Obama will be assassinated if he wins...

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Okay now those make sense, but really, the guy got his head blown off in the middle of the freeway so I think the cat is out of the bag on the whole stupidity/ignorance thing on behalf of the secret service. Although it would make sense for them to try to cover their own asses a little bit.

As for protocol to keep things classified, well that apparently wasn't the protocol. We know everything that happened -- they've told us the whole story. They didn't keep it classified, it's all out there. There is nothing else to it.

And I know it's fun to bring in the Illuminati and space aliens and whatnot but it's not exactly a wild theory to think the government might not always tell the truth. Recent events certainly can attest to that. If we apply Occam's Razor to, say, the Iraq war, the simplest explanation is that they aren't above lying about some pretty serious things.

Not disagreeing with you there. It's very likely and probable that the government and certain members of it lie about serious things from time to time. It makes sense and it's simple. Just pointing out that the most 'out there' thoeries have very little probability of actually being true and that the further away from simplicity you get the more unlikely the explaination and the more loose ends that need explaining. It's also funny that with each degree from the commonly held story the less and less percentage of people believe it.

Why is the ultimate question. Explanations for why can be from "they were too tunnel visioned in dealing with Saddam and the war on terror in the lead-up that they ended up invading the country without proper due dilligence to formulate reasonable cause so they lied about it to America to cover their own asses to get re-elected in 2004 or to not be charged with war crimes" to "America needs Iraqi oil and thus whatever America wants it takes" to "9/11 was an event that the Bush administration took advantage of to 'settle the score with Saddam' and provide more oil" to "9/11 was a staged/allowed event by the Bush administration to provide political and monetary capital to invade Iraq for Oil and to 'Settle the score with Saddam'" to "9/11 was a staged event by the Bush administration to provide the political and monetary capital to invade Iraq, Iran, and all other axis of evil countries" to continue asserting their superiority over the world" to "9/11 was a staged event by the Illuminati/Bildeburg Group/FreeMasons/Space Aliens/World Bankers who have it's members on staff in the Bush Administration to provide wide-spread hysteria in order to conduct wars and events in many places in the world to usher in a New World Order"

I'm sure many amature gumshoes can find an assortment of 'evidence' to build a case for any of the above explanations. All things being equal some of those are more likely to have happened than others. Also notice the farther you get from mainstream beliefs the more 'connections' you need to build up the theory, but yet the more interesting and captivating they become.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Actually, the simplest explanation is they were idiots and morons,

Well I disagree, but anyway, if you don't like that one, I'm sure we could come up with something else to demonstrate that the American government isn't above the occasional lie. I think this Kennedy thing could be one of them. You don't. Fair enough.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Actually, the simplest explanation is they were idiots and morons, which is what I've said all along and the answer I continue to view as the likely truth. The complicated answer is the lying liars were clever enough to arrange a duplicitous story but inexplicably not clever enough to plant evidence to cover up something they knew to be false.

Anyhoo . . . . that'll all come out in the wash somewhere down the road, as it always does.

Meanwhile, look what just got "unclassified" today:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7243500.stm

So . . . . why keep that a secret? And yes, there are classified events, materials, etc, that are occasionally dribbled out in similar fashion from WWII.

Cowperson

Wow what a surprise given Mao's attitude towards woman (under 13 years old please), and his strong dislike for them on a whole.

I'm always amazed that politicians and world leaders can actually deal with each other even thought they probably have knowldege of all of their likes and dislikes.

I can see the file that Nixon got on Mao

Likes - - - Girls, the younger the better, random moonlight executions.
Dislikes - - bath water, running dog capitalists.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Well I disagree, but anyway, if you don't like that one, I'm sure we could come up with something else to demonstrate that the American government isn't above the occasional lie. I think this Kennedy thing could be one of them. You don't. Fair enough.

I do not believe I ever said secrets regarding the Kennedy assassination were not vegetating, for whatever reason, in a government vault somewhere.

Governments, the ubiquitous "they," don't lie by the way.

People in government lie.

If there is a smoking gun secret regarding the Kennedy assassination, it would be interesting to know how many people would be required to keep the secret. That would help us determine the likelihood of success through a 45 year time frame. The more people involved, the less likely a secret can be held.

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Compartmentalization is what keeps information secure and secrets secret. You would be shocked just how effective this strategy is keeping the most sensitive of information secure. When people are restricted to just the information required to complete their portion of a project, and it is a very small part of the overall plan, they are completely unaware of the end results the vast majority of the time.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by badnarik

Changing gears and speaking of "gays", have ever consider that your mythical lord and savior traveled about the countryside with 12 men and no women for years? In the prime of his life? When his hormones were at the peak and his desire to spread more than his ministry was at an all time high? Gee, the potential for them to be a bunch of Joan Crawford loving over the rainbow rump rangers wasn't high.

Sounds like what NHL teams do.

Except they go home to their wives after the game.

