I'm posting this link for discussion purposes. There has been virtually NO specific information about this purported shooting released even evidence regarding the actual firearms used. I'm interested in your opinions on this matter. Jim
We are 'purported' to be healthier and happier, creating jobs, overcoming racism, engaging with partners against isis, backchanneling with iran, and nothing more than the wild west. Difference? I made a list of odds and ends felt to be fact, Jim felt like discussion.
Jim takes this seriously! "Purported" shooting? Look at the source.
OK Mr. failed ex-CBC Reporter, why don't you do some serious digging and find us stories that effectively refute these findings?
During news reports on the day of the Newtown shootings, there were eyewitness reports from teachers within the school that the shooter was using handguns. In less than one day, those Handguns morphed into a semi-automatic rifle.
Prior to all of this, we had our Obama Justice Department attempting to create the false scenario that Mexican Drug Cartels and gangs were getting their guns from U.S. gun shows and gun shops in "Operation Fast and Furious". They were using this false narrative to pursue stricter infringements upon our 2nd Amendment Rights.
These are the lying snake anti-gunners that the lying snake King Brown supports and defends.
I personally emailed the police authorities there and asked for clarification on the weapons used and also a public release of the firearms evidence found at the crime scene. I was stonewalled and never did receive a response. To date and to the best of my knowledge NO DETAILED information regarding these shootings has ever been released. I personally don't know what happened and that's the reason "a Staged Event" is followed by a question mark a point that apparently escaped Brown since he's insinuating I don't believe this happened. Bottom line I don't think anyone outside the investigation knows what happened but I think we need to find out. Oh and BTW so now Brown is an expert in forensic investigation! And Brown: "Purported" is the appropriate term until some facts in this case are provided.
Keith,myself and the other members here await your in-depth investigation detailing exactly what happened in this case.
"About the author: He claims that after starting an investigation he threatened to stop his inquiry he would be charged with harassment. Halbig is a well-known and experienced law enforcement officer. Listen to this mind-blowing interview. Mr. Halbig has the professional expertise to conclude the official story is impossible, and to demand arrests in order for the public to have the truth."
It's preposterous and demeaning to victims and families to cast the tragedy within conspiracy theory, "a Staged Event?", "purported shooting," a hoax.
To even discuss it within those terms is to be corrupted by going along with it.
Hey liar, it's a safe bet that none of the affected families will ever read Misfires. So what is the problem with asking how HANDGUNS which were seen being fired by adult eyewitness Teachers inside the school by Adam Lanza later morphed into the dreaded and oft demonized assault rifle? Why is is a problem to simply consider many or all of the points brought up by the investigator, Mr Halbig? Could it be for the very same reason that you never wished to discuss Operation Fast and Furious or the lies that were told to the American Public after the Benghazi debacle? Why is it OK for you to dredge up and question Iran-Contra... where there was an actual Congressional investigation and a special prosecutor who drew conclusions different from yours, or to upset the poor stricken black families who had friends and relatives lynched over 50 years ago?
I also noticed that, although you pretend to ignore me, you neglected to comment on the Thread AmarilloMike posted about the apparent collusion between the IRS's Lois Lerner and Kevin Kennedy of the Wisconsin GAB in targeting Conservatives. Would it be that way if a similar thing happened to Liberals while Bush was in office? I have no doubt that this is how you conducted yourself as a so-called journalist.
King Brown, your bias and dishonest hypocrisy is as obvious as a large florescent orange tattoo on your nose. You will be remembered as the biggest lying fraud ever to taint the pages of Misfires.
That's why he's on my ignore list. Instead of addressing the real issues here as to Why the Hell 2 years later has NO information regarding these shootings ever been released?? . Once again since Brown can produce NO FACTS to refute what this expert has stated he resorts to the typical Libtard ploy of belittling the person making the charges. and deeming those charges beneath him. We're still awaiting your facts Brown that refute these assertions! Brown could care less about the truth and his Libtard agenda shows through every time he makes another asinine post on this forum.
GLS: A well written rebuttal to the original allegations. That why I posted this "Staged Event" write up with a question mark. Anyone else have an opinion or know of other analysis of this situation? It's a good thing we didn't hold our collective breaths waiting for the self described "investigative reporter" from Canada to unearth this type of information. Please also note that this is two peoples opinions and neither one is backed up by a great deal of evidence. I went back and re-visited the Conn. State Police reports that were released and they have been heavily redacted. Trying to do any kind of real analysis under those conditions would be difficult at best. Jim
....It's preposterous and demeaning to victims and families to cast the tragedy within conspiracy theory, "a Staged Event?"....
Why can't someone look at ferguson or baltimore and think the exact same thing when professional race baiters and paid looters come to town to stir the pot. Why can't the press keep the pres honest, by questioning when he draws knee jerk conclusions at hasty photo ops.
Is it okay to demean victims and their families if, two points, first it achieves a progressive goal, and second, the demeanor is protected by pc. Hang on, that didn't come out right, of course it's okay.
Quote: "....It's preposterous and demeaning to victims and families to cast the tragedy within conspiracy theory, "a Staged Event?"...."
Since someone posted Browns "indignation" Lets see if we have this correctly:
I am sure the Kennedy assassination demeaned some of the Kennedys and certainly invoked multiple conspiracy theories which continue unabated even today 50 years later. I doubt if the Canadian investigative reporter ever found this to be preposterous but then his view of propriety is totally tainted by his socialist view of the world. He is far and away the biggest hypocrite I've ever had the displeasure of meeting even on the Internet. There is NO QUESTION in my mind and anyone else's who can reason objectively that the current administration has maliciously created artificial crisis in order to extend their socialist agenda and Operation Fast and Furious was done with just that objective in mind. Obama and Holder for their involvement are nothing more then common criminals who should be in jail. Would this administration go as far as creating a false mass murder? I really don't know where the "over the line" point for them is if there even is one at this time.
The suggestion that Sandy Hook was staged and didn't actually happen seems preposterous to me, but I would not doubt that certain aspects of the incident and the investigation have been withheld to further the political narrative that the pols have used to fuel their own agendas...Geo
Geo: What we know for sure is that in just about every case of a mass shooting the perp. has either been mentally unbalanced and/or on drugs either legal or illegal. What the government and the "mainstream news media" does is gloss over this aspect and go after gun owners instead since this is in concert with their political agenda. At the very least they are misleading the public who don't really know this is going on and at the worse their setting us all up for the next tragedy. That incredible Libtard Bimbo Pelosi had the audacity to blame the San Francisco shooting on guns rather then a lifetime criminal illegal alien with multiple convictions and deportations. Jim
Geo: What we know for sure is that in just about every case of a mass shooting the perp. has either been mentally unbalanced and/or on drugs either legal or illegal. What the government and the "mainstream news media" does is gloss over this aspect and go after gun owners instead since this is in concert with their political agenda. At the very least they are misleading the public who don't really know this is going on and at the worse their setting us all up for the next tragedy. That incredible Libtard Bimbo Pelosi had the audacity to blame the San Francisco shooting on guns rather then a lifetime criminal illegal alien with multiple convictions and deportations. Jim
You forgot to remind us that most were.......how did you described them. As registered Democrats or was it from household full of Democrats?
The suggestion that Sandy Hook was staged and didn't actually happen seems preposterous to me, but I would not doubt that certain aspects of the incident and the investigation have been withheld to further the political narrative that the pols have used to fuel their own agendas...Geo
The demolition of the World Trade Centers with Thermite sounds preposterous but explain the high temperatures that were involved in meting the steel center structure causing the collapse. http://www.rense.com/general75/thrm.htm
The Pentagon missile strike....just a coincident that the area struck contained the financial records...and just days before Rumsfield said on national news that there was trillions of dollars unaccounted for and no mention has been made of it since.
Now jOe, I know you are very stupid but even you should understand that if you have me on "ignore" you can't see my posts. So if you can't see them then you can't answer them.
'Sides that, you should be in acuddlin' with fRank, like the happy newlyweds you are.
Not this conspiracy theory bullshit again. I LIVE in CT and Sandy Hook did happen.
1. Sloppy reporting be the media, all eager to be the first with the latest information, led to a lot misinformation being put out there. The little monster used an AR-15 to kill the children and adults and used 1 of the 2 handguns he was carrying to blow his brains out when the police arrived. He left in the car the Saiga 12 gauge semi automatic shotgun.
2. Severe gun control laws were passed in both NY & CT after the Sandy Hook shooting occurred. It failed at the Federal level when the anti-gun faction on Congress overreached and tried to get too much added on to the bill
3. There are shooters on a CT Shooting Discussion board who both knew Nancy Lanza and some of the police who responded to scene. As an aside some of the police who responded and entered the building still have not returned to duty due PTSD issues, one of which went to court.
4. Yes, the CT State Police, probably at the direction of the CT Attorney General, an anti gun politician, delayed the report, until the Hartford Courant, very much a liberal paper, went to court to get the documents released. It was delayed partly because the anti-gun politicians in CT, both Democrat and Republican, wanted time to pass their legislation.
5. Any cover up would be related to either failures in the initial police response to the shooting (they arrived about 4 minutes and 30 seconds after the 911 call) or any failures by the town or state to address AL mental issues which would have been aggravated by autism.
