Pages: 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 19

 

2008-07-17 19:52:22
CommieChipmunk
Member
+488|6827|Portland, OR, USA

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

It's now easy to figure out who really hated JFK. There were recodings and documents released a few years ago under the freedom of information act. The CIA was encouraging him to take on the Soviets. There were some tools who actually wanted an all out war.. He didn't bite and they loathed him for that. I gained even more respect for Kennedy after seeing the way he dealt with those officials. I'll see if I can find them.
Really?  So you think maybe the hawks of the military industrial complex really did kill him?  It wouldn't surprise me if Stone was vaguely near the truth.
I'm not saying they did, but they certainly had the motivation. That's not enough tbh.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 9#p1023089

Oh JFK.. don't get me started

Just about everyone wanted him dead for some reason or another.

EDIT: Oh! found it!

I said earlier that the government was holding on to the JFK evidence, keeping it locked down for an extended period of time.. I guess they'll release it in 2030

Last edited by CommieChipmunk (2008-07-17 19:53:22)

2008-07-17 19:53:55
imortal
Member
+240|6922|Austin, TX

CommieChipmunk wrote:

You're not going to look for it? Great, because the government and media will obviously hand you the evidence.
No, I am not going to look because I am not going to do your job for you. 

CommieChipmunk wrote:

Everything he says makes sense, seeing that he's an engineer from MIT... butI'm guessing that an MIT engineer isn't objective enough for anyone here.
Being an MIT Engineer does not make you objective, though it does give an air of credulance to what he is discussing.  Credulity does not make him right or objective, however.

CommieChipmunk wrote:

I'm still looking for an article from anywhere, but I don't see why people would make up the power down.  Did you read or watch the interviews with Scott Forbes that I posted?
I looked at a few, but they tend to referrence each other instead of an outside or objective source. I watch a bit, trying to hold my bile.  When they get to a part that is too stupid or ignorant of reality, I turn it off, that person having lost all credulance in my eyes.  I do not manage to make it very far in before finding the quite obvious holes in their presentations.  It is a shame others like you ignore them, give them a pass, or switch to some other presumed eveidence.

CommieChipmunk wrote:

I don't want it to be true, I just don't want to trust everything the government says either.  It's really dangerous to have a society that never questions its government, especially a government with the track record this one has.
I will grant you that one, since I don't know you personally.  But some of those who believe that SAY they are looking for the truth, when they really mean that they are looking for a way to prove what they know is true.
2008-07-17 19:55:02
imortal
Member
+240|6922|Austin, TX

CommieChipmunk wrote:

Oh JFK.. don't get me started
...and what are your opinions on the moon landings?
2008-07-17 19:58:40
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6601|tropical regions of london
why ask, you already know.
2008-07-17 20:03:31
imortal
Member
+240|6922|Austin, TX
I have been listening to this man.  Very intriguing.  He manages, barely, to state certain facts truthfully.  The way he presents them slants them to try to direct you a line of thought in his direction, while using absolutely no proof.  He ignores anything inconsistant with the theory he is putting forth.  Predictable.  The drones who believe him will eat it up obviously, set each of his point up, and I can tear them down.

I will counter with this.  It is a bit of a long read.

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report
2008-07-17 20:05:23
CommieChipmunk
Member
+488|6827|Portland, OR, USA

imortal wrote:

No, I am not going to look because I am not going to do your job for you.
Great, don't think for yourself.  The media has, and always will have your best interests in mind and feed you the truth no matter how disturbing.


imortal wrote:

Being an MIT Engineer does not make you objective, though it does give an air of credulance to what he is discussing.  Credulity does not make him right or objective, however.
Okay, so he's not objective... but he's factual?  And like the news media outlets that you get your information from are objective or factual?! Please.

imortal wrote:

I looked at a few, but they tend to referrence each other instead of an outside or objective source. I watch a bit, trying to hold my bile.  When they get to a part that is too stupid or ignorant of reality, I turn it off, that person having lost all credulance in my eyes.  I do not manage to make it very far in before finding the quite obvious holes in their presentations.  It is a shame others like you ignore them, give them a pass, or switch to some other presumed eveidence.
The part where they become too stupid or ignorant of reality?  Is this when they veer off from what the mainstream media has told you?  I don't see how Scott Forbes, someone who worked on floor 97 of the world trade center would be less credible than a reporter?


imortal wrote:

I will grant you that one, since I don't know you personally.  But some of those who believe that SAY they are looking for the truth, when they really mean that they are looking for a way to prove what they know is true.
I'm just looking at the 'facts' from both sides and drawing my own opinions.  I'm in the process of reading the 9/11 Warren Report at the moment...  If it were just 9/11 that was questionable, then I probably wouldn't be so hardcore about it, but as I posted earlier.. we've entered the majority of the large conflicts that we've been in on really shady conditions.

I've never really looked into the moon landing that much because really it isn't that important.  If we did land on it, great, that's awesome.. if not, well then I guess we won the Space Race dick waving competition by cheating.  To my knowledge, nobody died and the general American population wasn't tricked into a war because of the space race.
2008-07-17 20:07:31
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|7023|Cambridge (UK)

imortal wrote:

I have been listening to this man.  Very intriguing.  He manages, barely, to state certain facts truthfully.  The way he presents them slants them to try to direct you a line of thought in his direction, while using absolutely no proof.  He ignores anything inconsistant with the theory he is putting forth.  Predictable.  The drones who believe him will eat it up obviously, set each of his point up, and I can tear them down.

I will counter with this.  It is a bit of a long read.

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report
Because, of course, the first part of your post couldn't possibly apply to the latter part...
2008-07-17 20:11:19
CommieChipmunk
Member
+488|6827|Portland, OR, USA

imortal wrote:

I have been listening to this man.  Very intriguing.  He manages, barely, to state certain facts truthfully.  The way he presents them slants them to try to direct you a line of thought in his direction, while using absolutely no proof.  He ignores anything inconsistant with the theory he is putting forth.  Predictable.  The drones who believe him will eat it up obviously, set each of his point up, and I can tear them down.

I will counter with this.  It is a bit of a long read.

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report
I completely disagree with the bold statement.  He states facts and applies them to the world trade center collapse, could you outline those said inconsistencies?

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/ … e_evidence

I've glanced at the PM report and I suppose I'll read it now.  But I guess after I'm done reading the 9.11Commissions Report I'll have to read the book mentioned in the link I posted above..
2008-07-17 20:17:43
CommieChipmunk
Member
+488|6827|Portland, OR, USA

imortal wrote:

I have been listening to this man.  Very intriguing.  He manages, barely, to state certain facts truthfully.  The way he presents them slants them to try to direct you a line of thought in his direction, while using absolutely no proof.  He ignores anything inconsistant with the theory he is putting forth.  Predictable.  The drones who believe him will eat it up obviously, set each of his point up, and I can tear them down.

I will counter with this.  It is a bit of a long read.

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report
FACT: Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a major study will be released in spring 2005 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST shared its initial findings with PM and made its lead researcher available to our team of reporters.

Okay, really?

PM is using FEMA (we all know how good they are) and a 'branch of the US Department of Commerce' as their main sources.

1) Why the hell was there no independent reviews?  There's a slight possibility that government controlled organizations might be slightly biased don't you think?

2) Department of Commerce?! How the hell do their arguments hold any more weight than a 'nonobjective' MIT Engineer?
2008-07-17 20:19:28
imortal
Member
+240|6922|Austin, TX
Okay, my last attempt to try reason before I am off to bed.  Not that I have much hope, but I like beating my head against a wall.

CommieChipmunk wrote:

imortal wrote:

No, I am not going to look because I am not going to do your job for you.
Great, don't think for yourself.  The media has, and always will have your best interests in mind and feed you the truth no matter how disturbing.
No, simply trying to bring you to understand how debate works.  You can not jump up and say "You are lying, prove to me you aren't!" and be taken seriously.  If you think I am in error, bring me something to show I am.  Do not point to your friend and say it is because HE said so.  Bring something objective and confirmable.

CommieChipmunk wrote:

imortal wrote:

Being an MIT Engineer does not make you objective, though it does give an air of credulance to what he is discussing.  Credulity does not make him right or objective, however.
Okay, so he's not objective... but he's factual?  And like the news media outlets that you get your information from are objective or factual?! Please.
Yes, I can present a series of facts, with nothing connecting you, that would suggest you are, in fact, a dingo.  Have you ever heard the phrase "there are three kinds of lies: lies, danmed lies, and statiscics?"  You can present facts all day long that are utterly correct, then show a picture and say something that is not factual but completely conjecture, and leave it to the mind of the audience to connect the dots ithout you ever having to lie.

CommieChipmunk wrote:

imortal wrote:

I looked at a few, but they tend to referrence each other instead of an outside or objective source. I watch a bit, trying to hold my bile.  When they get to a part that is too stupid or ignorant of reality, I turn it off, that person having lost all credulance in my eyes.  I do not manage to make it very far in before finding the quite obvious holes in their presentations.  It is a shame others like you ignore them, give them a pass, or switch to some other presumed eveidence.
The part where they become too stupid or ignorant of reality?  Is this when they veer off from what the mainstream media has told you?  I don't see how Scott Forbes, someone who worked on floor 97 of the world trade center would be less credible than a reporter?
I do not recall EVER giving credence to any single reporter.  Ever.  But one person is not a reliable source, especially after the event.  And that is assuming he is not mistaken or simply making it up, or misremembering the event, its scope, or its purpose.  A newspaper report before the event would have been perfect, because it would not have been 'tainted' by someone looking back in hindsight, or trying to attach implied meaning to it.  If you had found it, it would have been a pretty good factoid to help your case.  Find it yet, have you?

CommieChipmunk wrote:

imortal wrote:

I will grant you that one, since I don't know you personally.  But some of those who believe that SAY they are looking for the truth, when they really mean that they are looking for a way to prove what they know is true.
I'm just looking at the 'facts' from both sides and drawing my own opinions.  I'm in the process of reading the 9/11 Warren Report at the moment...  If it were just 9/11 that was questionable, then I probably wouldn't be so hardcore about it, but as I posted earlier.. we've entered the majority of the large conflicts that we've been in on really shady conditions.
Granted.  WW1 was entered based on a lie.  Spanish American war on a misunderstanding.  WW2 justified agaisnt the Japanese, but degbateable about Europe.  Korea and Vietnam were Cold War proxies that most likely could have been handles differently.  But all of that is easy to see in hindsight, when everything all the work is done for you and laid out in a textbook.

CommieChipmunk wrote:

I've never really looked into the moon landing that much because really it isn't that important.  If we did land on it, great, that's awesome.. if not, well then I guess we won the Space Race dick waving competition by cheating.  To my knowledge, nobody died and the general American population wasn't tricked into a war because of the space race.
That is admirable of you, in its own way.

Oh, and what I said before, about not grouping you in with the others?  I was wrong; you belong there.
2008-07-17 20:20:07
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+796|6942|United States of America

CommieChipmunk wrote:

imortal wrote:

I have been listening to this man.  Very intriguing.  He manages, barely, to state certain facts truthfully.  The way he presents them slants them to try to direct you a line of thought in his direction, while using absolutely no proof.  He ignores anything inconsistant with the theory he is putting forth.  Predictable.  The drones who believe him will eat it up obviously, set each of his point up, and I can tear them down.

I will counter with this.  It is a bit of a long read.

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report
I completely disagree with the bold statement.  He states facts and applies them to the world trade center collapse, could you outline those said inconsistencies?

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/ … e_evidence

I've glanced at the PM report and I suppose I'll read it now.  But I guess after I'm done reading the 9.11Commissions Report I'll have to read the book mentioned in the link I posted above..
I love the credibility a title such as "Professor" can get a person in this day and age. A simple Google-ing reveals he was a professor of religion and theology. On this forum, of all places, that should make him less credible.

Last edited by DesertFox- (2008-07-17 20:22:32)

2008-07-17 20:25:22
imortal
Member
+240|6922|Austin, TX

CommieChipmunk wrote:

2) Department of Commerce?! How the hell do their arguments hold any more weight than a 'nonobjective' MIT Engineer?
okay, one last time before I leave. Honestly.  The Secret Service falls under the Department of the Treasury. 

Where do you think guidelines covering Emergency Medicine are found?  Would you have guessed the Department of Transportation?

CommieChipmunk wrote:

I completely disagree with the bold statement.  He states facts and applies them to the world trade center collapse, could you outline those said inconsistencies?
Go ahead and disagree with the statement. I simply used the title.  Your feelings are your own concern; I care not.

Last edited by imortal (2008-07-17 20:26:54)

2008-07-17 20:25:59
CommieChipmunk
Member
+488|6827|Portland, OR, USA

DesertFox- wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

imortal wrote:

I have been listening to this man.  Very intriguing.  He manages, barely, to state certain facts truthfully.  The way he presents them slants them to try to direct you a line of thought in his direction, while using absolutely no proof.  He ignores anything inconsistant with the theory he is putting forth.  Predictable.  The drones who believe him will eat it up obviously, set each of his point up, and I can tear them down.

I will counter with this.  It is a bit of a long read.

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report
I completely disagree with the bold statement.  He states facts and applies them to the world trade center collapse, could you outline those said inconsistencies?

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/ … e_evidence

I've glanced at the PM report and I suppose I'll read it now.  But I guess after I'm done reading the 9.11Commissions Report I'll have to read the book mentioned in the link I posted above..
I love the credibility a title such as "Professor" can get a person in this day and age. A simple Google-ing reveals he was a professor of religion and theology. On this forum, of all places, that should make him less credible.
Great, so I'll take his book with a grain of salt.  However, I'm still going to believe the MIT engineer...

Jesus tits, you guys are killing me, I have to wake up at 4 tomorrow and start offloading truck trailers full of shoes at 5 for at least 8 hours.. I'll start up again tomorrow if this is still .

Last edited by CommieChipmunk (2008-07-17 20:28:04)

2008-07-17 20:27:44
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+796|6942|United States of America
Fine with me, but I'd trust even someone who flunks out of MIT the first week before that dude.
2008-07-17 20:31:10
CommieChipmunk
Member
+488|6827|Portland, OR, USA

DesertFox- wrote:

Fine with me, but I'd trust even someone who flunks out of MIT the first week before that dude.
Because...?

I'm glad that you can still trust the media though. 

Jeez dude, what's not to trust the guy's stating facts?

CommieChipmunk wrote:

Pt 1
Pt 2
Did you watch the video or just simply disregard it because it's against the norm?
2008-07-17 20:42:26
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+796|6942|United States of America
Well for one, the man in question has no real credentials in the scientific or architectural realms.

The mainstream (AKA non-conspiracy) theories are supported largely by the scientific community (and the giant nerds at PM) as opposed to college students who need something more from the attack (i.e. Loose Change, in the History Channel special, the creator of the film actually says, when referring to the apparent lack of wreckage from Flight 93 said "There would have been more [wreckage], man ). The conspiracy theories seem to be supported more times than not by everyday folks who don't have enough knowledge about the subject to understand why _insert theory here_ doesn't make sense, yet if you get a mob of them demonstrating for "truth," they can still make an impact. I have to take pity on people who will go to their graves convinced of something that is painfully obvious if given the chance (I'm looking at you Flat Earth Society!)

Yes, I watched MIT-man's video. However, he's in the scientific minority right now.
2008-07-17 20:49:03
CommieChipmunk
Member
+488|6827|Portland, OR, USA

imortal wrote:

No, simply trying to bring you to understand how debate works.  You can not jump up and say "You are lying, prove to me you aren't!" and be taken seriously.  If you think I am in error, bring me something to show I am.  Do not point to your friend and say it is because HE said so.  Bring something objective and confirmable.
If it were one person speaking out, you'd have a point.  There have been hundreds of independent films, studies of what's left to be studied...  It's not like it's this 1 man underground team...  You talk about objectivity and confirmability, how are your facts any better than my facts,  because yours get spewed all over the corporate owned/government regulated mainstream media?  Talk about objectivity.

imortal wrote:

Yes, I can present a series of facts, with nothing connecting you, that would suggest you are, in fact, a dingo.  Have you ever heard the phrase "there are three kinds of lies: lies, danmed lies, and statiscics?"  You can present facts all day long that are utterly correct, then show a picture and say something that is not factual but completely conjecture, and leave it to the mind of the audience to connect the dots ithout you ever having to lie.
Then what the hell are we supposed to do?! Invent a time machine and send you back inside the center column of a World Trade Centers on 9/11? Christ, all we can do is give you an alternative theory and support it with facts, with computer models.. Watch the freaking video please, he doesn't really leave that much for the watcher to assume.  It's all pretty clear if you open your mind for a second.

imortal wrote:

I do not recall EVER giving credence to any single reporter.  Ever.  But one person is not a reliable source, especially after the event.  And that is assuming he is not mistaken or simply making it up, or misremembering the event, its scope, or its purpose.  A newspaper report before the event would have been perfect, because it would not have been 'tainted' by someone looking back in hindsight, or trying to attach implied meaning to it.  If you had found it, it would have been a pretty good factoid to help your case.  Find it yet, have you?
Again, it's not a one person crusade.. there are plenty of concerned American citizens who are questioning what they've been told by a government that may not be the most credible, to say the least.  You'd think that if the world trade centers were in fact not partially closed on September 8th and 9th, that would be an easy point for the 'debunkers' to debunk.  Haven't seen that yet either.

imortal wrote:

Granted.  WW1 was entered based on a lie.  Spanish American war on a misunderstanding.  WW2 justified agaisnt the Japanese, but degbateable about Europe.  Korea and Vietnam were Cold War proxies that most likely could have been handles differently.  But all of that is easy to see in hindsight, when everything all the work is done for you and laid out in a textbook.

CommieChipmunk wrote:

Lusitania, WWI
Pearl Harbor, WWII
Pearl Harbor, WWII 2
Gulf of Tonkin, Vietnam
JFK, Vietnam (While I am Kind of just throwing this one in here, it was believed that he was for the deescalation of the Vietnam conflict and after his death, Johnson re-escalated the conflict...)

imortal wrote:

Oh, and what I said before, about not grouping you in with the others?  I was wrong; you belong there.
I'd rather question then follow, sorry.

mek wrote:

Why did they kill JFK anyway
Kennedy was strongly opposed to the war in Vietnam.  He was trying to de escalate the conflict and he made it known.  Nobody at the time liked that.

Right after he died Johnson revamped the mission and te Vietnam war really started to escalate

EDIT: had to fix mah links

Last edited by CommieChipmunk (2008-07-17 20:59:05)

2008-07-17 20:49:32
The_Mac
Member
+96|6483

ATG wrote:

Gotta better explanation? Please discuss.
Bigger, bureaucratic governments suck ass at doing their jobs?
2008-07-17 20:58:48
imortal
Member
+240|6922|Austin, TX

CommieChipmunk wrote:

imortal wrote:

Oh, and what I said before, about not grouping you in with the others?  I was wrong; you belong there.
I'd rather question then follow, sorry.
No, you are just mindlessly following in a different direction.  You are posting other people's arguments, not posting your own.  You are just going along with what they said and saying "hmmmm."

The 9/11 conspiracy theorists are this generations idea of the the Baby Boomers' era; we can only hope you do not damage the nation as badly as they did.
https://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll83/imortal_22/conformity.jpg

Last edited by imortal (2008-07-17 21:01:23)

2008-07-17 21:01:23
Vax
Member
+42|6109|Flyover country

DesertFox- wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

imortal wrote:

I have been listening to this man.  Very intriguing.  He manages, barely, to state certain facts truthfully.  The way he presents them slants them to try to direct you a line of thought in his direction, while using absolutely no proof.  He ignores anything inconsistant with the theory he is putting forth.  Predictable.  The drones who believe him will eat it up obviously, set each of his point up, and I can tear them down.