I did in fact read this monster thread in its entirety. All I have to say is that if Lanny really is considered the local conspiracy nut, I really don't understand why. Compared to CalgaryBornAgain, he's so level-headed it's practically zen. Maybe he's a Buddhist master?! Now we need an amendmant to the constitution declaring Safron an infringment of evangelical horsesh**?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

I did in fact read this monster thread in its entirety. All I have to say is that if Lanny really is considered the local conspiracy nut, I really don't understand why. Compared to CalgaryBornAgain, he's so level-headed it's practically zen. Maybe he's a Buddhist master?! Now we need an amendmant to the constitution declaring Safron an infringment of evangelical horsesh**?

Right.

Its called a difference of opinion....sad that you can even read the 'other' side without being objective.

Now go ahead, everyone pile on me for defending CalgaryBorn.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Well I disagree, but anyway, if you don't like that one, I'm sure we could come up with something else to demonstrate that the American government isn't above the occasional lie. I think this Kennedy thing could be one of them. You don't. Fair enough.

The government lies. But Occam's razor also stipulates that those lies are for the most part ad hoc attempts to cover up their own criminal incompetence--which is why even though I'm an Iraq war opponent from way back, I agree with Cow that the explanation for the mess in Mesopotamia is more incompetence and idiocy than a sinister cabal of secret government actors covering up the truth.

If you think about it, a cover-up requires inter-agency co-ordination and co-operation at the highest levels. A series of events over the past 8 years, beginning with 9/11 and ending with Katrina have shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that this government couldn't find its own ass with both hands, a flashlight and library access to Google Maps. A conspiracy of lies at the highest levels of government is far, far beyond their capability. These guys could botch a bake sale.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

A conspiracy of lies at the highest levels of government is far, far beyond their capability.

Maybe but I don't think so. I find it hard to believe they can be that dumb, although I do agree that they've well demonstrated that it is possible.

And a conspiracy of lies in the highest levels of government isn't that difficult, is it? There aren't that many people at the top. If they all just say the same thing over and over they'll get what they want, and they did get what they wanted.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Maybe but I don't think so. I find it hard to believe they can be that dumb, although I do agree that they've well demonstrated that it is possible.

And a conspiracy of lies in the highest levels of government isn't that difficult, is it? There aren't that many people at the top. If they all just say the same thing over and over they'll get what they want, and they did get what they wanted.

Fair enough. I guess part of my perspective comes from a sort of blind faith in the goodness of human nature--that even when people behave unethically, it's still often because they think they're doing the right thing. By that logic, the Bushies are well-intentioned but incompetent people who group-thought themselves into a quagmire, not cynical supervillains with ultra-secret self-serving agendas.

I could be wrong. But I kind of hope I'm not--don't you?

[Vulcan]

The way I look at it is they are mostly playing dumb and with a stooge like Bush representing them, it hasn't been to difficult. They have an agenda and Bush probably believes in his policies with a mixture of deserving privilege and the end justifies the means while trying in some way to be a good guy. I think he's a dupe and he's so messed up he thinks he's doing the right thing. Makes him more believable. The rest of his entourage are very slick and I don't see how anyone can lay their actions down to incompetence although like any crooks, the truth is coming out. As the saying goes, "There's something rotten in Denmark" and I think it's naive to think otherwise.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

... the Bushies are well-intentioned but incompetent people who group-thought themselves into a quagmire, not cynical supervillains with ultra-secret self-serving agendas.

I've always considered that differences like that are mostly semantic and irrelevant. They lied and cheated and got you into two wars, both of which were mostly fought the wrong way and for the wrong reasons, and very propably end up doing more bad than good. It really doesn't matter whether or not they knew what they were doing was wrong.

Think coaches / GM's. When they drive the team into the ground, does anyone ask them why? No, because it doesn't matter.

You call them screwups and kick them out.

Personally I think that's the biggest problem with the US political system: you can't really get rid of incompetent governments midterm, no matter how extremely incapable they have proven to be.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Canadians are such a forgiving bunch. The Bushies were just incompetant and didn't know what they were doing. Yeah, and the Germans just accidentally crossed a few borders during WWII. Come on people, wake up. Things we know for certain about this administration:

1) They had developed a strategy long before it was required (see PNAC documents).

2) They lobbied the previous President to execute their plan (see PNAC documents).

3) They developed a doctrine of imperialism through military action (see PNAC documents).

4) They had their eyes on Iraq from day one after 9/11 (see books by Clarke, Tenet, Woodward, etc.).

5) They developed the intelligence to support their desires to get into Iraq (see books by Clarke, Tenet, Woodward, etc. and testimony by intelligence analysts)

6) They changed the story for reasons to get into Iraq (see White House statements over the past six years).

7) They ordered the military to execute certain duties, and when those in charge refused, they were replaced with people who would execute those duties (lots of commentary in the news by the individuals booted out).

8) They dished out no-bid contracts to companies where they had vested interests, holdings, or owed favors (documented proof availabe through the GAO).

9) They have made no serious efforts to improve the situation other than pouring more money and troops at the problem (documented proof available through bills passed by congress).

