Is it Possible That the U.S. Government Staged the Boston Marathon Bombing?

echelon1k1 said:
you're right, what you're saying is way past what we already know. Nothing new there...

That's some little pissant issue that keeps people from the real issues.

But I just don't feel like conversing with someone who thinks the US federal reserve is a federal government institution. It shines light on a flawed thinking process that's bathed in BOHICA
Click to expand...

I don't think I called the Fed a "federal government institution." I'm guessing instead that I described it as "a beautiful compromise of public and private elements" and so on, and said that the system was headed by the Board, appointed and confirmed like many of our highest government officials (all true); the public retains control of monetary policy. Perhaps you culled it together otherwise in your memory, but the nuances mattered, and they always do.
 
Kite High said:
Please obtain or use a brain prior to a weak engagement attempt
Click to expand...

Please don't attempt to discuss the Fourth Amendment if you don't know anything about it. You're taking issue with the present reality of constitutional law, which is that dog sniffs aren't searches and if "random warrantless searches" were instituted, they'd be challenged on Fourth Amendment grounds immediately and invalidated, just as they have been in the past. If you disagree, you should state your reasons so that I can criticize them, just as you should criticize mine.
 
tokeprep said:
I don't think I called the Fed a "federal government institution." I'm guessing instead that I described it as "a beautiful compromise of public and private elements" and so on, and said that the system was headed by the Board, appointed and confirmed like many of our highest government officials (all true); the public retains control of monetary policy. Perhaps you culled it together otherwise in your memory, but the nuances mattered, and they always do.
Click to expand...

Quote of the Day... Not sig worthy though... Could you point me to the list of class A shareholders if you would be so kind?
 
tokeprep said:
Please don't attempt to discuss the Fourth Amendment if you don't know anything about it. You're taking issue with the present reality of constitutional law, which is that dog sniffs aren't searches and if "random warrantless searches" were instituted, they'd be challenged on Fourth Amendment grounds immediately and invalidated, just as they have been in the past. If you disagree, you should state your reasons so that I can criticize them, just as you should criticize mine.
Click to expand...

I apologise, i'm Australian so the term "stop and frisk" may mean something different down here...
 
Dr Kynes said:
i saw the challenger explode live on TV too, and i saw NO PARACHUTES. nobody i know who also saw it saw parachutes.

some people hope so hard that they see what they wish, thus the assertions of one "eyewitness" is as reliable as the observations of a two year old child.

the challenger went from situation normal to freefall so fast nobody could do anything to escape. they were still inder the multi-G force of takeoff acceleration, trapped in their seats untill they dump their solid rocket boosters.

they were fucked from the moment their match was lit, they just didnt know it.

the media lies to us regularly, and those lies are often the result of bad info, wishful thinking, and ignorance. the nefarious deliberate plans to create deliberate falsehoods are far less common. but thats mainly due to incompetence. they have been caught lying so often, the charges of being "a fringey nutcase" are starting to wear thin.
Click to expand...

I have no idea which network my mom or you or your friends were watching thought I did see the rebroadcast numerous times during the day.
Didn't see any parachutes either but my mom is far from delusional and I believe her, fuck, it was 30 years ago or something.

"NASA, we have an abnormality, a vibration" KaBOOM!

You know the school teacher had blue eyes???

One blew this way< and one blew that way>.
 
echelon1k1 said:
Quote of the Day... Not sig worthy though... Could you point me to the list of class A shareholders if you would be so kind?
Click to expand...

Shareholders of what? The regional banks? Every nationally chartered bank is a shareholder of one of them, and almost half the state banks if I'm recalling correctly. It's not a secret.

But they don't control monetary policy (nor do theyreally even control the banks in the first place). Yes, some of the regional bank presidents sit on the FOMC, but the Board outvotes them. Where did the public lose control?
 
Who says anyone was even in the Challenger? The shuttle accidentally launched with no one onboard. They had no choice but activate the self destruct. The astronauts all got new identities and are secretly working on as a Chinese Star Wars satellite system cosmonaut.
 
echelon1k1 said:
I apologise, i'm Australian so the term "stop and frisk" may mean something different down here...
Click to expand...

There has to be some suspicion to justify "stop and frisk" in the first place, but regardless, it's not really a search. A pat for weapons isn't what the black helicopter people are warning about.
 
tokeprep said:
There has to be some suspicion to justify "stop and frisk" in the first place, but regardless, it's not really a search. A pat for weapons isn't what the black helicopter people are warning about.
Click to expand...

there is - you're already suspect if you're black or latino - there's the justification... Do you see where this is going?
 
tokeprep said:
There has to be some suspicion to justify "stop and frisk" in the first place, but regardless, it's not really a search. A pat for weapons isn't what the black helicopter people are warning about.
Click to expand...

Look at what we have here, I'll take that baggie. We're getting stoned tonight, boys.
 
echelon1k1 said:
nothing more than a public face for racial profiling - http://www.nyclu.org/content/stop-and-frisk-data

how many bombs did a frisk turn up?

now the talk is already turning to the need for "greater security and surveillance" including but not limited to drones 48 hrs after the incident.
Click to expand...

But it has absolutely nothing to do with the government using terrorism to erode civil liberties, so it's totally irrelevant.

Drones would probably be bounded in the same ways police aerial surveillance is currently bounded. Perhaps that should alarm people, and perhaps they should do something about it. But that was the case without terrorism--drones going to be the future regardless.
 
tokeprep said:
This isn't a discussion of the substance of the policy. The point is that it was developed independent of 9/11 or any other terrorist event and is already quite permissive. Thus black helicopter nonsense should be especially suspect.
Click to expand...

What will you say when my pressure cooker gets taken away for being full of beans?
 
Figong said:
Preparation comes in many forms, and it's good to see that you are. As for things related to it being caused by the US.. what purpose would this specific incident serve, and why would they try to limit their damage scope - using what are -known- to be pressure cookers of 1 specific model type, also known to originate from the Middle East?
Click to expand...
gives them somone to blame, and start cracking down on privacy laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top