Not that I'm paranoid or anything but uh.......

[ralis]

"the conspiracy theorist's"

I reckon I said this already, but calling the people asking questions about stuff 'conspiracy theorists' isn't IMO a helpful approach. It's like saying 'Why are you asking questions, you crazy person?' Is your message that questioning things is crazy? Or that looking at alternatives to the mainstream reporting is crazy? Something else?

 

 

Discussing this ad infinitum without substantive evidence except what the website in question wants others to see has not been questioned. So far this is nothing more than gossip.

Edited January 12, 2013 by ralis

[Flolfolil]

Well, what you don't know is that the so called "conspiracy theorists" have been posting plenty of proof, but the taobums moderators are covering it up because they are in cahoots with the US government

 

If you look at the sites banner you can find about 7 or 8 illuminati eye pyramids

[Birch]

Discussing this ad infinitum without substantive evidence except what the website in question wants others to see has not been questioned. So far this is nothing more than gossip.

 

I did ask you a direct question about calling people 'conspiracy theorists'. Will you answer it? Seems to me the topic has shifted slightly into a more general discussion about conformity etc - which is IMO/IME bang on topic for a cultivation forum.

[ralis]

To put it more succinctly, humans are emotionally gullible and can be sold lies. History is replete with lies that were sold as absolute truth.

 

There are some that believe the holocaust didn't happen and is nothing more than a Jewish conspiracy. The evidence is overwhelming as to the truth of the holocaust against the Jews.

[ralis]

I did ask you a direct question about calling people 'conspiracy theorists'. Will you answer it? Seems to me the topic has shifted slightly into a more general discussion about conformity etc - which is IMO/IME bang on topic for a cultivation forum.

 

You would deny this is a conspiracy when there is no evidence to the contrary except for one website that is possibly photo shopped? If persons debating here, want to conform to certain ideologies, then that is their business. However, I feel that questioning that conformity is well within the bounds of questioning what I view as absurd. Furthermore, when examining the historical documents on conspiracies, most don't work. Humans are flawed creatures and have great difficulty keeping secrets.

 

Have you studied game theory? The prisoner's dilemma is classic example.

[Birch]

To put it more succinctly, humans are emotionally gullible and can be sold lies. History is replete with lies that were sold as absolute truth.

 

There are some that believe the holocaust didn't happen and is nothing more than a Jewish conspiracy. The evidence is overwhelming as to the truth of the holocaust against the Jews.

So the message to the people you're calling 'conspiracy theorists' is that they are 'emotionally gullible and can be sold lies'?

 

I'd tend to agree with that, being quite emotionally gullible myself. It's true that I don't like being lied to (makes me emotional) except when I can believe something is well-meaning after all, perhaps, I'm a real gullible mess for 'well-meaning' and 'in your best interest'.

[Birch]

You would deny this is a conspiracy when there is no evidence to the contrary except for one website that is possibly photo shopped? If persons debating here, want to conform to certain ideologies, then that is their business. However, I feel that questioning that conformity is well within the bounds of questioning what I view as absurd. Furthermore, when examining the historical documents on conspiracies, most don't work. Humans are flawed creatures and have great difficulty keeping secrets.

 

Have you studied game theory? The prisoner's dilemma is classic example.

I asked you a direct question about the message you wished to deliver via your 'conspiracy theorist' remark. I'm not affirming or denying anything, just asking a direct question. I can sort of see an answer to it in there somewhere and I gave you a very generous benefit of the doubt' out on the answer above, but that's a bit of a bad habit of mine (and very dishonest to do so) so I'd rather you clarify what you meant to communicate by the term 'conspiracy theorists'.

[Aetherous]

no evidence to the contrary except for one website

 

Do you really think the only evidence for a Sandy Hook conspiracy is on the website in the OP of this thread????

 

Apparently you've not been paying much attention. I've been gathering quite a bit of evidence in the Obomber thread. But you don't want to see that.

