From: 19efppp@mail.com   
      
   On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 5:19:10 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:   
   > On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 2:24:06 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here   
   wrote:    
   > > What else can he do? He certainly cannot defend the Official Story. Plus,   
   he has no burden to do that. His burden only is to argue about stupid stuff   
   that doesn't matter, or even mean anything. Yes, Hank is Historically Stupid   
   for spending the last    
   few years of his life arguing about meaningless stupid stuff. Meanwhile, as   
   Hank's wife said, JFK is still dead. Great job, Hank!   
   > Yes. There is is no such thing as "historically guilty."    
   > Because there are no different "types" of guilty.    
   >    
   > No one gets convicted of being "historically guilty", "catagorically   
   guilty", "undoubtedly guilty", "partially guilty" or any other word you want   
   to put in front of "guilty".    
   > There's only "guilty".    
   >    
   > There are only types of "not guilty", like "not guilty by reason of   
   insanity" or mental illness or mental defect.    
   > But there are no different "types" of guilty.    
   >    
   > I asked Chuckles to post the link defining the phrase, "historically guilty"   
   and he could not.    
   > He could not because "historically guilty" is a phrase he invented to label   
   Oswald guilty without being convicted.    
   > It's nonsense coming from a pompous ass who speaks nothing but foolishness.    
   > I'm not surprised that there are other pompous asses who support him.    
   >    
   > History cannot determine a person's guilt or innocence.    
   > It can present a case, it can present evidence, it can even express an   
   OPINION, but it cannot CONVICT.    
   > Not in America, only a judge or a jury can do that.    
   >    
   > And their argument that because Hitler was never convicted, then he never   
   was responsible of the murder of 6 million Jews during WW II is stupid.    
   > Hitler's role in the Holocaust was revealed during the Nuremberg war TRIALS   
   by witnesses who received orders directly from him.    
   >    
   > These assholes seem to think my argument for Oswald's innocence is based on   
   the fact that he never went to trial.    
   > No, my argument is based on:    
   >    
   > 1. The FACT that the Dallas Police were corrupt.    
   > 2. The FACT that Hoover hated JFK and covered up his assassination.    
   > 3. The way the authorities handled Oswald.    
   > 4. The way the authorities handled the evidence.    
   > 5. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.    
   >    
   > When you look at how the authorities handled this case, you can see that   
   they weren't handling the case of a suspect who was guilty,    
   > but instead were handling it as if they were trying to frame Oswald for a   
   crime he did not commit.   
   Well, of course! But if we are to be kind to the Retards, we can agree with   
   them that historical consensus does develop around such issues, as around   
   Oswald's guilt. But how does one define that consensus? Are the people, the   
   citizens, involved at all in    
   such a consensus? Or is it just professional money-making historians, the ones   
   who are handsomely paid by the ruling class? Since the Retards have put forth   
   the argument, the burden is upon them to provide the definition. The poor   
   dears seem to be in    
   over their heads here.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)