From: chuckschuyler123@gmail.com   
      
   On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 4:19:10 AM UTC-6, 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."    
      
   Sure there is. Oswald is historically guilty of killing JFK. Even the always   
   entertaining Toilet/Flags thinks Oswald is historically guilty of at least   
   SHOOTING at JFK's motorcade, so he's one level less stupid than you. Granted,   
   it's a low bar, but    
   Toilet clears it.   
      
   > Because there are no different "types" of guilty.    
      
   Wrong per usual. Civil cases have a much lower standard of guilt. The   
   plaintiff only needs to prove the defendant acted negligently with a fifty-one   
   percent degree of certainty. Ask OJ Simpson, Johnny Cochrane Jesus.   
   >    
   > 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.    
      
   You made up the phrase "historically guilty," not me, and then demanded I   
   provide a definition for two words you insisted needed to be rolled into a   
   conjoined term. I pointed out your logical fallacy was called Argumentum ad   
   Dictionarium.   
      
   > He could not because "historically guilty" is a phrase he invented to label   
   Oswald guilty without being convicted.    
      
   You made up the term, moron. I was simply using two words with economy to   
   describe the idea that history--broadly--has settled on the conclusion that   
   your hero Oswald killed two people on 11/22/63. There is no other idea on the   
   table to compare the    
   Oswald Alone narrative to. Hell, you don't even know (or care) what happened   
   that day.   
      
   > 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.    
      
   Our official US history as gathered, collated, displayed, etc. by the National   
   Archives disagrees. John F Kennedy's library disagrees.   
      
      
      
   > 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.    
      
   The stupid runs deep with you. Oswald isn't CRIMINALLY GUILTY, Johnny   
   Cochrane. He is HISTORICALLY GUILTY.   
   >    
   > 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.    
      
   On 11/22/63?   
      
   > 2. The FACT that Hoover hated JFK and covered up his assassination.    
      
   Begging the question.   
      
   > 3. The way the authorities handled Oswald.    
      
   By not just blowing him away in the Texas Theatre when he pulled on a cop? By   
   reading him his rights?   
      
   > 4. The way the authorities handled the evidence.    
      
   Not up to your standards, eh Johnny Cochrane?   
      
   > 5. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.    
      
   Which ones?   
   >    
   > 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.   
      
   Totally innocent that day? Toilet thinks he fired at the motorcade from the   
   grassy knoll.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)