 

Or you can do a google search, and find piles of evidence. But all of those people are irrational, so maybe you don't want to look and learn something.

[Taomeow]

How does that fit in with this particular topic? Are the conspiracy theorist's the cowards or the one who challenges the theory in question?

a] How it relates to the topic:

 

The topic is, do we believe the official story? A few people suggested that we shouldn't because the ulterior motive for staging an event that would conveniently cause the population to "demand" that the government takes away everybody's guns may be that those whose objective is taking away everybody's guns might stage such events toward this goal. A few others suggested that we should, because it is impossible for the government to take away everybody's guns, so no one would stage an event toward a goal that is deemed unreachable even if someone wishes to reach it. I disagreed with both lines of reasoning. Instead I proposed that a staged event toward gaining certain objectives (false flag) is usually, if we consider many historic contexts, multi-purpose, and therefore the presence or absence of one discernible purpose or goal or objective is not a decisive factor in determining whether the event should be suspect and probed as to a possibility of it having been staged. Instead, one must look at whether things as presented make sense or don't, raise questions or don't, look suspicious or don't, and so on, while suspending judgement, in the absence of knowledge and proof, of any possible objectives of whoever may be behind anything that doesn't make sense, raises questions, or looks suspicious.

 

b]"Are the conspiracy theorists the cowards or the ones who challenge the theory in question?"

 

Don't quite get your juxtaposition. The ones who challenge the theory in question are the ones you et al call "conspiracy theorists." You must have meant "conspiracy theorists or cowardly conformists," which is closer to the definitions I proposed, except I believe "conspiracy theorists" is an implanted newspeak slur to be used by cowardly conformists to label everyone who looks for answers beyond the syndicated media's answers.

 

I lived under a totalitarian system that was explicitly rather than covertly totalitarian, and no one used the term "conspiracy theorists" to refer to people who questioned the official presentations. They were referred to, alternatively (depending on the historic period), as "counterrevolutionaries" and jailed or executed, "enemies of the people" and jailed or executed, "rootless cosmopolitans" and jailed or executed, "agents of the international capitalism" and jailed or executed, "anti-soviet machinators" and jailed or executed, and finally "dissidents" who got global attention and recognition as the only people who had a clue, and glorified as heroes, some of them. I've been around the block a bit, so has my family... Cowardly conformists did not escape any of the totalitarian crackdowns with their hides intact. They were suspect precisely because they were without a moral axis, without a spine... and as a result, in the eyes of the powerful, not trustworthy despite their lackeying. So they went down with the heroes too! Slapped with the very labels they so loved to apply to others (occasionally causing the death of those others) and processed by the same machine, screaming their patriotic slogans and complete servitude and total agreement with the party line!!

 

So, is it prudent to be a yeah-sayer to everything any current power structure prompts you to say yeah to?.. No, it is not. Is questioning stuff safe? No, it's not. Is not questioning it safe? No, it's not. I think one must look beyond the current convenient safety where one can easily misjudge (as history teaches) what is safe, and concentrate on the safety of one's soul -- from decay, cowardice, complacent "none of my business" stances, much less from smearing others who are trying hard to keep their souls in a shape that allows them to live with themselves, the seekers of inner conflicts resolutions... I don't believe in "coincidence theories" and don't trust "coincidence theorists," so when things don't make sense, my way to inner conflict resolution is to question them. And you tend to label people who question things that don't make sense to them something or other -- "conspiracy theorists who have too much time on their hands," e.g. -- which seems, to you, to be the answer to any and all questions, past present and future. Well, congratulations. Not everyone can get by on this little effort when looking for to save her soul from eternal damnation. (I don't mean it in the biblical sense, obviously, but I know for a fact there IS such a thing.) I for one can't...

[Aaron]

Do you really think the only evidence for a Sandy Hook conspiracy is on the website in the OP of this thread????

