A pair of explosions rocks the finish line at the Boston Marathon, injuring at least a half-dozen people.

BoC did it

  On 5/27/2013 at 8:38 AM, MisterE said:

 

  On 5/27/2013 at 7:42 AM, goDel said:

My clever point? None. Just a question out of interest. Haven't seen an answer yet, btw. And still hoping for one. Is that clever enough for you?

Edit: how clever is the combination "very obvious fact" and " might have right leaning ideas"? That's obviously close to a being a tautology. Everyone might have right leaning ideas. Even the biggest communist might have right leaning ideas. Obvious, no?

 

it doesn't even make sense what you are saying. first you ask me how far right-leaning i am, then you ask isn't it up to you to decide that, to which i agreed. but now you still want me to tell you? can't you see that this makes 0 sense? either you think the judgement is up to you (which kinda makes sense), or you want me to grade myself on some scale of 1-10, or 1-100, what? how do you want me to do this? and couldn't i just say 'fuck off' to that since nobody else has to rate themselves on this scale?

 

and what was clever about my saying that i 'might' have right leaning ideas was that it was sarcasm i was using to drive home the point that it's very fucking obvious that yes indeed i do. i'm just going to look past any other comments you have until you sober up a bit. am i supposed to give you a point for using the word tautology? i don't know. you can't detect plain as day sarcasm but you have a dictionary. congrats.

It makes perfect sense to ask about your political views (how right leaning you see yourself) and say it's up to us to decide how your perceptions are colored (when you say you try your best to not have your perceptions being colored).

I've never asked you to rate yourself on some scale.

And yes you can say "fuck off", which is basically what you're already doing by hiding behind your socalled sarcasm.

The point is pretty simple actually: what do you expect when you enter a discussion at page 40 like the way you did? If there's someone who should probably fuck off, it's you. Do you have something to offer besides a half arsed generalized and sarcastic summary of a thread you seem hardly interested in? What's your point? And do you think that makes sense?

you aren't asking me to rate myself? then what ARE you asking? what question did i not answer that you were smugly awaiting an answer for, if not this one 'And how right leaning are you anyways'? and how am i hiding behind sarcasm when i just used it to emphasize a point... which is what it's typically used for?

 

also, i didn't just 'enter this thread at page 40'. i posted in it several times a while back. i watched and participated as some people went from not so secretely hoping it was a white (right leaning) guy, to eventually (and in some cases, surely regretfully) several pages later admitting that yes it probably was the tsarnaev brothers, while some other people were and still are holding out that it was a frame job. i went away for a while. then i come back and see that it's a discussion about possible false flag angles involving training drills, which is being debated in all seriousness, with all kinds of math and big words, when a simple 'wtf you idiot' would suffice. so then i felt an urge to post with my 'wtf is going on here' rant. it's a forum, you'll have that. it seems ridiculous in the face of all the evidence that exists against the tsarnaev brothers to entertain, hold, or even debate to such extent these pet theories that there was something else behind the boston bombing itself.

 

obviously not everyone who posted in the thread believes in some crazy FF or otherwise BS theory about this incident. there actually were plenty of people shooting them down, but those people know who they are, and hopefully that i'm not talking about them.

It'd be funny if it turns out the Tsarnev's were part of a much deeper plot, and as they dig deeper and deeper they find the true mastermind behind everything is...

 

Alex Jones (gotta keep those ratings up)

  On 5/26/2013 at 6:54 AM, MisterE said:

 

why would you jump to conclusions like that? people here, and even awepittance specifically, holding theories about the government being behind eeeeeeevil shit?! pshaw! i mean, you're only still posting on page 40 of a thread that started out being about a bunch of people who got their legs blown off, but that has become all about false flag attacks, and for a while was about how it was probably some white people, possibly right wingers, and has been full of people using big words and trying to look like a bunch of intellectual junior detectives, all up in an intellectual debate about false flag attacks. i would imagine that if you were to tally, there would be more posts expressing concern for the bros getting fair treatment, probably/possibly being set up, or of there being little evidence of their guilt even after they kicked off a spree by shooting an MIT cop, that involved them hijacking/abducting, robbing, and tossing bombs at cops, than there would be posts expressing concern for all the people who got their fucking legs blown off.

