Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Religious Dick

Pages: 1 ... 75 76 [77]
1141
3DHS / Re: Survey: Who Would Be Best Suited to Lead Us Now?
« on: December 04, 2006, 07:43:53 PM »
As far as a woman president, Olympia Snowe would be far better than Hillary.

Olympia Snowe is a miserable c$nt. At least Hillary is a real Democrat. Why elect a RINO when you can get the real deal?

1142
3DHS / Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
« on: November 27, 2006, 07:52:21 PM »
The trend is not toward socialism, the trend is towrads something much closer to a police state and health care facilities and employers have been recruited to act as police operatives. What we see today in America is, sectarian violence toward a secular nation. Yes government is bigger, but it is not socialism, it is a kindlier gentler form of fascism. That change began with the assassinations of JFK,RFK and MLK.

I agree with your assessment, but I'd say the change actually began under FDR.

Recommended reading: As We Go Marching, by John T. Flynn, available free as a PDF:

http://www.mises.org/books/aswegomarching.pdf

1143
3DHS / Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
« on: November 27, 2006, 07:44:52 PM »

Yep. Could have, might have, should have.

But still no proof.

And no proof that it wasn't.

Well, I can't prove the Lord didn't create the earth 6000 years ago, complete with artifacts giving the impression it's billions of years old, either.

I can't find any evidence to support that conclusion, either.


Are you just being intellectually honest?  Is that all you're doing, or have you ruled out a conspiracy altogether?


Do I think it's possible Oswald had help in the planning and execution? Sure. Possible. But nobody has ever been to prove that. More than one gunman? Could be, but where are the bullets?

Now, I understand there are some parts of the official explanation that seem implausible, say the single bullet theory. But I'd still have to  say the single bullet theory is a lot more plausible than any conspiracy theory I've heard.

And that's my problem with the conspiracy theories - every one of them that I've heard requires at least as big a leap of faith as the Warren Report does, and usually then some.

I finally came to the conclusion that for all it's flaws, the Warren Report was at least as plausible as any conspiracy theory I've heard, and more so than most. And further, it offers the simplest explanation of the available facts.

1144
3DHS / Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
« on: November 27, 2006, 11:51:53 AM »

Even if this is true, there were still copies made PRIOR to Time/Life's copies by Zapruder and a couple of reporters from Dallas.  And that story could have been constructed after the fact with little or no effort.


Yep. Could have, might have, should have.

But still no proof.

1145
3DHS / Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
« on: November 27, 2006, 11:34:12 AM »

Actually, there's a well-known reason as to why the frames are missing. The film was originally purchased from Zapruder by Time/Life. The Time/Life technician charged with processing the film inadvertently damaged a number of frames.

That's a pretty well documented fact. Figured you would have known about that.

Source?

Among others, see "High Treason" by Robert Groden and Harrison Livingstone. Groden is the one who did the enhancement of the original Zapruder film.

1146
3DHS / Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
« on: November 26, 2006, 08:29:43 PM »

Connolly's hat flips around after they emerge from that sign because there are frames missing.  That's the only possible explanation.  Now the reason the frames are missing doesn't immediately present itself. 

Actually, there's a well-known reason as to why the frames are missing. The film was originally purchased from Zapruder by Time/Life. The Time/Life technician charged with processing the film inadvertently damaged a number of frames.

That's a pretty well documented fact. Figured you would have known about that.

1147
3DHS / Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
« on: November 25, 2006, 07:45:50 PM »
<<You have a theory like David Lifton's "Best Evidence", which presents a plausible explanation for what might have happened, but there's no supporting evidence indicating that such a scenario did happen. >>

That's not true.  Lifton has quite a bit of evidence in his book, admittedly circumstantial, which does support a high-level conspiracy and cover-up and has never to my knowledge been refuted.  This included the evidence of the naval technician carrying the X-ray plates from the autopsy to or from the lab at the same time as the hearse, carrying what was said to be the body of the President was just pulling up to the hospital.

Well, therein lies your problem. What you're talking about is eye-witness evidence, which is notoriously unreliable, and in this case, not only do the witnesses disagree, but Lifton didn't interview them until many years after the actual event. You're always going to have witnesses that remember things differently, or confuse various events. I can't rule out that some funny business occurred, but there's no physical evidence to support that. If you're going to rely on the actual artifacts of evidence to tell the tale, you're again left with a gun, some bullet remnants and an autopsy, all of which support Oswald being the assassin. In absence of equally compelling evidence in support of an alternate conclusion, I have to believe that the Warren Commission, while sloppy on the details, got the larger picture substantially right.

1148
3DHS / Re: Before - and After - Iraq
« on: November 25, 2006, 01:35:55 PM »
How about supporting your Worthy Cause at your own expense, rather than that of the tax-payers?

Do you feel the same way about Social Security? If not, why not?

As a matter of fact, I do. Why?

1149
3DHS / Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
« on: November 25, 2006, 01:34:26 PM »

As for Oswald, the simple mechanics of the shooting could not have been performed by Oswald.  He was a poor shot when he was in the military.  If you believe the Oswald scenario, then you have to believe that he fired two shots in less time than it takes to re-cycle the rifle they alleged he used.  Simply impossible.  In order to believe the Oswald scenario, you have to put your head up your ass and hope no one points out facts to you.

