The American Politics Thread

micky wrote: My thoughts on conspiracy theories. .and theorists...  nutjobs.. for if knuckleheads sitting at a computer could figure it all out... it was never much of a secret to begin with in the first place and they wouldn't need to be acting the sage and informing all 'they have it figured out'  Anything truly worthy of being conspricy theory material is likely far deeper than anything we can really compreshend.. and I believe in the maxim that a secret among 3 people is one person too many. sh*t never EVER remains unknown for long.

Which is why I think the Kennedy murder, though conspiratorial, was a very small and straightforward crime.   No CIA agents, mobsters, Cuban expats, corrupt Secret Servicemen or Eastern bankers.   Just a few radical extremists in Texas who knew they could get away with it, including Lee Oswald, who was more Timothy McVeigh than he was Antonio Gramsci.

siLLy puPPy wrote: Atavachron wrote: micky wrote: My thoughts on conspiracy theories. .and theorists...  nutjobs.. for if knuckleheads sitting at a computer could figure it all out... it was never much of a secret to begin with in the first place and they wouldn't need to be acting the sage and informing all 'they have it figured out'  Anything truly worthy of being conspricy theory material is likely far deeper than anything we can really compreshend.. and I believe in the maxim that a secret among 3 people is one person too many. sh*t never EVER remains unknown for long. Which is why I think the Kennedy murder, though conspiratorial, was a very small and straightforward crime.   No CIA agents, mobsters, Cuban expats, corrupt Secret Servicemen or Eastern bankers.   Just a few radical extremists in Texas who knew they could get away with it, including Lee Oswald, who was more Timothy McVeigh than he was Antonio Gramsci. Not according to ex-CIA whistleblowers like Kevin Shipp and Robert David Steele. They go into great lengths about how they know it was a CIA job. True or not? I dunno but they offer convincing testimonies to the possibilities thereof.

Don't try matching wits with me regarding the Kennedy assassination.   I've been a student of it for thirty years and read every significant book on the subject (at least 150 titles), scoured documents, testimony, recordings, photos, witness accounts.   The truth is that no one knows exactly what happened.   The CIA was involved in the coverup afterward (and possibly before), but not the crime itself.   To think a spy agency who works for the President and and may not conduct any operations within the country killed him is, well, naive.    Besides, a president is only in office for eight years at most--  what would be the point of killing him?

If you look at the empirical evidence ~ documentation, testimony, photos, etc. ~ the most likely culprit were a small band of extremists in the South (including ex-military).   People like General Walker and his rightist cronies.   They were violent, vitriolic, and seething with racist, antisemitic & anticommunist fear.

Look into a man named Joseph A. Milteer and a book about him by an ex-FBI man named Don Adams called From an Office Building with a High-Powered Rifle.   Another excellent one is General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy.

'Til then, as far as the assassination of the 35th president goes, don't even go there.   I'll will tear you to pieces every time.   Just fair warning.

Ah, you're right. My apologies. You did NOT say it doesn't exist. I shouldn't respoond when i wake up. Excuse the typos and auto correct blunders. Typed much of that on phone. Never bother to correct for errors in that format. Nor have i presented my disparite findings in a cohesive manner. So i concur that it all sounds a little kooky, granted. My bad.

You don't seem to understand what a conspiracy is though.

<h2 style="-sizing: inherit; font-size: 1.8rem; line-height: 1.8rem; font-weight: normal; display: inline-block; margin: 0px 0.7rem 6px 0px; caret-color: rgb64, 64, 64; color: rgb64, 64, 64; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">con·spir·a·cy</h2><span style="caret-color: rgb64, 64, 64; color: rgb64, 64, 64; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><span ="snd"="" -snd="C0586500" style="-sizing: inherit; vertical-align: text-bottom; margin: 0px 3px 2px; display: inline-block; caret-color: rgb64, 64, 64; color: rgb64, 64, 64; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span title="" class="i snd-icon-plain" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-image: url(https://img.tfd.com/sprite.png); display: inline-block; margin: 0px; vertical-align: text-bottom; font-size: 0px; letter-spacing: -1px; text-indent: -9999px; overflow: hidden; color: white; cursor: pointer; width: 12px; height: 18px; background-position: -314px -319px; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;"></span></span><span style="caret-color: rgb64, 64, 64; color: rgb64, 64, 64; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><span ="pron"="" style="-sizing: inherit; cursor: pointer; caret-color: rgb64, 64, 64; color: rgb64, 64, 64; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(kən-spîr′ə-sē)</span><div ="pseg"="" style="-sizing: inherit; min-width: 200px; overflow-x: auto; overflow-y: ; caret-color: rgb64, 64, 64; color: rgb64, 64, 64; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i style="-sizing: inherit;">n. <i style="-sizing: inherit;"><span ="hvr"="" style="-sizing: inherit;">pl.</span> <b style="-sizing: inherit;"><span ="hvr"="" style="-sizing: inherit;">con·spir·a·cies</span><div ="ds-list"="" style="-sizing: inherit; min-width: 200px; margin-left: 1cm; overflow-x: auto; overflow-y: ;"><b style="-sizing: inherit;">1. An <span ="hvr"="" style="-sizing: inherit;">agreement</span> to <span ="hvr"="" style="-sizing: inherit;">perform</span> <span ="hvr"="" style="-sizing: inherit;">together</span> an <span ="hvr"="" style="-sizing: inherit;">illegal,</span> <span ="hvr"="" style="-sizing: inherit;">wrongful,</span> or <span ="hvr"="" style="-sizing: inherit;">subversive</span> <span ="hvr"="" style="-sizing: inherit;">act.</span>

It's a fun little word but learn how to use it. Interpretations of laws are not tantamount to a conspiracy.

