Ernie Lazar Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 3 minutes ago, Glenn Nall said: You know, Ernie, there's a means of just linking to an article or two without creating a redundant, 6,000 mile long post which people have to scroll past in order to get to any related post. Just sayin'. Ya--but sometimes links don't work properly so I usually include both link and text -- as do many other people here on EF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 2 minutes ago, Glenn Nall said: 1) Incorrect. You are politically unaware. 2) and this is relevant to the JFK Assassination how...? 3) ya'll deviate to promote selfish agenda in spite of the Forum's mission to support discussion of the Assassination of John F Kennedy. And then wonder why you're not taken seriously. You are mistaken Glenn. A great portion of the radical right in our country DOES support Trump. I have been debating JBS members on numerous websites and they are THRILLED with Trump because (in the JBS scheme of things), he is doing what the JBS has wanted a President to do for decades. In addition, the JBS has posted articles on its website (and numerous member comments) which point out the ways in which Trump's actions correlate to JBS objectives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Ernie Lazar said: You are mistaken Glenn. A great portion of the radical right in our country DOES support Trump. I have been debating JBS members on numerous websites and they are THRILLED with Trump because (in the JBS scheme of things), he is doing what the JBS has wanted a President to do for decades. In addition, the JBS has posted articles on its website (and numerous member comments) which point out the ways in which Trump's actions correlate to JBS objectives. No, sir. His assertion is, "the Radical Right is a devout supporter of President Trump." this is comprehensive, and by that inaccurate. also, this presupposes a motive, a support of an entity, as opposed to other motives, i.e., that of choosing a lesser of two evils. I am not a Radical Right. I am a Conservative. And I support Trump ardently, for two reasons. The second reason is that he is not Hillary Clinton. I would have voted for Pee Wee Herman over Hillary Clinton. No question about it. So, NO, The Radical Right is NOT a devout supporter of President Trump. His approval numbers prove that. As for your comparisons to the current administration and the JBS, you simply prove our point. The Left ARE predictable, and need to pay attention to the logs in their own eyes before trying to remove the splinters from the Right's. And with that, I refrain from all other current political discourse. This is a forum on the assassination of JFK, and should any means be bi-partisan. why is that so hard to understand??? Edited January 3, 2018 by Glenn Nall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 2 minutes ago, Glenn Nall said: No, sir. His assertion is, "the Radical Right is a devout supporter of President Trump." this is comprehensive, and by that inaccurate. also, this presupposes a motive, a support of an entity, as opposed to other motives, i.e., that of choosing a lesser of two evils. I am not a Radical Right. I am a Conservative. And I support Trump ardently, for two reasons. The second reason is that he is not Hillary Clinton. I would have voted for Pee Wee Herman over Hillary Clinton. No question about it. So, NO, The Radical Right is NOT a devout supporter of President Trump. His approval numbers prove that. As for your comparisons to the current administration and the JBS, you simply prove our point. The Left ARE predictable, and need to pay attention to the logs in their own eyes before trying to remove the splinters from the Right's. And with that, I refrain from all other current political discourse. This is a forum on the assassination of JFK, and should be any means be bi-partisan. why is that so hard to understand??? OK -- maybe I don't understand whom you mean by "radical right". Can you give me some examples of the types of persons or organizations whom YOU consider to be part of the "radical right" in our country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Ernie Lazar said: OK -- maybe I don't understand whom you mean by "radical right". Can you give me some examples of the types of persons or organizations whom YOU consider to be part of the "radical right" in our country? "And with that, I refrain from all other current political discourse. This is a forum on the assassination of JFK, and should any means be bi-partisan. why is that so hard to understand???" Edited January 3, 2018 by Glenn Nall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Glenn Nall said: "And with that, I refrain from all other current political discourse. This is a forum on the assassination of JFK, and should any means be bi-partisan. why is that so hard to understand???" Sorry -- I was just trying to understand something you wrote which did not make any sense to me---particularly since this ENTIRE thread is based upon the premise that a "radical right" conspiracy was responsible for JFK's murder. However, your rudeness indicates that you are not worth talking to. Edited January 3, 2018 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Ernie Lazar said: Sorry -- I was just trying to understand something you wrote which did not make any sense to me---particularly since this ENTIRE thread is based upon the premise that a "radical right" conspiracy was responsible for JFK's murder. However, your rudeness indicates that you are not worth talking to. is that really where you see this thread went...? well, at least my dogma doesn't indicate that. Edited January 3, 2018 by Glenn Nall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 (edited) You cannot be serious Glenn. The VERY FIRST message which introduced the subject matter of this entire thread began as follows: Coming soon! General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical-Right Conspiracy Notice the phrase: "The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical-Right Conspiracy" Consequently, if a contributor does not even know what OR who "radical right" refers to (as described in Dr. Caufield's book) -- THEN this entire thread would be jibberish! Edited January 3, 2018 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Ernie Lazar said: You cannot be serious Glenn. The VERY FIRST message which introduced the subject matter of this entire thread began as follows: Coming soon! General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical-Right Conspiracy Notice the phrase: "The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical-Right Conspiracy" Consequently, if a contributor does not even know what OR who "radical right" refers to (as described in Dr. Caufield's book) -- THEN this entire thread would be jibberish! yes, but it took a left turn with Paul's (and your?) dogma, as exemplified: (after traversing 12,000 miles of webpage): Robert Mueller will be successful in toppling the Trump Presidency in 2018, as the Steele Document is systematically confirmed, and the dominoes of Trump cabinet members fall to Mueller indictments. The Republican candidates for President in 2016 were so maliciously insulted publicly by candidate Trump, that they will turn on him at the last minute, and vote for Impeachment, I predict. The stock market will take a tumble. After taking the oath of office, President Pence will pardon citizen Trump and many others. Then the stock market will begin to recover, and the USA will return to a more normal routine. But no, there's zero chance of a repetition of the JFK Assassination in this case -- because it was the Radical Right who assassinated JFK, and the Radical Right is a devout supporter of President Trump. Is it difficult for you to see the deviation from the stated thread title? AND in fact what you clearly missed was that I quoted and addressed Paul Trejo and not you. Nevertheless, it deviated to one of personal agenda and not JFK related stuff. That was my only point. A good thread ruined, yet the need to agendize (it's a word now) remains. Sad. Edited January 3, 2018 by Glenn Nall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 22 hours ago, Paul Trejo said: The following is this American's opinion: The correct historical linkage is not between President Trump with the JFK Assassination, but President Trump with the impeachment of President Nixon. Robert Mueller will be successful in toppling the Trump Presidency in 2018, as the Steele Document is systematically confirmed, and the dominoes of Trump cabinet members fall to Mueller indictments. The Republican candidates for President in 2016 were so maliciously insulted publicly by candidate Trump, that they will turn on him at the last minute, and vote for Impeachment, I predict. The stock market will take a tumble. After taking the oath of office, President Pence will pardon citizen Trump and many others. Then the stock market will begin to recover, and the USA will return to a more normal routine. But no, there's zero chance of a repetition of the JFK Assassination in this case -- because it was the Radical Right who assassinated JFK, and the Radical Right is a devout supporter of President Trump. Regards, --Paul Trejo no need for this kinda xxxx here, Paul. useless commentary... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 3 minutes ago, Glenn Nall said: yes, but it took a left turn with Paul's (and your?) dogma, as exemplified: Robert Mueller will be successful in toppling the Trump Presidency in 2018, as the Steele Document is systematically confirmed, and the dominoes of Trump cabinet members fall to Mueller indictments. The Republican candidates for President in 2016 were so maliciously insulted publicly by candidate Trump, that they will turn on him at the last minute, and vote for Impeachment, I predict. The stock market will take a tumble. After taking the oath of office, President Pence will pardon citizen Trump and many others. Then the stock market will begin to recover, and the USA will return to a more normal routine. But no, there's zero chance of a repetition of the JFK Assassination in this case -- because it was the Radical Right who assassinated JFK, and the Radical Right is a devout supporter of President Trump. Is it difficult for you to see the deviation from the stated thread title? I have not "deviated" and I don't think you can identify anything about my alleged "dogma" -- particularly since I often post articles which do NOT represent my views but which I think might be of interest to other readers here because they often offer unique insights into the broader discussion regarding right-wing beliefs and links to the radical right in our country's history. With respect to Paul's comment -- he was using a single message to challenge one portion of the article which I discovered on the Birch Society's website that mentioned that Donald Trump's father (Fred Trump) was a personal friend of Robert Welch AND a financial contributor to the Birch Society. Since the ENTIRE thrust of Dr. Caufield's book is that JBS members and JBS supporters were involved in planning, financing, executing, and covering-up the assassination of JFK -- I'm sure Paul just wanted to make some point about Donald Trump NOT being in the same potential jeopardy (for assassination) as was JFK. Apparently, YOU have a VERY rigid and dogmatic view regarding what is, or is not, acceptable to be discussed here. I don't think you will find many readers sympathetic with your personal opinion. Regardless -- I still maintain that your comment that the radical right in the U.S. (or even in other countries) is not supporting Trump is grossly inaccurate and cannot withstand even the most cursory review. In the context of this thread's focus upon the Birch Society being the PRIMARY "radical right" actor in the assassination of JFK, it is simply INDISPUTABLE that many (perhaps even most) Birchers are pro-Trump. The ONLY reservations I have seen posted online by Birchers is that they are concerned about whether or not Trump will compromise with Democrats AND they are concerned that "globalists" (aka establishment elitists) might water down Trump's "natural instincts" to be anti-UN, anti-trade agreement, anti-immigrant, and anti-establishment elites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Glenn Nall said: no need for this kinda xxxx here, Paul. useless commentary... Glenn, Ernie dumped a ton of recent John Birch Society material on this thread. I was responding to that. 