• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cuban intelligence agencies recruit leftist professors

Not theory. Everything I posted is fact.

But had nothing to do with the point you were trying to prove.

Everything else: the grassy knole shooters, the mob did it, the CIA did it, Oswald never even fired his weapon, the magic bullet, etc. are theories.

As is yours. You have posted no evidence that proves your position. NONE whatsoever.

You need to stop learning history from Oliver Stone movies.

You need to stop believing what conspiracy theory stuff.
 
No, it isn't evidence. It's supposition and conjecture. Nothing more.

Uh, no...those are facts. Facts are evidence.

Supposition and conjecture would be the claim that there were multiple shooters. So far, there are no facts to support that theory.
 
But had nothing to do with the point you were trying to prove.



As is yours. You have posted no evidence that proves your position. NONE whatsoever.



You need to stop believing what conspiracy theory stuff.

You've already agreed that what I've posted is fact. What's your problem, dude?
 
I've already posted the evidence. If you choose to ignore the facts and choose to go with the crack-pot fantasies, like a bullet that made two 180 degree turns in it's trajectory, that's your problem...not mine.

No apdst. You have posted no evidence. You don't seem to know what evidence is. You have posted information, and then YOU tried to make a connection between that information, a connection that fails because there is no PROOF that any is actually connected in the way that you claim. Your theory is as credible as all the other crack-pot fantasies.
 
Not really. In my speculation the Vietnamese feared Kennedy would lead a much more aggressive and effective intervention in their war than would Johnson.

I think that Communists worldwide, believed that and that's what motivated Cuba--with Soviet support--to assassinate Kennedy. It's very believable that the Viets were in on it, however.
 
You've already agreed that what I've posted is fact. What's your problem, dude?

Do you know the difference between fact and evidence? Apparently not.

Here is a fact: I was in a restaurant when someone was killed.
Here is evidence: I had a gun that had been fired and was of the same caliber as the bullet that killed the person in the restaurant.

See the difference? You are posting facts. You are not posting evidence.
 
No apdst. You have posted no evidence. You don't seem to know what evidence is. You have posted information, and then YOU tried to make a connection between that information, a connection that fails because there is no PROOF that any is actually connected in the way that you claim. Your theory is as credible as all the other crack-pot fantasies.

Wow!...you are serious! :lamo
 
Do you know the difference between fact and evidence? Apparently not.

Here is a fact: I was in a restaurant when someone was killed.
Here is evidence: I had a gun that had been fired and was of the same caliber as the bullet that killed the person in the restaurant.

See the difference? You are posting facts. You are not posting evidence.

Here's a fact: Oswald was observed entering the Cuban embassy in Mexico City.

Another fact: Oswald was an admitted Marxist.

And another fact: Oswald started a group called, "Hands Off Cuba".

All the facts are the evidence I use to suggest that Oswald was working for the Cubans, when he assassinated Kennedy.
 
Uh, no...those are facts. Facts are evidence.

No, facts are not evidence. Facts CAN BE evidence, but they can also just be facts.

Supposition and conjecture would be the claim that there were multiple shooters. So far, there are no facts to support that theory.

No, supposition and conjecture would be taking a group of facts and trying to form a conclusion about a situation without actual proof that the conclusion occurred. You have no proof of the conclusion. Only a group of facts that might or might not be part of that conclusion. But yours is just a theory, as you have no actual proof.
 
Here's a fact: Oswald was observed entering the Cuban embassy in Mexico City.

Another fact: Oswald was an admitted Marxist.

And another fact: Oswald started a group called, "Hands Off Cuba".

All the facts are the evidence I use to suggest that Oswald was working for the Cubans, when he assassinated Kennedy.

Notice the word I placed in bold? Even YOU know it's not proof. You are suggesting. That's a theory, not proof. Congratulations. You now understand the difference.
 
And you STILL don't know what evidence is... nor do you know what proof is.

The best part of this, is that your superiority complex actually allows you to believe that you can redefine the English language. :lamo
 
Notice the word I placed in bold? Even YOU know it's not proof. You are suggesting. That's a theory, not proof. Congratulations. You now understand the difference.

I never said it was proof. I said it's evidence--factual evidence--that supports my argument.
 
The best part of this, is that your superiority complex actually allows you to believe that you can redefine the English language. :lamo

Actually, the best part of this is that your partisan hatred causes you to, once again, not admit you are wrong when it has been proven so.
 
I never said it was proof. I said it's evidence--factual evidence--that supports my argument.

No, you made a definitive statement:

The Cubans assassinated Kennedy.

No "argument". A statement of fact. You have been asked for PROOF of this definitive statement and you have provided NONE. You have provided a theory. Your comment above is not stated in a theoretical way. Now, you have two choices from what I see. Either admit that your original statement was either worded poorly or was really just a theory, or stick with the definitive statement and admit that you have either not provided or refused to provide PROOF of what you said, as has been requested.

Of course, you COULD just keep doing what you are doing and making yourself look foolish by not admitting you messed up or are wrong.
 
