Lies and Deception

pikto99

Registered
OK, folks, just listen to this fellow. He has all the legal evidences of so "scare-full" and forgotten, ignored facts over this forum.

http://www.dirtyunclesam.com/

Then try to prove that there is and/or was no conspiracy.
And I am pretty sure that this individual speaking English enough to understand.
Enjoy!
 

SaraSara

Registered
I could understand the words, but their meaning escapes me - this guy lost me after a couple of minutes.

He should have rehearsed his speech before turning on the camera.
 

pikto99

Registered
Well, English is not my native language but I want to understand and I do. Yes, he is not a professional public speaker, just concerned fellow. But his work is priceless. Even Ron Paul or Ralf Nader ever brought these facts up to the publics attention.
 

pikto99

Registered
I am listening to the guy over and over and cannot get where is no meaning or presentation losses. Remember, he is speaking legal language and sentences. Pay attention and u'll get it. Of course if your "intellectual stability control" is not rejecting him by emotion.
 

SaraSara

Registered
If he wants to get the public's attention he must make his message understandable. Right now it sounds like a hodgepodge of quotations.
 

pikto99

Registered
Yep, thats pretty much known "stratigury" (as GWB once said on TV): to not understand. What else could you say? This candidate presenting cold facts about deception and lies, forgery of Amendments and Constitution in general. For you its not really big issues but I remember your post (that supposed to have an answers from me with facts and links, which was removed) were you anxiously seeking the truth and nothing else. Here is The Truth - get it.
 

ElQueso

Registered
I have to wonder - if guys like this are exposing so much "truth" and the government is so evil, why does the government let it continue? Surely they have the power to make sure this guy never even existed if there was such a long-running conspiracy from all of those who have held power since the 14th Amendment was ratified (or not as this guy claims).

Why is it that no one else is doing anything about it if all this is true? I don't mean current politicians, but there are literally millions of people who would jump all over this sort of thing if it made any sense at all.

Does it not make more sense that he is taking bits and pieces of this and that and throwing them together in a vaguely logical manner, but that all the pieces he shows (not in a very good manner, btw, as Alzhino says) don't mean what he says?

I'm not saying that some of the things that this guy says isn't right, but the truth is, he goes through whatever "proofs" he has so fast, mixing it with his personal viewpoints about why we should be listening to him, that it doesn't make much sense.

I lose him pretty big when he says the 14th amendment shouldn't be there and that whether or not it was ratified doesn't even make any difference. That is actually one of the points of the Constitution - to provide a manner to make changes to the Constitution itself.

The 14th Amendment was created to better define citizenship after the Civil War. The original Constitution, for example, denied slaves and their descendants from ever being citizens.

The guy says the 14 th Amendment was never ratified. Why? He sure didn't explain that at all. That's a pretty freaking big claim!

This guy starts talking to his "opponents" in his senatorial race in the middle of his "explanation" to come challenge him, goes all over the place on his points, can't explain anything at all, just rushing through whatever "proofs" he has.

Have you guys ever heard of Occam's Razor?

"When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question."

To paraphrase, when confronted with two competing hypothesis, chose the simpler one that also covers all the points the hypotheses are trying to explain is likely the correct hypothesis.

To me, comparing something like "the politicians of the country are not taking care of business and we are suffering for it" next to "politicians more than 100 years ago hijacked the Constitution illegally and there has been a conspiracy ever since to keep the American populace under lock and key and we are suffering for it" - well, Occam's Razor tells me that the first hypothesis is valid, not the second.

Of course, really, Occam's Razor can't be used for this because of the phrase "when equal in all other respects." This guy's stuff actually has nothing to back it up when it's all put together, quite unlike the hypothesis #1 as to why the American people may be suffering.

BTW - I'm actually a government plant who is spreading misinformation to continue to keep conspiracies like this one secret.
 

ElQueso

Registered
pikto99 said:
I am listening to the guy over and over and cannot get where is no meaning or presentation losses. Remember, he is speaking legal language and sentences. Pay attention and u'll get it. Of course if your "intellectual stability control" is not rejecting him by emotion.
No offense man, but you are understanding him because you do not have the ability to think critically. You do not require proofs because to you he makes sense and whatever he's flashing on the screen and talking about (without making any real connections) goes along with your feelings on what reality should be.
 

SaraSara

Registered
pikto99 said:
Yep, thats pretty much known "stratigury" (as GWB once said on TV): to not understand. What else could you say? This candidate presenting cold facts about deception and lies, forgery of Amendments and Constitution in general. For you its not really big issues but I remember your post (that supposed to have an answers from me with facts and links, which was removed) were you anxiously seeking the truth and nothing else. Here is The Truth - get it.
Sorry, but I don't understand your post - English is not my native language either, but I trust I do make better sense than that.

You seem to be saying that I don't understand that speaker because I'm not seeking The Truth, and not because he jumps from one thing to the next and makes no sense whatsoever.
 
Top