7. For those of you believing this fantasy conspiracy theory please explain how ALL of the people present at the shooting, ALL of the medical people involved at the shooting and the hospitals and ALL of the parents and relatives of these "imaginary victims" are willing to go along with such a conspiracy? We're talking hundreds of people
8. I was present at the public hearing and I saw some of the victims testify, including one father who had his son killed who testified AGAINST further gun control. If they are paid actors, they should be in Hollywood starring in TV shows and movies, not as bit players in a conspiracy theory.
Chantry, Well done. The aftermath may not have been handled well, but, that doesn't mean it didn't happen, or, happened under false pretenses. None of the legislation that was passed in the name of Sandy Hook would/could prevent it from happening again.
Chantry: Thank you! I have a good friend that needs to read your report. You have confirmed what I already believed, and you are credible to me (unlike 90% of what I read or hear elsewhere).
It takes a special kind of stupid to believe things like this. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of folks with that characteristic, and they don't even realize it (see Dunning-Kruger effect).
Chantry, there will be folks who will think that you are in "cahoots" with the power structure that "faked" the massacre.
The "investigation for truth" is centered on the proposition that the deaths were faked and no one was killed. From this low point, it manages to sink further. One of the theories is that the 5-6 year old children who sang at halftime at Super Bowl in 2013 in memory of SHES, were some of the children "purported" to have been killed at SHES. The leader of the movement has sought school board meeting records which he contends will support his point.
On his website he seeks donations with a Buy Now donation button prominently located so that he can continue his investigation. There will be donations contributed and he will continue his "search for the truth". His Buy Now donors will give longer and stronger legs to P.T. Barnum's “sucker born every minute” truism. Note on his website a “Geraldo” moment photograph where he is surrounded by police in front of the Newtown United Way Office while he is in search for the “truth”. He claims the United Way is part of the hoax. Ya’ think he was disappointed that the police showed up? To the contrary, to his believers, this supports the conspiracy theory.
It takes a special kind of stupid to believe things like this. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of folks with that characteristic....
Is this about being a dem?
Originally Posted By: cpa
The characteristic shows no political partisanship.
Well, take jOe for example. He is for more gun control. He is for abortion. Obviously he is a Democrat. He thinks Sandy Hook and the World Trade Center attacks were government conspiracies. He is stupid. He is a Democrat. There is one data point.
The suggestion that Sandy Hook was staged and didn't actually happen seems preposterous to me, but I would not doubt that certain aspects of the incident and the investigation have been withheld to further the political narrative that the pols have used to fuel their own agendas...Geo
It takes a special kind of stupid to believe things like this. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of folks with that characteristic....
Is this about being a dem?
Originally Posted By: cpa
The characteristic shows no political partisanship.
Well, take jOe for example. He is for more gun control. He is for abortion. Obviously he is a Democrat. He thinks Sandy Hook and the World Trade Center attacks were government conspiracies. He is stupid. He is a Democrat. There is one data point.
For the record, I never questioned the fact that there was a mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Faking that would have been all but impossible to pull off.
But there were some serious inconsistencies that have not been adequately answered, especially pertaining to the weapon or weapons used. How do grown adult eyewitnesses who were in the school mistake the shooter killing kids with a handgun if he was actually using a rifle? Glaring details like that do not get garbled in the heat of the moment. I don't really care if there is a 500,000 page report attempting to explain that troublesome little detail. If Chantry can say he was in the school and saw Adam Lanza killing kids with a rifle, that's different. Just because he lives in CT and read a report does not explain how a handgun turns into a rifle.
But of course, we are talking about an administration that very much wants to legislate assault style rifles out of existence. And they have a history of attempting to create scenarios that demonize those firearms (see Operation Fast and Furious). Plus they continue to target those firearms (see the recent attempted ban on Green Tip 5.56mm ammo. And finally, they had henchman Raum Emanual on the staff, who said, "You never let a serious crisis go to waste."
For the record, I never questioned the fact that there was a mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Faking that would have been all but impossible to pull off.
But there were some serious inconsistencies that have not been adequately answered, especially pertaining to the weapon or weapons used. How do grown adult eyewitnesses who were in the school mistake the shooter killing kids with a handgun if he was actually using a rifle? Glaring details like that do not get garbled in the heat of the moment. And that is way beyond "sloppy reporting" because of being in a hurry to be the first to get out details. Apparently Chantry is trying to say that multiple news outlets all heard the same thing and ALL made the same sloppy inaccurate reports on the type of weapon the shooter had. I don't really care if there is a 500,000 page report attempting to explain that troublesome little detail. If Chantry can say he was in the school and saw Adam Lanza killing kids with a rifle, that's different. Just because he lives in CT and read a report does not explain how a handgun turns into a rifle.
But of course, we are talking about an administration that very much wants to legislate assault style rifles out of existence. And they have a history of attempting to create scenarios that demonize those firearms (see Operation Fast and Furious). Plus they continue to target those firearms (see the recent attempted ban on Green Tip 5.56mm ammo. And finally, they had henchman Raum Emanual on the staff, who said, "You never let a serious crisis go to waste."
For the record, I never questioned the fact that there was a mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Faking that would have been all but impossible to pull off.
But there were some serious inconsistencies that have not been adequately answered, especially pertaining to the weapon or weapons used. How do grown adult eyewitnesses who were in the school mistake the shooter killing kids with a handgun if he was actually using a rifle? Glaring details like that do not get garbled in the heat of the moment. And that is way beyond "sloppy reporting" because of being in a hurry to be the first to get out details. Apparently Chantry is trying to say that multiple news outlets all heard the same thing and ALL made the same sloppy inaccurate reports on the type of weapon the shooter had. I don't really care if there is a 500,000 page report attempting to explain that troublesome little detail. If Chantry can say he was in the school and saw Adam Lanza killing kids with a rifle, that's different. Just because he lives in CT and read a report does not explain how a handgun turns into a rifle.
But of course, we are talking about an administration that very much wants to legislate assault style rifles out of existence. And they have a history of attempting to create scenarios that demonize those firearms (see Operation Fast and Furious). Plus they continue to target those firearms (see the recent attempted ban on Green Tip 5.56mm ammo. And finally, they had henchman Raum Emanual on the staff, who said, "You never let a serious crisis go to waste."
So ALL of the people who saw the crime scene and the bodies are involved in a cover up? That doesn't pass the smell test, too many people involved. Too many police, too many medical people, too many coroners and too many morticians. Do you really believe the families of the 26 people who died that day would all go along with a cover up?
As for adult eyewitnesses, just about every adult who saw AL's face that day died. So provide legitimate links to those eyewitnesses that said they actually saw AL shooting people. And legitimate is defined as a newspaper or TV news source, not some deluded blogger and his made up bullshit.
If you don't want to believe the report or even common sense then don't.
And for the record, I am no fan of this administration and what they have done. I'd like to see some of them in jail. I have no doubt that they tried to use the tragedy to push (and continue to push) for legislation to restrict gun control. However to think in any way or form that they manipulated events to cause the tragedy is absurd and about as believable as Bush and Cheney arranging 9/11.
It wasn't on some Blog where it was first reported that eyewitnesses in the school saw Adam Lanza shooting his victims with a handgun. It was on all of the major News Networks on the day of the shooting. It was not until very late that night that it was announced that he was using an AR-15. All of the autopsies were done by Dr. H Wayne Carver. I seriously doubt if any of the grief stricken parents wanted to probe the fatal wounds to determine whether it was Glock, Sig-Sauer, or AR-15 ammunition that killed their kids. You weren't there Chantry, and neither was I. I only know what was being reported on major Networks all day long. Some of the same people who complain about doctored police reports to cover up actual facts in police shootings, etc., are now 100% willing to believe the "official" reports in the face of all of the conflicting data. I wouldn't expect anything else.
Originally Posted By: King Brown
I'm in debt to all those who exposed and recognized the Terrible Twins' loonyness and temporizing. Thank you.
And I am in debt to all those who now realize and understand that King Brown is an anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment, anti-NRA Liar.
Thank you Google, Bing, Yahoo, and even Canadian Search Engines such as Canada.com and Maple Square that have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in their massive servers to even suggest that King Brown was a personal friend of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, or the other Kennedy brothers Bobby and Ted. Thank you for showing us that he never took Jackie Kennedy on lunch dates. Thank you for proof that it is Jost Coastal Winery that actually produces the award winning wine that King always boasted about as if he and his imaginary friends smashed the grapes with their bare feet.
You just haven't been the same since you were exposed as a filthy compulsive liar and bloviator King. I can understand why you might not like me so much anymore. I can understand why you pretend to ignore me like a menstruating female. Oh, by the way, I don't think your choice of the word "temporizing" was correct Mr. Wordsmith.
I only know what was being reported on major Networks all day long.
And there is the problem. The press routinely gets the initial reporting wrong, just look at Ferguson or Baltimore or George Zimmerman. The reporters involved are selected because they look good and sound good on camera, not for their knowledge of firearms or criminal law.
Keep in mind this is the same press that keeps saying that the current inhabitant of the White House is the best President we've had in decades and that Hillary Clinton is well qualified to be the first female President.
Two 10 mm empty casings were recovered. One was in the same room as AL who shot himself in the head. According to forensics, fragments consistent with a polyagonal rifling system of the Glock 40 10 mm were found in Room 8 at a trajectory consistent with the head shot, but ballistics couldn’t rule out a fouled barrel 5.56 round. Twenty children and 4 adults were killed in rooms 8 and 10. 80 empty 5.56 casings were found in Room 10; 45 in Room 8--all 5.56. Empty 5.56 casings were found outside the broken plate glass window that he shot out to gain entry. A spent 10 mm casing and one 5.56 casing were found in the north hallway where two women were killed. To suggest that the kids were killed with anything but a 5.56 round suggests a police cover-up by tampering with the evidence scene. No empty 9 mm casings were found. I have had enough experience in my job with live witness accounts to know that mistakes in observation are not unusual and news accounts of those witness observations even worse. I don't see anyone calling Jim a liar because he stated in his first two posts there were no reports or information. There are thousands of pages of official reports and all have been available online. And he wasn't lying. He was just mistaken. Nor is anyone else a “liar” for thinking that categorizing as shameful or preposterous the activities of those who think Sandy Hook was a staged event.
As I recall, the initial reports of Police shootings in Baltimore, Ferguson, and the George Zimmerman shooting of Trayvon Martin did not immediately reach the conclusion that they were unjustified. It was only after race hustlers and the Chief Race Hustler in the White House became involved that the cry went up about shooting these poor helpless unarmed black men and "children".
Thanks for the information Gil. Again, I do not think Sandy Hook was a staged event. But the final reports differ a great deal from what was said on live Network News reports on the day of the shooting. Here's some other strange conflicting information:
From CFS-12-00704597 State Police Report, pdf of State Police Report, talking about Adam Lanza’s body when inspected at the school ON THE DAY OF THE SHOOTING: (please go to the documents pages 32 – 34 on the left side navigation) “Located on the floor east of the shooter was a “Glock 10″ semi-automatic pistol…one round was partially loaded in the chamber, with a magazine of 8 rounds remaining…the pistol was approximately 3 feet from the suspect….the pistol had numerous hairs to the front sight area of the pistol…consistent in color with that of the shooter…A black colored canvas hat was located on the floor northeast of the suspect…This hat had blood stains hairs and a hole consistent with a bullet hole in the forward portion of the top of the hat…” NOW PAY ATTENTION TO THE NEXT LINES: “This hole was consistent with having been worn by the shooter at the time the shooter received a bullet to the RIGHT REAR LOWER PORTION OF HIS HEAD WHICH EXITED OUT THE TOP PORTION OF HIS HEAD AND HAT“. Did you catch that? A kill shot to the lower rear of the head…who shoots themselves in the BACK OF THE HEAD? Further proving this shot was to the lower right BACK of the head, report 00118939 page 34, talking about the “boonie-styled” hat next to Adam on the floor: “…This hat had blood-like stains, hairs and a hole consistent with a bullet hole in the forward part of the top of the hat. This hole was consistent with having been worn by the shooter at the time the shooter received a bullet to the right rear lower portion of his head which exited out the top forward portion of his head and hat…” I also think it is VERY strange that they use the words “…at the time the shooter received a bullet…” instead of “…at the time the shooter shot himself…” Receiving generally means someone did it to you, not you doing it to yourself! It really makes it sound like they were saying someone shot him in the back of the head…of course they then go on to say he shot himself in the “right side” of the head after just saying it was to the right rear lower portion… Also, it seemingly conflicts with the following note from the autopsy report on Adam which was done later: (from 00101146 report, showing anatomic findings of victims and Adam Lanza) – “Adam Lanza died from “intraoral gunshot wound with extensive injury to skull and brain”… Note the word “Intraoral“, which if you go to any online dictionary and look the word up, it says “within the mouth, inside the mouth; situated, occurring, or performed within the mouth”…the report is saying he put the gun in his mouth and pulled the trigger, but the FIRST REPORT from the scene says the shot was to the lower right back of the head and exited through the top of his head… Lastly, in report 00045958, it shows the record of photo’s taken of Adam during the autopsy, which do not show ANY photo taken of the back of his head, only the top. Curious, since they clearly indicated in the first report it was there. For the “debunker” on REDDIT, I would like to ask a simple question: Who puts a gun to the back of their head and shoots themselves for a suicide?
Those inconsistencies all come from seasoned professionals, not terrified eyewitnesses. The paragraphs above are not my words. I copied and pasted them here. I know from firsthand experience how flustered eyewitnesses can be. When I was manager of a restaurant while going to college, I stopped in one night at closing time to check on the progress of a new assistant manager I had trained who was flying solo for the first time. Long story short, the place got held up at gunpoint. I carefully studied the robber for eye color, clothing, shoes, etc. including his Colt .25 ACP which he waved close enough to my face while pointing it at the other employees that I could actually read the slide. When he left with the money and ordered us all to stay put for 5 minutes or he'd kill anyone who came outside, I knew he wasn't about to hang around, and I was able to get 1/2 the license number from his blue Datsun B210. Afterwards, I called the cops and of course, they asked all of us for description of the robber. The other 3 employees messed up somewhat on his clothing, but all knew he had a handgun. My new assistant manager told the cops that it was a Saturday Night Special, and I interrupted and told the cop it was a blued Colt .25 ACP. He went to his cruiser and returned with his back-up gun and showed it to the kid who said, Yeah, it looked just like yours except it wasn't silver. The cop asked me how I knew what it was and I told him I read the slide from less than 2 ft. away, and I knew the police would need an accurate description to catch the guy. He then became much more interested in what I had to say. They found the robber later that night AFU on drugs in a blue Datsun B210 with the 3 license numbers I saw as he fled. In the back seat were the Camo coveralls and blue ski mask I described, eye color was correct, and he was wearing black Converse high top tennis shoes as I told the cops. They never found the gun, and said he probably used the money to buy the drugs that screwed him up so bad that he was sent to a State Hospital for the insane.
I think I am fairly observant of small details which has always helped me immensely. When huge inconsistencies arise in a case like Sandy Hook, especially in the political climate we have now where the tendency is to blame guns and the 2nd Amendment for everything, then my radar goes up and I have to ask myself the question... is it even remotely possible for early reporting to be that far off? It would not be the first False Flag type of incident perpetrated by a government with an agenda. Didn't some of you have a nice little vacation in Viet Nam because of the Gulf of Tonkin incident?
As I recall, the initial reports of Police shootings in Baltimore, Ferguson, and the George Zimmerman shooting of Trayvon Martin did not immediately reach the conclusion that they were unjustified. It was only after race hustlers and the Chief Race Hustler in the White House became involved that the cry went up about shooting these poor helpless unarmed black men and "children".
Thanks for the information Gil. Again, I do not think Sandy Hook was a staged event. But the final reports differ a great deal from what was said on live Network News reports on the day of the shooting. Here's some other strange conflicting information:
From CFS-12-00704597 State Police Report, pdf of State Police Report, talking about Adam Lanza’s body when inspected at the school ON THE DAY OF THE SHOOTING: (please go to the documents pages 32 – 34 on the left side navigation) “Located on the floor east of the shooter was a “Glock 10″ semi-automatic pistol…one round was partially loaded in the chamber, with a magazine of 8 rounds remaining…the pistol was approximately 3 feet from the suspect….the pistol had numerous hairs to the front sight area of the pistol…consistent in color with that of the shooter…A black colored canvas hat was located on the floor northeast of the suspect…This hat had blood stains hairs and a hole consistent with a bullet hole in the forward portion of the top of the hat…” NOW PAY ATTENTION TO THE NEXT LINES: “This hole was consistent with having been worn by the shooter at the time the shooter received a bullet to the RIGHT REAR LOWER PORTION OF HIS HEAD WHICH EXITED OUT THE TOP PORTION OF HIS HEAD AND HAT“. Did you catch that? A kill shot to the lower rear of the head…who shoots themselves in the BACK OF THE HEAD? Further proving this shot was to the lower right BACK of the head, report 00118939 page 34, talking about the “boonie-styled” hat next to Adam on the floor: “…This hat had blood-like stains, hairs and a hole consistent with a bullet hole in the forward part of the top of the hat. This hole was consistent with having been worn by the shooter at the time the shooter received a bullet to the right rear lower portion of his head which exited out the top forward portion of his head and hat…” I also think it is VERY strange that they use the words “…at the time the shooter received a bullet…” instead of “…at the time the shooter shot himself…” Receiving generally means someone did it to you, not you doing it to yourself! It really makes it sound like they were saying someone shot him in the back of the head…of course they then go on to say he shot himself in the “right side” of the head after just saying it was to the right rear lower portion… Also, it seemingly conflicts with the following note from the autopsy report on Adam which was done later: (from 00101146 report, showing anatomic findings of victims and Adam Lanza) – “Adam Lanza died from “intraoral gunshot wound with extensive injury to skull and brain”… Note the word “Intraoral“, which if you go to any online dictionary and look the word up, it says “within the mouth, inside the mouth; situated, occurring, or performed within the mouth”…the report is saying he put the gun in his mouth and pulled the trigger, but the FIRST REPORT from the scene says the shot was to the lower right back of the head and exited through the top of his head… Lastly, in report 00045958, it shows the record of photo’s taken of Adam during the autopsy, which do not show ANY photo taken of the back of his head, only the top. Curious, since they clearly indicated in the first report it was there. For the “debunker” on REDDIT, I would like to ask a simple question: Who puts a gun to the back of their head and shoots themselves for a suicide?
Those inconsistencies all come from seasoned professionals, not terrified eyewitnesses. The paragraphs above are not my words. I copied and pasted them here. I know from firsthand experience how flustered eyewitnesses can be. When I was manager of a restaurant while going to college, I stopped in one night at closing time to check on the progress of a new assistant manager I had trained who was flying solo for the first time. Long story short, the place got held up at gunpoint. I carefully studied the robber for eye color, clothing, shoes, etc. including his Colt .25 ACP which he waved close enough to my face while pointing it at the other employees that I could actually read the slide. When he left with the money and ordered us all to stay put for 5 minutes or he'd kill anyone who came outside, I knew he wasn't about to hang around, and I was able to get 1/2 the license number from his blue Datsun B210. Afterwards, I called the cops and of course, they asked all of us for description of the robber. The other 3 employees messed up somewhat on his clothing, but all knew he had a handgun. My new assistant manager told the cops that it was a Saturday Night Special, and I interrupted and told the cop it was a blued Colt .25 ACP. He went to his cruiser and returned with his back-up gun and showed it to the kid who said, Yeah, it looked just like yours except it wasn't silver. The cop asked me how I knew what it was and I told him I read the slide from less than 2 ft. away, and I knew the police would need an accurate description to catch the guy. He then became much more interested in what I had to say. They found the robber later that night AFU on drugs in a blue Datsun B210 with the 3 license numbers I saw as he fled. In the back seat were the Camo coveralls and blue ski mask I described, eye color was correct, and he was wearing black Converse high top tennis shoes as I told the cops. They never found the gun, and said he probably used the money to buy the drugs that screwed him up so bad that he was sent to a State Hospital for the insane.
I think I am fairly observant of small details which has always helped me immensely. When huge inconsistencies arise in a case like Sandy Hook, especially in the political climate we have now where the tendency is to blame guns and the 2nd Amendment for everything, then my radar goes up and I have to ask myself the question... is it even remotely possible for early reporting to be that far off? It would not be the first False Flag type of incident perpetrated by a government with an agenda. Didn't some of you have a nice little vacation in Viet Nam because of the Gulf of Tonkin incident?
Like any conspiracy theorist you chose to believe the facts that appear to fit your narrative and ignore or dismiss the ones that don't fit. I forgot my own rule to never discuss things with conspiracy theorists, because nothing will ever convince them that their theories are wrong. So I'm done with this thread.
Quote: "There are thousands of pages of official reports and all have been available online. And he wasn't lying. He was just mistaken. Nor is anyone else a “liar” for thinking that categorizing as shameful or preposterous the activities of those who think Sandy Hook was a staged event"
Thanks for the update GLS I personally have never seen the information you posted on case dispersal and where shots were fired anywhere and that's some of the the information I requested from the CSP and never received.
Nor was I aware of some of the first hand witness, police information and parents accounts posted earlier. I guess I need to remind everyone that the thoughts in the initial post are NOT mine and I posted them to get some discussion going on this tragedy. which I for one didn't believe had been thoroughly explained. I have learned more in this thread then in all the reporting on the news both on TV and in the newspapers. And I don't think anyone is lying in this thread either. I am also seeing the information for the first time Keith posted regarding the AL suicide and agree it is inconsistent and it would be darn near impossible for someone to shoot themselves in the back of the head in that manner described. Nor is it consistent with the report that he shot himself in the mouth. Jim
I would not be curious. What would they gain from covering up what white American Christian(s) did? I would understand if the guy was a Muslim. In that case the rage of American public could be funneled into permitting another war in the Middle East for oil, increased wealth of special interests (paid by US taxpayers) and the State of Israel.
Mike, what do you think about the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City? Did you know that there were two explosions 3.2 seconds apart that registered on the Univ. of Oklahoma seismograph? Did you know that the former head of the Los Angeles division of the FBI said that those two blasts 3.2 seconds apart, the bomb crater, the damage to the building, and the velocity of the shock wave did not fit the explosive signature of an ammonium nitrate-fuel oil bomb? Did you know he also said that the distinctive explosive signature did fit something known generically as a pineapple bomb? Did you know the FBI confiscated all of the seismograph data and the seismograph itself as evidence, and has not returned it? Did you know that one of Bill Clinton's former Arkansas State Police bodyguards was the only BATF agent in that building to show up for work and get killed in the blast that day? Did you ever see a Death Row inmate get executed and cremated as quickly as Tim McVeigh rather than languishing on Death Row for many years and going through endless appeals?
Just curious.
No-one here cares what you think Jagermeister. You proudly voted for the anti-gunner Obama twice and don't even own a double shotgun. Go back to W Kniei and stick your head in a pigs ass.
You make no sense. In another post you're upset about treatment of Christians by ISIS yet I bet you would be against supporting government of Assad. You know, the secular government of Syria that protected religious minorities of Syria. Tell me, why is it that ISIS never seems to mention your beloved Israel? It it because they're getting help from them or is it something else?
Mike, what do you think about the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City? Did you know that there were two explosions 3.2 seconds apart that registered on the Univ. of Oklahoma seismograph? Did you know that the former head of the Los Angeles division of the FBI said that those two blasts 3.2 seconds apart, the bomb crater, the damage to the building, and the velocity of the shock wave did not fit the explosive signature of an ammonium nitrate-fuel oil bomb? Did you know he also said that the distinctive explosive signature did fit something known generically as a pineapple bomb? Did you know the FBI confiscated all of the seismograph data and the seismograph itself as evidence, and has not returned it? Did you know that one of Bill Clinton's former Arkansas State Police bodyguards was the only BATF agent in that building to show up for work and get killed in the blast that day? Did you ever see a Death Row inmate get executed and cremated as quickly as Tim McVeigh rather than languishing on Death Row for many years and going through endless appeals?
Just curious.
No-one here cares what you think Jagermeister. You proudly voted for the anti-gunner Obama twice and don't even own a double shotgun. Go back to W Kniei and stick your head in a pigs ass.
The purpose of my last post on this thread was to respond to a a poke sQuealin' jOe took at me on another thread.
I think McVeigh and Nichols were responsible for the Murrah building bombing. I don't think the government or Clinton or Clintonites were involved. If the President of the United States cannot keep an illicit Oval Office blowjob secret I don't think he could pull off a secret roll in the mass murder of 168 US citizens, including dozens of children.
I do think Ms. Lerner of the IRS was targeting and harassing conservative groups because she disagreed with their politics. I think she conspired with the Wisconsin legal bureaucracy to help them politically damage Scott Walker.
I think Hillary Clinton, before she took over as Secretary of State, researched laws, regulations, and information technology with the intent of keeping control of her official government emails. As a result of that research I think she purposely set up her own server. I think the mainstream media has given her a pass on this issue because they want her to win next year.
I think the Obama administration cooks the numbers for their deportation reports.
I think Bill Clinton and his helpers conspired to ruin the reputation and credibility of Jennifer Flowers, then Paula Jones, then Monica Lewinsky. The actions, tactics, and strategies his people used in that effort were nearly identical in each episode. The spot on the Blue dress collapsed the whole house of cards.
I think the DOJ conspired to keep the "Fast and Furious" operation from the public after the Federal Officer was killed with one of the program guns.
I think Dr. Michael Mann is hiding something because he won't release his entire data, or meta data, or raw data, that he used to deduce the temperature history of the planet. As are other climate scientists. His antagonist in the Canadian court is claiming victory in the blogosphere, saying Mann won't proceed with the suit because Mann doesn't want to release that data in discovery.
I think Obama was born in Hawaii. I think he wouldn't release his birth certificate because he was worried that the Harvard foreign-born-student scholarship application was going to sink him. If he had been born in Kenya, then through his mother he would be eligible to be President anyway, just like Ted Cruz is eligible,
I believe this narrative of racist cops killing gentle Black unarmed citizens was put up by the race baiters to fill the coffers of their organizations and by the Democratic party to fill the voting booths in the Black neighborhoods.
I think Osama Bin Ladin, Al Qaeda, and about twenty Saudis were responsible for 9-11. I don't believe it was Israel or the US government. I think the collapse of the towers has been explained.
In Memogate I believe Dan Rather and Mary Mapes conspired as to when to release Bush's military "record" in order to do the most damage to his Presidential campagin.
If I decide use the tinfoil hat bit again in my feud with jOe I will start a new thread. I was not mocking you, James, or anyone else, except for jOe.
The purpose of my last post on this thread was to respond to a a poke sQuealin' jOe took at me on another thread.
I think McVeigh and Nichols were responsible for the Murrah building bombing. I don't think the government or Clinton or Clintonites were involved. If the President of the United States cannot keep an illicit Oval Office blowjob secret I don't think he could pull off a secret roll in the mass murder of 168 US citizens, including dozens of children.
I do think Ms. Lerner of the IRS was targeting and harassing conservative groups because she disagreed with their politics. I think she conspired with the Wisconsin legal bureaucracy to help them politically damage Scott Walker.
I think Hillary Clinton, before she took over as Secretary of State, researched laws, regulations, and information technology with the intent of keeping control of her official government emails. As a result of that research I think she purposely set up her own server. I think the mainstream media has given her a pass on this issue because they want her to win next year.
I think the Obama administration cooks the numbers for their deportation reports.
I think Bill Clinton and his helpers conspired to ruin the reputation and credibility of Jennifer Flowers, then Paula Jones, then Monica Lewinsky. The actions, tactics, and strategies his people used in that effort were nearly identical in each episode. The spot on the Blue dress collapsed the whole house of cards.
I think the DOJ conspired to keep the "Fast and Furious" operation from the public after the Federal Officer was killed with one of the program guns.
I think Dr. Michael Mann is hiding something because he won't release his entire data, or meta data, or raw data, that he used to deduce the temperature history of the planet. As are other climate scientists. His antagonist in the Canadian court is claiming victory in the blogosphere, saying Mann won't proceed with the suit because Mann doesn't want to release that data in discovery.
I think Obama was born in Hawaii. I think he wouldn't release his birth certificate because he was worried that the Harvard foreign-born-student scholarship application was going to sink him. If he had been born in Kenya, then through his mother he would be eligible to be President anyway, just like Ted Cruz is eligible,
I believe this narrative of racist cops killing gentle Black unarmed citizens was put up by the race baiters to fill the coffers of their organizations and by the Democratic party to fill the voting booths in the Black neighborhoods.
I think Osama Bin Ladin, Al Qaeda, and about twenty Saudis were responsible for 9-11. I don't believe it was Israel or the US government. I think the collapse of the towers has been explained.
In Memogate I believe Dan Rather and Mary Mapes conspired as to when to release Bush's military "record" in order to do the most damage to his Presidential campagin.
If I decide use the tinfoil hat bit again in my feud with jOe I will start a new thread. I was not mocking you, James, or anyone else, except for jOe.
jOe had a crush on me and I rejected him as I like women. fRank picked him up on the rebound. jOe and fRank got married. fRank beat up jOe when he found out jOe was still dating other men. jOe and fRank are divorcing. jOe, because he is stupid, blames me for his romantic troubles.
ed is sweet on jOe. I am hoping they will couple up so that jOe will leave me alone.
What lead to your feud if you don't mind me asking?
Hi Jaeger:
jOe had a crush on me and I rejected him as I like women. fRank picked him up on the rebound. jOe and fRank got married. fRank beat up jOe when he found out jOe was still dating other men. jOe and fRank are divorcing. jOe, because he is stupid, blames me for his romantic troubles.
ed is sweet on jOe. I am hoping they will couple up so that jOe will leave me alone.
What lead to your feud if you don't mind me asking?
Hi Jaeger:
jOe had a crush on me and I rejected him as I like women. fRank picked him up on the rebound. jOe and fRank got married. fRank beat up jOe when he found out jOe was still dating other men. jOe and fRank are divorcing. jOe, because he is stupid, blames me for his romantic troubles.
ed is sweet on jOe. I am hoping they will couple up so that jOe will leave me alone.
What lead to your feud if you don't mind me asking?
Hi Jaeger:
jOe had a crush on me and I rejected him as I like women. fRank picked him up on the rebound. jOe and fRank got married. fRank beat up jOe when he found out jOe was still dating other men. jOe and fRank are divorcing. jOe, because he is stupid, blames me for his romantic troubles.
ed is sweet on jOe. I am hoping they will couple up so that jOe will leave me alone.
What lead to your feud if you don't mind me asking?
Hi Jaeger:
jOe had a crush on me and I rejected him as I like women. fRank picked him up on the rebound. jOe and fRank got married. fRank beat up jOe when he found out jOe was still dating other men. jOe and fRank are divorcing. jOe, because he is stupid, blames me for his romantic troubles.
ed is sweet on jOe. I am hoping they couple up so jOe will leave me alone.
wow....and on the deaths of children....you must lead one sad, sad life jOe. An unbelievable lack of character. Your parents must be in tears....knowing what they created.
It's quite evident that the best of you ran down some whores leg.
...Into a crystal goblet no doubt!
Seems I recall a lot of bombastic outrage lasting for years when someone said something of an offensive sexual nature regarding someone's daughter. I guess mothers are okay for making offensive sexual comments. Anyone else recall this?
Did jOe mention someone's mother? It seems he mentioned an act that did not result in conception. No Mothers involved. Simply a haploid emission influenced by gravity. In other words, he referred to dal as a dripping gob of wasted ejaculate.
I see you still wish to make excuses for what nca225 said directly and unmistakeably about my daughters. We all missed your criticism of nca225 right after he/she posted it.
Only one member I recall: the clean-mouthed virtuous one who professes himself the sole protector of gun rights here.
And what a surprise! Now we hear from the only one present who not only was not critical of the filthy things nca225 said about my daughters... he actually thought I should forgive him.
Good old King Brown, a so-called man with three daughters of his own! But nca225 is a fellow anti-gun Liberal, so he gets a pass from King Brown. I am not the sole protector of gun rights here King Brown. But it sure pisses you off when I remind everyone of how you support Liberal Left anti-gunners and support infringements upon our 2nd Amendment.
jOe mentioned something running down a whore's leg. jOe did not even come close to mentioning anyone's mother or father. But you seem to wish to make something out of thin air.
It's not working for either you or King. You must have soaked up a lot of mercury during your haphazard and incomplete clean-up in that house you sold to some unsuspecting suckers who did not get full disclosure of hazardous waste being present. I tried to be civil to you and let it go. Fat lotta good that did.
Gosh lonesome, haven't you noticed that dal is offended just by the simple presence of us mere mortals? To him, we're all nothing but a bunch of heterosexual trailer trash contributing to the U.S. swirling into the crapper.
we're all nothing but a bunch of heterosexual trailer trash contributing to the U.S. swirling into the crapper.
oh, ok...guess you just looked in the mirror. Looks like you saw the same thing the rest of us see. I'm sure you would love to see this thread go mainstream...make yourselves all proud and everything, musing about a massacre at an elementary school....hmmm?
It's saw, dal. Looks like you saw. One step forward and two steps back. And you want to debate the Great Statanist (sorry ken61; drinking beer and watching Monty Python and that just popped into my head) on good governance. I don't think so, pal.
So James M, HomelessjOe, keith, lonesome roads....anyone else want to put their name down as mocking this tragedy?
Go ahead...no one is watching.
D.
I raised this Thread originally as a QUESTION to be discussed jerk. Go back and look at my original post(WITH A QUESTION MARK). I have Made no accusations or assumption either way but I guess that escaped you. Jim
dal, you're not nearly as smart as you think you are... are you? Maybe you would understand that better if I wrote... YOUR not nearly as smart as you think you are... instead.
Originally Posted By: lonesome roads
goddammit, dal! It's YOU'RE!
_____________ What's you're(sic) handicap, dal?
Can you please show us where lonesome, jOe, or I was mocking the shooting of children at Sandy Hook school? Then suppose we contrast that alleged mocking which never happened with Libtards just like you who actually exploited a tragedy in order to advance an agenda that would do nothing to prevent Sandy Hook?
By the way dal, what do you think of midget bowling? I'm talking about the kind where you take a person of very small stature and throw them down the alley at some bowling pins. It's a question. You can tell by the way the sentence ends with a question mark.
Your. You're. Your. You're. Shit! Why does life have to be so complicated? If queers start drinking out of hubcaps, you're screwed.
Did jOe mention someone's mother? It seems he mentioned an act that did not result in conception. No Mothers involved. Simply a haploid emission influenced by gravity. In other words, he referred to dal as a dripping gob of wasted ejaculate.
I see you still wish to make excuses for what nca225 said directly and unmistakeably about my daughters. We all missed your criticism of nca225 right after he/she posted it.
That's some nice spin to potect your buddy jOe there princess but let’s be honest if you want to hold on to your self appointed title as “the great arbiter of truth.” I believe if you look back at our spat, all I did was enlighten the public about where I got the STD you claimed I passed onto my dog. I wasn’t attacking anyone’s daughter. Sure it’s embarrassing to have the truth of your sub human living conditions exposed, but that unfortunate consequence is out weighed by the public interest in containing and not spreading disease. Think of all the health care savings! Besides, being the family value guy you like to suggest you are, I figured you would want to know as well so you could get some treatment for that virulent disease ravaging your trailer, but alas, your blind hatred of the ACA prevented you from getting rather simple medical care. And because of the lack of treatment, we saw how the years of untreated disease had an impact with that family photo we had of you several months back in March. Don’t blame me for your problems and guilt, just go see a doctor!
But then again, I’m certain you were just feigning your outrage all the way, as you had lost the moral highground when you had brought my mother in to our spat well before I even mentioned anything about your family. But like the thug baby you are, you just can’t take a verbal beating can you princess?
Oh, by the way, you remember posts along this line from your buddy jOe?
Originally Posted By: HomelessjOe
Originally Posted By: AmarilloMike
Originally Posted By: HomelessjOe
Did they legalize pot in Texas ?
jOe you wouldn't fit very well in Texas. It is a very conservative state and a liberal like you would be a fish out of water. So, the answer to your question is "no", pot is not legal in Texas and you don't want to move here.
But if you move to Boulder, Colorado you will be in the middle of an enclave of liberals and pot is legal there. Boulder is liberal nirvana and you will fit right in. You will have lots of new, happy, liberal friends smoking dope and dissing Republicans. Boulder is just made for you jOe.
As a bonus for you, Colorado has fewer laws restricting abortion than Texas. I know that means a lot to you. And more laws restricting firearms than Texas does. So you can feel nice and safe while you're driving your rainbow colored Prius to the pot store. _______________JOE'S NEW RIDE!
I guess the "Hillary for President" bumper sticker is on the back?
Nice looking granddaughter Mikael....she has your good looks.
Just as above, jOe is attacking some one’s family, in a thread you posted on. Why no universal condemnation?
It is because as I said before, you just feigned all the outrage so you could play the whiney victim card. Thug pussies like you always fall on their hubris.
You’re just a fraud princess with a reputation built on lies.
Come across any nice Lefevers you could defraud the seller out of lately? Your about due.
And now the slimy piece of cowardly shit nca225 crawls out of the septic tank to spread some more lies which he refused to acknowledge the last time he emerged.
You keep repeating the lie that I said something bad about your mother nca225... but you have never shown us what that is. Put up or shut up. Hint, saying that YOU are mentally disturbed and represent the same sort of threat to your mother as Adam Lanza did to his mother is in no way insulting to either your mother or his mother.
You keep repeating the lie that I somehow defrauded someone on the purchase of a Lefever when all I did was to bid and win a Gunbroker auction. I placed my bid using the same auction description and photos as all the other bidders who I outbid. So please tell us how I cheated anybody.
I'm surprised that you did not repeat the frequent lie that I threatened you in a PM. We all know you could immediately forward something like that to Dave Weber, and I would be history in a heartbeat. We all know it never happened, but you repeatedly lied about it.
You now see a personal attack on Mike's family by jOe where there is none. Mike and jOe are having a feud, and neither one needs my help. Both are big boys who can handle themselves. Neither one has attacked or insulted each others family in any way, shape, or form. They are hurling barbs and insults at each other. You call this statement an attack on someone's family... "Nice looking granddaughter Mikael....she has your good looks." And you equate this with what you said and repeated about my daughters? You are an ignorant cowardly piece of shit. And you would never have the spine to say those words to my face.
You have once again admitted that you brought my daughters into our verbal battle, and said here that you contracted VD from them. That is a filthy personal attack on my family that you have repeated and refused to delete. Only King Brown, a so-called man with 3 daughters of his own, and a fellow anti-gun Libtard felt that was something that should be forgiven. King does a better job of concealing his dishonesty and low class, but you are two of a kind.
King also knows the difference between YOUR and YOU'RE which made me wonder if you and dal are the same idiot posting under another handle.
Edit: changed the word "spat" to feud to describe the conflict between Mike and jOe... who are both big boys who can handle themselves, unlike the cowardly closet queen nca225.
jOe and fRank are having a spat. Cause jOe's been playing "Deliverence piggy" with other men besides fRank. And fRank doesn't think jOe should do that since they got married.
OK. I stand corrected. I will edit my post above to reflect that. Do you think either you jOe has said anything bad about each others families during your feud? I sure haven't seen either of you stoop that low.
There's no such thing as "Race". It's a preposterous, unscientific, ethnocentristic, faith-based, sociopathically religious belief. The only real differences in Humanity are Cultural.
There's no such thing as "Race". It's a preposterous, unscientific, ethnocentristic, faith-based, sociopathically religious belief.
The only real differences in Humanity are Cultural.
If 'culture' is the thing that is all of the above, then why not profile 'culture' if we're fighting an enemy. Are we locked into one culture, like physical characteristics, or is culture the mood of the minute.
There are many scientifically measurable facts about ethnicity or culture, I don't believe a one world order 'fits' as a science based position. You yourself mentioned science was measurable, provable facts....or a believable, to your satisfaction, theory. Covers a lot of ground, and allows 'racists' to hold science based positions, that meet their satisfaction.
It's the classic "Nature vs Nurture" debate. It's really a matter of Nurture. You can indoctrinate individuals to believe, according to subjective cultural morality, just about anything.
You're the expert on indoctrination, Ken. Some people can be led to believe anything. The biggest staged event on Misfires is the hoary conservative declaration that "tax-and-spend" liberals are ruining the country/world, not to be trusted to handle even plastic dishes. Canada's and Britain's conservative governments aren't looking well; Canada in recession has a solid string of deficits.
Wherever you look liberal and left-of-centre governments are doing better than conservative ones. The economist Douglas Hibbs, after analyzing 12 Western countries, found "the unemployment rate has been driven downward by Democratic and Labour governments and upward by Republican and Conservative governments."
Look at the US: After Bush's lefty spending and lavish tax cuts sent public debt soaring even before 2008, the size of debt under Obama began to fall in 2013, and spending has risen by only 1.4 per cent (in part because of Obamacare) compared to 8.1 per cent increase under Bush and 8.7 in Reagan's first term. Right-wing governments aren't the fiscal stewards they're claimed to be.
In fact, Reagan increased debt, government spending and---taxes. Clinton drove down the debt until Bush repeated the old pattern. Canada had the same experience with the conservative Mulroney government which turned the country into a world-scale financial basket case. A liberal government fixed it with aggressive program cuts in the 90s, sitting pretty for The Great Recession.
Even socialist France is tackling economic issues that two decades of mainly conservative governments were unable or afraid to touch, this month added a 400-article bill to deregulate many sectors, allow competition, cut public spending, part of redesign of the entire economy. Bring in the lefties to cut public debt.
Always exceptions, right and left, Jim. Cuba has done well under the circumstances, repressive government but exceedingly better health and education outcomes than Batista's, and right up there with ours in literacy. Venezuela was richer for rulers but arguably its people no better off than they are now. Greece? You've forgotten it took a very-left government to cut public spending, slash the size of the public service and reduce the rising-fast public debt load under conservatives a decade earlier. My point is, generally, liberal governments have been better financial managers than conservatives, the opposite of what some members have been indoctrinated to believe here.
Analyses of 30 years from 1981 to 2011 show that Canadian governments most likely to have balanced budgets, and those with lowest deficits, were of the provincial New Democratic Party, very left of centre, and which just won a majority in Tory-Blue-Forever province of Alberta. The federal NDP is the Official Opposition and currently running neck-and-neck with ruling Conservatives in the Oct. 19 election campaign.
....Look at the US: After Bush's lefty spending and lavish tax cuts sent public debt soaring even before 2008, the size of debt under Obama began to fall in 2013, and spending has risen by only 1.4 per cent (in part because of Obamacare) compared to 8.1 per cent increase under Bush and 8.7 in Reagan's first term. Right-wing governments aren't the fiscal stewards they're claimed to be....
Better financial manager's those lefties are they, eh. Could it be that lefties just have better balance, able to focus under incredible spinning forces.
Please note, when that, not another, Bush left office, he put nearly a trillion dollar hit on his balance sheet, in consultation with bo, so bo could hit the ground 'stimulus' spending. Still, if you have a moment, you may find that Dubya left office with some nine trillion in debt between him and ALL previous US presidents. Six and a half years later, how spinable is the current, well north of, eighteen trillion dollar debt.
Back in Reagan's day, the always excessively rich US, chose to crush the righteous red monster with the former might of cubic dollars not the lives of future liberals who were not aborted by their parents serving in the US military at the time. A great investment for a drop in the bucket, eh?
Hey, no fair, hasn't bo had a year or two of all time record income tax collections. Lavish, record, tax increases, not enough eh?
You're the expert on indoctrination, Ken. Some people can be led to believe anything. The biggest staged event on Misfires is the hoary conservative declaration that "tax-and-spend" liberals are ruining the country/world, not to be trusted to handle even plastic dishes. Canada's and Britain's conservative governments aren't looking well; Canada in recession has a solid string of deficits.
Wherever you look liberal and left-of-centre governments are doing better than conservative ones. The economist Douglas Hibbs, after analyzing 12 Western countries, found "the unemployment rate has been driven downward by Democratic and Labour governments and upward by Republican and Conservative governments."
Look at the US: After Bush's lefty spending and lavish tax cuts sent public debt soaring even before 2008, the size of debt under Obama began to fall in 2013, and spending has risen by only 1.4 per cent (in part because of Obamacare) compared to 8.1 per cent increase under Bush and 8.7 in Reagan's first term. Right-wing governments aren't the fiscal stewards they're claimed to be.
In fact, Reagan increased debt, government spending and---taxes. Clinton drove down the debt until Bush repeated the old pattern. Canada had the same experience with the conservative Mulroney government which turned the country into a world-scale financial basket case. A liberal government fixed it with aggressive program cuts in the 90s, sitting pretty for The Great Recession.
Even socialist France is tackling economic issues that two decades of mainly conservative governments were unable or afraid to touch, this month added a 400-article bill to deregulate many sectors, allow competition, cut public spending, part of redesign of the entire economy. Bring in the lefties to cut public debt.
Ho Hum, the doctrinal statist, religious response.
In fact, Reagan increased debt, government spending and---taxes. Clinton drove down the debt until Bush repeated the old pattern. Canada had the same experience with the conservative Mulroney government which turned the country into a world-scale financial basket case. A liberal government fixed it with aggressive program cuts in the 90s, sitting pretty for The Great Recession.
Even socialist France is tackling economic issues that two decades of mainly conservative governments were unable or afraid to touch, this month added a 400-article bill to deregulate many sectors, allow competition, cut public spending, part of redesign of the entire economy. Bring in the lefties to cut public debt.
