How about some stats.
Number of deaths for leading causes of death
Heart disease: 597,689
Cancer: 574,743
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
Alzheimer's disease: 83,494
Diabetes: 69,071
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
You have not been paying attention.
[/quote]
Explain this.[/quote]
No.
Read back through my posts and figure it out for yourself.[/quote]
You never responded to it–you can’t, because it decimates your paranoid delusion.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
You have not been paying attention.
[/quote]
Explain this.[/quote]
No.
Read back through my posts and figure it out for yourself.[/quote]
You never responded to it–you can’t, because it decimates your paranoid delusion.[/quote]
You find any of that evidence yet?
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Let’s look at what a conspiracy would entail:
The children listed as killed–they had to be real kids. You can’t make up the names of children and then pretend that they’ve been living in a community and attending public school. You can’t bandy the names of fake children and their fake parents about the national airwaves without people in the community stopping and asking, “Wait, has anyone ever heard of these people before?”
So, what happened to the kids then? They’re going to be hidden forever? Going to have to assume new names and new identities? And, since the parents of the children can’t all get up and move away from the town at once, who’s going to be taking care of these children? Surely they aren’t going to be hidden in the basements of their old houses for decades?
What about all of the first responders. All paid off? Or were they tricked with fake blood and fake corpses? If the former: when were they notified of this? How were they notified? Would the planners and executors of one of the most daring cover-ups in American history call a bunch of local cops and EMT’s into a room and say, “hey guys, we’re going to be faking like two dozen deaths here in a month or two. Need you on board. Cool?”
What about the hundreds of neighbors and distant relatives interviewed in the aftermath? Were they in on it, or are they being duped like the rest of us? How is little Jane Doe going to be hidden from Uncle Bob for the rest of her life?
And most importantly: with this army of actors and fakers and bribe-takers, are we to believe that there isn’t a single one among them tempted by the notoriety that he or she would win by blowing the whistle? Not one who got drunk at a holiday party and found it impossible not to let on about an earth-shattering secret of national consequence?
Contending with the above we have the tinfoil-hat crowd–the guy who solved “Lost,” that is–and his bulletproof evidence: a little girl who shares clothing with her sister and a hysterical interviewee who laughed in a moment of grief.
[/quote]
In case someone who is entertaining this “idea” wants to respond.[/quote]
I have not really looked into this one, but your knowledge on batshit conspiracies seems a bit weak
Why not just mind control the shooter and have all the deaths be real?
Nobody in the town needs to be faking anything. Or maybe like three people if you want, just for old times sake
Looks to me like you are making a major strawman in an attempt to make it appear far more irrational than it really is. If its so crazy an idea to require ALL of that, then yea it’s probably not worth it for anybody to be looking into. But that’s BS
(I don’t consider it worth looking into either to be completely honest - but I do not base this on strawman)
If you don’t want to consider it, you obviously do not have to. It looks to me like you are trying to consider without actually doing so. I do not know if you are purposefully fooling others, or accidentally fooling yourself. I suspect the latter, is why I bother
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
How about some stats.
Number of deaths for leading causes of death
Heart disease: 597,689
Cancer: 574,743
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
Alzheimer's disease: 83,494
Diabetes: 69,071
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm[/quote]
What makes you guys think, for one second, that this is about preventing people from dieing? An exponential number of crimes are prevented by people with guns every year than are perpetrated. Still, our government ignores all of the painfully clear statistics and pushes for stricter gun control that has been proven to not work.
This is not about crime prevention.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
How about some stats.
Number of deaths for leading causes of death
Heart disease: 597,689
Cancer: 574,743
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
Alzheimer's disease: 83,494
Diabetes: 69,071
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm[/quote]
What makes you guys think, for one second, that this is about preventing people from dieing? An exponential number of crimes are prevented by people with guns every year than are perpetrated. Still, our government ignores all of the painfully clear statistics and pushes for stricter gun control that has been proven to not work.
This is not about crime prevention.[/quote]
[photo]38096[/photo]
[quote]groo wrote:
[photo]38097[/photo]
[/quote]
Excellent
I’ve never seen a more sheep like post in my life
But maybe I’ve misunderstood. You weren’t really calling yourself a sheep…?
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Let’s look at what a conspiracy would entail:
The children listed as killed–they had to be real kids. You can’t make up the names of children and then pretend that they’ve been living in a community and attending public school. You can’t bandy the names of fake children and their fake parents about the national airwaves without people in the community stopping and asking, “Wait, has anyone ever heard of these people before?”
So, what happened to the kids then? They’re going to be hidden forever? Going to have to assume new names and new identities? And, since the parents of the children can’t all get up and move away from the town at once, who’s going to be taking care of these children? Surely they aren’t going to be hidden in the basements of their old houses for decades?
What about all of the first responders. All paid off? Or were they tricked with fake blood and fake corpses? If the former: when were they notified of this? How were they notified? Would the planners and executors of one of the most daring cover-ups in American history call a bunch of local cops and EMT’s into a room and say, “hey guys, we’re going to be faking like two dozen deaths here in a month or two. Need you on board. Cool?”
What about the hundreds of neighbors and distant relatives interviewed in the aftermath? Were they in on it, or are they being duped like the rest of us? How is little Jane Doe going to be hidden from Uncle Bob for the rest of her life?
And most importantly: with this army of actors and fakers and bribe-takers, are we to believe that there isn’t a single one among them tempted by the notoriety that he or she would win by blowing the whistle? Not one who got drunk at a holiday party and found it impossible not to let on about an earth-shattering secret of national consequence?
Contending with the above we have the tinfoil-hat crowd–the guy who solved “Lost,” that is–and his bulletproof evidence: a little girl who shares clothing with her sister and a hysterical interviewee who laughed in a moment of grief.
[/quote]
In case someone who is entertaining this “idea” wants to respond.[/quote]
I have not really looked into this one, but your knowledge on batshit conspiracies seems a bit weak
Why not just mind control the shooter and have all the deaths be real?
Nobody in the town needs to be faking anything. Or maybe like three people if you want, just for old times sake
Looks to me like you are making a major strawman in an attempt to make it appear far more irrational than it really is. If its so crazy an idea to require ALL of that, then yea it’s probably not worth it for anybody to be looking into. But that’s BS
(I don’t consider it worth looking into either to be completely honest - but I do not base this on strawman)
If you don’t want to consider it, you obviously do not have to. It looks to me like you are trying to consider without actually doing so. I do not know if you are purposefully fooling others, or accidentally fooling yourself. I suspect the latter, is why I bother[/quote]
What?
If you haven’t looked into it, then look into it and get back to me. Speculation-criticism isn’t worth it.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
You have not been paying attention.
[/quote]
Explain this.[/quote]
No.
Read back through my posts and figure it out for yourself.[/quote]
You never responded to it–you can’t, because it decimates your paranoid delusion.[/quote]
You find any of that evidence yet?[/quote]
Evidence of what?
By the way, you say you answered these questions already. I just looked–didn’t find it. If you really have an answer, I missed it. Please re-post it here.
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[photo]38097[/photo]
[/quote]
Excellent
I’ve never seen a more sheep like post in my life
But maybe I’ve misunderstood. You weren’t really calling yourself a sheep…?[/quote]
[photo]38100[/photo]
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Let’s look at what a conspiracy would entail:
The children listed as killed–they had to be real kids. You can’t make up the names of children and then pretend that they’ve been living in a community and attending public school. You can’t bandy the names of fake children and their fake parents about the national airwaves without people in the community stopping and asking, “Wait, has anyone ever heard of these people before?”
So, what happened to the kids then? They’re going to be hidden forever? Going to have to assume new names and new identities? And, since the parents of the children can’t all get up and move away from the town at once, who’s going to be taking care of these children? Surely they aren’t going to be hidden in the basements of their old houses for decades?
What about all of the first responders. All paid off? Or were they tricked with fake blood and fake corpses? If the former: when were they notified of this? How were they notified? Would the planners and executors of one of the most daring cover-ups in American history call a bunch of local cops and EMT’s into a room and say, “hey guys, we’re going to be faking like two dozen deaths here in a month or two. Need you on board. Cool?”
What about the hundreds of neighbors and distant relatives interviewed in the aftermath? Were they in on it, or are they being duped like the rest of us? How is little Jane Doe going to be hidden from Uncle Bob for the rest of her life?
And most importantly: with this army of actors and fakers and bribe-takers, are we to believe that there isn’t a single one among them tempted by the notoriety that he or she would win by blowing the whistle? Not one who got drunk at a holiday party and found it impossible not to let on about an earth-shattering secret of national consequence?
Contending with the above we have the tinfoil-hat crowd–the guy who solved “Lost,” that is–and his bulletproof evidence: a little girl who shares clothing with her sister and a hysterical interviewee who laughed in a moment of grief.
[/quote]
In case someone who is entertaining this “idea” wants to respond.[/quote]
I have not really looked into this one, but your knowledge on batshit conspiracies seems a bit weak
Why not just mind control the shooter and have all the deaths be real?
Nobody in the town needs to be faking anything. Or maybe like three people if you want, just for old times sake
Looks to me like you are making a major strawman in an attempt to make it appear far more irrational than it really is. If its so crazy an idea to require ALL of that, then yea it’s probably not worth it for anybody to be looking into. But that’s BS
(I don’t consider it worth looking into either to be completely honest - but I do not base this on strawman)
If you don’t want to consider it, you obviously do not have to. It looks to me like you are trying to consider without actually doing so. I do not know if you are purposefully fooling others, or accidentally fooling yourself. I suspect the latter, is why I bother[/quote]
What?
If you haven’t looked into it, then look into it and get back to me. Speculation-criticism isn’t worth it.[/quote]
I don’t need to look into it to call bullshit on this piece
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Let’s look at what a conspiracy would entail:
[/quote]
That’s what
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[photo]38097[/photo]
[/quote]
Excellent
I’ve never seen a more sheep like post in my life
But maybe I’ve misunderstood. You weren’t really calling yourself a sheep…?[/quote]
[photo]38100[/photo]
[/quote]
Pretty funny, I’ll admit
…But I’m also going to have to take it as a ‘yes’
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
You have not been paying attention.
[/quote]
Explain this.[/quote]
No.
Read back through my posts and figure it out for yourself.[/quote]
You never responded to it–you can’t, because it decimates your paranoid delusion.[/quote]
You find any of that evidence yet?[/quote]
Evidence of what?
By the way, you say you answered these questions already. I just looked–didn’t find it. If you really have an answer, I missed it. Please re-post it here.[/quote]
Ah, sorry. I thought I posted the other ‘forum troll techniques’ list where it says to ask a bunch of questions that are impossible to answer and then claim a victory when they can’t be answered.
I’ll dig that one up and post it for you tomorrow.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Let’s look at what a conspiracy would entail:
The children listed as killed–they had to be real kids. You can’t make up the names of children and then pretend that they’ve been living in a community and attending public school. You can’t bandy the names of fake children and their fake parents about the national airwaves without people in the community stopping and asking, “Wait, has anyone ever heard of these people before?”
So, what happened to the kids then? They’re going to be hidden forever? Going to have to assume new names and new identities? And, since the parents of the children can’t all get up and move away from the town at once, who’s going to be taking care of these children? Surely they aren’t going to be hidden in the basements of their old houses for decades?
What about all of the first responders. All paid off? Or were they tricked with fake blood and fake corpses? If the former: when were they notified of this? How were they notified? Would the planners and executors of one of the most daring cover-ups in American history call a bunch of local cops and EMT’s into a room and say, “hey guys, we’re going to be faking like two dozen deaths here in a month or two. Need you on board. Cool?”
What about the hundreds of neighbors and distant relatives interviewed in the aftermath? Were they in on it, or are they being duped like the rest of us? How is little Jane Doe going to be hidden from Uncle Bob for the rest of her life?
And most importantly: with this army of actors and fakers and bribe-takers, are we to believe that there isn’t a single one among them tempted by the notoriety that he or she would win by blowing the whistle? Not one who got drunk at a holiday party and found it impossible not to let on about an earth-shattering secret of national consequence?
Contending with the above we have the tinfoil-hat crowd–the guy who solved “Lost,” that is–and his bulletproof evidence: a little girl who shares clothing with her sister and a hysterical interviewee who laughed in a moment of grief.
[/quote]
In case someone who is entertaining this “idea” wants to respond.[/quote]
I have not really looked into this one, but your knowledge on batshit conspiracies seems a bit weak
Why not just mind control the shooter and have all the deaths be real?
Nobody in the town needs to be faking anything. Or maybe like three people if you want, just for old times sake
Looks to me like you are making a major strawman in an attempt to make it appear far more irrational than it really is. If its so crazy an idea to require ALL of that, then yea it’s probably not worth it for anybody to be looking into. But that’s BS
(I don’t consider it worth looking into either to be completely honest - but I do not base this on strawman)
If you don’t want to consider it, you obviously do not have to. It looks to me like you are trying to consider without actually doing so. I do not know if you are purposefully fooling others, or accidentally fooling yourself. I suspect the latter, is why I bother[/quote]
What?
If you haven’t looked into it, then look into it and get back to me. Speculation-criticism isn’t worth it.[/quote]
Also, it appeared to me that you haven’t seriously looked into it and that your entire post was a speculation-criticism designed to say that it wasn’t worth looking into
Did I misunderstand? Set me straight please
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
Also, it appeared to me that you haven’t seriously looked into it and that your entire post was a speculation-criticism designed to say that it wasn’t worth looking into
Did I misunderstand? Set me straight please[/quote]
If you can find something wrong with the substance of my criticism, show me and I will respond.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Ah, sorry. I thought I posted the other ‘forum troll techniques’ list where it says to ask a bunch of questions that are impossible to answer and then claim a victory when they can’t be answered.
I’ll dig that one up and post it for you tomorrow. [/quote]
Wait, now these are “questions that are impossible to answer?”
Are you kidding?
These are the most natural questions that occur to an adult of sound mind when he’s confronted with the paranoid drivel you’re peddling. Dismissing them as COINTELPRO infiltration techniques mauls any scrap of credibility that was spared you in the credibility-holocaust that was your initial posting of Sandy Hook hoax pictures.
Edited
Jay,
Still waiting for an answer to my question:
[quote]Not trusting a politician is a far cry from accusing one of them of a mass scale murder with hundreds of accomplices.
now get busy and point out a handful of…two or three… examples in American history where the government turned on it’s own people perpetrated an enormous hoax and killed hundreds of innocent civilians.[/quote]
Since “the crime of the century” is so easy to pull off one would think that it must have taken place before. And since these things have happened before one or two perpetrators must have been caught. Now give me some previous episodes where such a thing has proven to have taken place…should be easy for you.
Since anyone can claim anything without a shred of real evidence one would think that
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Ah, sorry. I thought I posted the other ‘forum troll techniques’ list where it says to ask a bunch of questions that are impossible to answer and then claim a victory when they can’t be answered.
I’ll dig that one up and post it for you tomorrow. [/quote]
Wait, now these are “questions that are impossible to answer?”
Are you kidding?
These are the most natural questions that occur to an adult of sound mind when he’s confronted with the paranoid drivel you’re peddling. [/quote]
They may be natural to ask, but seeing as I have no dealings in the matter, any answers I could theorize would be mere speculation.
So for me, they are impossible to answer.
I posted pictures from the White House press corps and from news sources local to Newtown, with links to their sources. Are you claiming that those sources aren’t credible?
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Ah, sorry. I thought I posted the other ‘forum troll techniques’ list where it says to ask a bunch of questions that are impossible to answer and then claim a victory when they can’t be answered.
I’ll dig that one up and post it for you tomorrow. [/quote]
Wait, now these are “questions that are impossible to answer?”
Are you kidding?
These are the most natural questions that occur to an adult of sound mind when he’s confronted with the paranoid drivel you’re peddling. [/quote]
They may be natural to ask, but seeing as I have no dealings in the matter, any answers I could theorize would be mere speculation.
So for me, they are impossible to answer.[/quote]
Without answers to these questions, the hoax theory is untenable. It is intellectual dishonesty at its most potent to regard the odd bits of minutiae as sacrosanct evidence and the crushing weight of implausibility as irrelevant. You very obviously want to believe this–a point which, again, should disturb you in light of the fact that children are dead–and this is your problem.
So, until you or someone else can answer the questions I posed–I mean even with a plausible hypothetical–you cannot rationally be a “truther.”
[quote]
I posted pictures from the White House press corps and from news sources local to Newtown, with links to their sources. Are you claiming that those sources aren’t credible?[/quote]
I’m claiming that your analysis of them–your explicit and/or implied characterization of them as evidence of a dastardly conspiracy–is not credible.
I could post a picture of Mitt Romney from AP’s photo bank and create the caption: “Look closely into his eyes. See how glazed over they are? Is Mitt Romney a robot from outer space sent to destroy humankind from within government?”
The credibility of the picture itself would be perfectly intact. It would be my own credibility that suffered.
http://www.nssf.org/share/blastLinks/ActionAlerts/2013/AA012113.htm
Connecticut to ban everything but single-shots under SB122?