Gun Control II

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Columbian whores under wraps.[/quote]

Are these girls from the university?
[/quote]

Yeah, probably from the department of gender studies or something.[/quote]

I was kidding with you because I thought you meant Colombia ( the country is South America ) and not Columbia ( the university in New York ).

“Columbian whores” would be American girls attending the university in NY.
[/quote]

Ah, now I get it. Yes I did mean Colombian whores as opposed to Columbian whores. Still say they’re probably from some gender studies department though. :slight_smile:

142

193×261 20.9 KB

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

Actor Danny Glover tells students 2nd Amendment was created to protect slavery

The Constitution’s Second Amendment was created to bolster slavery and capture land from Native Americans, award winning actor Danny Glover told a group of students at a Texas A&M sponsored event on Thursday.

Actor Danny Glover told students at Texas A&M University the intent of the Second Amendment was to protect slavery.
?I don?t know if you know the genesis of the right to bear arms,? he said. ?The Second Amendment comes from the right to protect themselves from slave revolts, and from uprisings by Native Americans.?

Wow. This dude is Cuh-Loo-Less!

How about this-- “Gun Control” laws were made to keep firearms out of the hands of blacks.

Go.

I question the sanity of any black or Jew who supports gun control/confiscation.[/quote]

Fuck that mother fucker. Sorry for being vulgar but good god does this piss me off. What an ignorant, lazy and utterly clueless man he is.

Thank god Mel Gibson going crazy already ruined the Lethal Weapon movies for me… [/quote]

Exactly. Danny Glover and Sean Penn are the biggest fuckin dumbasses I have read about.

The socialist left have no facts or model either now or throughout history to prove that anything they believe in is any different than a fuckin bottle of UNICORN TEARS.

Danny Glover would fly down to Cuba and pal around with communist dictator Fidel Castro and be oblivious to anything like SLAVERY going on next door to where he was visiting. These people are fuckin traitors to their own and to this country. THEY ARE ZEROES. They both could walk past North Korean citizens eating grass (because their communist dictators starve them to death) and tell you how idyllic and charming the place is. http://flickeringpictures.com/2008/08/04/starving-north-koreans-eat-twigs-bark-grass/

I have some friends & co-workers who have no clue about politics other than to say “well there’s just a lot of finger pointing on both sides.”

That’s their belief system about anything that happens and they generally lean to the left. They can’t tell whether a communist dictator is a good thing or a bad thing for a country but can tell you the mispronounced words George Bush said during a speech. Typical liberal.

A toast of Farkle Juice to Danny Glover at noon on Martin Luther King Day.

143

3-D printer guns:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/18/the-end-of-gun-control-or-anarchy-see-the-chilling-possibilities-created-by-3d-printed-guns/

144

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Thanks, groo, but I do my digging in credible sources. Matter of fact, all those conspiracy sites are a major obstacle to finding real information. You have to be a search ninja to find anything real.

https://hseep.dhs.gov/DHSResource/Glossary.aspx

This is a good place to start to get a handle on the terminology used by DHS in order to make web searches more efficient. There is also some good info just in the definitions themselves.[/quote]

In the spirit of helping my friend here you go.

[photo]38079[/photo][/quote]
You ‘sane’ guys sure like to jump off the deep end. How different are you than the conspiracy nuts?

-You both jump to conclusions
-You both make unfounded accusations
-You both use wild exaggerations to try to prove your point
-You both believe everything you read, only difference being where you read it

You better use that tin foil yourself. The ‘nuts’ might have brain-readers, too.

145

[quote]ZEB wrote:
To think that GW Bush, or Barack Obama would actually be behind the murder of innocent Americans is absolutly incredible. [/quote]

Look at history and at how many innocent people have been killed by their governments. A lot of them were elected officials.

The power wielded by government attracts evil men. I don’t trust any of them.

146

Jay,

I bought the book you recommended me - thank you!

I understand you.

I also understand people in general do not want to be served the truth.

Many a times, even in the presence of enough evidence denial takes place and one cannot make others see what their mind’s eye does not want to see.

Also people have deep attachments to their country and faith in the system.
Presenting them with the possibility of a horrific reality is an insult to their sensibilities and a major threat to their inner security.

Think of how competent you are and able to defend your self both physically, psychologically and intellectually.
Exploring difficult facts is not as bad for you as it is for many who have decided to share their trust with their government.

Have you heard of the CIA program MK Ultra?
Is it possible the government does use children to advance their causes?

Let the reader use their own discernment.

Remember this, please: “extreme claims require extreme proof”.

Back in the day Pearl Harbor would have been called a “conspiracy theory” and now “straight history” has acknowledged what one president was willing to sacrifice to achieve his aim.

Time will tell.

147

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Jay,

I bought the book you recommended me - thank you!

I understand you.

I also understand people in general do not want to be served the truth.

Many a times, even in the presence of enough evidence denial takes place and one cannot make others see what their mind’s eye does not want to see.

Also people have deep attachments to their country and faith in the system.
Presenting them with the possibility of a horrific reality is an insult to their sensibilities and a major threat to their inner security.

Think of how competent you are and able to defend your self both physically, psychologically and intellectually.
Exploring difficult facts is not as bad for you as it is for many who have decided to share their trust with their government.

Have you heard of the CIA program MK Ultra?
Is it possible the government does use children to advance their causes?

Let the reader use their own discernment.

Remember this, please: “extreme claims require extreme proof”.

Back in the day Pearl Harbor would have been called a “conspiracy theory” and now “straight history” has acknowledged what one president was willing to sacrifice to achieve his aim.

Time will tell.

[/quote]
So you really think its a rational position that many actors were hired to perpetrate a hoax in a smallish town? And that everyone has hung in there? No one has broken the silence?
As well many including Jay have posted the picture of the father smiling thinking who knows what then steeling himself to get interviewed as proof of something…I know that for certain if I was engaging in such a conspiracy I’d find a few character actors that could ya know stay in character while in public…I mean how hard could that be?

Its one thing to say that media has driven the story and its likely not entirely accurate and there may be some or many mistakes. Its another thing entirely to say that the entire incident didn’t happen or that the government at the direction of Obama decided to kill a bunch of kids as a ploy to take away guns so communism which has pretty much been proven a failed ideology because by and large people suck if nothing else could somehow take hold in America? The second shows such a divorcement from reality that institutionalization may be called for.

148

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Thanks, groo, but I do my digging in credible sources. Matter of fact, all those conspiracy sites are a major obstacle to finding real information. You have to be a search ninja to find anything real.

https://hseep.dhs.gov/DHSResource/Glossary.aspx

This is a good place to start to get a handle on the terminology used by DHS in order to make web searches more efficient. There is also some good info just in the definitions themselves.[/quote]

In the spirit of helping my friend here you go.

[photo]38079[/photo][/quote]
You ‘sane’ guys sure like to jump off the deep end. How different are you than the conspiracy nuts?

-You both jump to conclusions
-You both make unfounded accusations
-You both use wild exaggerations to try to prove your point
-You both believe everything you read, only difference being where you read it

You better use that tin foil yourself. The ‘nuts’ might have brain-readers, too.[/quote]

My accusations aren’t unfounded. You came to this idea from information that derived from the sources I provided. My quotes from the guy that generated this idea were from his own sites. I don’t believe much that I read however its a far cry from saying people aren’t completely being truthful to a vast conspiracy that at best has the government perpetrating a gigantic hoax at worst has them killing multiple children with guns in order to um ban guns.

149

While not decided either way on whether or not I think Sandy Hook had shady stuff going on, it’s ridiculous to just assume that it can’t be, and feign disgust when anybody questions what you think about it.

Time and time again throughout history, governments have lied and conspired against their citizens to push their selfish agendas, so it baffles me that anybody is ignorant enough to think our government MUST be special. You know, it’s not like they saw pearl harbor coming or anything. Oh wait…

150

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Jay,

I bought the book you recommended me - thank you!

I understand you.

I also understand people in general do not want to be served the truth.

Many a times, even in the presence of enough evidence denial takes place and one cannot make others see what their mind’s eye does not want to see.

Also people have deep attachments to their country and faith in the system.
Presenting them with the possibility of a horrific reality is an insult to their sensibilities and a major threat to their inner security.

Think of how competent you are and able to defend your self both physically, psychologically and intellectually.
Exploring difficult facts is not as bad for you as it is for many who have decided to share their trust with their government.

Have you heard of the CIA program MK Ultra?
Is it possible the government does use children to advance their causes?

Let the reader use their own discernment.

Remember this, please: “extreme claims require extreme proof”.

Back in the day Pearl Harbor would have been called a “conspiracy theory” and now “straight history” has acknowledged what one president was willing to sacrifice to achieve his aim.

Time will tell.

[/quote]
So you really think its a rational position that many actors were hired to perpetrate a hoax in a smallish town? And that everyone has hung in there? No one has broken the silence?
As well many including Jay have posted the picture of the father smiling thinking who knows what then steeling himself to get interviewed as proof of something…I know that for certain if I was engaging in such a conspiracy I’d find a few character actors that could ya know stay in character while in public…I mean how hard could that be?

Its one thing to say that media has driven the story and its likely not entirely accurate and there may be some or many mistakes. Its another thing entirely to say that the entire incident didn’t happen or that the government at the direction of Obama decided to kill a bunch of kids as a ploy to take away guns so communism which has pretty much been proven a failed ideology because by and large people suck if nothing else could somehow take hold in America? The second shows such a divorcement from reality that institutionalization may be called for.[/quote]

I already stated what I think:

“Extreme claims require extreme proof”.

151

[quote]groo wrote:
My accusations aren’t unfounded. You came to this idea from information that derived from the sources I provided.
[/quote]
Prove it.

152

[quote]hungry4more wrote:
While not decided either way on whether or not I think Sandy Hook had shady stuff going on, it’s ridiculous to just assume that it can’t be, and feign disgust when anybody questions what you think about it.

Time and time again throughout history, governments have lied and conspired against their citizens to push their selfish agendas, so it baffles me that anybody is ignorant enough to think our government MUST be special. You know, it’s not like they saw pearl harbor coming or anything. Oh wait…[/quote]

Waco.

"twenty-one children under the age of 16. 12 under 5:

Lisa Martin 13 Sheila Martin, Jr. 15
Rachel Sylvia 12 Hollywood Sylvia 1
Joseph Martinez 8 Abigail Martinez 11
Crystal Martinez 3 Isaiah Martinez 4
Audrey Martinez 13 Melissa Morrison 6
Chanel Andrade 1 Cyrus Koresh 8
Star Koresh 6 Bobbie Lane Koresh 2
Dayland Gent 3 Page Gent 1
Mayanah Schneider 2 Startle Summers 1
Serenity Jones 4 Chica Jones 2
Little One Jones 2

Horiuchi: FBI sniper on the “white separatist” Randy Weaver case.

( Some FBI agents stood down because they believed the order to shoot to kill was illegal )

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19970926&slug=2562691

153

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

I already stated what I think:

“Extreme claims require extreme proof”.
[/quote]

The extreme claim in this instance is the one involving a massive conspiracy and scores of paid actors to dupe thousands of investigators, policemen, and journalists–and the residents of an educated, affluent town–in broad daylight.

154

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.

155

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
My accusations aren’t unfounded. You came to this idea from information that derived from the sources I provided.
[/quote]
Prove it.[/quote]
So without you not being intellectually dishonest would you like to state that you came up with this conspiracy theory entirely on your own devoid of internet sources? And perhaps list some of your other evidence? I mean if I have to prove you aren’t truly crazy enough to come up with it on your own I’d like it to be your true intellectual position.

