Butthurt Street

**TimTim** · 09-15-2016

Yeah. Not sure why you felt like writing a short essay @Scourge because like I said, these things definitely happen. It just doesn't happen at such an extreme extent such that every atrocity is orchestrated/fabricated. Getting really tired of repeating myself in this thread lol.

**sumbich** · 09-15-2016

Originally Posted by TimTim

So first it was holes, and now it's contradictions. The analogy remains, 100%. Contradictions are not viable evidence.

And if one's tale contains enough contradictions, what of that story? Wait a minute, if the government's story is full of contradictions and (actually viable) evidence tells a different story that directly points to their involvement...nah since we cant say precisely down to every last detail what happened, its unreasonable to reach the conclusion that the government was involved? smh.

We have enough contradictions in the San Bernadino story to know that the story which was presented was severely embellished if not flat out false. These contradictions are fully supported by the government and news.

[snip, already went over most of the ways in which SB was shown to be false, though I hadnt previously noted here the flashing lights on the second car being the same as white police flashers, which is illegal for non-emergency vehicles, and they wouldnt have been able to have them from the factory]

How about Hebdo?

Watch this, and tell me with a straight face that the hebdo officer really gets shot here. (This one is even more unbelievable than the alleged Alison Parker "shooting")

If you think that's really someone getting shot point blank in the head with an ak-47, go into your kitchen, find a meat thermometer stick it in your ear, get out a hammer, and pound away.

But "officially" that officer was murdered with an ak-47, despite video evidence showing he clearly was not.

This is what a shot to the head with an ak-47 looks like. Guy in the middle, warning, graphic. This is what we would have seen if Hebdo was real, plus a very generous amount of blood splatter all over the sidewalk.

Are you telling me the french police, government and media did not lie here?

How much evidence does it take to call bullshit?

How about the backpack in Boston that blew up - the same type that we know and is proven that all of the secret security agencies that were conducting a bomb training event were wearing? The black one with the silver reflective square? The type of backpack that NEITHER of the Tsarnevs were wearing? And we have both Tsarnevs ON VIDEO leaving the event WITH THEIR BACKPACKS ON? And NO video at all of them actually wearing or holding one of those backpacks?

Nope, they still did it?

And it wasnt the federal security services, that had those backpacks on, and were conducting a bomb training event? Nah, that doesnt logically follow AT ALL

I think you've just got a problem assessing situations and events tied to them. You de-weight things like the government and media stories being completely contradictory with viable evidence and have some strange pull to chock the majority of them up as simple misunderstandings and mixed messages.

Certain data will tell you that a certain story is FALSE. When there is data that tells you of government involvement in the plot, why all of a sudden it is a requirement to be able to completely retrace every single step of the event and identify every last little detail in order to confidently say that the government was involved? No shit the mere fact that the story is shown to be false doesnt prove that they planned the operation - its all the other evidence that strongly indicates their complicity if not outright involvement, depending on which situation we're referring to. Why would the government and news get behind what is provably a false story - and not only get behind it, but push it to the max and attack people who try to point it out?

You're making yourself into a lackey of the globalists by berating those who question the stories, when you havent even done enough work on your own to determine for yourself the veracity of the stories. I'd have had more details out of you so that actual datapoints would have been discussed had you done your homework on these things, which is why you and uranus can only stay in the general academic field of logic and refuse to actually apply it to the situations being discussed.

I guess you can proceed with your generalizations and misquoting now...

question, do you believe ISIS is a real grassroots organization?

**TimTim** · 09-15-2016

Originally Posted by sumbich

Not a single thing you outlined is viable evidence of a conspiracy or any type of orchestration.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by sumbich

Watch this, and tell me with a straight face that the hebdo officer really gets shot here. (This one is even more unbelievable than the alleged Alison Parker "shooting")

Your inability to consider more than one possibility is really showing here lol.

**sumbich** · 09-15-2016

Originally Posted by TimTim

Not a single thing you outlined is viable evidence of a conspiracy or any type of orchestration.

- - - Updated - - -

Your inability to consider more than one possibility is really showing here lol.

LOL...as if I didnt already know I was dealing with a dupe, here...

**Scourge** · 09-15-2016

Originally Posted by sumbich

LOL...as if I didnt already know I was dealing with a dupe, here...

Plans, conversations, leaks, physical evidence. That's what he's looking for. What you have (on the part of the government) are lies, omissions, and dubious connections. If you can name the names, and explicitly connect the names to what they did, that's evidence. That's something you can convict with.

