U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-25-2013, 09:33 AM
 
Location: Wonderland
45,140 posts, read 36,338,000 times
Reputation: 63875

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000 View Post
By the way, why does my writing and posting about the NWO upset you so much? It's a very logical conclusion that these other conspiracies mostly have their roots in this NWO conspiracy. Could there be embarrassment that such a conspiracy could have influenced without conscious knowledge of being influenced?

LOL, I'm not upset at all. So far nothing you've posted has upset me in the least.

There's a HUGE difference between SPECULATING on something and BELIEVING something or being paranoid about something.

Speculation is rooted in logic and reasoning. Belief is rooted in ideology. Paranoia is rooted in fear.

 
Old 01-25-2013, 09:33 AM
 
8,561 posts, read 5,459,057 times
Reputation: 1172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801 View Post
I think gun control is a far-fetched reason to create a false or semi-false scenario or to manipulate information. After all, the gun-control song and dance has been going on forever--I remember it being the same way it is now after Reagan and James Brady were shot back in the early 80s. People build political platforms on it, but really--how much gun control is there ever going to be? Kind of closing the barn door after the horse got out. The country is full of guns already. Even if you start making cute little new feel-good rules, the guns are already out there and accessible to anyone who knows where to look. Give me a break.

And we don't need anyone to distract us from banking scandals or Wall Street intrigues or manufactured wars or drone strikes. No one's paying attention anyway. The Kardashians are on TV and so is Honey Boo-Boo. Some goofy football player has a dead girlfriend who never existed. The Superbowl is coming up. Etc.
I agree with the above. Which is why it seems to me that the real basis and root of most of these conspiracies and doubts about what is being reported are found within the complicated New World Order conspiracy theory. I'm also thinking that many people who have such suspicions about an incident like Sandy Hook as well as 9/11 have been influenced by the conspiracy theory to believethat there is a group of politically elite people around the world, a nebulous group which they cannot name specifically other than Rothschild, CFR, Trilateral Commission and Bilderberger Group, seeking to create and control a one-world government, NWO. I'm certainly not saying that I believe in such a conspiracy, but the tentacles of that conspiracy theory have spread far and wide. A basic questioning of authority, IMO, is a very good thing. However, the lengths some people go to in order to make a connection and to further the believe in this NWO conspiracy theory is extreme.
 
Old 01-25-2013, 09:42 AM
 
8,561 posts, read 5,459,057 times
Reputation: 1172
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon View Post
LOL, I'm not upset at all. So far nothing you've posted has upset me in the least.

There's a HUGE difference between SPECULATING on something and BELIEVING something or being paranoid about something.

Speculation is rooted in logic and reasoning. Belief is rooted in ideology. Paranoia is rooted in fear.
SPECULATING about why there are not more photographs of the Sandy Hook incident for this many pages is extreme. WHY?

Is there agenda here? Is there an agenda to convince people that there is something wrong with this picture so they'll be more anti-government, even though they can't say exactly why, just that they know there's something wrong? Now that wouldn't be a right-wing agenda, would it? Do you think that everyone who fears the government is paranoid? Could it be that their fear is based on innuendo and twisted "facts" they've read on the Internet but have not had time to do thorough research? That wouldn't be paranoid; that would be believing mistaken information.....or going the next step from reading innuendo.

You may not be upset, but your post certainly gave that impression, Kathryn.
 
Old 01-25-2013, 09:44 AM
 
Location: A tropical island
4,581 posts, read 4,453,674 times
Reputation: 11266
Ooooh, ooooh, I've been using the shortened "CT" for Conspiracy Theory, and of course CT just happens to be the state where all of this took place.

Coinky-dink??? I think not.
 
Old 01-25-2013, 09:49 AM
 
8,561 posts, read 5,459,057 times
Reputation: 1172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorthy View Post
Don'tchaknow? Asking questions means that you are nothing but a deranged conspiracy freak, right wing nut job, gun hugger.
Asking the same questions over and over after logical speculations and answers have been made may just mean that.
 
Old 01-25-2013, 09:49 AM
 
Location: Coastal New Jersey
56,274 posts, read 54,731,851 times
Reputation: 66808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorthy View Post
Yes, this adds to the confusion. A parent AND the school nurse said that Nancy Lanza was a teacher (or sub) at the school. I'm not sure how people are so quick to dismiss this inconsistency in particular because it is a really big one and it comes from multiple sources.
I have a question, since I can't see the YouTube video that you posted. Is the YouTube video of Sarah (Sally) Cox actually saying that Nancy Lanza was a teacher/sub at the school, or is it of a reporter saying that Sally Cox said this?

Similarly, a newspaper article saying "a parent said" doesn't prove that a parent actually said anything, either.
 
Old 01-25-2013, 09:50 AM
 
4,267 posts, read 5,317,500 times
Reputation: 3579
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000 View Post
Asking the same questions over and over after logical speculations and answers have been made may just mean that.
 
Old 01-25-2013, 09:50 AM
 
Location: Wonderland
45,140 posts, read 36,338,000 times
Reputation: 63875
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000 View Post
SPECULATING about why there are not more photographs of the Sandy Hook incident for this many pages is extreme. WHY?

Is there agenda here? Is there an agenda to convince people that there is something wrong with this picture so they'll be more anti-government, even though they can't say exactly why, just that they know there's something wrong? Now that wouldn't be a right-wing agenda, would it? Do you think that everyone who fears the government is paranoid? Could it be that their fear is based on innuendo and twisted "facts" they've read on the Internet but have not had time to do thorough research? That wouldn't be paranoid; that would be believing mistaken information.....or going the next step from reading innuendo.

You may not be upset, but your post certainly gave that impression, Kathryn.
Oh well - glad I could clear up that misconception. Maybe you're a bit paranoid...or possibly just naturally skeptical.

I am a naturally skeptical person - which, as I've said earlier, has definitely been more a positive than negative trait in my personal and professional life. For instance, a healthy dose of skepticism is a great parenting trait when raising four teenagers at once. Skepticism is a necessary trait when managing a bank or a large group of employees.

This doesn't mean that I'm wandering about wearing a trenchcoat and dark shades with a snarl on my face, muttering, "Yeah, riiiiggggghhhhtttt..." every few minutes. What it DOES mean is that I rarely take something at face value. I apply the motto, "Seek first to understand," and I gather as many facts as possible in order to make informed decisions and form the opinions and beliefs upon which I base my life choices.

In other words, I ask a lot of questions. Always have. When someone is threatened by sincere and reasonable questions, that can raise a red flag.

My original question of "Why aren't there more photos of the events of that day at Sandy Hook?" is a reasonable question, considering the plethora of personal devices at the fingertips of about 99 percent of functioning adults in our society.

Several people on this thread gave what I consider to be very good reasons for the lack of photos. I've acknowledged and thanked those people, who, by the way, are not as far as I can see, RWNJs.
 
Old 01-25-2013, 09:51 AM
 
Location: Coastal New Jersey
56,274 posts, read 54,731,851 times
Reputation: 66808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magritte25 View Post
While I'm not surprised that Peter or Ryan Lanza are not talking, I kind of wish they would.
They will when they've agreed to the terms of the book deals.
 
Old 01-25-2013, 09:53 AM
 
3,448 posts, read 2,683,341 times
Reputation: 478
This is so bad its unbelievable. I was checking the 11m watched link and others last night.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top