claims.
And Chickenshit himself proclaims that uncited empty claims are lies.
So he clearly believes ... lies.
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 6:41:10 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 5:03:46 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 4:46:42 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
Remind us which part of the occipital bone is on the side of the head.Quite a bit of it...
https://www.health.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0029/448139/occipital.gifThe troll who looks at "all the correct things correctly" doesn't even understand the difference between bones and lobes. I can ask again if you'd like. Which part of the occipital BONE is on the side of the head? You can use this to help you...
Is this what you "believe" or what you "know"?Why do you pretend the defect was limited to the occipital bone?[Raises hand] I know, I know! Because they are dishonest and have no interest in the truth so they try to isolate information so they can look at it incorrectly.
Those things are opposable, allegedly.
On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 16:23:57 -0700 (PDT), David Drummond <borisba...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 6:41:10?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 5:03:46?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 4:46:42?PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote: >>>>>[Raises hand] I know, I know! Because they are dishonest and have no interest in the truth so they try to isolate information so they can look at it incorrectly.
Why do you pretend the defect was limited to the occipital bone?The troll who looks at "all the correct things correctly" doesn't even understand the difference between bones and lobes. I can ask again if you'd like. Which part of the occipital BONE is on the side of the head? You can use this to help you...Remind us which part of the occipital bone is on the side of the head.Quite a bit of it...
https://www.health.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0029/448139/occipital.gif
Is this what you "believe" or what you "know"?
Those things are opposable, allegedly.It's a certainty that he can't cite for his empty claims.
And Chickenshit himself proclaims that uncited empty claims are lies.
So he clearly believes ... lies.
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 7:23:59 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 6:41:10 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 5:03:46 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 4:46:42 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
Remind us which part of the occipital bone is on the side of the head.Quite a bit of it...
https://www.health.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0029/448139/occipital.gifThe troll who looks at "all the correct things correctly" doesn't even understand the difference between bones and lobes. I can ask again if you'd like. Which part of the occipital BONE is on the side of the head? You can use this to help you...
Is this what you "believe" or what you "know"?Why do you pretend the defect was limited to the occipital bone?[Raises hand] I know, I know! Because they are dishonest and have no interest in the truth so they try to isolate information so they can look at it incorrectly.
Those things are opposable, allegedly.This is how dishonest people try to change the argument.
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 7:27:16 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 16:23:57 -0700 (PDT), David Drummond <borisba...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 6:41:10?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 5:03:46?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote: >>> On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 4:46:42?PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
[Raises hand] I know, I know! Because they are dishonest and have no interest in the truth so they try to isolate information so they can look at it incorrectly.Why do you pretend the defect was limited to the occipital bone?The troll who looks at "all the correct things correctly" doesn't even understand the difference between bones and lobes. I can ask again if you'd like. Which part of the occipital BONE is on the side of the head? You can use this to help you...
Remind us which part of the occipital bone is on the side of the head.Quite a bit of it...
https://www.health.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0029/448139/occipital.gif
Is this what you "believe" or what you "know"?
Those things are opposable, allegedly.It's a certainty that he can't cite for his empty claims.
And Chickenshit himself proclaims that uncited empty claims are lies.
So he clearly believes ... lies.They're imbeciles en masse as a general rule, but Bud has been having an exceptionally bad day, making even less sense than usual.
He sounds like that character in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest that had the lobotomy and drooled a lot. Such things happen when you're fed a diet of 100% pure Deep State entrails day and night.
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 7:36:41 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:.
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 7:27:16 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 16:23:57 -0700 (PDT), David Drummond <borisba...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 6:41:10?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 5:03:46?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote: >>> On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 4:46:42?PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
The troll who looks at "all the correct things correctly" doesn't even understand the difference between bones and lobes. I can ask again if you'd like. Which part of the occipital BONE is on the side of the head? You can use this to help you..
Remind us which part of the occipital bone is on the side of the head.Quite a bit of it...
https://www.health.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0029/448139/occipital.gif
He said John was a "fed." And he claims the media's covered this all up, to wit, the murder of JFK and the corrupt followup investigations. Because the "Deep State" told them to. Right, two or three generations of Americans over half a century from all[Raises hand] I know, I know! Because they are dishonest and have no interest in the truth so they try to isolate information so they can look at it incorrectly.Why do you pretend the defect was limited to the occipital bone?
Is this what you "believe" or what you "know"?
Those things are opposable, allegedly.It's a certainty that he can't cite for his empty claims.
And Chickenshit himself proclaims that uncited empty claims are lies.
You aren`t going top eat the carrots even if I make the airplane sound, child.So he clearly believes ... lies.They're imbeciles en masse as a general rule, but Bud has been having an exceptionally bad day, making even less sense than usual.
He sounds like that character in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest that had the lobotomy and drooled a lot. Such things happen when you're fed a diet of 100% pure Deep State entrails day and night.But you so clever. Or delusional and driven by bias.
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 7:48:17 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:you...
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 7:36:41 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 7:27:16 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 16:23:57 -0700 (PDT), David Drummond <borisba...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 6:41:10?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 5:03:46?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 4:46:42?PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
The troll who looks at "all the correct things correctly" doesn't even understand the difference between bones and lobes. I can ask again if you'd like. Which part of the occipital BONE is on the side of the head? You can use this to help
Remind us which part of the occipital bone is on the side of the head.Quite a bit of it...
https://www.health.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0029/448139/occipital.gif
Why do you pretend the defect was limited to the occipital bone? >> [Raises hand] I know, I know! Because they are dishonest and have no interest in the truth so they try to isolate information so they can look at it incorrectly.
Is this what you "believe" or what you "know"?
Those things are opposable, allegedly.It's a certainty that he can't cite for his empty claims.
And Chickenshit himself proclaims that uncited empty claims are lies.
He said John was a "fed." And he claims the media's covered this all up, to wit, the murder of JFK and the corrupt followup investigations. Because the "Deep State" told them to.You aren`t going top eat the carrots even if I make the airplane sound, child.So he clearly believes ... lies.They're imbeciles en masse as a general rule, but Bud has been having an exceptionally bad day, making even less sense than usual.
He sounds like that character in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest that had the lobotomy and drooled a lot. Such things happen when you're fed a diet of 100% pure Deep State entrails day and night.But you so clever. Or delusional and driven by bias.
Right, two or three generations of Americans over half a century from all backgrounds have covered up the murder of JFK on orders of the "Deep State". This is the *same* media that exposed the abuses by the CIA and FBI et cetera. The ones they cite asevidence of the nefarious powers they have. In conspiracy world the "Deep State" can control the media when it comes to their murder of JFK but it can't control the media when it comes to revealing their other crimes/abuses. You cannot reason with this
You want to argue a specific topic, pick one. The SBT?
The autopsy report?
Marina`s reliability?
To make it fair I`ll even get a lobatomy.
You think the occipital bone is on the side of the head,It is seen in the side view you yourself produced.
He said John was a "fed."
And he claims the media's covered this all up, to wit, the murder of JFK and the corrupt followup investigations.
Because the "Deep State" told them to.
Right, two or three generations of Americans over half a century from all backgrounds have covered up the murder of JFK on orders of the "Deep State".
This is the *same* media that exposed the abuses by the CIA and FBI et cetera.
The ones they cite as evidence of the nefarious powers they have. In conspiracy world the "Deep State" can control the media when it comes to their murder of JFK
You want to argue a specific topic, pick one. The SBT?The thing Arlen Spectre [sic] invented from whole cloth and just decided was true because reasons?
The autopsy report?
Where is the absence of scalp and bone?
Marina`s reliability?
What about it?
When she says something you like she's some kind of expert on LHO.
When she contradicts herself in the next breath you toss her in the ditch.
It's amazing the kind of flip-flopping idiocy you are forced to ally yourself with just for your pitiful version of "the truth" to remain relevant. Marina's claims of Oswald's innocence would be a gold mine to critics, but we don't need to defer to them(except ironically) because we don't have to hitch our wagon to a proven liar. We can discard ANY of her claims as illegitimate, because we have plenty of real evidence to choose from. Whereas you have to believe every contradictory point made by every
So we can talk about "unimpeachable personnel" if you want, but you don't actually have any you can trust. Which makes you and your LN urban myth so laughable as to defy belief.
To make it fair I`ll even get a lobatomy.Go ahead, you might learn how to spell "lobotomy."
Bud thinks a dog's tail isn't at the back because he can see it from the side.You think the occipital bone is on the side of the head,It is seen in the side view you yourself produced.
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 7:42:59 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:..
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 7:23:59 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 6:41:10 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 5:03:46 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 4:46:42 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
Remind us which part of the occipital bone is on the side of the head.Quite a bit of it...
https://www.health.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0029/448139/occipital.gifThe troll who looks at "all the correct things correctly" doesn't even understand the difference between bones and lobes. I can ask again if you'd like. Which part of the occipital BONE is on the side of the head? You can use this to help you.
Is this what you "believe" or what you "know"?Why do you pretend the defect was limited to the occipital bone?[Raises hand] I know, I know! Because they are dishonest and have no interest in the truth so they try to isolate information so they can look at it incorrectly.
You didn't make an argument.Those things are opposable, allegedly.This is how dishonest people try to change the argument.
You flung a big ad hominem turd at the thread and then jumped around gibbering like a flea-misted primate. You offer nothing but a vague introductory workout for any debate skills I might be sharpening.
You think the occipital bone is on the side of the head,
and then dare accuse others of dishonesty and no interest in the truth. You're so pathetic it barely warrants the effort to type out how pathetic you are.
He said John was a "fed."
You didn't make an argument.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 126:42:04 |
| Calls: | 6,663 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,334,958 |
