|
Post by ursamajor on Aug 5, 2013 17:29:18 GMT -5
This thread is moot considering that John's murder was politically motivated which is why you often see it referred to as an assasination. What's changed today ? Nothing, you have people like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden being hunted by the US, Julian Assange is holed up in an embassy in London , every door and window covered by English police waiting to snatch him when he has not been charged for anything.
John's fame and the audience he commanded was a threat back then and today technology is a threat in exposing the dirt on the US, so much for freedom of the press and freedom of speech.
"THINK" - John Lennon and Paul McCartney, The Ballad of John and Yoko, 1969
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 5, 2013 20:47:20 GMT -5
This thread is moot considering that John's murder was politically motivated Haven't you gotten off that political conspiracy kick yet? I noticed that you tried to push those buttons earlier on here, but nobody bothered to entertain such a silly notion (myself included). I know people are entitled to their opinions, but this one has always been ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 5, 2013 22:11:49 GMT -5
Wow, that NYC cop, Stephen Spiro, who arrested John's killer is selling letters he received from that killer in prison in a story from February 2013 that I just found while researching the horrific event[warning the killer is pictured and named in this article}: www.nydailynews.com/news/national/letter-lennon-killer-mark-david-chapman-sale-article-1.1267243Wow, that retired cop is a scumbag! And he makes the bogus claim he will donate some proceeds to charity! Yeah like .000001% Spiro sucks, that is blood money This raises another issue: should the media then not mention the name of John's killer? Do you guys who object to the use of the killer's name read any articles or books on him and his evil deed? Do you watch documentaries on it? That seems to be giving the killer publicity too. It is a complicated and emotional issue. Some of you posters must have been really pissed at Larry King for interviewing John's killer. Shit talk about publicity. Maybe the surviving Beatles and widows should have told that moron Larry King to go to hell and not let him interview them for LOVE five year ago.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Aug 5, 2013 22:22:29 GMT -5
This thread is moot considering that John's murder was politically motivated which is why you often see it referred to as an assasination. What's changed today ? Nothing, you have people like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden being hunted by the US, Julian Assange is holed up in an embassy in London , every door and window covered by English police waiting to snatch him when he has not been charged for anything. John's fame and the audience he commanded was a threat back then and today technology is a threat in exposing the dirt on the US, so much for freedom of the press and freedom of speech. "THINK" - John Lennon and Paul McCartney, The Ballad of John and Yoko, 1969 Regarding John; Dream on my friend. I have a bridge for sale in NYC. Interested?
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Aug 5, 2013 22:31:16 GMT -5
No, you said so first. When one generalizes, all who are part of the generalization are part it. One cannot say, "Blondes are dumb," and then tell a blonde, "Oh, but not you." Care to restate your statement about those who are against the death penalty? Nope.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Aug 5, 2013 22:58:27 GMT -5
This thread is moot considering that John's murder was politically motivated Haven't you gotten off that political conspiracy kick yet? I noticed that you tried to push those buttons earlier on here, but nobody bothered to entertain such a silly notion (myself included). I know people are entitled to their opinions, but this one has always been ridiculous. This is not my opinion, this is my belief just as "ridiculous" as Sean Lennon's apparently.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Aug 5, 2013 23:09:41 GMT -5
This thread is moot considering that John's murder was politically motivated which is why you often see it referred to as an assasination. What's changed today ? Nothing, you have people like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden being hunted by the US, Julian Assange is holed up in an embassy in London , every door and window covered by English police waiting to snatch him when he has not been charged for anything. John's fame and the audience he commanded was a threat back then and today technology is a threat in exposing the dirt on the US, so much for freedom of the press and freedom of speech. "THINK" - John Lennon and Paul McCartney, The Ballad of John and Yoko, 1969 Regarding John; Dream on my friend. I have a bridge for sale in NYC. Interested? Now now, no need to be facetious, you Americans can't afford a supersized Big Mac Meal let alone a bridge.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Aug 5, 2013 23:16:26 GMT -5
No, you said so first. When one generalizes, all who are part of the generalization are part it. One cannot say, "Blondes are dumb," and then tell a blonde, "Oh, but not you." Care to restate your statement about those who are against the death penalty? Nope. Okay. History was written by the winners. Having given you a chance to restate your generalization so that it does not imply that people who are against the death penalty are to blame (along with prosecutors who will not go for the death penalty) for murderers "enjoying a life sentence," I will do it for you: Unfortunately, one of the unintended consequences of a life sentence over a death sentence is that many murderers often get to enjoy such luxuries as state of the art exercise equipment, libraries of literary classics and popular readings, cable television, and so on . . . Even people against the death penalty could not argue with that statement.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 6, 2013 5:49:21 GMT -5
Haven't you gotten off that political conspiracy kick yet? I noticed that you tried to push those buttons earlier on here, but nobody bothered to entertain such a silly notion (myself included). I know people are entitled to their opinions, but this one has always been ridiculous. This is not my opinion, this is my belief just as "ridiculous" as Sean Lennon's apparently. Do you think just because Sean Lennon may also share such a stupid belief (if he even does), that would make some kind of difference to me? How does his POV make things any more "right"? He was just a five-year-old child at the time his dad was killed by some disturbed fan with an identity crisis. Some people get off on conspiracy theories.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 6, 2013 6:09:30 GMT -5
[warning the killer is pictured and named in this article}: No need for a "warning". Once again, it isn't a matter of my being offended; it's a matter of giving the creep what he wants. Of course it does. I wouldn't see anything wrong with the news media referring to him as "the man (or jerk) who killed John Lennon" when reporting updates. I figured it was only a matter of time before someone brought up the documentaries, TV interviews, books, etc, about him. My answer to that is, as a John Lennon Fan I have a natural interest in what happened that fateful night in December 1980, and it is, unfortunately, part of the Beatles' History. He shouldn't have been interviewed by Larry King, nor Barbara Walters, at all -- and should not have been on TV. But once he was, nothing I do or not was going to prevent the broadcasts from going out over the airwaves. So yes, I've watched both interviews. I have often talked about Jack Jones' book, LET ME TAKE YOU DOWN, which completely gets into the twisted mind of the killer, from many interviews, and details the path the killer went on. I do have a bit of an interest in the criminal mind, but in this case particularly because it involved one of The Beatles. Of course people are going to say this is hypocritical of me ("oh so you don't mention his name here but you watch documentaries, interviews, and read books!!"), but it is not hypocritical, in my view. It's not me putting his name forward and in lights (so to speak). He receives no money from the documentaries, interviews, nor the book. As terrible as his act was, it is sadly a reality and part of the Beatles' overall story. As a lifelong Lennon fan I simply have a curiosity in trying to sort out how his killer deteriorated to the point of feeling he needed to take John from us, but I don't have to give him more personal respect.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Aug 6, 2013 7:48:28 GMT -5
This is not my opinion, this is my belief just as "ridiculous" as Sean Lennon's apparently. Do you think just because Sean Lennon may also share such a stupid belief (if he even does), that would make some kind of difference to me? How does his POV make things any more "right"? He was just a five-year-old child at the time his dad was killed by some disturbed fan with an identity crisis. Some people get off on conspiracy theories. It's not a stupid belief it's a very serious allegation and here it is from Sean himself, August 2000. technoccult.net/archives/2000/08/31/imagine-this-john-lennon-assassination-theories/I have no interest in changing your mind or care if you think this is ridiculous, you're the one going on and on for 3 pages and arguing with everyone so that is an issue for you. But just in case you missed it listen to your own politicians calling for the death penalty on Julian Assange for doing nothing more than reporting news that people should know about. Nothing different to what John was doing, calling out the politicians, different times , different methods , different status. These people that are after him are the real criminals so it's not out of the realms of possibility for anyone like myself and Sean Lennon and many others who look at the facts or should I say the lack of facts and many red flags in the assasination of John to realise that there is alot more to it.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Aug 6, 2013 8:36:53 GMT -5
Do you think just because Sean Lennon may also share such a stupid belief (if he even does), that would make some kind of difference to me? How does his POV make things any more "right"? He was just a five-year-old child at the time his dad was killed by some disturbed fan with an identity crisis. Some people get off on conspiracy theories. It's not a stupid belief it's a very serious allegation and here it is from Sean himself, August 2000. technoccult.net/archives/2000/08/31/imagine-this-john-lennon-assassination-theories/I have no interest in changing your mind or care if you think this is ridiculous, you're the one going on and on for 3 pages and arguing with everyone so that is an issue for you. But just in case you missed it listen to your own politicians calling for the death penalty on Julian Assange for doing nothing more than reporting news that people should know about. Nothing different to what John was doing, calling out the politicians, different times , different methods , different status. These people that are after him are the real criminals so it's not out of the realms of possibility for anyone like myself and Sean Lennon and many others who look at the facts or should I say the lack of facts and many red flags in the assasination of John to realise that there is alot more to it. It is a plain fact that the Reptilians saw a massive world peace rally and spiritual reawakening at Live Aid in 1985 led by John Lennon and the Beatles, and sent Eisenhower's granddaughter through a controlled worm hole to 1978 to brainwash a loser in Hawaii. The Illuminati, led by known reptilian Dick Cheney (but unbeknownst to even Dutch)provided the means for Mr. Caldfield to get to the mainland States. But even these gropus have their own inter-political bickering. Time traveler Obama refused to get involved as he liked Lennon's vibe, so they punished him by making him President.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Aug 6, 2013 9:17:45 GMT -5
It's not a stupid belief it's a very serious allegation and here it is from Sean himself, August 2000. technoccult.net/archives/2000/08/31/imagine-this-john-lennon-assassination-theories/I have no interest in changing your mind or care if you think this is ridiculous, you're the one going on and on for 3 pages and arguing with everyone so that is an issue for you. But just in case you missed it listen to your own politicians calling for the death penalty on Julian Assange for doing nothing more than reporting news that people should know about. Nothing different to what John was doing, calling out the politicians, different times , different methods , different status. These people that are after him are the real criminals so it's not out of the realms of possibility for anyone like myself and Sean Lennon and many others who look at the facts or should I say the lack of facts and many red flags in the assasination of John to realise that there is alot more to it. It is a plain fact that the Reptilians saw a massive world peace rally and spiritual reawakening at Live Aid in 1985 led by John Lennon and the Beatles, and sent Eisenhower's granddaughter through a controlled worm hole to 1978 to brainwash a loser in Hawaii. The Illuminati, led by known reptilian Dick Cheney (but unbeknownst to even Dutch)provided the means for Mr. Caldfield to get to the mainland States. But even these groups have their own inter-political bickering. Time traveler Obama refused to get involved as he liked Lennon's vibe, so they punished him by making him President. I forgot to mention, I got all my info from Wikipedia!!!
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 6, 2013 10:11:29 GMT -5
I watched a special on CNN about John Hinckley, Jr., the man who shot President Reagan and others, and he was devastated at the murder of John Lennon. It sounded like he would have killed John's murderer if he could have.
The show did not state or even imply that Hinckley got his idea to shoot the POTUS from John's murder which I always believed to be the case. Rather he was devastated by it like the rest of us and even locked himself up in his room and made music all day(really crappy music as the CNN show played bits of it). Had Hinckley studied John's murder better he would have realized that rather than win Jodie Foster to his side(ignoring for a moment that she is gay), he would have gone straight to prison or a mental health facility as he actually did and not "gotten the girl!"
Dumbass.
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Aug 6, 2013 11:43:57 GMT -5
Had Hinckley studied John's murder better he would have realized that rather than win Jodie Foster to his side(ignoring for a moment that she is gay), he would have gone straight to prison or a mental health facility as he actually did and not "gotten the girl!" As it turned out, he wouldn't have gotten the girl regardless; she pitches for the other team, so to speak... JcS
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Aug 6, 2013 12:46:59 GMT -5
Joeyself. Check the Anthology book. I think thats where Ringo talks about his friendship with Tate and Polanski. Ringo appeared in the movies Head and Candy around that time. Was good friends with the actor Peter Sellers. Hell, John Lennon was famously hanging with the actor Peter Fonda when he went on his second acid trip. My point is, the Beatleswere well connected with the Hollywood in crowd during the late 60s. Ringo was not in Head. Maybe you are thinking of 200 Motels. also Ringo appeared on Laugh-In-I think around 1969. Correct, mikev. Zappa also was in "Head," too.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Aug 6, 2013 15:23:10 GMT -5
Ringo was not in Head. Maybe you are thinking of 200 Motels. also Ringo appeared on Laugh-In-I think around 1969. Correct, mikev. Zappa also was in "Head," too. Stand corrected. If I remember right Ringo played a Zappa imitator in 200 Motels and Zappa played a Ringo imitator in Head. Or maybe it was the other way around. I was smoking too much marijuana back when I was watching those movies which is why its all confused in my head. But my original point still stands. Ringo acted in the movie Candy which came out in 1968 and was part of the Hollywood circle that included Tate and Polanski and the other Hollywood hipsters.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Aug 6, 2013 16:28:11 GMT -5
Correct, mikev. Zappa also was in "Head," too. Stand corrected. If I remember right Ringo played a Zappa imitator in 200 Motels and Zappa played a Ringo imitator in Head. Or maybe it was the other way around. I was smoking too much marijuana back when I was watching those movies which is why its all confused in my head. But my original point still stands. Ringo acted in the movie Candy which came out in 1968 and was part of the Hollywood circle that included Tate and Polanski and the other Hollywood hipsters. Yes ace a lotta gonja...Zappa played Nesmith and Nesmith played Zappa in an episode of the Monkees. The "hipsters" today are not quite the same...
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Aug 6, 2013 16:54:41 GMT -5
Okay. History was written by the winners. Having given you a chance to restate your generalization so that it does not imply that people who are against the death penalty are to blame (along with prosecutors who will not go for the death penalty) for murderers "enjoying a life sentence," I will do it for you: Unfortunately, one of the unintended consequences of a life sentence over a death sentence is that many murderers often get to enjoy such luxuries as state of the art exercise equipment, libraries of literary classics and popular readings, cable television, and so on . . . Even people against the death penalty could not argue with that statement. Not really interested in pursuing further a discussion about death penalty issues on a Beatles Message Board. Only interested in encouraging Beatle fans to not use John's murderer's name in writing,especially in association with John's name given the reason the murder was committed in the first place. That is the point of this thread (I think). I made my point, stand by it, and hope I can convince some fans to agree with me. Nothing more, nothing less. Sorry. but I have decided to try and limit my views and opinions on this board as much as possible to Beatle issues.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Aug 6, 2013 18:27:08 GMT -5
I dont know why they didnt just fry That Guy 33 years ago. Then we wouldnt even have to be talking about this stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Aug 7, 2013 7:20:33 GMT -5
Yes, the solution to our problems is to 'fry' everyone who does something we don't like.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Aug 7, 2013 10:19:03 GMT -5
It would certainly solve some of MY problems!
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Aug 7, 2013 11:39:11 GMT -5
How dare you. This is now getting so childish that it's reminding me of The Knights of Ni. There is nothing childish about my statement. I stand by it 100%. And I am dead serious about this issue. No jokes, puns, or flippancy implied anywhere. In a perfect world, that scum's name would never again appear anywhere in association with John Lennon's name. Especially while he is still alive. No. This, as in thread, is getting that way. I just don't agree with living my life by the standards you set.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Aug 7, 2013 14:07:04 GMT -5
Yes, the solution to our problems is to 'fry' everyone who does something we don't like. What do they call that when someone projects a completely false and ludicrous interpretation onto somebody else's statement and then uses that to win points in a debate? Setting up straw men? It's interesting to watch Panther's leap in logic as he takes my statement (albeit a crudely worded statement, and yet given the crudeness of the crime under discussion I felt the wording was somehow appropriate) where I advocate that a cold-blooded murderer be executed for his crime. And Panther interprets that as me advocating solving all my problems by killing "everyone who does something we don't like." Strange.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Aug 7, 2013 14:11:33 GMT -5
It would certainly solve some of MY problems! Ha ha. So you got your list, too, huh Vectis?
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Aug 7, 2013 14:13:14 GMT -5
The other bit of nonsense I always hear from the anti-death penalty crowd is: "We shouldn't show that killing is wrong by killing people." Which makes about as much sense as saying: "We shouldn't show that kidnapping is wrong by kidnapping people." If in fact a person is found guilty of the crime of kidnapping, I feel that person should be kidnapped against their will (i.e. arrested) and confined to a cell whether they like it or not.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 7, 2013 17:35:18 GMT -5
Yes, the solution to our problems is to 'fry' everyone who does something we don't like. What do they call that when someone projects a completely false and ludicrous interpretation onto somebody else's statement and then uses that to win points in a debate? Setting up straw men? It's interesting to watch Panther's leap in logic as he takes my statement (albeit a crudely worded statement, and yet given the crudeness of the crime under discussion I felt the wording was somehow appropriate) where I advocate that a cold-blooded murderer be executed for his crime. And Panther interprets that as me advocating solving all my problems by killing "everyone who does something we don't like." Strange. Right on the money there, Ace... Where in the world did Panther get that extreme interpretation? "let's fry everyone who does anything we don't like"... oh, brother...
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Aug 7, 2013 21:14:06 GMT -5
If you're going to talk about state-sanctioned execution of people in such casual terms as "frying" them, don't expect to be taken seriously. And do expect your intention to be misinterpreted.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Aug 7, 2013 21:24:16 GMT -5
Fry em, baby. I suppose I should articulate my position with more decorum. Henceforth I'll refer to the incident in question as John Lennon "passed away." As opposed to John Lennon's "motherfucking brains were splattered all over the sidewalk."
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Aug 7, 2013 21:27:08 GMT -5
In all seriousness, I think murderers should be put to sleep as humanely and painlessly as possible. That's just my opinion.
|
|