Pages:  2 3 ... 277
Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / On Iraq
on: June 23, 2014, 04:33:56 PM
Border Guards Then and Now
by Mark Steyn • Jun 23, 2014 at 10:02 am
Eleven years ago, a few weeks after the fall of Saddam, I drove from Amman through the eastern Jordanian desert and into Iraq, where I stopped in the westernmost town, Rutbah, an old refueling stop for Imperial Airways flights from Britain to India, and had a bite to eat at a cafe whose patron had a trilby pushed back on his head Sinatra-style. (It was the first stop on a motoring tour that took me through Ramadi and Fallujah and up to Tikrit and various other towns.)
In those days, the Iraqi side of the border post was manned by US troops. An "immigration official" from the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment glanced at my Canadian passport, exchanged a few pleasantries, and waved me through.
That same border post today is manned by head-hacking jihadists from ISIS:
Fighters from the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, an al-Qaeda breakaway group, took all the border crossings with Jordan and Syria, Hameed Ahmed Hashim, a member of the Anbar provincial council, said by telephone yesterday. Militants took Rutba, about 145 kilometers (90 miles) east of the Jordanian border, Faleh al-Issawi, the deputy chief of the council, said by phone. Anbar province in western Iraq borders both countries. The Jordanian army didn't immediately respond to a request for information about the situation on the border.
I should think not. The Jordanian official I met was charming if somewhat bureaucratically obstructive, and wound up asking me about how difficult it was to emigrate to Canada. More difficult than emigrating from Syria to Iraq:
Rutba gives ISIS control over a stretch of highway to Jordan that has fallen into infrequent use over the past several months because of the deteriorating security situation. The town has a population of 40,000, but it has recently absorbed 20,000 people displaced from Fallujah and Ramadi.
ISIS now controls much of the Iraq-Syria border. Taking crossings such as the one in Qaim allows them to more easily move weapons and heavy equipment. Rebels also control the Syrian side of the crossing.
The Iraq/Syria border no longer exists: ISIS has simply erased the Anglo-French settlement of 1922. Jordan has just one border post with Iraq - the one I crossed all those years ago - and it's asking an awful lot of these lads to be more respectful of Jordan's sovereignty than they've been of Iraq's or Syria's. This thought has apparently just occurred to Barack Obama, who thinks that sounding presidential is largely a matter of stating the obvious:
Obama told CBS in an interview that will be aired in full today that the fighting could spread to "allies like Jordan."
Gee, thanks, genius.
In her interview with Dick Cheney, Megyn Kelly mocked that line about how we'd be "greeted as liberators". In May 2003, I wasn't a liberator, but I was pretty much greeted as one by the majority of the fellows I encountered in the Sunni Triangle. The towns were rundown but intact, with only two signs that anything dramatic had happened: The giant portraits of Saddam mounted on plinths at every rinky-dink roundabout had been removed. But they'd been very neatly, almost surgically removed: it was an act not of vandalism, but of political hygiene. A few weeks earlier, you'd have noticed the dictator; now you were supposed to notice his absence. In Rutba and Ramadi and the other western towns, you'd also see the occasional fancy house with decorative stonework and gates and doors hanging off the hinges with the odd goat or donkey wandering through the compound defecating hither and yon. These were the pads of the local Baathist bigshots, who'd taken off in a hurry, and they were the only scenes of looting I saw.
The picture of Ramadi above was taken on Saturday. I saw nothing like that in 2003.
If you had asked me, in that cafe in Rutba 11 years ago, as I was enjoying what passed for the "mixed grill" with mein host, what utter defeat would look like in a single image, it would be the scene that now greets you in the western desert: An Iraqi border post staffed by hardcore jihadists from an al-Qaeda spin-off. The details are choice - the black flag of al-Qaeda flies from buildings built by American taxpayers, they drive vehicles paid for by American taxpayers, they shoot aircraft out of the sky with Stinger missiles donated by American taxpayers - and thousands of their footsoldiers are nominally Britons, Frenchmen, Aussies, Canucks, Americans and other western citizens for whom the open road in Iraq, decapitating as they go, is the greatest adventure of their lives. But, as I said, these are details. The central image - the al-Qaeda man at the border post - is in itself an image of complete and utter defeat.
Where next? With Syrian refugees expanding the population of his country by 25 per cent, I wonder how Jordan's King Abdullah feels about being an "ally" of Obama's. Perhaps he nodded his head at the reported comments of the Polish Foreign Minister - that being a US ally "isn't worth anything" and is "even harmful because it creates a false sense of security". No matter how secure that false sense is, waking up to find yourself sharing a border crossing with ISIS is apt to shatter it.
The roots of ISIS do not lie in the actions America took in 2003. Bush made mistakes in Iraq, and left a ramshackle state that functioned less badly than any of its neighbors. Obama walked away, pulled out a cigarette, tossed the match over his shoulder and ignited a fuse that, from Damascus to Baghdad to Amman and beyond, will blow up the entire Middle East.
Back in America, the coastal sophisticates joke at those knuckle-dragging rubes who believe Obama is some kind of "secret Muslim". But really Occam's razor would favor such an explanation, wouldn't it? That a post-American Middle East divided between bad-cop nuclear Shia and worse-cop head-hacking Sunni was the plan all along. Because there are only alternatives to that simplest of simple explanations:
The first is that Obama and the Z-graders who fill out his administration are just blundering buffoons. And we all know from Michael Beschloss that he's the smartest president ever, so it couldn't possibly be colossal stupidity on a scale unknown to American history, could it?
The second is that his contempt for American power - a basic class signifier in the circles in which he's moved all his life - is so deeply ingrained that he doesn't care what replaces it.
© 2014 Mark Steyn Enterprises (US) Inc. All rights reserved.
Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Was It Right To Remove Saddam?
on: June 15, 2014, 06:49:29 PM
Dumbest decision Bush ever made. As we are seeing first hand, the middle east needs strongmen dictators. The alternative is much, much, much worse.
The muslim world is largely comprised of illiterate, inbred, impoverished scum. The only thing these "people" respect is strength. Better to have a stable dictator than a rag-tag bunch of ideological towel head terrorists. Both America and the world in general would be safer if Saddam was still in power.
Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Revision: Economy shrinks in 1st quarter, first time in 3 years
on: May 31, 2014, 09:21:00 AM
Your post reads like something that could have been spouted defensively 5 years ago when the stimulus failed and the Fed decided to double down on its madness. It rings pretty hallow now in 2014 when we have just entered a technical recession. It's always, "well, this or that hasn't kicked in yet, just wait...." Put down the "Econ101" book because those rules do not apply now that the economy and markets have been completely broken.
End of thread.
Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Revision: Economy shrinks in 1st quarter, first time in 3 years
on: May 30, 2014, 07:49:50 PM
1. Stagnant wages and the long term effects of the Federal Reserve's QE policy are compelling issues. But most aspects of the 'real economy' as defined above are gradually improving: jobs are being created, investment is up, savings rates are positive again, and after a healthy period of deleveraging, households are spending proportionally less of their disposable income on debt than anytime since 1980. All of this leads one to think that declaring the whole enterprise 'dead' is a rhetorical flourish.
2. It might not be wise to judge the recovery from the Great Recession in full quite yet, since it is, after all, still ongoing. Here are two points of optimism for the near-term:
i) the revised 1st quarter GDP estimate indicates that GDP declined largely because of dwindling inventories. ECON101 teaches us that a drop in inventories is an indication that not enough was produced and that therefore, production will increase in the following period as a result. It would be very surprising if 2nd quarter GDP growth was below 3%, let alone negative. And I'll bet money on that.
ii) Historically, the job market has recovered from recessions via a process known as 'cyclical upgrading,' where the unemployment rate is first driven down by a large amount due to small business hiring, then driven down a slight bit more by large company hiring (there are relatively fewer jobs in the latter).
So far, unemployment has been driven down a slight bit by large company hiring, but the small business phase has not kicked in. Sentiment in the small business world is changing, however, with more and more small businesses expressing the intent to hire. This suggests that the small business hiring phase of the recovery is still imminent, the consequences of which are a larger than expected drop in unemployment within the next 1.5 years.
You should replace Jay Carney as Obama's press secretary. You're either delusional or a shill pretending to know what he's talking about.
Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Global Warming Garbage
on: May 18, 2014, 02:59:00 PM
Hat tip G+O board--someone randomly posted this already. It definitely deserves its own thread.
"It would be tragic if medical science adopted the standards that climate science employs. Can you imagine getting a paper cut on your finger and having a doctor announce that you're going to die? He'd base his opinion on your current rate of blood loss, calculating that within a few days you'd go into circulatory collapse. Once the blood stopped flowing by itself he would at first deny that there was any pause in the bleeding. After awhile, he'd go looking for the missing blood and he'd find it in your lungs and your brain and then he'd declare that it was just waiting there until the bleeding resumed. Even though there was now no blood loss occurring, he would insist that his confidence in your demise had actually increased from 90% to 95%. He'd support his findings by pointing to a survey of doctors that showed that 97% of them agreed that blood loss can be fatal and that paper can cause cuts.
His recommended solution would be to inject potassium nitrate into your heart so that your blood would no longer be moving and wouldn't be able to leak out of your body. He'd insist that your heart was unsustainable to begin with and could easily be replaced by a carrot and a bit of string. Once that failed he'd immediately blame lack of funding and fly to Cancun or Bali to meet with 20,000 other doctors, activists and politicians to take money away from everyone with a heart and use the revenue to buy bigger carrots.
40 to 5
Already heard this bed time story.
1.) Scientists predicted in 2000 that kids would grow up without snow. It was 14 years ago now when UK climate scientists argued that global warming would make snowfall a “a very rare and exciting event”.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” Dr. David Viner, a scientist with the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia, told the UK Independent in 2000.
After the wettest winter in 248 years, the UK was hit with snowstorms last week. Last year, the UK’s climate authority predicted that this winter would be drier than usual, with only a 15 percent chance of being wet. They were very wrong.
2.) It’s been 10 years since scientists predicted the “end of skiing” in Scotland. An article from the UK’s Guardian in 2004 quoted scientists and environmentalists predicting the demise of Scotland’s winter sports industry, including more remarks from Dr. David Viner, who had already predicted the end of snow in Britain.
“Unfortunately, it’s just getting too hot for the Scottish ski industry,” said Dr. Viner. “It is very vulnerable to climate change; the resorts have always been marginal in terms of snow and, as the rate of climate change increases, it is hard to see a long-term future.”
“Adam Watson, from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Banchory, Aberdeenshire, believes the industry has no more than 20 years left,” the Guardian reported.
Viner and Watson must have been surprised to see the BBC report that Scottish mountains may be their snowiest since 1945.
3.) The Arctic would be “ice-free” by now. “Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,” Gore said in 2008.
Gore was echoing the predictions made by American scientist Wieslaw Maslowsk in 2007, who said that “you can argue that may be our projection of [an ice-free Arctic by 2013] is already too conservative.”
But in 2013, Arctic sea ice coverage was up 50 percent from 2012 levels. Data from Europe’s Cryosat spacecraft showed that Arctic sea ice coverage was nearly 2,100 cubic miles by the end of this year’s melting season, up from about 1,400 cubic miles during the same time last year.
4.) Environmentalists predicted the end of spring snowfall. In March 2013, the Union of Concerned Scientists predicted that warmer springs would mean declines in snow cover.
“Warmer, earlier springs are a clear signal of a changing climate,” the group said. “March temperatures have grown 2.1 degrees (F) hotter, on average, in the United States since reliable record-keeping began in 1880s. Similarly, the first leaves have started appearing on plants several days earlier than they used to across the country.”
But the record levels of snowfall to hit this year may have caught UCS off guard. On Monday, the U.S. east coast was hit with a massive snowstorm that stretched for 1,300 miles and those in the Baltimore-D.C. area were hit with a 141-year record cold of 4 degrees Fahrenheit on Tuesday morning.
More AGW non-sense from Live Science, what a surprise, AGW is as un-sceintific as it comes, it's been disproven by every major scientific institution and thousands upon thousands of independent scientists call AGW the anti-science. I remember in the 80's all these alarmists saying that New York will be under 30 stories of water by the early 2000's. Didn't happen, in the 90's they predicted category 5 hurricanes would be hitting our shores en mass by the 2010's, it is now 2014 and we have seen one category 5 in the last five years. They predicted the polar icecaps would be gone by 2015, and yet they are growing. They predicted temperatures climbing by at least 5 degrees every year, we have seen 1 degree rise in temperatures globally in the last 100 years. Alarmists have beat this drum to no end hoping that ignorance would propell their agenda, but now in the age of information one can actually research these studies and find that the ones supporting the claim of AGW are bogus and that there are far more scientists who say that AGW is a political scam than are made public. That said lets end this with some quotes from actual scientists and their findings.
"NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted" - NASA publicized report on remote sensing authored by DR. Roy Spencer
"The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth." - CERN statement during a 2011 press conference with the support of over 63 scientists from 17 institutions.
"global warming (now “climate change”) a “new religion”. Its temple is built on grounds of faith rather than scientific foundations." - Ivar Giaever Winner of a Nobel prize in Physics.
“As a scientist who knows the data, I simply can’t accept [the claim that man plays a dominant role in Earth’s climate],” - Jeff Kuhn, University of Hawaii
Now there is also a petition currently signed by more than 31, 070 scientists more than 9.000 of whom have PHD's that says AGW is un-scientific and they neither support it nor condone it's spread. On the other hand the top 100 supporters of AGW are as follows.
Al Gore, B.A. Government (no science degree)
Alanis Morissette, High School Diploma
Bill Maher, B.A. English (no science degree)
Bono (Paul Hewson), High School Diploma
Daryl Hanna, B.F.A. Theater (no science degree)
Ed Begley Jr., High School Diploma
Jackson Browne, High School Diploma
Jon Bon Jovi (John Bongiovi), High School Diploma
Oprah Winfrey, B.A. Speech and Drama (no science degree)
Prince Charles of Whales, B.A. (no science degree)
Sheryl Crow, B.A. Music Education (no science degree)
Sienna Miller, High School Diploma
ABC - Sam Champion, B.A. Broadcast News (no science degree, not a meteorologist)
CBS - Harry Smith, B.A. Communications and Theater (no science degree)
CBS - Katie Couric, B.A. English (no science degree)
CBS - Scott Pelley, College Dropout
NBC - Ann Curry, B.A. Journalism (no science degree)
NBC - Anne Thompson, B.A. American studies (no science degree)
NBC - Matt Lauer. B.A. Communications (no science degree)
NBC - Meredith Vieira, B.A. English (no science degree)
Al Sharpton, College Dropout
Alicia Keys, College Dropout
Alicia Silverstone, High School Dropout
Art Bell, College Dropout
Ben Affleck, College Dropout
Ben Stiller, College Dropout
Billy Jean King, College Dropout
Brad Pitt, College Dropout
Britney Spears, High School Dropout
Bruce Springsteen, College Dropout
Cameron Diaz, High School Dropout
Cindy Crawford, College Dropout
Diane Keaton, College Dropout
Drew Barrymore, High School Dropout
George Clooney, College Dropout
Gwyneth Paltrow, College Dropout
Jason Biggs, College Dropout
Jennifer Connelly, College Dropout
Jessica Simpson, High School Dropout
John Travolta, High School Dropout
Joshua Jackson, High School Dropout
Julia Louis-Dreyfus, College Dropout
Julia Roberts, College Dropout
Kanye West, College Dropout
Keanu Reeves, High School Dropout
Kevin Bacon, High School Dropout
Kiefer Sutherland, High School Dropout
Leonardo DiCaprio, High School Dropout
Lindsay Lohan, High School Dropout
Ludacris (Christopher Bridges), College Dropout
Madonna (Madonna Ciccone), College Dropout
Matt Damon, College Dropout
Matthew Modine, College Dropout
Michael Moore, College Dropout
Nicole Richie, College Dropout
Neve Campbell, High School Dropout
Olivia Newton-John, High School Dropout
Orlando Bloom, High School Dropout
Paris Hilton, High School Dropout
Pierce Brosnan. High School Dropout
Queen Latifah (Dana Elaine Owens), College Dropout
Richard Branson, High School Dropout
Robert Redford, College Dropout
Rosie O'Donnell, College Dropout
Sarah Silverman, College Dropout
Sean Penn, College Dropout
Ted Turner, College Dropout
Tommy Lee (Thomas Lee Bass), High School Dropout
Uma Thurman, High School Dropout
Willie Nelson, High School Dropout
John McCain, B.S. (Graduated 894th out of 899 in his class)
Newt Gingrich, Ph.D. Modern European History (no science degree) (Hypocrite)
Pat Robertson, B.A., J.D., M.A. Divinity (no science degree)
Robert F. Kennedy Jr, B.A. Government, J.D. Law (no science degree, 'recovered' Heroin addict)
Bill Nye, B.S. Mechanical Engineering (Bill Nye the Science Guy)
Gavin Schmidt, B.A. Ph.D. Applied Mathematics (RealClimate.org)
James Hansen, B.A. Physics and Mathematics, M.S. Astronomy, Ph.D. Physics (NASA, Gavin Schmidt's Boss)
James Lovelock, Ph.D. Medicine, D.Sc. Biophysics
Lonnie Thompson, Ph.D. Geological Sciences
Michael Mann, A.B. Applied Math, Physics, M.S. Physics, Ph.D. Geology & Geophysics (RealClimate.org)
Michael Oppenheimer, S.B. Chemistry, Ph.D. Chemical Physics
Richard C. J. Somerville, Ph.D. Meteorology
Steven Schneider, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics
Ronald Bailey, B.A. Philosophy and Economics (Science Correspondent, Reason Magazine)
So yeah, follow the paper trail you will find that AGW has fewer scientists supporting it than has standing against it."
Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Bush Lied! People Died!
on: May 18, 2014, 02:10:07 PM
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards / Conspiracy Theories Board / Re: Sandy Hook staged?
on: April 14, 2014, 05:54:23 PM
Do you have to taste a shit to know it is a shit? Well, I bet you have to, because you clearly are some kind on retard. I don't have to, because I am adult and I know these facts: If it smells like shit, looks like shit and its appearance is like shit, it eventually is shit even if I don't taste it. Now you wonder what the hell I am talking about, because you still do not see the point. I have seen so many foil hat crap videos, that I don't need to watch any more, because there is a very clear common factory among all of them: THEY PRESENT ONLY STUPID CLAIMS, NEVER EVEN TOUCH ANY EVIDENCE. By that, any primate including all apes should understand the fact that it is just crap, which has nothing to do with the truth, because truth comes always with the evidence. If this is too hard to you to understand, get some mental care, because it is hazard to be that stupid and running around.
You posted in this thread to put everyone on notice that you've seen so many foil hat crap videos that you don't even need to watch anymore! And truth comes with the evidence! And you didn't watch any videos in this thread because you know what shit smells like!
Your persuasive abilities and intelligence are unmatched. You've made a believer out of me.
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards / Conspiracy Theories Board / Re: Sandy Hook staged?
on: April 13, 2014, 01:06:57 PM
"I am not a CT whackjob, but take a gander at these incredibly stupid foil hat videos, and see how they will present this completely brainless conspiracy theory to you, like to the bunch of fucking retards with no brains at all. They even tell you in the video what you sould think frame by frame, because they are counting on the fact that you are idiots."
I kind of translated your message in the form where you can see what it really tells to the readers. Here is some pointers to you:
1. If you really believe that crap, feel free to cut your throat any time soon. It will help you over that stupidity and many other problems.
2. Are you really so dumb, that there has to be narrator to tell you what you see in the video, or it is possible that there is another reason why he is there? Maybe his task is manipulate your simple and ignorant mind to see there things what they want you to see, even if there isn't anything "fishy"?
3. Why don't retard like you never ask for the evidence BEFORE you start spreading crap like this around the world. You would very soon realize that there isn't any evidence, just these stupid claims.
4. Do you retards even know what the word "evidence" means? People use evidence to prove things to be a facts. Foil hat idiots uses claims to fuck your simple mind. There is big difference between those two things.
Let's play this little game just for fun. It is very simple and goes like this: From this moment of time, you are allowed to post only claims which you can prove to be facts by the concrete and real evidence. Let see the flow of the messages which fit in this rule. I bet there will be not even one message which will fit this simple rule, and do you guys know why? YOU CAN'T PROVE LIES TO BE THE FACTS
It appears that you can't explain/ refute anything in the videos or haven't bothered to watch them. You do realize this board is entitled "conspiracy theories" right? Hence, if the "theories" posited on this board were provable, they would already be considered facts.
The irony is that you're functionally illiterate. Using the word retard repeatedly= brutal self projection on your part.
In summation, if the Sandy Hook Hoax discussion makes you feel uncomfortable, don't read/respond to this thread. If you have any counterpoints besides incoherent run-on sentences and childish insults, feel free to participate. Problem solved.
Hope this helps.