Liberal Forum
Archive
‹
Political Chat Rooms
‹
No Holds Barred Political Forum
‹
Trust the government? JK...
Trust the government? JK...
By Deezer Shoove
20 Mar 2025 10:42 pm in No Holds Barred Political Forum
7 Apr 2025 4:53 pm
You simply can't se seriousjerrab » 10 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ which was facing the left of the road when he got shot.
watch the video.
Kennedy was shot and Connelly turned around
The next shot was the head shot
Why did Connally turn around ?
7 Apr 2025 5:04 pm
Never heard of that video. If you post it, I will at least click on it and give it a chance. I won't promise to watch the entire thing, because I have no idea how retarded it might be.JohnnyYou » Today, 3:26 am » wrote: ↑ Did you see the guy on the video in "The MAGAts are Coming"?
I am suspicious right wing phoolks hijacked the Floyd Protests and instigated the looting and mayhem.
The dude on the video was a self entitled MAGA ****. It's a repeat of what happened at the so called violent protests you speak of.
"Because I SAY I am" is fallacy, not science
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not your friend
An opinion you won't defend is not yours. It's someone else's.
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe.
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge.
Only religions declare heresy; only lies require protection.
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not your friend
An opinion you won't defend is not yours. It's someone else's.
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe.
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge.
Only religions declare heresy; only lies require protection.
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
7 Apr 2025 5:11 pm
HarperLee » 28 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ You can't be serious...
There simply was no way he was shot in the back while sitting in the front seat
Unless the bullet came from the back
you can't be serious if you think some one whose back is facing the left can't be shot in the back from the left.
it does not matter if you are in the front seat or the back seat, what matters is what direction you are facing.
if you are in the backseat facing the back and looking out the rear window and the shot comes from the back do you get shot in the front or in the back? a second grader can answer this question.
7 Apr 2025 5:28 pm
Why did he turn around suddenly?jerrab » 19 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ you can't be serious if you think some one whose back is facing the left can't be shot in the back from the left.
it does not matter if you are in the front seat or the back seat, what matters is what direction you are facing.
if you are in the backseat facing the back and looking out the rear window and the shot comes from the back do you get shot in the front or in the back? a second grader can answer this question.
Tell us
Look at Zapruder
Why did he turn around?
7 Apr 2025 5:47 pm
It's water over the damn now.. It was above this dialogue. Anyway, the guy was a fat azz Full MAGA Jacket asshole and felt the need to get out his vehicle and bully some peaceful protesters in Lafayette Louisiana. It got to pushing and shoving and he went to his Truck and went full Kyle Jacket with his weapon and said call 911. The police gave him kudos and said have a nice day, He did end up with a bloody nose. I think he started the pushing and shoving but I may be wrong.Cannonpointer » 46 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Never heard of that video. If you post it, I will at least click on it and give it a chance. I won't promise to watch the entire thing, because I have no idea how retarded it might be.
7 Apr 2025 7:08 pm
HarperLee » Today, 5:28 pm » wrote: ↑ Why did he turn around suddenly?
Tell us
Look at Zapruder
Why did he turn around?
he turned around to see what happened to kennedy he said that in the hospital interview also other times.
