• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

A Political Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Jones Boy said:
I did ask you to examine the wider context instead of focussing on the minutiae.
Lets say LHO did it all on his own, with no assistance, and no collusion.
The authorities have taken it on themselves to state that they should have done more to keep him away from any chance of this opportunity.
Why do you think people are determined to get ALL of the papers that have deliberately been held back until key liars were dead and impossible to put on the stand?
Gosh, there's nothing like fake remorse to kick up a conspiracy.
Click to expand...

Focus on the wider context, not the minutiae? But I am saying if you get the minutiae wrong, it completely frames wider context incorrectly, which is what you have done.

Thousands of papers have been released; evidence freely available showing that LHO was the shooter and did it on his own - why don't you focus on those instead of focussing entirely on what they haven't released. It's just typical of sceptics and conspiracy theorists like you to say - the evidence was tampered with to fit in with the US Governments' desire to frame LHO, it was faked, they are not showing us everything; whilst offering nothing of substance in return. So your evidence for conspiracy and your scepticism is based entirely on what they are not showing us and you have not presented any concrete evidence and reasons why.


The Jones Boy said:
They said the same thing at Pearl Harbour.
They said the same thing about the Saudi's for 9/11.
They said the same thing about Martin Luther King, Malcolm X and Robert Kennedy.
They said the same thing about the Contra deal with Oliver North, he was acting alone yada yada
It's all just a very convenient coincidence isn't it.
How unfortunate that a key player in his inner circle should accidentally be shot and killed in a hunting trip, by Mr Dick Cheney.
Who has gained from every assassination or negative occurrence ? since Eisenhower warned about the power of the Military Industrial Complex?
The only entity that gained from it was the MIC. That is the corporations that make up the power block in the arms industry.
It's a case of, in the absence of any other evidence what ever you are left with, must be the truth.
Tobacco companies, Monsanto, Bauer et al spend exorbitant volumes of currency putting forward arguments and claims backed by 'facts' to camouflage the poison they peddle.
Where did they learn that from?
Lobby groups abound in this age.
Look at the recent blatant misbehaviour of Priti Patel with the FOI.
Who did Jack Ruby work for?
Wasn't it the same group that Olly North was 'inadvertently' assisting?
The CIA, are a black ops organisation.
Their prime directive seems to be to topple regimes that don't bend to the will of the MIC. Create instability and peddle lies to instil a puppet that will 'co-operate'. Failure to comply will give you a Grenada situation, a Libya, a Syria, a Ukraine, an Iraq and so forth.
The first thing I brought up about the papers was that they did indeed yield crucial information that you Blindside played down.
It showed Kennedy was not escalation of the military intervention in Vietnam and that his attitude to the Russians had softened. He didn't want war. He'd had enough during his own distinguished service on torpedo boats in the second world war. He wasn't keen on the fallout of conflict.
The Military Industrial Complex cannot survive without war. It cannot function without war. There is no profit margin in peace. That's why global terrorism is a great invention for them.
That is why the western press demonises countries like Iran. Yeah sure they are a bit weird and sometimes freaky, however, they have not attacked another country in the last 70 years.
Can we say that about the USA, Israel, The UK, France, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia etc
When you need to have a war as a cornerstone of productivity in your economy you need to have an element in your governmental structure that isn't locked into the governmental structure so that it can act in a maverick manner where needed to make sure that conflict (overseas) will occur. If not a direct intervention then at least to create a situation where one (if not both sides) can be supplied products from the MIC.
In the case of internal politics, anyone who looks like they might upset the agenda for the MIC will be ... removed.
Now whether that happens to be by 'letting' a loony loose with the means and access to do the job (that would be your position regarding LHO), or by orchestrating it all and covering it up, it doesn't matter, as long as the outcome is favourable for the MIC.
Click to expand...

All the above is just Gumf that you have written to create a smokescreen that you have nothing of substance to back up your claim in the case of JFK.
 
Am I the only one thinking that there's plenty of current politics to discuss without needing to delve back 50 years to something to talk about?
Maybe... a separate thread for JFK?
 
