Warren Commission was correct........Oswald acted alone

[candycorn]

ok?

Anyway, getting back to your reasoning…

If Oswald was a nut job and the President was a target of opportunity….

It would stand to reason that the greater population we have now would have more nut jobs.
It would stand to reason that the greater # of firearms we have now would mean more armed nut jobs.
It would stand to reason that there would be more attempts on the lives of the President and his family.

We’ve had one since Reagan unless you want to count fence jumpers at the White House who have zero hope of success.

History reports your reasoning faulty.

Don’t follow your logic

Are you claiming people can’t kill someone without CIA help?

No. the argument that Oswald was a low self esteem nut job who just treated Kennedy as a target of opportunity doesn’t hold water in light of the 50+ years since and we’ve had only a few instances of low self esteem nuts taking shots at our presidents. We have more nutjobs with more access to guns and fewer attempts. The SS is good but they are vastly outnumbered.

Sorry....Your logic makes no sense

Sorry yours doesn’t.

Your claim that nobody has killed a president since does not prove that Oswald did not kill one 55 years ago

Uh no.

My claim is that we’ve only had one (if you count Soup’s example) instance of someone being able to squeeze shots off at the President since Reagan.

To go back, my stance is that Oswald fired the shots but I think he wasn’t the lone conspirator. I don’t think he just woke up one day and decided to kill the President.

You do. You think he was the only one involved. And the Warren Commission supports your assessment.

It does not support mine.

However

Your reasoning is that he was a nut job and had a gun and one day he just decided to kill the President because he was in town. I pointed out the we have far more nut jobs now and we have far more guns. But despite both of those self-evident truths…we haven’t had someone squeeze off shots at a President since 1982 or whenever it was that Hinkley went after Ronnie.

So, just to address this one aspect of the theory; I don’t think your argument of just a nut with a gun being “enough” (for lack of a better term) to motivate Oswald to do this.

Again, this is just conjecture. The stances up there in blue are the real nuts and bolts. We’ve probably beaten this one particular horse as much as we should.

 

[hadit]

Oswald was a left wing communist. What's the problem with admitting that?

He clearly was.

He clearly was NOT. get educated. Stop believing the lying State. He was a CIA asset.

He wanted to be a Soviet/communist hero. They didn't want him. He was a leftist communist. It's history. What did he have to offer the CIA?

The only US marine to ever defect to the USSR and return without even the slightest consequences, at the height of the Cold War. He was was given various jobs by acquaintances with ties to the CIA,upon his return with his Russian wife. Then, magically, the only US marine to defect to the USSR just magically happens to be working in a building on JFK’s route through Dallas, yet the FBI nor the Secret Service bother to pick him up. Yet he was well know to anyone paying attention, with his public displays of commie adoration.

A truly magical story.

Being the only Marine to do so prove nothing.

None of his acquaintances had CIA ties.

Until he shot Kennedy he was an obscure nobody and made public displays of communism because he was a communist,

You still have no evidence.

You are proven wrong

If one is a commie leftist, you don’t freely enlist in the Marines. Plus you don’t get to defect and give up US intelligence secrets and return untouched.

All his acquaintances were CIA

He was known to many even went on a major national tv talk show.

He was the PATSY. So he was untouchable by the FBI and SS.

If he gave up US secrets, they wouldn't have kicked him out of the USSR. He wasn't any use to them. We're at a point where all the evidence points to one conclusion, and the other conclusions require guessing, unproven conspiracies, and conjecture. When those start to assume more weight than the evidence, it's time to take a hard look at them. Blaming the JOOOOOS for everything under the sun doesn't fly.

I saw the same thing happen with 9/11. There were ever wilder theories and ever increasing conspiracies to avoid the simple truth, we got caught unawares by a low tech attack.

I think the American mind just doesn't want to admit our vulnerabilities, that a President could be killed by a lone gunman who saw an opportunity and took advantage of it, that two large, important office buildings could be taken down by a handful of men armed with Vic cutters, so we create massive, intricate conspiracies full of shadowy characters, and of course, blame the JOOOOS.

 

[rightwinger]

Don’t follow your logic

Are you claiming people can’t kill someone without CIA help?

No. the argument that Oswald was a low self esteem nut job who just treated Kennedy as a target of opportunity doesn’t hold water in light of the 50+ years since and we’ve had only a few instances of low self esteem nuts taking shots at our presidents. We have more nutjobs with more access to guns and fewer attempts. The SS is good but they are vastly outnumbered.

Sorry....Your logic makes no sense

Sorry yours doesn’t.

Your claim that nobody has killed a president since does not prove that Oswald did not kill one 55 years ago

Uh no.

My claim is that we’ve only had one (if you count Soup’s example) instance of someone being able to squeeze shots off at the President since Reagan.

To go back, my stance is that Oswald fired the shots but I think he wasn’t the lone conspirator. I don’t think he just woke up one day and decided to kill the President.

You do. You think he was the only one involved. And the Warren Commission supports your assessment.

It does not support mine.

However

Your reasoning is that he was a nut job and had a gun and one day he just decided to kill the President because he was in town. I pointed out the we have far more nut jobs now and we have far more guns. But despite both of those self-evident truths…we haven’t had someone squeeze off shots at a President since 1982 or whenever it was that Hinkley went after Ronnie.

So, just to address this one aspect of the theory; I don’t think your argument of just a nut with a gun being “enough” (for lack of a better term) to motivate Oswald to do this.

Again, this is just conjecture. The stances up there in blue are the real nuts and bolts. We’ve probably beaten this one particular horse as much as we should.

The number of nut jobs does nothing to disprove Oswald acted alone

Oswald was on the sixth floor of the depository, Oswald’s gun did the killing, Oswald fled the scene

Zero evidence he had help and plenty of evidence he was a lone wolf

 

[candycorn]

No. the argument that Oswald was a low self esteem nut job who just treated Kennedy as a target of opportunity doesn’t hold water in light of the 50+ years since and we’ve had only a few instances of low self esteem nuts taking shots at our presidents. We have more nutjobs with more access to guns and fewer attempts. The SS is good but they are vastly outnumbered.

