Forgive my ignorance, but my acquaintance is limited to Logic 101.
What is Logic 7 and this intriguing disguise you speak of, please explain...
The "who, what, when, where and why" of American History.
- Thread starter commonsense
- Start date
- Status
Forgive my ignorance, but my acquaintance is limited to Logic 101.
What is Logic 7 and this intriguing disguise you speak of, please explain...
A little bit of reading for you..:lol:
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/us-american-politics/73876-bush-personnally-authorized-signed-9-a.html
But Pulleeze don't resurect that thread we have all had enough:roll:
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/us-american-politics/73876-bush-personnally-authorized-signed-9-a.html
But Pulleeze don't resurect that thread we have all had enough:roll:
I suppose the followup to my previous post is this.
The bigger the ass, the more there is to cover up, and Nixon's occupied more territory than anybody, in recent history.
The following brief summary illustrates the span of Nixon's ASS !
A 1947 memo, found in 1975 by a scholar going through a pile of recently released FBI documents, supports Giancana's contention. In the memo, addressed to a congressional committee investigating organized crime, an FBI assistant states: "It is my sworn testimony that one Jack Rubenstein of Chicago ... is performing information functions for the staff of Congressman Richard Nixon, Republican of California.
In the 1992 King interview, Nixon maintained he'd never had any interest in digging into the JFK assassination: "I don't see a useful purpose in getting into that and I don't think it's frankly useful for the Kennedy family to constantly raise that up again."
Did Nixon ever stop blaming the Kennedy family? Thank God Teddy outlived him.
The bigger the ass, the more there is to cover up, and Nixon's occupied more territory than anybody, in recent history.
The following brief summary illustrates the span of Nixon's ASS !
A 1947 memo, found in 1975 by a scholar going through a pile of recently released FBI documents, supports Giancana's contention. In the memo, addressed to a congressional committee investigating organized crime, an FBI assistant states: "It is my sworn testimony that one Jack Rubenstein of Chicago ... is performing information functions for the staff of Congressman Richard Nixon, Republican of California.
In the 1992 King interview, Nixon maintained he'd never had any interest in digging into the JFK assassination: "I don't see a useful purpose in getting into that and I don't think it's frankly useful for the Kennedy family to constantly raise that up again."
Did Nixon ever stop blaming the Kennedy family? Thank God Teddy outlived him.
The "Lucy" who inspired this song was Lucy O'Donnell (later Lucy Vodden), who was a classmate of John's son Julian Lennon when he was enrolled at the private Heath House School, in Weybridge, Surrey. It was in a 1975 interview that Lennon said "Julian came in one day with a picture about a school friend of his named Lucy. He had sketched in some stars in the sky and called it Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds."
The identity of the real Lucy was confirmed by Julian in 2009 when she died of complications from Lupus. Lennon re-connected with her after she appeared on a BBC broadcast where she stated: "I remember Julian and I both doing pictures on a double-sided easel, throwing paint at each other, much to the horror of the classroom attendant... Julian had painted a picture and on that particular day his father turned up with the chauffeur to pick him up from school."
Confusion over who was the real Lucy was fueled by a June 15, 2005 Daily Mail article that claimedthe "Lucy" was Lucy Richardson, who grew up to become a successful movie art director on films such as 2000's Chocolat and 2004's The Life And Death Of Peter Sellers. Richardson died in June 2005 at the age of 47 of breast cancer.
The identity of the real Lucy was confirmed by Julian in 2009 when she died of complications from Lupus. Lennon re-connected with her after she appeared on a BBC broadcast where she stated: "I remember Julian and I both doing pictures on a double-sided easel, throwing paint at each other, much to the horror of the classroom attendant... Julian had painted a picture and on that particular day his father turned up with the chauffeur to pick him up from school."
Confusion over who was the real Lucy was fueled by a June 15, 2005 Daily Mail article that claimedthe "Lucy" was Lucy Richardson, who grew up to become a successful movie art director on films such as 2000's Chocolat and 2004's The Life And Death Of Peter Sellers. Richardson died in June 2005 at the age of 47 of breast cancer.
Sorry, I don't think that's true.
The conspiracists were those who falsely speculated about the meaning of the song.
So it was pretty widespread, since it was spread in the media.
You see, that's what the media does, it spreads conspiracy theories.
Now old blokes like myself, when we tell the truth, we are called conspiracy theorists because that is what the masses have been conditioned to believe.
And all I am saying is, wake up man !
The conspiracists were those who falsely speculated about the meaning of the song.
So it was pretty widespread, since it was spread in the media.
You see, that's what the media does, it spreads conspiracy theories.
Now old blokes like myself, when we tell the truth, we are called conspiracy theorists because that is what the masses have been conditioned to believe.
And all I am saying is, wake up man !
'fraid if there was a conspiracy, it would have to be a partnership of the authors. They who did the spin job are just interpreting their own meanings into the work....
conspiracy - Definition of conspiracy at YourDictionary.com
Awake enough for ya?
ignorance is the biggest conspiracy.
Read the book, "conspiracy of silence" -and you will understand.
Ignorance isn't organized enough to be a conspiracy.
Conspiracy of Silence.... Funny you should mention it. The movie was filmed not so far from here.
I think we are talking about two different things.
I am talking about a conspiracist, somebody who believes in a conspiracy theory and you are talking about a conspirator, a person who engages a conspiracy.
Simple misunderstanding, mate !
I am talking about a conspiracist, somebody who believes in a conspiracy theory and you are talking about a conspirator, a person who engages a conspiracy.
Simple misunderstanding, mate !
Perhaps you missed it when I said my over all opinion of the man was the he was a Dbag. Or perhaps you are unfamiliar with what a Dbag is.
Ahhh see, now we're getting somewhere. You can't absorb full pictures, you seem to need everything to be cut into small pieces and shown to you, in a specific order, so your mind can process them, as it sees fit.
Let's examine the two comments, I've made about Nixon...
1, Over all, a Dbag.
2, The portion of his commentary used in your article, was in my opinion, honest and right.
Are you capable of understanding, that someone may have an over all opinion on something or someone, but still be able to objectively view the subject? I'm going to take a guess and say, no, you don't.
You see, I actually agree with Nixon's thoughts in that quote, for the most part. Why? Because in retrospect, he was right. Many of those people were just "Haters". Once they lost there cause, many were disillusioned, some became "capitalists", some had to find another cause to hate for, some just faded away. The cause had absorbed their lives, and I, like Nixon, felt sorry for some of them.
And your free to your opinion.
That's an extremely myopic view, but it certainly doesn't surprise me, that you believe that.
Something tells me, if someone with whom you agree, or someone whose position supports yours, breaks the law, you would be capable of justifying it in some way.
The crook that got caught.
Never. But I can see how you would need it to be that simple, so you could understand it. Hence your steadfast belief in conspiracies, it helps you make sense out of a chaotic world.
Agreed, but in this case, it's a wild theory, that requires us to ignore some pretty glaring facts, to make the conspiracy work.
When the proof doesn't have to be manipulated to make it so. I agree. But the tenuous dot connecting and assumptions found in your article isn't proof, it's a theory. And in my opinion, a poor one.
I agree, so in what way was Nixon's assassination of Lennon, Nixon's way of covering his ass?
Not always. In some cases you need a sharpie and a wild imagination, to play fast and loose with the connect the dots.
A leap to another conspiracy, because your other theory was getting ripped apart too easily?
And I see the swing from one conspiracy, to another. Good call, you were taking a beating on Chapman anyways.
Oh brother!
Where to start?
1, The Jack Rubenstein sought by HUAC was not Jack "Ruby" Rubenstein.
2, The young "communist" from the National Bureau of Young Communist League, Jack Rubenstein, did however assist Nixon, while researching his two monographs for HUAC.
3, The supposed source of the document, has stated that J. David Truby lied about receiving that document from his files.
4, There is even a great deal of contention about the documents authenticity among conspiracy theorists.
5, Jack "Ruby" Rubenstein, was a resident of Dallas in 47.
This is one of those moments, when I, if I were pursuing this "mystery" as you are, would raise an eyebrow and say, oh oh?
But I'm not driven by an ideology. Nor am I prone to ignoring facts to make a theory plausible.
Having just read the entire transcript...
CNN.com - Transcripts
I would suggest you try doing some of your own research, instead of taking someone else's word for what the context of that comment was.
He never blamed the Kennedy's.
Last edited:
This is what I find so fascinating about Richard Nixon -
"In his memoirs, Nixon said that "the factual truth [about Watergate] could probably never be completely reconstructed, because each of us had become involved in different ways and no one's knowledge at any given time exactly duplicated anyone else's." Richard Nixon was wrong.