Which Tyler said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...495878-c293-11e7-afe9-4f60b5a6c4a0_story.html
So, Roy Moore, (Republican), is up for election in Alabama; and has been accused of sexual assault of a minor (14 years old) albeit 40-odd years ago.
Leigh Corfman told The Washington Post that Moore, then a 32-year-old assistant district attorney, took off her shirt and pants and removed his own clothes in one 1979 incident. He touched her through her bra and led her hands to touch him through his underwear, she said. She was 14 at the time.
Three other women who spoke to the Post ― for a deeply reported article that was published Thursday ― said Moore had "asked them on dates when they were between 16 and 18 and he was in his early 30s."


In his defence we have...
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...sault-alabama-gop_us_5a04c816e4b0e37d2f366dba
Alabama Bibb County Republican chairman Jerry Pow tells me he'd vote for Roy Moore even if Moore did commit a sex crime against a girl. "I would vote for Judge Moore because I wouldn't want to vote for Doug," he says. "I'm not saying I support what he did."
Yes - that's right, being a democrat really is worse than sexually assaulting a minor.

"He's clean as a hound's tooth," Alabama State Auditor Jim Ziegler "Also take Joseph and Mary. Mary was a teenager and Joseph was an adult carpenter. They became parents of Jesus. There's just nothing immoral or illegal here. Maybe just a little bit unusual."
Yes - that's right, sexually assaulting a minor isn't immoral or illegal; and if it was good enough for the Virgin Mary, then... wait, hang on a second... virgin?

Alabama state Rep. Ed Henry had this to say though: "If they believe this man is predatory, they are guilty of allowing him to exist for 40 years," he told The Cullman Times. "I think someone should prosecute and go after them. You can't be a victim 40 years later, in my opinion."
Yes - that's right, if you're abused as a child, and only come forward with this 40 years later, YOU are the one who should be prosecuted.
Click to expand...

Its always the god fearing, rabble rousing, homophobic nut jobs that turn out to be perverts. Its almost like they believe that the more they pray and sprout 2000 year old crap the less of a kiddy fiddling monster they are.
 
Roy Moore:
https://twitter.com/jbarro/status/930161596751663110; https://twitter.com/costareports/status/930167438527918081/photo/1
So... he never Beverly Young Nelson - had never even heard of her before... but he DID sign her school yearbook with "love"... and a date... and an address.
Oh, he was also banned from a mall back then - you'll never guess why (and yes, cops were involved, there should be a relatively easy paper-trail)
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news...eractions-with-teen-girls-at-the-gadsden-mall



Trump in shocking appointment shocker
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewi...id-not-tell-senate-white-house-lawyer-married


Oh, and then there's Trump Jr; not only talking to Russians he insisted he'd never talked to - but also to Wikileaks at the other end of all this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41980359
 
Last edited:
Roundup from the BBC
BBC said:
10:24
What we know so far

Here is a mid-morning round up of the key points from Zimbabwe, where the army has taken control overnight.

  • Maj Gen Sibusiso Moyo appeared on state television saying the army had taken control temporarily while they target "criminals around [President Robert Mugabe] who are committing crimes... that are causing social and economic suffering in the country"
  • The move came after Mr Mugabe sacked his deputy, Emmerson Mnangagwa, in favour of his wife, Grace
  • The Mugabes were safe, he added, as he emphasised this was "not a coup"
  • A number of arrests have been made, including Zanu-PF youth wing leader and Finance Minister Ignatius Chombo
  • There is calm in Harare, despite the presence of troops on the streets.
Click to expand...

Okay, so maybe not so much of a coup, as the military getting rid of people Mugabe doesn't like anymore...
 
The_Blindside said:
Focus on the wider context, not the minutiae? But I am saying if you get the minutiae wrong, it completely frames wider context incorrectly, which is what you have done.

Thousands of papers have been released; evidence freely available showing that LHO was the shooter and did it on his own - why don't you focus on those instead of focussing entirely on what they haven't released. It's just typical of sceptics and conspiracy theorists like you to say - the evidence was tampered with to fit in with the US Governments' desire to frame LHO, it was faked, they are not showing us everything; whilst offering nothing of substance in return. So your evidence for conspiracy and your scepticism is based entirely on what they are not showing us and you have not presented any concrete evidence and reasons why.

All the above is just Gumf that you have written to create a smokescreen that you have nothing of substance to back up your claim in the case of JFK.
Click to expand...


Where's your motive?
You've got no motive.
All your doing is swallowing the party line and showing a load of old rubbish.
If you don't examine the wider historical political context you get sucked into seeing the tree instead of a forest.
Bugliosi was adamant that Robert Kennedy's assassination was a conspiracy.
What do you have to say on that?
Nothing.
Your great hero took the golden handshake to produce exactly what the establishment wanted, but when the brother is assassinated by the same entity, oh well, that's a completely different situation.

Whatever...

Examining history is the only way you can put it into context.
You don't want to examine the historical context because your establishment based view of what happened doesn't fit the behaviour of the MIC brief.
Okay, maybe JFK was a one off, maybe.
I'm prepared to accept that it's a possibility.
But then I don't have a one eyed view of the tragic event. I'm open to examining all the options in the fortunate position of hindsight.
If there is no other option than the line you are putting forward Blindside...
Why has the material been hidden for so long?
Why was it hidden at all.
If there was nothing to hide why make it classified?
Why create a smokescreen if there's nothing to hide?
The room your depicting has more elephants in it than space to put them.
Had the assassination of JFK occurred in later times the cover up would have been so much harder to achieve.
I believe it would have had a similar outcome to Hillsborough.
The establishment actively worked to cover their tracks and obfuscate the vision of the greater public.
The second reason the truth came out sooner in a tragedy like Hillsborough is because the serious players had no connection to the event so Hillsborough is not going to be able to maintain the lock on information across generations.
There's no MIC providing the necessary funding to keep the material classified and to finance Hollywood players like Bugliosi to continue to create the 'McDonalds' version of events. Pre packaged in a glossy easy to open easy to swallow format.
Rinse and repeat.
 
Tallshort said:
Yeah read between the lines and its a coup or at least an attempt at one.
Click to expand...

I think there's a motorway between the lines in this case.
We are being told there is no military coup.
By a guy on TV dressed in a military uniform.
Hugh Dennis had a field day with this on the 'Now Show' on Radio 4.
The military elite do not want Robert Mugabe's wife to grab the reins of power.
In recent times it looks like he has been manoeuvring to put her into a role where she will inherit his position as the top dog.
That doesn't sit well with the military.
So they have both been removed from the picture.
This is in no uncertain terms, a coup.
 
The Jones Boy said:
Where's your motive?
You've got no motive.
All your doing is swallowing the party line and showing a load of old rubbish.
If you don't examine the wider historical political context you get sucked into seeing the tree instead of a forest.
Bugliosi was adamant that Robert Kennedy's assassination was a conspiracy.
What do you have to say on that?
Nothing.
Your great hero took the golden handshake to produce exactly what the establishment wanted, but when the brother is assassinated by the same entity, oh well, that's a completely different situation..

Whatever...
Click to expand...

Your posts tells me 2 things: You don't really know or understand what actually happened in Dealey Plaza that day and you've lost sight of the shooter in your thinking of conspiracy. You have lost sight of who Lee Harvey Oswald was ( his defection to the Soviet Union and when he tried to get citizenship and when refused he slashed his wrists, his attempted assassination of General Walker 6 months before he assassinated JFK, him wanting to hijack a plane with his then pregnant wife Marina, but she thought he was nuts and refused, all the other pieces of evidence (53 in total) - again you don't mention or try and refute any of the evidence or provide any of your own). You deliberately dodge the question or issue and yourself obfuscate the issue we are discussing - the assassination of JFK. You don't even provide exactly what your thesis is of who killed JFK other than it was LBJ - how did LBJ do this? Was it the CIA/FBI/Secret Service who planned the assassination on JFK; how did they do this?

RFK- and you say even Bugliosi says his assassination was conspiracy? I thought you said Bugliosi was a clown, who writes Jackie Collins or McDonald's type books . So in one post you dish him, then in above you rely on him as a supporter of your contention that JFK's brother's assassination was conspiracy as well, in addition this was also points to conspiracy in the JFK assassination. Make up your mind Jones Boy.

