I still find it strange (Sandy Hook reporting)

[telling tiger 156]

How many would you like? lol

In its' most simple form, our point of view is an agenda. That effort or point of view we participate in or support. They are not always evil or nefarious, but they certainly can be. An agenda can be making sure a child has something to eat or as direct as trying to overthrow a government.

A political agenda is seen as the surface or underlying motives for actions or rhetoric.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

I guess my problems with the official story began when I heard the news before it actually happened. I didn't realize it for a little while. But, I do remember that broadcast at 6:45 am central time that mornng. Had it not been for that, I probably wouldn't be questioning the official story. My only agenda is the truth, which is something that is terribly lacking in government. A small government that is responsible and truly accountable to the people is part of my agenda. A government who is NOT the largest employer with benefits that are derived from taxing the producers of the economy and given to government employees. Government employees should be left to their own vises with respect to investments for retirement and not a result of theft (inflation) or extortion (taxation). Finally, the farce we call open government leads only to more secrecy because there are those within the system who are criminal and do not wish to be exposed. CIA drug trade, FBI incompetence, the Justice Department's failure to prosecute criminals like John Corzine with MF Global, etc. The list is endless, and if the very government that's suppose to be for and by the people, turns into an authoritarian-mob-rule then it's time to ask questions and expect answers. Personally, I want no stone left unturned with respect to government secrets. The false flags of the past, Gulf of Tonkin incident among others, are just reminders that the government is capable and willing to lie for the benefit of the few. This would include manipulation of facts with respect to the recent shooting in CT.

Iceland got it right and we did not.

[telling tiger 156]

I see, so NPR was in on the consipracy and they are so inept at participating in these helicopter landings that they gave the "offical" report they are supposed to be participating in early. Uh huh.

At the very least, you provide good humor.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

I see, so NPR was in on the consipracy and they are so inept at participating in these helicopter landings that they gave the "offical" report they are supposed to be participating in early. Uh huh.

At the very least, you provide good humor.

Nice try.

[homersapien 11,513]

I'll say and do exactly as I please regardless. I have earned the right to question everything because I have been lied too so much. I trust absolutely nothing that any government says about anything because they are all lying and stealing. You don't have to believe me, but those guys at work were surely stumped when I knew about the incident, before it happened, due to a misstep on the part of NPR.

We need laws to keep guns out of the hands of people who think like this.

[homersapien 11,513]

There is even a place for people like bottomfeeder, it is important that people see those people exist, so they can be held responsible for their rhetoric.. He is a prime example of someone who finds a source on youtube and thinks it has value without using critical thinking skills to evaluate it, he has an agenda, everything is a conspiracy, and he must support that agenda at all cost. Seemingly no matter the source.

I do critique those things I believe to be untrue. I still don't understand Robbie Parker's behavior 6 hours after the incident. My sources go far beyond youtube, however, some of those sources cite video uploaded to youtube. Sure, I may have jumped the gun on some of the glaring inconsistencies, but far be it from me not to question anything. Rather, I question everything, especially when any level of government is involved. In this case, that level is local and state law enforcement, and yes, they have an agenda too.

Revealing phrase.

[telling tiger 156]

Bottomfeeder, please continue. You do more harm to your own point of view than I could do in a hundred hours. In a world of political irrationals, you are so very close to the top of that list. Even the most like you on this political forum avoid you like the measles, lol.

[homersapien 11,513]

My check is still good. Being that I have no children of my own makes it hard for me to identify with some on this board (I do have nieces and nephews). What I do have in common with those folks is the length with which I would go to protect innocent life. That would be sacrificing my own life for a child, any child. Race, religion, background, etc. doesn't matter. Furthermore, I find it a tad distasteful for the political machine to capitalize on tragedy. I become angry and driven to prove their bases to be a fraud rather than just accepting the agenda they dictate. Perhaps my approach needs to be tweaked, but my motives are pure because I don't really have an agenda, but instead just a strong desire for the truth.

Worst case of psychological projection I have ever seen.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixurN0e5oo4

By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, it is ordered as follows:
SECTION 1. Executive Order No. 10289 of September 19, 1951, as amended, is hereby further amended --
(a) By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following subparagraph (j):
"(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph ( B)/> of section 43 of the Act of May 12, 1933, as amended (31 U.S.C. 821 ( B)/>), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denominations of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption," and
( B)/> By revoking subparagraphs ( B)/> and © of paragraph 2 thereof.
SEC. 2. The amendment made by this Order shall not affect any act done, or any right accruing or accrued or any suit or proceeding had or commenced in any civil or criminal cause prior to the date of this Order but all such liabilities shall continue and may be enforced as if said amendments had not been made.
JOHN F. KENNEDY
THE WHITE HOUSE,
June 4, 1963
[APP Note: Executive Order 10289 referred to in this order was in fact issued on September 17, 1951. However the original published version of EO 11110 referred to September 19, 1951. APP practice is to try to reproduce the original published document even if it includes typos.]
Citation: John F. Kennedy: "Executive Order 11110 - Amendment of Executive Order No. 10289 as Amended, Relating to the Performance of Certain Functions Affecting the Department of the Treasury," June 4, 1963. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidenc.../ws/?pid=59049.

