Cleary397 said:
o_O.Q said:
Cleary397 said:
Well, the video you provided as evidence starts with "Speech by JFK given just weeks before he was assassinated"
So if you are agreeing that this was not "weeks before he was assassinated" then you must omit the evidence provided as it starts with false claims.
You are misrepresenting JFK by using his words completely out of context. The speech was in response to him feeling his privacy was being violated by the american press, and that privacy needs to be redefined and considered carefully.
Maybe include this in your future claims, which is the follow up paragraph to your snippet -
"But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.
When you include this, it becomes clear he is not talking about some ultra secretive society who somehow feels the need to plant these obvious clues to their existance, but is in fact talking about privacy and the freedom of the press.
|
honestly i didn't even notice that myself because i guess the date given seemed unimportant compared to what he actually says but as i said i never spoke of the date because its completely irrelevant
""But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.
When you include this, it becomes clear he is not talking about some ultra secretive society who somehow feels the need to plant these obvious clues to their existance, but is in fact talking about privacy and the freedom of the press."
to be honest my interpretation is that he's calling for the press to not keep any information that they have about this conspiracy he spoke of hidden...
and he goes on to mention a possible motive of the press for keeping this information hidden
|
And this is why your stance on this is wrong.
You have a preconcieved idea, and are basing what he is saying on this preconcieved notion that he is talking of this "secret society".
You need to take a step back, consider the entire picture with an open mind and really ask yourself the follow:
if the Illuminati is a real secret society, why are there so many apparent clues to their existance? Wouldn't they want to stay hidden, instead of planting hidden messages in all forms of media and even on US money?
Ask youself this logical question, and then consider again.
There is no grand conspiracy, you are not in on the secrecy, you have been manipulated by others with terrible evidence of something which does not exist.
|
lol no i'm looking at what the man is saying
all you're doing is saying that this conclusion is wrong without giving a clear answer as to why its wrong
its right there in his words
first you say no he did not make a speech
then you say its discredited because of the date
then its that he's being misrepresented even though i reffer directly to quotes
then you say its only talking about freedom of the press when he talks about military, economic etc etc etc resources
does your lack of consistency not tell you something?