That seems to be a modus operandi for you. 

If you do, however, believe the Oswald scenario, then could you explain how he got from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor lunchroom without being seen by the two women on the stairs?  And why would he buy a coke and show a reporter where a phone was on the way out of the building?  Did he want to get caught?

You are so willing to take the word of the government.  Why is that?

The problem with this conspiracy theory is that the critics are in the same position as the creationists are vis a vis evolution: sure, you can make (sometimes valid) criticisms of the accepted theory, but at the end of the day the there's still no evidence in support of your theory.

I was a Kennedy assassination buff for decades, and I've probably read every significant work on the subject available. And here is my conclusion: while the Warren Report is indeed flawed, and leaves a number of matters unexplained, it still offers the best explanation of the facts based on the available evidence. And here is the available evidence: a.) you have Oswald placed on the 6th floor of the Texas Schoolbook Depository at the appropriate time. b.) you have evidence establishing Oswald was the owner of the weapon from which the shots were fired. c.) no ammunition other than that fired from Oswald's rifle has been recovered from the murder scene to date. d.) You have an autopsy which indicates Kennedy was shot from a position accessable from Oswald's vantage point.

Yes, the autopsy could be faked, alternate ammunition could have been recovered and destroyed, witnesses might be lying or mistaken. The problem is that, to date, no hard evidence has surfaced indicating that to be the case. You have a theory like David Lifton's "Best Evidence", which presents a plausible explanation for what might have happened, but there's no supporting evidence indicating that such a scenario did happen.

Even the Warren Commisson acknowledged that they couldn't rule out a conspiracy. They simply stated they found no evidence to support one.

Whether or not there was a conspiracy involved, until contrary evidence emerges, I'm prepared to accept that Oswald was indeed the assassin, based on the physical evidence available. I accept the government explaination for the simple reason that no one has yet offered a better one. When they do, and they can back it up with hard evidence, I'm prepared to change my position.

1150
3DHS / Re: Before - and After - Iraq
« on: November 25, 2006, 12:53:06 PM »

Been there, done that. '71-73 active duty. Not much blood expended but i wouldn't mind getting two years added to whatever time i have left.

How about supporting your Worthy Cause at your own expense, rather than that of the tax-payers?

And it is true that eventually the representatives in DC take their marching orders from the people, though they haven't changed direction in 50 odd years. Think the pollong data for support of Israel is flawed?

No, I do not. Up to this point, merely providing arms and cash to Israel hasn't been sufficient cause to make support a significant issue for the typical voter. If they're going to be sending their sons and daughters off to fight a war on Israel's behalf, I'm willing to bet the issue moves up on their list of priorities right quick.

Not sure if a "fuck the jews" plank is a winning platform. Perhaps a focus group study will clarify the issue.

Considering that as a demographic, Jews are among the most likely to oppose the Iraq war, and support of Israel is hardly unanimous among Jews, I'm not sure a policy of non-intervention would be construed as "fuck the Jews", even among Jews.

1151
3DHS / Re: Before - and After - Iraq
« on: November 25, 2006, 12:19:42 PM »
The alternative of allowing Israeli's to be driven into the sea and the country driven from existence seems to be the price we are unwilling to pay.

Who's "we"?

Whatever the views of Congress, eventually they have to answer to the American people. And when support for Israel heats up as an issue, which it obviously will eventually, either the congresscritters will comply with the wishes of the American people, or they'll be replaced with congresscritters who will.

And if the purpose of this war is the defense of Israel, why doesn't President Bush simply say so? You know why he doesn't - there's no way in hell the American people would ever support such a war.

and i opine rightfully so.

Then feel free to jump on an airplane and put up your own blood and treasure to defend it. But to me as an American citizen, and I suspect to most American citizens, it's a matter of small consequence whether Israel gets driven into the sea, or builds settlements all the way to China.

Let's remember the current inhabitants of Israel are in a large part, if not mostly, immigrants. They are there by choice, nobody forced them there at gunpoint. Fine and dandy, but if they wish to establish a nation out in the middle of where they aren't welcome, I submit the onus is on the Israelis to defend it. Not on America.

Americans themselves have made the same dramatic about-face. They once approved of the war by a 70 percent majority.

And this here is one big steaming crock of bullshit. You might get 70% if you took the outlier results of the most optimistic polls, but there has never been anything like a sustained 70% support for this war, with the exception of a.) immediately following 9/11, and b.) immediately after the fall of Baghdad, when there was a predictable Rally-Round-the-Flag effect. Check the polling data yourself:

http://pollingreport.com/iraq10.htm
http://pollingreport.com/iraq9.htm
http://pollingreport.com/iraq8.htm

In fact, the Time/CNN poll from the week of Feb. 19-20 2003 showed only 54% of Americans supported a ground invasion of Iraq. That's after nearly a year of the Administration ginning up war propaganda. What do you think the results would have been otherwise?

Pages: 1 ... 75 76 [77]