It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
From where I'm sitting, that entire post was made with the assumption that the Sandy Hook hoax-thumpers aren't completely full of it.
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by BrandonD
Okay. Well, while you're busy harping on about the freedom of speech, I'll be writing a letter to this man who goes through hell every day because he comforted the children who witnessed the shooting. Conspiracy theorists continue to hound him. It's a shame that such a good deed fails to go unpunished.
www.therightscoop.com...
Have you ever paused to consider that rights are crimes waiting to happen? Just like everything else, there's two edges to every human right we have. We have to take care not to cut each other. As I see it, we're not doing too good at that.
Originally posted by phyrefly
1. The existence of CCTV already installed at Sandy Hook before the shooting.
2. If 1. is true, it would imply video editing-out of much of it, and would by default require an answer.
3. The intriguing suggestion that yes, there were murders, yet Lanza was already dead when he entered the school.
4.Our research on the origins of Al Qaeda supports further scrutiny of the Bat Creek Stone and the supposed threatening phone call to Rosa de Lima church..(Yahoo Groups: preventionbetterthancure)
Americans now feel the need to act as unpaid speech police—ready to protect their fellow human beings from the slightest of offense. While the intention is noble, the end result is anything but beneficial for society. In America today, when someone says something that the majority considers offensive, they are fired or universally condemned. Apologies are immediately demanded and boycotts of the media outlet that allowed such free speech are orchestrated. Lost in the hoopla is the most important question — was the offensive speech true or not? Because even if it is unpopular or politically incorrect, true statements or impartial studies conducted to investigate controversial subjects should never be condemned. The end result of this nazi-like environment of speech policing is that people stop speaking their minds and putting forth controversial solutions to problems, which benefits no one.
The real point here is that there are two choices: Allow all speech or allow the government to decide what speech is allowed. The Founding Fathers knew that government could not be trusted with the responsibility of regulating offensive or “dangerous” speech because governments have universally abused this power throughout history to quell criticism.
People need to grow a thicker skin and learn to accept a little bit of offense, or they will end up in a police state that offends them in far more serious ways.
Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by BrandonD
Because the last time I checked we were supposed to be a free country. Then again, I could be wrong.
We are a free country, TPTB along with their propaganda machine have us believing that we are not.
Originally posted by canucks555
reply to post by Unity_99
Please don't tell me your opinion matter-of-factually, when it is far from fact.
Being passionate about a subject is fine but totally dismissing any theory other than your own speaks volumes about a person.
Pretty big egos here I see lol.
Originally posted by canucks555
reply to post by Helious
Kid was a nut job. nuff said.
Not trying to take the high road on who's opinion is more likely correct, but your group is in the minority on this one. sorry. Its your opinion and the opinion of fifty nut-job web sites.