The Viper Room - NO SCRUBS

Thread Guideline: Say anything you want about politics or religion here. Then be prepared for a counter-argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Semantics is a key here -when a politician uses the word 'fight', does he or she mean physical fighting with guns, fists, pikes and so on? Or vigorous debate?

I assume that in the Senate trial, the lawyers for Trump will dispute the meaning of his words on the basis that he referred to political fights not fist-fights. His supporters may have stormed the Capitol chanting 'Hang Mike Pence' -and Trump was tweeting against Pence after the riots began- but would he have endorsed the violent slogans? And can his words prove that this was the case?

Or the US may be in the position that what used to be 'mere rhetoric' has become more concrete because those who were on the fringes of politics have moved - or have been brought -closer to the centre, do not accept the outcome of democratic elections, and intend to do something about it that involves violence -there is a strain of thought, associated either with Mike Flynn or people who support him, who believed the storming of the Capitol would give Trump the occasion to declare Martial Law, and thus suspend the certification process in Congress, and seek a reversal or the election in selected States.

By changing the rules of the game, Trump and his supporters have begged many questions about the resilience of the democratic process, have they also changed the way in which language is now used, and is that also a consequence of three decades of sectarian politics?

---

I thought it was interesting that many of the Capitol rioters said, after the fact, that they felt like they were taking a direct order from the sitting President to do what they did.

I'm not deaf or blind, so I'm not going to pretend Trump's speech wasn't intentionally inflammatory. Matter of fact, I'd go one step further and say that Trump undoubtedly got some personal satisfaction from the fact that his words resulted in a riot.

But one step further than that would be to say that he hoped violence would be the result of his speech, and I don't agree with that. I don't think he's that smart, OR that stupid.

He'd begun this process of planting the seed of doubt about the election results and he had to follow through. My family is based in NYC, so I grew up with Trump. Used to really hate the guy actually. The one overriding characteristic of Donald Trump is lack of humility, a literal inability to admit that he's wrong. I personally find that to be an effective quality in a leader though it can be quite problematic as well.

The "Capitol Riots" speech was always going to happen. From the moment he first said publicly that he was going to contest the election, it was inevitable that he'd make that speech at the end of all things.

Pretty sure he's not going to be impeached over it. And yes, Stavros, I agree with you (for once) that semantics is the key to this thing. Trump's lawyers could easily play tens of thousands of videos in which politicians use the word "fight" as a euphemism for "vote" or "protest." It's pretty standard rhetoric and I don't think they can prove otherwise in a fair trial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

Nick Danger: "I would like to see you illustrate the "Circle of Death" in which Marjorie Taylor Greene's ramblings led to hate crime murders."

Have you forgotten Pizzagate, the forerunner to QAnon? This had real consequences - a guy turned up with a gun and fired shots at the restaurant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzag...spiracy_theory

The great replacement theory that she advocates has inspired a number of murders, most notably the Christchurch mosque massacre that killed 51 people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ...sque_shootings

---

You're speaking as if Marjorie Taylor Greene's support of this Great Replacement Theory is a cause creating an effect. White supremacists do not take their cues from this woman, they are quite sexist in addition to being racist.

They take their cues from people like Adolf Hitler and David Lane.

Also, Pizzagate? Really Flighty? Have you noticed that every now and then, a conspiracy theory comes along that's so batshit insane that anyone with a 3-digit IQ can see it's a steaming pile of shit? You get to wondering why the media even continues to cover these things, right? They cover it because as long as there are all these crazy conspiracy theories floating around, "conspiracy theorists" will always be marginalized, and real conspiracies are marginalized right along with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

Also, Pizzagate? Really Flighty? Have you noticed that every now and then, a conspiracy theory comes along that's so batshit insane that anyone with a 3-digit IQ can see it's a steaming pile of shit?

---

I guess more than half of Republican voters must have an IQ of well under 100 then. QED

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9702261.html
https://www.newsweek.com/only-17-tru...y-poll-1540782

You keep trying to pretend this is just a few kooks at the margins when it's a disease that seems to have infected most of your party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

You're speaking as if Marjorie Taylor Greene's support of this Great Replacement Theory is a cause creating an effect. White supremacists do not take their cues from this woman, they are quite sexist in addition to being racist.

---

The same argument could be made about every proponent of these ideas. Obviously there is no single master mind directing all this, but the more people espouse these ideas the more credence they gain with some people. In particular, when prominent people espouse them, or at least give the impression they are sympathetic, then it emboldens these people. There is no doubt that white supremacists have been emboldened since Trump came on the scene.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

But we're talking months and months here. Even after it was determined that the incident wasn't what it seemed, the Democratic machine kept pushing for violence. Because they knew that was the only thing that was going to get them into office in 2020. It worked. I stand in awe of the power of a political party that owns the media. Even though they have absolutely zero good ideas on how to move forward from the crises of 2020 (other than to simply cave in to every special interest that holds out a cup), they won the White House and the Senate. Incredible really. If I were a Democrat I'd be on here crowing about our amazing powers of political skullduggery.

---

I thought this was a particularly silly claim. It's clear that Trump was delighted when violence occurred at some of the protests because he thought he would benefit from a law and order campaign. Many Democrat supporters were worried about that, including one who posts here sometimes.

Why would Democrats have wanted to distract attention from Trump's incompetent handling of the pandemic, which was the primary reason he lost? Elections around the world have shown that incumbents have generally benefited as long as they have done a reasonable job of dealing with the virus. Al Trump had to do was show that he cared and do some basic things right. Far from being a political genius, this man is a political dunce.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

I guess more than half of Republican voters must have an IQ of well under 100 then. QED

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9702261.html
https://www.newsweek.com/only-17-tru...y-poll-1540782

You keep trying to pretend this is just a few kooks at the margins when it's a disease that seems to have infected most of your party.

---

First of all I'm obliged to point out that those are two left-leaning publications you're linking. The Independent is not too awful but Newsweek is a joke, I wouldn't let my dog shit on Newsweek and I don't even have a dog.

Still, I don't totally disagree with you, or the articles you linked either. I'm well-aware that the Republican Party is comprised of two distinct types of Americans. Type A is your garden-variety productive citizen, who has worked hard for what he has and understands that a lifetime of hard work and financial responsibility is the only difference between him and the guy who's barely making it, wants to keep what he's earned, not particularly sympathetic to laziness or weakness, that guy. Me.

Then there's the Type B Republican. Not too smart. Not too prosperous. Has a lot of deeply-imbedded beliefs that he holds as sacred. Not easy to reason with, but easily convinced of practically anything if it comes from one of his trusted sources. Identifies as a Republican almost strictly because of moral or religious beliefs.

I'm not going to pretend we don't need Type B Republicans in order to be competitive with liberalism in this country. And I'll just leave it at that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

The same argument could be made about every proponent of these ideas. Obviously there is no single master mind directing all this, but the more people espouse these ideas the more credence they gain with some people. In particular, when prominent people espouse them, or at least give the impression they are sympathetic, then it emboldens these people. There is no doubt that white supremacists have been emboldened since Trump came on the scene.

---

I could relate this back to my response on the previous post, because the white supremacists you're talking about are Type B Republicans.

I think Trump thought he could get away with failing to repudiate white supremacists for one reason. Because there's a little racism in the heart of most wealthy white people. Obviously they're not all blatantly racist, not even mostly, but that's an effort of will. It's in there and if a racist thing happens to happen right in front of them, they'll usually let it slide.

Give you a perfect example - my own father. My father is a racist. He only knows one word for black people and it's the one you think it is. He's also got slurs for every other ethnicity from the Irish to the Puerto Ricans to the Japanese. He's old, obviously. And to be fair, he grew up in an Italian neighborhood of New York City which was strictly divided along racial lines. Not a single person I've ever met from that neighborhood is a bit different from my father.

Well, my dad's still out there, voting. It certainly didn't bother him when Trump acted like he didn't know who David Duke is. My dad is one of the worst of them but most older white people grew up in a different country than the rest of us. And that's Trump's base.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

I thought this was a particularly silly claim. It's clear that Trump was delighted when violence occurred at some of the protests because he thought he would benefit from a law and order campaign. Many Democrat supporters were worried about that, including one who posts here sometimes.

Why would Democrats have wanted to distract attention from Trump's incompetent handling of the pandemic, which was the primary reason he lost? Elections around the world have shown that incumbents have generally benefited as long as they have done a reasonable job of dealing with the virus. Al Trump had to do was show that he cared and do some basic things right. Far from being a political genius, this man is a political dunce.

---

Can't agree with you about the pandemic thing, Flighty, I just have not seen the evidence that there is a competent way to handle this. It would be very, very difficult for anyone to convince me that we'd have had substantially more deaths in this country if we'd simply done nothing at all but continue with business as usual. Meanwhile the economy is going to shit behind our ridiculous counter-measures. On the other hand, I'm kind of a hardass who isn't going to die of covid so maybe I'm just being too harsh.