King, We were both there, so to speak, so I am going to remind you of a few facts you conveniently forgot, above. Reagan never got a single spending cut he asked for, and he asked for and presented many. The stated goal, after the fact, was that liberals in both houses were anxious to sabotage that administration in any way possible, and spending was all they had. The economy had come roaring back to life from what it was under Jimmy Carter with so much vigor, that they were terrified.
Had spending in the Clinton years been up to the most cheated on woman in America's husband during the Clinton years, we no doubt would still be digging out from that fiasco. But, Clinton had to come to terms with a bulldog by the name of Newt Gingrich, and the republicans in both houses.
Clinton had far less to do with any spending than Newt did, plain and simple. Clinton did sign NAFTA, an act that labor in this country called, at the time, a "knife to the heart of the working man", but, just as Clinton had told labor it would do, labor got down on it's knees, pulled down his fly, and re-elected Clinton, proving for the rest of time that, when it comes to labor in this country, it isn't about the working man, his wages or benefits, it is about liberalism.
The republican candidate, Bob Dole had said he wouldn't sign it. Labor, proving what labor is really all about, pulled the lever for Clinton, just like he told them to do.
The national debt under Obama, coupled with the collapse of the economy, has been devastating, and, unprecedented in this country. To attempt to illustrate it in any other fashion is dilusional.
Since you like Forbes so much, is the real data. Even this is skewed, as the majority of the deficit spending occurred first after the Democrats regained the House in 2006, holding the budget hostage for increased spending in order to get their support for Iraq war funding, and then as a result of TARP. Where on earth do you get your information?
Here are the ratios of deficit to GDP for the past five presidents:
Ronald Reagan 1981-88 4.2 % 1982-89 4.2 Average 4.2
George H. W. Bush 1989-92 4.0 1990-93 4.3 Average 4.2
Bill Clinton 1993-2000 0.8 1994-2001 0.1 Average 0.5
George W. Bush 2001-08 2.0 2002-09 3.4 Average 2.7
Barack Obama 2009-12* 9.1 2010-12 8.7 Average 8.9 *fiscal 2012 ends Sept. 30, 2012, so this figure is estimated
Source: Economic Report of the President, February 2012
The results for President Bush are skewed by the 10.1 percent deficit/GDP ratio in fiscal 2009. A large chunk of spending in that year went to the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. In fiscal 2009, TARP contributed $151 billion to the budget deficit, but in 2010 and 2011, $147 billion of that amount was recouped and thus reduced the size of the deficit during President Obama’s watch. (These calculations are complicated and are laid out by the Office of Management and Budget. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/spec.pdf, p. 49.)
As for spending itself, during the George W. Bush years (2001-08), federal outlays averaged 19.6 percent of GDP, a little less than during the Clinton years (1993-2000), at 19.8% and far below Reagan, whose outlays never dropped below 21 percent of GDP in any year and averaged 22.4%. Even factoring in the TARP year (2009), Bush’s average outlays as a proportion of the economy was 20.3 percent – far below Reagan and only a half-point below Clinton. As for Obama, even excluding 2009, his spending has averaged 24.1 percent of GDP – the highest level for any three years since World War II.
Americans can judge for themselves whether deficits are “enormous”– but only if they have the facts. In this case, there is no denying the order in which the last five presidents rank on the basis of deficits: Clinton, Bush 43, Bush 41 and Reagan in a virtual tie, and Obama.
Ken61: You're wasting your time posting facts when Brown is involved in a thread as he is "uncomfortable" with them. He'll either ignore them or change the subject.
This time it's YOU'RE (you are) not YOUR (a possessive pronoun). Either your I.Q. is only two clicks above your 5'4" stature or you should go back to third grade English.
Yes, how quickly we forget. Clinton coasted on Reagan's coat tails and his "economic legacy" is the result of a Republican congress led by Gingrich. Clinton did get the last laugh by causing the housing bubble collapse and the resulting recession that the Obama has managed to prolong into the worst recovery in recent history.
Ken61: You're wasting your time posting facts when Brown is involved in a thread as he is "uncomfortable" with them. He'll either ignore them or change the subject.
Jim
Agree completely, except you were far too kind. It is common knowledge that the amount of debt added to the National Debt under Obama has exceeded that of all other presidents. We have discussed the true level of unemployment and under employment in the U.S and King Brown has carefully avoided participation in those discussions because the facts are very unflattering to Liberal Democrat supporters.
Again, the compulsive liar King Brown is telling us LIES... BIG LIES... things he knows not to be true. King Brown has taken dishonesty to a whole new level around here. We have heard some bullshit here in the past. There have been links posted that later proved to be inaccurate. There have been honest mistakes acknowledged by honest men. There has been Liberal Left spin repeated without any factual basis.
But King Brown makes chronic pathological LIES his number one method of advancing his agenda. There is no help for someone this mentally ill in my opinion. I couldn't be happier that he dislikes me. I have scraped better things than King off my boot after stepping into a kennel.
Since you like Forbes so much, is the real data. Even this is skewed, as the majority of the deficit spending occurred first after the Democrats regained the House in 2006, holding the budget hostage for increased spending in order to get their support for Iraq war funding, and then as a result of TARP. Where on earth do you get your information?
Here are the ratios of deficit to GDP for the past five presidents:
Ronald Reagan 1981-88 4.2 % 1982-89 4.2 Average 4.2
George H. W. Bush 1989-92 4.0 1990-93 4.3 Average 4.2
Bill Clinton 1993-2000 0.8 1994-2001 0.1 Average 0.5
George W. Bush 2001-08 2.0 2002-09 3.4 Average 2.7
Barack Obama 2009-12* 9.1 2010-12 8.7 Average 8.9 *fiscal 2012 ends Sept. 30, 2012, so this figure is estimated
Source: Economic Report of the President, February 2012
The results for President Bush are skewed by the 10.1 percent deficit/GDP ratio in fiscal 2009. A large chunk of spending in that year went to the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. In fiscal 2009, TARP contributed $151 billion to the budget deficit, but in 2010 and 2011, $147 billion of that amount was recouped and thus reduced the size of the deficit during President Obama’s watch. (These calculations are complicated and are laid out by the Office of Management and Budget. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/spec.pdf, p. 49.)
As for spending itself, during the George W. Bush years (2001-08), federal outlays averaged 19.6 percent of GDP, a little less than during the Clinton years (1993-2000), at 19.8% and far below Reagan, whose outlays never dropped below 21 percent of GDP in any year and averaged 22.4%. Even factoring in the TARP year (2009), Bush’s average outlays as a proportion of the economy was 20.3 percent – far below Reagan and only a half-point below Clinton. As for Obama, even excluding 2009, his spending has averaged 24.1 percent of GDP – the highest level for any three years since World War II.
Americans can judge for themselves whether deficits are “enormous”– but only if they have the facts. In this case, there is no denying the order in which the last five presidents rank on the basis of deficits: Clinton, Bush 43, Bush 41 and Reagan in a virtual tie, and Obama.
Ken, I'm bringing this back to the top especially for King Brown. Not because I think he missed it, but because I'm sure he intentionally ignored it. I still cannot get over how the disgusting liar tried to tell us that Conservative Republicans have outspent Liberal Democrats... especially Barack Obama who increased our National Debt over 55% in a little over 6 years.
A couple other factors which skew the data are the fact that the massive increases in military spending under Reagan paid off handsomely by bankrupting the old Soviet Union. Clinton reaped the most benefit from that so-called "Peace Dividend", and Clinton actually went way too far in slashing Defense spending. Of course, it was left to Bush 43 to have to spend a lot to rebuild what Clinton had dismantled. We all remember that much of our military was poorly equipped when Bush 43 took us back into Iraq. Soldiers died because they lacked body armor and sufficient armoring of trucks and Humvee's that were being blown up by crude IED's.
Life was a party under Clinton as he reaped the benefits of Reagan's military and economic decisions. Unfortunately, someone always has to pay for a party, and Bush 43 had to pay for damage Clinton did. That is not to say he did not engage in excessive spending of his own. He spent like a drunken sailor trying to appease Liberals, and they still hated him. So much for bi-partisanship.
Ken61, do you mind if I rub King Brown's nose in the truth once again? The filthy lying fraud once again has dumped a load of bullshit here and runs away from the proof you took the time to post to refute it.
Funny part is that he thinks no-one notices.
It ain't easy being a Terrible Twin. Hee hee hee!
Originally Posted By: Ken61
King,
Since you like Forbes so much, is the real data. Even this is skewed, as the majority of the deficit spending occurred first after the Democrats regained the House in 2006, holding the budget hostage for increased spending in order to get their support for Iraq war funding, and then as a result of TARP. Where on earth do you get your information?
Here are the ratios of deficit to GDP for the past five presidents:
Ronald Reagan 1981-88 4.2 % 1982-89 4.2 Average 4.2
George H. W. Bush 1989-92 4.0 1990-93 4.3 Average 4.2
Bill Clinton 1993-2000 0.8 1994-2001 0.1 Average 0.5
George W. Bush 2001-08 2.0 2002-09 3.4 Average 2.7
Barack Obama 2009-12* 9.1 2010-12 8.7 Average 8.9 *fiscal 2012 ends Sept. 30, 2012, so this figure is estimated
Source: Economic Report of the President, February 2012
The results for President Bush are skewed by the 10.1 percent deficit/GDP ratio in fiscal 2009. A large chunk of spending in that year went to the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. In fiscal 2009, TARP contributed $151 billion to the budget deficit, but in 2010 and 2011, $147 billion of that amount was recouped and thus reduced the size of the deficit during President Obama’s watch. (These calculations are complicated and are laid out by the Office of Management and Budget. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/spec.pdf, p. 49.)
