MMA Forum - UFC Forums - UFC Results - MMA Videos - View Single Post - Sandy Hook conspiracy discussion

View Single Post

Old 02-06-2013, 11:35 PM   #205 (permalink)
Liddellianenko
KO artist
 
Liddellianenko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Iowa
Posts: 4,057
Liddellianenko Is Beyond A Rankings SystemLiddellianenko Is Beyond A Rankings SystemLiddellianenko Is Beyond A Rankings SystemLiddellianenko Is Beyond A Rankings SystemLiddellianenko Is Beyond A Rankings SystemLiddellianenko Is Beyond A Rankings SystemLiddellianenko Is Beyond A Rankings SystemLiddellianenko Is Beyond A Rankings SystemLiddellianenko Is Beyond A Rankings SystemLiddellianenko Is Beyond A Rankings SystemLiddellianenko Is Beyond A Rankings System
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freiermuth View Post
I most certainly am not confusing tragedies. Most of them are done for the tragedy, like most of the Sandy Hook ones are not for an individual, but it's not unique.
Now for the video and 'plug' - A reporter asked a lead in question about the amount of contact he's had to offer support so he mentions he seen a lot of it on the FB page, so our opinions on a plug is a lot different than mine. I don't even know what the FB page looked like or if it was in fact a real charity or just a 'contribute via paypal' link but he said friends of his set it up for him, so it's not like he was thinking about it right away.

There certainly are/were charities set up for Columbine, and yes, in fact, one still going was set up by a parent of a victim.
Rachels Challenge

Northwood purpose and Sandy Hook purpose are vastly different to me. Best case scenario for a false-flag operation Sandy Hook could be....slightly stricter gun control?

Please all, lets not derail this thread into a 9/11 one or if it does, change the title to something else.
So someone asks him a barely related question about contact and he immediately jumps to money and funds which the reporter never asked about? Is that how it works the day after you lose a child? And then when people ask about pictures, again redirect the question shadily to the same fund page? You're right, our definitions of "plugging" must be different, because to me this is a blatant plug.

Rachel's Challenge was founded almost a year after the tragedy and for another cause in memory of the girl (bullying), not "funeral expenses" the day after her death. The comparison is completely invalid. Funeral expenses are for personal use, that fund was for a public cause, long after the event, and with a proper employee and expense structure, not "please give unaccountable money to the parents to do whatever they want, because hey they're sad"

Can you give me a fund page for "funeral expenses" or "personal charities" by columbine parents days after the tragedy?

Af far as "slightly stricter gun control" goes, that is meant to be the proverbial foot in the door, the pandora's box. You really think the govt. ever stops at "slightly" anything when they have their paws on it? How much was that "slight" income tax when it was first started? .7-2% wasn't it? Where is it now?

That is also the whole point behind Obama's "oh woe is america, congress will fail gun control". He is aiming for a classic high, low, meet in the middle "compromise" foot in the door. After that, widening the wedge is only too easy as govt. has shown infinite times.

You are underestimating the importance of a weak and disarmed populace to a corrupt leadership. What did the british empire do in their conquered colonies / scotland? BAN PRIVATE ARMS. And you think the motive means less to them than some random war and bloodshed with cuba for absolutely no real reason?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PheelGoodInc View Post
LMAO. May as well admit defeat now.

Him even saying that means he's preping people to explain why his new laws aren't going to go in effect.

Too funny he / others would set up this elaborate scheme just to concede with, "DAMN! WE FORGOT ABOUT CONGRESS!" LMAO.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013...s-gun-control/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...e2a_story.html

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-sources-hou...-politics.html

Sure sounds like they've "given up".

Like I said, he's gunning for a "compromise", a foot in the door, and he'll probably get it. Probably a national database of every weapon in the country, profiling all lawful gun owners as "potential nuts" so to speak. Maybe with the assault weapons or some magazine capacity ban on top.

And the fact that it will be portrayed as a "compromise" will keep the people from suddenly bucking and chafing at the bridle.

Then when the very next time some guy is shot with anything more than a pellet in a country of 300 million, the paid news networks will go nuts for the next push, wiping another layer of guns from the database. This is how it has happened in many other countries. As if countries with gun control have no shootings or any less crime (actually they have exponentially higher rates of home robberies and break ins). Rinse and repeat, until people have nothing left but butter knives and .01 caliber single round pea shooters, and that only if you have a "threat on your person".
Liddellianenko is online now   Reply With Quote