You know, governments and corporations make decisions all the time about how much human life is worth in cold hard cash. At various levels we are constantly risking our lives. When we drive a car, every time we get behind the driver's seat there's a certain % chance we are going to die, couldn't tell you what it is but it's a chance. Every time you walk out your front door you're taking a chance.

I'm not a runner and hider, Flighty. I'm a confronter and let's get it doner. I don't have much sympathy for blind fear, and IMO we, humans, are handling this thing like a bunch of cowards. How long are we going to shut down the planet to save A FEW lives? There are 8 billion goddamn people on this planet, we can lose some. When it's someone's time, it's their time, that's it.

But like I said, I'm prepared to admit that sounds a bit harsh.

[QUOTE=Nick Danger;1958200]

I'm well-aware that the Republican Party is comprised of two distinct types of Americans. Type A is your garden-variety productive citizen, who has worked hard for what he has and understands that a lifetime of hard work and financial responsibility is the only difference between him and the guy who's barely making it, wants to keep what he's earned, not particularly sympathetic to laziness or weakness, that guy. Me.

Then there's the Type B Republican. Not too smart. Not too prosperous. Has a lot of deeply-imbedded beliefs that he holds as sacred. Not easy to reason with, but easily convinced of practically anything if it comes from one of his trusted sources. Identifies as a Republican almost strictly because of moral or religious beliefs.

On the basis of the above, and the fact that you claim the massacre at Sandy Hook was a 'staged' event, you clearly believe all or any of the worthless drivel on which your view is based. My estimate thus ranks you, on the basis of your own score, as AB Negative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

Still, I don't totally disagree with you, or the articles you linked either. I'm well-aware that the Republican Party is comprised of two distinct types of Americans. Type A is your garden-variety productive citizen, who has worked hard for what he has and understands that a lifetime of hard work and financial responsibility is the only difference between him and the guy who's barely making it, wants to keep what he's earned, not particularly sympathetic to laziness or weakness, that guy. Me.

Then there's the Type B Republican. Not too smart. Not too prosperous. Has a lot of deeply-imbedded beliefs that he holds as sacred. Not easy to reason with, but easily convinced of practically anything if it comes from one of his trusted sources. Identifies as a Republican almost strictly because of moral or religious beliefs.

I'm not going to pretend we don't need Type B Republicans in order to be competitive with liberalism in this country. And I'll just leave it at that.

---

You seem to be suggesting that the Republican party is as it's always been, but I don't think that's the case. What seems to have changed is that the extremists no longer fear that expressing their extremism will have adverse consequences from fellow partisans. I don't think the amount of active bigotry is fixed - most people will either rein in their worst instincts or give vent to them, depending on what they think the financial and social consequences will be.

There have always been some extreme elements around the Republican party. In the 50s and 60s there was the John Birch Society, whose founder claimed that even Eisenhower was a Communist stooge. However, there was more active pushback from the mainstream party against those extremists than there is at present.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ociety/617922/

If you want the Republican Party to regain power next time you had better hope they do more to isolate the crazies because they can't win without the support of moderate, independent voters, Association with extremism is poison with those voters. This is the big problem with so many Republicans believing the stolen election lie. If you can't admit you lost then you can't ask why you lost and address the reasons for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

On the basis of the above, and the fact that you claim the massacre at Sandy Hook was a 'staged' event, you clearly believe all or any of the worthless drivel on which your view is based. My estimate thus ranks you, on the basis of your own score, as AB Negative.

---

HA! You're a funny guy, Stavros. Funny like a clown. Kinda makes me wonder why you go to the trouble of acting like such a stiff in most of your posts.

I'm absolutely willing to have the Sandy Hook debate with you, Stavros. But if you want to do that, make sure you understand that it's a real debate, a long conversation, and it's no joke. There is a LOT of evidence that it's a hoax, and zero evidence that it happened. There is, in fact, zero evidence that the children ever existed. It's EXTREMELY difficult to hold up the government's version of the events of that day in real-time debate.

To put it in perspective for you, I'm well-aware that if the Sandy Hook Massacre actually DID happen, and I maintain it didn't, that makes me one of the world's biggest assholes. It's dead children we're talking about here. A person would have to be very sure it was a hoax. VERY. SURE.

I'm gonna link the best video I've seen on the subject of the Sandy Hook hoax. If you do decide you want to have that argument with me, I suggest you watch this first:

https://archive.org/details/WeNeedTo...015Documentary

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

You seem to be suggesting that the Republican party is as it's always been, but I don't think that's the case. What seems to have changed is that the extremists no longer fear that expressing their extremism will have adverse consequences from fellow partisans. I don't think the amount of active bigotry is fixed - most people will either rein in their worst instincts or give vent to them, depending on what they think the financial and social consequences will be.

There have always been some extreme elements around the Republican party. In the 50s and 60s there was the John Birch Society, whose founder claimed that even Eisenhower was a Communist stooge. However, there was more active pushback from the mainstream party against those extremists than there is at present.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ociety/617922/

If you want the Republican Party to regain power next time you had better hope they do more to isolate the crazies because they can't win without the support of moderate, independent voters, Association with extremism is poison with those voters. This is the big problem with so many Republicans believing the stolen election lie. If you can't admit you lost then you can't ask why you lost and address the reasons for that.

---

A few things have changed in this country since the Eisenhower administration, Flighty. Brylcreem is no longer the average young man's hair styling gel of choice. Buddy Holly died. Studebaker went out of business. I Love Lucy got cancelled.

Our nation's political parties have changed a bit too. Matter of fact, they are constantly changing and there's change underway right now.

There are 4 essential ideologies in American politics. Two concern the economy, and two concern morality.

Liberal fiscal policy: Government as charity.
Liberal morality policy: Everyone should be able to live as they please.
Conservative fiscal policy: Enforced personal responsibility.
Conservative morality policy: Lawmaking as an extension of Christianity.

Over the decades, each of the two political parties have latched on to 2 of these 4 essential ideologies to obtain voters, and the other party has latched onto the other 2. They have both occasionally taken a swim toward the middle but have ultimately found no one else swimming there.

Before 1912 and Teddy Roosevelt's Independent presidential run, it was the Republican Party that upheld liberal policies. And it wasn't until FDR's New Deal that Democrats became identified with the welfare state.

It's always been interesting to me that no party has ever represented me fully. I believe in liberal morality AND conservative fiscal policy. Personally I think most people feel that way, but it's not as if I have my finger on the pulse of the nation.

In the end nobody gets what they really want, and everyone has to make a difficult choice. My choice is, the economy is the most important thing. Within a weak economy, very little else is possible. Other people see things differently and have different priorities.

I have no problem with every single voter voting in his own best interest. That's exactly as it should be and if we had that, we'd have the best possible government that served the most possible citizens. Unfortunately we have a media problem in this country. The media convinces some people to vote for other people's interests, shifting the balance of power in unsustainable ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

There are 4 essential ideologies in American politics. Two concern the economy, and two concern morality.

Liberal fiscal policy: Government as charity.
Liberal morality policy: Everyone should be able to live as they please.
Conservative fiscal policy: Enforced personal responsibility.
Conservative morality policy: Lawmaking as an extension of Christianity.

Over the decades, each of the two political parties have latched on to 2 of these 4 essential ideologies to obtain voters, and the other party has latched onto the other 2. They have both occasionally taken a swim toward the middle but have ultimately found no one else swimming there.

Before 1912 and Teddy Roosevelt's Independent presidential run, it was the Republican Party that upheld liberal policies. And it wasn't until FDR's New Deal that Democrats became identified with the welfare state.

It's always been interesting to me that no party has ever represented me fully. I believe in liberal morality AND conservative fiscal policy. Personally I think most people feel that way, but it's not as if I have my finger on the pulse of the nation.

In the end nobody gets what they really want, and everyone has to make a difficult choice. My choice is, the economy is the most important thing. Within a weak economy, very little else is possible. Other people see things differently and have different priorities.

I have no problem with every single voter voting in his own best interest. That's exactly as it should be and if we had that, we'd have the best possible government that served the most possible citizens. Unfortunately we have a media problem in this country. The media convinces some people to vote for other people's interests, shifting the balance of power in unsustainable ways.

---

There's another dimension missing from your potted history of US politics, and that is white identity politics. The Democrats used to be the white identity party until the civil rights legislation of the Johnson administration, after which the Republicans embarked on the southern strategy to win over disgruntled working class whites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

I doubt that most of those people enthusiastically cheering Trump at the MAGA rallies were there because they wanted smaller government or enforcement of Christian morality. They were mainly there because they hate the idea of the US ceasing to be a country dominated by white folks. There is loads of research showing that this was the main factor behind Trump's support.
https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/...-anxiety-study

It's interesting that you consistently try to downplay this element.. It's also odd that complain that the media is somehow convincing people to vote Democrat against their true interests when the whole point of the southern strategy has been to convince the white working class to vote for the party that favours the interests of the rich.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

Conservative fiscal policy: Enforced personal responsibility.

---

What exactly is your definition of conservative fiscal policy? Surely it can't have escaped your notice that every period of Republican rule since Reagan has seen increases in budget deficits? It was Dick Cheney who claimed that deficits don't matter.

The actual Republican fiscal policy is to cut taxes for rich people whenever they get the chance, never mind the deficit, and then switch to claiming deficits are a huge problem whenever there's a Democrat administration.

[QUOTE=Nick Danger;1958237]

HA! You're a funny guy, Stavros. Funny like a clown. Kinda makes me wonder why you go to the trouble of acting like such a stiff in most of your posts.

I'm absolutely willing to have the Sandy Hook debate with you, Stavros. But if you want to do that, make sure you understand that it's a real debate, a long conversation, and it's no joke. There is a LOT of evidence that it's a hoax, and zero evidence that it happened. There is, in fact, zero evidence that the children ever existed. It's EXTREMELY difficult to hold up the government's version of the events of that day in real-time debate.

To put it in perspective for you, I'm well-aware that if the Sandy Hook Massacre actually DID happen, and I maintain it didn't, that makes me one of the world's biggest assholes. It's dead children we're talking about here. A person would have to be very sure it was a hoax. VERY. SURE.

I'm gonna link the best video I've seen on the subject of the Sandy Hook hoax. If you do decide you want to have that argument with me, I suggest you watch this first:

https://archive.org/details/WeNeedTo...015Documentary


This is not a documentary, it is a collection of YouTube videos made by mostly anonymous cowards, not one of whom went to Newtown to interview anyone in the town but have cobbled their evidence from archive footage. The film's tone is set with the brief reference to Fairfiled Hills psychiatric hospital (1931-1995), the Newtown hospital that has 'fearsome tunnels' which really are just tunnels connecting different parts of the building. The 'macabre' medical procedures that were carried out there were standard procedures at the time whatever you think of them now.

The parents are actors and musicians -proof that Sandy Hook was staged? MRSTOSH314 make much of this, as if to prove these men and women were recruited to act in the 'Sandy Hook Massacre Drama' -what it fails to do is establish as a mundane fact that across the USA, millions of mums and dads are involved in amateur dramatics, and some even make films in which they sing children's songs.

The segment by FreeRadioRevolution also attempts to smear Gene Rosen because he too was a part time actor. Well guess what, when I was 9-11 years old I acted in plays that were put on by the church I went to. It happens all over the world, but here's the other thing -I would never call myself an 'Actor'. It was just fun. As for the dads who play the guitar and sing their own songs -er, YouTube has more examples of them than I care to list. So mums and dads who act and play guitar really are just mums and dads who act and play guitar, they are not on the payroll of Murder Inc.

Tosh also makes the claim that Veronique Pozner is also Veronique Haller, when the most basic research shows this to be false -

"The “researcher” claims that Veronique, the mother of Noah, is an anti-gun Swiss diplomat. Now, this is not new, earth-shattering speculation by the hoaxers. This hypothesis has been around since shortly after the shooting. In fact, I never touched on the topic because I’d thought that most of the hoaxers had realized early on that this suggestion was ludicrous. Veronique Pozner, the Connecticut RN, and Veronique Haller, the Swiss diplomat, are two completely different people. Let’s take a closer look at the compelling research this hoaxer presents to establish these woman are the same person."
https://sandehook.wordpress.com/2014...wo-veroniques/

I could go on -Adam Lanza stole his brother's ID on the day so the first reports based on the ID first responders found claimed the shooter was Ryan Lanza. Others claim nobody attempted to call or talk to Lanza's father Peter, and (on one of the imdb reviews of the film) continued to claim this even after Peter Lanza gave an interview to the New Yorker, as reported here-
https://www.today.com/news/adam-lanz...orn-2D79346468

As for the fundamental driver of this staged event, what was the point of massacring children to force Congress to introduce new gun control measures, when they did no such thing? And when a phone call to Mitch McConnell was all that was needed to confirm that he would not support such measures?

It is simple, Nick -you have stepped out of the world of reason, and into the world of faith, where you can believe anything you want to believe, that the world is flat, that Elvis is still alive, that Black People were not born on planet Earth but arrived here on a spaceship from another planet, and so on.

You embarrass yourself at one level, but on another level you are a mendacious creep who cares nothing for the lives of ordinary Americans slaughtered by extraordinary lunatics. You cling to bogus theories because thse theories suit your template of a world of corrupt politicians profiting from your ignorance, but do so by ignoring veriifiabe facts that prove you to be wrong, because you choose lies over the truth.

In most cases, you are just another crank without a shaft, but when you become part of a movement designed to replace a Liberal Democacy with Anarchy, you become accountable to your fellow Americans who bear arms against a Republic they claim has betrayed them, seeking a Utopian America where there are no laws, no government, no taxes, and where a free citizen can do anything he or she wants.

You hang your pathetic, childish fantasies onto Sandy Hook because your are crippled by a self-doubt that you transform into an absolute certainty, when most people are in normal times possessed of enough reason to distinguish fact from fantasy, even as they know they don't know everything.

You have proven nothing other than your own stupidity, just as you lack the courage to go Newtown and talk to the people who saw what happened, because you are a coward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

There's another dimension missing from your potted history of US politics, and that is white identity politics. The Democrats used to be the white identity party until the civil rights legislation of the Johnson administration, after which the Republicans embarked on the southern strategy to win over disgruntled working class whites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

I doubt that most of those people enthusiastically cheering Trump at the MAGA rallies were there because they wanted smaller government or enforcement of Christian morality. They were mainly there because they hate the idea of the US ceasing to be a country dominated by white folks. There is loads of research showing that this was the main factor behind Trump's support.
https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/...-anxiety-study

It's interesting that you consistently try to downplay this element.. It's also odd that complain that the media is somehow convincing people to vote Democrat against their true interests when the whole point of the southern strategy has been to convince the white working class to vote for the party that favours the interests of the rich.

---

I think I plainly said that there's a little racism in the heart of most wealthy white people, Flighty. Poor white people can be even worse, they often have anger issues that accompany their version of racism.

Rich white racism: "Those people are beneath me."
Poor white racism: "Those people are taking my jobs."

I disagree that racism is what put Trump into office. More like conservative white backlash against liberal flagship issues like Obamacare and gay marriage. You've been watching too much television, Flighty. Just because the media has suddenly acted as if racism is a huge problem in this country doesn't mean it actually is. If I were an employee, I'd prefer to be black. Black people have all the advantages in the modern workplace, up to and including the tax break employers get for hiring them in the first place, not to mention the ever-present spectre of "racism" in a situation where they weren't the right person for the job and someone wants to fire them or pass them over for promotion. It's a great time to be a black worker in the USA.

Seems to me you're looking at the more vocal outliers of the Republican Party and making an assumption there's a lot more of them than there actually are. The so-called "White Supremacist Vote" is a few thousand people, a tiny drop in a great big bucket of voters.

Now I HAVE had conversations with a few of my fellow middle-aged, middle class white men, many of whom are PRAGMATIC racists. They don't have a problem with black people but they will always vote against Democrats because they consider the black advantage in the modern workplace to be too great. Any whiff of Affirmative Action will send their vote in the other direction. I'm not sure if this qualifies as racism, or if it's just reactionary self-preservation. Either way, yeah, for sure that's out there too.

Far as some of the police violence against blacks, I've seen the same videos you've seen. In the vast majority of them, the perpetrator in question is resisting arrest, reaching for a weapon, fighting the police, etc. Now and then I see a case of real racial injustice. But then again, I've also seen plenty of white people treated unjustly by the police.

What I think is that, because of our nation's past with slavery, we should treat the political complaints of our black citizens with a sense of hyper-consideration, and what I mean by that is this: If they make a good argument, we should consider it a great argument and treat it with exigence. If they make a borderline argument we should give them the benefit of the doubt and assume it's a good one.

But a shitty argument is always a shitty argument, and the argument that there is systemic racism in the USA is a shitty argument. If anything "The System" favors being black.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

This is not a documentary, it is a collection of YouTube videos made by mostly anonymous cowards, not one of whom went to Newtown to interview anyone in the town but have cobbled their evidence from archive footage. The film's tone is set with the brief reference to Fairfiled Hills psychiatric hospital (1931-1995), the Newtown hospital that has 'fearsome tunnels' which really are just tunnels connecting different parts of the building. The 'macabre' medical procedures that were carried out there were standard procedures at the time whatever you think of them now.

