Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here

[Yossarian]

Please.

On the info that's being declassified, whoopdy doo. Nothing that's being now released is going to be groundbreaking. Besides, any info that's released is only info that the Governmemt have had over 50 years to doctor to their liking.

I doubt anything would convince you. Anyone whose studied the evidence and has investigate training will tell you Oswald did it and the evidence stacks up. Well most of them anyway.

As I'm sure anything I could present would not convince you. I'm sure you'd just say I'm a conspiracy nut.

Yoss, would you seriously like me to go through all the hard evidence? this thread would be hijacked. i doubt you'd still be convinced. you would have to be very very naive to think the president could be assassinated without help from an agency. William Greer stopped the limo, you can see it on youtube.

Yes, there were at least 8 shooters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk_7TCe_Fkk&t=1106s

You brought it up. All that rubbish about Bush.

Greer didn't stop the car. It was always moving.

Of course I won't be convinced - my background is in criminal investigation. I deal with facts not conjecture. People saw Oswald in that window. There's no reliable evidence to support any other shooter. Not a single other person.

That video is pathetic - based on their yellow line the "shooter" must have been a midget in a drain. Greer screwed up but anyone who thinks he shot JFK is living in fantasy land.

 

[Yossarian]

And here I thought the X-Men documentary proved Magneto did it…

It would be more realistic than most of the theories.

 

[Magnus]

I doubt anything would convince you. Anyone whose studied the evidence and has investigate training will tell you Oswald did it and the evidence stacks up. Well most of them anyway.

As I'm sure anything I could present would not convince you. I'm sure you'd just say I'm a conspiracy nut.

Yoss, would you seriously like me to go through all the hard evidence? this thread would be hijacked. i doubt you'd still be convinced. you would have to be very very naive to think the president could be assassinated without help from an agency. William Greer stopped the limo, you can see it on youtube.

Yes, there were at least 8 shooters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk_7TCe_Fkk&t=1106s

You brought it up. All that rubbish about Bush.

Greer didn't stop the car. It was always moving.

Of course I won't be convinced - my background is in criminal investigation. I deal with facts not conjecture. People saw Oswald in that window. There's no reliable evidence to support any other shooter. Not a single other person.

That video is pathetic - based on their yellow line the "shooter" must have been a midget in a drain. Greer screwed up but anyone who thinks he shot JFK is living in fantasy land.

I don't get it, if lho did it and he was behind JFK @ the depository why did JFKs head move violently backwards. Doesn't make any sense.

 

[tsjonathan]

As I'm sure anything I could present would not convince you. I'm sure you'd just say I'm a conspiracy nut.

Yoss, would you seriously like me to go through all the hard evidence? this thread would be hijacked. i doubt you'd still be convinced. you would have to be very very naive to think the president could be assassinated without help from an agency. William Greer stopped the limo, you can see it on youtube.

Yes, there were at least 8 shooters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk_7TCe_Fkk&t=1106s

You brought it up. All that rubbish about Bush.

Greer didn't stop the car. It was always moving.

Of course I won't be convinced - my background is in criminal investigation. I deal with facts not conjecture. People saw Oswald in that window. There's no reliable evidence to support any other shooter. Not a single other person.

That video is pathetic - based on their yellow line the "shooter" must have been a midget in a drain. Greer screwed up but anyone who thinks he shot JFK is living in fantasy land.

I don't get it, if lho did it and he was behind JFK @ the depository why did JFKs head move violently backwards. Doesn't make any sense.

It was the nightcrawler who teleported Oswald from behind to in front in 2 seconds flat

 

[tsjonathan]

As I'm sure anything I could present would not convince you. I'm sure you'd just say I'm a conspiracy nut.

Yoss, would you seriously like me to go through all the hard evidence? this thread would be hijacked. i doubt you'd still be convinced. you would have to be very very naive to think the president could be assassinated without help from an agency. William Greer stopped the limo, you can see it on youtube.

Yes, there were at least 8 shooters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk_7TCe_Fkk&t=1106s

You brought it up. All that rubbish about Bush.

Greer didn't stop the car. It was always moving.

Of course I won't be convinced - my background is in criminal investigation. I deal with facts not conjecture. People saw Oswald in that window. There's no reliable evidence to support any other shooter. Not a single other person.

That video is pathetic - based on their yellow line the "shooter" must have been a midget in a drain. Greer screwed up but anyone who thinks h
e shot JFK is living in fantasy land.

I don't get it, if lho did it and he was behind JFK @ the depository why did JFKs head move violently backwards. Doesn't make any sense.

Nightcrawler teleported Oswald from behind to the front

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

So Barnaby has been kicked out + 4 others. Man this is a massive waste of tax dollars.

All because their parties have/had inadequate procedures in place. Apart from that already expended and with the by election to come, the decision to not stand Joyce aside, particularly from his ministerial roles, could prove very costly indeed.

In the meantime, we have drugs and guns potentially flooding into our country following funding being cut to be diverted to things such as SSM surveys and multiple energy reports that are rejected by a few powerful climate deniers.

Mate, no offence, but you really are one-eyed.

In reference to FG's first paragraph, I fail to see where they are wrong. The Greens, One Nation and Nationals all got stung. The Liberals and ALP didn't have anyone pinged which suggests they have extensive vetting procedures or are quite good at burying information. Since the Nats are in coalition with the Libs, you'd have thought they would have done their due diligence and ensured their Nats counterparts (especially the deputy PM,) would be compliant with the election rules as laid out as per the constitution.

Not knowing is not a legitimate defence. If I get pinged by a speed camera I can't claim that I didn't know I was speeding.

 

[magpiecol]

Where are Scully and Mulder when you need them?

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

To those who think the court decision is a waste of time, would they feel so benovelent if it was half a dozen Labour Pollies who got caught.
Turnbull has egg all over him ( again) for thinking that he could pick and choose which laws he could obey, and which ones he could ignore.
For him and the And the Nationals to hold out , and make it go to the high court shows their contempt towards those of us who are expected to obey all laws, whether we are aware of them or otherwise.
My only problem with it is that these people have been getting a bucketful of Taxpayers money , and will continue to do so, while they were in the parliament and voting on MANY
bills over the years.
They were not even eligible to be there!!!!!
They were taking( knowingly or not) money under illegal circumstances.
And should have to pay it back!!!
Any of us in those circumstances would have to. Wages , super, the whole lot.

Labour is Nuts if they don't use this to the hilt.
Imagine Abbot and Turnbull getting this free kick.
They'd go for the throat.
Shorten needs to do the same to them
Unfortunately Joyce will get back in, but the money he's acrued illegally shoul be paid back .
Turnbull is really squirming with this and the Cash bungle, both these things are going to hurt him for quite a long while

You've lost the plot cgt. If you really think this is a significant issue, some obscure rule that no one knew about, then the only thing it highlights is an incredible bias on your behalf.

The thing about you suggesting they paying years of wages back, when these guys have families to look after, is just stone dead cold. Why don't you go and take the food back out of his kids mouths?

Man, there are bigger things to worry about in this world than what amounts to basically admin errors!

Turnbull and the squaddies were vocal about the 2 Greens' Senators paying back the salaries they had been paid when ineligible to sit in Parliament. Now that the Conservatives have been exposed, there is hushed silence from Turnbull and Co.

You know what guys, I apologise. I actually agree with you now. I hadn't seen Turnbull's quotes on the matter about the Greens - what an absolute dropkick. I hate to say it, but he has to be nearly on last legs.

Even if it's opposition that he's trying to take down, it's just pure in-human like attacking someone like that when they've worked hard. You're talking about taking back years of salary from them for an error like that. No workplace anywhere would work like that!

Man our country is stuffed though if we keep turning over leaders like this.

We get the governments we deserve Hammer. Government since Howard has been elected on the basis of instant gratification. The parties merely react to this by pandering to the electorate. That's why leaders have been replaced of late. It's a symptom of a larger problem.

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

Where are Scully and Mulder when you need them?

Gee magpie you are turning the clock back, Billy Scully died in March 1966 and he wasn't spectacular?

 

[Yossarian]

As I'm sure anything I could present would not convince you. I'm sure you'd just say I'm a conspiracy nut.

Yoss, would you seriously like me to go through all the hard evidence? this thread would be hijacked. i doubt you'd still be convinced. you would have to be very very naive to think the president could be assassinated without help from an agency. William Greer stopped the limo, you can see it on youtube.

Yes, there were at least 8 shooters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk_7TCe_Fkk&t=1106s

You brought it up. All that rubbish about Bush.

Greer didn't stop the car. It was always moving.

Of course I won't be convinced - my background is in criminal investigation. I deal with facts not conjecture. People saw Oswald in that window. There's no reliable evidence to support any other shooter. Not a single other person.

That video is pathetic - based on their yellow line the "shooter" must have been a midget in a drain. Greer screwed up but anyone who thinks he shot JFK is living in fantasy land.

I don't get it, if lho did it and he was behind JFK @ the depository why did JFKs head move violently backwards. Doesn't make any sense.

Because it jerks forward slightly then snaps back violently. That's what happens. But this man can explain it better.

mcadams.posc.mu.edu/macpher.htm

And these guys too:

mcadams.posc.mu.edu/headwnd.htm

 

[Magnus]

Yoss, would you seriously like me to go through all the hard evidence? this thread would be hijacked. i doubt you'd still be convinced. you would have to be very very naive to think the president could be assassinated without help from an agency. William Greer stopped the limo, you can see it on youtube.

Yes, there were at least 8 shooters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk_7TCe_Fkk&t=1106s

You brought it up. All that rubbish about Bush.

Greer didn't stop the car. It was always moving.

Of course I won't be convinced - my background is in criminal investigation. I deal with facts not conjecture. People saw Oswald in that window. There's no reliable evidence to support any other shooter. Not a single other person.

That video is pathetic - based on their yellow line the "shooter" must have been a midget in a drain. Greer screwed up but anyone who thinks he shot JFK is living in fantasy land.

I don't get it, if lho did it and he was behind JFK @ the depository why did JFKs head move violently backwards. Doesn't make any sense.

Because it jerks forward slightly then snaps back violently. That's what happens. But this man can explain it better.

mcadams.posc.mu.edu/macpher.htm

And these guys too:

mcadams.posc.mu.edu/headwnd.htm

i dont know who shot jfk but his head rocks backwards. That link didn't explain much though. Looks like his head rocks back 2 metres back…

has anyone ever fired an archaic 6.5×52mm Carcano Model 91/38 infantry rifle? Is it a solid gun to fire 3/4 shots in about 3 seconds?

 

[Magnus]

Yoss, would you seriously like me to go through all the hard evidence? this thread would be hijacked. i doubt you'd still be convinced. you would have to be very very naive to think the president could be assassinated without help from an agency. William Greer stopped the limo, you can see it on youtube.

Yes, there were at least 8 shooters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk_7TCe_Fkk&t=1106s

You brought it up. All that rubbish about Bush.

Greer didn't stop the car. It was always moving.

Of course I won't be convinced - my background is in criminal investigation. I deal with facts not conjecture. People saw Oswald in that window. There's no reliable evidence to support any other shooter. Not a single other person.

That video is pathetic - based on their yellow line the "shooter" must have been a midget in a drain. Greer screwed up but anyone who thinks he shot JFK is living in fantasy land.

I don't get it, if lho did it and he was behind JFK @ the depository why did JFKs head move violently backwards. Doesn't make any sense.

Because it jerks forward slightly then snaps back violently. That's what happens. But this man can explain it better.

mcadams.posc.mu.edu/macpher.htm

And these guys too:

mcadams.posc.mu.edu/headwnd.htm

actually you are correct, his head does move forward first but then another bullet comes and his head moves back. Interesting stuff, so he must have had shooters from both sides

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/headshot.htm

 

[Yossarian]

You brought it up. All that rubbish about Bush.

Greer didn't stop the car. It was always moving.

Of course I won't be convinced - my background is in criminal investigation. I deal with facts not conjecture. People saw Oswald in that window. There's no reliable evidence to support any other shooter. Not a single other person.

That video is pathetic - based on their yellow line the "shooter" must have been a midget in a drain. Greer screwed up but anyone who thinks he shot JFK is living in fantasy land.

I don't get it, if lho did it and he was behind JFK @ the depository why did JFKs head move violently backwards. Doesn't make any sense.

Because it jerks forward slightly then snaps back violently. That's what happens. But this man can explain it better.

mcadams.posc.mu.edu/macpher.htm

And these guys too:

mcadams.posc.mu.edu/headwnd.htm

i dont know who shot jfk but his head rocks backwards. That link didn't explain much though. Looks like his head rocks back 2 metres back…

has anyone ever fired an archaic 6.5×52mm Carcano Model 91/38 infantry rifle? Is it a solid gun to fire 3/4 shots in about 3 seconds?

Yes lots of people. They even fired the actual rifle. 3 seconds? More like 8.

 

[Yossarian]

You brought it up. All that rubbish about Bush.

Greer didn't stop the car. It was always moving.

Of course I won't be convinced - my background is in criminal investigation. I deal with facts not conjecture. People saw Oswald in that window. There's no reliable evidence to support any other shooter. Not a single other person.

