Jump to content
The Education Forum

RFK Jr Does Not Agree that Lee Harvey Oswald Acted Alone


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

I have to correct you Ron, regulated seatbelts which are up to code and proper applicable standards save lives.   A rope is not a good seatbelt.  

No.  Ralph Nader.  Sometimes the board room needs regulation.  Familiar with Tort Law?

Ralph Nader wants you to wear a seat belt - Marketplace

 

Edited by Ron Bulman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

6 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Please show the proof the government censored RFK Jr.

https://schiff.house.gov/news/press-releases/schiff-sends-letter-to-google-facebook-regarding-anti-vaccine-misinformation

 

Good luck Cliff. It will be tough to hold onto private property rights in the future anyway if this Gates/WEF/Central Banker push actually succeeds. It's not difficult to see where the demand for censorship is coming from on this issue.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/how-bill-gates-controls-global-messaging-and-censorship/

Jeff/Chris, good posts. That Edward Curtin article is on point with this topic. Another link to the same article for those that may have missed it from Jeff.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/real-reason-robert-f-kennedy-jr-censored/

Edited by Dennis Berube
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

https://schiff.house.gov/news/press-releases/schiff-sends-letter-to-google-facebook-regarding-anti-vaccine-misinformation

 

Good luck Cliff. It will be tough to hold onto private property rights in the future anyway if this Gates/WEF/Central Banker push actually succeeds. It's not difficult to see where the demand for censorship is coming from on this issue.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/how-bill-gates-controls-global-messaging-and-censorship/

Jeff/Chris, good posts. That Edward Curtin article is on point with this topic. Another link to the same article for those that may have missed it from Jeff.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/real-reason-robert-f-kennedy-jr-censored/

I'd seen a similar case made a while back before this removal from Insta. As soon as MSM was calling him an 'Anti-Vaxxer' I think the writing was on the wall. People should be able to question vaccine efficacy & safety just like anything else, the government should also provide data at the request of the tax paying voter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Please show the proof the government censored RFK Jr.

This request makes me wonder if you either didn't read my post properly, perhaps you have something impairing your cognitive function or, it's just another pathetic straw man argument you are trying to start here.
Whichever it may be, it isn't coming across as very smart, Cliff. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

So, to be clear, government regulation of business when it comes to speech/content ok -in your view-on other media such as books, magazines, newspapers, film and tv.  
 

What government regulation?

8 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Government regulation of hiring/firing practices, insurance, pay rate all ok too in your view. 

But in your view social media is a special entity which enjoys immunity from government regulation?

Tell me what this government regulation looks like.  I keep asking people this and never get an answer.

8 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

lol, ok.  I’ll have seconds in the cafeteria line.  One cannot have enough ambrosia. 

And regulation of social media moderation consists of what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

This is 2 years old.

19 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

Good luck Cliff. It will be tough to hold onto private property rights in the future anyway if this Gates/WEF/Central Banker push actually succeeds. It's not difficult to see where the demand for censorship is coming from on this issue.

According to Zuckerberg in October 2019 the demand came from inside the Facebook “community” to drop anti-vaccine misinformation.

19 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/how-bill-gates-controls-global-messaging-and-censorship/

Jeff/Chris, good posts. That Edward Curtin article is on point with this topic. Another link to the same article for those that may have missed it from Jeff.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/real-reason-robert-f-kennedy-jr-censored/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

This request makes me wonder if you either didn't read my post properly, perhaps you have something impairing your cognitive function or, it's just another pathetic straw man argument you are trying to start here.
Whichever it may be, it isn't coming across as very smart, Cliff. 

You don’t appear capable of discussing these issues without getting personal.

It isn’t coming off as very mature.

Instagram kicked RFK Jr. off, not the US government.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

You don’t appear capable of discussing these issues without getting personal.

It isn’t coming off as very mature.

Instagram kicked RFK Jr. off, not the US government.

Ohhhh, I am not being mature? 🙂 

Discussing issues and replying to your inane comments are two very separate things. I don't even think I am being particularly personal, just honest as usual but, I do accept that some are easily bruised or offended. 
There is a bit of a correlation developing with you and ending up in this situation. Why not try to be a better person? 

I'll refer you back to my post that you misread or couldn't understand. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Ohhhh, I am not being mature? 🙂 

Discussing issues and replying to your inane comments are two very separate things.

I asked a question — what’s the proof that the US government censored RFK Jr?

Instead of giving a straight answer you melt down into personal insults.

18 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

I don't even think I am being particularly personal, just honest as usual but, I do accept that some are easily bruised or offended. 

That’s funny from a guy who gets butt hurt when his claims are challenged.

18 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

There is a bit of a correlation developing with you and ending up in this situation. Why not try to be a better person? 

There you go again.  Can’t help yourself, can you?

18 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

I'll refer you back to my post that you misread or couldn't understand. 

What’s the proof the US government censored RFK Jr.?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate Facebook.  

Several close friends of mine drank the Trumpistani kool-aid and now spout QAnon talking points they picked up on FB.

