Really?
Just recently the 9th District court ruled gay marriage legal.
It's an evolution. Man is involved, things will undoubtedly take time.
The "who, what, when, where and why" of American History.
- Thread starter commonsense
- Start date
- Status
Just recently the 9th District court ruled gay marriage legal.
It's an evolution. Man is involved, things will undoubtedly take time.
Actually I do not make common mistakes because I do not agree with anything that is not true.
Most people are gullible, for sure, but I am not.
This makes perfect sense to me.
Moreover, Nixon and his cronies were serial offenders, and if they were put away for good, John Lennon would probably still be alive.
I wonder how many people are going to ridicule me for that opinion?
Most people are gullible, for sure, but I am not.
This makes perfect sense to me.
Moreover, Nixon and his cronies were serial offenders, and if they were put away for good, John Lennon would probably still be alive.
I wonder how many people are going to ridicule me for that opinion?
Didn't say it was stupid, just not necessarily relevant. Don't forget that history is mostly written by the winners and how do we know they are telling the whole story?
Yes we all know the basics of Watergate and the fact that tricky dick is a crook but do we really need to know the in depth details?
Depending on your perspective again, using the same set of "facts" one could say that because Nixon was a Republican president all Republicans are crooks which is not the case. I'm positive there is at least one honest one out there somewhere and Yukon Jack and Ironsides would probably tell you that they are all fine upstanding people and Watergate was an anomaly.
When I was in high school all our history books were either British or American and often had opposing views of what happened in early Canada.
Based on your perception of the interpretation thereof.
I didn't say you were gullible. You have a perception, your perception is going to guide you to things that further support that perception. That's not necessarily gullibility.
Are you sure?
Given the facts that came to light in the Chapman trial, I think you're grasping at straws.
Likely many, a lot of us stopped playing connect the dots, in such a puerile way, years ago.
History is necessarily selective, but the facts are stubborn things.
So in some respects, I am not really talking about "history" in general, I am talking about "specific facts" that are a part of our history.
So the link I have provided is about "specific facts" that are commonly ignored.
I don't understand people who come to this board and say things like "well, geez, there's nothing new there" !
For example, who knew that John Lennon's Doorman was linked to the Watergate burglars? The sinister implications of that fact are absolutely mind blowing.
Moreover, who knew that this Doorman was falsely declared dead, 6 years before John Lennon was murdered?
If you all knew that, then you are indeed, far too informed for me.
Nothing came to light in the Chapman trial there was none.
The guy pleaded guilty, as many do, despite the evidence.
There are many, many false confessions, if we relied on criminals to prove a crime, all the jail cells would be empty.
So in some respects, I am not really talking about "history" in general, I am talking about "specific facts" that are a part of our history.
So the link I have provided is about "specific facts" that are commonly ignored.
I don't understand people who come to this board and say things like "well, geez, there's nothing new there" !
For example, who knew that John Lennon's Doorman was linked to the Watergate burglars? The sinister implications of that fact are absolutely mind blowing.
Moreover, who knew that this Doorman was falsely declared dead, 6 years before John Lennon was murdered?
If you all knew that, then you are indeed, far too informed for me.
Nothing came to light in the Chapman trial there was none.
The guy pleaded guilty, as many do, despite the evidence.
There are many, many false confessions, if we relied on criminals to prove a crime, all the jail cells would be empty.
Which is obscured even more by selective interpretation thereof.
Actually, from what I've seen, you're talking about the opinion thereof. Not the actual facts.
No, it contains some facts, but it plays fast and loose with the connect the dots marker, while offering an alternative scenario. Of course based on somebodies interpretation of the facts.
I bet you don't. Shall I offer my OPINION as to why you don't understand?
I have links to a bike gang, I've never been involved in an assassination.
I've been pronounced dead no less then three times.
Do you think this is the first time I've read a conspiracy theory?
Of course you have to dismiss the entire process to make your conspiracy work.
Evidence like he never said he didn't do it? While maintaining that he did?
How true. But none so easy to to produce, then the one that changes his plea in court, in front of the Judge.
Now that's commonsense.
The problem with discussing anything related to Richard Nixon is that the man has many apologists who ignore all his crimes because in their minds, he is an untouchable, senior statesman.
That's what I love about the truth, it exposes the real man.
Years ago, I read a credible article by journalist, Don Fulsom, and he linked Nixon to the Kennedy assassination in such a compelling fashion, that in my opinion, it is unreasonable to suggest that he was not involved.
I therefore believe that Nixon is in fact an unindicted murderer.
Is there anybody else who has examined evidence to that effect, and reached the same conclusion?
That's what I love about the truth, it exposes the real man.
Years ago, I read a credible article by journalist, Don Fulsom, and he linked Nixon to the Kennedy assassination in such a compelling fashion, that in my opinion, it is unreasonable to suggest that he was not involved.
I therefore believe that Nixon is in fact an unindicted murderer.
Is there anybody else who has examined evidence to that effect, and reached the same conclusion?
Well I read a number of these threads on my laptop, wonderful view from the Grassy Knoll. You can almost hear the gunshots on a quiet evening.
IS JFK still on that Cypriot island?????
As Fox mulder would say -" the truth is out there" and for some way, way out there.
That's funny, cuz my OPINION of the man was that he was an incredible Dbag. It doesn't sway my perception of facts when presented. I certainly don't allow it to sway reality.
About as much as someone that jumps back and forth between thoughts when they're confronted with things they can't fathom.
Years ago, a York Regional Police Officer link me to a cache of restricted firearms. The evidence didn't win a conviction in a court of law.
Ya, I bet you do.
Few and far between, but if you wait around long enough, we have a few folks around these parts that will likely follow you down the garden path. Although you may have to prove to them that is wasn't the Rothschild's, before you can get them to believe it was Nixon.
The evidence speaks for itself.
The Men Who Killed Lennon
In my opinion, that points directly to Richard Nixon, and that is aside from everything that other independent journalists like Don Fulsom have exposed.
Why is is that so many researchers have independently confirmed Nixon's complicity?
I think it is because the evidence against Nixon is now too conclusive to deny.
Too bad he's dead, I would have loved to se him be tried for what he evidently did.
The Men Who Killed Lennon
In my opinion, that points directly to Richard Nixon, and that is aside from everything that other independent journalists like Don Fulsom have exposed.
Why is is that so many researchers have independently confirmed Nixon's complicity?
I think it is because the evidence against Nixon is now too conclusive to deny.
Too bad he's dead, I would have loved to se him be tried for what he evidently did.
So what has stopped Chapman's attorney's from filing for an appeal?
You know what the funny thing is? You're missing the commonsense here.
Hmmm, that's not what you alluded too, not to long ago...
Which says to me, you believed he was innocent, as dictated by the evidence.
So which is it, he was complicit, or he was a patsy, or he was just there reading a book, and was falsely accused?
Your conspiracy is falling apart. You can't even manage to stay focused.
Is that a serious question.
They didn't even want him in the country, which is why they were trying to deport him.
As to the previous poster, very good, you can't get away with anything on this board. I did allude to Chapman's innocence -in the sense that he is obviously not privy to everything.
In other words, it looks like he was a willing patsy, unlike Lee Harvey Oswald, who had to be shot to be silenced.
So I do hope that Chapman dies in prison.
A funny coincidence, or perhaps not. Have you noticed that Chapman looks like Republican strategist, Karl Rove?
Kind of reminds me of the dog that begin to look like his master. Now I am not trying to suggest any involvement on his part -i don't know, is he old enough?
Just trying to keep it lighthearted...
You need to have a sense of humor...
Even if he wasn't, I'd be interested in your opinion.
It's a bit of a leap from deportation, to assassination.
Uh huh.
Ummm, OK.
You'd think his co conspirators would have hastened his departure, if they were truly co conspirators.
No.
Wouldn't matter, it's a ridiculous extension to a ridiculous notion.
When dealing with conspiracies, is there any other way to be?
Besides that comment of mine, my mere presence here in this thread, and the fact that I'm entertaining this topic at all, is proof positive I love a good joke.
If you are trying to ridicule the truth, that's okay, it's part of the process.
It is however, rather ironic that Nixon apologist, Conrad Black, is in an American prison.
It looks like those Americans are great at prosecuting corrupt foreigners, but they give their own a free pass.
It is however, rather ironic that Nixon apologist, Conrad Black, is in an American prison.
It looks like those Americans are great at prosecuting corrupt foreigners, but they give their own a free pass.
- Status