**sumbich** · 09-16-2016

Originally Posted by Scourge

Plans, conversations, leaks, physical evidence. That's what he's looking for. What you have (on the part of the government) are lies, omissions, and dubious connections. If you can name the names, and explicitly connect the names to what they did, that's evidence. That's something you can convict with.

ah yes, the "law"....

e.g. "this is the law exercising itself extrajudicially"

�Secret cables and reports by the U.S., Saudi and Israeli intelligence agencies indicate that the moment Assad rejected the Qatari pipeline, military and intelligence planners quickly arrived at the consensus that fomenting a Sunni uprising in Syria to overthrow the uncooperative Bashar Assad was a feasible path to achieving the shared objective of completing the Qatar/Turkey gas link. In 2009, according to WikiLeaks, soon after Bashar Assad rejected the Qatar pipeline, the CIA began funding opposition groups in Syria.�

� Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Why the Arabs don�t want us in Syria, Politico

and since the flow of legal "authority" has been turned upside down on its head, whereas in "olden" times the local sheriff was equal or greater in authority than some punkass fed that shows up somewhere because the government has some interest in what's going on, whether the intended action is actually specified in the fed's delegated powers or not.

nowadays, fbi, cia, nsa - they will immediately and automatically act as if they are the highest authority in the land and nobody is above a fed.

that is because:
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...ke_on_1933.htm

On October 6, 1917, the Congress had passed the Trading with the Enemy Act, dealing with how the government may control the activities of those considered to be enemies or allies of enemies of our government. Prior to 1933, Paragraph 5(b) of that Act read, "That the President may investigate, regulate or prohibit, under such rules as he may prescribe by means of foreign exchange, export or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, transfers of credit in any form (other than credits relating to transactions to be executed wholly within the United States)..."

Since 1917, then, the President had the power to seize or block financial transactions of those considered to be our enemy. It is also very clear that, in 1917, the Congress wanted to exclude the American people from the oppression of such powers. The bill was, after all, supposed to define our government's posture in dealing with our enemies or allies of our enemies.

The Emergency Banking and Relief Act, passed by Congress in special session on March 9, 1933, modifies paragraph 5(b) of the Trading with the Enemy Act just discussed. The modified paragraph reads, "Section 2. Subdivision (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. L. 411), as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: (b) During time of war or during any other period of national emergency declared by the President, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President, and export, hoarding, melting or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, by any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and the President may require any person engaged in any transaction referred to in this subdivision to furnish under oath, complete production of any books of account, contracts, letters or other papers, in connection therewith in the custody or control of such person, either before or after such transaction is completed. Whoever willfully violates any of the provisions of the subdivision of any license, order, rule or regulation issued there under, shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $10,000..."

This Act granted to the President broad sweeping investigative and prosecutorial powers against anyone, including the American people, found by the President to be an enemy. By removing the former "...transactions to be executed wholly within the United States..." the Congress was effectively putting the American people in the same category as our nation's enemies, and gave the President essentially dictatorial powers.

I understand the level of detail of legalese, plenty of lawyers in the fam, and I'm plenty aware of all the ways in which the law was perverted in order to subvert this country.

and I'm plenty aware of what preposterous lengths TPTB will go through to maintain these lies and keep the populace believing what they want them to belive and worry about things like terrorism and not the fact that the banking cartels have stolen the government, perverted the media, subjugated the law enforcement process, and by designed result of these policies have stolen ungodly amounts of wealth from nearly everyone.

we havent waged war or made regime change in 50+ countries in the last century because that is the people's wish, or that it benefits the people in any way shape or form.

the monetary system only makes mathematical sense for the banking cartels.

it all flows from this

but if folks dont want to go back and read how and why this happened, then the larger story today makes much, much less sense.

our government has granted itself complete opacity in any matter it deems to declare so.

like I said, I understand what passes for evidentiary in a courtroom - but then again, you probably dont understand what the gold fringe means anyway or why the switch was made in the country's courtrooms...

legalese is the language of pure fuckery for that very reason.

**TimTim** · 09-18-2016

The picture the US gov't doesn't want you to see:

( Click to show/hide )

**sumbich** · 09-20-2016

yeah, and the police officer that oswald allegedly killed - know what his nickname was? JFK.

there's a reason Jackie said "that's not him" and that a special certain coroner flew from dallas to washington.

but of course "that doesnt mean anything" too right

just like the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever showing the tsarnevs in possession of one of those black backpacks with the silver reflective square on them. no entering, not during, not leaving the event (leaving...and oh darn, they had their backpacks on that they had when they arrived).....ya know, unlike all the feds doing the bomb training there that day.

here's the funny thing, you want to say "I dun belief the news always" and here we have yet another example where there is absolutely no evidence that says the guys did it that the government's pointing their finger at.

Do you believe Alison Parker was shot live on tv?

Why am I asking these things? You can see for yourself. Or maybe you cant.

So if you believe the story about the tsarnevs, even though there is no evidence to back up the assertion aside from the word of the FBI,

If you believe the Alison Parker shooting, when you can clearly see by the video footage that there was no way in hell she was shot,

If you can believe the Hebdo policeman was shot in the head despite seeing the slowed down video of the blank bouncing off the sidewalk...

If you can believe those things...then there's a very good chance I nor anyone else can help you.

You might as well believe the unemployment figures from the government are accurate.

Sorry Tim, I still cant interpret your position as serious, it is simply too flawed and inconsistent.

**uranus** · 09-20-2016

Originally Posted by sumbich

I believe you can clearly see by the video footage that there was no way in hell she was shot,

I believe the Hebdo policeman was [not] shot because the slowed down video [..shows] the blank bouncing off the sidewalk...

Did I get it right?

**TimTim** · 09-20-2016

@sumbich I'm curious. How many shootings/killings/atrocities do you believe actually happened? And if any, which ones?

User Tag List

Thread: Butthurt Street

Thread Tools

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

Spiderman butthurt by the name Spiderpig, boosted me whole game

yeahhh street fighter

Members who have read this thread : 162

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions