|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
 Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 3:18 am Post subject: |
 |
|
This is an excellent program and I enjoyed it this weekend.
But save your time and breath starting any informative discussion on this, here. First, the "exceptionalists" will argue through their coke bottle lenses that it is "different' when their nations do it (take your pick which one.). Same old moralistic tale, same old arguement in Iraq -- "But we know the future, the truth -- we are even its guardian and all the death/destruction, is just a prelude to the great tomorrow (how well they've learnt from those commies!).
But the debate won't even get that far. They'll just first ignore (that is how it is....the rough necks just don't seek out alternative viewpoints) or if that isn't possible, slander and say, "Al Jazeera..ugh....". Of course without ever really watching it.
Please see twg's thread above for more illumination on this kind of "anti-intellectualism".
But glad to know you are seeking out diverse news sources and perspectives. The truth isn't in anyone's pocket.
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 3:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
ddeubel waxed prophetic:
| Quote: |
| The truth isn't in anyone's pocket. |
And we know yours are tattered and full of holes. Another one for SNL's "Ddeep Thoughts" segment. 
regicide:
Keep blowing on that one note kazoo. Toot toot! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 3:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Quote:
The truth isn't in anyone's pocket.
And we know yours are tattered and full of holes. Another one for SNL's "Ddeep Thoughts" segment.
regicide:
Keep blowing on that one note kazoo. Toot toot! |
And McGarette, thanks for proving my thesis (above). Keep being the lightweight you are and not arguing/debating the facts. Just simple phrases and slander...... (out of whose playbook?)
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 6:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
ddeubel waxed prophetic:
| Quote: |
| The truth isn't in anyone's pocket. |
And we know yours are tattered and full of holes. Another one for SNL's "Ddeep Thoughts" segment.
regicide:
Keep blowing on that one note kazoo. Toot toot! |
McGarrett: For a man who know doubt knows everything about the Kennedy Assassination by reading Gerald Posner's Case Closed, we must believe you are the authority on the matter and we should "move on" like you have.
Well , here is what one reader says about your Case Closed:
This book is not only tendentious garbage--it is dangerous as well.
All of Posner's deceptive shaping of the evidence depends entirely on the reader not knowing a damn thing about the case.
He is a good writer--a genius worthy of Sammy Glick and Joseph Goebbels. Read carefully, Posner's sources are revealed to be official ones--current or former members of governments, police forces, courts.
And all sources that he attacks are citizens--and there are thousands of non-governmental sources in this case who provide a mountain of evidence for conspiracy. Posner trashes every one he can get his tricky hands on.
So pro-conspiracy witnesses are not just mistaken, they are insane, drunkards, abusers, liars, publicity hounds ( unlike himself , of course) . grudge holders, folks with hidden agendas ( again, unlike all those intelligence agents he believes in so devoutly). Let the reader beware:
This is State Propaganda at its most clever and diabolical, and the purpose of the book is to convince the reader that only losers believe in conspiracies, those who have not succeeded in this greatest of all possible societies.
Sour Grapes , in other words.
"He is a good writer--a genius worthy of Sammy Glick and Joseph Goebbels."
NO, you keep marching on, McGarrett!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Regicide:
You've finally found a convert in ddeubel. And although this is an easy task in and of itself, you should be grateful. Get some joss sticks and medidate with that man. It will ddo you a worldd of good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
Regicide:
You've finally found a convert in ddeubel. And although this is an easy task in and of itself, you should be grateful. Get some joss sticks and medidate with that man. It will ddo you a worldd of good. |
I do not think ddeubel even noticed the very small reference to Kennedy in that segment and once again McGarrett, you missed the point of someone's post. Do you ever listen? His response had nothing to do with Kennedy. He was talking about alternative news sources. You would do real poorly on a comprehension test.
Many people have the ability to look at the big picture. You do not.
You think you are so funny when you insult people. That is all you know how to do.
That will be the thread that binds people against you;
not me "forming a group" of people that share my passion for the exposure of the Coup D' Etat on 22 November, 1963 that took the life John Kennedy, and placed the government in the hands of the conspirators up until this day.
And since only 30% of the people polled do not believe there was a conspiracy, it would be pretty hard to find these "converts". There is no one to convert. Most of the 30% ers believe everything McAdams , Posner and the government say, and refuse to listen to anything else but this propaganda anyway.
In other words , these few remaining morons are closed minded. Anyone who would read and believe a book called "Case Closed" when you are talking about the crime of the century that has created more doubt in the minds of people since the birth of Christ, would not be easily swayed.
I believe you also are not stupid enough to believe the whole story and have doubts, but are just being a *beep*.
I do not think ddeubel cares that much about the topic. You and your weird little mind made that up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| regicide wrote: |
| ...the Coup D' Etat on 22 November 1963 that took the life John Kennedy and placed the government in the hands of the conspirators up until this day. |
It is "coup d'etat," if you want to use the French, or just "coup" in English.
I want to nail this down a bit. Most who subscribe to your worldview claim "the military-industrial complex" made its move just after the Second World War -- namely, when it fabricated the Korean War-pretext as a device to scare the American people and sell NSC 68 to Congress. This enabled it to essentially stay in business as merchants-of-death indefinitely -- provided it kept fabricating credible "enemies," of course.
Your statement, however, claims this occurred as an invisible coup d'etat when unspecified "conspirators" assassinated JFK and then took the govt that they still hold today. (I imagine all elections since then have been sham-elections, correct?)
In any case, Regicide, can you be specific and identify these "conspirators?" Who exactly did what to whom? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| regicide wrote: |
| ...the Coup D' Etat on 22 November 1963 that took the life John Kennedy and placed the government in the hands of the conspirators up until this day. |
It is "coup d'etat," if you want to use the French, or just "coup" in English.
I want to nail this down a bit. Most who subscribe to your worldview claim "the military-industrial complex" made its move just after the Second World War -- namely, when it fabricated the Korean War-pretext as a device to scare the American people and sell NSC 68 to Congress. This enabled it to essentially stay in business as merchants-of-death indefinitely -- provided it kept fabricating credible "enemies," of course.
Your statement, however, claims this occurred as an invisible coup d'etat when unspecified "conspirators" assassinated JFK and then took the govt that they still hold today. (I imagine all elections since then have been sham-elections, correct?)
In any case, Regicide, can you be specific and identify these "conspirators?" Who exactly did what to whom? |
The Military‐Industrial Complex has a clearly defined history. It was first used by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell address in January 1961, when he warned that �In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military‐industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.�The term soon came into widespread use because it seemed to fit and explain some of the new military realities of the time: the persistent high military spending in peacetime, which was unprecedented in American history; the persistent and costly arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union; and the persistent and seemingly pointless U.S. military involvement in Vietnam. The 1960s�1970s saw a flood of writings about the military‐industrial complex, a flood that crested during the last years of the Vietnam War. By the mid‐1980s, however, the term had largely fallen out of public discussion.
A lot of people subscribe to the notion that JFK was killed by the Military Industrial Complex and more specifically, to ensure America's involvement in the Vietnam War. I do not. This , I believe is a palatable option that most people can accept as the reason for losing their president. Oh yea, big business again. That is the way it is and so on.
Can you be specific and identify these "conspirators?"
Yea, right. I have got the answer to the crime of the century!
The fact is that THE Kennedys had a lot of powerful enemies that had the means and motive to see him killed. Is there any shortage of suspects?
Who exactly did what to whom?
Somebody besides Oswald killed Kennedy and the Secret Service was in on it. This we can see with our own eyes and confirm by countless eyewitness testimony.
The fact that the Secret Service was in on it makes it a "coup" , since it was the sudden , violent, overthrow of an elected government, with Kennedy's bodyguards abandoning him and allowing him to be killed.
Remember, Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman , who was in the front seat of JFK's limo just sat there ( and turned around and looked at the dying president) while the shots rang out. The driver, Irish American
William Greer slowed the car down to a near halt rather than speed away in the souped up Lincoln. He could have easily accelerated up to 50MPH or more in the six seconds that he just stopped there.
EIGHT Secret Service Agents in the follow up car, the Halfback, were five feet away from the slow moving limousine and did not come to the aid of the president, in fact shift leader Emory Roberts CALLED BACK an agent who moved to help Kennedy before the fatal shot hit him!
Tell me that this is the behavior you would expect from an organization whose sole function is to protect the president, and who routinely goes to a place a month or more in advance to make preparations.
Tell me that just sitting there in the front seat is normal behavior. That slowing a car down and looking back at your charge until he is fatally shot is normal.
Tell me that the eight Agents in the follow up car would normally do nothing when shots are fired.
But do not believe me. Watch the Zapruder film yourself and check the primary sources for yourself. Then make your decision whether or not this was a "coup".
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9w6zveedj0o
Kellerman's actions (or lack thereof) have been contrasted unfavorably with that of Agent Rufus Youngblood, who was sitting in the front passenger seat of Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson's car further back in the motorcade. As soon as he heard the shot, Agent Youngblood immediately left his seat and threw himself atop the vice president. Witnesses said he managed this before the fatal third shot was fired that killed Kennedy.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Kellerman
Driver William Greer:
Following the assassination of her husband, Greer delivered an anguished and muddled apology to Jacqueline Kennedy, seeming to claim both that he hadn't heard the shots and that he hadn't reacted in time. Privately, Mrs. Kennedy was bitterly critical of the agents' performance, Greer's in particular, comparing his efforts to those of "Maud Shaw" (the Kennedy children's nanny)
The most common criticism leveled against Greer is that he failed to accelerate the vehicle to get the president out of danger after the first shots were fired. Indeed, in the midst of the shooting, he actually applied the vehicle's brakes (the limousine's brake lights come on in the various films of the assassination), slowing the car to almost a walking pace. In both his statement to the FBI on the night of the assassination and later to the Warren Commission, Greer made no mention of slowing the car. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Somebody besides Oswald" is not enough.
Your theory does little more than focus on "the official story's" problems -- limousine brakelights and other trivial microdetails or not. You offer no "who?" or "why?" Your use of "coup d'etat" is therefore entirely unfounded. Guess I already knew that. But I was hoping you would expand on this worldview. In fact you have no idea "who?" or "why?," do you?
At least the military-industrial complex people offer "who?" and "why?" in their conspiracy theories: "merchants-of-death." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
"Somebody besides Oswald" is not enough.
Your theory does little more than focus on "the official story's" problems -- limousine brakelights and other trivial microdetails or not. You offer no "who?" or "why?" Your use of "coup d'etat" is therefore entirely unfounded. Guess I already knew that. But I was hoping you would expand on this worldview. In fact you have no idea "who?" or "why?," do you?
At least the military-industrial complex people offer "who?" and "why?" in their conspiracy theories: "merchants-of-death." |
How could anyone know exactly who or why? Not knowing that does not change the NOT SO TRIVIAL Secret Service behavior.
What do you call the murder?
Political Assassination. Coup. Regicide. Errors on the Secret Service's part. (they were hungover, poorly trained) or just plain murder.
Fact is: Oswald didn't do it (alone at the very least) and the Secret Service was in on it. A cover story was created and the media participated.
=Inside Job
Sorry, no fancy theories for you.
Just the facts, man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Inside job" is still way too vague and imprecise. I can say with precision, for example, "the Chilean armed forces seized power via coup d'etat in 1973. They intended to rewire Chilean politics and society. Pinochet soon personally assumed control. He held onto it for approximately two decades before relinquishing it."
You cannot say something so clear on whatever it is you wish to allege re: JFK's assassination and your supposed American coup -- even with your ten-year headstart against my example. 
In any case, do you allege that some in the Secret Service conspired or that the Secret Service as an institution conspired? What "cover story?" Who created it and why? Who exactly propagated it? People like Peter Jennings? (The vid I watched a couple dozen times to help me sleep says so. But who else do you think?) How far did it reach?
Who exactly seized power in "the coup?" And why did they need to assassinate JFK? If they were capable of such an elaborate and well-kept secret coup d'etat, why did they let JFK win the presidency to begin with? Why not just arrange the election so Nixon or someone else could get in? Apparently they found LBJ acceptable. Why, by the way? And why not just make LBJ president in November 1960, stay low-profile, and avoid having to come out into the open and assassinate a sitting president?
Way too many "theys" and passive-voice constructions in your account. You have multiple holes of your own.
You know you will not likely convince me, by the way. Just interested in seeing what you see. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| It is "coup d'etat," if you want to use the French, or just "coup" in English. |
Actually, the French is coup d'Etat. The phrase without the uppercase E is English and doesn't need to be italicised. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Where you been GAG? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gang ah jee wrote: |
| Actually, the French is coup d'Etat... |
If you would like to be so anal. Very well, Gang ah jee. Be anal. But you should also be right. And your French is bad French -- although not attrocious like your Spanish.
"coup d'�tat" -- with the correct accent.
Spanish-language versions, by the way, include "golpe de Estado" or "golpe" and variants: "golpe blando" or "golpe seco" for a bloodless coup; and "golpe negro" for a bloody one. And let us not forget Fujimori's innovation, in ChimpumCallao's honor: "autogolpe."
Guess that takes care of the coups, unless you want to demonstrate your prowess in German, the other language that describes them? If not, let us return to helping Regicide nail down what might very well become an interesting conspiracy theory.
Regicide: if you have even hints or gut-feeling-answers to my above questions, share and let us see what we can develop.
Last edited by Gopher on Mon May 28, 2007 11:00 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
