conspiraception
Printable View
conspiraception
Read the first article. Washington is completely out of control.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick
Yeah. It's only half right. Still gonna play out the same way.
The screen grab is out there. I'd post it but I'm stealing wifi in an airport.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpy
I don't know about that. It is 100% expected that there would be a bill asking for stronger enforcement of background checks for explosive materials in the wake of such a high-profile bombing. Something like this always happens - it's what our politicians do to make themselves look good. When a kid goes missing and turns up dead after a long search, there is often new legislation to protect children. When there is a shooting rampage, Capitol Hill is abuzz with anti-gun talk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
This bill (S.792) was proposed a few days ago and is still in committee. I don't see the text anywhere online, so I haven't read it yet, but it appears that it calls for background checks for purchases of explosive "black powder," "black powder substitute," and "smokeless powder." It also calls for permits for the manufacture of homemade explosives and a ban on the sale of explosives to known or suspected terrorists.
Again, this is what politicians do. It's an almost Pavlovian reflex, so I don't think it's a surprise or evidence that anyone is out of control.
The post alluded to in the article reads as follows:
1. Male late teens, early twenties? Correct. But the bombing was actually pinned on two men, one 19 and one 26.Quote:
WARNING: Laws being written to screw you.
I work on a security commission and I've just received word to start campaigning on a campaign we've been working on for the last two months and now it all makes sense.
I'll keep it as short can I can.
They're going to pin this event on a male late teens to early 20s and say he did it because he's unstable. They are going to find firearms and a NRA book in his home. They are going to say he used reloading powder for the explosion and that reloading powder shouldn't be for sale to the public. They are then going to say that because the powder in ammunition can be used for explosions that the number of rounds you can buy should be limited and taxed to help pay for these events.
I can't do anything or I'll lose my job and possibly face criminal charges. Please don't let them get away with it. They won't find the suspect till later this week and the raid is issued to occur on Friday. This was a staged event. The people hurt are real but the event was planned. Don't let them hurt our rights.
I'm at work so I used a copy of a picture from another thread. Also please don't mention me. It will seriously hurt me.
2. Said to be unstable? That remains to be seen. It's certainly nothing like the Aurora cinema shooter. So far it seems like he is a kid that got swept up into the religious zealotry of his older brother. Not unstable, but naïve and with a lack of empathy.
3. Firearms and an NRA book in his home? I didn't hear anything about an NRA book. If this were an operation being planned for two months, though, and the intent was to further restrict gun rights, why say firearms would be found in the perpetrator's home but not mention that he would attempt to commit further crimes with a gun before he was caught? Instead, the plan was to just plant guns in someone's home?
4. Reloading powder was used and should not be for sale to the public? Wrong on both counts.
5. A proposed tax on ammunition and a limitation on how many rounds an individual can buy? Wrong on both counts. Nothing of the sort was proposed based on the Boston bombing, unless there was and I overlooked it. But no major push anyway.
6. The suspect will be found later in the week and will be the subject of a raid on Friday? It did not happen that way. One bombing suspect was killed on a public street and the other was captured after a private citizen found that the cover on the boat in his backyard was loose. He was not captured in the traditional sense of a raid. He was cornered on someone else's land. But he was captured on Friday.
7. The whistleblower works for a security commission, so he had to copy an image from another thread, but he felt comfortable enough to post on a message board known for child pornography, gore, and explicit sexual imagery . . . from work?
Quibble about any single point. Fine. But we should all put the truth before our individual agendas. The post was about as accurate as a horoscope.
It's like the Time magazine covers that were posted in this thread. The image was so small that I could not make out the dates of the issues. But I went online and did a search on a few of the issues based on the stories that were shown. Here is the first couple:
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/tnl/att...1&d=1367105872
The point that was made in this thread, as I understood it, was that the American version of the magazine was being stripped of some of the hard news content. Yet, as you can see, the article on the Egyptian revolution and the anxiety article were in both the North American and the European versions of the magazine. If I were the editor of Time and I thought the anxiety cover would get more people to pick up the periodical, I'd put it front and center, too. The more people that buy the magazine, the more money I'd make and the more people that would read the Egyptian article.
So, at least in that case, it wasn't a case of American media only wanting to serve crap, it was . . . well, it was more like this:
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/tnl/att...1&d=1367105872
Truth before agenda.
The point I was making* was that the covers were different. I'm blown about what kind of news slings magazines in this country. I'm equally blown about what is important to most of us: starfucking and television commercials. People ask me shit like DID YOU SEE THE NEW GEICO COMMERCIAL LOL? This is fucking crazy. Maybe I'm cynical, but I don't think many people picking up the magazine because of the celebrity on the cover are going to read the actual news in there. "The news is so depressing" and such.
*Probably? I don't remember, but that seems about right.
I definitely agree with that. It's not really malicious/malignant media. It's more demand. Look at the Huffington Post (no, don't). Was it always meant to contain so many intellectually pornographic celebrity nothing articles? Or is that decided by page views?
good grief
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21929084
ban on pointing flap jacks
and why do the english call oatmeal squares, flapjacks?
Why do you call flapjacks oatmeal squares?
Eyes caul im scones.
they do? These people sound stupidQuote:
Originally Posted by Josh
what else do they ask you