7 Apr 2025 7:12 pm
********jerrab » Today, 4:06 pm » wrote: ↑ -------------------------
https://pol.illinoisstate.edu/downloads ... IPAC05.pdf
The first victims of AIPAC’s attacks were Representatives Paul N. (Pete) McCloskey and Paul Findley. Representative McCloskey’s first sin was to have repeatedly said that if an incumbent administration couldn’t keep the Israel Lobby from blocking its Middle East policies, it was time to take the issue to the people. (Curtiss 39) At the time of this comment 1978-1982, public support for the “Land for Peace” idea was strong and both the Carter and Reagan were strong supporters of the plan. In order to keep its goals on track AIPAC set-up an all-out war on Representative McCloskey and targeted him as a larger threat to Israel than all of the Arab nations combined. Donors from all over the country poured money into California to unseat McCloskey. AIPAC’s labeling of McCloskey as an enemy of Israel caused many pro-Israel PAC’s to shell money out to McCloskey’s opponent. At the time there were over 30 pro-Israel PAC’
***********************
AIPAC was fearful that Representative Findley would begin to pool support for the PLO and the Palestinians. They decided to make sure in his 1982 campaign; there was no way for him to win. First, the 1980 census required a re-drawing of the legislative districts. Three maps were made, of which two almost guaranteed Findley victory, while the other almost guaranteed defeat. (Curtiss 30) There were three judges deciding on the maps; two Republicans and one Democrat. To the surprise of many one of the Republican judges, a supporter and sympathizer of AIPAC, voted with the Democrat, ensuring Findley’s defeat. (Findley 23) To help make sure defeat was guaranteed, AIPAC mobilized college student volunteers from across the country, encouraged pro-Israel PAC’s to donate large sums to Findley’s opponent, Richard Durbin, and made it almost impossible for Findley to get anyone to come to fundraisers on his behalf. (Rubenberg 374) 51% of Richard Durbin’s donations came for out of state contributors, and under the direction of AIPAC, $104,325 came into Durbin’s campaign from Pro-Israel PAC’s. AIPAC also sent 200 Student volunteers to do door to door canvassing for Durbin.
--------------------------------------
all this pro israel lobbying in american politics is something kennedy wanted to stop. anyone against israel and whatever it does to the palestinians will not get elected but whoever supports israel will get millions of dollars from israel so most of dc all are supporters of israel.
and yes, this includes trump.
(AIPAC was fearful that Representative Findley would begin to pool support for the PLO and the Palestinians. They decided to make sure in his 1982 campaign; there was no way for him to win. First, the 1980 census required a re-drawing of the legislative districts. Three maps were made, of which two almost guaranteed Findley victory, while the other almost guaranteed defeat. (Curtiss 30) There were three judges deciding on the maps; two Republicans and one Democrat. To the surprise of many one of the Republican judges, a supporter and sympathizer of AIPAC, voted with the Democrat, ensuring Findley’s defeat. (Findley 23) To help make sure defeat was
7 Apr 2025 7:16 pm
kennedy wanted to not send american gis to viet nam and wanted to stop israel influence in american politics. two reasons maybe why people wanted him out of the picture.
7 Apr 2025 8:57 pm
Just out of morbid curiosity, were the mostly peaceful homosexuals blocking the road?JohnnyYou » Today, 5:47 pm » wrote: ↑ It's water over the damn now.. It was above this dialogue. Anyway, the guy was a fat azz Full MAGA Jacket asshole and felt the need to get out his vehicle and bully some peaceful protesters in Lafayette Louisiana. It got to pushing and shoving and he went to his Truck and went full Kyle Jacket with his weapon and said call 911. The police gave him kudos and said have a nice day, He did end up with a bloody nose. I think he started the pushing and shoving but I may be wrong.
It's yes or no.
If it's yes, they were violating his right to freedom of movement, and he was right to confront them.
"Because I SAY I am" is fallacy, not science
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not your friend
An opinion you won't defend is not yours. It's someone else's.
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe.
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge.
Only religions declare heresy; only lies require protection.
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not your friend
An opinion you won't defend is not yours. It's someone else's.
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe.
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge.
Only religions declare heresy; only lies require protection.
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
8 Apr 2025 3:54 am
Understood.jerrab » Yesterday, 7:16 pm » wrote: ↑ kennedy wanted to not send american gis to viet nam and wanted to stop israel influence in american politics. two reasons maybe why people wanted him out of the picture.
However, the facts of the case and the evidence do not support multiple shooters.
If so other people would be hurt, numerous other wounds in Kennedy and the limo would be filled with bullet holes.
Oswald walked into work with curtain rods that day.
They were never found.
A rifle was found with his finger prints.
The bullets that killed Kennedy was fired from that rifle.
And the man that owned that rifle fled the scene.
He killed a police officer and 11 witnesses identified him.
However, Mark Lane finds one witness that claimed the shooter was short and heavy. Oswald was not heavy.
And that's enough to ignore the 11 other witnesses?
He went into a movie theater and the gun that killed Tippet was in his possession.
And when approached he pointed the gun at the officer?
Does this sound like an innocent man to you?
If you look at the evidence it's rather overwhelming.
If you watch the movie JFK it's rather silly.
There's no evidence that multiple shooters were walking around Dealey that day with loaded rifles.
8 Apr 2025 1:52 pm
HarperLee » Today, 3:54 am » wrote: ↑ Understood.
However, the facts of the case and the evidence do not support multiple shooters.
If so other people would be hurt, numerous other wounds in Kennedy and the limo would be filled with bullet holes.
Oswald walked into work with curtain rods that day.
They were never found.
A rifle was found with his finger prints.
The bullets that killed Kennedy was fired from that rifle.
And the man that owned that rifle fled the scene.
He killed a police officer and 11 witnesses identified him.
However, Mark Lane finds one witness that claimed the shooter was short and heavy. Oswald was not heavy.
And that's enough to ignore the 11 other witnesses?
He went into a movie theater and the gun that killed Tippet was in his possession.
And when approached he pointed the gun at the officer?
Does this sound like an innocent man to you?
If you look at the evidence it's rather overwhelming.
If you watch the movie JFK it's rather silly.
There's no evidence that multiple shooters were walking around Dealey that day with loaded rifles.
you base your conclusion on curtain rods? anyone can use them, pretty universal. someone else could have taken them.
8 Apr 2025 1:54 pm
how did you get to that conclusion? oswald could have shot other people as well.HarperLee » Today, 3:54 am » wrote: ↑ Understood.
However, the facts of the case and the evidence do not support multiple shooters.
If so other people would be hurt, numerous other wounds in Kennedy and the limo would be filled with bullet holes.
O
8 Apr 2025 2:01 pm
If Oswald shot other people then who are they?jerrab » 9 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ how did you get to that conclusion? oswald could have shot other people as well.
8 Apr 2025 2:02 pm
So you have another party in the conspiracy?jerrab » 12 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ you base your conclusion on curtain rods? anyone can use them, pretty universal. someone else could have taken them.
Someone stole Oswald's curtain rods?
8 Apr 2025 2:04 pm
I doubt very much if someone stole his curtain rods.jerrab » 12 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ you base your conclusion on curtain rods? anyone can use them, pretty universal. someone else could have taken them.
Actually it's pretty convincing he was carrying the rifle to work that day.
The rifle he bought.
The rifle that killed Kennedy
And the rifle that had his fingerprints
8 Apr 2025 2:15 pm
------------Another witness, Helen Markham, also saw the killing. However, she described the killer as being short and somewhat on the heavy side, with slightly bushy hair." Later, Markham identified Oswald in a police lineup, but this was after she had seen his photograph on television.Warren Reynolds did not see the shooting but saw the gunman running from the scene of the crime. He claimed that the man was not Oswald. After he survived an attempt to kill him, he changed his mind and identified Oswald as the man he had seen.Four cartridge cases were found lying on the ground near the scene of the murder. It would seem that the killer had opened the chamber of his gun and manually ejected the cases. Instead of immediately fleeing the scene of the crime, he deliberately stopped and discarded four vital pieces of evidence that could have been used against him. The four cartridge cases were traced to Oswald's revolver, although they were never matched to the bullets.HarperLee » Today, 3:54 am » wrote: ↑ Understood.
However, the facts of the case and the evidence do not support multiple shooters.
If so other people would be hurt, numerous other wounds in Kennedy and the limo would be filled with bullet holes.
He killed a police officer and 11 witnesses identified him.
However, Mark Lane finds one witness that claimed the shooter was short and heavy. Oswald was not heavy.
And that's enough to ignore the 11 other witnesses?
8 Apr 2025 2:17 pm
https://www.kennedysandking.com/blog/55 ... essesHelen MarkhamHelen Markham was a key witness in the Tippit case. She claimed to have seen the shooting, but contradictions marred her testimony. While Markham described an encounter where a man shot Officer Tippit, her version conflicted with other witnesses.Below are some of these contradictions:HarperLee » Today, 3:54 am » wrote: ↑ Understood.
However, the facts of the case and the evidence do not support multiple shooters.
If so other people would be hurt, numerous other wounds in Kennedy and the limo would be filled with bullet holes.
Oswald walked into work with curtain rods that day.
They were never found.
A rifle was found with his finger prints.
The bullets that killed Kennedy was fired from that rifle.
And the man that owned that rifle fled the scene.
He killed a police officer and 11 witnesses identified him.
However, Mark Lane finds one witness that claimed the shooter was short and heavy. Oswald was not heavy.
And that's enough to ignore the 11 other witnesses?
He went into a movie theater and the gun that killed Tippet was in his possession.
And when approached he pointed the gun at the officer?
Does this sound like an innocent man to you?
If you look at the evidence it's rather overwhelming.
If you watch the movie JFK it's rather silly.
There's no evidence that multiple shooters were walking around Dealey that day with loaded rifles.
- She was the only one to see the killer walking east, while others saw the killer walking west along 10th Street.
- Markham claimed the killer leaned into Tippit's open passenger window, but only the vent window was cracked open.
- She also stated that she spent 20 minutes alone with the dying officer, which contradicted Benavides’ testimony suggesting Tippit died quickly.
8 Apr 2025 2:27 pm
11 witnesses are on the record identifying Oswald.jerrab » 12 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ https://www.kennedysandking.com/blog/55 ... essesHelen MarkhamHelen Markham was a key witness in the Tippit case. She claimed to have seen the shooting, but contradictions marred her testimony. While Markham described an encounter where a man shot Officer Tippit, her version conflicted with other witnesses.Below are some of these contradictions:
- She was the only one to see the killer walking east, while others saw the killer walking west along 10th Street.
- Markham claimed the killer leaned into Tippit's open passenger window, but only the vent window was cracked open.
- She also stated that she spent 20 minutes alone with the dying officer, which contradicted Benavides’ testimony suggesting Tippit died quickly.
He was found with the gun that killed Tippet.
And he entered a theatre in the middle of a movie.
And then he pointed the gun at a cop.
And you think he was innocent??
11 people identified him
And he's caught with the gun
Cmon...
You're being silly
8 Apr 2025 2:27 pm
------------------HarperLee » Today, 3:54 am » wrote: ↑ Understood.
However, the facts of the case and the evidence do not support multiple shooters.
If so other people would be hurt, numerous other wounds in Kennedy and the limo would be filled with bullet holes.
Oswald walked into work with curtain rods that day.
They were never found.
A rifle was found with his finger prints.
The bullets that killed Kennedy was fired from that rifle.
And the man that owned that rifle fled the scene.
He killed a police officer and 11 witnesses identified him.
However, Mark Lane finds one witness that claimed the shooter was short and heavy. Oswald was not heavy.
And that's enough to ignore the 11 other witnesses?
He went into a movie theater and the gun that killed Tippet was in his possession.
And when approached he pointed the gun at the officer?
Does this sound like an innocent man to you?
If you look at the evidence it's rather overwhelming.
If you watch the movie JFK it's rather silly.
There's no evidence that multiple shooters were walking around Dealey that day with loaded rifles.
Assistant Warren Counsel Wesley Libeler called Markham’s testimony "contradictory and worthless," and others doubted her identification of Oswal
8 Apr 2025 2:29 pm
there was as much chance of oswald shooting other people as someone else shooting kennedy-- it is a moot argument.
Who is online
In total there are 1875 users online :: 18 registered, 14 bots, and 1843 guests
Registered users: Vegas, Johnny You, Mrkelly, Blackvegetable, Buck Naked, ROG62, RebelGator, *GHETTO BLASTER, *Beekeeper, jerra b, murdock, LowIQTrash, PhiloBeddo, SouthernFried, nefarious101, 31st Arrival, *Huey, PoliticalPopUp
Bots: curl/7, Pinterest, Applebot, DuckDuckBot, TTD-Content, proximic, app.hypefactors.com, Mediapartners-Google, ADmantX, linkfluence.com, Googlebot, YandexBot, semantic-visions.com, bingbot