I think that if there was a credible threat of ISIS doing something to the white house they could make those changes without needing to stage something like this.

Pikachu boy was caught. The one just prior was not and simply waltzed in the unlocked front door. It was showing the public they aren't completely inept (secret: they are. It's all theater).

Honesty, i would think that if this was their goal, they would have probably orchestrated something a little more "threatening."

I find these two explanations below to be more plausible:

1. That the secret service was sending Obama a message. Or,

2. This was a legit event orchestrated by a dude who was either trying to get arrested in orfer to make a statement (nonverbal) or trying to get attention.

The message in #1 and the statement in #2 is up for discussion, imo...

What evidence do you have that the secret service allowed a carzy person to run into the white house in order to send the President a message?

The question was, "What do you think?" which invokes a speculative answer. A speculation is an idea or guess about that which is not known.

Thus, there is no need for evidence to support my answer.

But, to answer your question, i have none.

You have to ask your self, "is the secret service really that incompetent?". They aren't "average Joe's" obviously. If you've ever been to the white house gate you would know that it's not left unattended in any sense, last time I was in DC it was right after they killed that women at the gate and it certainly being patrolled.

Yes, they kill a woman who was no threat and didn't get near the White House.

Mr. Gonzalez had contact with law enforcement in July, when he was arrested in Virginia after leading troopers on a high-speed pursuit on Interstate 81. After being stopped, the police found his Ford Bronco filled with weapons, according to documents released by the Virginia State Police. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/us/white-house-intruder-was-arrested-in-july-with-trove-of-weapons.html

I'm sure the SS knew of this incident. Something doesn't add up.

"What do you think?" is not a question which intrinsically invokes a speculative answer. For example, if you asked me: "What do you think about the news in China?" and I responded "It's all the result of a secret cabal of alien lizards." You would be correct in telling me that I lack evidence for such a statement, despite the original question using the word "think."

Even if it were, a speculation is an argument made without firm evidence. That is to say, it is making a leap from some logic or evidence - just not extraordinarilly convincing evidence. For example, if you asked me to speculate on the Oakland A's chance to win the wild card tonight, and I said, "The world will explode at 6:30 PM, so it doesn't matter." This statement would be absolutely unfounded to the point where it no longer even counts as speculation.

I dare say that your statement about the secret service fits into that catagory of "not even speculation," and enters fantasy land.

I dare say that your statement about the secret service fits into that catagory of "not even speculation," and enters fantasy land.

From oxford:

Speculation:

1The forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence:

My statement was a conjecture that was made without firm evidence. Thus, it was (by definition) speculation.

Your hypothetical here:

"The world will explode at 6:30 PM, so it doesn't matter."

is also a conjecture. Thus, your comment:

This statement would be absolutely unfounded to the point where it no longer even counts as speculation.

is completely false.

Just because you might fervently disagree with an unfounded statement does not mean it is not speculation. Your opinion does not effect a change of definitions.

You ignored the first point.

I love it when shit like this devolves into well... this word means this, so I'm totally okay saying this. But, lets go down that rabbit hole.

You use oxford (which, if we were going to get into a semantic pissing contest, is good), and then ignore one of the operative words in that definition - firm.

Where is your evidence (which does not raise to the level of being "firm")? You see? you don't have any whatsoever. So... you don't have enough evidence to raise to the level of even speculation.

You are using two words interchangably which are not the same - speculation and conjecture. You are right about the definition of speculation. The definition of conjecture is "an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information."

See how these are different? See how what you said and what I said are examples of the latter?

Again... not really all that important whether or not this is speculation of conjecture. A question of thought is not limited to speculation. Furthermore, you already admitted there is no evidence whatsoever for the statement "the secret service wanted to send Obama a message"

I, honestly, just got engaged because I hate the "I'm just asking questions" defense.

Your first point (which i admittingly ignored) about the invocation of speculation being intrinsic to the question in the previous comment is true.

....firm....

You are missing the word "without" in your analysis. If there is no evidence to form a conjecture, then that conjecture is still formed "without firm evidence." You are self-imposing implications into a definition wherein those implications do not exist.

