Nothing annoys me so much as an intellectual.

Makes you a better Admiral.

Mmmm now I have to disagree. The law definitely prescribes punishments for offenses in the form of sentencing guidelines, which is what Wilkie was getting at.

The Corpus of Contemporary American has hits for "prescribed by the law". Here is one such example from the Washington Law Review

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/5/137

Additional examples here in Marbury v Madison, one of the most important cases of American jurisprudence.

lol





lol


lol

Amazing. Please explain how my use of the word "premeditated" was incorrect.

Here is something to get you started:

premeditated
adjective
pre·​med·​i·​tat·​ed (ˌ)prē-ˈme-də-ˌtā-təd
: characterized by fully conscious willful intent and a measure of forethought and planning

Here's some fiction writing from Harper's.

I'm gonna have to defer to Rococo on the prescribe vs. proscribe situation. I'll defer to whatever he says.

The way I understand it:

PRESCRIBED. Is when the law states that something can or must be done. For example, a judge having the right to sign a search warrant is prescribed by law.

PROSCRIBED. Is when the law specifically forbids something. Theft is proscribed by law

Not buying this. Source?

I did? You literally just quoted the relevant bit.

It goes into John Doe #2 a bit but it mostly focuses on the woman. It’s not meant to be the final word on all aspects of the case.

Pretty much this. We can say hoax is much more likely than a few days ago but what we know doesn’t rule out paranoid delusions and the family can definitely be acting in good faith. Agree with Trolly that I’m not seeing the motive for a hoax here.

Seems like a weird definition of a hoax you're using.

Based on her googling she planned it, then she left her car running on the side of the car after calling 911 and claiming she saw a kid. How is that not a hoax?

It depends on intent. We don't know if she planned on deceiving people or has been decending into paranoia. I don't take the google results as proof of planning. That could be paranoid fear of being a victim.

Bubble,

By now it must be obvious that conspiracy addicts can literally solve anything with google searches without any ramifications from the powers that be. Makes one wonder of course if they are hired by those overlords...


Are you actually suggesting there is 0% chance of a psyop here?

When others come up with conspiracies about this will you be willing to say those conspiracies are complete nonsense, or will you take an agnostic position on them? Don't worry, I do not expect you to answer these specifically, which is kind of the point of asking them.

All the best.

Are you serious?

You think she happened to be googling about amber alerts and if one has to pay to get one in the days before disappearing?

What has your internet detective work determined she ate that day? Perhaps some food from Paraguant?

By the way, did you ever solve that murder case you created a conspiracy about at the start of Covid that nobody else cared about at the time? Still strange you passed on likely the biggest conspiracy of this generation to focus on that!

All the best.

He isn't saying "this is what I think happened," he's saying it's a possibility that hasn't been ruled out yet. Maybe she was losing her grip on reality and getting obsessed with paranoid kidnapping fantasies. That's very weird but not much weirder than the whole family setting up an elaborate hoax just to get on the news. Which is of course also a possibility.

If she was not abducted, which seems very likely at this point, I don't think that we have to choose between mental disturbance and hoax. It is possible for a mentally disturbed person to plan a hoax.

I agree that there is no particular reason to assume that the family was complicit in a hoax.

If this was a hoax, the motive probably was the obvious one. For almost all of the 21st century, we have been emphasizing as a society that there is nothing more important than drawing attention to yourself. And if you can turn that attention into money, well, all the better.

I don't think the googling of amber alerts is proof of a hoax but it's definitely related to the disappearance and lends credence to the hoax theory. Perhaps she was concerned that should she go missing that it would cost her family something they couldn't afford. I admit that's not a very compelling explanation. She googled max age as well. Perhaps she was concerned no amber alert would be issued at all.

If it was a hoax, we're still missing motive. She doesn't seem to want to talk to anyone, so it's not fame. What's with the one-way ticket to Nashville and taking cash from the register if she planned on coming home and telling a fake story about kidnapping? That sounds like she planned on running away, but if it was a lucid plan, why do all the 911 stuff which makes it much more likely you'd be found?

If you put all the pieces together it doesn't seem like someone in their right mind, no matter truth.

She could have just put together an OnlyFans page if she just wanted attention.

Rococo, can we get a ruling on the pr(x)scribe issue please?

Democracy Now has been spun off from Pacifica but neither are currently receiving funding from the Ford Foundation from what I can tell. Not everyone who goes to Harvard is a CIA asset and assuming the Ford Foundation is still receiving some direction from the CIA, not everyone receiving funding from them is being controlled by the CIA either. Goodman taking pictures is indicative of nothing of course. Democracy Now discusses all sorts of things highly critical of the US agenda so I am struggling to see them as gatekeepers. Their "gatekeeping" seems to be not humoring conspiracy theories.

Let me ask you a question: do you believe that gatekeeping is a thing that even happens at all or do you think it's just corporate media that's controlled?