 

you're making two points here which i think have little relevance to the thread. the first is a murky point that the thread is "all about false flag attacks," "full of people...all up in an intellectual debate about false flag attacks." the false flag argument occurred on pages 37-40 and basically all that happened was Joseph put forth the false flag argument and everyone else, in so many words, said the idea was idiotic. your assertion is a total mischaracterization of the discussion that went on in this thread.

 

the second point you're making is something of a straw man or at best it is, like your first point, basically irrelevant. you're claiming that there was more discussion about whether the perps would be treated fairly than discussion about the victims of the crime. so what? there really isn't much to say about the victims imo. it's really terrible what's happened to them and they didn't deserve it. there's not much to discuss there. perhaps there could be another thread where people can just morn the victims and not tarnish their experience with political discussions? on the other hand, there's all kinds of shit to discus about what happened with the perps. i think the issue of how the us gov. responds to "terrorists" is a very important issue that warrants much discussion and criticism. surely you're aware that the gov. has a pretty shitty history torturing, killing, and illegally incarcerating people it claims are "terrorists," whether they charge them with a crime or even have any proof if they do. in this day and age, whether there's a democrat or a republican president in office, it's simply a matter of common sense to be suspicious of the government's claims about terrorists and to be concerned about how they behave w/r/t them.

 

 

  On 5/26/2013 at 6:54 AM, MisterE said:

 

tbh though the kid being shot is kind of suspicious. if there's anything going on with THAT, could it just be a simple matter that the FBI didn't want more details coming out about how bad they fucked up with these Tsarnev bros? if any of you lunkheads want to wax about possible conspiracy angles on this kid being shot by the feds, should maybe that be the main angle? lets see, they were warned by the russians about the older brother because they had a phone call where he talked with his mom about jihad and her text messages where she said he was ready to die for islam, the fbi investigated him and turned up nothing (i guess his youtube activity supporting jihad was irrelevent), sounds like there were plenty of signs that he was trouble, but heaven forbid they act on any of that. i mean, it would be insensitive in this PC world that's been built as of lately. allowing people to come and live in our country even when they hate us, and even paying for their stay, has become the new american way! the terrorists get all the best training RIGHT HERE! so maybe this other kid was yet another piece of the puzzle that would show just how far the FBI went out of their way in the name of liberalism/PC, to ignore red flags and allow these bros to remain here and blow a bunch of people up? can anyone think of a better possible angle?

 

so wait, it's ok to assert a "conspiracy theory" as long as it blames the "PC" libs? haha, get real man.

 

  On 5/26/2013 at 6:54 AM, MisterE said:

 

but in general, this thread is a total joke. is there any possible tragedy that can happen that wouldn't be the government's doing? seriously. any possible thing? also, why is it that when things happen under a republican president, it's that president who's actually the shadowy figure behind the thing, but when it's a democrat president, your fucking idiotic theories are just a more generic and vague notion that 'america' is behind it? and since we all know democrats disdain anything resembling patriotism, we can rule them out. it's the OTHER america. you know, the BAD one. but- why isn't it obama that probably blew those peoples' legs off? he's the one using remote control drones like they were a video game, blowing people up on a monitor. maybe he wants to get to the next level (chechnya)? why did bush get all these labels and comparisons of being worse than hitler, masterminding 9/11 so the chinese could end up buying the iraqi oil fields, and yet obama and dems have pretty much ran things for 4+ yrs and he doesn't get any of those labels? he's not mentioned in your bullshit retarded theories about false flags even though HE is the commander in chief? if bush were still president it wouldn't be vague ideas about this being some shady thing, it would be specific theories about bush calling the shots to start another war. obama has actually escalated the wars plenty though and he's a swell guy. not behind anything. the idea that boston was an inside job, BUT that somehow it was still done by republican types is palpable. and it's slobering retarded. it makes forrest gump look like a genius.

 

here you're making the argument that during the bush years everyone (read: pc libs) blamed bush specifically for various crimes but obama is not similarly blamed (b/c he's a dem). you almost have a point here but i think you miss your opportunity. for one thing, the first assertion isn't true. the general consensus was/is that bush is a moron who could never have master-minded all the fucked up shit his administration pulled off. it's pretty obv that cheney and rumsfeld had more influence than bush, for instance. to be sure, bush himself was a piece of shit president and was directly responsible for many atrocious things but he surely did not act alone. another reason you blow this argument is that you fail to account for all the ways in which obama is in fact the focus of special attention and "guilt" in ways that bush never was, particularly in popular media. it's very common to see people claim that obama was born and raised a terrorist, that obama is an illegal alien with some criminal mastermind intentions, that he's a communist/socialist bent on taking down this country, etc. and i don't recall any such similar discussion about bush on major media outlets. so, you'd have to factor that into a meaningful argument about the different responses to rep/dem presidents.