Your thesis that we should review the wider context to understand JFK's assassination is meaningless because you are merely joining the dots. These events are not all connected. You are just pointing to other events in history to support your contention of conspiracy in one event.
The Jones Boy said:
Examining history is the only way you can put it into context.
You don't want to examine the historical context because your establishment based view of what happened doesn't fit the behaviour of the MIC brief.
Okay, maybe JFK was a one off, maybe.
I'm prepared to accept that it's a possibility.
But then I don't have a one eyed view of the tragic event. I'm open to examining all the options in the fortunate position of hindsight.
If there is no other option than the line you are putting forward Blindside...
Why has the material been hidden for so long?
Why was it hidden at all.
If there was nothing to hide why make it classified?
Why create a smokescreen if there's nothing to hide?
The room your depicting has more elephants in it than space to put them.
Had the assassination of JFK occurred in later times the cover up would have been so much harder to achieve.
I believe it would have had a similar outcome to Hillsborough.
The establishment actively worked to cover their tracks and obfuscate the vision of the greater public.
The second reason the truth came out sooner in a tragedy like Hillsborough is because the serious players had no connection to the event so Hillsborough is not going to be able to maintain the lock on information across generations.
There's no MIC providing the necessary funding to keep the material classified and to finance Hollywood players like Bugliosi to continue to create the 'McDonalds' version of events. Pre packaged in a glossy easy to open easy to swallow format.
Rinse and repeat.
Click to expand...

But examining history and putting into context has to be based on truth/objective evidence, not a narrative that suits you and appeals to your beliefs.

I take each event as it stands on its merits - I don't start joining the dots like you do.

Why are they are not releasing all the what 5% of the classified documents - don't know maybe the sources they intelligence relied on are still alive and they still rely on them to this day and they want to protect them otherwise they would be useless. Again speculation. But we have more than enough evidence to show LHO was the shooter and did it on his own (the 5% not released is hardly going to provide any further insight into the assassination itself). But again you ignore the evidence we already have to suit your narrative of conspiracy.

You clearly haven't read Bugliosi's book so you are in no position to criticize his book as McDonald's version of events.

Hillsborough - come on Jones Boy that has absolutely nothing to do with JFK's murder. And yes I have read and got a copy of the Hillsborough report. Who is Obfuscating the issue now?

The biggest legacy/wider context of JFK's assassination: America still has a gun problem, which they refuse to this day to deal with (big surprise there). That Lee Harvey Oswald can buy a mail order rifle for $13 and a $7 telescopic scope to gun down the someone from a building (hmmm sounds familiar) is hardly surprising. It just so happened to be the most powerful man on at the time because he had the motive and the chance to do so. Didn't make JFK immune to the bullet, just like it doesn't make any other American gunned down today or in the past 54 years immune.
 
Good post, well structured, I like it, I gave you a thumbs up for that one.
I've just dashed home from work and I have to scurry off ( I haven't even got time to see the AB's or Eng vs Wallabies... Gutted) out so I don't have time to offer you more than a positive response, but when time allow, I'll come back to you.
 
Standard touch of class by the Sun in their editorial about Varadkar today.
 
The Sun should stick to ***s, hacking dead teenagers phones and playing up hysteria to their demented and dying (literally and figuratively) readership. Had a look for a laugh and even in the comments on their website no one is taking them seriously. It's just all about the clicks baby.
 
Groundhog said:
The Sun should stick to ***s, hacking dead teenagers phones and playing up hysteria to their demented and dying (literally and figuratively) readership. Had a look for a laugh and even in the comments on their website no one is taking them seriously. It's just all about the clicks baby.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, it's gas. So ridiculous that it's hard to be offended by it.

Still it's crazy that there are definitely people who do actually believe it.
 
Glad to see such a fuss being made out of this border and we're dead right to make it. If this Conservative Government doesn't care about 1.5m of their people and is happy to set a very complicated peace process back 30 years (Not that the Conservatives have ever given a **** about the North) we'll sure as hell fight for our people up there.
 


What did we lose?!

Would love to see Coveney explain a few things to them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Bada-Bing!
Antisocial, societal issues thread
7 8 9
Replies
162
Views
7K
pagliaccio_euforico
pagliaccio_euforico
Bada-Bing!
The Biking thread
3 4 5
Replies
81
Views
4K
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
The Ukraine War thread
26 27 28
Replies
553
Views
22K
McTallshort
McTallshort
N
A Political Thread pt. 2
856 857 858
Replies
17K
Views
641K
Which Tyler
Which Tyler
T
Is anyone using a club management system for their local club?
Replies
0
Views
844
Try-Hard Tackler
T

Latest posts

Top