[quote]dk44 wrote:
I just can’t equate Obama saying he shoots skeets, which is an obvious ploy to act like he is all about guns and really isn’t trying to shred the 2nd amend, to telling your wife she doesn’t look fat in that dress. I realize there are different levels of lies, but how can you trust a govt that has MKULTRA, operation northwoods, tuskegee, and on and on in its past? I just can’t accept anything the govt says at face value. Just can’t believe anything out of their mouths; dem, rep, ind, whatever. How can anyone? I just don’t understand it. Nancy Pelosi hates the rich, yet she is one, have to pass the bill to know what is in it. John Kerry thinks the rich should pay fair share, yet docks his yacht in a different state to pay less, Al Gore talks about global warming due to oil and then sells Current to Al Jazeera, Patriot Act, NDAA, Halliburton CEO becomes vice president then we hurry off to war, and millions more. How can you have any faith in this con game? Sorry for the ramble. thoughts?[/quote]
I echo your sentiments.
And referring to Countingbeans:
The government is not 'Merica.
'Merica is “We the people” and the natural resources and the great spaciousness of this land.
Human, geography, flora, fauna ( and sauna - applicable only to Florida in August )
[quote]dk44 wrote:
I just can’t equate Obama saying he shoots skeets, which is an obvious ploy to act like he is all about guns and really isn’t trying to shred the 2nd amend, to telling your wife she doesn’t look fat in that dress. I realize there are different levels of lies, but how can you trust a govt that has MKULTRA, operation northwoods, tuskegee, and on and on in its past? I just can’t accept anything the govt says at face value. Just can’t believe anything out of their mouths; dem, rep, ind, whatever. How can anyone? I just don’t understand it. Nancy Pelosi hates the rich, yet she is one, have to pass the bill to know what is in it. John Kerry thinks the rich should pay fair share, yet docks his yacht in a different state to pay less, Al Gore talks about global warming due to oil and then sells Current to Al Jazeera, Patriot Act, NDAA, Halliburton CEO becomes vice president then we hurry off to war, and millions more. How can you have any faith in this con game? Sorry for the ramble. thoughts?[/quote]
Keep in mind that Northwoods was killed by Kennedy.
In the end, lies that amount to politically expedient minutia and/or staggering hypocrisy, while pervasive, do not hint at the existence of even a small fraction of the requisite degrees of sinister ambition, expert wherewithal, and dumb luck that would be involved in a major false-flag conspiracy.
Not to mention that they are always ridiculously improbable (e.g., someone always talks).
[quote]dk44 wrote:
I just can’t equate Obama saying he shoots skeets, which is an obvious ploy to act like he is all about guns and really isn’t trying to shred the 2nd amend, to telling your wife she doesn’t look fat in that dress. I realize there are different levels of lies, but how can you trust a govt that has MKULTRA, operation northwoods, tuskegee, and on and on in its past? I just can’t accept anything the govt says at face value. Just can’t believe anything out of their mouths; dem, rep, ind, whatever. How can anyone? I just don’t understand it. Nancy Pelosi hates the rich, yet she is one, have to pass the bill to know what is in it. John Kerry thinks the rich should pay fair share, yet docks his yacht in a different state to pay less, Al Gore talks about global warming due to oil and then sells Current to Al Jazeera, Patriot Act, NDAA, Halliburton CEO becomes vice president then we hurry off to war, and millions more. How can you have any faith in this con game? Sorry for the ramble. thoughts?[/quote]
Keep in mind that Northwoods was killed by Kennedy.
In the end, lies that amount to politically expedient minutia and/or staggering hypocrisy, while pervasive, do not hint at the existence of even a small fraction of the requisite degrees of sinister ambition, expert wherewithal, and dumb luck that would be involved in a major false-flag conspiracy.
Not to mention that they are always ridiculously improbable (e.g., someone always talks).[/quote]
Hard to keep in mind that Northwoods was killed by Kennedy, when it was thought of by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Department of Defense. So once again, how do we determine who the Kennedy is and who the DoD/JCS are in today’s world? This is proven, documents with signatures, these people were going to lie right to our face all to go to war with Cuba. But no way they would do it for the Middle East? Too much power and money out there to trust them IMO. You really think the govt wouldn’t try to take away guns for their own purposes, not the lie of a safer society?