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 same way that "Liberals" assassinated JFK in 1963. 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. So -- the question is -- does today's political position of the John Birch Society have any relevance to the JFK assassination of 1963? 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? 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. Also, not everybody who supports President Trump belongs to the Radical Right. I never said that. Who killed JFK? Was it the Communists? Was it the Radical Right? And what are the implications for American History and Civics? Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited January 3, 2018 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 9 minutes ago, Ernie Lazar said: I have not "deviated" and I don't think you can identify anything about my alleged "dogma" -- particularly since I often post articles which do NOT represent my views but which I think might be of interest to other readers here because they often offer unique insights into the broader discussion regarding right-wing beliefs and links to the radical right in our country's history. With respect to Paul's comment -- he was using a single message to challenge one portion of the article which I discovered on the Birch Society's website that mentioned that Donald Trump's father (Fred Trump) was a personal friend of Robert Welch AND a financial contributor to the Birch Society. Since the ENTIRE thrust of Dr. Caufield's book is that JBS members and JBS supporters were involved in planning, financing, executing, and covering-up the assassination of JFK -- I'm sure Paul just wanted to make some point about Donald Trump NOT being in the same potential jeopardy (for assassination) as was JFK. Apparently, YOU have a VERY rigid and dogmatic view regarding what is, or is not, acceptable to be discussed here. I don't think you will find many readers sympathetic with your personal opinion. Regardless -- I still maintain that your comment that the radical right in the U.S. (or even in other countries) is not supporting Trump is grossly inaccurate and cannot withstand even the most cursory review. In the context of this thread's focus upon the Birch Society being the PRIMARY "radical right" actor in the assassination of JFK, it is simply INDISPUTABLE that many (perhaps even most) Birchers are pro-Trump. The ONLY reservations I have seen posted online by Birchers is that they are concerned about whether or not Trump will compromise with Democrats AND they are concerned that "globalists" (aka establishment elitists) might water down Trump's "natural instincts" to be anti-UN, anti-trade agreement, anti-immigrant, and anti-establishment elites. not rigid at all. just vocal. I have no desire to be in a forum which discusses political persuasion, else I'd be a member of one. I joined this forum because some of its members are some of the best on the planet in this field. regretfully, threads in here often deviate toward personal attack and agenda, as noted in the Sticky post at the beginning of the forum. I choose to voice my opinion. Most don't. that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 2 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. 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. 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. So -- the question is -- does today's political position of the John Birch Society have any relevance to the JFK assassination of 1963? 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? 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. Also, not everybody who supports President Trump belongs to the Radical Right. I never said that. Who killed JFK? Was it the Communists? Was it the Radical Right? And what are the implications for American History and Civics? Regards, --Paul Trejo 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. Nobody is claiming that "all" contemporary radical rightists support Trump. That is a straw-man argument. When we discuss ANY issue, it is IMPOSSIBLE to make claims regarding "all" the persons who belong to some category of human beings. However, the great majority of radical rightists in the U.S. support Trump OR, at a minimum, they believe Trump is headed in the right direction BUT they are waiting to see if he will fulfill his promises and not be compromised or manipulated or neutralized by "globalists" and the "establishment" -- which, incidentally, is discussed in one of the links which I included with the JBS article I posted. Just after Trump was elected, the Birch Society magazine published an article entitled: "Is Trumpism Really Bircherism?" (link below) https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/24677-is-trumpism-really-bircherism The JBS takes credit for the JBS "educational" campaign which they think made a Trump victory possible -- i.e. their years of promoting an anti-establishment, anti-internationalist and anti-globalist, anti-foreign entanglements, and "America First" argument which the JBS (and much of the radical right) has been making for 8+ decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Glenn Nall said: not rigid at all. just vocal. I have no desire to be in a forum which discusses political persuasion, else I'd be a member of one. I joined this forum because some of its members are some of the best on the planet in this field. regretfully, threads in here often deviate toward personal attack and agenda, as noted in the Sticky post at the beginning of the forum. I choose to voice my opinion. Most don't. that's all. 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. Edited January 3, 2018 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now