Duh…Lee Harvey Oswald you tin foil hat wearing conspiracy addled doofus.

It’s possible he wasn’t acting completely alone and it’s possible he was, it’s even minimally possible there was a second unnoticed shooter, but there were definitely not 8 shooters all identified with known specific payments made to each.

In reply to this comment by MayaBaba:
In reply to this comment by bmacs27:
>> ^MayaBaba:

Oh! And by the way it was Lee Harvey Oswald, on his own, from the Texas School Book Depository.
Forget conspiracies. Life is much simpler than some folk would like to believe.


"I.C. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy". Report of the Select Committee on Assassinations of the U.S. House of Representatives. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office. 1979."

So you disagree with the house select committee on Assassinations of the U.S. House of Representatives?


Thats exactly what I mean. Think! think for yourself.

>> ^MayaBaba:

Oh! And by the way it was Lee Harvey Oswald, on his own, from the Texas School Book Depository.
Forget conspiracies. Life is much simpler than some folk would like to believe.


"I.C. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy". Report of the Select Committee on Assassinations of the U.S. House of Representatives. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office. 1979."

So you disagree with the house select committee on Assassinations of the U.S. House of Representatives?

America, I'm speaking from another country, ok.
Your presidents are good, they really are; and this one is one of the best.
Looking for non-existing foreign birth certificates, aliens or fairies at the bottom of the garden, are, probably harmless, and I suppose, quite engrossing hobbies, of sorts.
What is not so endearing is for others to pick up these helpless cries and turn them into issues.
Leave these people alone, let them live with their beliefs without sounding the trumpets when they confuse a flower with Tinkerbelle.

Oh! And by the way it was Lee Harvey Oswald, on his own, from the Texas School Book Depository.
Forget conspiracies. Life is much simpler than some folk would like to believe.

The left is shocked---SHOCKED I TELLS YA----about any suggestions of media-promoted VIOLENCE!

To wit:


A new low in Bush-hatred

by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
September 10, 2006

SIX YEARS into the Bush administration, are there any new depths to which the Bush-haters can sink?

George W. Bush has been smeared by the left with every insult imaginable. He has been called a segregationist who yearns to revive Jim Crow and compared ad nauseam to Adolf Hitler. His detractors have accused him of being financially entwined with Osama bin Laden. Of presiding over an American gulag. Of being a latter-day Mussolini. Howard Dean has proffered the "interesting theory" that the Saudis tipped off Bush in advance about 9/11. One US senator (Ted Kennedy) has called the war in Iraq a "fraud" that Bush "cooked up in Texas" for political gain; another (Vermont independent James Jeffords) has charged him with planning a war in Iran as a strategy to put his brother in the White House. Cindy Sheehan has called him a "lying bastard," a "filth spewer," an "evil maniac," a "fuehrer," and a "terrorist" guilty of "blatant genocide" -- and been rewarded for her invective with oceans of media attention.

What's left for them to say about Bush? That they want him killed?

They already say it.

On Air America Radio, talk show host Randi Rhodes recommended doing to Bush what Michael Corleone, in "The Godfather, Part II," does to his brother. "Like Fredo," she said, "somebody ought to take him out fishing and phuw!" -- then she imitated the sound of a gunshot. In the Guardian, a leading British daily, columnist Charlie Brooker issued a plea: "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr. -- where are you now that we need you?"

For the more literary Bush-hater, there is "Checkpoint," a novel by Nicholson Baker in which two characters discuss the wisdom of shooting the 43rd president. "I'm going to kill that bastard," one character fumes. Some Bush-hatred masquerades as art: At Chicago's Columbia College, a curated exhibit included a sheet of mock postage stamps bearing the words "Patriot Act" and depicting President Bush with a gun to his head. There are even Bush-assassination fashion statements, such as the "KILL BUSH" T-shirts that were on offer last year at CafePress, an online retailer.

Lurid political libels have a long history in American life. The lies told about John Adams in the campaign of 1800 were vile enough, his wife Abigail lamented, "to ruin and corrupt the minds and morals of the best people in the world." But has there ever been a president so hated by his enemies that they lusted openly for his death? Or tried to gratify that lust with such political pornography?