 

Apparently you've not been paying much attention. I've been gathering quite a bit of evidence in the Obomber thread. But you don't want to see that.

 

Or you can do a google search, and find piles of evidence. But all of those people are irrational, so maybe you don't want to look and learn something.

 

If you want to see something, you'll see it. Anyone who knows me, knows I'm not a conformist, nor am I a coward. I just see this as a horrible way to press an agenda. Creating a conspiracy based around the deaths of innocent children is abhorrent! It's essentially trivializing their suffering to push your own agenda, whether that be anti-gun control, anti-government ranting, or just plain crazy talk.

 

The problem with people who believe conspiracy theories is that they already believe, all they need is a little "evidence" to support their claims. The fact that nothing can be proven just spices the pot, because then it's a cover up. The average conspiracy theorists follow certain psychological pathology. They are often isolated from society, socially maladjusted, feel threatened by authority, and lack success in their own life (i.e. never succeed at a career, develop lasting relationships,etc.) They develop conspiracies as a way to rationalize their own failings and also create a role for themselves that makes them important (they see through it all, while the conformists, sheeple, etc. don't). Or they say it's the shadow government that's set up the world in such a way that they can't succeed for example.

 

If you want to continue this tripe, feel free, but remember every untruth you spread is like spitting on the graves of the victims at Sandy Hook. If you don't have actual factual evidence that can be supported and backed up, then I would suggest to anyone who's jumping on this bandwagon to shut the f*#@ up til you do.

 

Aaron

 

edit- With that said, you're free to say whatever you want, but in the same way I'm free to call this stuff nonsense and abhorrent.

Edited January 12, 2013 by Aaron

[Aetherous]

If you want to see something, you'll see it.

 

Or if evidence (which differs from proof) is clearly there, you can consider it. That's always intelligent, right?

 

I think that the ones that aren't capable of considering evidence, are the ones who are 'seeing only what they want to see'. They see anyone questioning and doing actual investigation or collection of evidence as "conspiracy theorists"; and of course all conspiracies are "wrong", right?

 

I didn't come to the evidence with the thought that this was an 'operation' in the first place...I thought the news reports were true for the first day or two...I have only partly come to the conspiracy conclusion based upon the piles of evidence I sifted through for a few weeks straight.

 

So what you're saying doesn't apply to me, and I don't think it applies to anyone else here. We are not as dumb as you think.

 

I just see this as a horrible way to press an agenda.

 

What agenda does anyone (who is questioning this) have here? We've all been taobums for quite a while, just hanging out. No one here came to the forum with some "anti-anti-gun" agenda, or whatever else. We just react as human beings with our own experiences behind us.

 

The ones with the agenda, were the politicians calling for gun control the day of...and even in the days or weeks prior to.

 

Duh.

 

Even if they weren't directly involved in the operation (if there was one), they clearly used this tragedy as a political opportunity.

 

Creating a conspiracy based around the deaths of innocent children is abhorrent! It's essentially trivializing their suffering to push your own agenda, whether that be anti-gun control, anti-government ranting, or just plain crazy talk.

 

Letting children be slaughtered while watching conflicting and bogus news reports, while doing no investigation or critical thinking of your own, is what's abhorrent in my eyes. Fully accepting the story (which has huge holes in it, and has changed multiple times, and doesn't explain most of what we're questioning) is as well. It is the definition of complacency.

 

Those who question, think, research, allow for open discussion...are the ones who are seeking JUSTICE in this matter. The ones who wish to do whatever they can to PREVENT this kind of thing from happening again. That is action born out of concern.

 

How about a non-questioning, non-thinking, non-researching, person who attempts to silence others with insults and accusations...what are they seeking, in their actions? Is there even any concern behind that lack of action?

 

I guess a lot of people just feel that trying to unravel a mystery that deals with slain children, is off limits? I don't blame you for feeling that way. The whole thing is disturbing. You might want to further shut down your awareness, though, and exit this thread...because we all react to disturbing things in different ways. As I told someone else in another thread...personally, if there is a fire, I run toward it to put it out. I don't run away or close my eyes, or start calling fire fighters stupid.

 

Being insulting to those who wish to actually do something about the very real problems in the world, is not going to change their course. They are driven by something much more real than apathy.

 

It's fine to blindly believe that there's no conspiracy here. But don't attempt to say that others are disgusting, when they're simply doing what they feel is best for the situation. NONE OF US are spitting on the graves of these kids, by attempting to restore justice in what appears to be a very unjust situation...what a crazy thing for you to say about your fellow bums. I'll just take that as a pathetic attempt to shut people up.

 

The average conspiracy theorists follow certain psychological pathology. They are often isolated from society, socially maladjusted, feel threatened by authority, and lack success in their own life (i.e. never succeed at a career, develop lasting relationships,etc.) They develop conspiracies as a way to rationalize their own failings and also create a role for themselves that makes them important (they see through it all, while the conformists, sheeple, etc. don't). Or they say it's the shadow government that's set up the world in such a way that they can't succeed for example.

 

Well, absolutely none of that pseudo-psychology applies to me. Not a single thing. And it seems the other forum members here who are capable of keeping an open mind, are some of the more well adjusted ones...

 

How does your character fit in with the above description, Aaron?

 

If you don't have actual factual evidence that can be supported and backed up, then I would suggest to anyone who's jumping on this bandwagon to shut the f*#@ up til you do.

 

I have a lot of factual evidence, and even more exists in other places online. What I don't have is definitive proof. There isn't a conclusion to this story. Just more gathering of evidence...at least for me. Any stories you see which connect the dots, which aren't dots of their own, are only attempts to make sense of the evidence...and would only be definitive if this thing goes to court.

 

edit- With that said, you're free to say whatever you want, but in the same way I'm free to call this stuff nonsense and abhorrent.

 

True, and that's fine...but you and others are not free to insult your fellow bums, since that is against forum rules (up to the mods if they enforce it of course). While I'm insulted by what you said, as well as your actions and beliefs...I don't think you actually made a direct insult, so good work.

 

...

 

At this point, I will not respond to any more personal stuff...and will attempt to just stick to facts about any evidence regarding this.

Edited January 12, 2013 by turtle shell

[Vmarco]

Bullshit. Myself and a few others here are very open minded to this "irrational" "absurd" "nonsense". Apparently we are not thinking critically like you are.

 

I hope you are suspended for a bit, so that actual discussions can continue unhindered, without a bunch of little outbursts and insults flying around.

 

Please define "open minded." Some would say being open or receptive to new ideas, arguments, theories, facts the challenge belief, etc. For example, many Christians profess having an open mind, however, if a Christian was ever open or receptive to new ideas, arguments, theories, facts that challenge belief, etc., they would no longer be Christians. Same with Tea Party people,....not an open mind among them.

 

There are conspiracies,...and so-called conspiracy theories. The book ACIM I mentioned in my last post above is a conspiracy,...a very Buddhist book, written for a christian theists, with an underlyng message that there is no god.

 

A theory on the other hand, is a coherent proposition to explain something. Who could argue against, that most conspiracy theories are not even proper theories? I have to concur with Ralis,..."conspiracy theories" usually arise from the weak-minded, not open-minded,...although instead of weak-mind, it might be kinder to say an earnestless mind.

 

Buddhda's last words are said to be about earnestness. "And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

 

"Handa dani bhikkhave amantayami vo: Vayadhamma sankhara appamadena sampadetha."However, to "strive with earnestness" does not necessarily point to the essence of appamada, but more to an ego concept. Appamada is synonymous with the Mind at the threshold of the gates of the Six Senses,...that is, our Unborn Consciousness or unindoctrinated Awareness,..not the sense organ of thinking. Appamada is primarily yin or feminine in nature, and as such can only be fully recognized through Heart-Mind. Pamada on the hand, is yang or masculine, and associated with form. Appamada means not pamada. Appamada is difficult to understand by way of the 6 senses.

But what is appamada? In the Shurangama sutra Buddha said, "From beginningless time until now, all living beings have mistaken themselves for things and, having lost the original mind, are turned around by things." This is a clue to appamada; the Mind at the threshold of the gates of the Six Senses,...that is, our Unborn Awareness. Thus, when considered along with pamada, appamada, is pointing to a primal feminine aspect of nature that can only be recognized through Heart-Mind, which is beyond the 6 senses. Pamada is the masculine, or form (skandhas) based mind.

[ralis]

a] How it relates to the topic:

Don't quite get your juxtaposition. The ones who challenge the theory in question are the ones you et al call "conspiracy theorists." You must have meant "conspiracy theorists or cowardly conformists," which is closer to the definitions I proposed, except I believe "conspiracy theorists" is an implanted newspeak slur to be used by cowardly conformists to label everyone who looks for answers beyond the syndicated media's answers.

 

 

If I understood you correctly, anyone who questions flimsy evidence based on hearsay, conjecture and innuendo is a cowardly conformist? No evidence presented here would hold up in a court of law. Furthermore, the ones engaging in this tirade are giving way too much credit to the perpetrators of this drama. There are many that believe anything stated on the internet is absolutely true.

 

In terms of your reference to Orwell, I studied 1984 when I was 13 years old after the original British made movie was released in, I believe 1963. I am well versed in how propaganda is used to manipulate.

Edited January 12, 2013 by ralis

[chi 2012]

Conspiracy theories are no different than Bigfoot and UFO's. Personally I try not to believe in them or disbelieve in them. This frees my energy to be open to all possibilities. If I focus all my energy on Bigfoot's and UFO's I might be able to manifest one - but will the Bigfoot or UFO really be real - or the just the result of a really wild imagination?

 

[Taomeow]

If I understood you correctly, anyone who questions flimsy evidence based on hearsay, conjecture and innuendo is a cowardly conformist?

 

No. Anyone who has lived long enough and seen things and refused to integrate them, and consequently never suspects there's stuff up the overlords' sleeve is.

 

No, actually, not "anyone." In fact, it's conscious choice for only some, and an unconscious default mode of processing information for most. With ongoing overwhelming brainwashing from crib to grave, most don't "refuse to integrate," they are merely physically unable to. Their mind is split into a thousand compartmentalized pieces that don't communicate with each other. They think in sound bites, and the latest sound bite is taken for face value because they haven't established the neural pathways that might connect it to a thousand related ones and result in integration.

 

People who have these pathways due to a lifelong immunity to brainwashing (however acquired) don't draw conclusions based on "flimsy evidence" -- they draw conclusions based on established skills of pattern recognition. They recognize informational patterns as automatically and as easily as you recognize the smell of coffee and can tell it apart from a punch in the nose.

 

People with no pattern recognition neuro-cognitive machinery are usually outraged when they encounter those who assert they see informational patterns they themselves don't see. That's why I wrote in my initial entry on the subject that it is hopeless. It's like this test -- if, like a percentage of the population, you can't tell green from red, you can't see what's in the picture.

 

No amount of green and red evidence will get someone who is physiologically not equipped to discern them to see this picture. Whereas someone who has the ability just sees it... based on the evidence of competent perceptions.

 

Alas, for purposes of information perceptions processing, the percentages are reversed -- very few people are NOT color blind to socio-political patterns, especially the hidden ones (like that "eight" is hidden... no wait, nothing can be hidden, if you don't see something and someone does, he or she is a conspiracy theorist who believes in the unthinkable, to wit, that certain things can be hidden by the overlords?.. But it IS hidden from those who can't tell red from green, it really is... Hidden in plain sight. But not from everyone!)

[Apech]

A couple of interesting things from this discussion I think.

 

Why is it so compelling for many people to follow conspiracy theories? Because there is a general sense in people that they are being lied to and manipulated AND a fundamental feeling that 'things are not as they seem' - which is probably based on the truth that our senses are 'liars' in that like Descartes we should doubt what they tell us about reality.

 

So starting with this general sense and feeling as soon as someone presents 'evidence' or questions about 'what is really going on' people latch on to it. I am not saying this is bad or good in itself but just a source of energy which drives the whole conspiracy theory thing.

 

Investigative journalism, asking the right questions, looking into anomalies in the official story .... these are not conspiracy theory this is what the journalist should be doing to inform its readership. Many wrongs have been righted in this way.

 

On top of this we have the whole US 'right to bear arms' issue ... which as I have found out is highly emotive. It seems to me that people on both sides of this argument are willing to play the emotion card as a driving force instead of rational analysis. So the first issue of personal safety and measures to prevent killings/shootings is mixed together with the political view that bearing arms has something to do with personal freedoms and the anti big government agenda. The idea that you, an individual armed with a rifle is holding back the tide of governmental interference in your life. This doesn't seem to be very realistic so I would suggest it is more of a psychological freedom, a mind-set that is being protected. While the government is prepared to use tragic events to push the alternate agenda... instead of waiting for the dust to settle ... and possibly colluding with the media to do this.

 

All this seems to add up to ... well nothing ... because you have shooting after shooting and nothing seems to change ... and the obvious outrage at hearing about innocents mown down by bullets sickens everyone.

[Vmarco]

Conspiracy theories are no different than Bigfoot and UFO's. Personally I try not to believe in them or disbelieve in them. This frees my energy to be open to all possibilities. If I focus all my energy on Bigfoot's and UFO's I might be able to manifest one - but will the Bigfoot or UFO really be real - or the just the result of a really wild imagination?

 

 

Yes,....an intention, and attention, towards being open to all possibilities is an admirable path.

 

Jim Walker, in "The Problems with Beliefs," mentions: Aristotle believed in a prime mover, a god that moves the sun and moon and objects through space, and that with such a belief, one cannot possibly understand the laws of gravitation or inertia. Isaac Newton saw through that and developed a workable gravitational theory; however, his belief in absolute time prevented him from formulating a theory of relativity. Einstein, however, saw through that and thought in terms of relative time. Therefore, he formulated his famous theory of general relativity, yet his own beliefs could not accept pure randomness in subatomic physics and thus barred him from understanding the consequences of quantum mechanics.

[Vmarco]

A couple of interesting things from this discussion I think.

 

Why is it so compelling for many people to follow conspiracy theories? Because there is a general sense in people that they are being lied to and manipulated AND a fundamental feeling that 'things are not as they seem' - which is probably based on the truth that our senses are 'liars' in that like Descartes we should doubt what they tell us about reality.

 

 

"All that I have tried to understand to the present time has been affected by my senses; now I know these senses are deceivers, and it is prudent to be distrustful after one has been deceived once." René Descartes

[joeblast]

so is it a coincidence that the three of you who seem to love leftist political points of view are pretty much the only three around here saying it is preposterous to question the official story on this...oh, but wait, you can ask questions,...but hey, cant follow any of those crazy conspiracy theories...

 

like I said, we've been presented with an "official" story that clearly contains fabricated elements, it prompts one to question when one sees "a glitch in the matrix," as it were.........."did my eyes deceive me, or was I just bullshitted?"

 

my bullshit meter has throughout my life woken me from any dream that didnt add up. it is the nature of it to question an inconsistent story.

[Flolfolil]

Conspiracy theories are no different than Bigfoot and UFO's. Personally I try not to believe in them or disbelieve in them. This frees my energy to be open to all possibilities. If I focus all my energy on Bigfoot's and UFO's I might be able to manifest one - but will the Bigfoot or UFO really be real - or the just the result of a really wild imagination?

 

 

You know they said the same thing about the chupacabra, but they just found it. BOOYAH

[Aaron]

Or if evidence (which differs from proof) is clearly there, you can consider it. That's always intelligent, right?

 

I think that the ones that aren't capable of considering evidence, are the ones who are 'seeing only what they want to see'. They see anyone questioning and doing actual investigation or collection of evidence as "conspiracy theorists"; and of course all conspiracies are "wrong", right?

 

I didn't come to the evidence with the thought that this was an 'operation' in the first place...I thought the news reports were true for the first day or two...I have only partly come to the conspiracy conclusion based upon the piles of evidence I sifted through for a few weeks straight.

 

So what you're saying doesn't apply to me, and I don't think it applies to anyone else here. We are not as dumb as you think.

 

 

 

What agenda does anyone (who is questioning this) have here? We've all been taobums for quite a while, just hanging out. No one here came to the forum with some "anti-anti-gun" agenda, or whatever else. We just react as human beings with our own experiences behind us.

 

The ones with the agenda, were the politicians calling for gun control the day of...and even in the days or weeks prior to.

 

Duh.

 

Even if they weren't directly involved in the operation (if there was one), they clearly used this tragedy as a political opportunity.

 

 

 

Letting children be slaughtered while watching conflicting and bogus news reports, while doing no investigation or critical thinking of your own, is what's abhorrent in my eyes. Fully accepting the story (which has huge holes in it, and has changed multiple times, and doesn't explain most of what we're questioning) is as well. It is the definition of complacency.

 

Those who question, think, research, allow for open discussion...are the ones who are seeking JUSTICE in this matter. The ones who wish to do whatever they can to PREVENT this kind of thing from happening again. That is action born out of concern.

 

How about a non-questioning, non-thinking, non-researching, person who attempts to silence others with insults and accusations...what are they seeking, in their actions? Is there even any concern behind that lack of action?

 

I guess a lot of people just feel that trying to unravel a mystery that deals with slain children, is off limits? I don't blame you for feeling that way. The whole thing is disturbing. You might want to further shut down your awareness, though, and exit this thread...because we all react to disturbing things in different ways. As I told someone else in another thread...personally, if there is a fire, I run toward it to put it out. I don't run away or close my eyes, or start calling fire fighters stupid.

 

Being insulting to those who wish to actually do something about the very real problems in the world, is not going to change their course. They are driven by something much more real than apathy.

 

It's fine to blindly believe that there's no conspiracy here. But don't attempt to say that others are disgusting, when they're simply doing what they feel is best for the situation. NONE OF US are spitting on the graves of these kids, by attempting to restore justice in what appears to be a very unjust situation...what a crazy thing for you to say about your fellow bums. I'll just take that as a pathetic attempt to shut people up.

 

 

 

Well, absolutely none of that pseudo-psychology applies to me. Not a single thing. And it seems the other forum members here who are capable of keeping an open mind, are some of the more well adjusted ones...

 

How does your character fit in with the above description, Aaron?

 

 

 

I have a lot of factual evidence, and even more exists in other places online. What I don't have is definitive proof. There isn't a conclusion to this story. Just more gathering of evidence...at least for me. Any stories you see which connect the dots, which aren't dots of their own, are only attempts to make sense of the evidence...and would only be definitive if this thing goes to court.

 

 

 

True, and that's fine...but you and others are not free to insult your fellow bums, since that is against forum rules (up to the mods if they enforce it of course). While I'm insulted by what you said, as well as your actions and beliefs...I don't think you actually made a direct insult, so good work.

 

...

 

At this point, I will not respond to any more personal stuff...and will attempt to just stick to facts about any evidence regarding this.

 

I don't remember anyone making any personal comments, perhaps you're seeing something that isn't there?

 

Aaron

[Apech]

so is it a coincidence that the three of you who seem to love leftist political points of view are pretty much the only three around here saying it is preposterous to question the official story on this...oh, but wait, you can ask questions,...but hey, cant follow any of those crazy conspiracy theories...

 

like I said, we've been presented with an "official" story that clearly contains fabricated elements, it prompts one to question when one sees "a glitch in the matrix," as it were.........."did my eyes deceive me, or was I just bullshitted?"

 

my bullshit meter has throughout my life woken me from any dream that didnt add up. it is the nature of it to question an inconsistent story.

 

Am I one of those three ... I sincerely hope so.

 

“I bear the wounds of all the battles I avoided.”

― Fernando Pessoa

[Aaron]

so is it a coincidence that the three of you who seem to love leftist political points of view are pretty much the only three around here saying it is preposterous to question the official story on this...oh, but wait, you can ask questions,...but hey, cant follow any of those crazy conspiracy theories...

 

like I said, we've been presented with an "official" story that clearly contains fabricated elements, it prompts one to question when one sees "a glitch in the matrix," as it were.........."did my eyes deceive me, or was I just bullshitted?"

 

my bullshit meter has throughout my life woken me from any dream that didnt add up. it is the nature of it to question an inconsistent story.

 

I don't see anything in the official story that seems fabricated. Then again I'm not advocating that the 2nd amendment means we should all be able to own automatic weapons for self defense either. Perhaps the reason I don't see anything is because fear doesn't induce me too. I'm not afraid of losing anything, so I don't see anything to justify that fear.

 

Again, there is no PROOF, just circumstantial evidence that leads nowhere. Oh wait, but then that's because the government or whoever else you want to say is pulling the strings here, covered it up now, isn't it?

 

And by the way, who are the leftists here?

 

Aaron

 

edit- The second amendment was intended to insure that we didn't require a standing army, but rather we maintained a militia to provide security for the country (from tyrannical rulers outside the USA). The bill was directly related to the King of England's disarming of several prominent protestants deemed a threat to England. The irony is that they actually were a threat to England (as seen by the rebellion), so he was most likely justified in his attempt to restrict their "right to bear arms". Of course the notion of the right to bear arms is deeply entrenched in English sentiment, however the right was not so much to prevent a tyrannical government from taking power (since the king was the sovereign ruler according to God's will), but rather to protect one's property. In light of that, does it seem reasonable that we need assault rifles and handguns to do that? Most police recommend shotguns for personal safety. So with that said, most 2nd amendment advocates have no real idea as to the reason for or cause of the 2nd amendment. It's amazing it's taken this long for people to come to their senses.

Edited January 12, 2013 by Aaron

[joeblast]

Is it only the fear of loss that prompts one to guard his own gate?

[ralis]

so is it a coincidence that the three of you who seem to love leftist political points of view are pretty much the only three around here saying it is preposterous to question the official story on this...oh, but wait, you can ask questions,...but hey, cant follow any of those crazy conspiracy theories...

 

like I said, we've been presented with an "official" story that clearly contains fabricated elements, it prompts one to question when one sees "a glitch in the matrix," as it were.........."did my eyes deceive me, or was I just bullshitted?"

 

my bullshit meter has throughout my life woken me from any dream that didnt add up. it is the nature of it to question an inconsistent story.

 

My points having nothing to do with leftist politics as you are so quick to point out. I am questioning the aesthetics of such a presentation in regards to the link provided by the OP. Aesthetics in terms of how this drama has been presented. The site supposedly contains evidence of a conspiracy fabricated by a government agency. The alleged evidence is a series of Facebook pages that appear to be photo shopped. It is simply easy to deceive persons that so desperately want to believe by presenting graphic evidence. Moreover, just a simple story line would not suffice in this case. Allegations that are presented visually are of greater importance to the believer and are more likely to be seen as absolute truth.

 

What I have seen in this thread is herd behavior brought about by ungrounded fear. That is easily taken advantage of by authoritarians.

Edited January 12, 2013 by ralis