As for Maritime Admiralty Law, you seem to know very little about it or how it's been applied to modern times. A dictionary definition is only a rough guide to its overall meaning. The real extent of its usage is quite broad and yes it does tie into ancient Babylonians, Egyptians and Romans via the Vatican. There is absolutely nothing controversial or untrue about those claims. How Martime Law has been applied through various court cases and the like is a matter of public records, not the product of a fertile mind that has nothing better to do than conjecture possibiliites for the sake of mental masturbation. 

<p style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">[URL=https://www.labovick.com/maritime-law/" rel="nofollow]<em style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;]<span style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-weight: 700;]Maritime law</span>[/URL] is the law of the sea.  It can apply to a whole host of different scenarios such as contracts for passage, salvage claims, injuries, etc.  For the purposes of this writing, I will limit my discussion of the applicability of maritime law to injury cases.

<p style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><span id="more-4439" style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"></span>

<p style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">When people ask me, “when does maritime law apply?” they are essentially asking a question of jurisdiction.  Jurisdiction is a fancy legal term that essentially means a courts power to decide a case or issue a decree.  Now throughout this piece, I will likely be interchanging maritime and admiralty.  While today the words are synonymous, originally admiralty was used in jurisdictional issues and maritime was used in issues with shipping and commerce.

<p style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">In order for a court to hear a maritime case, the initial complaint must allege that admiralty law presides over the case.  Now for a history lesson on how the courts of this country developed the ability to hear maritime cases.  Originally, the US Constitution only allowed admiralty cases to be heard by the Supreme Court.  However, the Judiciary Act of 1789 allowed the Congress to confer maritime jurisdiction to inferior US Federal Courts (like the Southern District of Florida where most cruise cases must be heard).  Another later piece of legislation allowed admiralty cases to be heard in state courts as well.

<p style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Admiralty law is old, REALLY old.  Admiralty laws and codes were some of the first governing rules to be written down.  The ancient Babylonians, Egyptians and Romans all had admiralty laws on their clay tablets.  As the US was founded by Great Britain, generally, we inherited the admiralty law at the time of the Revolution.  In England, admiralty law applied to anything that happened on the ocean and the tidal waters of its rivers (basically, if the river rose and sank with the tide, it was covered by admiralty).  However, once our young country and its Courts started to hear admiralty cases, we adapted new requirements to fit our country’s needs.

<p style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">In 1857 a seminal US Supreme Court case was decided that switched our definition of admiralty jurisdiction.  In <em style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Jackson et al. v. Steamboat Magnolia, the Court eliminated the “tidal” requirement for jurisdiction and created a necessity for the water in which the accident occurred to support international and interstate commerce.  What this did was allow for the large rivers and lakes of this country to now be under admiralty jurisdiction.  For example, under the old English view, only a small portion of the Mississippi River (not to mention all the large rivers that feed into it) would have been under admiralty jurisdiction.  Over the years, this too has changed into the new standard.  The modern standard of maritime jurisdiction for accidents that occur on events on the high seas, territorial seas and the inland waters of the US so long as they satisfy the requirement of being “navigable waters.”  Generally, inland water of the US is “navigable” if:

<ol style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px 20px; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><li style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px; padding: 5px 0px;">It is capable of supporting maritime commerce;<li style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px; padding: 5px 0px;">It runs through two states or empties into the sea; and<li style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px; padding: 5px 0px;">It is presently sustaining maritime commerce.<p style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">In other words, you are correct in how you are reading the dictionary definition but my argument is that it isn't necessarily interpreted in an identicle manner in practice which creates unforeseen precedence that takes new forms in various jurisdictions. The loosely defined "originating on navagable waters" pretty much offers a lot of wiggle room as to exactly constitutes jurisdiction. OK, i shouldn't have brought the Vatican part into it. You are correct that modern day institution is morally decrepit and reaching its ultimate downfall. My point was focused on where the laws ORIGINATED from therefore having virtually nothing to do with the modern day state of the church. Once again, i realize that my nebulous impulsive posts were not as thoughfully crafted as they should've been considering the range of subject matter presented within them. Once again, my bad. This all erupted in spurts during periods of distraction. As i stated prior, this was all explained to me in a much more cohesive manner by legal experts who have practiced law for decades and when presented properly gives a more tangible understanding. I also presented this as to find out if anyone else has heard of any of these because i'm quite curious who else has brushed up with these sorts of things.