 

that being said, you almost make a useful argument about how obama seems to get away with all kinds of shit that bush never would. this was of course true during his first run for president where basically everyone bought into his "hope/change" bullshit but has become especially true in the last year during which his administration has done some really fucked up shit over which i do not see enough liberals wadding their panties. i suspect that if bush was in the white house legalizing gitmo, legalizing drone attacks without trials, cutting social security (ffs he's a democrat!), etc etc he'd be in the spotlight a lot more than obama seems to be. obama's ratings don't seem to receive the blows one would expect considering his presidency is basically just a continuation of bush-era bullshit.

 

  On 5/26/2013 at 6:54 AM, MisterE said:

 

my conspiracy theory- there is something in a lot of you peoples' drinking water. i mean, awepittance is sure that the tsarnev bros just weren't behind this, but his theory is still in alpha. i guess it simply MUST be a white guy behind all of the killing, and so we'll just work from that as a given. please be sure to tell us when you've pinpointed the mr big (bush? cheney? the koch bros? me? or maybe it's warp records, up to their old tricks?). and you people trying to be a voice of reason, actually debating this utter bullshit and trying to be all scientific about it are almost just as bad. people are without legs and you're making a sick joke out of it. obviously there are some loose ends, but the tsarnev's involvement should be accepted by even the dumbest of special people. it's like some of you have a mental illness where the real world just isn't exciting enough and so you've written yourselves into a stereotypical hollywood conspiracy movie. i imagine some of you as an alternate version of mel gibson's character in Conspiracy Theory except where he's just a complete idiot who is totally wrong about all of his ideas, but still lives in a place with all these papers and circles on details of photocopied pictures pinned up on his walls, random words high-lighted etc, trying to find some code in the news.

 

 

at this point you should probably stop bringing up the people with their legs blown off b/c it's starting to sound insensitive. i personally don't want to read it over and over in every one of your paragraphs, thanks.

 

in general, i don't think this thread was particularly riddled with any conspiracy theories. i don't think it's that weird for people to suspect that the white house would somehow try to pin the attacks on some muslims since that would fit their mo, and more importantly b/c the white house has done it before. i also don't think it's weird or irrational or whatever to be suspicious of the aftermath and the ensuing shoot-out, the conflicting accounts of what went down, the witholding of miranda rights, etc. i agree with you that after all the evidence is in there's not a lot of room to create some story about a secret government plot, and i think most people in this thread would agree.

 

you have to remember that a lot of this thread was happening in real time and no one had any of the evidence. and this situation unfolded pretty quickly. awe was posting a lot while he was sitting there watching the news come in live for instance. but what i'm saying is that in general there's nothing wrong with suspecting a government which has lied so thoroughly about terrorism, has committed so many crimes, acts of war, committed torture and all that shit in this war on terror. so when some bombs blow up on american soil you'd have to be kind of dense not to have at least a little suspicion that somehow the government might at least try to use this to their advantage, as they have done so many times already. or at the very least, that the government very well may be lying about the information it has, which, again, is something the gov has done many times and about very important shit (like 9/11). that's basically all i see going on in this thread (w/ the exception of joseph). i'm not seeing any of the crazy conspiracy theories you're arguing against (again, expect joseph), i'm not seeing people unfairly excusing obama here when they would be crucifying bush or whatever. tbh, it just seems like you're putting forth your own political ideas about the political status quo in this country and you're not really trying to genuinely take up the thread itself and apply your arguments to the specific context. it also seems like you're still upset with awepittance over the thread about dorner (iirc) and you should probably just pm him to work it out or something b/c at this point in subsequent threads it kinda looks like you're just trolling him.

 

basically, i conclude that this was all a conspiracy of the zionist loby and hey obama take me to your dealer, etc.

  On 5/27/2013 at 10:48 AM, MisterE said:

then i come back and see that it's a discussion about possible false flag angles involving training drills, which is being debated in all seriousness, with all kinds of math and big words, when a simple 'wtf you idiot' would suffice. so then i felt an urge to post with my 'wtf is going on here' rant.

  Quote

 

when a simple 'wtf you idiot' would suffice.

  Quote

 

when a simple 'wtf you idiot' would suffice.

  Quote

 

it's a forum, you'll have that.

 

yep. exactly. rant on.

excellent response Alco

 

 

are people still upset about the Dorner thread?

Edited May 27, 2013 by SR4

i think mister e has been pissed at awepittance since then and has mentioned it in subsequent threads, including this one. but i don't think others are upset, i only mentioned it as a passing partial explanation for some of mister e's bile here toward awe.

agreed (on sr4 remark about alco's post....and on misterE's grudge towards awe)

 

although a 'wtf you idiot' would suffice. apparently.

 

also, didn't lumpy call out joseph for being a troll? sounds close enough to a 'wtf you idiot' to me. It would have spared misterE a rant, if he could comply to this logic.

Edited May 27, 2013 by goDel

i think the problem here, and ive mentioned it to Mr. E in chatmm numerous times, is that he is projecting his assumption of "liberal PC" types onto anyone that may disagree with his narrative, which can really derail what could be a substantial discussion into unweaving all of the logical fallacies set up/name calling, etc.

 

In other words, cooler heads must prevail, and failing that, I just ignore the shit altogether.

yes i totally agree with that smetty

  On 5/27/2013 at 7:48 PM, SR4 said:

i think the problem here, and ive mentioned it to Mr. E in chatmm numerous times, is that he is projecting his assumption of "liberal PC" types onto anyone that may disagree with his narrative, which can really derail what could be a substantial discussion into unweaving all of the logical fallacies set up/name calling, etc.

 

In other words, cooler heads must prevail, and failing that, I just ignore the shit altogether.

that's just not really true. first off right after my initial rant you agreed that the thread had turned into a kind of false flag focused deal, and that it wasn't the only thread where that's happened. i mean, here we have a thread for discussion about a real event, and even if several people are debating against one or two people with more specific conspiracy angles, the general tone of the whole thread still becomes about those angles when that goes on for several pages, instead of there being a discussion about the real facts that have come out about the people and events. and that's entirely typical of this place. and outside of those one or two posters with more specific ideas, you still have a few people, or at least awe himself, who seem to think there is something going on but just don't want to tie the current administration to it.

 

awe just recently expressed his opinion that he isn't convinced that the tsarnaev brothers were guilty, but in the same comment said he sees little evidence to support it being an 'inside job'. wtf does that even mean? again, aren't they at least clearly guilty of shooting an MIT cop to death, then hijacking a car, armed robbery, then a gunfight with cops inolving more home-made bombs? none of that stuff to him indicates that they were probably guilty of the boston bombing as well? does he think that they weren't guilty of all that stuff either? if no, how does he think they got to the scene? how did the one bro get killed in that gun fight? how did the other end up in the boat? for him to say he thinks they might not be guilty... it has far-reaching implications. maybe he doesn't understand this. but what else could he possibly be saying other than that he thinks the cops actually framed them for all of that stuff also? and the cops would need big help, they couldn't do it by themselves. to place them as the shooters of the MIT cop, the hijackers of the car, and then in a gunfight with the cops, with grenades and bombs, and for all of it not to be true, wouldn't that require a massive cover up with some serious weight behind it? how exactly

 

in the fuck

 

could that NOT be an inside job? it would require BIG power to pull that off. i mean you (awe) keep saying things expressing doubt in their being "guilty", but each time you completely ignore that whole 2nd incident/string of events, which can't be accidental. explain how you don't think they are "guilty", but how they could possibly be innocent taking the rampage they went on into account. and in a way that doesn't involve any of it, including their frame-up, as being an inside job to any degree. just give one possible scenario that fits that all that criteria. i mean it literally is like you are saying that 'there is something shady going on here but obama had nothing to do with it surely'. why? why doesn't this one go all the way to the top like everything under bush did? how could it NOT? are the cops in boston big-time conservatives who took it upon themselves to fake that whole rampage and threw the younger bro in that boat because they hate muslims? who would have a motive to frame muslims for a bombing besides a war hungry administration? are you smoking angel dust?

 

sure there are people here discounting joseph's slighly more developed ideas of shady doings, but what awepittance is saying is equally as crazy, and he gets a relatively free pass on that shit. why? is it because he himself is one of the people playing a voice of reason to joseph's ideas, to look relatively more logical, even while gushing that he simply would love to be able to say himself that it IS an inside job but just can't see the evidence? he's all but admitted that he assumes conspiracy first, automatically, then tries to find evidence to support that. that mindset seems not too uncommon around here. not very scientific. how are any of my criticisms of that nature completely off-base?

 

and smett, i'm sorry it didn't turn out to be the 'right wingers' you 'heard it might be', but it didn't. maybe next time.

Edited May 27, 2013 by MisterE

  On 5/27/2013 at 8:15 PM, MisterE said:

 

and smett, i'm sorry it didn't turn out to be the 'right wingers' you 'heard it might be', but it didn't. maybe next time.

 

 

 

wow. point me to where I was hoping for a "right winger" having done this?

 

this reeks of dishonesty.

 

edit: You putting this statement on me is exactly the projection that I was talking about.

Edited May 27, 2013 by SR4

Is this a case of watmm conspiracy pointed towards itself instead of the bad world?

 

Hey misterE, you might want to try throwing some Baysian statistics into your repertoire as well!

  On 5/27/2013 at 8:21 PM, SR4 said:

 

  On 5/27/2013 at 8:15 PM, MisterE said:

and smett, i'm sorry it didn't turn out to be the 'right wingers' you 'heard it might be', but it didn't. maybe next time.

 

wow. point me to where I was hoping for a "right winger" having done this?

 

this reeks of dishonesty.

 

edit: You putting this statement on me is exactly the projection that I was talking about.

 

oh COME ON.

  On 4/15/2013 at 11:33 PM, SR4 said:

well, it certainly falls under "terrorism", but al qaeda? n. korea? just a few fucked individuals? who knows. Ive heard a few suggest it might even be a right-wing extremist group. it's pretty sickening altogether.

  On 5/27/2013 at 7:26 PM, SR4 said:

excellent response Alco

 

 

are people still upset about the Dorner thread?

do you mean the dorner thread that was based on a false premise of drones being used to assassinate a guy on US soil, but that amazingly never brought obama into that plot, nor did any of the totally truth seeking people involved in the thread care to point out later reports that no drone at all, surveillance or otherwise was even used in that ordeal? the one that was kicked off with several posts to the extent of 'doesn't he get a fair trial before being blown up?' exhibiting absolutely no critical thinking? just jumping to conclusions based on a misleading headline from an article that seems to have been entirely made up? the one where vague notions that some shady gov thing was going on (again, without obama- so somehow someone else got control of those drones apparently), well before the burning of the house which admittedly was suspicious although not entirely unexplainable due to the fact that dorner shot 2 more cops, killing one, from that house which is itself a fact that's usually conveniently left out of the burning of the house part of the story altogether? that thread?

 

why do i have any reason to hold a grudge against awepittance? he's the one who went on record here in the forum saying that he was holding a grudge against ME over that thread. i could give a damn. i just think he says mad retarded shit and rarely gets called on it. it's the rarely getting called on it part that bugs me most. apparently i'm at least not entirely alone-

  On 4/23/2013 at 10:59 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 4/23/2013 at 10:16 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

If I was a Boston resident I'd be singing patriotic songs too if they just locked down my entire town to catch a 19 year old kid

just when i get a glimpse of hope that you might not actually be that fucking dumb you go and post some shit like that.

 

did he want the little bomb throwing maniac to escape or what?

but i think i can be a fair guy, so you know what i'll do? if he (awe) can construct a scenario meeting all the criteria i asked for-

a) gives an explanation somewhat within the realm of possibility for how the tsarnaev bros could be innocent and that

b) takes into account the rampage that took place between april 18th-19th that multiple eye-witnesses and mountains of evidence seems to irrefutably tie them to, or that somehow explains how the two events are unrelated, or just provides something on this detail that just razzle dazzles me, and that

c) involves no degree of it being an 'inside job' with any government participation even though it seems that any possible scenario explaining a) and b) would have to involve a massive coverup which could only be done by the gov, and even though the current admin seems to have the only motive to frame muslims that can directly pay off (in the form of more expanded wars and countries to play with drones in)

 

if he can give a scenario that fits those points, as dictated by comments he has posted, i will not only buy a hat which i will then eat, but i will personally establish my own literary award which i will then design with construction paper and paste then scan and post and award him right here for all to see. the award will have a name something along the lines of the 'impossible thing to achieve in literary fantabulism award'

  On 5/27/2013 at 8:54 PM, MisterE said:

 

  On 5/27/2013 at 8:21 PM, SR4 said:

 

  On 5/27/2013 at 8:15 PM, MisterE said:

and smett, i'm sorry it didn't turn out to be the 'right wingers' you 'heard it might be', but it didn't. maybe next time.

 

wow. point me to where I was hoping for a "right winger" having done this?

 

this reeks of dishonesty.

 

edit: You putting this statement on me is exactly the projection that I was talking about.

 

oh COME ON.

  On 4/15/2013 at 11:33 PM, SR4 said:

well, it certainly falls under "terrorism", but al qaeda? n. korea? just a few fucked individuals? who knows. Ive heard a few suggest it might even be a right-wing extremist group. it's pretty sickening altogether.

 

 

 

Jesus Christ dude this is pathetic.

 

1) Did you happen to notice the other two suggestions I listed before?

2) Do you know why I heard it might have been a right-wing extremist group? Because CNN, MSNBC, and fucking FOX News were all reporting it.

 

You want so desperately for me to fit into your convenient black and white "just world" fallacy. Give it a rest.

  On 5/27/2013 at 9:25 PM, SR4 said:

Jesus Christ dude this is pathetic.

 

1) Did you happen to notice the other two suggestions I listed before?

2) Do you know why I heard it might have been a right-wing extremist group? Because CNN, MSNBC, and fucking FOX News were all reporting it.

 

You want so desperately for me to fit into your convenient black and white "just world" fallacy. Give it a rest.

yes i noticed the two other suggestions.

 

and i saw the cnn thing about how the bombing had hall-marks of right wing bombs, which is funny since no right wing extremists have ever used pressure cooker bombs. several muslims with terrorist ties had used pressure cooker bombs in the past though. how does cnn say "A senior U.S. counterterrorism investigator told CNN that pressure cooker bombs have also been a signature of extreme right-wing individuals in the United States" when no pressure cooker bombs have been used by them? how do you call something a signature of a group, if they haven't used it even once? and who was their un-named supposed counterterrorism expert? the one they had on chris matthews' show later outright refuted that claim. i guess it was too much to expect you to question/check that story or see any of the other articles refuting it, rather than being eager to spread it, exactly as cnn counted on you doing?

 

anyway, you can point to your other two suggestions, as i can point to the fact that i never SAID that you "hoped" it was right wingers. i only said that you "heard" it was. and that was pretty much a direct quote wasn't it?

Edited May 27, 2013 by MisterE

I'd just like to say that it took me 2 months to realize that awe was john

  On 5/27/2013 at 9:40 PM, MisterE said:

i only said that you "heard" it was. and that was pretty much a direct quote wasn't it?

i meant to say 'heard it MIGHT be'

  On 5/27/2013 at 9:40 PM, MisterE said:

 

  On 5/27/2013 at 9:25 PM, SR4 said:

Jesus Christ dude this is pathetic.

 

1) Did you happen to notice the other two suggestions I listed before?

2) Do you know why I heard it might have been a right-wing extremist group? Because CNN, MSNBC, and fucking FOX News were all reporting it.

 

You want so desperately for me to fit into your convenient black and white "just world" fallacy. Give it a rest.

yes i noticed the two other suggestions.

 

and i saw the cnn thing about how the bombing had hall-marks of right wing bombs, which is funny since no right wing extremists have ever used pressure cooker bombs. several muslims with terrorist ties had used pressure cooker bombs in the past though. how does cnn say "A senior U.S. counterterrorism investigator told CNN that pressure cooker bombs have also been a signature of extreme right-wing individuals in the United States" when no pressure cooker bombs have been used by them? how do you call something a signature of a group, if they haven't used it even once? and who was their un-named supposed counterterrorism expert? the one they had on chris matthews' show later outright refuted that claim. i guess it was too much to expect you to question/check that story or see any of the other articles refuting it, rather than being eager to spread it, exactly as cnn counted on you doing?

 

anyway, you can point to your other two suggestions, as i can point to the fact that i never SAID that you "hoped" it was right wingers. i only said that you "heard" it was. and that was pretty much a direct quote wasn't it?

 

 

wait, so, im part of this liberal news conspiracy to disparage right-wing extremist groups because I was posting what I was hearing from the news at the given moment? Not to mention FOX News was reporting the same damn thing? Are they part of the conspiracy too? Notice how it was dropped in the news? When did I say anything about agreeing with the pressure-cooker bomb as an identifying mark of right-wing extremist attacks? Ever? Projection, projection, projection. This is ridiculous man. With all the time we spend on dismantling straw manning nonsense we could actually be having a substantive discussion.

  On 5/27/2013 at 10:23 PM, SR4 said:

wait, so, im part of this liberal news conspiracy to disparage right-wing extremist groups because I was posting what I was hearing from the news at the given moment?

did i say you were part of a news conspiracy? for someone who accuses people of straw men arguments you sure like to use them a lot. talk about projecting! no. i merely suggested that maybe you could have spent the 10 seconds and the google that we all have to check up on those claims before repeating them. and that many in the media were more than happy to get their 'it might be right wingers' out there, and you were more than happy to repeat it. what if they just randomly said 'it might be sasquatch' with no real solid evidence backing it up? would you mindlessly repeat that as an actual possibility?

  On 5/27/2013 at 10:23 PM, SR4 said:

Not to mention FOX News was reporting the same damn thing?

so?

  On 5/27/2013 at 10:23 PM, SR4 said:

Are they part of the conspiracy too?

if there were a conspiracy i suppose it would be just as possible for them to be 'in on it' as anyone else. all i said was that cnn was happy to suggest it, and you were happy to repeat it. both true. for fox it may have been a bit more of a begruding thing to admit the possibility just because at that point, it could have been anyone. i just found a vid of a guy on fox talking about dates of significance to right wingers and some other vague reasoning, that really seems to amount to them just covering their bases. cnn's assertions (which i saw) were a bit more specific and... seemed to be wholly untrue. but did anyone say that 'it might be far left wingers'? why not? seems like they've made bombs in the past too...

  On 5/27/2013 at 10:23 PM, SR4 said:

Notice how it was dropped in the news?

yeah after they got it out there where it would be repeated, when they had no idea what direction the facts would go or how they could play off of them.

  On 5/27/2013 at 10:23 PM, SR4 said:

When did I say anything about agreeing with the pressure-cooker bomb as an identifying mark of right-wing extremist attacks? Ever? Projection, projection, projection.

sorry i just kind of assumed that whatever you saw that suggested it 'might be right wingers' provided you with some kind of reasoning behind that, some kind of argument of any sort, that would even half-justify your repeating it. was i wrong? the main occurence of CNN making the claim, that i know of, came with the accusation that those types of bombs were a signature of right-wingers. sounds damning, except that it's bullshit. (so again i have to wonder what expert told them that). so you didn't see THAT? what DID you see? what evidence or reasoning did they use? if none, then doesn't it just fall under the category of vague ideas about how it could be almost any group, that many media outlets are going to throw out there in early stages of speculation? but in your wording 'i heard it might be' to me that's like your giving whatever you heard some even small amount of weight. i've heard that elvis was still alive but i don't go around repeating it. if i saw something that gave a good reason to consider it as a possibility i might then repeat it. so yeah i'll go ahead and stand by my comment about your being eager to spread something which you now seem to want to admit had no real factual basis.

  On 5/27/2013 at 10:23 PM, SR4 said:

This is ridiculous man. With all the time we spend on dismantling straw manning nonsense we could actually be having a substantive discussion.

yeah. are you just going to accuse me of straw men in every post from now on? because i could actually be doing something entirely different with my life altogether. i mean here i am actually putting effort into my responses and there you are crying 'strawman' and 'projecting' over and over. while accusing me of saying things i hadn't. Edited May 28, 2013 by MisterE

  On 5/28/2013 at 3:44 AM, MisterE said:

because i could actually be doing something entirely different with my life altogether.

sounds like a great idea to me, why don't you?

*lumpenprol discreetly places pressure cooker in thread, exits*

*sees the signature of right wing extremists in said pressure cooker*