The Anarch will most likely kill you in the morning… two and a half years from now. You know, to send a subtle message.
I accept those things as facts, and believe Oswald was acting alone. BUT, there are plenty of people who do not accept those individual facts and disagree with the conclusion.
Frankly, if I was going to pick one belief of Kosmik’s to fight, it wouldn’t be this one.
Good because it seems almost everyone else is interested in proving that I’m wrong.
In your opinion.
It seems you’re the one with a reality deficit problem.
Yes. Read it again. “The US refused to provide any evidence” because they did not have any evidence.
You call 2 1/2 years a “ridiculously long interval”? If other leaders - say Khrushchev - had spoken out (denouncing them) then the Cuban missile crisis would have turned out differently.
So your concluding that since JFK wrote one speech with a speechwriter that every single speech by any POTUS must be written with a speechwriter. That’s good reasoning. :rolleyes:
Sorensen didn’t tell anyone.
Yes. The speech was given before the American Newspaper Publishers Association.
Yet you seem to be categorically stating that the President must use a speechwriter for any and all speeches.
They could have. They could have done it all in one year as you seem to theorize, “before April 1961 or right after”.
Because in the case of the red telephone, the President knows who’s calling but doesn’t know why he should listen (to another world leader).
That’s only because, in eclectic wench’s words, you’re “trying to convince Kozmik that he’s wrong”.
hint: Not everyone there is a conspiracy theorist.
The conspirators are not idiots - they are using the big lie to their advantage.
It means that at one time there was the Pope and the kings. Yes, the kings already had an overlord - the Illuminati, except they did not know that because the Illuminati used the Pope as an intermediary. Your other question has a narrow view. Remember that before the situation with the Papacy and the kings, there was the Roman Emperor. The question is: Why go from a situation with the Roman Emperor to a situation with the Pope?
No.
Yes, mind control. Look up “MK-Ultra”.
It’s possible that there was more than one shooter. In the recent Texas university shooting, it was reported that there may be another possible suspect in that shooting.
Didn’t hear about the Lil Wayne connection to the theater shooting. Looked it up on Google and got a link to E! Online. Not exactly an authoritative source.
There’s nothing to lead me to believe that the children involved are in hiding.
No one in the US government got the children killed.
The parents are not “crisis actors”.
Excellent question. The answer has to do with how the Illuminati view power.
Let’s look at how power is divided up in the world:
Besides the heads of government, there is the royal family which is like the Illuminati. There’s the Mafia who in the past had more control than they do now. There’s the generals running Myanmar. There’s the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia. There’s the Jews who supposedly rule the world. Then there’s the Pope in the Vatican.
Power in the case of heads of government and all others, is something to which one ascends to, i.e. the Senator who ascends to the Presidency. That is why the Illuminati will never be heads of government. It would be “beneath” them. The only position the Illuminati will take is the one who is over the heads of government, the one who presides at the G-192 summit, the one who can be termed the Anarch. Until the aforementioned Anarch, the Illuminati must remain anonymous and will exercise their power indirectly through those who apparently or supposedly have power.
What DocCathode posted.
No. I’m going to expand on my answer because I believe you have asked an excellent question and that you are inquiring in good faith. There are no countries independent of the Illuminati. More specifically, there are no heads of government independent of the Illuminati. You mentioned North Korea. It is reported that there is tightening of sanctions. From the NYT article:
Yes. At that length of time, how would anyone even know the message being sent? If you offend a gangster he won’t want two years to kill you.
On that note I have to point out again that you are misunderstanding what Kennedy said.
I’m not sure what this is supposed to mean.
It’s perfectly sound reasoning, and it’s public knowledge that JFK worked with several speechwriters. Every president has a bunch of them.
How do you know?
Another non-response…
I didn’t say “must.” I said they always do, and I demonstrated that he did so here.
Your theory is that they didn’t, so you need to make sense of this.
More irrelevancies.
You are wrong. Worse, your theory doesn’t make sense.
Also irrelevant.
Your theory requires them to be idiots.
Just in case-
I’m not interested in proving you wrong. I’m interested in exploring what you believe and why you believe it. Unless your beliefs make you a threat to yourself or others, I have zero interest in changing them.
Agreed, his actual beliefs are for the most part completely uninteresting. Wacky, unsupportable beliefs are a dime a dozen. But he provides an opportunity to observe the twists and leaps of logic necessary to maintain these beliefs. It really only gets boring when he resorts to the silly posting of useless wiki links that it’s clear he hasn’t read or understood.
Kozmic, would you please rank how well you did, from better to worse, in the subjects that you took at school? (E.g. Math, English, geography, history, shop, or shop, math, hisotry, geography, etc.)
In which subjects did you excel?
In which subjects did you barely scrape by or fail?
No. What people are pointing out is that you are not providing any facts. If you actually provided facts or evidence of anything they could be debated. I am not trying to prove you wrong. You have provided no information that needs to be refuted. I just hope that at some point you will realize there is something wrong before you have your psychotic break. I have seen this pattern way too many times.
I read it. The US refused to participate in a kangaroo religious court set up by the Taliban. You see one sentence and your mind greys out the the rest. Typical of this entire thread and your thought processes.
-
I have very real, very solid evidence linking North American Viking runestones and Polynesian monoliths to the Illuminati power structure. The system seems stacked against the little guy, how do I “get the truth out”? Would contacting the news be a good first step?
-
If one has incontrovertible proof that someone else is an agent of the Illuminati/Global Ruling Conspiracy/TPTB, responsible for acts of murder, torture, and sabotage, is it morally acceptable to neutralize or kill that person if an opportunity arises?
…Or just possibly because the US was unwilling to agree to the Taliban’s “and then we’ll try him in Islamic court” condition.
And if it was a set up wouldn’t they have planted plenty of evidence? Its CTer logic. If they think there isn’t enough evidence, that is evidence of a conspiracy. If there is plenty of evidence, its because it was planted and is evidence of a conspiracy.
To add to what Loach and 42fish are saying, your cite didn’t say anything about the US not having evidence. It says they didn’t share it with the Taliban. The claim that they didn’t have evidence isn’t just absurd, it makes no sense. Even if there were a conspiracy to blame the whole thing on innocent bin Laden, the conspiracy would have created some evidence. Anyway you and I can find evidence of bin Laden’s involvement in the attacks - including his own statements about his involvement. It’s not hard to think up sensible reasons the US didn’t share the information: the Taliban proposal to try bin Laden in a local court was laughably insufficient and would have satisfied nobody, and even if they kept their word, who would have trusted them to put him on trial? They were all hardline religious loons just like bin Laden, and they had been sheltering him for years in return for his financial support of their government. And for the same reasons the US had no reason to trust the Taliban to review the evidence instead of, for example, using it to kill informants or spies.
I don’t know how, though I can assure you that “anyone” would know.
It means there would have been a nuclear conflict.
So is it perfectly sound reasoning to conclude that every single president has (and will) used speechwriters for every single speech?
I don’t.
Are you saying that presidents always have and always will?
Most subjects, particularly English and Math. I posted a perfect 100% in one semester for a math class and a fellow student called me a “freak” for that. In many of my classes I was the student who was handed back their exam, essay, ect. first, indicating that I had the highest score. While I did not have all As (I came close my senior year with 4 out of 6) I was on the honor role. And I had perfect attendance.
In college, I made the Dean’s List. I earned a C in Logic. I was one of three of the top students in a professor’s seminar class. I earned an A- in another, senior seminar class.
Shop, Spanish, and Art.
How do you know?
As of now.
This is not GD.
Good, though I wonder how different it would be if you were trying to prove me wrong
As of now.
I would only have a psychotic break on two conditions (1) The New York Times is discontinued and (2) The Straight Dope Message Board disappears. I am like Ludwig Wittgenstein, who, as Bertrand Russell relates, “He says every morning he begins his work with hope, and every evening he ends in despair.”
I hope this is the last condescending remark from you.
Good.
Their refusal does not exclude the option of counter-offering with a UN court or a Nuremberg-type court.
Notice how I am replying to your post here.
Interesting that you didn’t write - “Typical of your entire posts and your thought processes.”
Contacting the news would be a bad idea. Unless there is an “ancient archeology craze” where the media “just has to” report on it, it will go unreported. Don’t think of yourself as a “little guy”. Make a film about it. Get people generally interested in it. The truth will come out.
No. And the Illuminati is not responsible for acts of murder, torture, and sabotage - the Illuminati is responsible for manipulating those who are responsible for acts of murder, torture, and sabotage.
The US could have done it under the condition of trying him in a UN court or a Nuremberg-type court. And the US wanted him “turned over”.
No. They didn’t need to plant plenty of evidence in order to have the Iraq War.
They didn’t share it with anyone.
Not necessarily. See: the Iraq War.
His statements were inconsistent and kept changing.
So why not have something that would have satisfied everybody? And then have the UN or a Nuremberg-type court put him on trial?
In other words you can’t assure me that anyone would know.
Why?
In the era of mass communication, yes. Presidents have regularly employed speechwriters since the days of FDR, and it only stands to reason that their role has increased as the demands on the president’s time and the volume of speeches has increased. And this is not just an inference I’m making, you could confirm that by yourself if you were interested.
Right.
See above. I didn’t say every president always has, but they all do, and that was the case long before JFK.
By this logic, why don’t you make a movie exposing the Illuminati in order to spread the truth?
So, if I understand correctly:
The members of the Illuminati don’t commit murder, etc.
Instead, they manipulate non-illuminati members into committing murder, etc.
Those non-members don’t realize that they are being manipulated.
Is this right?
Also, is it morally acceptable to kill an Illuminati-manipulated assassin who is trying to kill oneself? An act of self defense, in other words.
Cite please.
I don’t know what you are saying here. Are you saying there was no evidence for the Iraq War? That’s false: there was evidence, it was just shoddy. In fact I would expect have expected a global conspiracy to do a better job coming up with evidence. Explain yourself in full sentences.
I wouldn’t say that. He denied responsibility early on, and later acknowledged it (including in a private video that were released a few months after the attacks).
That’s not what the Taliban offered. They said they would put him on trial themselves, which was crazy. There was no discussion after that.
And contributing to that was Saddam’s own actions. If he had complied completely with the UN completely he could have proven there were no WMDs. Instead he played a game of chicken. If it was stubborness, ego or a worry that showing weakness would hurt his power at home is unknown. Probably some combination of all.
And good luck with the full sentences stuff.