That video is pathetic - based on their yellow line the "shooter" must have been a midget in a drain. Greer screwed up but anyone who thinks he shot JFK is living in fantasy land.

I don't get it, if lho did it and he was behind JFK @ the depository why did JFKs head move violently backwards. Doesn't make any sense.

Because it jerks forward slightly then snaps back violently. That's what happens. But this man can explain it better.

mcadams.posc.mu.edu/macpher.htm

And these guys too:

mcadams.posc.mu.edu/headwnd.htm

actually you are correct, his head does move forward first but then another bullet comes and his head moves back. Interesting stuff, so he must have had shooters from both sides

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/headshot.htm

Did you read the sources from my last post? That's from scientist familiar with ballistics not guys on the Internet. They clearly and very precisely explain why the Newton law doesn't apply. Thinking that movement in one direction means force from the opposite side is debunked by anyone with training or experience in that field.

 

[Magnus]

I don't get it, if lho did it and he was behind JFK @ the depository why did JFKs head move violently backwards. Doesn't make any sense.

Because it jerks forward slightly then snaps back violently. That's what happens. But this man can explain it better.

mcadams.posc.mu.edu/macpher.htm

And these guys too:

mcadams.posc.mu.edu/headwnd.htm

actually you are correct, his head does move forward first but then another bullet comes and his head moves back. Interesting stuff, so he must have had shooters from both sides

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/headshot.htm

Did you read the sources from my last post? That's from scientist familiar with ballistics not guys on the Internet. They clearly and very precisely explain why the Newton law doesn't apply. Thinking that movement in one direction means force from the opposite side is debunked by anyone with training or experience in that field.

yes I read it and common sense tells me he was shot from in front and behind. Some people really wanted this guy dead. I wouldn't be suprised if there were 10 shooters,

I'm always a bit skeptical of reports from the Government such as the Warren report. I guess we will have to wait and read more of the files when they are released. I read somewhere 9/10 Americans do not believe the Warren report.

 

[goldcoast_tiger]

To those who think the court decision is a waste of time, would they feel so benovelent if it was half a dozen Labour Pollies who got caught.
Turnbull has egg all over him ( again) for thinking that he could pick and choose which laws he could obey, and which ones he could ignore.
For him and the And the Nationals to hold out , and make it go to the high court shows their contempt towards those of us who are expected to obey all laws, whether we are aware of them or otherwise.
My only problem with it is that these people have been getting a bucketful of Taxpayers money , and will continue to do so, while they were in the parliament and voting on MANY
bills over the years.
They were not even eligible to be there!!!!!
They were taking( knowingly or not) money under illegal circumstances.
And should have to pay it back!!!
Any of us in those circumstances would have to. Wages , super, the whole lot.

Labour is Nuts if they don't use this to the hilt.
Imagine Abbot and Turnbull getting this free kick.
They'd go for the throat.
Shorten needs to do the same to them
Unfortunately Joyce will get back in, but the money he's acrued illegally shoul be paid back .
Turnbull is really squirming with this and the Cash bungle, both these things are going to hurt him for quite a long while

You've lost the plot cgt. If you really think this is a significant issue, some obscure rule that no one knew about, then the only thing it highlights is an incredible bias on your behalf.

The thing about you suggesting they paying years of wages back, when these guys have families to look after, is just stone dead cold. Why don't you go and take the food back out of his kids mouths?

Man, there are bigger things to worry about in this world than what amounts to basically admin errors!

Turnbull and the squaddies were vocal about the 2 Greens' Senators paying back the salaries they had been paid when ineligible to sit in Parliament. Now that the Conservatives have been exposed, there is hushed silence from Turnbull and Co.

HT, if you and four or five of your mates were able to convince a govt body that you were entitled to a bucketload of money and pension or whatever payments every week, and got sprung after , let's say, 10 years.
Do you think that you should get a rap across the fingers, or do you think it would be looked at as serious,
I've seen the result , about 8 years ago, after a woman bought a house that we were selling
About six month later I had a visit from the AFP asking whether we thought she was in a relationship. I didn't have a clue either way , yet still got called as a witness. And as far as I could see , no one else had much to add to what I knew
The result on pretty flimsy evidence was …..Pay it all back + 3 years holiday.
No one cared much about her family in that case.
There's miles more evidence here that this lot have been collecting our money ( Govt have no money of their own it's OUR money , that they are throwing around ). while not being in the Parliament legally.
Funny that there's one rule forguilty people out in the public domain and one for anyone in politics. Especially Deputy PMs
Then again the Lady I mentioned wasn't needed to help keep a Govt in place , due to a permanently in crisis, PM

 

[Yossarian]

Because it jerks forward slightly then snaps back violently. That's what happens. But this man can explain it better.

mcadams.posc.mu.edu/macpher.htm

And these guys too:

mcadams.posc.mu.edu/headwnd.htm

actually you are correct, his head does move forward first but then another bullet comes and his head moves back. Interesting stuff, so he must have had shooters from both sides

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/headshot.htm

Did you read the sources from my last post? That's from scientist familiar with ballistics not guys on the Internet. They clearly and very precisely explain why the Newton law doesn't apply. Thinking that movement in one direction means force from the opposite side is debunked by anyone with training or experience in that field.

yes I read it and common sense tells me he was shot from in front and behind. Some people really wanted this guy dead. I wouldn't be suprised if there were 10 shooters,

I'm always a bit skeptical of reports from the Government such as the Warren report. I guess we will have to wait and read more of the files when they are released. I read somewhere 9/10 Americans do not believe the Warren report.

Okay well there it is I guess. I'm talking about primary evidence and expert testimony. If you'd rather go with gut instinct and internet amateurs that's your call.

 

[Harvey]

actually you are correct, his head does move forward first but then another bullet comes and his head moves back. Interesting stuff, so he must have had shooters from both sides

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/headshot.htm

Did you read the sources from my last post? That's from scientist familiar with ballistics not guys on the Internet. They clearly and very precisely explain why the Newton law doesn't apply. Thinking that movement in one direction means force from the opposite side is debunked by anyone with training or experience in that field.

yes I read it and common sense tells me he was shot from in front and behind. Some people really wanted this guy dead. I wouldn't be suprised if there were 10 shooters,

I'm always a bit skeptical of reports from the Government such as the Warren report. I guess we will have to wait and read more of the files when they are released. I read somewhere 9/10 Americans do not believe the Warren report.

Okay well there it is I guess. I'm talking about primary evidence and expert testimony. If you'd rather go with gut instinct and internet amateurs that's your call.

"If it is on the internet, it must be true ". Abe Lincoln, 1864

 

[Magnus]

actually you are correct, his head does move forward first but then another bullet comes and his head moves back. Interesting stuff, so he must have had shooters from both sides

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/headshot.htm

Did you read the sources from my last post? That's from scientist familiar with ballistics not guys on the Internet. They clearly and very precisely explain why the Newton law doesn't apply. Thinking that movement in one direction means force from the opposite side is debunked by anyone with training or experience in that field.

yes I read it and common sense tells me he was shot from in front and behind. Some people really wanted this guy dead. I wouldn't be suprised if there were 10 shooters,

I'm always a bit skeptical of reports from the Government such as the Warren report. I guess we will have to wait and read more of the files when they are released. I read somewhere 9/10 Americans do not believe the Warren report.

Okay well there it is I guess. I'm talking about primary evidence and expert testimony. If you'd rather go with gut instinct and internet amateurs that's your call.

Because politicians have never lied to us, lol I think we're both talking about primary evidence and therein lies the inaccuracies that don't make sense. Jusst because someone is sceptical it is "internet ametuers and gut instinct" LOL gtfo

Looks like other people can't even be bothered to argue and show you their evidence cause you are so close minded to counter theories. I could send you links to first hand witnesses but then again you wouldn't agree with it anyway. Debating the wind.

 

[Yossarian]

Did you read the sources from my last post? That's from scientist familiar with ballistics not guys on the Internet. They clearly and very precisely explain why the Newton law doesn't apply. Thinking that movement in one direction means force from the opposite side is debunked by anyone with training or experience in that field.

yes I read it and common sense tells me he was shot from in front and behind. Some people really wanted this guy dead. I wouldn't be suprised if there were 10 shooters,

I'm always a bit skeptical of reports from the Government such as the Warren report. I guess we will have to wait and read more of the files when they are released. I read somewhere 9/10 Americans do not believe the Warren report.

Okay well there it is I guess. I'm talking about primary evidence and expert testimony. If you'd rather go with gut instinct and internet amateurs that's your call.

Because politicians have never lied to us, lol I think we're both talking about primary evidence and therein lies the inaccuracies that don't make sense. Jusst because someone is sceptical it is "internet ametuers" LOL gtfo

No mate - believe what you want but it's not primary evidence. Just because someone is sceptical doesn't mean they're right. I could ask what inaccuracies you mean but if you think they're could be 10 shooters it's probably a waste of time.

Might want to watch the disguised swearing too.