The Farce Forum

[Myra Bronstein]

However, as with Adolph Hitler, the KKK, and all of the other such groups of history, the "need" to associate and belong has lead to far more "sheeples" than to independent thinkers.

This from a man in uniform.

This from someone who claims to be a man, yet apparantly has not served his country in the armed forces???

Exactly where was it that you "hid" at Charles?

You reap the benefits from those who have fought and/or fought and died, and yet make some feeble attempt to dishonor the uniform and those who wore it and for whatever reason chose to support their country.

Rest assured that if those who continue to wear the uniform believed that they were doing so merely so that those such as yourself could continue to enjoy the freedoms we earned, then they too would most probably throw in the towel and determine that you and your kind are hardly worth dieing for.

You are merely one of those "peripheral leeches" who want to enjoy the rewards without having to either earn the right or risk the dangers of what it takes to have a free society.

War is a racket Thomas, or hadn't you heard?

According to General Smedley Butler "There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

...

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents. . . . "

http://www.twf.org/News/Y2001/0911-Racket.html

So you're a muscle-man for big business Thomas. I don't think that's anything to be self righteous about.

More from General Butler:

"I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service."

[Charles Drago]

However, as with Adolph Hitler, the KKK, and all of the other such groups of history, the "need" to associate and belong has lead to far more "sheeples" than to independent thinkers.

This from a man in uniform.

This from someone who claims to be a man, yet apparantly has not served his country in the armed forces???

Exactly where was it that you "hid" at Charles?

I couldn't improve on this if I tried.

Peace,

Charles

[Tim Gratz]

Myra wrote:

I reject the argument that the trolls keep us sharp and help us refine our arguments. The outside world serves that purpose daily/yearly/constantly. We don't need forums that mirror the outside world. We need places that give us a sanctuary from the outside world. We need resources to make it easier, not harder, to discuss facts and ideas and learn from others.

In that statement, Myra epitomizes a problem here. Her phraseology of a "sanctuary" is quite apt. Some want this to be a Forum where any theory, regardless of how nonsensical, can be posted with impunity. Some, like the departed Mr. Gray, descend to personal attacks and invective on anyone who would dare to challenge a theory they put forth. But despite what Myra wrote, it is challenges and the give-and-take of honest debate that does help members and readers help to separate the wheat from the chaff.

As a very good example of this:

In a thread started a day or two ago, Douglas Caddy posted someone's claim that Fred Crisman was one of the tramps. Larry Hancock posted that through his research he had determined that Crisman was no where near Dallas on November 22, 1963.

I posted in that thread:

Great post by Larry Hancock.

So many members fail to realize that debunking myths is in fact an important contribution to the search for the truth.

By the way, I do not assume Mr. Caddy is a disinformation agent. I am sure he read somewhere that Crisman was one of the tramps. But this is a good demonstration of how false information spreads. Once it gets out there, unless a writer is a careful researcher like Larry, it gets repeated and the more often it is repeated the more believable it appears to be.

Why in another thread we have two people arguing that during ther presidency of William Clinton a deal was made to give Normam Mailer a break on his tax problems if he would embrace the position that LHO was a lone nut. This proposition is of course laughable.

It is ridiculous claims like that one about a Mailer "tax deal" that make the responsible media run as fast as possible from conspiracy theories. But some here do not seem to be able to understand that.

Edited November 12, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Thomas H. Purvis]

However, as with Adolph Hitler, the KKK, and all of the other such groups of history, the "need" to associate and belong has lead to far more "sheeples" than to independent thinkers.

This from a man in uniform.

This from someone who claims to be a man, yet apparantly has not served his country in the armed forces???

Exactly where was it that you "hid" at Charles?

You reap the benefits from those who have fought and/or fought and died, and yet make some feeble attempt to dishonor the uniform and those who wore it and for whatever reason chose to support their country.

