Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Fair enough and as you know I'm not all in with the anti-abortion camp and don't really object to scientific research on dead bodies (including fetuses) either, but we should wait for more information and see what an investigation turns up. I've got a feeling this story isn't over.Really?
I watched one and there were plenty of objections about vague questions, speculations, mischaracterisations of documents and testimony etc.
Discussions of organs for studies I think. It's only fragments of the interviews that I can see.
Avid anti-abortionists have described the material the way they want people to see it, using emotive language.
Maybe read up on what others have to say.
Not sure where any money has been diverted to the Democrats, because it never actually happened. From the article linked:
"While publicly, Planned Parenthood told the New York Times they turned the deal down, in video testimony of her deposition under oath, Tram Nguyen is seen admitting in that she actually intended to move forward with the financial arrangement."
This from 5 minutes of questioning in which she doesn't seem to have said that.
Don't fall for this crap.
Still can't see any cash donated to the Democrats.Fair enough and as you know I'm not all in with the anti-abortion camp and don't really object to scientific research on dead bodies (including fetuses) either, but we should wait for more information and see what an investigation turns up. I've got a feeling this story isn't over.
The problem isn't 'does the official narrative make sense'; most of the time, it's ideologically loaded, possessed with some kind of spin. The problem is 'what else would be required to be right for what you're saying to be true?'Who decides where the middle is?
Conned the world except France? So all those “No War for Oil” stickers I saw were... ?Last night I watched a History Channel investigation into how the USA conned the world (with the exception of France) into believing Iraq had WMD's
The US outright lied and faked the evidence to support the invasion and steal the oil
Prior to the invasion opponents to the US position were called Conspiracy nut cases and in some cases opponents were harmed
Now that we know Iraq never had WMD's which side instigated in the conspiracy?
Wow.Authorities hunting great white shark that killed surfer in northern NSW
Authorities will today resume the hunt for a great white shark that attacked and killed a man off the New South Wales north coast yesterday, as it’s revealed there were no shark nets at the popular beach.www.news.com.au
More blood on Larissa Waters hands. farken socialist wocialist leftist smeftists. Rooney Ooney keftist meftist. This what ya done get for resisiting shark culls on the nsw coest
Wow.
Sorry, I was talking about Governments, in particular the UN, not the average Joe where there was a strong anti-war feelingConned the world except France? So all those “No War for Oil” stickers I saw were... ?
Is this really a true conspiracy theory, given the pretext was outed as exaggerated by elements of the military and government even during the same administration? I thought the whole point of conspiracy theories is hiding evidence etc.Sorry, I was talking about Governments, in particular the UN, not the average Joe where there was a strong anti-war feeling
But I guess my point remains, who were the Conspirators?
You mean like hiding documents that proved there were no WMD's, altering documents that showed Saddam didn't import 500 tonnes of Yellow Cake and hiding reports from Weapons Inspectors?Is this really a true conspiracy theory, given the pretext was outed as exaggerated by elements of the military and government even during the same administration? I thought the whole point of conspiracy theories is hiding evidence etc.
Conspiracies and criminality exists.You mean like hiding documents that proved there were no WMD's, altering documents that showed Saddam didn't import 500 tonnes of Yellow Cake and hiding reports from Weapons Inspectors?
Is that type of thing you mean?
Supposedly things like 9/11 happened with all those involved forced into silence and any would be whistleblowers executed before they could release any evidence to the public. No such thing appears to have happened with the invasion of Iraq because evidence contrary to the casus belli was made freely available by the military and state. Therefore, is this really worth holding up to show that conspiracies sometimes happen when this has everything that other conspiracies do not, ie. hard evidence?You mean like hiding documents that proved there were no WMD's, altering documents that showed Saddam didn't import 500 tonnes of Yellow Cake and hiding reports from Weapons Inspectors?
Is that type of thing you mean?
No of course notConspiracies and criminality exists.
Doesn’t mean the moon landings were faked.
I think so, because it proves the theory (no pun) that conspiracies do existSupposedly things like 9/11 happened with all those involved forced into silence and any would be whistleblowers executed before they could release any evidence to the public. No such thing appears to have happened with the invasion of Iraq because evidence contrary to the casus belli was made freely available by the military and state. Therefore, is this really worth holding up to show that conspiracies sometimes happen when this has everything that other conspiracies do not, ie. hard evidence?
Shift? People conspire. There are laws dealing with it.No of course not
Do I detect a shift in your view?
You believe that conspiracies exist, if that is the case how do you differentiate between the ones you believe and the ones you don't?
Yep, agree with thatShift? People conspire. There are laws dealing with it.
It's ludicrous to try to leverage that to "faked moon landings" and "9/11 inside job".
Those types of conspiracy theories also have overarching themes of connectedness - every event is twisted into a deliberate action to support some ultimate goal of some shadowy elite, or hidden movement controlling things centrally.Yep, agree with that
But you wouldn't ague that is not possible would you?Those types of conspiracy theories also have overarching themes of connectedness - every event is twisted into a deliberate action to support some ultimate goal of some shadowy elite, or hidden movement controlling things centrally.
It's almost always just greed and incompetence.
This is the fork in the road.But you wouldn't ague that is not possible would you?
For instance we now know, Bush, Rice, Powell, Wolferwitz, Rumsfeld & Cheney acted to control the entire narrative and the "evidence" to do exactly that in relation to Iraq
So my point remains, if it is possible (and provable) and we can see how its done, where is the line between "oh yeah we know that happened, geeze man we all see that now" and "you crazy conspiracy nut case everyone knows that is just stupid, couldn't possibly be true" ?
I get your point and no it is not possible, but I'm not sure you agree that at times on a specific issue(s) there is a shadowy elite who are either attempting to control an issue or who in the past did in fact control a specific issueThis is the fork in the road.
"But it's POSSIBLE there's a shadowy elite pulling the strings of every event in my life!"
It's magical thinking.