Former GOP Candidate Takes Heat For Sandy Hook Post

page: 1
7

log in

join

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Martha Dean, former GOP candidate for Connecticut Attorney General, receives a backlash from fellow Republicans for posting a popular 'Truther' video about the 'Sandy Hook Hoax' to her Facebook page.


Republican legislative leaders have asked former GOP attorney general candidate Martha Dean to take down a link on her Facebook page to a conspiracy video that calls the massacre of schoolchildren in Newtown a “hoax.”


The mud slinging is heavy on this one...


“Oh my God. It is just vile. It is beyond me how someone would post this, particularly a standard-bearer for any political party. It is such a disgraceful video,” said House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero.


I applaud her efforts and I recommend standing up for what you believe in...no matter what.

News Source




posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Its well beyond a hoax now, it's not a conspiracy theory, it has elevated itself without any help to a full blown scandal and anyone that wants to attack people who speak out because they recognize it for what it is are doing this country a great injustice.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Who is she getting heat from?

The crazy conspriacists who believe mostly baseless claims before an official story has even been published?

edit on 25-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by WaterBottle
 



These huffpo lefties believe any attack (or questions) on the official "story" is an attack on the "children".... or I should say they may not "believe that" but that is their shout down strategy.
edit on 25-1-2013 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by WaterBottle


The crazy conspriacists who believe baseless claims before an official story has even been published?

edit on 25-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)


"official story", that sounds like newspeak for the truth according to us, with no basis in facts or reality.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 10:13 PM
link   
It's funny how the article goes on about how could she link to this video, how vile etc then the article proceeds to state what happened that day as a series of facts, while the investigation still remains open.

Wool + eyes =


As if there is evidence in the public light to support it all.
But there isn't.
Not a drop.

And this is what should bother everyone.

That is unless you're OK with taking the man in uniform at his word only.
Get in line and with the official story, or you are vile, evil, or whatever other horrible things, you heretic!



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by WaterBottle
Who is she getting heat from?

The crazy conspriacists who believe baseless mostly claims before an official story has even been published?

edit on 25-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)


Are you speaking English? If so, I can see where your ability to absorb actual facts and inconsistencies could be a little skewed. I have seen your other posts in other threads and I can assure you, I'm not impressed.

Your contention so I can be clear then, is that we should just all wait.......... Wait till they "publish" the official findings. That is what you suggest all of us nuts do?

Is that the same thing you advised after 9/11, when none of it made any sense, when there was more evidence of a cover up than an actual terrorist attack. Did you get on the boards and advise people to wait until "they" published the story?

I can see your spots leopard, I can see your spots.
edit on 25-1-2013 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 





Your contention so I can be clear then, is that we should just all wait.......... Wait till they "publish" the official findings. That is what you suggest all of us nuts do?


I don't care what you guys do. It doesn't matter. Everything will always be a cover up conspiracy hoax to you all. Research cognitive bias.


A cognitive bias is a pattern of deviation in judgment that occurs in particular situations, which may sometimes lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, illogical interpretation, or what is broadly called irrationality.[1][2][3] Implicit in the concept of a "pattern of deviation" is a standard of comparison with what is normatively expected; this may be the judgment of people outside those particular situations, or may be a set of independently verifiable facts. A continually evolving list of cognitive biases has been identified over the last six decades of research on human judgment and decision-making in cognitive science, social psychology, and behavioral economics.


en.wikipedia.org...


Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1] People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. For example, in reading about current political issues, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).



Confirmation biases are not limited to the collection of evidence. Even if two individuals have the same information, the way they interpret it can be biased.

A team at Stanford University ran an experiment with subjects who felt strongly about capital punishment, with half in favor and half against.[19][20] Each of these subjects read descriptions of two studies; a comparison of U.S. states with and without the death penalty, and a comparison of murder rates in a state before and after the introduction of the death penalty. After reading a quick description of each study, the subjects were asked whether their opinions had changed. They then read a much more detailed account of each study's procedure and had to rate how well-conducted and convincing that research was.[19] In fact, the studies were fictional. Half the subjects were told that one kind of study supported the deterrent effect and the other undermined it, while for other subjects the conclusions were swapped.[19][20]

The subjects, whether proponents or opponents, reported shifting their attitudes slightly in the direction of the first study they read. Once they read the more detailed descriptions of the two studies, they almost all returned to their original belief regardless of the evidence provided, pointing to details that supported their viewpoint and disregarding anything contrary. Subjects described studies supporting their pre-existing view as superior to those that contradicted it, in detailed and specific ways.[19][21] Writing about a study that seemed to undermine the deterrence effect, a death penalty proponent wrote, "The research didn't cover a long enough period of time", while an opponent's comment on the same study said, "No strong evidence to contradict the researchers has been presented".[19] The results illustrated that people set higher standards of evidence for hypotheses that go against their current expectations. This effect, known as "disconfirmation bias", has been supported by other experiments.[2

en.wikipedia.org...




I can see your spots leopard, I can see your spots.


Schizophrenic rantings



I have seen your other posts in other threads and I can assure you, I'm not impressed.


Oh. I don't know who you are....so why exactly should I care?

edit on 25-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by WaterBottle
 


This is the last couple of minutes I will spend addressing you and with that said, I don't personally believe you even deserve that. First of all, you retort my posts with generic Wikipedia articles that describe or attempt to define large numbers of people through discriminatory means. Am I wrong or did you attack the founding fathers in another thread for doing the same thing?

You are very quick to lay a few sentences down on popular issue that involve either the constitution, freedoms or what you perceive to be conspiracy theories and this if fine, we do have freedom of speech so that is your preoperative but the problem I have with you is that you offer exactly NOTHING on the conversation other than speculative bigotry on the other people who speak there mind when it does not fall in line with your political ideology or your own personal "neverland" that we all live in.

You posts, your replies to threads that are on point and your continued campaign to litter threads that carry weight with pointless conjecture, baseless innuendo and radical twisting of facts to promote your own very small brand of disruption is quite frankly insulting.

Please start presenting an original thought should you choose to argue a POINT any further and let me know what that point is, so that I may quickly and with much pleasure send you back to the shadows where you obviously belong. You see, broad sweeping statements that include.... " you people" "all of you" "all of this" or any other blanket statements is just a form of semantics to say, I don't have any idea what the hell I'm talking about but I feel this way so it must be right.

If I have to address this again, I will.
edit on 25-1-2013 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 





. Am I wrong or did you attack the founding fathers in another thread for doing the same thing?


Wrong. The founding fathers thread I cited historical facts, with sources, about the said individuals I was talking about.


The rest of your post is just you rambling about about why you don't like me, which I don't care so..... I'm sorry that I'm smart enough to be enveloped by cognitive bias. It's not very difficult, try it sometime.



edit on 26-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
7

log in

join