[quote]dk44 wrote:
I just can’t equate Obama saying he shoots skeets, which is an obvious ploy to act like he is all about guns and really isn’t trying to shred the 2nd amend, to telling your wife she doesn’t look fat in that dress. I realize there are different levels of lies, but how can you trust a govt that has MKULTRA, operation northwoods, tuskegee, and on and on in its past? I just can’t accept anything the govt says at face value. Just can’t believe anything out of their mouths; dem, rep, ind, whatever. How can anyone? I just don’t understand it. Nancy Pelosi hates the rich, yet she is one, have to pass the bill to know what is in it. John Kerry thinks the rich should pay fair share, yet docks his yacht in a different state to pay less, Al Gore talks about global warming due to oil and then sells Current to Al Jazeera, Patriot Act, NDAA, Halliburton CEO becomes vice president then we hurry off to war, and millions more. How can you have any faith in this con game? Sorry for the ramble. thoughts?[/quote]
Keep in mind that Northwoods was killed by Kennedy.
In the end, lies that amount to politically expedient minutia and/or staggering hypocrisy, while pervasive, do not hint at the existence of even a small fraction of the requisite degrees of sinister ambition, expert wherewithal, and dumb luck that would be involved in a major false-flag conspiracy.
Not to mention that they are always ridiculously improbable (e.g., someone always talks).[/quote]
‘someone always talks’
Yea sure - on there deathbed (assuming they ever get one, long after the deed has been done). And that’s being nice - I don’t even believe that.
The way you do it is you pick people that are not inclined to talk. Not everybody has the same moral code
From a song I like (heh - yeah…)
It asks the listener a personal question that I find interesting
Both answers are engineered to carry a negative connotation, imo
Corruption and organized crime requires this. As both corruption and organized crime do exist, there are people who can keep secrets
Those minor lies do not hint at this, but Northwoods does. Killed by Kennedy - yes - but it made it all the way up to him
In using a wording like ‘even a small fraction of the requisite degrees of sinister ambition, expert wherewithal, and dumb luck’, you are arguing against the experts and the plans they compiled
Take a deeper look at that Northwoods thing and notice the multiangular tactics it teaches
They do not require a large number of conspirators - they are specifically designed that way
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I am in contact every single day with military professionals from every branch, and every MOS you can think of. Spec Ops included. EVERYBODY is calling bullshit on this being ‘routine’ training!
So, I don’t know where you’re getting your information from, or what your purpose is, but your justification of black helicopters firing blanks from a fifty cal machine gun over heavy traffic is sickening.
[/quote]
Such a bold post and yet you don’t even know that The Unit is the only Army unit doing hostage rescue. What’s going to be routine about what the 160th and CAG do? They aren’t big Army and they aren’t routine. 160th is the premiere aviation unit in the world and The Unit is arguably the best counter-terrorism unit in the world. Do you think they could want to train at a location like a large hotel in a urban center because it offers a good opportunity for them to put their skills to use and that hotel in Miami just so happened to be available? SOF units are always doing things like this, I could go back to an article from the 1970s about Rangers going off to Alaska to defend an oil pipeline from a hypothetical terrorist attack.
Pump your brakes. You could have learned everything you wanted to by doing a little research on this, you would also know that it happens on a regular basis and has for decades. It’s an insult to members of the community, one who not only served in the 75th but also went on to an ODA[Special Forces], to call their integrity into question because you exaggerate your knowledge on this subject.[/quote]
You watch too much TV.
I believe you are referring to The Regiment (not The Unit), as it is the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (SOAR). It was formed from elements of my dad’s old battalion along with the 159th.
[/quote]
Did the guys from SOAR exit their aircraft, conduct hostage rescue training and then re-enter their aircraft? This is simple. There’s open source information detailing everything about this, you’ve no attention to detail or desire to do research. I’m not on here to argue for the sake of arguing.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
But seeing as your knowledge of the subject is so extensive, please answer a simple question for me:
Why would you not want to fire fifty-cal blanks over civilian traffic?[/quote]
Any reports of that brass damaging any vehicles, property or people? Come to think of it, wouldn’t local law enforcement be involved? I suppose it would be to block traffic and prevent a crowd from gathering. Do you suppose the training exercise was held so late to mitigate risk?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Well now… that sums it up. Looks like O’s got this one in the bag fellas[/quote]
“I shot a gun one time, I know how much you value firearm ownership… Now let’s all agree 10 round mags and banning the most popular rifles. It’ll be hard on all of us.”
I think he would be better off if he didn’t try to relate to people on this issue. I think it’s more of a joke than anything, just typical politician behavior.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Well now… that sums it up. Looks like O’s got this one in the bag fellas[/quote]
“I shot a gun one time, I know how much you value firearm ownership… Now let’s all agree 10 round mags and banning the most popular rifles. It’ll be hard on all of us.”
I think he would be better off if he didn’t try to relate to people on this issue. I think it’s more of a joke than anything, just typical politician behavior.[/quote]
I played basketball one time and sprained my ankle, we should ban basketball you know to drive down healthcare costs. Football too, that sport is just too violent for my kids to play (said when sport is safest it’s ever been).
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
But seeing as your knowledge of the subject is so extensive, please answer a simple question for me:
Why would you not want to fire fifty-cal blanks over civilian traffic?[/quote]
Any reports of that brass damaging any vehicles, property or people? Come to think of it, wouldn’t local law enforcement be involved? I suppose it would be to block traffic and prevent a crowd from gathering. Do you suppose the training exercise was held so late to mitigate risk?[/quote]
So then you admit that firing blanks over heavy traffic is a safety concern, right?
Why are the local police training with the Night Stalkers, anyway? What scenario could they possibly be training for? You know, since the excuse of ‘training for overseas missions’ is now a blown cover.
Could we PLEASE keep this Sandy Hook hoax, conspiracy pro/con, training exercise talk out of this thread now?
I’ve read damn near 7-8 pages of this back-and-forth cluttering up a gun control thread. It has nothing to do with gun control. Ok maybe tangentially yeah if you can prove a conspiracy you get motive etc etc blah blah blah…but not substantively. Make another thread please if you want to debate it and go back and forth on pictures, videos, evidence/not evidence, or whatever else. Or even hijack haven.
I’d like to keep this one more on target, if only as an irony to accompany all the threads that have been derailed in the past few months.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Could we PLEASE keep this Sandy Hook hoax, conspiracy pro/con, training exercise talk out of this thread now?
I’ve read damn near 7-8 pages of this back-and-forth cluttering up a gun control thread. It has nothing to do with gun control. Ok maybe tangentially yeah if you can prove a conspiracy you get motive etc etc blah blah blah…but not substantively. Make another thread please if you want to debate it and go back and forth on pictures, videos, evidence/not evidence, or whatever else. Or even hijack haven.
I’d like to keep this one more on target, if only as an irony to accompany all the threads that have been derailed in the past few months.[/quote]
The angle I have been on is highly relevant
It is an important consideration that the govt cannot be trusted with further gun control - said from multiple angles
Cannot be trusted because not able to sufficiently protect everybody in the first place
Cannot be trusted because of possible negative intentions in the first place
Cannot be trusted because of possible negative intentions in the second place with future tyrannies
That first one is obvious, imo
That second one is mostly what I’m on about. You are correct that I cannot prove it - but I think it should be discussed and investigated more
The third one was practically promised by the Founders if I have understood
ok - I will leave it alone. Back to arguing the obvious (sorry man I just gotta say it)
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
But seeing as your knowledge of the subject is so extensive, please answer a simple question for me:
Why would you not want to fire fifty-cal blanks over civilian traffic?[/quote]
Any reports of that brass damaging any vehicles, property or people? Come to think of it, wouldn’t local law enforcement be involved? I suppose it would be to block traffic and prevent a crowd from gathering. Do you suppose the training exercise was held so late to mitigate risk?[/quote]
So then you admit that firing blanks over heavy traffic is a safety concern, right?
Why are the local police training with the Night Stalkers, anyway? What scenario could they possibly be training for? You know, since the excuse of ‘training for overseas missions’ is now a blown cover.[/quote]
Not necessarily, cell phones have been a greater safety concern in heavy traffic for me. But where exactly do you see heavy traffic in that video?
What makes you think they were training together in that sense and what exactly are they covering up? If there’s something to cover up why would it be such high visibility training? Training like this happens pretty regularly, it’s just more common to hear about it now since rather than being local news it can get online and be international news. I think it’s feasible that local LEOs were involved because it’s practical to use them to control traffic in the surrounding area and to make sure a crowd didn’t gather.
[quote]b89 wrote:
Not necessarily, cell phones have been a greater safety concern in heavy traffic for me. But where exactly do you see heavy traffic in that video? [/quote]
01:30. Directly below the helicopters. Did you even watch the vid?
Because one of the newscasts I watched said so.
I don’t have those answers.
Bullshit. This kind of training in civilian-inhabited urban areas started a couple years ago, and is rare, but is becoming more prevalent. Of course, I’m sure you have a ton of news articles and whatnot to back up your claim.
That is not what was stated. Matter of fact, the reporter in that vid said that the cops were there for the let-out of the basketball game.