Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Glenn,

Ernie dumped a ton of recent, non-JFK related John Birch Society material on this thread.  I was responding to that.  

Yep, he did.

The one connecting link that Ernie made was that some in the John Birch Society now claim that the "Liberals" in the USA want to assassinate President Trump the way "they" assassinated JFK in 1963. 

Fascinating.

My main point was that the "Liberals" didn't assassinate JFK -- instead, in my CT, the Radical Right associated with the John Birch Society assassinated JFK.

A fair enough CT. As good as any other of the good ones. Respect to this...

So -- the question is -- does today's political position of the John Birch Society have any relevance to the JFK assassination of 1963?

Of course not, other than the strength given any JBS type fraternity by the mainstream media. Without media coverage, no fraternity like this has any power. Very honestly, I had no idea that the JBS had any more existence than Ralph Kramden's Racoon Lodge.

So, I tend to agree with Ernie to this degree -- I see is a relevant link between the question of, 'Who Killed JFK?'', and 'what are they doing today?

No question that this is one of the most relevant questions in this thing. In fact, I believe that it's the reason this thing is still alive and is still so strong.

I do agree with one of your points -- namely -- that not all of the Radical Right killed JFK, just as not all of the Radical Right support President Trump today.   There are nuances that can be emphasized.   I was painting in broad strokes, as that is often useful in getting conversation started.

I simply wished to separate the idea a- not all of Trump's supporters are Radical, 2nd Amendment, Confederate Flag waving, Rightists, b- not all of Trump's supporters are Trump supporters, c- there's no room for racial accusations in discussing the President's ideologies other than his fantastic propensity to say the most wrong thing possible on a successful Presidential Campaign, and d- there's very little room, IMHO, for extensive political preaching when we've all joined this forum specifically to find a common truth.

WE have the chance to work bipartisanly, and WE have the opportunity to exemplify that it can be done on a grander scale. If I started pronouncing MY political views, ya'll would think less of me than you already do. It would serve no purpose.

MY purpose is to get closer to the exposure of the Deep State by means of discovering the truths of who killed Jack and Bobby and Martin. And why it matters to people today.

Who killed JFK?   Was it the Communists?   Was it the Radical Right?   And what are the implications for American History and Civics?

Fully agree. Appreciate your honesty - and something else has come up about Gen Walker that is news to me, and so I'm open to this thing heading that direction. 

And toward Watergate and Nixon (of course). 

But not to Robert Muehler and all this crap today. It has NO relevance as far as we know at this point, unless someone can SHOW connection.

 

Appreciate your honesty

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Glenn Nall said:

Ernie dumped a ton of recent, non-JFK related John Birch Society material on this thread.  I was responding to that.  

Yep, he did.

No I didn't.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Glenn Nall said:

So -- the question is -- does today's political position of the John Birch Society have any relevance to the JFK assassination of 1963?

Of course not, other than the strength given any JBS type fraternity by the mainstream media. Without media coverage, no fraternity like this has any power. Very honestly, I had no idea that the JBS had any more existence than Ralph Kramden's Racoon Lodge.

What do you mean by "political position"?   The position of the Birch Society has been made very clear for over 5 decades.  They believe most of our political leaders (Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives) are part of, or agents of, a criminal conspiracy to destroy our country.   The JBS has declared that every President since JFK has been guilty of "treason".  That "political position" could explain why someone might feel "justified" in plotting to murder a President.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Glenn Nall said:

I do agree with one of your points -- namely -- that not all of the Radical Right killed JFK, just as not all of the Radical Right support President Trump today.   There are nuances that can be emphasized.   I was painting in broad strokes, as that is often useful in getting conversation started.

I simply wished to separate the idea a- not all of Trump's supporters are Radical, 2nd Amendment, Confederate Flag waving, Rightists, b- not all of Trump's supporters are Trump supporters, c- there's no room for racial accusations in discussing the President's ideologies other than his fantastic propensity to say the most wrong thing possible on a successful Presidential Campaign, and d- there's very little room, IMHO, for extensive political preaching when we've all joined this forum specifically to find a common truth.

WE have the chance to work bipartisanly, and WE have the opportunity to exemplify that it can be done on a grander scale. If I started pronouncing MY political views, ya'll would think less of me than you already do. It would serve no purpose.

MY purpose is to get closer to the exposure of the Deep State by means of discovering the truths of who killed Jack and Bobby and Martin. And why it matters to people today.

Since nobody in this thread has made the accusations listed -- I don't even understand why this became some issue.

1.  Some of the people who voted for Trump had previously voted for Obama twice -- so, obviously, it would be impossible to describe them as "radical, second Amendment, Confederate Flag waving..."  etc. etc.  but since NOBODY here made such a claim, it is entirely a STRAW MAN argument to pretend that someone did.

2.   Genuine bi-partisanship requires one major pre-requisite -- i.e. a belief by all parties involved that the people involved in the discussion and the decision-making are honorable, decent, principled individuals who may just have an honest disagreement about how best to resolve some issue or problem we confront as Americans.  However, Trump has NEVER proceeded from that premise.  Most politicians who are successful realize that politics is a process of addition and multiplication, i.e. finding allies, building coalitions (even if just temporary) to accomplish some desired result.  By contrast, Trump (and Birchers) believe in the precise opposite form of politics -- i.e. dividing Americans into "us" vs "them" categories -- which is why Trump routinely attacks and defames even members of his own party and Administration.

3.  I recently had a lengthy debate with someone who claimed that Trump's critics in the Republican Party were RINO's.  However, I pointed out that the persons most often mentioned as RINO's (such as Sen. Flake and Sen. McCain of AZ, Sen. Corker of TN, Sen. Graham of SC, Sen. Majority Leader McConnell of KY, Sen. Sasse of NE, House Speaker Paul Ryan of WI, and others) have voted 90% or more of the time the way which Trump wanted --- including on the recent tax reform legislation.   So, clearly, this RINO accusation is NOT based upon FACTS.

4.   The "Deep State" is a myth used by demagogues to normalize any crazy idea which they want to present or excuse any failure to accomplish a stated political objective.  This is a typical tactic used by Third World dictators---blame some scapegoat for their personal failings.  If some information disputes or falsifies what you prefer to believe, then, in our current political atmosphere, you just call that info "fake news".   This is VERY dangerous because, ultimately, it will corrode the public trust in ALL of our institutions and in the very concept of representative democracy and it will make authoritarianism appear more acceptable.  Career bureaucrats serve every President regardless of which political party wins an election.  There is no such thing as "Republican science" or "Democratic science" or a "Republican navy or air force" vs a "Democratic navy or air force" OR a "Republican  Centers for Disease Control" or a "Democratic Center For Disease Control".

 

Edited by Ernie Lazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Ernie Lazar said:

Unfortunately, there is no way to limit a discussion to a single topic when the basic terms of discussion are not agreed upon at the outset. 

For example:  YOU introduced the notion that describing the radical right in our country as being a devout supporter of Trump was inaccurate.  But you are mistaken. 

The easiest way to demonstrate your error (to your satisfaction) is simply for you to list what YOU consider to be the TEN or TWENTY most significant or most prominent radical right organizations and individuals in contemporary America.  THEN, we could compare your list to their public positions concerning Trump.  If we discover that 80% of the persons and organizations on your list, DO support Trump -- then why would it be "inaccurate" or erroneous to say so?

IF, HOWEVER, your REAL point is NOT actually about the sympathies or positions of the radical right -- but, instead, your REAL objection is that you don't want ANY discussion of Trump to appear in this thread -- then that is an entirely different matter.

Sorry. "...the Radical Right is a devout supporter of Pres Trump..." is a comprehensive, inclusive and irresponsible statement. Just like "...the Radical Left support selling fetus parts..." would be comprehensive (all inclusive) and irresponsible. It's of course not true and not a responsible statement to make, especially in a forum of people where such topics would most likely to be pretty damn sensitive.

That's ALL i was point out. That statement, on its face, is incorrect. 

And then when Paul got on the soapbox, I commented on partisanship at large within the forum. 

In my opinion, it doesn't belong, and it almost always turns into personal attack.

That's ALL I've said.

done with this ridiculous thread. ta ta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Ernie Lazar said:

Since nobody in this thread has made the accusations listed -- I don't even understand why this became some issue.

1.  Some of the people who voted for Trump had previously voted for Obama twice -- so, obviously, it would be impossible to describe them as "radical, second Amendment, Confederate Flag waving..."  etc. etc.  but since NOBODY here made such a claim, it is entirely a STRAW MAN argument to pretend that someone did.

2.   Genuine bi-partisanship requires one major pre-requisite -- i.e. a belief by all parties involved that the people involved in the discussion and the decision-making are honorable, decent, principled individuals who may just have an honest disagreement about how best to resolve some issue or problem we confront as Americans.  However, Trump has NEVER proceeded from that premise.  Most politicians who are successful realize that politics is a process of addition and multiplication, i.e. finding allies, building coalitions (even if just temporary) to accomplish some desired result.  By contrast, Trump (and Birchers) believe in the precise opposite form of politics -- i.e. dividing Americans into "us" vs "them" categories -- which is why Trump routinely attacks and defames even members of his own party and Administration.

3.  I recently had a lengthy debate with someone who claimed that Trump's critics in the Republican Party were RINO's.  However, I pointed out that the persons most often mentioned as RINO's (such as Sen. Flake and Sen. McCain of AZ, Sen. Corker of TN, Sen. Graham of SC, Sen. Majority Leader McConnell of KY, Sen. Sasse of NE, House Speaker Paul Ryan of WI, and others) have voted 90% or more of the time the way which Trump wanted --- including on the recent tax reform legislation.   So, clearly, this RINO accusation is NOT based upon FACTS.

4.   The "Deep State" is a myth used by demagogues to normalize any crazy idea which they want to present or excuse any failure to accomplish a stated political objective.  This is a typical tactic used by Third World dictators---blame some scapegoat for their personal failings.  If some information disputes or falsifies what you prefer to believe, then, in our current political atmosphere, you just call that info "fake news".   This is VERY dangerous because, ultimately, it will corrode the public trust in ALL of our institutions and in the very concept of representative democracy and it will make authoritarianism appear more acceptable.  Career bureaucrats serve every President regardless of which political party wins an election.  There is no such thing as "Republican science" or "Democratic science" or a "Republican navy or air force" vs a "Democratic navy or air force" OR a "Republican  Centers for Disease Control" or a "Democratic Center For Disease Control".

 

you're right. 

convert all my "bi-partisan"s to "non-partisan."

my mistake.

ta ta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Glenn Nall said:

Sorry. "...the Radical Right is a devout supporter of Pres Trump..." is a comprehensive, inclusive and irresponsible statement. Just like "...the Radical Left support selling fetus parts..." would be comprehensive (all inclusive) and irresponsible. It's of course not true and not a responsible statement to make, especially in a forum of people where such topics would most likely to be pretty damn sensitive.

That's ALL i was point out. That statement, on its face, is incorrect. 

And then when Paul got on the soapbox, I commented on partisanship at large within the forum. 

In my opinion, it doesn't belong, and it almost always turns into personal attack.

That's ALL I've said.

done with this ridiculous thread. ta ta.

There is nothing "irresponsible" about such a statement -- although one could argue that, like all generalizations, it can be mis-interpreted or mis-applied.

The point you are missing is very simple:

1.  IF you could produce EVIDENCE that "the radical left" generally supported selling fetus parts --- then that would NOT be inaccurate or irresponsible to say so.  It would simply be a correct statement but subject to limitations because "the radical left" is a large assortment of individuals and organizations and NOBODY can know what every single person in the radical left believes.

2.  HOWEVER:  we do have indisputable FACTUAL evidence concerning the prevailing position of the radical right with respect to Donald Trump's campaign and his subsequent election and his policy proposals and objectives.  You cannot dismiss or de-value or euphemize what the radical right generally believes by ignoring available evidence.  AGAIN:  The simplest way to recognize your error would be for you to specify what YOU consider to be the 10 or 20 most prominent radical right individuals and organizations in our country and then we could research what position each of those persons and organizations has taken re: Trump.  If MOST of them support Trump then there is nothing "comprehensive, inclusive, or irresponsible" about making a fact-based conclusion which ACCURATELY represents what MOST of those radical rightists believe.

Surely you understand how public opinion polling operates -- don't you?  The KEY (during elections) is selecting an appropriate scientific sample of likely voters in order to get a snapshot of what those persons believe and how they intend to vote.  IF you correctly select the appropriate sample -- then you will accurately report the likely election result.  BUT---if we use YOUR criteria, you would describe ALL polling results as "comprehensive, inclusive, or irresponsible" -- just because a generalization is made based upon available factual EVIDENCE.

Edited by Ernie Lazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Glenn Nall said:

you're right. 

convert all my "bi-partisan"s to "non-partisan."

my mistake.

ta ta

Not sure why BI-partisan or NON-partisan has any relevance in the context of what we are discussing.  I guess bi-partisan normally means Democrats and Republicans whereas NON-partisan would refer to everybody -- regardless of their political beliefs or what their voter registration category is?   Realistically, Congress works best when either type of cooperation (bi-partisan or non-partisan) is responsible for the agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ernie Lazar said:

Actually, Paul, if you re-read what I posted, I pointed out that the MAIN reason I posted that article from the JBS website was (1) because it reveals that there is a connection between Trump's dad and the Birch Society and (2) Birchers are currently supporting Trump and (3) Birchers have developed a conspiracy theory regarding what THEY regard as a possible motive for assassinating Trump -- and they connect their theory to JFK...

Ernie,

I agree with you there.  I had changed my wording shortly after I wrote it, actually.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×