High level obstructions of justice within the FBI made the Watergate investigation superficial, but the cover up ultimately exposed the truth. The Kennedy assassination investigation is no different because, having successfully obscurred what Nixon called "the factual truth," high level obstruction of justice within the FBI made the Kennedy assassination investigation an absolute whitewash, and the cover up is the crime. Indeed, the factual truth that Richard Nixon's estate is still trying to block, is no longer in doubt.
History is one big lie, when we fail to expose deception, time has a way of exposing all the factual truths that Richard Nixon thought he had buried."
You only get glimpses of his hatred. After all, he was a corrupt lawyer and a politician, what on earth do you expect from him?
He is clearly an unindicted felon (a patriot in his mind) and you still try to defend this person?
Are you a Nixon apologist, in which case, your attempted defence is clearly understood?
"In his memoirs, Nixon said that "the factual truth [about Watergate] could probably never be completely reconstructed, because each of us had become involved in different ways and no one's knowledge at any given time exactly duplicated anyone else's." Richard Nixon was wrong.
High level obstructions of justice within the FBI made the Watergate investigation superficial, but the cover up ultimately exposed the truth. The Kennedy assassination investigation is no different because, having successfully obscurred what Nixon called "the factual truth," high level obstruction of justice within the FBI made the Kennedy assassination investigation an absolute whitewash, and the cover up is the crime. Indeed, the factual truth that Richard Nixon's estate is still trying to block, is no longer in doubt.
History is one big lie, when we fail to expose deception, time has a way of exposing all the factual truths that Richard Nixon thought he had buried."
You only get glimpses of his hatred. After all, he was a corrupt lawyer and a politician, what on earth do you expect from him?
He is clearly an unindicted felon (a patriot in his mind) and you still try to defend this person?
Are you a Nixon apologist, in which case, your attempted defence is clearly understood?
surftofind and consortium news discuss truth, most of the media exposes its own prejudice, ignorance and or delusions.
The facts are stubborn things and thats what makes consortium and surftofind the most reliable sources I can find.
If you like to blame me for seeking out the most reliable sources I can find on the Internet, I plead guilty.
Truth is no longer a casual casualty, deception is becoming more common than not, and an overabundant reliance on alternative sources is therefore absolutely necessary, if you ever wish to explore the truth.
The facts are stubborn things and thats what makes consortium and surftofind the most reliable sources I can find.
If you like to blame me for seeking out the most reliable sources I can find on the Internet, I plead guilty.
Truth is no longer a casual casualty, deception is becoming more common than not, and an overabundant reliance on alternative sources is therefore absolutely necessary, if you ever wish to explore the truth.
More on surf to find............:roll:dink
surftofind.com | WOT Reputation Scorecard | WOT Web of Trust
surftofind.com | WOT Reputation Scorecard | WOT Web of Trust
Is whatever you can construe to fit your predetermined notion.
According to your interpretation. But you supply no context, or reason as to how you came to that, so it's empty.
Funny, in a discussion, or examining material put forth by just about anybody, you can say the exact same thing. I can see glimpses of your hatred.
Nothing, he was a politician.
No, but I would love to see you point out where I defended his criminal acts.
You don't understand much.
fify.
I won't argue with you on that, I bet they are the best you can find, for Op/Ed's and tragically manipulated works of fiction that support your preconceived notions.
Well at least you're honest about being misinformed.
I absolute agree, which is why I seek out facts, not someones opinion of facts.
You may want to give that a try sometime.
I noticed you conveniently ignored the fact that I took apart you Nixon/Ruby connection. That's not seeking the truth, that's hiding from it.
Last edited:
How did you take apart the Ruby/Nixon connection.
Jack knew more people in law enforcement than anybody in Dallas, I don't think you can take his contacts apart.
Besides, Jack Ruby was a gun runner in Cuba, and that was Nixon's territory, I really think that the suggestion that Ruby and Nixon did not cross paths is rather naive, given their mutual interests.
If you can prove that Richard Nixon did not know Jack Ruby, you are indeed amazing !
Did you take this apart as well?
The Men Who Killed Lennon
Jack knew more people in law enforcement than anybody in Dallas, I don't think you can take his contacts apart.
Besides, Jack Ruby was a gun runner in Cuba, and that was Nixon's territory, I really think that the suggestion that Ruby and Nixon did not cross paths is rather naive, given their mutual interests.
If you can prove that Richard Nixon did not know Jack Ruby, you are indeed amazing !
Did you take this apart as well?
The Men Who Killed Lennon
- Status