Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls (Post 1800670)

So you think acknowledging motives are a bad thing when seeking truth/justice?

Originally Posted by elphenor (Post 1800677)

Lol 9/11 conspiracy guys are still a thing

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1800678)

Of course not, but they shouldn't override your faith in the truth when it's overwhelmingly supported by evidence.

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls (Post 1800571)

I asked you two questions you are yet to respond to.

Originally Posted by Goofle (Post 1800686)

I kinda skip some posts. I'll respond later.

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls (Post 1800575)

Since we have already established that part of the role of the US government is to provide welfare to it's people, it doesn't matter if you disagree that it should. It does and unless the constitution changes it will continue to be part of its role as our authority. So moving forward:

@Goofle
-If the funding is readily available do you still think the government should exclude the arts?
-Are there things currently not being funded that you think should have priority over the arts?

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls (Post 1800679)

Was kind of hoping you'd actually have something to contribute to the conversation.. :rolleyes:



You can call it evidence until you're blue in the face, but the only people who know the truth are the people involved. We have no way of absolutely knowing.. I want evidence of innocence for those with reasonable motive, until then I reserve the right to be skeptical, but I don't think they should be prosecuted or anything because I support innocent until proven guilty.

Edit: You seem to think that because it's our government and not some joe shmoe court case that skepticism is irrational.