Where is your evidence (which does not raise to the level of being "firm")? You see? you don't have any whatsoever. So... you don't have enough evidence to raise to the level of even speculation.

The above comment is what im talking about here. You are installing parameters on a set definition to fit your argument.

I, honestly, just got engaged because I hate the "I'm just asking questions" defense.

I doubt this, as i have not asked a single question throughout our transaction. I was merely speculating and offering conjectures. But ill offer you the benefit of the doubt, as this seems to be a fairly strange argument to try to "win."

I'm self-imposing implications, eh? and I'm installing parameters on a set definition?

let's say you're right and move on.

What I mean by the "I'm just asking questions" defense is the propensity for conspiracy folks to make outlandish claims and then scoff off criticism with platitudes such as, "I'm just asking questions." Or, in your case, "I'm just speculating."

All of which should read: "I'm clearly just making stuff up."

and then scoff off criticism

My problem is not with your criticism, its your lack of comprehension of what i have said. You are trying to pin me with making an "outlandish" (btw, your opinion) claim, when all i did was say one specific explanation is more plausible imo than what the OP was positting.

That does not:

1. Necessitate belief that such a scenario is fact;

2. Imply that this one specific scenario is the only possible one that could explain the event in question

3. Do anything else besides weighing the plausibility of one explanation in relation to another.

All you have succeeded in thus far is cause disruption because you do not believe in another persons conjecture.

Which makes me wonder why such a seemingly intelligent individual, such as yourself, would care to contribute to a thread such as this. Surely, someone like you, who requires such a high level of peer reviewed supportive evidence in discourse, could be investing their time in something more -- worthwhile?

I promise; I comprehend what you said.

I'm not trying to pin anything on you. You said that the secret service might be trying to send a statement to the president of the united states by refusing to protect him appropriately. That is, in and of itself, outlandish.

It is so outside of the realm of possibility, that it requires some evidence whatsoever (note: I'm not demanding peer reviewed - BUT ANY WHATSOEVER). You are deflecting - as evidenced by that silly last paragraph.

Again, simply saying: "I'm just throwing this out there as speculation" does not absolve you from needing to offer proof.

No evidence either way. Webster Tarpley did conjecture this on his radio show a few days ago. This would explain why the SS did nothing and let him get into the White House. Tarpley said that the person was a useful idiot (mentally ill patsy) and that letting him in (not deploying snipers, etc.) could be tptb sending a message that Obama should stop stalling and escalate the war (with Syria/Russia).

I conjecture that Webster Tarpley is a shill who is paid by the Russian Government to spread rumors about Obama in order to get people to not like him. All this is done for the purpose of ensuring that the far right will continue to oppose him on everything - because if they continue to oppose him on everything, this will funnel even more hatred into the efforts to oppose him on gun control.

BECAUSE if America keeps its guns, people will be more likely to kill each other, the cops, and spread general discontent (SEE FERGUSON AND SANDY HOOK). If the US is weaker, Putin is stronger, and he can drive a wedge between the US, the EU, and the UN which will lead to Russian domination. WAKE UP PEOPLE, THE SIGNS ARE OUT THERE.

But, you know... that's just conjecture.

Interesting but Tarpley is not anti-Obama, at least not nearly as much as he was blatantly anti-Bush. If you listen to his latest radio show:

MSNBC reported Lamborn’s statement as follows: “A lot of us are talking to the generals behind the scenes, saying, ‘Hey, if you disagree with the policy that the White House has given you, let’s have a resignation.’” Lamborn told supporters that if generals resigned en masse in protest of President Barack Obama’s Middle East policy, they would “go out in a blaze of glory.”

This treasonous rhetoric goes far beyond the protections offered by the speech and debate clause. Department of Justice officials must take action to block further seditious actions by the McCainites, including their plausible cooperation with false flag attacks, including chemical and gas attacks now being planned by the anti-Assad terrorist rebels of Syria, as well as with similar machinations by the anti-Russian fascists of Ukraine. This is the same rogue network suspected in relation to the two intruders who appeared at the White House last weekend. http://tarpley.net/

He depicts the neocons as true psychopathic criminals hell bent on world war. He depicts Obama and the Dems as very compromised politicians but mostly not evil. He says that Obama has been stalling b/c he doesn't want world war but that this false flag could be a message that tptb want escalation. He's highly critical of Obama but I wouldn't call him anti-Obama. He considers him the lesser evil. I highly doubt Tarpley is a commie stooge and he's highly critical of Putin as well.

Touche', touche'. You've figured me out.

What do you think?

I think a false flag generally needs to have a grander purpose than keeping the public another 5' away from a government facility.

If they wanted to push people away from the White House they would say "there is a heightened threat level surrounding the White House so people need to stay further away." They wouldn't make the secret service and White House security detail look like a bunch of incompetent boobs to achieve something they could achieve with words alone. Who is really gonna argue that "No! I want to be closer to the White House!" if they say there is intel of a possible threat aimed directly at the White House?

What about the other almost 60 people who have rushed the white house in the last decade?

I think it's a mental health issue. Thirty-four breeches since 1912. Wikipedia says only one was an actual attempt to do harm.

Agreed they could just say there is heightened security.

I think the general consensus is that the white house is impenetrable. Maybe they are just showing that people can get in there if they want. Pre conditioning when the false flag there goes down, and everyone asks, How could anyone get in there and do that?

Eh, i guess your explanation is plausible. But i still think its a bit of a stretch..

I think its a stretch too. Just trying to rationalize why they would publicize how weak the security at the white house is. Seems like this would be something that they would want to keep quiet.

I think it is a stretch as well.

I also think that ive conditioned myself to look at why they report the stories that they report. Why would the white house want to expose and show security lapses? Why would they let everyone see how easy it would be to get in there? Seems like something they would want to keep quiet to me... just .02$ Though.

Managing the proximity of the public is not enough of an outcome to create a false flag operation..... the issue of funding over competence is what is at stake.

I agree it was a false flag, but it's been proven that IS, ISIS and ISIL were established by the Gov. See James Corbett's report: http://www.corbettreport.com/who-is-isis-an-open-source-investigation/

So I disagree about them being a threat.

Yes it is a false flag. But the purpose is to militarize secret service and the police leading one step closer to martial law

Secret service isn't up to the job its time to give them help from the military

This article states that in a time of war we need a military enforcement not law enforcement.

It's just an elaborate story used and propagated to further instill fear in the American public.

Look what they did at the White House! Imagine what they could do to your house!

What evidence do you have that the secret service allowed a carzy person to run into the white house in order to send the President a message?

Interesting but Tarpley is not anti-Obama, at least not nearly as much as he was blatantly anti-Bush. If you listen to his latest radio show:

MSNBC reported Lamborn’s statement as follows: “A lot of us are talking to the generals behind the scenes, saying, ‘Hey, if you disagree with the policy that the White House has given you, let’s have a resignation.’” Lamborn told supporters that if generals resigned en masse in protest of President Barack Obama’s Middle East policy, they would “go out in a blaze of glory.”

This treasonous rhetoric goes far beyond the protections offered by the speech and debate clause. Department of Justice officials must take action to block further seditious actions by the McCainites, including their plausible cooperation with false flag attacks, including chemical and gas attacks now being planned by the anti-Assad terrorist rebels of Syria, as well as with similar machinations by the anti-Russian fascists of Ukraine. This is the same rogue network suspected in relation to the two intruders who appeared at the White House last weekend. http://tarpley.net/

He depicts the neocons as true psychopathic criminals hell bent on world war. He depicts Obama and the Dems as very compromised politicians but mostly not evil. He says that Obama has been stalling b/c he doesn't want world war but that this false flag could be a message that tptb want escalation. He's highly critical of Obama but I wouldn't call him anti-Obama. He considers him the lesser evil. I highly doubt Tarpley is a commie stooge and he's highly critical of Putin as well.