I’d love to see Facebook go the way of MySpace.  My objections to FB are at least as strong as the objections of anti-vaxxers crying about censorship.

But FB is a private company no matter how many otherwise bright, decent people they brain-wash.  They have a right to moderate their joint anyway they want.

I think it’s funny that anti-vaxxers raise hell about FB “censorship” but not a word about right-wing cult recruitment.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

I hate Facebook.  

Several close friends of mine drank the Trumpistani kool-aid and now spout QAnon talking points they picked up on FB.

I’d love to see Facebook go the way of MySpace.  My objections to FB are at least as strong as the objections of anti-vaxxers crying about censorship.

But FB is a private company no matter how many otherwise bright, decent people they brain-wash.  They have a right to moderate their joint anyway they want.

I think it’s funny that anti-vaxxers raise hell about FB “censorship” but not a word about right-wing cult recruitment.

It does figure they'd be your close friends if they are impressionable and easily propagandised by Facebook and QAnon, it sounds like more of symptom of being weak-minded. In the grand scheme of things there are a whole host of things aside from Facebook that you and your friends should stay clear of. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

It does figure they'd be your close friends if they are impressionable and easily propagandised by Facebook and QAnon, it sounds like more of symptom of being weak-minded.

Nothing more weak minded than chronic ad hominem.

Quote

In the grand scheme of things there are a whole host of things aside from Facebook that you and your friends should stay clear of. 

Btw, Chris, your opinions don’t count as fact.  You seem under the impression they do.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

I asked a question — what’s the proof that the US government censored RFK Jr?

Instead of giving a straight answer you melt down into personal insults.

That’s funny from a guy who gets butt hurt when his claims are challenged.

There you go again.  Can’t help yourself, can you?

What’s the proof the US government censored RFK Jr.?

 

TBH you are making yourself a target here with the straw man argument. On the contrary, I am the one with a life, who isn't spending the day with empty eyes glued to a computer screen in case someone replies. I think you need to take a break. For me to get "butt hurt" which I guess is a colloquial term for "offended", I would need to view you as my equal or superior, not just some internet xxxxx. It's so easy to spot, as oddly Facebook, which you hate because you are scared it will propagandise you, and YouTube are full of people very much like yourself seeking attention. I can tell you without any shadow of a doubt that this back and forth is only going to leave you feeling lower, not me. Do some exercise, stick to a circadian rhythm with sleep, eat right and you'll up your serotonin and dopamine levels and as a result you won't find yourself being a negative online. The recipe is that simple. 


This is what I actually said:

"The public perception of big tech and the separation from the state is interesting. If we thought about any other significant power in the world, not from the west, we'd automatically assume there is state interference with the tech firms of that country, as its in the national interest. But, in the USA the opposite is assumed, that there is this separation and no direct or subversive interference. Is that a logical conclusion? Not really. 

Are the government able to access your cellphones at the touch of a button, are they able to access your Facebook, Insta, Youtube, Gmail etc? Absolutely. Are they able to do that with the blessing of these tech firms? Definitely. The 5G network debacle between Britain and Huawei, with the US pressuring Britain not to accept Huawei on security grounds has been interesting to watch. The reason being claimed is China state interference. The other side is the claim that the USA doesn't have an easy access backdoor into the network, like they do with others. Is it in he best interests of our security, maybe. The better the devil you know argument is always made. 

The double standard is always that if someone else is doing something invasive, it's a threat to national security and if our own country is doing it, then it's also because of national security, protecting us. We have also seen the propensity for misuse by the state, whether that's in the Oliver Stone film "Snowden" or in terms of intellectual property theft, sexual blackmail, surveillance etc. We are all sold this lie about terrorists coming to take away our freedoms, very sophisticated networks of terrorists that live in caves or villages without internet and obviously match the Pentagon in sophistication and resources. 

Some of you may want to look into DARPA, the ARPA-NET, the origins of Google, Stanford research institute and even the lifelog / facebook coincidence. To me the idea that the tentacles of government security agencies are not deeply involved in big tech is patently absurd. If the government wants someone censored on social media platforms, it will be done. If you think RFK Jr had 700,000 followers, do you have any idea how his social media reach will scale up on a post that's interesting? The power is immense. If you then consider vaccines are the hot topic, at a time the populations of the globe are hysterical with fear of Covid19, then if his message is warning of dangers or contrarian in general, it means everyone on earth is likely to hear about it. He has credibility as an author, lawyer, activist and mostly because he is the son and nephew of two very well liked guys on a global level. Whether you believe his views and others on certain vaccines, autism or Covid19, is another matter. But, I can see why government would want to censor him and free speech, whether he is right or wrong."


If that's confusing to you, fair enough. 🙂 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Nothing more weak minded than chronic ad hominem.

Btw, Chris, your opinions don’t count as fact.  You seem under the impression they do.

Unfortunately for you, my mind is analytical and you have lots of tells. If my honest observations are cutting to the bone, then perhaps you should change your ways or pick another adversary. 

I am self-assured, Cliff, its served me well in life. Your views and opinions are water off a ducks back to me. But, I am conscious that we both are responsible for ruining threads here.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...