Sorry....Your logic makes no sense

Sorry yours doesn’t.

Your claim that nobody has killed a president since does not prove that Oswald did not kill one 55 years ago

Uh no.

My claim is that we’ve only had one (if you count Soup’s example) instance of someone being able to squeeze shots off at the President since Reagan.

To go back, my stance is that Oswald fired the shots but I think he wasn’t the lone conspirator. I don’t think he just woke up one day and decided to kill the President.

You do. You think he was the only one involved. And the Warren Commission supports your assessment.

It does not support mine.

However

Your reasoning is that he was a nut job and had a gun and one day he just decided to kill the President because he was in town. I pointed out the we have far more nut jobs now and we have far more guns. But despite both of those self-evident truths…we haven’t had someone squeeze off shots at a President since 1982 or whenever it was that Hinkley went after Ronnie.

So, just to address this one aspect of the theory; I don’t think your argument of just a nut with a gun being “enough” (for lack of a better term) to motivate Oswald to do this.

Again, this is just conjecture. The stances up there in blue are the real nuts and bolts. We’ve probably beaten this one particular horse as much as we should.

The number of nut jobs does nothing to disprove Oswald acted alone

Oswald was on the sixth floor of the depository, Oswald’s gun did the killing, Oswald fled the scene

Zero evidence he had help and plenty of evidence he was a lone wolf

Okay, here we go again.

If Oswald just woke up one day and decided to kill the President because he was a nut with a gun, why isn’t this happening all the time now that we have more nuts and more guns than ever?

I have no doubt he was the only gunman. I doubt that he just came up with this all by himself.

 

[rightwinger]

Sorry....Your logic makes no sense

Sorry yours doesn’t.

Your claim that nobody has killed a president since does not prove that Oswald did not kill one 55 years ago

Uh no.

My claim is that we’ve only had one (if you count Soup’s example) instance of someone being able to squeeze shots off at the President since Reagan.

To go back, my stance is that Oswald fired the shots but I think he wasn’t the lone conspirator. I don’t think he just woke up one day and decided to kill the President.

You do. You think he was the only one involved. And the Warren Commission supports your assessment.

It does not support mine.

However

Your reasoning is that he was a nut job and had a gun and one day he just decided to kill the President because he was in town. I pointed out the we have far more nut jobs now and we have far more guns. But despite both of those self-evident truths…we haven’t had someone squeeze off shots at a President since 1982 or whenever it was that Hinkley went after Ronnie.

So, just to address this one aspect of the theory; I don’t think your argument of just a nut with a gun being “enough” (for lack of a better term) to motivate Oswald to do this.

Again, this is just conjecture. The stances up there in blue are the real nuts and bolts. We’ve probably beaten this one particular horse as much as we should.

The number of nut jobs does nothing to disprove Oswald acted alone

Oswald was on the sixth floor of the depository, Oswald’s gun did the killing, Oswald fled the scene

Zero evidence he had help and plenty of evidence he was a lone wolf

Okay, here we go again.

If Oswald just woke up one day and decided to kill the President because he was a nut with a gun, why isn’t this happening all the time now that we have more nuts and more guns than ever?

I have no doubt he was the only gunman. I doubt that he just came up with this all by himself.

Once again

What happened afterward has no bearing on what Oswald did in 1963

 

[candycorn]

Sorry yours doesn’t.

Your claim that nobody has killed a president since does not prove that Oswald did not kill one 55 years ago

Uh no.

My claim is that we’ve only had one (if you count Soup’s example) instance of someone being able to squeeze shots off at the President since Reagan.

To go back, my stance is that Oswald fired the shots but I think he wasn’t the lone conspirator. I don’t think he just woke up one day and decided to kill the President.

You do. You think he was the only one involved. And the Warren Commission supports your assessment.

It does not support mine.

However

Your reasoning is that he was a nut job and had a gun and one day he just decided to kill the President because he was in town. I pointed out the we have far more nut jobs now and we have far more guns. But despite both of those self-evident truths…we haven’t had someone squeeze off shots at a President since 1982 or whenever it was that Hinkley went after Ronnie.

So, just to address this one aspect of the theory; I don’t think your argument of just a nut with a gun being “enough” (for lack of a better term) to motivate Oswald to do this.

Again, this is just conjecture. The stances up there in blue are the real nuts and bolts. We’ve probably beaten this one particular horse as much as we should.

The number of nut jobs does nothing to disprove Oswald acted alone

Oswald was on the sixth floor of the depository, Oswald’s gun did the killing, Oswald fled the scene

Zero evidence he had help and plenty of evidence he was a lone wolf

Okay, here we go again.

If Oswald just woke up one day and decided to kill the President because he was a nut with a gun, why isn’t this happening all the time now that we have more nuts and more guns than ever?

I have no doubt he was the only gunman. I doubt that he just came up with this all by himself.

Once again

What happened afterward has no bearing on what Oswald did in 1963

You’re right about that.

What it does have a bearing on is your reasoning. In my mind, it disqualifies the “he woke up one day and decided to kill the president” stance you have. I don’t think Oswald had such flimsy motivation. His pasts suggests that he (like most of us) was transactional. I don’t see the upside for him in doing this without something else being in the mix. There is no evidence of this something else; maybe there was nothing there maybe it was because Jack Ruby killed him. We’ll never know.

Again, this is a small matter in the larger question of what happened that day. I think we have beaten the horse enough; agreed?

 

[rightwinger]

Your claim that nobody has killed a president since does not prove that Oswald did not kill one 55 years ago

Uh no.

My claim is that we’ve only had one (if you count Soup’s example) instance of someone being able to squeeze shots off at the President since Reagan.

To go back, my stance is that Oswald fired the shots but I think he wasn’t the lone conspirator. I don’t think he just woke up one day and decided to kill the President.

You do. You think he was the only one involved. And the Warren Commission supports your assessment.

It does not support mine.

However

Your reasoning is that he was a nut job and had a gun and one day he just decided to kill the President because he was in town. I pointed out the we have far more nut jobs now and we have far more guns. But despite both of those self-evident truths…we haven’t had someone squeeze off shots at a President since 1982 or whenever it was that Hinkley went after Ronnie.

So, just to address this one aspect of the theory; I don’t think your argument of just a nut with a gun being “enough” (for lack of a better term) to motivate Oswald to do this.

Again, this is just conjecture. The stances up there in blue are the real nuts and bolts. We’ve probably beaten this one particular horse as much as we should.

The number of nut jobs does nothing to disprove Oswald acted alone

Oswald was on the sixth floor of the depository, Oswald’s gun did the killing, Oswald fled the scene

Zero evidence he had help and plenty of evidence he was a lone wolf

Okay, here we go again.

If Oswald just woke up one day and decided to kill the President because he was a nut with a gun, why isn’t this happening all the time now that we have more nuts and more guns than ever?

I have no doubt he was the only gunman. I doubt that he just came up with this all by himself.

Once again

What happened afterward has no bearing on what Oswald did in 1963

You’re right about that.

What it does have a bearing on is your reasoning. In my mind, it disqualifies the “he woke up one day and decided to kill the president” stance you have. I don’t think Oswald had such flimsy motivation. His pasts suggests that he (like most of us) was transactional. I don’t see the upside for him in doing this without something else being in the mix. There is no evidence of this something else; maybe there was nothing there maybe it was because Jack Ruby killed him. We’ll never know.

Again, this is a small matter in the larger question of what happened that day. I think we have beaten the horse enough; agreed?

The evidence suggests otherwise

 

[Soupnazi630]

Sorry....Your logic makes no sense

Sorry yours doesn’t.

Your claim that nobody has killed a president since does not prove that Oswald did not kill one 55 years ago

Uh no.

My claim is that we’ve only had one (if you count Soup’s example) instance of someone being able to squeeze shots off at the President since Reagan.

To go back, my stance is that Oswald fired the shots but I think he wasn’t the lone conspirator. I don’t think he just woke up one day and decided to kill the President.

You do. You think he was the only one involved. And the Warren Commission supports your assessment.

It does not support mine.

However

Your reasoning is that he was a nut job and had a gun and one day he just decided to kill the President because he was in town. I pointed out the we have far more nut jobs now and we have far more guns. But despite both of those self-evident truths…we haven’t had someone squeeze off shots at a President since 1982 or whenever it was that Hinkley went after Ronnie.

So, just to address this one aspect of the theory; I don’t think your argument of just a nut with a gun being “enough” (for lack of a better term) to motivate Oswald to do this.

Again, this is just conjecture. The stances up there in blue are the real nuts and bolts. We’ve probably beaten this one particular horse as much as we should.

The number of nut jobs does nothing to disprove Oswald acted alone

Oswald was on the sixth floor of the depository, Oswald’s gun did the killing, Oswald fled the scene

Zero evidence he had help and plenty of evidence he was a lone wolf

Okay, here we go again.

If Oswald just woke up one day and decided to kill the President because he was a nut with a gun, why isn’t this happening all the time now that we have more nuts and more guns than ever?

I have no doubt he was the only gunman. I doubt that he just came up with this all by himself.

It has not happened since then because one such event does not indicate that it will happen the same way again.

Just because it happens once does not determine it will happen again.

 

[candycorn]

Uh no.

My claim is that we’ve only had one (if you count Soup’s example) instance of someone being able to squeeze shots off at the President since Reagan.

To go back, my stance is that Oswald fired the shots but I think he wasn’t the lone conspirator. I don’t think he just woke up one day and decided to kill the President.

You do. You think he was the only one involved. And the Warren Commission supports your assessment.

It does not support mine.

However

Your reasoning is that he was a nut job and had a gun and one day he just decided to kill the President because he was in town. I pointed out the we have far more nut jobs now and we have far more guns. But despite both of those self-evident truths…we haven’t had someone squeeze off shots at a President since 1982 or whenever it was that Hinkley went after Ronnie.

So, just to address this one aspect of the theory; I don’t think your argument of just a nut with a gun being “enough” (for lack of a better term) to motivate Oswald to do this.

Again, this is just conjecture. The stances up there in blue are the real nuts and bolts. We’ve probably beaten this one particular horse as much as we should.

The number of nut jobs does nothing to disprove Oswald acted alone

Oswald was on the sixth floor of the depository, Oswald’s gun did the killing, Oswald fled the scene

Zero evidence he had help and plenty of evidence he was a lone wolf

Okay, here we go again.

If Oswald just woke up one day and decided to kill the President because he was a nut with a gun, why isn’t this happening all the time now that we have more nuts and more guns than ever?

I have no doubt he was the only gunman. I doubt that he just came up with this all by himself.

Once again

What happened afterward has no bearing on what Oswald did in 1963

You’re right about that.

What it does have a bearing on is your reasoning. In my mind, it disqualifies the “he woke up one day and decided to kill the president” stance you have. I don’t think Oswald had such flimsy motivation. His pasts suggests that he (like most of us) was transactional. I don’t see the upside for him in doing this without something else being in the mix. There is no evidence of this something else; maybe there was nothing there maybe it was because Jack Ruby killed him. We’ll never know.

Again, this is a small matter in the larger question of what happened that day. I think we have beaten the horse enough; agreed?

The evidence suggests otherwise

Sure. If you want to believe that one day Oswald woke up, got his gun and decided on the spur of the moment to kill the President….the evidence fits perfectly. It doesn’t explain why he did it, why other vapid nut jobs haven’t done the same thing even though the president and his family are routinely exposed—their movements announced well in advance, or especially why he didn’t collect his entire arsenal prior to the day he shot Kennedy.

Again, we will never know these things.

 

[Soupnazi630]

The number of nut jobs does nothing to disprove Oswald acted alone

Oswald was on the sixth floor of the depository, Oswald’s gun did the killing, Oswald fled the scene

Zero evidence he had help and plenty of evidence he was a lone wolf

Okay, here we go again.

If Oswald just woke up one day and decided to kill the President because he was a nut with a gun, why isn’t this happening all the time now that we have more nuts and more guns than ever?

I have no doubt he was the only gunman. I doubt that he just came up with this all by himself.

Once again

What happened afterward has no bearing on what Oswald did in 1963

You’re right about that.

What it does have a bearing on is your reasoning. In my mind, it disqualifies the “he woke up one day and decided to kill the president” stance you have. I don’t think Oswald had such flimsy motivation. His pasts suggests that he (like most of us) was transactional. I don’t see the upside for him in doing this without something else being in the mix. There is no evidence of this something else; maybe there was nothing there maybe it was because Jack Ruby killed him. We’ll never know.

Again, this is a small matter in the larger question of what happened that day. I think we have beaten the horse enough; agreed?

The evidence suggests otherwise

Sure. If you want to believe that one day Oswald woke up, got his gun and decided on the spur of the moment to kill the President….the evidence fits perfectly. It doesn’t explain why he did it, why other vapid nut jobs haven’t done the same thing even though the president and his family are routinely exposed—their movements announced well in advance, or especially why he didn’t collect his entire arsenal prior to the day he shot Kennedy.

Again, we will never know these things.

There is no need to explain why other nuts have not done it but there are many good reason s why which you deliberately ignore.

Presidents have FAR greater security now than then. It was not merely a matter of Oswald waking up and deciding to kill the president it was about him waking up and deciding to take advantage of an astronomically unlikely opportunity.

Your rather illogical premise is that every president travels to minimal protection to a spot where a would be assassin and lurk in waiting. They do not.

The president and his family are NOT routinely exposed in fact they never are.

It has been proven he did not have opportunity to collect both his guns which does not make an arsenal.

I realize you wish to sound informed and intelligent but you do not. Your premises have been destroyed and you lack the maturity to admit it

 

[candycorn]

Okay, here we go again.

If Oswald just woke up one day and decided to kill the President because he was a nut with a gun, why isn’t this happening all the time now that we have more nuts and more guns than ever?

I have no doubt he was the only gunman. I doubt that he just came up with this all by himself.

Once again

What happened afterward has no bearing on what Oswald did in 1963

You’re right about that.

What it does have a bearing on is your reasoning. In my mind, it disqualifies the “he woke up one day and decided to kill the president” stance you have. I don’t think Oswald had such flimsy motivation. His pasts suggests that he (like most of us) was transactional. I don’t see the upside for him in doing this without something else being in the mix. There is no evidence of this something else; maybe there was nothing there maybe it was because Jack Ruby killed him. We’ll never know.

Again, this is a small matter in the larger question of what happened that day. I think we have beaten the horse enough; agreed?

The evidence suggests otherwise

Sure. If you want to believe that one day Oswald woke up, got his gun and decided on the spur of the moment to kill the President….the evidence fits perfectly. It doesn’t explain why he did it, why other vapid nut jobs haven’t done the same thing even though the president and his family are routinely exposed—their movements announced well in advance, or especially why he didn’t collect his entire arsenal prior to the day he shot Kennedy.

Again, we will never know these things.

There is no need to explain why other nuts have not done it but there are many good reason s why which you deliberately ignore.

Sure there is. If he is going to suggest that a nut with a gun just decided to kill the President one day, it is only logical that when you have more well-armed nuts, you’d have more assassination attempts. Instead, we’ve had none since Reagan where shots were fired. Oh yeah, except for your guy who jumped the fence at the White House which isn’t what we were discussing.

Presidents have FAR greater security now than then. It was not merely a matter of Oswald waking up and deciding to kill the president it was about him waking up and deciding to take advantage of an astronomically unlikely opportunity.

Astronomically unlikely that one of the few people to defect form one Superpower to the other then back again happens to be the guy who shoots and kills the President after visiting the Russian and Cuban embassies in Mexico less than a month before he does it…yep you’re right about that.

Again “waking up and deciding to do it” is what Right-winger is saying. We’ve been over this before. Pay attention.

Your rather illogical premise is that every president travels to minimal protection to a spot where a would be assassin and lurk in waiting. They do not.

Never suggested such a thing.

The president and his family are NOT routinely exposed in fact they never are.

Yes they are. The President himself appeared numerous times at rallies in September, October and November. His daughter got into a shouting match on a commercial airline flight early in his first term.

It has been proven he did not have opportunity to collect both his guns which does not make an arsenal.

Actually it was proven that he did have the opportunity; Right-winger even agreed with me on that.

Now is the part where you start your cussing and screaming.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Once again

What happened afterward has no bearing on what Oswald did in 1963

You’re right about that.

What it does have a bearing on is your reasoning. In my mind, it disqualifies the “he woke up one day and decided to kill the president” stance you have. I don’t think Oswald had such flimsy motivation. His pasts suggests that he (like most of us) was transactional. I don’t see the upside for him in doing this without something else being in the mix. There is no evidence of this something else; maybe there was nothing there maybe it was because Jack Ruby killed him. We’ll never know.

Again, this is a small matter in the larger question of what happened that day. I think we have beaten the horse enough; agreed?

The evidence suggests otherwise

Sure. If you want to believe that one day Oswald woke up, got his gun and decided on the spur of the moment to kill the President….the evidence fits perfectly. It doesn’t explain why he did it, why other vapid nut jobs haven’t done the same thing even though the president and his family are routinely exposed—their movements announced well in advance, or especially why he didn’t collect his entire arsenal prior to the day he shot Kennedy.

Again, we will never know these things.

There is no need to explain why other nuts have not done it but there are many good reason s why which you deliberately ignore.

Sure there is. If he is going to suggest that a nut with a gun just decided to kill the President one day, it is only logical that when you have more well-armed nuts, you’d have more assassination attempts. Instead, we’ve had none since Reagan where shots were fired. Oh yeah, except for your guy who jumped the fence at the White House which isn’t what we were discussing.

Presidents have FAR greater security now than then. It was not merely a matter of Oswald waking up and deciding to kill the president it was about him waking up and deciding to take advantage of an astronomically unlikely opportunity.

Astronomically unlikely that one of the few people to defect form one Superpower to the other then back again happens to be the guy who shoots and kills the President after visiting the Russian and Cuban embassies in Mexico less than a month before he does it…yep you’re right about that.

Again “waking up and deciding to do it” is what Right-winger is saying. We’ve been over this before. Pay attention.

Your rather illogical premise is that every president travels to minimal protection to a spot where a would be assassin and lurk in waiting. They do not.

Never suggested such a thing.

The president and his family are NOT routinely exposed in fact they never are.

Yes they are. The President himself appeared numerous times at rallies in September, October and November. His daughter got into a shouting match on a commercial airline flight early in his first term.

It has been proven he did not have opportunity to collect both his guns which does not make an arsenal.

Actually it was proven that he did have the opportunity; Right-winger even agreed with me on that.

Now is the part where you start your cussing and screaming.

No it is not logical as humans do not behave based on such calculations. This is fact. It is also fact you ignore the massively heightened security and the opportunity which Oswald was presented with.

It is not what he is saying or has said and you are lying like a coward.

But we already knew that about you.

Yes you do suggest such a thing in fact your entire premise is based on the absolute necessity of the president doing exactly what JFK did,.

Not one of those public appearances compares to Dallas in 63 in every instance the location is sterilized and secured air tight and he is transported in hardened vehicles and aircraft.

It has been proven you he did not have the opportunity to get both weapons and you are a bald faced flat out liar on that [point

Everyone saw you get pwned with that idiotic claim but being a zit faced teen you cannot admit when you are wrong You are really out of your league boy try playing uno if you have the intellect to learn it

 

[Soupnazi630]

Once again

What happened afterward has no bearing on what Oswald did in 1963

You’re right about that.

What it does have a bearing on is your reasoning. In my mind, it disqualifies the “he woke up one day and decided to kill the president” stance you have. I don’t think Oswald had such flimsy motivation. His pasts suggests that he (like most of us) was transactional. I don’t see the upside for him in doing this without something else being in the mix. There is no evidence of this something else; maybe there was nothing there maybe it was because Jack Ruby killed him. We’ll never know.

Again, this is a small matter in the larger question of what happened that day. I think we have beaten the horse enough; agreed?

The evidence suggests otherwise

Sure. If you want to believe that one day Oswald woke up, got his gun and decided on the spur of the moment to kill the President….the evidence fits perfectly. It doesn’t explain why he did it, why other vapid nut jobs haven’t done the same thing even though the president and his family are routinely exposed—their movements announced well in advance, or especially why he didn’t collect his entire arsenal prior to the day he shot Kennedy.

Again, we will never know these things.

There is no need to explain why other nuts have not done it but there are many good reason s why which you deliberately ignore.

Sure there is. If he is going to suggest that a nut with a gun just decided to kill the President one day, it is only logical that when you have more well-armed nuts, you’d have more assassination attempts. Instead, we’ve had none since Reagan where shots were fired. Oh yeah, except for your guy who jumped the fence at the White House which isn’t what we were discussing.

Presidents have FAR greater security now than then. It was not merely a matter of Oswald waking up and deciding to kill the president it was about him waking up and deciding to take advantage of an astronomically unlikely opportunity.

Astronomically unlikely that one of the few people to defect form one Superpower to the other then back again happens to be the guy who shoots and kills the President after visiting the Russian and Cuban embassies in Mexico less than a month before he does it…yep you’re right about that.

Again “waking up and deciding to do it” is what Right-winger is saying. We’ve been over this before. Pay attention.

Your rather illogical premise is that every president travels to minimal protection to a spot where a would be assassin and lurk in waiting. They do not.

Never suggested such a thing.

The president and his family are NOT routinely exposed in fact they never are.

Yes they are. The President himself appeared numerous times at rallies in September, October and November. His daughter got into a shouting match on a commercial airline flight early in his first term.

It has been proven he did not have opportunity to collect both his guns which does not make an arsenal.

Actually it was proven that he did have the opportunity; Right-winger even agreed with me on that.

Now is the part where you start your cussing and screaming.

I have never screamed once ***** but you are an uneducated dishonest ***** who cries about getting cussed at

 

[candycorn]

You’re right about that.

What it does have a bearing on is your reasoning. In my mind, it disqualifies the “he woke up one day and decided to kill the president” stance you have. I don’t think Oswald had such flimsy motivation. His pasts suggests that he (like most of us) was transactional. I don’t see the upside for him in doing this without something else being in the mix. There is no evidence of this something else; maybe there was nothing there maybe it was because Jack Ruby killed him. We’ll never know.

Again, this is a small matter in the larger question of what happened that day. I think we have beaten the horse enough; agreed?

The evidence suggests otherwise

Sure. If you want to believe that one day Oswald woke up, got his gun and decided on the spur of the moment to kill the President….the evidence fits perfectly. It doesn’t explain why he did it, why other vapid nut jobs haven’t done the same thing even though the president and his family are routinely exposed—their movements announced well in advance, or especially why he didn’t collect his entire arsenal prior to the day he shot Kennedy.

Again, we will never know these things.

There is no need to explain why other nuts have not done it but there are many good reason s why which you deliberately ignore.

Sure there is. If he is going to suggest that a nut with a gun just decided to kill the President one day, it is only logical that when you have more well-armed nuts, you’d have more assassination attempts. Instead, we’ve had none since Reagan where shots were fired. Oh yeah, except for your guy who jumped the fence at the White House which isn’t what we were discussing.

Presidents have FAR greater security now than then. It was not merely a matter of Oswald waking up and deciding to kill the president it was about him waking up and deciding to take advantage of an astronomically unlikely opportunity.

Astronomically unlikely that one of the few people to defect form one Superpower to the other then back again happens to be the guy who shoots and kills the President after visiting the Russian and Cuban embassies in Mexico less than a month before he does it…yep you’re right about that.

Again “waking up and deciding to do it” is what Right-winger is saying. We’ve been over this before. Pay attention.

Your rather illogical premise is that every president travels to minimal protection to a spot where a would be assassin and lurk in waiting. They do not.

Never suggested such a thing.

The president and his family are NOT routinely exposed in fact they never are.

Yes they are. The President himself appeared numerous times at rallies in September, October and November. His daughter got into a shouting match on a commercial airline flight early in his first term.

It has been proven he did not have opportunity to collect both his guns which does not make an arsenal.

Actually it was proven that he did have the opportunity; Right-winger even agreed with me on that.

Now is the part where you start your cussing and screaming.

I have never screamed once ***** but you are an uneducated dishonest ***** who cries about getting cussed at

As predicted…. When all else fails; throw a tantrum.

 

[Soupnazi630]

The evidence suggests otherwise

Sure. If you want to believe that one day Oswald woke up, got his gun and decided on the spur of the moment to kill the President….the evidence fits perfectly. It doesn’t explain why he did it, why other vapid nut jobs haven’t done the same thing even though the president and his family are routinely exposed—their movements announced well in advance, or especially why he didn’t collect his entire arsenal prior to the day he shot Kennedy.

Again, we will never know these things.

There is no need to explain why other nuts have not done it but there are many good reason s why which you deliberately ignore.

Sure there is. If he is going to suggest that a nut with a gun just decided to kill the President one day, it is only logical that when you have more well-armed nuts, you’d have more assassination attempts. Instead, we’ve had none since Reagan where shots were fired. Oh yeah, except for your guy who jumped the fence at the White House which isn’t what we were discussing.

Presidents have FAR greater security now than then. It was not merely a matter of Oswald waking up and deciding to kill the president it was about him waking up and deciding to take advantage of an astronomically unlikely opportunity.

Astronomically unlikely that one of the few people to defect form one Superpower to the other then back again happens to be the guy who shoots and kills the President after visiting the Russian and Cuban embassies in Mexico less than a month before he does it…yep you’re right about that.

Again “waking up and deciding to do it” is what Right-winger is saying. We’ve been over this before. Pay attention.

Your rather illogical premise is that every president travels to minimal protection to a spot where a would be assassin and lurk in waiting. They do not.

Never suggested such a thing.

The president and his family are NOT routinely exposed in fact they never are.

Yes they are. The President himself appeared numerous times at rallies in September, October and November. His daughter got into a shouting match on a commercial airline flight early in his first term.

It has been proven he did not have opportunity to collect both his guns which does not make an arsenal.

Actually it was proven that he did have the opportunity; Right-winger even agreed with me on that.

Now is the part where you start your cussing and screaming.

I have never screamed once ***** but you are an uneducated dishonest ***** who cries about getting cussed at

As predicted…. When all else fails; throw a tantrum.

You mean accurate statements.

You have been proven wrong repeatedly and you do know this.

You have also been proven a liar who is no better than LARAM GIPPPER and the other foolish kids on here.

 

[candycorn]

You’re right about that.

What it does have a bearing on is your reasoning. In my mind, it disqualifies the “he woke up one day and decided to kill the president” stance you have. I don’t think Oswald had such flimsy motivation. His pasts suggests that he (like most of us) was transactional. I don’t see the upside for him in doing this without something else being in the mix. There is no evidence of this something else; maybe there was nothing there maybe it was because Jack Ruby killed him. We’ll never know.

Again, this is a small matter in the larger question of what happened that day. I think we have beaten the horse enough; agreed?

The evidence suggests otherwise

Sure. If you want to believe that one day Oswald woke up, got his gun and decided on the spur of the moment to kill the President….the evidence fits perfectly. It doesn’t explain why he did it, why other vapid nut jobs haven’t done the same thing even though the president and his family are routinely exposed—their movements announced well in advance, or especially why he didn’t collect his entire arsenal prior to the day he shot Kennedy.

Again, we will never know these things.

There is no need to explain why other nuts have not done it but there are many good reason s why which you deliberately ignore.

Sure there is. If he is going to suggest that a nut with a gun just decided to kill the President one day, it is only logical that when you have more well-armed nuts, you’d have more assassination attempts. Instead, we’ve had none since Reagan where shots were fired. Oh yeah, except for your guy who jumped the fence at the White House which isn’t what we were discussing.

Presidents have FAR greater security now than then. It was not merely a matter of Oswald waking up and deciding to kill the president it was about him waking up and deciding to take advantage of an astronomically unlikely opportunity.

Astronomically unlikely that one of the few people to defect form one Superpower to the other then back again happens to be the guy who shoots and kills the President after visiting the Russian and Cuban embassies in Mexico less than a month before he does it…yep you’re right about that.

Again “waking up and deciding to do it” is what Right-winger is saying. We’ve been over this before. Pay attention.

Your rather illogical premise is that every president travels to minimal protection to a spot where a would be assassin and lurk in waiting. They do not.

Never suggested such a thing.

The president and his family are NOT routinely exposed in fact they never are.

Yes they are. The President himself appeared numerous times at rallies in September, October and November. His daughter got into a shouting match on a commercial airline flight early in his first term.

It has been proven he did not have opportunity to collect both his guns which does not make an arsenal.

Actually it was proven that he did have the opportunity; Right-winger even agreed with me on that.

Now is the part where you start your cussing and screaming.

No it is not logical as humans do not behave based on such calculations. This is fact. It is also fact you ignore the massively heightened security and the opportunity which Oswald was presented with.

Sure it is. Statistics are a real pain in the ass and they are on my side (in this very narrow detail).

It is not what he is saying or has said and you are lying like a coward.

But we already knew that about you.

Ahh, the personal attack. So predictable. So sad.

Yes you do suggest such a thing in fact your entire premise is based on the absolute necessity of the president doing exactly what JFK did,.

Not one of those public appearances compares to Dallas in 63 in every instance the location is sterilized and secured air tight and he is transported in hardened vehicles and aircraft.

Again, photographic and video evidence on the previous pages destroy your argument. A brief review of the thread would show just how brazenly stupid your argument is.

It has been proven you he did not have the opportunity to get both weapons and you are a bald faced flat out liar on that [point

Post 953 in this thread speaks to how you’re wrong.

Everyone saw you get pwned with that idiotic claim but being a zit faced teen you cannot admit when you are wrong You are really out of your league boy try playing uno if you have the intellect to learn it

Do you ever wonder why every conversation you have ends up with you having to personally attack people?

 

[candycorn]

Sure. If you want to believe that one day Oswald woke up, got his gun and decided on the spur of the moment to kill the President….the evidence fits perfectly. It doesn’t explain why he did it, why other vapid nut jobs haven’t done the same thing even though the president and his family are routinely exposed—their movements announced well in advance, or especially why he didn’t collect his entire arsenal prior to the day he shot Kennedy.

Again, we will never know these things.

There is no need to explain why other nuts have not done it but there are many good reason s why which you deliberately ignore.

Sure there is. If he is going to suggest that a nut with a gun just decided to kill the President one day, it is only logical that when you have more well-armed nuts, you’d have more assassination attempts. Instead, we’ve had none since Reagan where shots were fired. Oh yeah, except for your guy who jumped the fence at the White House which isn’t what we were discussing.

Presidents have FAR greater security now than then. It was not merely a matter of Oswald waking up and deciding to kill the president it was about him waking up and deciding to take advantage of an astronomically unlikely opportunity.

Astronomically unlikely that one of the few people to defect form one Superpower to the other then back again happens to be the guy who shoots and kills the President after visiting the Russian and Cuban embassies in Mexico less than a month before he does it…yep you’re right about that.

Again “waking up and deciding to do it” is what Right-winger is saying. We’ve been over this before. Pay attention.

Your rather illogical premise is that every president travels to minimal protection to a spot where a would be assassin and lurk in waiting. They do not.

Never suggested such a thing.

The president and his family are NOT routinely exposed in fact they never are.

Yes they are. The President himself appeared numerous times at rallies in September, October and November. His daughter got into a shouting match on a commercial airline flight early in his first term.

It has been proven he did not have opportunity to collect both his guns which does not make an arsenal.

Actually it was proven that he did have the opportunity; Right-winger even agreed with me on that.

Now is the part where you start your cussing and screaming.

I have never screamed once ***** but you are an uneducated dishonest ***** who cries about getting cussed at

As predicted…. When all else fails; throw a tantrum.

You mean accurate statements.

You have been proven wrong repeatedly and you do know this.

You have also been proven a liar who is no better than LARAM GIPPPER and the other foolish kids on here.

I predicted your screaming and personal attacks 8 minutes ago. And what do we have…you screaming and personally attacking me. It seems as though I’m telling the truth.

 

[Soupnazi630]

There is no need to explain why other nuts have not done it but there are many good reason s why which you deliberately ignore.

Sure there is. If he is going to suggest that a nut with a gun just decided to kill the President one day, it is only logical that when you have more well-armed nuts, you’d have more assassination attempts. Instead, we’ve had none since Reagan where shots were fired. Oh yeah, except for your guy who jumped the fence at the White House which isn’t what we were discussing.

Presidents have FAR greater security now than then. It was not merely a matter of Oswald waking up and deciding to kill the president it was about him waking up and deciding to take advantage of an astronomically unlikely opportunity.

Astronomically unlikely that one of the few people to defect form one Superpower to the other then back again happens to be the guy who shoots and kills the President after visiting the Russian and Cuban embassies in Mexico less than a month before he does it…yep you’re right about that.

Again “waking up and deciding to do it” is what Right-winger is saying. We’ve been over this before. Pay attention.

Your rather illogical premise is that every president travels to minimal protection to a spot where a would be assassin and lurk in waiting. They do not.

Never suggested such a thing.

The president and his family are NOT routinely exposed in fact they never are.

Yes they are. The President himself appeared numerous times at rallies in September, October and November. His daughter got into a shouting match on a commercial airline flight early in his first term.

It has been proven he did not have opportunity to collect both his guns which does not make an arsenal.

Actually it was proven that he did have the opportunity; Right-winger even agreed with me on that.

Now is the part where you start your cussing and screaming.

I have never screamed once ***** but you are an uneducated dishonest ***** who cries about getting cussed at

As predicted…. When all else fails; throw a tantrum.

You mean accurate statements.

You have been proven wrong repeatedly and you do know this.

You have also been proven a liar who is no better than LARAM GIPPPER and the other foolish kids on here.

I predicted your screaming and personal attacks 8 minutes ago. And what do we have…you screaming and personally attacking me. It seems as though I’m telling the truth.

Screaming is denoted by all caps and I never screamed dumbass you are just sensitive about being proven a liar

 

[Soupnazi630]

The evidence suggests otherwise

Sure. If you want to believe that one day Oswald woke up, got his gun and decided on the spur of the moment to kill the President….the evidence fits perfectly. It doesn’t explain why he did it, why other vapid nut jobs haven’t done the same thing even though the president and his family are routinely exposed—their movements announced well in advance, or especially why he didn’t collect his entire arsenal prior to the day he shot Kennedy.

Again, we will never know these things.

There is no need to explain why other nuts have not done it but there are many good reason s why which you deliberately ignore.

Sure there is. If he is going to suggest that a nut with a gun just decided to kill the President one day, it is only logical that when you have more well-armed nuts, you’d have more assassination attempts. Instead, we’ve had none since Reagan where shots were fired. Oh yeah, except for your guy who jumped the fence at the White House which isn’t what we were discussing.

Presidents have FAR greater security now than then. It was not merely a matter of Oswald waking up and deciding to kill the president it was about him waking up and deciding to take advantage of an astronomically unlikely opportunity.

Astronomically unlikely that one of the few people to defect form one Superpower to the other then back again happens to be the guy who shoots and kills the President after visiting the Russian and Cuban embassies in Mexico less than a month before he does it…yep you’re right about that.

Again “waking up and deciding to do it” is what Right-winger is saying. We’ve been over this before. Pay attention.

Your rather illogical premise is that every president travels to minimal protection to a spot where a would be assassin and lurk in waiting. They do not.

Never suggested such a thing.

The president and his family are NOT routinely exposed in fact they never are.

Yes they are. The President himself appeared numerous times at rallies in September, October and November. His daughter got into a shouting match on a commercial airline flight early in his first term.

It has been proven he did not have opportunity to collect both his guns which does not make an arsenal.

Actually it was proven that he did have the opportunity; Right-winger even agreed with me on that.

Now is the part where you start your cussing and screaming.

No it is not logical as humans do not behave based on such calculations. This is fact. It is also fact you ignore the massively heightened security and the opportunity which Oswald was presented with.

Sure it is. Statistics are a real pain in the ass and they are on my side (in this very narrow detail).

It is not what he is saying or has said and you are lying like a coward.

But we already knew that about you.

Ahh, the personal attack. So predictable. So sad.

Yes you do suggest such a thing in fact your entire premise is based on the absolute necessity of the president doing exactly what JFK did,.

Not one of those public appearances compares to Dallas in 63 in every instance the location is sterilized and secured air tight and he is transported in hardened vehicles and aircraft.

Again, photographic and video evidence on the previous pages destroy your argument. A brief review of the thread would show just how brazenly stupid your argument is.

It has been proven you he did not have the opportunity to get both weapons and you are a bald faced flat out liar on that [point

Post 953 in this thread speaks to how you’re wrong.

Everyone saw you get pwned with that idiotic claim but being a zit faced teen you cannot admit when you are wrong You are really out of your league boy try playing uno if you have the intellect to learn it

Do you ever wonder why every conversation you have ends up with you having to personally attack people?

No statistics are not on your side at all. You willfully ignore facts which destroy your premise and lie about other posters.

No evidence disputes me or you would haven posted it.

Post 953 debunked you it did not support or help you

 

[Soupnazi630]

The evidence suggests otherwise

Sure. If you want to believe that one day Oswald woke up, got his gun and decided on the spur of the moment to kill the President….the evidence fits perfectly. It doesn’t explain why he did it, why other vapid nut jobs haven’t done the same thing even though the president and his family are routinely exposed—their movements announced well in advance, or especially why he didn’t collect his entire arsenal prior to the day he shot Kennedy.

Again, we will never know these things.

There is no need to explain why other nuts have not done it but there are many good reason s why which you deliberately ignore.

Sure there is. If he is going to suggest that a nut with a gun just decided to kill the President one day, it is only logical that when you have more well-armed nuts, you’d have more assassination attempts. Instead, we’ve had none since Reagan where shots were fired. Oh yeah, except for your guy who jumped the fence at the White House which isn’t what we were discussing.

Presidents have FAR greater security now than then. It was not merely a matter of Oswald waking up and deciding to kill the president it was about him waking up and deciding to take advantage of an astronomically unlikely opportunity.

Astronomically unlikely that one of the few people to defect form one Superpower to the other then back again happens to be the guy who shoots and kills the President after visiting the Russian and Cuban embassies in Mexico less than a month before he does it…yep you’re right about that.

Again “waking up and deciding to do it” is what Right-winger is saying. We’ve been over this before. Pay attention.

Your rather illogical premise is that every president travels to minimal protection to a spot where a would be assassin and lurk in waiting. They do not.

Never suggested such a thing.

The president and his family are NOT routinely exposed in fact they never are.

Yes they are. The President himself appeared numerous times at rallies in September, October and November. His daughter got into a shouting match on a commercial airline flight early in his first term.

It has been proven he did not have opportunity to collect both his guns which does not make an arsenal.

Actually it was proven that he did have the opportunity; Right-winger even agreed with me on that.

Now is the part where you start your cussing and screaming.

No it is not logical as humans do not behave based on such calculations. This is fact. It is also fact you ignore the massively heightened security and the opportunity which Oswald was presented with.

Sure it is. Statistics are a real pain in the ass and they are on my side (in this very narrow detail).

It is not what he is saying or has said and you are lying like a coward.

But we already knew that about you.

Ahh, the personal attack. So predictable. So sad.

Yes you do suggest such a thing in fact your entire premise is based on the absolute necessity of the president doing exactly what JFK did,.

Not one of those public appearances compares to Dallas in 63 in every instance the location is sterilized and secured air tight and he is transported in hardened vehicles and aircraft.

Again, photographic and video evidence on the previous pages destroy your argument. A brief review of the thread would show just how brazenly stupid your argument is.

It has been proven you he did not have the opportunity to get both weapons and you are a bald faced flat out liar on that [point

Post 953 in this thread speaks to how you’re wrong.

Everyone saw you get pwned with that idiotic claim but being a zit faced teen you cannot admit when you are wrong You are really out of your league boy try playing uno if you have the intellect to learn it

Do you ever wonder why every conversation you have ends up with you having to personally attack people?

Ever wonder why other people can admit when their wrong but you are too childish to do so?

Clearly you think you are educated and informed and cannot face up to it when others are better than you