Sandy Hook: I'm Probably A Crazy Person

Re: Sandy Hook: I'm Probably A Crazy Person

Postby dontworrybehappy » Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:08 am

WizardfromOz wrote:
dontworrybehappy wrote:
So are you finally admitting you just make shit up for the sake of making shit up?

I presented evidence, you presented nothing.

Oh and I did read. In fact, I even poked fun at your game of "could have been." So to use your own words, learn to read. What fool would say it "could have been a jogger" knowing it was the father of one of the kids? Wow. Really? You have no idea how to debate do you? Sounds like borderline trolling to me. Saying something just to get a reaction, knowing it's not true....is the definition of trolling actually. But, not my job to make that decision. That's beyond my paygrade.


Ahh now the reverse burden of proof tanti followed up with a half twist of personal derision. Nice touch with the double disbelief romp in the middle. I probably would have scored that performance pretty high if you had stuck the landing.

Pro tip - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you do not accept any of the mundane possibilities about why that person was in the woods, it is up to you to prove your case. Show us the evidence he was anything other than what has been claimed.


The way a debate works is one side makes a claim, presents evidence to back it up, and then the other person presents their evidence.

I made a claim that Sandy Hook didn't happen like they said it did, that something was wonky with the situation, and presented evidence backing me up. My evidence: actual police scanner audio, actual video of the person in the woods being tackled and held by cops. Actual websites with dates prior to the shooting that speak of the shooting. Eyewitness testimony saying the guy in the woods was dressed identically to the known shooter. I would consider actual police audio and actual video to be pretty damn extraordinary. Saying that my evidence isn't good enough, without having a shred of evidence to prove it wrong, points all fingers at you. It's a convenient way to avoid having to admit you were wrong, or that you can't prove me wrong.

Comrade came along, and began his game of "could have been" as his evidence. He even links to a website with its own "could have been" game. That's not evidence.

So no, it's not reverse burden of proof, its called burden of proof, which stands solely at Comrades feet. He just chooses to keep going back and reiterate his wonky game of "could have been." He's ignoring whats in his face, which he has proven he is very good at.
"Police protection" is an oxymoron. Gun laws are like masturbation, they both feel really good, but after you're done you realize you haven't accomplished anything."

These users thanked the author dontworrybehappy for the post:
HeatherG
User avatar
dontworrybehappy
Senator
 
Posts: 1837
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:13 am
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 65 times
Political Leaning: Libertarian

Re: Sandy Hook: I'm Probably A Crazy Person

Postby WizardfromOz » Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:14 am

dontworrybehappy wrote:
WizardfromOz wrote:
dontworrybehappy wrote:
So are you finally admitting you just make shit up for the sake of making shit up?

I presented evidence, you presented nothing.

Oh and I did read. In fact, I even poked fun at your game of "could have been." So to use your own words, learn to read. What fool would say it "could have been a jogger" knowing it was the father of one of the kids? Wow. Really? You have no idea how to debate do you? Sounds like borderline trolling to me. Saying something just to get a reaction, knowing it's not true....is the definition of trolling actually. But, not my job to make that decision. That's beyond my paygrade.


Ahh now the reverse burden of proof tanti followed up with a half twist of personal derision. Nice touch with the double disbelief romp in the middle. I probably would have scored that performance pretty high if you had stuck the landing.

Pro tip - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you do not accept any of the mundane possibilities about why that person was in the woods, it is up to you to prove your case. Show us the evidence he was anything other than what has been claimed.


The way a debate works is one side makes a claim, presents evidence to back it up, and then the other person presents their evidence.

I made a claim that Sandy Hook didn't happen like they said it did, that something was wonky with the situation, and presented evidence backing me up. Comrade came along, and began his game of "could have been" as his evidence. He even links to a website with its own "could have been" game. That's not evidence.

So no, it's not reverse burden of proof, its called burden of proof, which stands solely at Comrades feet. He just chooses to keep going back and reiterate his wonky game of "could have been." He's ignoring whats in his face, which he has proven he is very good at.


You showed footage of a man been grabbed by police. Nothing more. You have presented no evidence about who the man was, or what his motives were other than your opinion. Comrade offered alternate and more mundane explanations, also an opinion. Somehow your opinion has now morphed to a fact, while Comrade's opinion is not accorded the same status
User avatar
WizardfromOz
Senator
 
Posts: 1625
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 9:33 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 87 times

Re: Sandy Hook: I'm Probably A Crazy Person

Postby The Comrade » Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:21 am

WizardfromOz wrote:
The Comrade wrote:the official narrative is completely coherent and verifiable.


just to clarify, are you talking about the universe infowars lives in or the place the rest of us call home :)


reality :))

sometimes i think alex jones is an alien probe, sent to test if humanity is ready to advance.
ImageImageImageImageImageImage
User avatar
The Comrade
Vice President
 
Posts: 18091
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 1:10 pm
Location: Yugoslavia
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 1193 times
Been thanked: 1827 times
Political Leaning: Socialist

Re: Sandy Hook: I'm Probably A Crazy Person

Postby The Comrade » Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:23 am

dontworrybehappy wrote:
WizardfromOz wrote:
dontworrybehappy wrote:
So are you finally admitting you just make shit up for the sake of making shit up?

I presented evidence, you presented nothing.

Oh and I did read. In fact, I even poked fun at your game of "could have been." So to use your own words, learn to read. What fool would say it "could have been a jogger" knowing it was the father of one of the kids? Wow. Really? You have no idea how to debate do you? Sounds like borderline trolling to me. Saying something just to get a reaction, knowing it's not true....is the definition of trolling actually. But, not my job to make that decision. That's beyond my paygrade.


Ahh now the reverse burden of proof tanti followed up with a half twist of personal derision. Nice touch with the double disbelief romp in the middle. I probably would have scored that performance pretty high if you had stuck the landing.

Pro tip - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you do not accept any of the mundane possibilities about why that person was in the woods, it is up to you to prove your case. Show us the evidence he was anything other than what has been claimed.


The way a debate works is one side makes a claim, presents evidence to back it up, and then the other person presents their evidence.

I made a claim that Sandy Hook didn't happen like they said it did, that something was wonky with the situation, and presented evidence backing me up. My evidence: actual police scanner audio, actual video of the person in the woods being tackled and held by cops. Actual websites with dates prior to the shooting that speak of the shooting. Eyewitness testimony saying the guy in the woods was dressed identically to the known shooter. I would consider actual police audio and actual video to be pretty damn extraordinary. Saying that my evidence isn't good enough, without having a shred of evidence to prove it wrong, points all fingers at you. It's a convenient way to avoid having to admit you were wrong, or that you can't prove me wrong.

Comrade came along, and began his game of "could have been" as his evidence. He even links to a website with its own "could have been" game. That's not evidence.

So no, it's not reverse burden of proof, its called burden of proof, which stands solely at Comrades feet. He just chooses to keep going back and reiterate his wonky game of "could have been." He's ignoring whats in his face, which he has proven he is very good at.


being dressed similar to someone does not prove he was a second gunman. where is your evidence that he was a second gunman? it's already been shown that it was a father trying to sneak into the school. and as i pointed out it could have been a much more mundane explanation. occam's razor your intellectually bankrupt cretin.
ImageImageImageImageImageImage
User avatar
The Comrade
Vice President
 
Posts: 18091
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 1:10 pm
Location: Yugoslavia
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 1193 times
Been thanked: 1827 times
Political Leaning: Socialist

Re: Sandy Hook: I'm Probably A Crazy Person

Postby NAB » Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:25 am

The Comrade wrote:
WizardfromOz wrote:
The Comrade wrote:the official narrative is completely coherent and verifiable.


just to clarify, are you talking about the universe infowars lives in or the place the rest of us call home :)


reality :))

sometimes i think alex jones is an alien probe, sent to test if humanity is ready to advance.


I was going to post that youtube vid of Alex, but this is a serious thread. Go revisit it immediately for proper context on your post.
Welcome to our speak board web page
User avatar
NAB
Governor
 
Posts: 7538
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 9:27 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 1060 times

Re: Sandy Hook: I'm Probably A Crazy Person

Postby Kane » Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:27 am

Video from : old youtube.com
Stephen Jay Gould wrote:When people learn no tools of judgment and merely follow their hopes, the seeds of political manipulation are sown.
User avatar
Kane
Governor
 
Posts: 7124
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 1:09 pm
Location: The Yay
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 281 times
Been thanked: 488 times
Political Leaning: Rockefeller Republican

Re: Sandy Hook: I'm Probably A Crazy Person

Postby The Comrade » Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:28 am

i can't not laugh at that ever
ImageImageImageImageImageImage
User avatar
The Comrade
Vice President
 
Posts: 18091
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 1:10 pm
Location: Yugoslavia
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 1193 times
Been thanked: 1827 times
Political Leaning: Socialist

Re: Sandy Hook: I'm Probably A Crazy Person

Postby Kane » Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:33 am

I'm the same. It always brings a smile to my face.
Stephen Jay Gould wrote:When people learn no tools of judgment and merely follow their hopes, the seeds of political manipulation are sown.
User avatar
Kane
Governor
 
Posts: 7124
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 1:09 pm
Location: The Yay
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 281 times
Been thanked: 488 times
Political Leaning: Rockefeller Republican

Re: Sandy Hook: I'm Probably A Crazy Person

Postby Gremlin » Fri Feb 08, 2013 10:21 pm

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/3 ... z2KADXs1TJ

If theres legs under this skirt, this DA may go the way of Ray Gricar.
Image twitter @xgremlin
User avatar
Gremlin
Senator
 
Posts: 1017
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 5:24 pm
Location: Soviet Amerika, FEMA 9
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 96 times
Been thanked: 66 times
Political Leaning: Anarchist

Re: Sandy Hook: I'm Probably A Crazy Person

Postby dontworrybehappy » Fri Feb 22, 2013 9:57 pm

Here is a very damning 20 minute video. Some very interesting new facts:

The car that Adam drove, or they say he drove, was registered to a guy named Chris Rodia, a convicted sex offender. The car is NOT registered to his mother. So who is this guy? Is he the second shooter? Why was his name withheld from all media outlets? Fast forward the video to the 13:00 mark for this piece of information.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation ... Ff5n0xbl08

The coroner said all bullet wounds to all kids he saw were caused by the AR-15. So this kid carried in 4 handguns yet never shot one?
"Police protection" is an oxymoron. Gun laws are like masturbation, they both feel really good, but after you're done you realize you haven't accomplished anything."

These users thanked the author dontworrybehappy for the post:
HeatherG
User avatar
dontworrybehappy
Senator
 
Posts: 1837
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:13 am
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 65 times
Political Leaning: Libertarian

PreviousNext

Return to Alternative/Conspiracy Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest