The Lone-Gunman Theory Collapses without the Single-Bullet Theory

[Martin Weidmann]

So requiring people not to engage in political conduct while they are on the job and in company uniform is somehow "fascism"? If Colin Kaepernick wants to dishonor the national anthem and the flag, let him do it on his own time, not when he is on the job and in uniform. It's that simple. That has been a standard rule in the federal government and in the business community forever. It is not "fascism" to tell people that they cannot engage in political conduct while they are on the job.

Actually, this is one of the strongest aspects of the multiple-gunmen position. There is strong evidence of foreknowledge of the assassination on the part of a number of people.

I just have to wonder how you can pretend to be a student of the JFK case and not know about this evidence.

If Colin Kaepernick wants to dishonor the national anthem and the flag, let him do it on his own time, not when he is on the job and in uniform. It's that simple.

So, for you, it's merely a job requirement to honor the national athem and flag? How superficial and naive can you be?

And yes, it is in fact the beginning of fascism when you start telling people what they must do. Isn't this the land of the free anymore? Who has the right to tell people that - under certain circumstances, determined by others - they can not exercise their first amendment rights? Do you really think that all those people waving flags during mass demonstrations and parades in New Korea, China and Russia are doing so out of their own free will? Of course not, they are being told to. So how is that any different from what you are saying? The right is always talking about their all important freedom, but it seems they have no problem limiting that freedom for others!

That has been a standard rule in the federal government and in the business community forever. It is not "fascism" to tell people that they cannot engage in political conduct while they are on the job.

Really? So, a police union expressing support for Trump isn't political? And when the CEO of Goya foods supports Trump, that isn't political either?

[Michael T. Griffith]

If Colin Kaepernick wants to dishonor the national anthem and the flag, let him do it on his own time, not when he is on the job and in uniform. It's that simple.

So, for you, it's merely a job requirement to honor the national athem and flag? How superficial and naive can you be?

And yes, it is in fact the beginning of fascism when you start telling people what they must do. Isn't this the land of the free anymore? Who has the right to tell people that - under certain circumstances, determined by others - they can not exercise their first amendment rights? Do you really think that all those people waving flags during mass demonstrations and parades in New Korea, China and Russia are doing so out of their own free will? Of course not, they are being told to. So how is that any different from what you are saying? The right is always talking about their all important freedom, but it seems they have no problem limiting that freedom for others!

How sad and pathetic that you find your own country's national anthem and flag distasteful and dishonorable. Perhaps you should move.

I'm guessing you didn't protest when the NFL fined players who wore 9/11 memorial symbols on their uniforms, including Payton Manning, hey? Yeah, uh-huh. You're just fine with enforcing rules against wearing or expressing political symbols and views on the job when you don't like what the symbols/views support. But you think it's "fascism" to simply say that when you're on the job, you should not dishonor our flag and national anthem by kneeling during the anthem.

Really? So, a police union expressing support for Trump isn't political?

Oh, I see. So, let me guess: You have no problem with all the unions that endorse the Democratic nominee in election after election. That's okay, right? But you think it's outrageous that a police union endorses Trump. You really don't like freedom of speech, do you?

I bet if I did a search of your messages, I would see no message that protested all the times when liberal unions endorsed Obama and then Hillary in the last three elections. I'm guessing you did not say a single word in protest over those endorsements. You only want to muzzle a union if it endorses someone you don't like.

And when the CEO of Goya foods supports Trump, that isn't political either?

Uh-huh, here again, I'm guessing that if I did a search of your messages, I wouldn't find a single one that protested when liberal CEOs publicly endorsed Obama and then Clinton in the last three elections, which many of them did.

Do you know why Robert Unanue, Goya's CEO, publicly spoke favorably about Trump? He praised Trump after Trump signed an executive order that was targeted to help Hispanic-owned businesses, the Hispanic Prosperity Initiative. Gee, I  thought you liberals were all about helping minorities.

You liberals always lecture everybody else on "tolerance" and "inclusion" but then you repeatedly try to bankrupt via boycotts any business whose leaders express views you don't like.

[Martin Weidmann]

How sad and pathetic that you find your own country's national anthem and flag distasteful and dishonorable. Perhaps you should move.

I'm guessing you didn't protest when the NFL fined players who wore 9/11 memorial symbols on their uniforms, including Payton Manning, hey? Yeah, uh-huh. You're just fine with enforcing rules against wearing or expressing political symbols and views on the job when you don't like what the symbols/views support. But you think it's "fascism" to simply say that when you're on the job, you should not dishonor our flag and national anthem by kneeling during the anthem.

Oh, I see. So, let me guess: You have no problem with all the unions that endorse the Democratic nominee in election after election. That's okay, right? But you think it's outrageous that a police union endorses Trump. You really don't like freedom of speech, do you?

I bet if I did a search of your messages, I would see no message that protested all the times when liberal unions endorsed Obama and then Hillary in the last three elections. I'm guessing you did not say a single word in protest over those endorsements. You only want to muzzle a union if it endorses someone you don't like.

Uh-huh, here again, I'm guessing that if I did a search of your messages, I wouldn't find a single one that protested when liberal CEOs publicly endorsed Obama and then Clinton in the last three elections, which many of them did.

Do you know why Robert Unanue, Goya's CEO, publicly spoke favorably about Trump? He praised Trump after Trump signed an executive order that was targeted to help Hispanic-owned businesses, the Hispanic Prosperity Initiative. Gee, I  thought you liberals were all about helping minorities.

You liberals always lecture everybody else on "tolerance" and "inclusion" but then you repeatedly try to bankrupt via boycotts any business whose leaders express views you don't like.

I have moved my answer to the Trump supporters thread, as this discussion has nothing to do with the lone gunman theory.

[John Tonkovich]

So requiring people not to engage in political conduct while they are on the job and in company uniform is somehow "fascism"? If Colin Kaepernick wants to dishonor the national anthem and the flag, let him do it on his own time, not when he is on the job and in uniform. It's that simple. That has been a standard rule in the federal government and in the business community forever. It is not "fascism" to tell people that they cannot engage in political conduct while they are on the job.

I attended K thru 12 with the same girl, Denise R. This was from 1967 to 1980, in Los Angeles. Every morning, the national anthem was played over the loudspeaker, the flag was raised on the outdoor flag pole - except for rainy days, Ithink, I'm not totally sure - and the pledge of allegiance was recited. All students stood for this. - in retrospect- rather strange, nationalistic oath taking...except for Denise. Now, it was explained to us youngsters, early on, that Denise R. was, gasp!, a Jehovah's Witness, and therefore not required to participate, on personal religious grounds.
Amazingly, life went on, I became - gasp!- friends with this Kaepernick of her time, as did many other children...because no one really cared about the whole fascist pageantry.
PS I think we children understood the Constitution better than most adult Americans do now.

[John Iacoletti]

No tenets.  You really should quit while you're behind.
>>> I'm cruising along in your backdraft, in the manner long-distance runners and Tour de France competitors conserve energy. No need to quit at the moment.

No, you never made it out of the starting gate.

Sometimes your babble is more comprehensible than other times.
>>> Then I suggest you read between the lines more often

Incoherent babble read between the lines is still incoherent babble.

Well, maybe if you would treat people the way you want to be treated
>>> First of all, you'll have to prove you're not a spambot. Secondly, show us where I have ever indicated that I wanted to be treated in any particular way.

So you were sharing your hurt feelings merely as a means of self-reflection?

When have I ever shifted goalposts?
>>> Every time you attempt to isolate the individual parts from the whole.

So we can add "shifting the goalposts" to the long list of concepts that you do not correctly understand the meaning of.

LN apologists have been doing the same "WC said so" shtick for 56 years.
>>> Holy crap!
         
Oswald: I'm innocent:
CT: You said it, so it must be true. You can go.

You are however, quite adept at the strawman fallacy.

[John Iacoletti]

Your 'enormous evidence' has yet to show that anyone but the shooter knew an attempt was about to made on Kennedy that day.

Your "witty spoofs" have yet to show that Oswald shot anybody that day.

[Bill Chapman]

Your "witty spoofs" have yet to show that Oswald shot anybody that day.

Exactly. Proof-of-concept (feasibility) pursuits are not meant to prove anything.

And note that I used 'shooter' in my simple request for a list of those who knew a hit on Kennedy was on anybody else's bucket list that day. Just a nod to the anybody-but-Oswald contingent hereabouts, you understand.

[Bill Chapman]

No, you never made it out of the starting gate
No gates at the Tour de France starting point. Just a bunch of rude, anorexic French guys on 'roids and really expensive bikes. I didn't see you there. But a somebody later reported a guy with a bald spot stepping out of a really old Rambler and sneaking onto the course, asking directions to the finish line, a concept he and his grumpy conspiracy-crowd attack dogs have yet to come to terms with hereabouts.

Incoherent babble read between the lines is still incoherent babble.
My condolences for your reading-comprehension difficulties

So you were sharing your hurt feelings merely as a means of self-reflection?
I see you have Wikipedia bookmarked. And my feelings are reserved for my loved ones.

So we can add "shifting the goalposts" to the long list of concepts that you do not correctly understand the meaning of.
Your Wikipedia bookmark is getting dog-eared. Plus separating any given part from the whole is indeed giving one an advantage by dint of ignoring what could be a critical point that might keep level the playing field, or unfairly tilt it in one direction or another.

You are however, quite adept at the strawman fallacy.
Your 'strawman' is my tongue-in-cheek-cum-spoof