As for spending itself, during the George W. Bush years (2001-08), federal outlays averaged 19.6 percent of GDP, a little less than during the Clinton years (1993-2000), at 19.8% and far below Reagan, whose outlays never dropped below 21 percent of GDP in any year and averaged 22.4%. Even factoring in the TARP year (2009), Bush’s average outlays as a proportion of the economy was 20.3 percent – far below Reagan and only a half-point below Clinton. As for Obama, even excluding 2009, his spending has averaged 24.1 percent of GDP – the highest level for any three years since World War II.
Americans can judge for themselves whether deficits are “enormous”– but only if they have the facts. In this case, there is no denying the order in which the last five presidents rank on the basis of deficits: Clinton, Bush 43, Bush 41 and Reagan in a virtual tie, and Obama.
Let's bring this back to the top for the liar King Brown again. You made the dishonest point King... why won't you show us some proof like you so frequently demand from us???
...Ken61, do you mind if I rub King Brown's nose in the truth yet again? The filthy lying fraud once again has dumped a load of bullshit here and runs away from the proof you took the time to post to refute it.
Funny part is that he thinks no-one notices.
It ain't easy being a Terrible Twin. Hee hee hee!
Originally Posted By: Ken61
King,
Since you like Forbes so much, is the real data. Even this is skewed, as the majority of the deficit spending occurred first after the Democrats regained the House in 2006, holding the budget hostage for increased spending in order to get their support for Iraq war funding, and then as a result of TARP. Where on earth do you get your information?
Here are the ratios of deficit to GDP for the past five presidents:
Ronald Reagan 1981-88 4.2 % 1982-89 4.2 Average 4.2
George H. W. Bush 1989-92 4.0 1990-93 4.3 Average 4.2
Bill Clinton 1993-2000 0.8 1994-2001 0.1 Average 0.5
George W. Bush 2001-08 2.0 2002-09 3.4 Average 2.7
Barack Obama 2009-12* 9.1 2010-12 8.7 Average 8.9 *fiscal 2012 ends Sept. 30, 2012, so this figure is estimated
Source: Economic Report of the President, February 2012
The results for President Bush are skewed by the 10.1 percent deficit/GDP ratio in fiscal 2009. A large chunk of spending in that year went to the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. In fiscal 2009, TARP contributed $151 billion to the budget deficit, but in 2010 and 2011, $147 billion of that amount was recouped and thus reduced the size of the deficit during President Obama’s watch. (These calculations are complicated and are laid out by the Office of Management and Budget. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/spec.pdf, p. 49.)
As for spending itself, during the George W. Bush years (2001-08), federal outlays averaged 19.6 percent of GDP, a little less than during the Clinton years (1993-2000), at 19.8% and far below Reagan, whose outlays never dropped below 21 percent of GDP in any year and averaged 22.4%. Even factoring in the TARP year (2009), Bush’s average outlays as a proportion of the economy was 20.3 percent – far below Reagan and only a half-point below Clinton. As for Obama, even excluding 2009, his spending has averaged 24.1 percent of GDP – the highest level for any three years since World War II.
Americans can judge for themselves whether deficits are “enormous”– but only if they have the facts. In this case, there is no denying the order in which the last five presidents rank on the basis of deficits: Clinton, Bush 43, Bush 41 and Reagan in a virtual tie, and Obama.
C'mon King, you lying fraud... you can pretend you're not talking to me and address your reply to Ken or waste it on an idiot like Jagermeister.
I see you are still acting like you don't see this King Brown. I keep bringing it back to the top so everyone can see what you are made of. You made the dishonest point King... why won't you show us some proof like you so frequently demand from us??? Is it because you are too cowardly to admit when you are wrong, or simply because you are a lying fraud? Or both?
...Ken61, do you mind if I rub King Brown's nose in the truth yet again? The filthy lying fraud once again has dumped a load of bullshit here and runs away from the proof you took the time to post to refute it.
Funny part is that he thinks no-one notices.
It ain't easy being a Terrible Twin. Hee hee hee!
Originally Posted By: Ken61
King,
Since you like Forbes so much, is the real data. Even this is skewed, as the majority of the deficit spending occurred first after the Democrats regained the House in 2006, holding the budget hostage for increased spending in order to get their support for Iraq war funding, and then as a result of TARP. Where on earth do you get your information?
Here are the ratios of deficit to GDP for the past five presidents:
Ronald Reagan 1981-88 4.2 % 1982-89 4.2 Average 4.2
George H. W. Bush 1989-92 4.0 1990-93 4.3 Average 4.2
Bill Clinton 1993-2000 0.8 1994-2001 0.1 Average 0.5
George W. Bush 2001-08 2.0 2002-09 3.4 Average 2.7
Barack Obama 2009-12* 9.1 2010-12 8.7 Average 8.9 *fiscal 2012 ends Sept. 30, 2012, so this figure is estimated
Source: Economic Report of the President, February 2012
The results for President Bush are skewed by the 10.1 percent deficit/GDP ratio in fiscal 2009. A large chunk of spending in that year went to the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. In fiscal 2009, TARP contributed $151 billion to the budget deficit, but in 2010 and 2011, $147 billion of that amount was recouped and thus reduced the size of the deficit during President Obama’s watch. (These calculations are complicated and are laid out by the Office of Management and Budget. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/spec.pdf, p. 49.)
As for spending itself, during the George W. Bush years (2001-08), federal outlays averaged 19.6 percent of GDP, a little less than during the Clinton years (1993-2000), at 19.8% and far below Reagan, whose outlays never dropped below 21 percent of GDP in any year and averaged 22.4%. Even factoring in the TARP year (2009), Bush’s average outlays as a proportion of the economy was 20.3 percent – far below Reagan and only a half-point below Clinton. As for Obama, even excluding 2009, his spending has averaged 24.1 percent of GDP – the highest level for any three years since World War II.
Americans can judge for themselves whether deficits are “enormous”– but only if they have the facts. In this case, there is no denying the order in which the last five presidents rank on the basis of deficits: Clinton, Bush 43, Bush 41 and Reagan in a virtual tie, and Obama.
C'mon King, you lying fraud... you can pretend you're not talking to me and address your reply to Ken or waste it on an idiot like Jagermeister.
I see you are still acting like you don't see this King Brown. I am bringing it back to the top yet again so everyone can see what a fraud you are. You told us you have never lied here King... why won't you show us some proof like you so frequently demand from us???
You knew what you told us about Obama and Liberals when it comes to adding to the deficit was a lie when you wrote it. Now you won't go near it. C'mon, don't you want to show everybody I'm wrong... or do you just want to show your mettle by calling me a Terrible Twin?
...Ken61, do you mind if I rub King Brown's nose in the truth yet again? The filthy lying fraud once again has dumped a load of bullshit here and runs away from the proof you took the time to post to refute it.
Funny part is that he thinks no-one notices.
It ain't easy being a Terrible Twin. Hee hee hee!
Originally Posted By: Ken61
King,
Since you like Forbes so much, is the real data. Even this is skewed, as the majority of the deficit spending occurred first after the Democrats regained the House in 2006, holding the budget hostage for increased spending in order to get their support for Iraq war funding, and then as a result of TARP. Where on earth do you get your information?
Here are the ratios of deficit to GDP for the past five presidents:
Ronald Reagan 1981-88 4.2 % 1982-89 4.2 Average 4.2
George H. W. Bush 1989-92 4.0 1990-93 4.3 Average 4.2
Bill Clinton 1993-2000 0.8 1994-2001 0.1 Average 0.5
George W. Bush 2001-08 2.0 2002-09 3.4 Average 2.7
Barack Obama 2009-12* 9.1 2010-12 8.7 Average 8.9 *fiscal 2012 ends Sept. 30, 2012, so this figure is estimated
Source: Economic Report of the President, February 2012
The results for President Bush are skewed by the 10.1 percent deficit/GDP ratio in fiscal 2009. A large chunk of spending in that year went to the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. In fiscal 2009, TARP contributed $151 billion to the budget deficit, but in 2010 and 2011, $147 billion of that amount was recouped and thus reduced the size of the deficit during President Obama’s watch. (These calculations are complicated and are laid out by the Office of Management and Budget. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/spec.pdf, p. 49.)
As for spending itself, during the George W. Bush years (2001-08), federal outlays averaged 19.6 percent of GDP, a little less than during the Clinton years (1993-2000), at 19.8% and far below Reagan, whose outlays never dropped below 21 percent of GDP in any year and averaged 22.4%. Even factoring in the TARP year (2009), Bush’s average outlays as a proportion of the economy was 20.3 percent – far below Reagan and only a half-point below Clinton. As for Obama, even excluding 2009, his spending has averaged 24.1 percent of GDP – the highest level for any three years since World War II.
Americans can judge for themselves whether deficits are “enormous”– but only if they have the facts. In this case, there is no denying the order in which the last five presidents rank on the basis of deficits: Clinton, Bush 43, Bush 41 and Reagan in a virtual tie, and Obama.