The parents are actors and musicians -proof that Sandy Hook was staged? MRSTOSH314 make much of this, as if to prove these men and women were recruited to act in the 'Sandy Hook Massacre Drama' -what it fails to do is establish as a mundane fact that across the USA, millions of mums and dads are involved in amateur dramatics, and some even make films in which they sing children's songs.

The segment by FreeRadioRevolution also attempts to smear Gene Rosen because he too was a part time actor. Well guess what, when I was 9-11 years old I acted in plays that were put on by the church I went to. It happens all over the world, but here's the other thing -I would never call myself an 'Actor'. It was just fun. As for the dads who play the guitar and sing their own songs -er, YouTube has more examples of them than I care to list. So mums and dads who act and play guitar really are just mums and dads who act and play guitar, they are not on the payroll of Murder Inc.

Tosh also makes the claim that Veronique Pozner is also Veronique Haller, when the most basic research shows this to be false -

"The “researcher” claims that Veronique, the mother of Noah, is an anti-gun Swiss diplomat. Now, this is not new, earth-shattering speculation by the hoaxers. This hypothesis has been around since shortly after the shooting. In fact, I never touched on the topic because I’d thought that most of the hoaxers had realized early on that this suggestion was ludicrous. Veronique Pozner, the Connecticut RN, and Veronique Haller, the Swiss diplomat, are two completely different people. Let’s take a closer look at the compelling research this hoaxer presents to establish these woman are the same person."
https://sandehook.wordpress.com/2014...wo-veroniques/

I could go on -Adam Lanza stole his brother's ID on the day so the first reports based on the ID first responders found claimed the shooter was Ryan Lanza. Others claim nobody attempted to call or talk to Lanza's father Peter, and (on one of the imdb reviews of the film) continued to claim this even after Peter Lanza gave an interview to the New Yorker, as reported here-
https://www.today.com/news/adam-lanz...orn-2D79346468

As for the fundamental driver of this staged event, what was the point of massacring children to force Congress to introduce new gun control measures, when they did no such thing? And when a phone call to Mitch McConnell was all that was needed to confirm that he would not support such measures?

It is simple, Nick -you have stepped out of the world of reason, and into the world of faith, where you can believe anything you want to believe, that the world is flat, that Elvis is still alive, that Black People were not born on planet Earth but arrived here on a spaceship from another planet, and so on.

You embarrass yourself at one level, but on another level you are a mendacious creep who cares nothing for the lives of ordinary Americans slaughtered by extraordinary lunatics. You cling to bogus theories because thse theories suit your template of a world of corrupt politicians profiting from your ignorance, but do so by ignoring veriifiabe facts that prove you to be wrong, because you choose lies over the truth.

In most cases, you are just another crank without a shaft, but when you become part of a movement designed to replace a Liberal Democacy with Anarchy, you become accountable to your fellow Americans who bear arms against a Republic they claim has betrayed them, seeking a Utopian America where there are no laws, no government, no taxes, and where a free citizen can do anything he or she wants.

You hang your pathetic, childish fantasies onto Sandy Hook because your are crippled by a self-doubt that you transform into an absolute certainty, when most people are in normal times possessed of enough reason to distinguish fact from fantasy, even as they know they don't know everything.

You have proven nothing other than your own stupidity, just as you lack the courage to go Newtown and talk to the people who saw what happened, because you are a coward.

---

Wow, Stavros, that's good stuff. The appeal to emotion in your argument is so strong it almost distracted me from the fact that you didn't actually make an argument.

Let's START from the fact that this was a staged exercise. Any dipshit can watch the video of the so-called parents attempting to muster tears unsuccessfully, laughing when they think the cameras are off, generally being very POOR actors, and see that it's a drill. So that's what you actually HAVE, as a media consumer - video of an obviously staged event.

Immediately following the incident, when all the world had to go on was the video, numerous polls conducted by various media on all points of the political spectrum showed that the MAJORITY of people thought the entire thing was staged.

Of course that's when the media got to work in earnest.

So let's say that the burden of proof is on you, the true believer, to prove that this was not a staged event, but a real mass murder that actually happened. Where would you begin, Stavros.

Normally you'd show photos of the victims. Tasteless as it might seem, this is news we're talking about. It's unprecedented for EVERY SINGLE PHOTO of EVERY SINGLE VICTIM to be 100% redacted. But okay, this is a very unusual situation. The parents felt very strongly about protecting the privacy of their dead children by insisting the photographs be institutionally protected from ever being seen by anyone. They weren't interested in sympathy from the masses (even though their entire lives now revolve around sympathy from the masses), they just wanted to make sure those photos didn't get seen.

So what's your next option? Photos of the crime scene. The blood, that's the evidence right there, you're not going to have a massacre of 26 people without an ugly crime scene riddled with bullets and soaked with blood stains.

But alas, no such photos can be viewed. Redacted. By the state legislature. But WAIT - The Mirror (UK) managed to get ITS hands on photos from inside the school. HERE'S your evidence: https://www.mirror.co.uk/incoming/ga...leased-2966707 . Or if that's not enough, what about THESE "chilling photos" from the New York Post - https://nypost.com/2013/11/25/chilli...lair-released/

Oops.

I guess we'll have to settle for the video of the covered bodies of children being removed from the school as our evidence that anything at all happened in that school that day. But wait, what's this? They left the bodies rotting in the school all day and then removed them under cover of darkness? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sandy-h...ool-overnight/

Now that's...odd.

Well, lacking video or photographic evidence of a mass murder, we can simply take the word of media and law enforcement that the thing DID happen. These are the people we trust! It wasn't just a drill even though that's what it looked like, because they said so. And really, a simple perusal of the birth and death certificates of the murdered children will should be sufficient evidence for anyone who has a modicum of trust in America's institutions.

LOL REDACTED! I shouldn't laugh. I just think it's hilarious that anyone can look at this huge steaming pile of horseshit and mentally block out the irrefutable evidence of media foreknowledge, the unlikely scenario that not a single parent thought it might have been a good idea if someone armed had been at the school to stop this 80-pound commando from carrying out his evil mission (every single parent, pro-gun control, even after losing a child in a scenario where armed educators or even a security guard would likely have saved their child), the laughable video of people walking in circles at the firehouse, the gun control advocation history of the participants, the utterly abysmal acting, the immediate institutional cover-up, the video evidence that there was no evacuation of the school, and ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCE THAT THIS WAS STAGED.

Also, Stavros, Gene Rosen wasn't vilified because he's a shitty actor, though he is. He was vilified because of the multiple inconsistencies in his story from one telling to the next, and the fact that he was caught on video rehearsing his lines.

You ain't too clever, Stavros. Not as clever as I thunk you were. This case does not come down to multiple Veronicas, it comes down to multiple mistakes made by the not-so-clever people who were trying to fool us, and who succeeded vs. those of us incapable of critical thinking.

Attachment 1298434

[QUOTE=Nick Danger;1958320]

Wow, Stavros, that's good stuff. The appeal to emotion in your argument is so strong it almost distracted me from the fact that you didn't actually make an argument.

You have decided it was a staged event, and everything you observe proves your point. It matters not that Veronica Pozner is a reistered nurse and not a Swiss gun control advocate, because it ruins one aspect of your fantasy. You want to see explicit photos of murdered children at a blood-soaked crime scene, photos which are rarely if ever shown of any crime scene, be it Oklahoma, 9/11, Parkland, Las Vegas, and so on -but the question is why do you want to see such photos? And, on the basis of the views you have shared with us, even those photos you would dismiss as fake, and must be because you claim it never happened.

We can go on and on, and you can go round and round in circles, always asking the same questions which have only one answer which proves your point, just as the fundamental point that the gun control laws that were supposed to follow this and the other massacres never happened, but you don't ask, or explain why.

You treat the truth with contempt, just us in a recent post you demonstrate such an ignorance of the way Race has shaped American history, politics and society, I wonder if you live in a bubble, or a hole in the ground. What is clear is that you have stepped out of the world of reason, to live in a world of make-believe, and you have every right to make stuff up and stick with it even when it makes a fool of you.

But do you have a right to insult the victims of Sandy Hook? What do you achieve when you do that?

You are a disgrace to American society, and I for one will no longer respond to your posts because the stink is as universal as it is unwelcome.

I'd rather learn from one bird how to sing
than to teach ten thousand stars how not to dance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

You have decided it was a staged event, and everything you observe proves your point. It matters not that Veronica Pozner is a reistered nurse and not a Swiss gun control advocate, because it ruins one aspect of your fantasy. You want to see explicit photos of murdered children at a blood-soaked crime scene, photos which are rarely if ever shown of any crime scene, be it Oklahoma, 9/11, Parkland, Las Vegas, and so on -but the question is why do you want to see such photos? And, on the basis of the views you have shared with us, even those photos you would dismiss as fake, and must be because you claim it never happened.

We can go on and on, and you can go round and round in circles, always asking the same questions which have only one answer which proves your point, just as the fundamental point that the gun control laws that were supposed to follow this and the other massacres never happened, but you don't ask, or explain why.

You treat the truth with contempt, just us in a recent post you demonstrate such an ignorance of the way Race has shaped American history, politics and society, I wonder if you live in a bubble, or a hole in the ground. What is clear is that you have stepped out of the world of reason, to live in a world of make-believe, and you have every right to make stuff up and stick with it even when it makes a fool of you.

But do you have a right to insult the victims of Sandy Hook? What do you achieve when you do that?

You are a disgrace to American society, and I for one will no longer respond to your posts because the stink is as universal as it is unwelcome.

I'd rather learn from one bird how to sing
than to teach ten thousand stars how not to dance

---

Like I said, Stavros - it's EXTREMELY difficult to hold the official version of events up under the cold hard light of truth. Kudos for stepping up to the plate, even though you struck out.

Suit yourself on the stink thing. I've run off worse knuckleheads than you by fanning the stench of reality in their direction.

BTW let me just say that ANYONE who wants to take up the mantle of the official story about Sandy Hook is welcome to do so, and I will gladly field your argument. Or if you're a sensitive soul instead of a leathery old virtue-signaler like Stavros, I'll go as easy on you as you please - even so far as to not reply at all if that's what you want. I realize that some people might want to say something insulting to me because I'm treating the Sandy Hook victims as the perpetrators they really are instead of the victims they're pretending to be. That's okay, I'll let you run me down as a sorry sack of shit, I am not sensitive about this matter at all.

Just say your piece and state you don't want a reply, and I'll leave you alone and let your argument stand. THAT'S how certain I am that no case can be made that this rank abomination of a false flag effort to take guns from law-abiding American citizens actually happened.

We are ALL Sandy Hook victims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

f I were an employee, I'd prefer to be black. Black people have all the advantages in the modern workplace, up to and including the tax break employers get for hiring them in the first place, not to mention the ever-present spectre of "racism" in a situation where they weren't the right person for the job and someone wants to fire them or pass them over for promotion. It's a great time to be a black worker in the USA.

---

Some advantage. Average black income in the US is about 40% lower than average white income.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/03/p...ity/index.html

They are also more likely to be unemployed, live in poverty, have various health problems, get murdered, shot by police, etc, etc. If you would prefer to be born black if you had your time over that would seem to be a very strange decision.

Even if we compare people in the same job, with the same qualifications and experience, white people earn more than blacks on average. https://www.payscale.com/data/racial-wage-gap

The idea that black people are getting some unfair advantage is just classic white grievance stuff, not based on any evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

I disagree that racism is what put Trump into office. More like conservative white backlash against liberal flagship issues like Obamacare and gay marriage.

---

That doesn't explain why they went for Trump more enthusiastically than they have for more conventional Republicans. Did Trump have a stronger position on Obamacare and gay marriage than any other candidate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

As for the fundamental driver of this staged event, what was the point of massacring children to force Congress to introduce new gun control measures, when they did no such thing? And when a phone call to Mitch McConnell was all that was needed to confirm that he would not support such measures?

---

This is the problem with most conspiracy theories - the link between the supposed conspiracy and the supposed goal is pretty tenuous. Given the large number of mass killings that have occurred in the US with no effect on opposition to gun control, why would anyone expect one more massacre to make the critical difference?

There is also another obvious plausibility problem. Such a conspiracy would have had to involve a large number of people, with a very high probability that eyewitnesses outside of the conspiracy would have seen something suspicious, either at the time or later. Newton is a town of 28,000 people, which means a large number of potential connections to anything involving the school. Yet all the alleged evidence seems to be highly circumstantial. Are we supposed to believe that the entire community was in on the conspiracy and none have had second thoughts? Or are we supposed to believe that the conspirators were so clever that no eyewitnesses spotted anything incriminating, but at the same time so careless that they left lots of evidence for internet sleuths to find?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

Some advantage. Average black income in the US is about 40% lower than average white income.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/03/p...ity/index.html

They are also more likely to be unemployed, live in poverty, have various health problems, get murdered, shot by police, etc, etc. If you would prefer to be born black if you had your time over that would seem to be a very strange decision.

Even if we compare people in the same job, with the same qualifications and experience, white people earn more than blacks on average. https://www.payscale.com/data/racial-wage-gap

The idea that black people are getting some unfair advantage is just classic white grievance stuff, not based on any evidence.

---

I didn't say I'd prefer to be born black, I said I'd prefer to be black if I were an employee. Obviously there are cultural disadvantages to being born black that lead to many blacks existing on the periphery of the workforce or never entering it at all. Some segments of black culture disdain education, some segments encourage racism against whites, and in some segments of black culture, gang membership is mandatory if you want to survive. People like Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice, who have climbed to the top of the cultural ladder on their own merits, are viewed as "sellouts" or Uncle Toms by some segments of black society. Those same segments tend to hold murderous gangsters like Snoop Dogg or Wu-Tang Clan up as icons.

If we're being totally honest, the failure of Example Black Person to prosper in the workforce can often be attributed to his personal failure to adapt to the predominant culture. Whether that's his fault, the fault of his upbringing, or the fault of society-at-large is a question to be asked, but asking the question doesn't affect the outcome.

I don't have the solution, all I'm saying is that we've tried to affect this outcome by offering blacks advantages in education and the workplace - by replacing the merit-based system with a quota-based system. The advantages are real, they're still with us, and based on Biden's recent tendency to use the word "equity" instead of "equality" when talking about combating white supremacy, are about to be expanded. So I dunno, let's see what happens. I think a failed approach is a failed approach but maybe we simply haven't gone far enough in that direction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

This is the problem with most conspiracy theories - the link between the supposed conspiracy and the supposed goal is pretty tenuous. Given the large number of mass killings that have occurred in the US with no effect on opposition to gun control, why would anyone expect one more massacre to make the critical difference?

There is also another obvious plausibility problem. Such a conspiracy would have had to involve a large number of people, with a very high probability that eyewitnesses outside of the conspiracy would have seen something suspicious, either at the time or later. Newton is a town of 28,000 people, which means a large number of potential connections to anything involving the school. Yet all the alleged evidence seems to be highly circumstantial. Are we supposed to believe that the entire community was in on the conspiracy and none have had second thoughts? Or are we supposed to believe that the conspirators were so clever that no eyewitnesses spotted anything incriminating, but at the same time so careless that they left lots of evidence for internet sleuths to find?

---

The reason people don't see the direct cause-and-effect of the Sandy Hook hoax is pretty simple - Republican control of Congress. Obama tried. Hard, at the federal level, but he was unsuccessful and unsuccessful efforts are forgotten.

Here's a Wiki page that lists ALL of the Democratic efforts at gun control legislation behind Sandy Hook: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_co...chool_shooting

Frankly I'm not sure how it is the Democratic Party became identified with gun control, probably just a natural progression from its constituents' other beliefs, but that's how it is now.

Connecticut, New York, and Maryland, all blue states, DID succeed in introducing additional gun control legislation behind Sandy Hook.

To this day, the Sandy Hook "parents" are like a rock band out on tour, and I'll give you one guess which same old song they're playing over and over again.

Don't forget, there have been a lot of real school shootings. But Sandy Hook is still "the deadliest."

As for the plausibility problem, yes, there most certainly is one, Flighty. The entire event is totally implausible. Why has no one stepped forward to say "This was a hoax?" Could be the millions of dollars in bribes, Flighty. It could be that. On the other hand, the makers of that video We Need To Talk About Sandy Hook say they were threatened about going forward. With death! So there could be that happening too.

I personally don't think there were that many people involved. The parents. The police. Elements of the media. A small government coalition. All united in their sacred cause to disarm the citizenry. Oh, and become millionaires in the process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

That doesn't explain why they went for Trump more enthusiastically than they have for more conventional Republicans. Did Trump have a stronger position on Obamacare and gay marriage than any other candidate?

---

I think Trump's actions regarding Obamacare speak for themselves. Far as gay marriage, that was never an issue Trump addressed, but it was a very divisive issue for Christian Democrats, many of whom abandoned the party in 2016. In general, gay marriage becomes a more divisive issue the lower you go on the income scale, which goes a long way toward explaining why Hildawg lost 10% of the usual Democratic poverty vote to Trump.

I don't think it's possible for people who live their entire lives outside of religious circles to fully grasp the magnitude of the gay marriage issue to people who believe that God considers homosexuality an "abomination." I have some very religious people in my family so I got to witness it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

The reason people don't see the direct cause-and-effect of the Sandy Hook hoax is pretty simple - Republican control of Congress. Obama tried. Hard, at the federal level, but he was unsuccessful and unsuccessful efforts are forgotten.

Here's a Wiki page that lists ALL of the Democratic efforts at gun control legislation behind Sandy Hook: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_co...chool_shooting

Frankly I'm not sure how it is the Democratic Party became identified with gun control, probably just a natural progression from its constituents' other beliefs, but that's how it is now.

Connecticut, New York, and Maryland, all blue states, DID succeed in introducing additional gun control legislation behind Sandy Hook.

To this day, the Sandy Hook "parents" are like a rock band out on tour, and I'll give you one guess which same old song they're playing over and over again.

Don't forget, there have been a lot of real school shootings. But Sandy Hook is still "the deadliest."

As for the plausibility problem, yes, there most certainly is one, Flighty. The entire event is totally implausible. Why has no one stepped forward to say "This was a hoax?" Could be the millions of dollars in bribes, Flighty. It could be that. On the other hand, the makers of that video We Need To Talk About Sandy Hook say they were threatened about going forward. With death! So there could be that happening too.

I personally don't think there were that many people involved. The parents. The police. Elements of the media. A small government coalition. All united in their sacred cause to disarm the citizenry. Oh, and become millionaires in the process.

---

Democrats have favoured gun controls legislation since the 1930s, so it's hardly a new position. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_la..._United_States

If that is their position then obviously they will try to push for tighter controls after any mass killing by guns. That how things work with every other problem. It doesn't require a conspiracy to explain.

Why they take this view is not some arcane mystery. The US has a much higher rate of gun deaths than any other developed country. It also has a much higher rate of gun ownership and the laxest gun laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vi..._United_States

If you think it's so obvious that Sandy Hook was faked, how about you explain to us how exactly it worked, How exactly was it possible to stage the fake deaths of 27 people with numerous witness, keep them out of the public eye for 8 years, and manage to fool a town of 28,000 (particularly if they were obviously bad actors as you claim). Perhaps you could refer to this to avoid any inconsistencies or omissions, such as leaving medical workers out of the story. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_...chool_shooting

While you're at it you might explain why it's implausible that every parent of murdered children should favour gun control, but it's not implausible that every one of a much larger group would keep quiet for over 8 years.

Contrary to your 'gotcha' claim about "unprecedented" redaction of victims' details, it appears that was in line with state law applying to all murder victims. In fact, restrictions of this kind exist in many states. https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0364.htm The reason is obviously to protect the privacy of victims' families, including from unwanted harassment by arsehole conspiracy theorists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

Democrats have favoured gun controls legislation since the 1930s, so it's hardly a new position. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_la..._United_States

If that is their position then obviously they will try to push for tighter controls after any mass killing by guns. That how things work with every other problem. It doesn't require a conspiracy to explain.

Why they take this view is not some arcane mystery. The US has a much higher rate of gun deaths than any other developed country. It also has a much higher rate of gun ownership and the laxest gun laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vi..._United_States

---

Whether we have a high rate of gun deaths is irrelevant to the gun control debate. Yes, you read that correctly, I said "irrelevant to the gun control debate." Because the crux of the debate is actually the government's ability/inability to enforce gun control measures. As a law-abiding citizen, I could easily say, "Yes, it's a good idea if no one but the police and military have guns." I'd never say that but let's say I felt that way. So I vote accordingly, others do likewise, and eventually a Democratic majority in Congress and a Democratic president are able to push through (after a series of progressively more and more restrictive laws) comprehensive overhaul of gun laws, the final nail in the coffin for American gun ownership.

That day, I dutifully report to the local police station and turn in all my guns. Perhaps I receive a cash payout! That's gonnna look good on the old bank statement. That night I go home and turn on the television, which is alive with news coverage of America turning in its guns. There's a knock on the door. I answer it, and much to my surprise, there's a fellow standing there pointing a gun at me!

"Good evening Sir," says the armed stranger. "I'm here to take your belongings."

"My belongings? I didn't request anyone. And hey, what's with the gun?"

"It's not by request Sir. I represent a group of armed criminals who didn't turn their illegally-obtained guns in today. We are making the rounds and taking the belongings of the law-abiding citizens who turned their legal weapons in today. It's a shame we won't be able to steal your guns, but we will take everything else please."

"Very well, come on in I guess."

The fact is that Americans are pretty evenly divided on citizen gun ownership. A recent Pew poll shows 46% favor it, and 46% are against it (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...r-gun-control/). There are, however, some periods of time when that percentage shifts heavily in favor of "against." Guess when that is, Flighty. Immediately following a school shooting. Of course, a quick poll of the Sandy Hook "parents" shows 100% in favor of gun control and 0% against, which bucks the national trend a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

If you think it's so obvious that Sandy Hook was faked, how about you explain to us how exactly it worked, How exactly was it possible to stage the fake deaths of 27 people with numerous witness, keep them out of the public eye for 8 years, and manage to fool a town of 28,000 (particularly if they were obviously bad actors as you claim). Perhaps you could refer to this to avoid any inconsistencies or omissions, such as leaving medical workers out of the story. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_...chool_shooting

While you're at it you might explain why it's implausible that every parent of murdered children should favour gun control, but it's not implausible that every one of a much larger group would keep quiet for over 8 years.

---

I never would have thought it possible. I admit, I totally underestimated how mouth-breathing stupid some people are.

Personally I don't think anyone really believes it. I think you lock any American who knows all the facts about Sandy Hook in a room with a master interrogator, they're gonna admit they see the steam rising off the shit. But there are a few factors that keep an essentially-disbelieving public in line about Sandy Hook.

1. The Audacity. The audacity to claim 27 dead people in a hoax. You're probably familiar with the Joseph Goebbels quote on lying to the public. Here's the entire quote: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the state can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the state to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the state.” It's the size of the lie that scares people away from recognizing it. The potency of the big lie comes from the fact that if you disbelieve it, you have to disbelieve virtually everything else that holds you in your comfort zone. If you accept that Sandy Hook was a hoax, what else was a hoax? By far the easiest way to contend with a lie this audacious is simply to swallow it whole. As you've done, Flighty.

2. The Cult of Personality. "Barrack Obama believes Sandy Hook happened. Or at least, he seems to. I trust and respect Barrack Obama, and he obviously has more information at his disposal than I do about this matter."

3. Sentiment. Most people are good people, by which I mean they know the difference between good and evil and view themselves as good. "So the media is showing me this incident, and there are parents there who allege to have lost children but don't seem too upset about it. It gives all appearances of being a staged event but what if it's not? If I believe what my eyes and brain are telling me, but I'm wrong, then I'm really hurting the feelings of these already-grieving parents. My eyes and brain aren't reliable enough to go there." (MY eyes and brain ARE reliable enough to go there, Flighty).

4. Good Old-Fashioned Censorship. The latest strategy of the Sandy Hook parents is to sue people who are famously saying publicly that they're full of shit. Alex Jones was shut down by this strategy - though frankly, if I had a bullshit story I wanted people to believe and Alex Jones was nice enough to pick up the opposition, I'd probably just let him run with it. Another guy in Wisconsin had to pay $450,000 to millionaire celebrity parent Lenny Pozner for writing a book about the hoax. It's not illegal to talk about the hoax. But it will cost you plenty to do it publicly.

The argument that Sandy Hook was a hoax pretty much makes itself, Flighty. I could go through the entire timeline in this thread with you, but all that information is freely available and I've already summarized the bulk of it in previous posts. Sandy Hook was a hoax. Start from there and prove it wasn't. While you're trying to do that, unsuccessfully, think about how easy it would be to prove that ANY EVENT THAT REALLY HAPPENED actually happened. Want to prove that the 1893 Chicago World's Fair happened? Gravy. Prove 9/11 happened? No problem. Want to prove that Cheap Trick played the Boston Garden on Feb. 28, 1981? It can be done. What you can't prove is that anyone was killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14, 2012.

Far as how they did it, well, a handful of people who's life work is gun control got together and decided to get their hands dirty. Is it really so hard to believe that people who feel strongly about an issue like this could go over the top to support their cause? I mean, you live in a country in which 39 people killed themselves in 1997 because they thought their souls were going to be taken aboard a spaceship and hauled to Heaven. Considering how wealthy the Sandy Hook "parents" have become out of all this, what could possibly motivate them to step forward? The truth, their conscience, a sudden change of mind about gun control, what? Do you think they'd get to keep their share of the Sandy Hook millions if they blew the whole ship out of the water now?

Again, I think the only people involved were "the parents," elements of the Newtown city and Connecticut state police, a few folks in the media, and a few folks in government - not even high-ranking government officials and I'll tell you why I think that. Airspace. If there was involvement at the highest levels of government they could have shut down the airspace above Sandy Hook and saved themselves the trouble of explaining a lot of VERY disturbing video. As it was, the best they could do was cut off ground access at the firehouse to all but insiders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

Contrary to your 'gotcha' claim about "unprecedented" redaction of victims' details, it appears that was in line with state law applying to all murder victims. In fact, restrictions of this kind exist in many states. https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0364.htm The reason is obviously to protect the privacy of victims' families, including from unwanted harassment by arsehole conspiracy theorists.

---

Are you aware "all murder victims" was added to the law of which you speak because they couldn't get it passed in the legislature if they only applied it to Sandy Hook victims? But that was the original legislation that was introduced - just the Sandy Hook "parents" requesting that no evidence ever be available that this event happened. The entire law was made in response to Sandy Hook, and it was passed immediately after the event; certainly that is "expedited" by legislative timeframe standards.

And what kind of law is this? Who gave government the right to decide which public documents can and can't be released to the public, it's unconstitutional AF. If you had a crime, fine, we'll send the police, the fire department, medical services, helicopters, we'll do whatever we as a society can do to help you in your time of need. But after that, the incident becomes a matter of public record. We'll be wanting to know what our money paid for. You want to keep something to yourself, don't ask for taxpayer assistance.

I get a kick out of these so-called victims complaining about all the people who still don't believe their bullshit years after the fact. If it's so emotionally distressing for them, maybe they should reconsider "protecting the privacy" of their long-dead children and let the public see the evidence. Ask me why I know this will never happen, Flighty.

There's no aspect of the Sandy Hook event that isn't highly suspicious. Take one or two suspicious angles of an event and run with them, maybe you're a conspiracy theorist. But when every single element of an event is questionable, suspicious, or even outright impossible, the conspiracy theorist isn't the problem. The conspiracy is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

Another guy in Wisconsin had to pay $450,000 to millionaire celebrity parent Lenny Pozner for writing a book about the hoax.

---

I decided to save myself the aggravation and not engage in an argument about Sandy Hook or 9/11. But I do find it amusing that being wealthy or rich is venerated until it's someone you don't like who has the money. Then it's suddenly a question of motive why a rich person would want to sue someone for a fraction of their net worth as though it doesn't happen all the time.

Also, millionaire is not the distinction it was in the 1980s. Likewise I could say having a million pesos is not the same as having a million 2021 dollars. Perhaps your pockets aren't as deep as you want us to believe:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I decided to save myself the aggravation and not engage in an argument about Sandy Hook or 9/11. But I do find it amusing that being wealthy or rich is venerated until it's someone you don't like who has the money. Then it's suddenly a question of motive why a rich person would want to sue someone for a fraction of their net worth as though it doesn't happen all the time.

Also, millionaire is not the distinction it was in the 1980s. Likewise I could say having a million pesos is not the same as having a million 2021 dollars. Perhaps your pockets aren't as deep as you want us to believe:)

---

You're a smart man, Bronco, it would indeed be aggravating to have that conversation with me. But I'll address just the point you're making here and try not to drag you into it against your will.

The fact that a 2021 millionaire isn't on the same eliteness level as a 1980 millionaire isn't part of my argument. A million dollars is still a lot of money. What's even more money is $93 million - the low-ball estimate for the amount taken in by Sandy Hook parents from the taxpayers and donations since the debacle.

I don't recall ever trying to convince anyone on this board that I have deep pockets, but I don't mind letting people know that I'm financially stable. It's all part of the program. "Work hard and live responsibly, children of the Millennium." Best I can do for them, I'm not going to feed them.

But ill-gotten gains are ill-gotten gains. When it's taxpayer money, moreso.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

I don't recall ever trying to convince anyone on this board that I have deep pockets.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

But me, I am going to kick back and watch my bank account grow for the next few years while the big boys play their little games. As a counterpoint to your statement, "Americans are not about to get rich under this President," I can only tell you that I am already getting rich under this President.

---

You are far too modest

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

Whether we have a high rate of gun deaths is irrelevant to the gun control debate. Yes, you read that correctly, I said "irrelevant to the gun control debate." Because the crux of the debate is actually the government's ability/inability to enforce gun control measures. As a law-abiding citizen, I could easily say, "Yes, it's a good idea if no one but the police and military have guns." I'd never say that but let's say I felt that way. So I vote accordingly, others do likewise, and eventually a Democratic majority in Congress and a Democratic president are able to push through (after a series of progressively more and more restrictive laws) comprehensive overhaul of gun laws, the final nail in the coffin for American gun ownership.

That day, I dutifully report to the local police station and turn in all my guns. Perhaps I receive a cash payout! That's gonnna look good on the old bank statement. That night I go home and turn on the television, which is alive with news coverage of America turning in its guns. There's a knock on the door. I answer it, and much to my surprise, there's a fellow standing there pointing a gun at me!

---

Funnily enough, that sounds a lot like what they did in Australia after somebody massacred 35 people in 1996 (and under a conservative government). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_of_Australia
And guess what? There have been no further massacres, no upsurge in violent crimes, citizens are not living in fear and almost all are pretty happy with the laws.

In any case, it's a straw man because I don't think anyone in a position of influence is seriously proposing to do that in the US. What they mainly want is to stop people buying military assault weapons that can inflict mass casualties very quickly. The real mystery about gun control in the US is why the NRA and it's Republican servants have been so fanatically opposed to this. Why is this necessary for self-defence?

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your diatribe because it's your usual mixture of evasion, distortion and bluster, but it is bizarre that you equate defamation suits to censorship. You seem to be ignorant of the fact that truth is a defence against defamation suits in the US. If people have had to pay damages that clearly shows they have been unable to establish the truth of their claims in court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...defamation_law

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

The argument that Sandy Hook was a hoax pretty much makes itself, Flighty. I could go through the entire timeline in this thread with you, but all that information is freely available and I've already summarized the bulk of it in previous posts. Sandy Hook was a hoax. Start from there and prove it wasn't.

---

I have to chuckle at the sheer chutzpah of this piece of circular reasoning. It's a neat trick. Even though you've offered no concrete proof (and none has been forthcoming in the defamation suits), nor any plausible explanation for how it could have been done without anyone in the community noticing anything, you simply assert is was a hoax and demand others prove it was not. Yet you refuse to except any evidence from government or the media because they are part of the hoax. You also claim the local people can't be trusted because they've either been bribed, intimidated or hoodwinked. I guess that means you can never be wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

Alex Jones was shut down by this strategy - though frankly, if I had a bullshit story I wanted people to believe and Alex Jones was nice enough to pick up the opposition, I'd probably just let him run with it. Another guy in Wisconsin had to pay $450,000 to millionaire celebrity parent Lenny Pozner for writing a book about the hoax. It's not illegal to talk about the hoax. But it will cost you plenty to do it publicly.

---

You may have missed it, but Alex Jones admitted in a sworn deposition to the court that the hoax claim was false, and blamed it on a "form of psychosis". Perhaps you should schedule a few sessions with a psychiatrist, given you seem a little fixated on this 'conspiracy'.
https://www.vox.com/2019/3/31/182892...andy-hook-hoax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I decided to save myself the aggravation and not engage in an argument about Sandy Hook or 9/11. But I do find it amusing that being wealthy or rich is venerated until it's someone you don't like who has the money. Then it's suddenly a question of motive why a rich person would want to sue someone for a fraction of their net worth as though it doesn't happen all the time.

---

It's a common form of one-eyed blindness. If George Soros uses his money to finance liberal causes that is sinister. If the Murdochs, Kochs and Mercers use their money to finance conservative causes to advance their own self- interest they are just exercising their rights.

It's also interesting that the same person getting all righteous about the families supposedly benefiting from this has been indifferent about Trump and his cronies misusing public office for their own advantage. It seems a curious exception to his general amoral position that it's a crooked world and you can only expect people to take advantage if they can.

It's also notable that he responded to your comment, which related to a private defamation case, with a complete non sequitur about taxpayer money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

You are far too modest

---

Modesty is for young girls and politicians. I'm doing quite well. Can't seem to buy enough silver now that the Democrats are back in power but I'm trying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your diatribe because it's your usual mixture of evasion, distortion and bluster...

---

Well, thanks for responding to everything else, Flighty. BTW I think that's the Martin Bryant mass shooting you're talking about? Perfect example of a false-flag shooting that disarmed an entire continent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

I have to chuckle at the sheer chutzpah of this piece of circular reasoning. It's a neat trick. Even though you've offered no concrete proof (and none has been forthcoming in the defamation suits), nor any plausible explanation for how it could have been done without anyone in the community noticing anything, you simply assert is was a hoax and demand others prove it was not. Yet you refuse to except any evidence from government or the media because they are part of the hoax. You also claim the local people can't be trusted because they've either been bribed, intimidated or hoodwinked. I guess that means you can never be wrong.

---

Eh, I'm pretty sure I made my argument, Flighty. But I'll summarize a few key points of it for you again, I think you'll enjoy the itemization.

EVIDENCE THE SANDY HOOK MASSACRE WAS ACTUALLY THE SANDY HOOK NOTHING:

1. The parents, emotionless automatons immediately bringing gun control into the post-massacre conversation. Have you ever seen a REAL mass shooting, Flighty? I mean, just the video. Columbine is a good example of one that actually happened, and there's plenty of real on-the-scene video of that. People are crying, Flighty. People are SCREAMING. Parents are being held back from rushing into the school. Brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, best friends, are ripping their clothes, gnashing their teeth, and are absolutely and utterly inconsolable.

Now, maybe it's because the families of the victims at Columbine didn't have the prospect of becoming stinking rich on the horizon, but not so much grief at Sandy Hook. Not a single tear. An overriding sense of serene acceptance from the parents. Calm, composed, and ready to talk to the media about gun control within hours of losing their children

Sorry, Flighty. Ludicrous.

2. The kid couldn't do the shooting. Not a single survivor, Flighty. Everyone the non-existent Adam Lanza shot died. Not even a close call, not one single person barely holding onto life, needing medical attention, needing to be rushed to a hospital. Not one.

If this country could have fielded a single battalion of "Adam Lanzas" in Vietnam, we'd have won that goddamn war. Incredible really. No, incredible is not the word. The word is "unbelievable."

3. The immediate cover-up. They didn't wait even two days to begin the process of introducing legislation that would complete this devil's bargain - cutting the public off from every piece of information relating to the event. Why? The children's privacy? They're dead, they have no privacy, they are ex-children, statistics. They have no need of privacy, but the public does have need of information relating to this shooting in order to find out if a bunch of gun-control fanatics just pulled the wool over our eyes or not. Outrageous.

4. The video evidence of...a LOT of inconsistencies in the official story. According to the video, there was no evacuation of the school. According to the video, no medical personnel ever entered the building. According to the video, the police were chasing some unknown suspects in the woods near the school - people whose names and reason for being there we still don't know. According to the video, people were walking in circles into and out of the firehouse, constantly, for hours, for...unknown reasons. Gene Rosen is caught on video rehearsing his lines. Robbie Parker is caught on video making jokes with reporters before stepping up to the podium, consciously changing his facial expression to that of a guy who might have just lost his favorite beer huggie, quick try for tears, no luck because second-rate actor, so right into talking about daughter murdered yesterday. None of it makes a bit of sense.

5. The money. LOTS of money. From the government - since when does the government pay victims of crime? Truly unprecedented.

A lot of people have uncovered a lot more evidence that the thing was a hoax but I really don't even need it. I don't care for arguments like the one Stavros was trying to start about "The Two Veroniques." I'm quite content to concede those points and call it a hoax based strictly on the 5 items I've listed above. If you care to dispute any of those directly, feel free, Flighty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

You may have missed it, but Alex Jones admitted in a sworn deposition to the court that the hoax claim was false, and blamed it on a "form of psychosis". Perhaps you should schedule a few sessions with a psychiatrist, given you seem a little fixated on this 'conspiracy'.
https://www.vox.com/2019/3/31/182892...andy-hook-hoax

---

LOL - so you don't think he might have said that to save himself millions of dollars in a lawsuit? Ya think he always thought it was a hoax but as soon as a lawsuit was filed he suddenly decided it wasn't? Okay, Flighty. Uh, good point? Frankly, you're the one who seems fixated, I said everything I had to say about this thing many posts ago but you're like that one kid in class who won't stop raising his hand with stupid questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

BTW I think that's the Martin Bryant mass shooting you're talking about? Perfect example of a false-flag shooting that disarmed an entire continent.

---

I only raised it to see whether you would respond with some inane comment like this. Thanks for obliging.

While we're on this theme, what's you view on the Christchurch massacre?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ...sque_shootings

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

I only raised it to see whether you would respond with some inane comment like this. Thanks for obliging.

While we're on this theme, what's you view on the Christchurch massacre?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ...sque_shootings

---

My view? Like, was it real or not? Haven't really studied it much. I will say that if it was a false flag, which I know some people say it was but I'm not educated enough about it to have an opinion, at least they went to the trouble of shooting some people. There were bodies, horrific injuries, survivors, medical crews on the scene, people being life-flighted to hospitals - just like you'd expect at the scene of an (actual) mass shooting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

Modesty is for young girls and politicians. I'm doing quite well. Can't seem to buy enough silver now that the Democrats are back in power but I'm trying.

---

If you would like to join Mar a Lago, it's a 200,000 dollars initiation fee and 14,000 dollars a year. I think there's also a 2000 dollar a year food requirement. I'm not sure whether you need sponsors but if you tell them you're a mechanic from St. George Utah it should be fine. Mr. Trump would be happy to have you there.

I'm not sure if it's an equity membership or whether you're just flushing the money down the toilet to play golf with a bunch of crooks but it says on their website you get reciprocal benefits at a bunch of Trump properties that need refinancing. Maybe you can lend to them also I don't know. Glad things are going well.

https://www.maralagoclub.com/membership-opportunities

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Mr. Trump would be happy to have you there.

---

Would you have to play golf with him?
https://golf.com/lifestyle/celebriti...g-tiger-woods/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

If you would like to join Mar a Lago, it's a 200,000 dollars initiation fee and 14,000 dollars a year. I think there's also a 2000 dollar a year food requirement. I'm not sure whether you need sponsors but if you tell them you're a mechanic from St. George Utah it should be fine. Mr. Trump would be happy to have you there.

I'm not sure if it's an equity membership or whether you're just flushing the money down the toilet to play golf with a bunch of crooks but it says on their website you get reciprocal benefits at a bunch of Trump properties that need refinancing. Maybe you can lend to them also I don't know. Glad things are going well.

https://www.maralagoclub.com/membership-opportunities

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

Would you have to play golf with him?
https://golf.com/lifestyle/celebriti...g-tiger-woods/

---

I can visualize it. Me, The Donald, Rudy G, maybe Tom Brady to round out the foursome and Don Jr. driving the cart, playing skins for 50 large a hole. 10/10 supermodels in floss bikinis serving us margaritas mixed with the blood of infants while the U.S. Naval Academy Choir follows us around the course singing black gospel standards.

The Donald: "This is the life, eh gents?"
Rudy G: "Aliens. In my butthole. And not the friendly kind."
Tom Brady: "Fuck this, I'm going to Disneyland."
Me: "Keep 'em comin', doll-face, but more infant blood next time."

I always thought you'd modelled yourself on this character, though I guess whale skin hubcaps and chucking styrofoam containers out the window are far too mild by today's asshole standards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrgpZ0fUixs

Nick, I actually appreciate that you will argue the right-wing point of view, with the exception of the stuff I consider conspiracism. While I can't stomach the Sandy Hook stuff, I'm happy to talk Trump's loans and other stuff here.

I know a bit about business and know some people in commercial real estate. I guess I am a bit reluctant to share too much. You're right that people threaten bankruptcy to get better loan terms. They present the best aspects of their personal finances to get loans and for tax purposes present a softer picture.

I am a lawyer and although you said everyone hates us some people like me. While tax accounting is different from financial accounting there are limits to what people can do when representing income to investors.

All of this is to say, I would know a lot more if I saw Trump's disclosures to Deutsche Bank. You think it will be consistent with playing the game or on the edge of legality. I'm not sure but by the time anything comes of it we'll get a sense of whether it is normal industry practice or fraud.

I said solvency but you're saying liquidity is more important. That's fine. I have a feeling Trump's casinos were facing insolvency and not a liquidity crisis but I don't know.

There's a difference between negotiating a bank loan for real estate and people buying business inputs or even inventory. If they are buying something that's a staple of their business the relationship is ongoing and those goods are often bought on credit anyway. But that is a relationship where there's give and take. Trump is in the commercial real estate business so I imagine he has a closer relationship with banks than the average person.

BUT when banks lend money to people it's not supposed to be a super risky investment. They get near certainty of payment but a capped upside. That's the nature of debt. I doubt the re-negotiation was only over the timing of Trump's payments. It may have been in the nature of "you can either accept smaller payments or you have to run these casinos that are losing money and since you're not in the business of running casinos....."

All of this is to say, maybe he lied to get his more recent loans or maybe he got money from a shady source or some kind of shady transaction generally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I said solvency but you're saying liquidity is more important. That's fine. I have a feeling Trump's casinos were facing insolvency and not a liquidity crisis but I don't know.

---

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-c...were-very-real

"They show that, between 1985 and 1989, a period when the economy was forging ahead and Trump was busy portraying himself as a billionaire with the Midas touch, his core businesses—apartment buildings, hotels, and casinos—somehow managed to lose $359.1 million. That was only the beginning. As the economy weakened, in 1990 and 1991, Trump’s core businesses racked up losses of $517.5 million. And, between 1992 and 1994, as the economy recovered, they lost another $286.9 million."