156

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
My accusations aren’t unfounded. You came to this idea from information that derived from the sources I provided.
[/quote]
Prove it.[/quote]
So without you not being intellectually dishonest would you like to state that you came up with this conspiracy theory entirely on your own devoid of internet sources? And perhaps list some of your other evidence? I mean if I have to prove you aren’t truly crazy enough to come up with it on your own I’d like it to be your true intellectual position.
[/quote]
Hey, you made the unfounded accusation that I got information from the sources you provided. I’m giving you the chance to prove it, or at least make a valid argument (one that isn’t complete speculation).

It is not crazy to perceive something amiss when the initial attempt to provide motive in the case was stated that his mother was the teacher of the class, and then when someone pointed out that she wasn’t listed on the faculty roll, so they changed it to teacher’s assistant. And then someone proved that wrong, so they admitted she never worked there. Then, as it turns out, she was a broker who worked for CitiGroup Global during the time the LIBOR fraud was happening. And her ex-husband just happens to have three ex-employees who were sentenced to prison in Oct for the same fraud case.

157

What was “amiss” is an inherent problem with the way news is delivered in the 21st Century…lack of editorial controls because of the almost instantaneous delivery of news.

Every news agency from “CNN” to “FOX” and from “Huffington” to “Bloomberg” wants to be the first with “the scoop”. It is much easier to “put it out there” first, then correct it; than to be the last to get the most up-to-date information.

“Put it out there”…then check the facts later.

Mufasa

158

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
My accusations aren’t unfounded. You came to this idea from information that derived from the sources I provided.
[/quote]
Prove it.[/quote]
So without you not being intellectually dishonest would you like to state that you came up with this conspiracy theory entirely on your own devoid of internet sources? And perhaps list some of your other evidence? I mean if I have to prove you aren’t truly crazy enough to come up with it on your own I’d like it to be your true intellectual position.
[/quote]
Hey, you made the unfounded accusation that I got information from the sources you provided. I’m giving you the chance to prove it, or at least make a valid argument (one that isn’t complete speculation).

It is not crazy to perceive something amiss when the initial attempt to provide motive in the case was stated that his mother was the teacher of the class, and then when someone pointed out that she wasn’t listed on the faculty roll, so they changed it to teacher’s assistant. And then someone proved that wrong, so they admitted she never worked there. Then, as it turns out, she was a broker who worked for CitiGroup Global during the time the LIBOR fraud was happening. And her ex-husband just happens to have three ex-employees who were sentenced to prison in Oct for the same fraud case.[/quote]

Again intellectual dishonesty.
Its not speculation that the website is the originator of the hoax theory as best as can be seen. So unless you independently thought it up…and well we know that didn’t happen for several reasons your theory is derivative of that. You clearly don’t want to say where you got the information likely because I am correct, but in the end if you are equally as loony as the modern day messiah of the Egyptian goddess ma’at I am ok to admit that and be wrong in thinking you not that delusional. So I guess I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in not being as bat shit crazy as the guy that originally came up with the idea. I was more thinking you a bit gullible. Sorry I misjudged you as naive instead of insane.

159

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
What was “amiss” is an inherent problem with the way news is delivered in the 21st Century…lack of editorial controls because of the almost instantaneous delivery of news.

Every news agency from “CNN” to “FOX” and from “Huffington” to “Bloomberg” wants to be the first with “the scoop”. It is much easier to “put it out there” first, then correct it; than to be the last to get the most up-to-date information.

“Put it out there”…then check the facts later.

Mufasa[/quote]
This is much more likely what happened,and lives are ruined on the front page and corrections come later on the back page.

160

[quote]groo wrote:
Again intellectual dishonesty.
Its not speculation that the website is the originator of the hoax theory as best as can be seen. So unless you independently thought it up…and well we know that didn’t happen for several reasons your theory is derivative of that. You clearly don’t want to say where you got the information likely because I am correct, but in the end if you are equally as loony as the modern day messiah of the Egyptian goddess ma’at I am ok to admit that and be wrong in thinking you not that delusional. So I guess I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in not being as bat shit crazy as the guy that originally came up with the idea. I was more thinking you a bit gullible. Sorry I misjudged you as naive instead of insane.
[/quote]
You have stated nothing but speculation and ad hominem attack.

Do you have anything else to base your assertion on?