As with other kinds of porn, even the most graphic expressions of Bush-hatred tend to jade those who gorge on it, so that they crave ever more explicit material to achieve the same effect.

Which brings us to "Death of a President," a new movie about the assassination of George W. Bush.

Written and directed by British filmmaker Gabriel Range, the movie premieres this week at the Toronto Film Festival and will air next month on Britain's Channel 4. Shot in the style of a documentary, it opens with what looks like actual footage of Bush being gunned down by a sniper as he leaves a Chicago hotel in October 2007. Through the use of digital special effects, the film superimposes the president's face onto the body of the actor playing him, so that the mortally wounded man collapsing on the screen will seem, all too vividly, to be Bush himself.

This is Bush-hatred as a snuff film. The fantasies it feeds are grotesque and obscene; to pander to such fantasies is to rip at boundary-markers that are indispensable to civilized society. That such a movie could not only be made but lionized at an international film festival is a mark not of sophistication, but of a sickness in modern life that should alarm conservatives and liberals alike.

Naturally that's not how the film's promoters see it. Noah Cowan, one of the Toronto festival's co-directors, high-mindedly describes "Death of a President" as "a classic cautionary tale." Well, yes, he says, Bush's assassination is "harrowing," but what the film is really about is "how the Patriot Act, especially, and how Bush's divisive partisanship and race-baiting has forever altered America."

I can't help wondering, though, whether some of those who see this film will take away rather a different message. John Hinckley, in his derangement, had the idea that shooting the president was the way to impress a movie star. After seeing "Death of a President," the next Hinckley may be taken with a more grandiose idea: that shooting the president is the way to become a movie star.

I don't know about 'the last', but Lee Harvey Oswald was a communist.


>> ^bookface:

Out of genuine curiosity, can anyone tell me the name of the last non-conservative person to go on a shooting spree in efforts to make his or her point? Thank you.

Context via Neatorama!

The man singing is Edward Hill, also known as Eduard Khil’, or, better yet, [Cyrillic redacted -- ed.]. According to his Russian Wikipedia page, Hill was born in Smolensk in 1934, and finished his studies at the Leningrad Conservatory in 1960. By 1974 he had been named a People’s Artist of the USSR, and in 1981 he was awarded the Order of the Friendship of Peoples. He is best known for his interpretations of the songs of the Soviet composer, Arkadii Ostrovskii. As for the peculiar name, I could find no information, but imagine that he is descended from the English elite that had established itself in western Russian cities by the 17th century. He is not a defector of the Lee Harvey Oswald generation. He is entirely Russian.

The song he is interpreting, “I Am So Happy to Finally Be Back Home,” is an Ostrovskii composition, and it is meant to be sung in the vokaliz style, that is to say sung, but without words. I have seen a number of comments online, ever since a flurry of interest in Hill began just a few days ago, to the effect that this routine must have been meant as a critique of Soviet censorship, but in fact vokaliz was a well established genre, one that seems close in certain respects to pantomime.

Context via Neatorama!

The man singing is Edward Hill, also known as Eduard Khil’, or, better yet, [Cyrillic redacted -- ed.]. According to his Russian Wikipedia page, Hill was born in Smolensk in 1934, and finished his studies at the Leningrad Conservatory in 1960. By 1974 he had been named a People’s Artist of the USSR, and in 1981 he was awarded the Order of the Friendship of Peoples. He is best known for his interpretations of the songs of the Soviet composer, Arkadii Ostrovskii. As for the peculiar name, I could find no information, but imagine that he is descended from the English elite that had established itself in western Russian cities by the 17th century. He is not a defector of the Lee Harvey Oswald generation. He is entirely Russian.

The song he is interpreting, “I Am So Happy to Finally Be Back Home,” is an Ostrovskii composition, and it is meant to be sung in the vokaliz style, that is to say sung, but without words. I have seen a number of comments online, ever since a flurry of interest in Hill began just a few days ago, to the effect that this routine must have been meant as a critique of Soviet censorship, but in fact vokaliz was a well established genre, one that seems close in certain respects to pantomime.