Rest assured that if those who continue to wear the uniform believed that they were doing so merely so that those such as yourself could continue to enjoy the freedoms we earned, then they too would most probably throw in the towel and determine that you and your kind are hardly worth dieing for.

You are merely one of those "peripheral leeches" who want to enjoy the rewards without having to either earn the right or risk the dangers of what it takes to have a free society.

War is a racket Thomas, or hadn't you heard?

According to General Smedley Butler "There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

...

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents. . . . "

http://www.twf.org/News/Y2001/0911-Racket.html

So you're a muscle-man for big business Thomas. I don't think that's anything to be self righteous about.

More from General Butler:

"I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service."

"War is a racket Thomas, or hadn't you heard?"

Myra;

The odds are that in all probability, I have forgotten more about war then you will ever know.

For the record, were there to be a "vote" to abolish ALL WAR, then rest assured that the "warriors" would be the first in line to vote for it.

A warrior is far less likely to die if there are no wars.

However! So long as the human species has been known to exist, there have been conflicts, which ultimately ended in some form of "War".

And, based on the record, it is most unlikely that such conflicts are likely to cease within the next 1,000 or so years.

Thusly, as one of my good military officer friends from Columbia once stated; "I vote for the winner", and therefore absolutely insist that the US Government keep a "war machine" which has no equivelant.

Thereafter, I will know that my children will remain free as well as always voting for the winner.

And, so long as my children remain with the freedoms which I and others in this country have enjoyed, then it will be my hope that the US Government, if it errs, will always do so on the side of our freedom.

War is much like a freight train!

Far easier to stop it when it is first getting started, than it is once the train has reached 100 mph.

Few modern day warriors fight wars because the want to!

Most do so as a result of understanding that they have to if their families and friends are to remain free, and do not kid yourself that the warriors are like those of the 1920's, etc;,

The great majority of them see as well as recognize the absolute necessity of their actions.

[Tim Gratz]

Tom is of course absolutely correct in every point he makes.

[Charles Drago]

"War is a racket Thomas, or hadn't you heard?"

My bemused reactions in October Revolution red.

Myra;

The odds are that in all probability, I have forgotten more about war then you will ever know.

A textbook example of the "argument from false authority."

A warrior is far less likely to die if there are no wars.

You can't put a dollar sign on this kind of logic!

Thusly, as one of my good military officer friends from Columbia once stated; "I vote for the winner", and therefore absolutely insist that the US Government keep a "war machine" which has no equivelant.

Hmmm ... School of the Americas, was it?

Hmmm ... "vote" with a ballot or a bullet? How were "votes" for, oh, Pinochet cast?

Thereafter, I will know that my children will remain free as well as always voting for the winner.

Does it violate the rules of fashion to wear a brown shirt after six?

And, so long as my children remain with the freedoms which I and others in this country have enjoyed, then it will be my hope that the US Government, if it errs, will always do so on the side of our freedom. (emphasis added)

Few modern day warriors fight wars because the want to!

Most do so as a result of understanding that they have to if their families and friends are to remain free, and do not kid yourself that the warriors are like those of the 1920's, etc;

THE warrior of the 1920s -- Smedley Darlington Buter -- is precisely the sort of role model American hero that Purvis would send to Guantanamo. And not in an on-duty capacity, either.

The great majority of them see as well as recognize the absolute necessity of their actions.

The great majority of them recognize nothing more than a blind allegiance to the mesmerists of the moment. You know, the flag-waving, anthem-chanting "boys in the back room" who could "[give] Al Capone a few hints."

This just gets better and better, sadder and sadder.

Edited November 13, 2007 by Charles Drago

[Dawn Meredith]

Tom is of course absolutely correct in every point he makes.

Boy, this thread has gone just where AG predicted: Gratz highfiving Purv.

Dalton Trumbo- (Johnny Got His Gun)- was my favorite patriot.

Dawn

[Myra Bronstein]

Tom is of course absolutely correct in every point he makes.

Boy, this thread has gone just where AG predicted: Gratz highfiving Purv.

Dalton Trumbo- (Johnny Got His Gun)- was my favorite patriot.

Dawn

The Tim Tom Tag Team.

[Tim Gratz]

Beats the Myra-Dawn team any day.

Sorry--I don't want this thread to devolve into personalities.

Note Dawn does not mount a rational argument to Tom's points; all she does is mount a personal attack. And Myra jumps in to second it. These are the ladies who think someone in the Clinton administration agreed (criminally, of course) to fix Norman Mailer's taxes if he would only support the position that Oswald acted alone.

[Charles Drago]

Ladies and gentlemen ... presenting the two latest additions to the TGUA master list.

That's the Tim Gratz Unwarranted Assumptions master list.

If Mailer received illegal tax breaks in return for his perfidy -- and I too have reason to believe that he was bought in some form or fashion -- then it most assuredly does NOT stand to reason that only "someone in the Clinton administration [sic]" could have done the dirty deed.

Then there's Timmy's question on an unrelated thread about a "conversation" between George Michael Evica and Senator Christopher Dodd -- an unreported, unreferenced, undocumented event that is solely the product of Timmy's apparently stunted reading and reasoning abilities.

Charles

Edited November 13, 2007 by Charles Drago

[John Simkin]

The odds are that in all probability, I have forgotten more about war then you will ever know.

For the record, were there to be a "vote" to abolish ALL WAR, then rest assured that the "warriors" would be the first in line to vote for it.

A warrior is far less likely to die if there are no wars.

However! So long as the human species has been known to exist, there have been conflicts, which ultimately ended in some form of "War".

And, based on the record, it is most unlikely that such conflicts are likely to cease within the next 1,000 or so years.

Thusly, as one of my good military officer friends from Columbia once stated; "I vote for the winner", and therefore absolutely insist that the US Government keep a "war machine" which has no equivelant.

Thereafter, I will know that my children will remain free as well as always voting for the winner.

And, so long as my children remain with the freedoms which I and others in this country have enjoyed, then it will be my hope that the US Government, if it errs, will always do so on the side of our freedom.

I do have a certain respect for your opinions Tom. Unlike Tim you have actually taken part in wars and have not spent your time on the sidelines urging others to do their fighting. However, the idea that the Americans have always taken part in wars to ensure the freedom is completely daft. Since the American War of Independence, only the Second World War falls into this category. And even that one is debateable as few historians believe that Japan would ever have invaded your country. All wars since 1945 have only resulted in Americans losing their freedom – the freedom of life itself. People like Tim will argue that these wars have been fought for other people who did not want to live under the rule of communist dictators or Muslim fundamentalists. However, in reality these wars have been fought on behalf of those companies who wish to get access to the markets or the raw materials of the host country. What amazes me is that so many Americans have fallen for this trick. The population were much more sensible in the 1930s when they demanded an isolation foreign policy. Maybe, the people will learn the lesson from Iraq and return to this healthier foreign policy.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

The odds are that in all probability, I have forgotten more about war then you will ever know.

For the record, were there to be a "vote" to abolish ALL WAR, then rest assured that the "warriors" would be the first in line to vote for it.

A warrior is far less likely to die if there are no wars.

However! So long as the human species has been known to exist, there have been conflicts, which ultimately ended in some form of "War".

And, based on the record, it is most unlikely that such conflicts are likely to cease within the next 1,000 or so years.

Thusly, as one of my good military officer friends from Columbia once stated; "I vote for the winner", and therefore absolutely insist that the US Government keep a "war machine" which has no equivelant.

Thereafter, I will know that my children will remain free as well as always voting for the winner.

And, so long as my children remain with the freedoms which I and others in this country have enjoyed, then it will be my hope that the US Government, if it errs, will always do so on the side of our freedom.

I do have a certain respect for your opinions Tom. Unlike Tim you have actually taken part in wars and have not spent your time on the sidelines urging others to do their fighting. However, the idea that the Americans have always taken part in wars to ensure the freedom is completely daft. Since the American War of Independence, only the Second World War falls into this category. And even that one is debateable as few historians believe that Japan would ever have invaded your country. All wars since 1945 have only resulted in Americans losing their freedom – the freedom of life itself. People like Tim will argue that these wars have been fought for other people who did not want to live under the rule of communist dictators or Muslim fundamentalists. However, in reality these wars have been fought on behalf of those companies who wish to get access to the markets or the raw materials of the host country. What amazes me is that so many Americans have fallen for this trick. The population were much more sensible in the 1930s when they demanded an isolation foreign policy. Maybe, the people will learn the lesson from Iraq and return to this healthier foreign policy.

John;

As a student of warfare, one just may ultimately recognize that the "obvious reason" for any action is not always the true and factual reasons.

Throughout history, wars have been fought in many fashions, for many reasons.

Since the JFK years in which opposing countries (USSR primarily) developed the same nuclear capabilities as the US, the idea of actual WAR became an item in which it was recognized that no event such as WWII could be allowed to again transpire as the devestation to all would be far too great.

Thus, the "limited war" concept.

So! South Korea became a "Police Action", and Vietnam became a "Conflict".

However, for those who were actually being shot at and killed, one can rest assured that there was little difference.

As to "Isolationism",-----Been there, tried that, it did not work!

Once this planet became an International Community, then, just as throughout history, the conflicts for new areas as well as their natural resources, etc; began.

Anyone who is of the opinion that warfare does not open the door to betterment of those who survive, need look no farther than the two Korea's.

South Korea has prospered and it's people have and continue to achieve a high degree of prosperity and educational opportunity.

(at the loss of life to many South Koreans as well as Americans)

North Korea remains a complete dictatorship with virtually no individual freedoms and access to economic self-betterment.

Graft; corruption; etc; quite obviously exists within the Government and industries of South Korea.

It is unlikely that such activities flourish under the North Korean dictatorship.

So! Which system is ultimately better for the MAJORITY of the people.

Rest assured that the US; China; and the USSR; have the natural resources to sustain itself in an isolationist climate.

However, open conflict and warfare would break out throughout the great majority of the remainder of the world, and it would ultimately reach extremely close to home as countries such as Mexico and Canada do not have such capabilities.

And, even were Great Britian able to sustain itself, exactly how long before some warring nation went after whatever resources it had?

Last time that I checked, BP (British Petroleum) acquired the greatest amount of it's supplies from foreign countries.

The conceptual idea that anyone can now return to an isolationist program of government is pure myth.

Certain African countries are dependent upon diamonds and gold for their economic well being, and between the gold sold to the Arab Nations (as well as US & GB), and the diamonds sold throughout the world, their entire economy would fall flat if export ceased.

Which would lead to open warfare/civil war within the same country.

The largest amount of the Arab Nations economy is based on the sale of oil.

So! Exactly what would happen if their economic "cash flow" from those who consume this resource were to end?

It long ago became a "world economy", and to disrupt any aspect of this system creates chaos within multiple countries and the economic well being of it's populace.

There is no "turning back".

As another example!

One can rest assured that the US, with it's capabilities, can immediately curtail or end the drug trafficking trade out of Columbia.

However! A large portion of the Columbian economy is dependent upon those funds which come into the country as a result of this drug production.

Columbia has, for a considerable length of time, had a fragile Government, and any severe economic impact to that countriy's economy would result in return to the status of one attempted revolution after another.

And, some other country would thereafter only pick up the "slack" in drug production, as, so long as there is a market, there will be those who supply the market.

So! Why disrupt one country and create economic chaos, when in fact some other country will only pick up the slack and themselves become more economically dependent on the drug trade, which only increases the problem.

The largest concerns which I would have for the future being that if 300 million (+) americans can create as much global polution as they have, exactly what is going to happen when some 1.3 billion chinese all get two cars and require the amount of electrical energy which he US consumes.

What amazes me is that so many Americans have fallen for this trick.

Well! It never ceases to amaze me at exactly how many persons throughout the world have fallen for "THE SHOT THAT MISSED".

P.S. http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Narcissism-A...s/dp/0393307387

As it's people go, so goes a nation.

[Charles Drago]

Another opportunity to utilize October Revolution Red!

Anyone who is of the opinion that warfare does not open the door to betterment of those who survive, need look no farther than the two Korea's.

We need to look far beyond your myopia, sir. Say, to Pinochet's Chile. Although you do make good points as far as Cuba and Venezuela are concerned. Then again, there's East Timor.

So! Which system is ultimately better for the MAJORITY of the people.

I'll answer for you: The system that operates as a wholly owned subsidiary of your masters.

It long ago became a "world economy", and to disrupt any aspect of this system creates chaos within multiple countries and the economic well being of it's populace.

There is no "turning back".

As another example!

One can rest assured that the US, with it's capabilities, can immediately curtail or end the drug trafficking trade out of Columbia.

However! A large portion of the Columbian economy is dependent upon those funds which come into the country as a result of this drug production.

Columbia has, for a considerable length of time, had a fragile Government, and any severe economic impact to that countriy's economy would result in return to the status of one attempted revolution after another.

And, some other country would thereafter only pick up the "slack" in drug production, as, so long as there is a market, there will be those who supply the market.

So! Why disrupt one country and create economic chaos, when in fact some other country will only pick up the slack and themselves become more economically dependent on the drug trade, which only increases the problem.

Ladies and gentlemen, for invaluable future reference save the passage above to which I have added emphasis. It stands as the most revealing exemplar imaginable of the Purvis world view and moral code. Nothing more need be said.

What amazes me is that so many Americans have fallen for this trick.

This from a man in uniform.

As it's people go, so goes a nation.

No, I won't touch that one, either.

Edited November 13, 2007 by Charles Drago

[Mark Knight]

Tom wrote:

"...it will be my hope that the US Government, if it errs, will always do so on the side of our freedom."

Tom, it is MY fervent hope that the US may SOON RETURN to erring on the side of ensuring the freedoms of the individual. For just over 6 years, the exact OPPOSITE has been the actual position of the government. And a government with an obvious fear of a free citizenry is one that cannot long endure, if history is our guide.

I'm not sure that the "bell" that tolls for the loss of individual freedom in America can be "un-rung." To some, apparently there IS such a thing as "too much freedom," as they fight their cause daily in the Congress and the courts of this land to take the constitutional freedoms from the hands of the law-abiding citizens and crumple them in the hands of the power-hungry government, as if they were only so many meaningless words written on worthless paper.

The "guarantees" of the Fourth Amendment have become conditional, in the hands of the current administration...and if you think THAT'S OK...imagine how much MORE diminished they will become in the hands of a President Hillary, should God turn his back on us and allow that to occur.

[Courtney Redd]

First off, I don't appreciate being called a xxxxx, thank you very much. I am a student, here to learn and read about the assassination of President Kennedy. I don't appreciate your tone and your accusations. You don't know me and have no right to say things like this.

Pardon me for posting ANYTHING trying to smooth things over. I don't like it when people argue and accuse each other of things so I try to be nice to people first and foremost. You took what I said far too seriously.

I keep getting told "we are at war." Frankly, I disagree. But fine if you want to believe that way. I am not going to call you names or say you're paranoid. That's your prerogative.

To Mr. Healy: I have no agenda, other than to learn as much as I can and then decide for myself who is telling the truth here and who is lying. Analyzing is fun to me--that's all I meant by saying being here was fun.

I think some people around here need to get off their high horses.