@TRayB said: Secret Service Chief: ‘Sloped Roof’ Used by Trump Shooter Prevented Agency From Securing Area
‘There will be a safety factor that will be considered there that we wouldn’t want to put somebody up on a sloped roof,’ Director Kim Cheatle said.
Here's a photo of the roof the Secret service snipers were on, by all appearances steeper than the roof the shooter was on.
That’s bull💩. Positioned right at ridge line. Clear sight picture of entire event…at least at their plane of sight (judging from group A rifle position…slightly above or near even with shooter). Rubber soled boots, rubber feet on tripod, etc etc. Chicken 💩 response. Snipers of this caliber have been trained on all types of surfaces, compromising positioning, angles, wind, and just about anything you can think of that would affect ballistics travel. This is not directed at you @TRayB , rather the article. There is an infinite amount of information I could go on about sniping. I’m still not convinced that this, group A, took the shot (judging from downed threat). Personally, I think group B took the shot. I have so many questions and theories based off what I’ve seen and read , released to date. Professional snipers would never take a less than advantageous position, supposed to anyway, that would put their primary at risk.
@OutdoorsSmoke_21191 , I agree it's BS. It smacks of someone making excuses after dropping the ball. I have not read there were 2 SS counter sniper groups.
@Vision said:
Guys.... please don't fight over conspiracies. Seriously tho, what are your thoughts on The Grassy Knoll, Roswell, and 9/11..... asking for a friend.
Grassy knoll is a lie. Roswell was the Russians. 9/11 was not preventable. All of these things are overwhelmingly proven by actual facts.
25 Uber rich people couldn't keep Epstein Island a secret, but 1,000 government employees who make between 80,000 and 120,000 are able to? Come on man.
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
Did you open the link and read the article Edward @silvermouse ? It refers to an interview the director of the SS gave with ABC News, linked above.
I'm not sure how quoting a government official makes something a conspiracy theory, but I'm sure someone here can explain it.
@Vision said:
Guys.... please don't fight over conspiracies. Seriously tho, what are your thoughts on The Grassy Knoll, Roswell, and 9/11..... asking for a friend.
Grassy knoll is a lie. Roswell was the Russians. 9/11 was not preventable. All of these things are overwhelmingly proven by actual facts.
25 Uber rich people couldn't keep Epstein Island a secret, but 1,000 government employees who make between 80,000 and 120,000 are able to? Come on man.
when I see Epoch Times quoted I don't bother reading it. That is not to say that their reprints of legit news sources offends me. Rather their editorial bias doesn't match my bias, lol. Furthermore, they cherry pick facts to support questionable conclusions and gravitate to pseudoscience when covering some topics, like covid. Using sources such as the theories of Dr. Mercola, presented as proof of fact is disingenuous. It is really a 'whatever floats your boat' situation, doesn't float mine.
@silvermouse said:
when I see Epoch Times quoted I don't bother reading it. That is not to say that their reprints of legit news sources offends me. Rather their editorial bias doesn't match my bias, lol. Furthermore, they cherry pick facts to support questionable conclusions and gravitate to pseudoscience when covering some topics, like covid. Using sources such as the theories of Dr. Mercola, presented as proof of fact is disingenuous. It is really a 'whatever floats your boat' situation, doesn't float mine.
Fine, as you said, whatever floats you boat. Did you read the ABC News article, quoting the Director of the SS saying what the Epoch Times reported she said? I'm just trying to figure out how it's a conspiracy theory.
Never said it was a conspiracy theory. Sorry if my disregard of Epoch Times gave that impression. There's no way to know what agency is maybe trying to put the situation in a less unfavorable light. Same for the corporate interests of the media, fringe as well as mainstream. It's a mad world.
I know you didn't say it was. But somebody in that agency better be asking tough questions, especially the director, since she's ultimately responsible for its performance. If she is only going to push answers to place the agency in less unfavorable light, and cover its failures, it is bound to happen again.
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
@TRayB said:
^^^^ I guess not everyone thinks the same thing about gun violence.
I prefer and identify as ‘people violence’ that choose to use whatever medium of choice to carry out their mentally unstable, insane, crazy, heinous agenda. Whatever that may be.
That dude and the others like him probably condemned the sandy hook violence. They were also probably pro-GWOT and glad that bin laden took 4 in the chest. I know I was. Maybe I'm pro gun violence?
It's an interesting ethical quandary. @First_Warrior did time in Nam, and that was also a shooting war. Pro gun violence? I don't think so.
Can you be pro troops and pro military without accepting some sort of gun violence?
Either way, it's food for thought.
Go ahead and bask in your vindication, lol, you deserve it.
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
I'm hearing from my friends that the RNC convention has featured president of the teamsters Union and some gay lady with a shaved head and face tattoos Who railed on about transgender love and inclusion. Guys are wearing pieces of paper over their ears, certain states have been segregated from the main delegation, and a Florida congressman who apparently likes 17 year olds destroyed the speaker's interview. Oh, and Giuliani was fall down drunk.
You guys sure do know how to throw a hell of a party 😂😂
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
Okay you guys you're good at conspiracy theories. What's the play here? Getting them off the ticket through incapacitation? Faking his death? That way they can keep the finance money from the campaign and install a new puppet?
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
That dude and the others like him probably condemned the sandy hook violence. They were also probably pro-GWOT and glad that bin laden took 4 in the chest. I know I was. Maybe I'm pro gun violence?
It's an interesting ethical quandary. @First_Warrior did time in Nam, and that was also a shooting war. Pro gun violence? I don't think so.
Can you be pro troops and pro military without accepting some sort of gun violence?
Either way, it's food for thought.
Go ahead and bask in your vindication, lol, you deserve it.
See Frank, it's funny, I mostly agree with your entire post. It's clear they aren't against violence as a whole. That's what made your initial statement so silly. Of course, it was clearly a ham-fisted attempt to catch me in the hypocrisy of saying I was against violence when directed against Trump, while condoning violence against others because I am a Trump supporter. I believe no such thing.
I condemn the Sandy Hook violence, and am glad bin Laden got ventilated.
My understanding is most men who served in war and killed others have no desire to do it again. I am glad I never had to, I have no desire to kill anyone.
The thing about violence is, though, it is a means to an end, and can be put to use to serve an evil end, or a good and righteous end. When it's used to take what belongs to others, to threaten and intimidate in order to have your own way, to remove your political enemies because they don't believe the same thing you believe, it is serving an evil end. When it is used to resist those evil efforts, it is serving a positive good. For example, Ghandi was not necessarily a pacifist, he only determined to use pacifist means to pursue freedom because the British had denied Indians from ownership of best means of obtaining freedom, a population armed and able to resist imperialist rule..
I do not condone violence, gun or otherwise, in pursuit of evil, selfish ends. However, I do not intend to compromise on my human right (not just an American right) to defend myself, my family, and others, from people who would use violence to harm me or others. I especially won't compromise with a political party who on one hand tells me I do not have a right, and should not have the ability, to protect myself using the means I feel is best for me, while on the other hand is actively doing things to make it more difficult and dangerous to live in this country, and facilitating and pursuing wars all over the globe.
That dude and the others like him probably condemned the sandy hook violence. They were also probably pro-GWOT and glad that bin laden took 4 in the chest. I know I was. Maybe I'm pro gun violence?
It's an interesting ethical quandary. @First_Warrior did time in Nam, and that was also a shooting war. Pro gun violence? I don't think so.
Can you be pro troops and pro military without accepting some sort of gun violence?
Either way, it's food for thought.
Go ahead and bask in your vindication, lol, you deserve it.
See Frank, it's funny, I mostly agree with your entire post. It's clear they aren't against violence as a whole. That's what made your initial statement so silly. Of course, it was clearly a ham-fisted attempt to catch me in the hypocrisy of saying I was against violence when directed against Trump, while condoning violence against others because I am a Trump supporter. I believe no such thing.
I condemn the Sandy Hook violence, and am glad bin Laden got ventilated.
My understanding is most men who served in war and killed others have no desire to do it again. I am glad I never had to, I have no desire to kill anyone.
The thing about violence is, though, it is a means to an end, and can be put to use to serve an evil end, or a good and righteous end. When it's used to take what belongs to others, to threaten and intimidate in order to have your own way, to remove your political enemies because they don't believe the same thing you believe, it is serving an evil end. When it is used to resist those evil efforts, it is serving a positive good. For example, Ghandi was not necessarily a pacifist, he only determined to use pacifist means to pursue freedom because the British had denied Indians from ownership of best means of obtaining freedom, a population armed and able to resist imperialist rule..
I do not condone violence, gun or otherwise, in pursuit of evil, selfish ends. However, I do not intend to compromise on my human right (not just an American right) to defend myself, my family, and others, from people who would use violence to harm me or others. I especially won't compromise with a political party who on one hand tells me I do not have a right, and should not have the ability, to protect myself using the means I feel is best for me, while on the other hand is actively doing things to make it more difficult and dangerous to live in this country, and facilitating and pursuing wars all over the globe.
I honestly wasn't trying to catch you in an inconsistency. It was legitimately an ethical question. I am the same as you. And even though I may have wished that guy incapacitated a million times, I never wished it by the hands of someone else because that hurts the freedom that I've dedicated my life to defending. Best case scenario, he would have self-eliminated through jail or A spontaneous Rush of common Sense, or something else.
My ethical query was more focused on how some people might equate Osama bin laden to Trump, and the gun wasn't the important part of the violence. Maybe better stated is that maybe this guy and people who think like him don't consider this gun violence more than they consider it a gun event, kind of like a war or an assassination of an enemy like Osama bin laden.
In that regard, you delve into the psyche of the American anti-populist. That is a subject which interests me and for which I might learn something through investigation and conversation.
An interesting social experiment would be for you to reread my post in the literal, and pretend someone like Steve or Chris wrote it. Would you still feel the same way that is, would you still feel like The author was trying to provoke you?
I'm guessing that you wouldn't. Put another way, I think that when you and I engage in this arena, you presume acrimony, sarcasm, narcissism, and righteous indignation from me. My conclusion based on that circumstantial evidence is that I've earned my reputation with you through my previous communications. Just like always, I will own them. Sorry brother for offending you but not sorry for my convictions. Truck Fump.
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
Comments
That’s bull💩. Positioned right at ridge line. Clear sight picture of entire event…at least at their plane of sight (judging from group A rifle position…slightly above or near even with shooter). Rubber soled boots, rubber feet on tripod, etc etc. Chicken 💩 response. Snipers of this caliber have been trained on all types of surfaces, compromising positioning, angles, wind, and just about anything you can think of that would affect ballistics travel. This is not directed at you @TRayB , rather the article. There is an infinite amount of information I could go on about sniping. I’m still not convinced that this, group A, took the shot (judging from downed threat). Personally, I think group B took the shot. I have so many questions and theories based off what I’ve seen and read , released to date. Professional snipers would never take a less than advantageous position, supposed to anyway, that would put their primary at risk.
A good cigar and whiskey solve most problems.
Guys.... please don't fight over conspiracies. Seriously tho, what are your thoughts on The Grassy Knoll, Roswell, and 9/11..... asking for a friend.
@OutdoorsSmoke_21191 , I agree it's BS. It smacks of someone making excuses after dropping the ball. I have not read there were 2 SS counter sniper groups.
Grassy knoll is a lie. Roswell was the Russians. 9/11 was not preventable. All of these things are overwhelmingly proven by actual facts.
25 Uber rich people couldn't keep Epstein Island a secret, but 1,000 government employees who make between 80,000 and 120,000 are able to? Come on man.
Epoch Times is a questionable news source
https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-rally-shooting-unacceptable-secret-service-director-abc-exclusive/story?id
Did you open the link and read the article Edward @silvermouse ? It refers to an interview the director of the SS gave with ABC News, linked above.
I'm not sure how quoting a government official makes something a conspiracy theory, but I'm sure someone here can explain it.
😑
when I see Epoch Times quoted I don't bother reading it. That is not to say that their reprints of legit news sources offends me. Rather their editorial bias doesn't match my bias, lol. Furthermore, they cherry pick facts to support questionable conclusions and gravitate to pseudoscience when covering some topics, like covid. Using sources such as the theories of Dr. Mercola, presented as proof of fact is disingenuous. It is really a 'whatever floats your boat' situation, doesn't float mine.
Fine, as you said, whatever floats you boat. Did you read the ABC News article, quoting the Director of the SS saying what the Epoch Times reported she said? I'm just trying to figure out how it's a conspiracy theory.
Never said it was a conspiracy theory. Sorry if my disregard of Epoch Times gave that impression. There's no way to know what agency is maybe trying to put the situation in a less unfavorable light. Same for the corporate interests of the media, fringe as well as mainstream. It's a mad world.
I know you didn't say it was. But somebody in that agency better be asking tough questions, especially the director, since she's ultimately responsible for its performance. If she is only going to push answers to place the agency in less unfavorable light, and cover its failures, it is bound to happen again.
USA TODAY
Jack Black 'blindsided' by Kyle Gass' Trump shooting comment, ends Tenacious D tour
https://youtu.be/-hPUM01nuis?si=xX8axqCKhrKZ0DNk
Story by Brendan Morrow, USA TODAY
*
Kyle Gass, Jack Black's Tenacious D bandmate, says 'don't miss Trump next time' after assassination attempt
*
In a statement provided to USA TODAY, the "School of Rock" actor, 54, said he was "blindsided" by bandmate Kyle Gass saying "don't miss Trump next time" on stage during their Tenacious D show on Sunday.
*
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/jack-black-blindsided-by-kyle-gass-trump-shooting-comment-ends-tenacious-d-tour/ar-BB1q4Mj0?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=4e72ae05c9104825a36381704d8a34a8&ei=82
*
*
*
His immediate reaction didn't display a single hint of "blindsided".
I guess it was the backlash that blindsided him.
^^^^ I guess not everyone thinks the same thing about gun violence.
Lol that was directed at me.
I prefer and identify as ‘people violence’ that choose to use whatever medium of choice to carry out their mentally unstable, insane, crazy, heinous agenda. Whatever that may be.
A good cigar and whiskey solve most problems.
What gave it away??
@TRayB Maybe they're pro-trump-violence?
That dude and the others like him probably condemned the sandy hook violence. They were also probably pro-GWOT and glad that bin laden took 4 in the chest. I know I was. Maybe I'm pro gun violence?
It's an interesting ethical quandary. @First_Warrior did time in Nam, and that was also a shooting war. Pro gun violence? I don't think so.
Can you be pro troops and pro military without accepting some sort of gun violence?
Either way, it's food for thought.
Go ahead and bask in your vindication, lol, you deserve it.
If you know, you know.
I'm hearing from my friends that the RNC convention has featured president of the teamsters Union and some gay lady with a shaved head and face tattoos Who railed on about transgender love and inclusion. Guys are wearing pieces of paper over their ears, certain states have been segregated from the main delegation, and a Florida congressman who apparently likes 17 year olds destroyed the speaker's interview. Oh, and Giuliani was fall down drunk.
You guys sure do know how to throw a hell of a party 😂😂
Milwaukee tends to bring out the best and the worst in the people who visit.
A good cigar and whiskey solve most problems.
Okay you guys you're good at conspiracy theories. What's the play here? Getting them off the ticket through incapacitation? Faking his death? That way they can keep the finance money from the campaign and install a new puppet?
See Frank, it's funny, I mostly agree with your entire post. It's clear they aren't against violence as a whole. That's what made your initial statement so silly. Of course, it was clearly a ham-fisted attempt to catch me in the hypocrisy of saying I was against violence when directed against Trump, while condoning violence against others because I am a Trump supporter. I believe no such thing.
I condemn the Sandy Hook violence, and am glad bin Laden got ventilated.
My understanding is most men who served in war and killed others have no desire to do it again. I am glad I never had to, I have no desire to kill anyone.
The thing about violence is, though, it is a means to an end, and can be put to use to serve an evil end, or a good and righteous end. When it's used to take what belongs to others, to threaten and intimidate in order to have your own way, to remove your political enemies because they don't believe the same thing you believe, it is serving an evil end. When it is used to resist those evil efforts, it is serving a positive good. For example, Ghandi was not necessarily a pacifist, he only determined to use pacifist means to pursue freedom because the British had denied Indians from ownership of best means of obtaining freedom, a population armed and able to resist imperialist rule..
I do not condone violence, gun or otherwise, in pursuit of evil, selfish ends. However, I do not intend to compromise on my human right (not just an American right) to defend myself, my family, and others, from people who would use violence to harm me or others. I especially won't compromise with a political party who on one hand tells me I do not have a right, and should not have the ability, to protect myself using the means I feel is best for me, while on the other hand is actively doing things to make it more difficult and dangerous to live in this country, and facilitating and pursuing wars all over the globe.
I've heard it's a horrible place. Can't remember who said it, though.
I honestly wasn't trying to catch you in an inconsistency. It was legitimately an ethical question. I am the same as you. And even though I may have wished that guy incapacitated a million times, I never wished it by the hands of someone else because that hurts the freedom that I've dedicated my life to defending. Best case scenario, he would have self-eliminated through jail or A spontaneous Rush of common Sense, or something else.
My ethical query was more focused on how some people might equate Osama bin laden to Trump, and the gun wasn't the important part of the violence. Maybe better stated is that maybe this guy and people who think like him don't consider this gun violence more than they consider it a gun event, kind of like a war or an assassination of an enemy like Osama bin laden.
In that regard, you delve into the psyche of the American anti-populist. That is a subject which interests me and for which I might learn something through investigation and conversation.
An interesting social experiment would be for you to reread my post in the literal, and pretend someone like Steve or Chris wrote it. Would you still feel the same way that is, would you still feel like The author was trying to provoke you?
I'm guessing that you wouldn't. Put another way, I think that when you and I engage in this arena, you presume acrimony, sarcasm, narcissism, and righteous indignation from me. My conclusion based on that circumstantial evidence is that I've earned my reputation with you through my previous communications. Just like always, I will own them. Sorry brother for offending you but not sorry for my convictions. Truck Fump.
Can't wait for the Harris/Vance debate.
The gambling market thinks Biden is dropping out.
Another one from the conspiracy theory files: the Trump rally in PA was apparently the first one CNN covered live. Seems odd.
Conspiracy Theories: Not just for Right-Wing Nut Jobs:
'We still don't know for sure whether Donald Trump was hit by a bullet,' she began. 'We know almost nothing.' - Joy Reid
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13647537/msNbc-joy-reid-trump-assassination-conspiracy.html