[AUDub 11,204]

I see, so NPR was in on the consipracy and they are so inept at participating in these helicopter landings that they gave the "offical" report they are supposed to be participating in early. Uh huh.

At the very least, you provide good humor.

Nice try.

You can believe whatever you want as long as you don't disparage the departed. But know this, the evidence you can provide is anecdotal at best, and logically flawed at worst. It will never hold water against rational thought in a proper debate. You're cherry picking, displaying extreme confirmation bias, and most importantly, flat wrong, for the most part. An agenda for the truth is about more than questioning the official story. It's about forming and presenting a rational opinion of your own, then willingly compromising by making it flexible if better evidence comes to light. You haven't done so, nor have you displayed a willingness to do so. You outright reject anything that doesn't fit your preconceived notions, and blindly accept anything that does, whether it's wrong or not (i.e. your YouTube link and "bombshell"). You never questioned it before you tried to use it, and got torched as a result. You'll have to realize that you're on the fringe. The truth is much closer to the middle.

Have a nice day.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

You can believe whatever you want as long as you don't disparage the departed. But know this, the evidence you can provide is anecdotal at best, and logically flawed at worst. It will never hold water against rational thought in a proper debate. You're cherry picking, displaying extreme confirmation bias, and most importantly, flat wrong, for the most part. An agenda for the truth is about more than questioning the official story. It's about forming and presenting a rational opinion of your own, then willingly compromising by making it flexible if better evidence comes to light. You haven't done so, nor have you displayed a willingness to do so. You outright reject anything that doesn't fit your preconceived notions, and blindly accept anything that does, whether it's wrong or not (i.e. your YouTube link and "bombshell"). You never questioned it before you tried to use it, and got torched as a result. You'll have to realize that you're on the fringe. The truth is much closer to the middle.

Have a nice day.

Nice try. The truth is the truth, it takes no sides or middle. It is what it is.

[autigeremt 6,778]

Curious.....

do you guys (telling tiger, alex, homer, etc.) think there's no way the government would ever pull the wool over our eyes in an attempt to push a certain point of view or agenda?

Well, let me give you a taste of where I stand on this from personal experience. There were instances during my active duty days in the Army where events took place overseas and here at home where a filter had to be implemented between the on-the-ground facts (as personally witnessed) and the reporting in the news. I've seen it many times. Now, I do understand how the military can squirrel a message, if you were, but I have also witnessed events here as a civilian in public safety where the same thing happened in a way to exploit a local news agenda.

Basically, I no longer see a press that is fair. I see one that is in the tank for their particular agenda and beliefs. Most Americans don't have the time or the willingness to filter through the crap to get to the truth. As long as our media acts like they do, there's no way I can every give them a benefit of the doubt.

At the end of the day, and back to the message at hand, gun violence won't stop with a ban on "assault" weapons. Why continue to split the nation over a tragedy when more important matters should be addressed? Leadership isn't in the DNA of this administration. It's divide and concur.

[AUDub 11,204]

You can believe whatever you want as long as you don't disparage the departed. But know this, the evidence you can provide is anecdotal at best, and logically flawed at worst. It will never hold water against rational thought in a proper debate. You're cherry picking, displaying extreme confirmation bias, and most importantly, flat wrong, for the most part. An agenda for the truth is about more than questioning the official story. It's about forming and presenting a rational opinion of your own, then willingly compromising by making it flexible if better evidence comes to light. You haven't done so, nor have you displayed a willingness to do so. You outright reject anything that doesn't fit your preconceived notions, and blindly accept anything that does, whether it's wrong or not (i.e. your YouTube link and "bombshell"). You never questioned it before you tried to use it, and got torched as a result. You'll have to realize that you're on the fringe. The truth is much closer to the middle.

Have a nice day.

Nice try. The truth is the truth, it takes no sides or middle. It is what it is.

Indeed, the truth is indeed not relative. But no one can claim to be the sole arbiter of the truth. It's not necessarily empirical. All we have are our opinions and our ability to measure them against one another. This is how we find the truth. You're not a presenting an agenda of truth until you judge ALL of the angles on their own merits, not just Alex Jones and Joyce whatever-the-hell-her-name-is. I need sound reasoning to influence my opinion. I'm sorry you're incapable of providing it. Once again, have a nice day.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Indeed, the truth is indeed not relative. But no one can claim to be the sole arbiter of the truth. It's not necessarily empirical. All we have are our opinions and our ability to measure them against one another. This is how we find the truth. You're not a presenting an agenda of truth until you judge ALL of the angles on their own merits, not just Alex Jones and Joyce whatever-the-hell-her-name-is. I need sound reasoning to influence my opinion. I'm sorry you're incapable of providing it. Once again, have a nice day.

