
This is a placeholder text
Group text

by Two Moons on 18 August 2013 - 00:08
After fifty years?
Come on.....................
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/aug/17/jfk-files-still-sealed/
Come on.....................
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/aug/17/jfk-files-still-sealed/

by Two Moons on 18 August 2013 - 01:08
lol... maybe you expected something else?

by Carlin on 18 August 2013 - 11:08
You don't understand moons, we need to protect the American people - a half century later.
Your thread title says it all. Just as the article indicates, this is not about conspiracy, rather transparency. At what point does all the dirt and blood on the hands, now synonymous with "the greater good" of democratic society, taint our ideal such that we can no longer justify the means? The lack of transparency here (or Benghazi, the NSA, etc, etc.) should serve as the wake up call to all Americans that your government does not recognize your ability or right to make such a determination. No one has the right to deny a free citizen the opportunity to sacrifice a measure of wealth, power, or even security for the endeavors of truth, justice, and morality, if only in a vote cast or public discourse.


by Mindhunt on 18 August 2013 - 14:08
Does raise some interesting questions

by Two Moons on 18 August 2013 - 15:08
Oh I believe someone is being protected, but it's not the American people.
Perhaps even a mexican stand off, you protect my secret and I'll protect yours, blackmail.
The list of players just keeps growing.
Perhaps even a mexican stand off, you protect my secret and I'll protect yours, blackmail.
The list of players just keeps growing.
by beetree on 18 August 2013 - 18:08
Exactly. If we all read what is there, then no one can hide. Transparency. And then we decide at the polls. Otherwise, everything is subject to being twisted before our judgment is ever engaged.
by vk4gsd on 18 August 2013 - 19:08
help me out here, why do these officials write damaging stuff down on memos etc and file them?? would it not just be easier to not document dodgy stuff at all and just use verbal instructions? i mean discrediting an agent that done yr bidding to avoid repercussions is a lot easier than hiding written, signed documents???
secondly why don't the agencies just go and destroy the most damaging bits, nobody would ever know as nobody "outside" even knows what is there precisely.
i just don't get how it works?
secondly why don't the agencies just go and destroy the most damaging bits, nobody would ever know as nobody "outside" even knows what is there precisely.
i just don't get how it works?

by Red Sable on 18 August 2013 - 20:08
Hmm, think they were hiding this? 
Orrr this? *which has aparantly even been kept secret from your commander in chief

Orrr this? *which has aparantly even been kept secret from your commander in chief
by beetree on 18 August 2013 - 20:08
vk4,
It is perplexing. Yet, it is not uncommon that certain high achievers have traits that scream of narcissism. They also do not imagine losing control of such damning documentation, it is their inherent flaw.
It is perplexing. Yet, it is not uncommon that certain high achievers have traits that scream of narcissism. They also do not imagine losing control of such damning documentation, it is their inherent flaw.

by Red Sable on 18 August 2013 - 20:08
and more secrets...

Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top