This is not an accident by an incompetant bunch of political hacks. This was well planned out and executed according to their pre-determined strategy. No conspiracy theory, just plain fact. It's not a conspiracy theory when the clowns publish the blue prints for their plan on the internet before they commit the crime. This was executed just as they wanted. The only thing that didn't happen was the Iraqi people welcoming them with parades, flowers, and offering up their women, as they had predicted in their little think tank. These guys are criminals and we've sat back and let them rob the Treasury blind of a couple trillion dollars ($2,000,000,000,000.00). Think how this would look if it were a regular guy who did the same thing, and not the "leaders" of the government. What would be the outcome? It wouldn't be considered an accident or misjudgement or incompetance. The guy would be behind bars and up to his ass in a world of hungry man love, or dead by lethal injection (see Timothy McVey). But we give these guys a pass. Incredible how forgiving we can all be with our "political" leaders.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Canadians are such a forgiving bunch.

<snip>

But we give these guys a pass. Incredible how forgiving we can all be with our "political" leaders.

Just pointing out that they aren't the political leaders of Canada.

Otherwise, you put together a very nice summary of why the Bush administration is immoral. Too bad many people will blindly ignore the facts and scream at you using gibberish they learned during their partisan indoctrination.

Couple all that together with a lot of disturbing things coming out of the Diebold election machines from the last Presidential election, and I'm a little surprised there has not been a violent uprising in the US.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by llama64

Just pointing out that they aren't the political leaders of Canada.

I'm aware of that. I'm just shocked at how forgiving Canadians can be when the evidence continues to pile up against these guys. It's okay to change your mind when more information comes available. On 9/11 I was all for going into Iraq and kicking the crap out of them. I wanted to nuke them. But in the next few days, as more information came out, and emotions were allowed to swing back into standard operating perameters, I quickly changed my tune and saw what things for what it was. Interestingly, there are quite a few around here who refuse to acknowledge the evidence and admit their error. That is what I find most interesting, especially since they are Canadian (for the most part) and shouldn't have any allegance to either political party. Very strange.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

I'm aware of that. I'm just shocked at how forgiving Canadians can be when the evidence continues to pile up against these guys. It's okay to change your mind when more information comes available. On 9/11 I was all for going into Iraq and kicking the crap out of them. I wanted to nuke them. But in the next few days, as more information came out, and emotions were allowed to swing back into standard operating perameters, I quickly changed my tune and saw what things for what it was. Interestingly, there are quite a few around here who refuse to acknowledge the evidence and admit their error. That is what I find most interesting, especially since they are Canadian (for the most part) and shouldn't have any allegance to either political party. Very strange.

FLIP FLOPPER!

[CaptainCrunch]

Back to the assasination thing. With the right long rifle, the right scope, and the right conditions, I can pretty much put a bullet through a balloon at 4 to 500 yards 8 out of 10 times.

I can get the Presidents or Prime Ministers travel schedule off of the web, and know where he's going to be and where I need to be to make that shot happen.

But . . . I'm never going to get that near the president to do it in this day and age. However when Kennedy was popped, security was quite different because the last president that was popped was Lincoln, the SS was extremely lax back then.

Same scenario, with a pistol from 10 to 15 feet, I can get 6 rounds out in 5 seconds and I'll probably fatally wound you with at least one of those shots, and while the Secret Service can't be everywhere in a crowd, there's always a perception that they're standing behind you or next to you, so do you risk the shot, knowing that there are hidden agents in the crowd, a line of them in between you and the president, helicopters over head, snipers on the rooftops looking for agitated looking people, and a president standing behind a bullet proof podium that makes him a very small target.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Back to the assasination thing. With the right long rifle, the right scope, and the right conditions, I can pretty much put a bullet through a balloon at 4 to 500 yards 8 out of 10 times.

I know the movie JFK isn't completely accurate. One thing they do mention is that there would have been a tree in the line of site between the window of the depository building and the presidents car. Not sure if that is true or not. If it is true. Thats puts the probability of making an accurate shot at a moving target that much more difficult.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

because the last president that was popped was Lincoln, the SS was extremely lax back then.

IIRC, there really wasn't a Secret Service back then.

Plus, you probably shouldn't be using 'SS'....some conspiracy nut might confuse it with the infamous German SS....and think they're both the same thing.

And presto, we have to deal with another ridiculous theory, just because you were too lazy to type out the correct wording.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Azure

IIRC, there really wasn't a Secret Service back then.

Plus, you probably shouldn't be using 'SS'....some conspiracy nut might confuse it with the infamous German SS....and think they're both the same thing.

And presto, we have to deal with another ridiculous theory, just because you were too lazy to type out the correct wording.

I KNEW IT! It was Waffen SS all along, they did it as revenge for America entering WW2!!! IT ALL MAKES SENSE!

Honestly, Occam's Razor says the most likely solution is most likely the actual solution. I don't think its likely one guy acted alone and got shot for it shortly thereafter by a mob-connected guy with a sudden rush of patriotism.