I will counter with this.  It is a bit of a long read.

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report
I completely disagree with the bold statement.  He states facts and applies them to the world trade center collapse, could you outline those said inconsistencies?

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/ … e_evidence

I've glanced at the PM report and I suppose I'll read it now.  But I guess after I'm done reading the 9.11Commissions Report I'll have to read the book mentioned in the link I posted above..
I love the credibility a title such as "Professor" can get a person in this day and age. A simple Google-ing reveals he was a professor of religion and theology. On this forum, of all places, that should make him less credible.
Not to mention the glowing "review" of his book is written by Paul Craig Roberts, who is loved bythese Idiots, and has latched on to the Rosie O'donnell shit about free falling towers. 

But yeah, it's a website called 'the peoples voice'       ....viva la revolution, lol
2008-07-17 21:07:37
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+796|6942|United States of America
Keep this civil, folks. You sound like one of the nutjobs at a "truth movement" protest when you leave the logic train.

Also, CommieChipmunk, I believe you said you hadn't read the Popular Mechanics article at this point, and I was just re-reading it and highly recommend it.

EDIT: Now I just may have to buy this book, too.

Last edited by DesertFox- (2008-07-17 21:23:31)

2008-07-17 21:28:29
Vax
Member
+42|6109|Flyover country
I got to admit, it is comforting to know that there are conspiracy "nuts" out there, viewing every event in history with that strange magnifying glass of paranoia that they do.

It's good to know they are out there, watching,  I suppose :-P

Anyway, @ the topic and building 7 

I find it easy to imagine how much damage tower one did to building 7 when it collapsed looking at a pic from tower one
https://i37.tinypic.com/2mpacsh.jpg
2008-07-17 21:29:22
Poseidon
Fudgepack DeQueef
+3,253|6795|Long Island, New York

Vax wrote:

I got to admit, it is comforting to know that there are conspiracy "nuts" out there, viewing every event in history with that strange magnifying glass of paranoia that they do.

It's good to know they are out there, watching,  I suppose :-P

Anyway, @ the topic and building 7 

I find it easy to imagine how much damage tower one did to building 7 when it collapsed looking at a pic from tower one
http://i37.tinypic.com/2mpacsh.jpg
Did you take that?

Holy shit...I don't know how people jumped out of those buildings. I just don't.
2008-07-17 21:46:15
Vax
Member
+42|6109|Flyover country
No I didn't take it. It was saved on my hd from somewhere ..I misspoke though, it looks like it might have been taken from tower two..behind tower one ?   

Either way, yeah,  110 stories is f' ing high.
2008-07-18 02:19:29
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6668|'Murka

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

Your in denial.

Your not the only one though.

But to even say the Bush admin is better than the Carter admin......Congratulations.
What's your measure of success or failure? Poll results?

I'm not denial (don't make the mistake that I'm a GWB fanboi, either)...I just prefer to deal with facts and objectivity.

It's refreshing...you should try it sometime.

Since I doubt you were even alive during the Carter years, I'll just guess that you're (that's the proper spelling, btw) writing from a position of ignorance/inexperience...and/or that you can't be bothered to research your claims before you make them. Congratulations.
Objectively speaking, I believe after 50-100 years (or whenever the spin doctors determine is enough time)  when we can truly judge the effects of this administration it will be found that it drove this country into the ground. Funny enough, there will be nothing you can do about it.
What you just said wasn't objective. In fact, it was the opposite of that. People probably said the same thing about Truman (at the time). He's now considered one of the top 10 US Presidents.

Not that I think GWB will ever be considered one of the top 10 (or even top 20), mind you.

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

And don't pull the grammar nazi unless your post is completely grammar perfect.
I'm not a grammar Nazi (even though, in that case, it would be spelling Nazi). But ffs, is it that hard to use the correct word? "Your" is possessive. "You're" is the contraction of "you are". The two words have different meanings. It's like there, their, and they're. Fucking annoying.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

 

Pages: 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 19

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard