1. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Who thinks this Post should be on the Conspiracy Thread..and Why?

Discussion in 'Polls' started by KeepOurFreedoms, Jul 31, 2007.

?

Should the Post listed be on the Conspiracy board?

  1. Yes

    8 vote(s)
    40.0%
  2. No

    12 vote(s)
    60.0%


  1. First of all Mr USMC, it was Marilynj55 who posted the original video, and "Titled" it 9-11 inside job. ??

    All that KOF did ,was come here to ask IF THIS POST should have been MOVED to the conspiracy section? Are you this incapable of following along?

    She didn't post it for any such reason, as you have obviously mistaken,and then accused her of.

    Secondly the above definition of conspiracy that i have Cited for you, is "DIRECTLY" from Merriam-Webster website?

    Being there aren't two people, or more conspiring in this situation, your "counter" definition, of a the "TERM" "Conspiracy Theory" is NULL, as the conspiracy part of that has not been able to be established.

    Fine mis-directive piece of work though,it will catch many who are, shall we say more naive than us off guard.


    The definition of conspiracy hasn't been met PERIOD end of story.......your "definition of the "TERM" conspiracy theory is NULL
     
  2. KeepOurFreedoms

    KeepOurFreedoms Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    You really are Mr. Goofy.
     
  3. TruthAboveAll

    TruthAboveAll Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2007
    Messages:
    615
    Likes Received:
    30
    Location:
    Further North than I'd like
    Roker, I understand where you're coming from, feeling that the NYPD officer's recounting of the events concerning him, from his perspective, is not a conspiracy theory because it's just his account with no indication of being in conclusion with anyone else.

    The problem is that no, he's not a part of a conspiracy theory, but his claims and observations, assessments and conclusions are part of the general "9/11 Conspiracy Theories" category. With his presentation he is implying and at points accusing others as perpetuating the days events in a diabolical manner, that two or more were conspiring to have those events unfold.

    No one is saying that he's part of a conspiracy. What is true, though, is that he's presenting, or alluding to, the theory part of the phrase. The phrase is actually two components from both ends of the issue.

    Believe me, I'm in no way blindly supporting the government, from Congress, to the President, to the Supreme Court. If any type of solid evidence ever emerges that there was any type of American (PERIOD!) manipulation on 9/11 events, I'll be the first to light a torch and storm Washington. (Or wherever the American involvement could stem from...)
     
  4. TruthAboveAll

    TruthAboveAll Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2007
    Messages:
    615
    Likes Received:
    30
    Location:
    Further North than I'd like
    Oh, wow! How impressive.
     
  5. TruthAboveAll

    TruthAboveAll Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2007
    Messages:
    615
    Likes Received:
    30
    Location:
    Further North than I'd like
    I guess your reply was actually where you interjected the 'After this I don't need to read any more' type statement.

    Please, if you've evidence I'm incorrect, please provide it. With what you've provided so far, you might as well just stick your tongue out and go "PFFFTTT!" Giving raspberries has about as much meaning as anything else you've said.
     
  6. vyo476

    vyo476 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    Here's a question, KOF and Roker: If not in Conspiracy Theories, where did the thread that was moved belong?
     
  7. The point being it was fine where it was posted. It was wrongly moved to conspiracy section in my opinion. The problem with it being in the conspiracy section is the automatic stigma thats attached due to the "Conspiracy" relation

    I find his related illness far more interesting than his candid conspiracy statements i feel there is some importance in the video,and by moving it to conspiracy section many people will never give it a look due to the "Conspiracy" Stigma
     
  8. TruthAboveAll

    TruthAboveAll Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2007
    Messages:
    615
    Likes Received:
    30
    Location:
    Further North than I'd like
    Roker replies;
    freedom of speech is exactly that the "Freedom" to say Whatever.....you desire with "No Restrictions" ......anything,anything other than that is what can only be known as......... "Limited Freedom Of speech"............period.

    There is no other discussion, as in its legal terms, and defenitions. anything that is "Limited", cannot be "Free", so to limit one from yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre is ...."Technically, and legally "Limited Freedom of Speech"

    You can interpret it how you want, I guess.

    "Congress shall make no law respecting...or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    Irresponsible, harmful and slanderous speech has never been covered by this. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in the 1919 Supreme Court case Schenck vs U.S.: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” It was an oversimplification to some. It isn't the act of shouting "Fire" or even causing a panic. It is because the patrons of a theater enter it with an understanding that this is something that would be unacceptable to the owner, and that they have a reasonable expectation of not being disturbed by other patrons.

    The owner also has a right to establish a different environment. A good example of this would be the rowdy, bawdy, even crude environment when a theater is showing "The Rocky Horror Picture Show." If someone goes into a theater showing that, plunking their bucks down and expecting to sit peacefully and watch a movie, they're sadly mistaken. Yet none of the rowdy patrons are violating their rights. Their expectations were unrealistic. Freedom of speech is actually grounded in private-property rights.

    I don't have a problem with expecting responsibility to be exercised within the right. I don't have a problem with not allowing libel or slanderous speech or communication. I don't have a problem with limiting publication and distribution and criminalizing child pornography.

    I also don't have a problem with a 9/11 victim to air their observations and views. And I don't have a problem with your right to argue the opposing positions. But I do have a problem with distortion of the facts, intentional or not.

    If I need to be corrected, please feel free to do so. But please, even if you can't be civil about it, please have the decency to at least be factual.
     
  9. KeepOurFreedoms

    KeepOurFreedoms Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    You're wrong.

    !!!!! was posted because at least 5 digits/numbers/letters are required per post after a quote.
     
  10. TruthAboveAll

    TruthAboveAll Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2007
    Messages:
    615
    Likes Received:
    30
    Location:
    Further North than I'd like
    Oh. I stand corrected, then. I could have sworn you added the red
    comment.
     
  11. There is no other discussion, as in its legal terms, and defenitions. anything that is "Limited", cannot be "Free", so to limit one from yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre is ...."Technically, and legally "Limited Freedom of Speech"
     
  12. heyjude

    heyjude Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2007
    Messages:
    226
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest, on the beach
    It's a conspiricy theory. Doing your job.
     
  13. KeepOurFreedoms

    KeepOurFreedoms Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    It is a man reporting what he experience first hand. He was there. Not a conspiracy theory. It is news.
     
  14. USMC the Almighty

    USMC the Almighty Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,070
    Likes Received:
    14
    But it's the content of what he is reporting that composes the conspiracy theory.
     
  15. KeepOurFreedoms

    KeepOurFreedoms Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    It is YOU calling it a conspiracy theory. He is telling facts that happened to him. Can you not see the difference?
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice