Mass graves of children found near Montreal...

[Addendum]

Obviously, he created the thread. Creating a thread does not give SoG the power of approval over the sub-topics the main topic generates. The question of the value of life is very relevant to the topic. If comparisons can be drawn between abortion and the death of 50,000 children, it very much fits within the confines of said topic.

So maybe YOU should shut the **** up?

Create another thread where you can whine about abortion. This thread is whining about government experiments

 

[TheSumOfGod]

I'm still wondering how "hundreds" got translated to 50 THOUSAND children.

Not paying attention, huh? 50,000 children were a part of the project at one time or another, but only a few hundred actually died as a result.

 

[lazur]

Sadly, as you know, if ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX or CNN didn't say it, it's not true.

Wow, kind of puts ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX and CNN in an unprecedented position of power when it comes to shaping public opinion and perception of truth, huh?

Why would CNN or any of those news agencies want to hide it, if it were true? Particularly when they're willing to admit (and sometimes fabricate) other so-called "atrocities" the world over, especially when it has the opportunity of painting the U.S. government (CIA) in a bad light?? Do you really think they WOULD NOT jump at that opportunity?

Give me an effing break already.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Ugh, sorry, genius, but if the subject of abortion can depict the similarities in thought (and lack of) in this type of situation, it's very relevant to the conversation. You can't just shut off a topic because you personally don't like where the discussion is going.

The subject of abortion, of or relating to the 'value of life', is very relavent to the main topic of this thread. Get over it or quit posting your conspiracies to the board, eh?

No one here wants to talk about abortion.

 

[TheSumOfGod]

Sadly, as you know, if ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX or CNN didn't say it, it's not true.

Wow, kind of puts ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX and CNN in an unprecedented position of power when it comes to shaping public opinion and perception of truth, huh?

Wilhelm, took you a hell of a long time to get here! Traffic?

 

[TheSumOfGod]

No one here wants to talk about abortion.

That too.

 

[lazur]

Not paying attention, huh? 50,000 children were a part of the project at one time or another, but only a few hundred actually died as a result.

Sorry, the subject and then your text in the first post of your thread makes it sound like 50,000 children were killed.

I'm sure that wasn't intentional though .

 

[lazur]

No one here wants to talk about abortion.

No one is discussing abortion exclusively. But people are discussing relevant sub-topics. Abortion just happens to be one of them.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Why would CNN or any of those news agencies want to hide it, if it were true? Particularly when they're willing to admit (and sometimes fabricate) other so-called "atrocities" the world over, especially when it has the opportunity of painting the U.S. government (CIA) in a bad light?? Do you really think they WOULD NOT jump at that opportunity?

Give me an effing break already.

You're view is too narrow. There are millions of reasons that stories are suppressed. Furthermore, if you'd done any research or read enough on the subject you'd know that huge scandalous stories have been suppressed due to the interests of those in power, the wealthy, etc. since the begining of the press.

give ME a break.

Measly little magazines like Time or Newsweek won't even take stories that expose wrong-doing on the part of their advertisers. Common knowledge.

 

[TheSumOfGod]

(^lazur) Headlines are headlines, bub. Stop being a know-it-all, holier-than-thou jackass for once, huh?

 

[cass]

No one here wants to talk about abortion.

Of course YOU don't. Just can't face the responsibilty that you support 30 million slaughtered? Instead let's just talk about the couple hundred children here.

 

[Addendum]

No one is discussing abortion exclusively. But people are discussing relevant sub-topics. Abortion just happens to be one of them.

Only because you entered and started yakking about it

 

[cass]

(^lazur) Headlines are headlines, bub. Stop being a know-it-all, holier-than-thou jackass for once, huh?

Yeah, stop being SumOfGod II !!!

 

[TheSumOfGod]

Sorry, the subject and then your text in the first post of your thread makes it sound like 50,000 children were killed.

lol That means that you haven't even read the article.

 

[lazur]

lol That means that you haven't even read the article.

Nope, I don't have time to read every stupid conspiracy theory you post. I'd never get any work done.

I just find it amusing that you create headlines designed to mislead the typical poster, who will ALSO not read most of the garbage you post (particularly overly wordy stuff), or follow your many scandalous links of writings by long-winded, no life attention ****es, looking for a new thing to bi*** about.

 

[Addendum]

I'm the type of poster that clicks on links.

It's not something that takes forever. Just a second to move the mouse, click the button, then read.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Sadly, as you know, if ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX or CNN didn't say it, it's not true.

Wow, kind of puts ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX and CNN in an unprecedented position of power when it comes to shaping public opinion and perception of truth, huh?

First of all, I don't get my news from any of those networks and in college none of those count as credible sources. period.

Any televised news (maybe aside from PBS...but I never watch TV, so I just go with what I hear on that) or TV shows for that matter present a trite, predictable and pre written view of the of the world. So no, anyone who uses a televised news cast is giving a very skewed report on the matter, especially now since visual media tends to pit to extremes against eachother. You'd be better off getting videos of congressional and senate policy making sessions and judging for yourself.

Articles, specifically those found through World News Connection, Lexis Nexus (there are others those are the only ones I use) the NY Times, Washington Post...etc. Are credible sources. Anything which is not peer reviewed looses almost all credibility as far as I see it. All other sources run the risk of being skewed or written to suit the conclusions already decided by the audience.

General rule of thumb for that last category, if all articles point to a similar trend, you're probably reading anecdotal bullcrap.

 

[TheSumOfGod]

Nope, I don't have time to read every stupid conspiracy theory you post.

It's NOT a conspiracy theory, bub. It's actual news (that the mainstream media has completely ignored, for some reason).

 

[lazur]

I'm the type of poster that clicks on links.

It's not something that takes forever. Just a second to move the mouse, click the button, then read.

Ugh, yeah, it's when you get to the link and realize it's 60 pages of unsubstantiated junk you have to try to wade through to understand what's going on that typically causes the typical SHH poster to click the X at the top right on the page.

 

[lazur]

It's NOT a conspiracy theory, bub. It's actual news (that the mainstream media has completely ignored, for some reason).

Cry wolf...

With you, anything that could possibly be considered "legit" gets buried in the noise of all your other senseless bs.

At least for me, you lost all your 'cred' a long time ago.

 

[TheSumOfGod]

Ugh, yeah, it's when you get to the link and realize it's 60 pages of unsubstantiated junk you have to try to wade through to understand what's going on that typically causes the typical SHH poster to click the X at the top right on the page.

lazur is a stereotypical conservative. His preconceived ideas have such tremendous power over him that he takes his unfounded assumptions for irrefutable facts.

 

[TheSumOfGod]

At least for me, you lost all your 'cred' a long time ago.

Oh my god! I "lost my cred" to someone who considers George W. Bush's mouth to be a fountain of infinite truth and wisdom! What shall I ever do?

 

[Addendum]

Ugh, yeah, it's when you get to the link and realize it's 60 pages of unsubstantiated junk you have to try to wade through to understand what's going on that typically causes the typical SHH poster to click the X at the top right on the page.

Or in the case of this link, a person is just too lazy to read a one page article

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

*ahem*

You're view is too narrow. There are millions of reasons that stories are suppressed. Furthermore, if you'd done any research or read enough on the subject you'd know that huge scandalous stories have been suppressed due to the interests of those in power, the wealthy, etc. since the begining of the press.

give ME a break.

Measly little magazines like Time or Newsweek won't even take stories that expose wrong-doing on the part of their advertisers. Common knowledge.

Nope, I don't have time to read every stupid conspiracy theory you post

Uh, did it ever occur to you, the stupidity of deciding that a story isn't true withOUT even reading it? How do you know that a story isn't true?
You're proving that you have certain areas where you wouldn't even listen to any evidence because you don't want to believe certain things could be true, it ****s with your world-view too much.

You remember the McMartin daycare case?
EVERY single person I've talked to about it has "remembered" it as an example of false memory syndrome and a "witch-hunt" since the accused were released.

In reality, the children's wild stories about tunnels under the daycare center were PROVEN TRUE when the property was sold and the building demolished.

But somehow that didn't get the public's interest or the big headlines.

When you actuallu LOOK into it, so that you have some SEMBLANCE of knowledge regarding the topic, you'll see that all of the the McMartin connections to law enforcement and other high-level politicians that have been accused and cleared of child abuse explains the anomaly.

F*** people that dare to think that they're aware of all that goes on this vast planet.

 

[lazur]

lazur is a stereotypical conservative. His preconceived ideas have such tremendous power over him that he takes his unfounded assumptions for irrefutable facts.

LOL TSoG lecturing someone on "unfounded assumptions". Now that's some funny sh**.