| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 05/14/2014 11:18:57 PM PDT by Jim Robinson, reason:
hijack whinefest. |
Posted on 05/12/2014 3:30:28 PM PDT by Sam Troy
DC Reporter Randy Foreman today obtained a copy of Doug Vogt's sealed filing now at the US Supreme Court which includes the list of people Doug Vogt believes forged Obama's long-form birth certificate. The list includes, Johanna Ah'Nee, Kevin Davidson(Dr. Conspiracy), Loretta Fuddy, and Alvin Onaka... Miki Booth implicated...
(Excerpt) Read more at birtherreport.com ...
Free speech is a threat to some.
I believe the comment that was deleted was mine. Saying (IIRC) that I hate what was done to Terry Lakin and what was done to the military when a military judge ruled that the lawfulness of combat orders has NOTHING TO DO WITH whether those combat orders were authorized by a Constitutionally-authorized President as required by statutes and the actual Congressional Authorization to Use Force.
That stuff is not piddles. How the heck is an honest military person supposed to keep an oath to protect the Constitution when the UCMJ has already ruled the Constitution (and statutes and Congressional authorizations) to be “IRRELEVANT”?
Somebody here didn’t want that comment to be seen. I guess it was too threatening to somebody. So maybe something Fred said WAS interpreted as a “threat”. I don’t see it, but then I’m just a “kook” who has to be silenced.
:)That was the wrong word.
My emotion does get in the way when the military is concerned. Something about men and women who are willing to sacrifice their lives, health, families, fortune, and reputation for the sake of this country puts a passion in my soul. To see that honor trampled is like watching a baby be raped while everybody looks on. Somehow that really, really gets under my skin.
BP2 was a fantastic poster. When you look at the old threads you see a lot of fantastic posters who did the heavy lifting on this issue - most of whom are no longer with Free Republic. Why? Why aren’t they here? They added original content and research that made it worth a lurker’s time to be here, instead of just repeating the same old stuff they can get anywhere else the MSM spouts their propaganda. Why didn’t they continue posting research and evidence here? What happened to them and why?
:)That was the wrong word.
**************
You say you used the “wrong word”, but you seem to give no quarter to another person who said a wrong word years ago and has apparently regretted it and profusely explained and apologized for it. It’s not right to accuse others of threats that they did not make and which no reasonable person would perceive. Should that person and like-minded people now hold it against you for the next four years? It’s disrespectful to the poster of this thread to take it off topic. That’s my opinion, something which heretofore I believed I have a God-given right to hold and express, elsewhere as well as on Free Republic unless, to quote Bogey, “I was misinformed.” If so, then please let me know.
Some are lurking. Some are here under different handles. Some are just sending materials to people ( bloggers- lawyers - sheriff Joe) who are actually able to act on their research. Since many times material disappeared when mentioned here , when materials are located ,it’s better to pass on to others not post here!
It doesn’t lesson the research done in the past in fact both the location of he notation in the index of he British archieve and Breitbarts find of the “little ble book” simply reinforced and confirmed what was speculated in our initial support. Both represent materials we were not able to find using he limiting tool we have — the Internet
Nobody doubts those things, butters.
What isn't realistic is that some nut with a lame blog will unravel them.
Especially one with a history of seeing Ninja assassin frogmen, duplicate airplanes, photoshopped dummies in caskets and Government agents wrecking her word processing program that got frustrated at having graphics shoved into it.
THAT is the stuff that is crazy.
The little guy doesn’t matter. That’s what you seem to be saying. The little guy should just give up and die because only the big, powerful people who sit in fancy offices and rub elbows with all the powers that be can ever make a difference.
I don’t buy it. Sometime the fate of the world rests on hobbits.
And if you believe that the little guys can’t ever bring evidence that makes a difference, then what the heck is Free Republic for? The idea that we peons are just wasting our time on earth pretending that we’re “the resistance” is repugnant. Are we all just here to entertain ourselves while the “big” people who are supposed to be doing something pick their noses and wait for their quid-pro-quo to land in their laps?
To reject evidence because it is uncovered by somebody you consider beneath your dignity is the essence of snobbery and INJUSTICE. If you doubt the provenance of the evidence then say so. If you think I manufactured video and claimed it was really from ABC, say that straight-out, but don’t reject the FACT of ABC’s video simply because I was the one who went to the trouble of watching it in slow motion while everybody else whizzed right past it. If you think I forged the MCFD’s case report tell me so - or better yet, ask for your own copy and see what you get. It is a fact - totally independent of me - that the CAD transcript was cut and pasted so the timestamps are out of order. It is a fact that the last timestamped communication had the USCG saying they had one in critical condition in their helicopter. I could also show you from the USCG report the evidence that the helo she would have had to be in at that point could not have been the helo claimed to have picked her from the water. I could show you a whole bunch of discrepancies.
But you won’t look at it, because you don’t like me. You think I’m a kook because I don’t carry a press pass. And you use that fact to dismiss any evidence you really don’t want to have to consider, and do your level best to make sure nobody else can/will consider it either.
Not credibly, after they've gone full Art Bell mode with absurd fantasies.
That stuff kind of damages the reputation. Like crying wolf.
To reject evidence because it is uncovered by somebody you consider beneath your dignity is the essence of snobbery and INJUSTICE.
I have little dignity, and I reject evidence when it is ridiculous.. and not truly evidence of anything except a vivid imagination.
But you won’t look at it, because you don’t like me.
I like you just fine, I just think you're a kook. Kooks are fun.
Hell, didn't I offer to help you with your graphics? Told you at
the time that I figured you were a kook but was willing to help, as you were clearly having some trouble.
You think I’m a kook because I don’t carry a press pass.
No, that's not why.
do your level best to make sure nobody else can/will consider it either.
How do I do that? By stating that I think some of it is bunk?
So.. you figure my opinion should not be heard, alongside your "evidence"?
That's pretty much what you're complaining about, isn't it? Being "silenced"?
Having somebody disagree with you is not “being silenced”. Being silenced is when you are told you cannot post evidence because somebody has decided that posting ABC’s video and asking people what they see in it is “batsh!t crazy”.
You have never been willing to engage with the evidence. All you’ve ever been willing to do is mock it. You’ll post a lizard creature photoshopped into the video but you won’t tell me which of the 9 persons aboard the plane that person in the water wearing white goggles and yellow scuba mask is.
Ridicule is Alinsky. It’s a mechanism to change the subject off of something you don’t feel equipped to handle in a serious manner. You ridicule evidence that you refuse to engage with and then you say that I’ve lost credibility because I’ve posted such “ridiculous” evidence (as you determined without ever even attempting to explain or analyze the evidence). Any scientist in the place can see how circular that reasoning is. It’s sheer Alinsky. Sheer logical fallacy, used to evade genuine analysis.
I know you like to poke bitter fun at women. Well, you’re acting like a woman who says to her guy when he asks what’s wrong, “If you don’t know what’s wrong then I’m not going to tell you, you unfeeling jerk!” There’s no room for explanations, listening, working things out - no willingness to do basic processing of information together - because she’s decided that it’s “ridiculous” that he doesn’t know what’s in her head. And any objection he makes - any apology he makes - is also “ridiculous”, just because she says so.
And then she brings up how “ridiculous” and what an unfeeling jerk he was that time 10 years ago, just like that other time 5 years ago, and he was STILL being a jerk the same way 2 minutes ago. Every time she wants to go postal on him she’ll bring up how he’s been proven to be an utter jerk, void of any understanding and compassion. Because he asked what was wrong, as if she was a sane person who could process information rationally.
You know what I’m saying. I’m sure you’ve been there.
Don’t be that gal - er, guy.
From C.S. Lewis:
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid “dens of crime” that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern.”
A crack researcher such as yourself should know that ridicule predates Alinski by several millenia.
You have never been willing to engage with the evidence.
I saw the pictures. Wasn't that enough?
It’s sheer Alinsky.
You draw him like a gun. That may be an Alinsky tactic, you tell me.
Thanks for posting that great quote.
A keeper for sure.
.
“Being silenced is when you are told you cannot post evidence because somebody has decided that posting ABC’s video and asking people what they see in it is “batsh!t crazy”.”
Why can’t you post your new “evidence” here?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3125646/posts?q=1&;page=651
The thread is still open and it could become like the “Mal and Val” thread, you just keep tacking new stuff on to it.
Isn’t that kinda what they asked you to do?
Do you go to your doctor and say, “Hey, Doc, you’re nuts if you think I’m going to have a colonoscopy because my mom took one look at me across the breakfast table this morning and says I’m fine”?
What was I asked/told to do?
Uhhh.. no, I’ve never said that to a doctor.
Nor have I demanded surgery because some blogger said I had appendicitis.
Have you ever had an examination beyond somebody just taking a glance at you? If so, why?
The first person to catch a breast lump often isn’t a doctor, and is never a doctor just doing a quick visual. The first person is often the woman’s partner.
Once upon a time Mr. A felt a lump in Mrs. A’s breast. He put her hand so she could feel it too. Concerned, she went to her doctor, Dr. HG, and asked if he could detect the lump also. But Dr. HG said he was looking right at Mrs. A’s blouse and couldn’t see any cancerous lumps and Mrs. A is crazy to think that her husband would be able to detect something like that, because he’s not a doctor, and it’s a batsh!t crazy theory to suggest there’s a lump when a doctor looked right at her blouse and never noticed anything wrong.
Mrs. A took Dr. HG’s hand and put it where her husband had felt the lump, and asked, “What do you feel there?”
Dr. HG quickly drew his hand away and grabbed a piece of modeling clay. He made it into the shape of a dinosaur and put it inside Mrs. A’s blouse. Then he pointed and gathered all the office staff together and with much foot-stomping laughter said, “Look what that moonbat Mr. A says he sees a on his wife’s breast!”
And then the clinic staff threw Mr. and Mrs. A out of the clinic, with instructions that they could only come back if they agreed to NEVER talk about breast cancer, because they had proven they were moonbats who were non-credibly pretending to be doctors.
And everybody lived happily ever after.
The End.
Throw in some Ninja assassin frogmen and I’m pretty sure we could have the basis of a fun story.
OK. Change the dinosaur to a Ninja assassin frogman, just to keep the gradeschool kids interested.
Now this is a lovely bedtime story you’d love to tell your little daughter right before you kiss her goodnight, so she can dream about the lovely world you have in store for her. Right?
It’s from Screwtape, not sure where. I’ll get my copy out and read it again. It’s worth reading every 10 or 15 years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.