You have a nice day too. WDE!

John Loftus weighs in.

http://debunkingchri...sandy-hook.html

Win $700 in ammo. I entered.

http://www.nagr.org/ammogiveaway.aspx?pid=fb18

[telling tiger 156]

I have never at any time or at any place in this forum or any other said or suggested that I do not believe the government is incapable of "pulling the wool" over the populations eyes. Alabama state history tells you the federal government will even go as far as to experiment on the population without consent or knowledge. Ask anyone who was left infected with veneral diseases in a town very close to Auburn.

Multiple planeloads of billions and billions of dollars just walked away in Irag under the guise of paying for loyalty, info or support.

Because I reject the insane claims of some internet dwellers does not mean I am blind to abuses. This forum used to have a defiant left wing loon ( I can't remember his screen name and don't really care) who was either banned or left. He was the one who cut and pasted all the cool little signs from every available site. sigh.............I routinely debated his hilarious claims as well. This users political POV is irrelevant to me, again I just do not care, he'll change nothing I think or know. He can't, a conspiracy is ignorant in this case. . We do not agree, but do not make assumptions about allegiance.

[homersapien 11,513]

Curious.....

do you guys (telling tiger, alex, homer, etc.) think there's no way the government would ever pull the wool over our eyes in an attempt to push a certain point of view or agenda?....

I think "the government" (or more accurately, any given bureaucracy, private or public) is perfectly capable of "pulling the wool over our eyes" in an attempt to push a view or (more commonly) to cover their ass.

But in most cases, certainly the most successful ones, said bureaucracy more or less controls access to any information to the contrary.

I do not believe in cover-ups of events that involve many different people from many different organizations in complex events. To think that such a cover-up could be sustained is ludicrous IMO.

[AUDub 11,204]

You have a nice day too. WDE!

John Loftus weighs in.

http://debunkingchri...sandy-hook.html

A truly enlightened mind does not use such a tragedy to question the faith of others.

"Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes."

"Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”

-Abraham Lincoln

The Lord's purposes are His own, and not for me to question. We are beyond opinion at this point in the discussion. This is a matter of faith, and not debatable.

Sorry, we'll pick it back up later. Gotta get back to work.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

It's not that I'm questioning faith. I just prefer John Loftus as a source.

[alexava 6,973]

Curious.....

do you guys (telling tiger, alex, homer, etc.) think there's no way the government would ever pull the wool over our eyes in an attempt to push a certain point of view or agenda?....

I think "the government" (or more accurately, any given bureaucracy, private or public) is perfectly capable of "pulling the wool over our eyes" in an attempt to push a view or (more commonly) to cover their ass.

But in most cases, certainly the most successful ones, said bureaucracy more or less controls access to any information to the contrary.

I do not believe in cover-ups of events that involve many different people from many different organizations in complex events. To think that such a cover-up could be sustained is ludicrous IMO.

this^^^^ we have a real american town with real police, fire, medical, school admin. All in on a hoax not to mention 26 families of paid actors all all legitimate news medias that all are pulling wool over us liberal gun haters eyes! I got it.

[autigeremt 6,778]

Curious.....

do you guys (telling tiger, alex, homer, etc.) think there's no way the government would ever pull the wool over our eyes in an attempt to push a certain point of view or agenda?....

I think "the government" (or more accurately, any given bureaucracy, private or public) is perfectly capable of "pulling the wool over our eyes" in an attempt to push a view or (more commonly) to cover their ass.

But in most cases, certainly the most successful ones, said bureaucracy more or less controls access to any information to the contrary.

I do not believe in cover-ups of events that involve many different people from many different organizations in complex events. To think that such a cover-up could be sustained is ludicrous IMO.

I used to think the same thing. I question it with recent events like what happened in Libya. I don't trust the current MSM, and I don't have full faith in the current government. Both parties.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Now they are hitting a Dallas area college campus. Gotta influence those second amendment folks in Texas because they are resisting.

http://www2.wkrg.com...rts-ar-5421528/

You wanna talk about an agenda? The UN has an agenda that raises the hair on the back of my neck. I'm glad the Alabama legislature resisted their agenda.

[telling tiger 156]

If you weren't so sad, you would be hilarious.

"Now they are hitting a college campus in Dallas".

Ridiculous. I'm not surprised. Bless your heart.

BTW, not to inject actual fact or anything, it is in Houston.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

LOL. They said the same things about here before and I was correct. That's ok.

[telling tiger 156]

Prove your statement and you can't. Nothing except pure conjecture to promote your agenda.

Bless your heart.

[AUDub 11,204]

It's not that I'm questioning faith. I just prefer John Loftus as a source.

I'll never know how I reached that conclusion when you link a site called debunking Christianity.

LOL. They said the same things about here before and I was correct. That's ok.

Extraordinary claim. Present you're evidence. I'm sure it's astonishing.