There are both good and bad people on the liberal side and the conservative side, the same can be said for people in different countries and religious affiliations.

Yes, that's true.

So when you say that (as Bill'O the Jerkoff put it) "THEY'RE TERRORISTS. They deserve to be tortured." please remember, we're not wild animals. We're all living breathing human beings and a product of our environment. We need to RESPOND to the things these people are doing in a very deliberate and well thought out way; and not simply react by grilling them for information with torture. Why stoop to their level? as the old adage goes. We're better than that, well some of us are.

The jihadists not being tortured for our amusement but to save lives. At some point these men decided to pick up arms and kill innocents--mostly their own people--in the name of Allah or whatever. The moment they picked up a weapon with that intent, they effectively ended their right to be considered human beings.

I wonder, for those of you who are for this kind of treatment, if innocent people get tortured in the process does that thought ruffle your feathers at all?

It's an unhappy byproduct of war that innocent human beings are caught in the crossfire. That's reality. We're trying our best not to do undue harm as it injures the cause.

Fifteen million Muslims were freed from the whims of a tyrant who tortured his own people for decades, yet the focus of blame here is on "Cheney's torture". It's as ridiculous as raising hell over a death row inmate's hangnail while forgetting the victims he killed with an ax.

---------------


I think I've finally determined QM's true identity. Is that you, Anne Coulter?

High praise, my friend, though that wasn't your intent. I'm not quite @ Ann's wicked level of annihilating satire.

Also, it's spelled "Ann", ending with an N. Like "Hussein" in Obama's middle name.

Are you in the military? Have you fought in Iraq or Afghanistan?

What possible relevance could this have to the matter at hand? Lee Harvey Oswald was a Marine, did that give him credibility to comment on matters of war?

Hi QM you don't know shit about the USSR kthxbai

Hi MINK I know the USSR failed and is now where it belongs: the ash heap of history. I hope the Russian people assassinate Putin long before he can revive it.

^...and Dracula, and Drexl, and Sid Vicious, and Lee Harvey Oswald, and Ivan Korshunov, and Mason Verger, and Sirius Black, etc....

1. Gun Grabber? Are you a member of a well regulated militia? Do you have guns at home for personal home defense or recreation? Then you're fine. Is trading foreign-made assault rifles at gun shows or concealing pistols something you enjoy? Only a chance of a problem. This is a non-issue that the old conservatives use to drum up votes.

Divide and conquer. "That's right, we're only going after gun show people." (Next year) "Don't worry rifle owners/hunters, we're only going after handguns." And so on.
During Katrina, armed "good guys" arrived at less-damaged homes and confiscated all firearms from private citizens without any lawful reason. While some years are more intense than others, there will never be a time to relax vigilance on this issue.

The easiest thing, unfortunately, is to try to place restrictions on who can buy guns, who can buy ammo, what kinds of guns can be sold, etc.

All the 50.000 gun laws we have on the books now do is keep honest people honest, make it harder for them to defend themselves and, of course, squeeze a few dollars more out of them via licensing. The criminals, obviously, don't care about gun control laws.

I did look at the Barack firearms page. There's nothing there that he can do that hasn't already been tried or isn't being done. Very little of it has an impact, and even if Barack put a personalized stamp on each idea, no one could reasonably hold any single politician accountable for such vague, general measures.

2. Oh Jesus, capital gains tax... are we talking long-term capital gains? 5% is less than 20%? ... my ears are open as to how that works. Keep in mind I don't listen to O'Reilly or Limbaugh.

Lower taxes = higher government revenue, as in revenue for your government funding, etc. Whether it comes from Limbaugh or Franken, a fact is a fact. Raising taxes as a way to demonstrably "punish the rich" satisfies the so-called little guys' illusions while hurting them all the more. "You may lose a hand, but we're going to make those evil rich people lose an arm!" (No, I'm not wealthy, but I don't want to drive wealthy people away with higher taxes and more regulations).

.3. Heh, lol on this one. At least you didn't say the ex-Marine was anti-American.

Lee Harvey Oswald was also an ex-Marine. We needn't go there.

Wright remains a crank. Barack took too long to disassociate himself, and even if he hadn't, he's been aligned with Wright's political church for 20+ years.

We can agree on this: Obama's supporters are willing to overlook anything they find wrong with Wright, and to his non-supporters, there's no positive angle to the Obama/Wright association.

Not to cut this short, but our differences are philosophical about the purpose of government:

You're a scientist in a field that either earns most of its bread from government funding (or has limited opportunities in the private sector). Concurrent with that, you see government as a tool to balance natural inequities in economics and social dynamics. Were I you, I'd vote for Obama or Hillary.

Generally, I view government as a water-stream of good intentions sprayed onto an oil fire of problemos. I believe in what Patrick Moynihan called, "Benign neglect", letting natural consequences and the free market shape society. Government is at its best when enforcing the few laws that make sense, and killing barbarians at the gate. But on its best day, it's still nothing more than raw force, a good servant but terrible master.

Every time the government is given power, it's power we the people never get back again. Therefore I'm wary.

Who knows how McLame (or McShamnesty or McNasty, take your pick) might 'lead' as President, but even at his most liberal he won't be as liberal as O-bam or Hillary. That might not bring you much comfort, but odds are you'll have your funding and employment regardless of who makes it in. Although the mainstream media denies it, Bush is a liberal about everything but Iraq.

For fun: if I had to choose only between Barack and Hillary, I'd choose Barack.


In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
1. Gun Grabber? Are you a member of a well regulated militia? Do you have guns at home for personal home defense or recreation? Then you're fine. Is trading foreign-made assault rifles at gun shows or concealing pistols something you enjoy?....

It's odd though that he became sick exactly the day after he got news that he would get a re-trial of his conviction for murder of Lee Harvey Oswald. Of course he was the real shooter of Oswald, but maybe someone was afraid he would testify about some mitigating factor, like duress.

>> ^Irishman:
Q. How do you kill a conspiracy theory?
A. Tell the truth.
Something we still don't have after all these years.


That's bogus, people have told the truth about the JFK assassination and STILL there are people who believe it was a conspiracy. Even though anyone who studies it has to face the truth at sometime and admit there is not one shred of evidence to like Lee Harvey Oswald to any type of organization.
Truth: it was a standalone act committed by one man. That's the truth, and yet the conspiracy remains for the uninformed.

Once in a great while a man comes along who changes the world, men like, Benjamin Franklin, Goethe, Martin Luther King Jr., Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Bauer, Rocky Balboa, and James Earl Ray. Yes these are men of noble standing and and have accomplished much in life.

Karaidl is the complete opposite. On top of being unsure about how to pronounce his name he suffers from many things. All of which he deserves.

For instance his avatar photo of himself is many years old. Now he has to lug his moobs around in a wheelbarrow. His size has grown so massive that he's become the subject of all "yo mamma" jokes.
Karaidl's looser friend: "Hey man, your so fat that you have your own zip code! HAHAHA!
Karaidl: "I'm gonna sit on you mutha****er! Soon as I find my legs!

Sadly the man is everything we hate; The man who puts needles in cupcakes. That jerk who backed into your car with his oversize SUV and didn't leave a note. The pudgy little kid in pre-school who cried in the corner all day. The jerk off teenager who walks around wal mart who thinks that sticking a 'funoodle' in his pants and pretending it's his penis is the greatest idea since he dropped out of high school.

Was he never loved enough as a child? Yes. Was he an outcast and reject of society? You bet. Did he ever give up? No. He kept on being a dickweed despite the fact that we did all we could to ignore him.

So when you think of great men; Mighty Mouse, Ralph Lauren, Vanilla Ice, Michael Jackson, and Lorena Bobbet. Keep thinking about them. Because they are so much more interesting, then this guy I'm roasting, who's name I can't really pronounce!

But Seriously Karaidl, thanks for your contributions to the sift, you always make me laugh.