No, you made a definitive statement:



No "argument". A statement of fact. You have been asked for PROOF of this definitive statement and you have provided NONE. You have provided a theory. Your comment above is not stated in a theoretical way. Now, you have two choices from what I see. Either admit that your original statement was either worded poorly or was really just a theory, or stick with the definitive statement and admit that you have either not provided or refused to provide PROOF of what you said, as has been requested.

Of course, you COULD just keep doing what you are doing and making yourself look foolish by not admitting you messed up or are wrong.

And, I supported it with factual evidence. Goddamn! How hard is it for you? :lamo
 
And, I supported it with factual evidence. Goddamn! How hard is it for you? :lamo

How about addressing what I said? You screwed up. You made a declarative statement. NOW you're changing your tune and saying it was a theory... only doing so when you got caught and couldn't provide proof of what you said. Your facts mean nothing. They are not PROOF of your definitive statement. How about showing some honesty and actually addressing THAT?
 
No, you made a definitive statement:



No "argument". A statement of fact. You have been asked for PROOF of this definitive statement and you have provided NONE. You have provided a theory. Your comment above is not stated in a theoretical way. Now, you have two choices from what I see. Either admit that your original statement was either worded poorly or was really just a theory, or stick with the definitive statement and admit that you have either not provided or refused to provide PROOF of what you said, as has been requested.

Of course, you COULD just keep doing what you are doing and making yourself look foolish by not admitting you messed up or are wrong.

There is no evidence that the Cubans were responsible for the assassination. There is, however, evidence that they had advance knowledge and chose not to warn. Given Kennedy's support for assassinating Castro, this is perhaps understandable. We likely won't get the whole story until after the Castro regime falls and their archives are opened.

[h=3]JFK Assassination: Fidel Castro Knew Of Plot, New Book ...[/h]www.huffingtonpost.com/.../fidel-castro-jfk-assassin...The Huffington Post


Mar 19, 2012 - Brian Latell's book Castro's Secrets: The CIA and Cuba's Intel... ... Kennedy's assassin, warned Castro and Cuban intelligence officers that he ...
 
How about addressing what I said? You screwed up. You made a declarative statement. NOW you're changing your tune and saying it was a theory... only doing so when you got caught and couldn't provide proof of what you said. Your facts mean nothing. They are not PROOF of your definitive statement. How about showing some honesty and actually addressing THAT?

Hey man, have it your own ignorant way. :shrug:
 
There is no evidence that the Cubans were responsible for the assassination.

Thank you. See apdst? Another one who understands evidence and proof.

There is, however, evidence that they had advance knowledge and chose not to warn. Given Kennedy's support for assassinating Castro, this is perhaps understandable. We likely won't get the whole story until after the Castro regime falls and their archives are opened.

[h=3]JFK Assassination: Fidel Castro Knew Of Plot, New Book ...[/h]www.huffingtonpost.com/.../fidel-castro-jfk-assassin...The Huffington Post


Mar 19, 2012 - Brian Latell's book Castro's Secrets: The CIA and Cuba's Intel... ... Kennedy's assassin, warned Castro and Cuban intelligence officers that he ...

I could see that as a possibility, considering JFK's position towards Castro and Cuba at the time.
 
Hey man, have it your own ignorant way. :shrug:

Ah, so as usual, you'd prefer to be dishonest rather than admit you screwed up. That's fine with me.
 
Ah, so as usual, you'd prefer to be dishonest rather than admit you screwed up. That's fine with me.

As usual, you'll lie however you have to, to keep from looking idiotic. Too bad it didn't work.
 
As usual, you'll lie however you have to, to keep from looking idiotic. Too bad it didn't work.

No apdst, your dishonesty is on display for all to see... as it usually is. You started off my making a definitive statement. When asked to show PROOF, you could not, and then either lied by confusing terms... or showed your ignorance on this matter by not knowing what the terms meant. When you changed the goalposts, and finally admitted, probably accidentally that you were really "suggesting" or theorizing, you started dancing around, avoiding the fact that your entire premise was then destroyed. And now, instead of admitting that you screwed up, you are just cowardly throwing crap, looking worse and worse with every post. All you needed to do was say, "yes, I messed up. It was a theory, one of which I have no proof, just information that may lead to the supposition that my theory has merit". But no. Your dishonesty doesn't allow that. So, instead, you'll keep looking bad with every post you make, here.
 
You quoted him for me. The old, "but...but...we did it tooooo!", apologism.

He was referring to efforts to infiltrate and influence when he said "have we not been doing (or at least attempting to do) the same to Cuba for over half a century?" That is not the same as defending communism, it is a bit of relevant history.
 
I've already posted the evidence.

No, you posted conjecture. You need to understand the meaning of these words and stop trying to sound smart. Oswald showing up at the Cuban embassy in DF for well known reasons proves he worked with Cuba to kill Kennedy in the same way that Oswald showing up at the Cuban embassy in DF is proof he tried to kill Fidel Castro. Again, conjecture and assumption is not proof of anything. Stop the conspiracy theories apdst. You're only digging a deeper hole.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom