General

Re: Theories on the Ron Paul Campaign

Aristophanes — Thu, 17 May 2012 20:22:08 GMT

http://fromviennawithlove.blogspot.fr/2012/05/debacle-summary.html

JJ, are you going to criticize any of those conspiracy theories??? They are all built on the same kind of circumstantial evidence mine was...

They gave my theory 20% weight..."the stick instead of the carrot." (Mine had other things, I know)

The optimistic thing ran through my head too, but I came to about the same conclusion. It is too "brilliant"; too good to be true.

As for the 'Romney offered him a deal'...didn't Paul say that the idea that he would campaign like this just for a speech at the convention was "a little silly."

It looks like mine were the same thoughts about violence by the GOP at the convention as Lew Rockwell.

UPDATE from Chris Breaux

"I got almost the exact same warning from a local GOPer who is honestly afraid for my safety at the state and national conventions. Thank you for this warning to my fellow Paul supporters."

virtually identical to my sentiment.

"http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2012/0516/Are-some-Ron-Paul-supporters-going-rogue"

This is my point on the GOP telling Paul what will go down if they decide to do this. The GOP will not hesitate to arrest and publically humiliate Paul and his supporters.

This also may explain why Paul has not said anything himself about it. And I would even guess that Paul has held the whole time that if one of the stealth delegate coups turns violent, they call it off. The potential gets pretty big, here. We are talking about one level underneath selection of the President. This is the stuff of movies.

Re: Theories on the Ron Paul Campaign

Autolykos — Thu, 17 May 2012 13:32:30 GMT

John James:
Certainly you wouldn't ~~be dense enough to~~ try to claim Ron Paul hasn't long surpassed this what's-his-name in popularity and threat to whoever you're talking about when you keep saying "They" in quotes with a capital "T".

Again, if it was worth it to kill this no-name guy, how was it not worth it to kill Ron Paul years ago...let alone yesterday?

As far as I can tell, Paul Wellstone wasn't a "no-name guy".

I already tried answering your question, didn't I? Yes I did. If you didn't find my answer satisfactory, then that's your problem, not mine.

John James:
The pleasure of conversation, perhaps?

Montaigne is credited as saying "the most fruitful and natural play of the mind is conversation. I find it sweeter than any other action in life..." and that "Human understanding is marvellously enlightened by daily conversation with men, for we are, otherwise, compressed and heaped up in ourselves, and have our sight limited to the length of our own noses."

I really don't believe you here, John. I think you're either doing this to amuse yourself or you're trying to play to a perceived audience.

John James:
You're incredibly cynical. I'm glad you shared your view and revealed the fact that you literally can think of no positive reason as to why someone might engage in conversation. It explains a lot.

Perhaps you'd like to share what you allege as my "incredible cynicism" explains? Or am I supposed to be a mind-reader yet again?

These vague statements of yours sound like baiting - perhaps even flamebaiting. A person who enjoys flaming others and waging flamewars is a troll by definition.

Besides, I didn't say that I literally can think of no positive reason as to why someone might engage in conversation (period). I was talking about why people would interact in a forum like this. That hardly encompasses all possible conversations or venues for conversation. I suggest you be more accurate in paraphrasing my statements next time.

John James:
You're seriously asking someone in an Austrian forum "how" something gives "pleasure"? I can't imagine that you are actually inquiring as to the chemical/physiological process that takes place, so I would have to understand your question as something along the lines of "how can making conversation with a confused person give pleasure".

That's not what I asked you, John, and I feel confident that you know that already (which implies that you're deliberately distorting my statements, hence you're trolling). I asked you about how this specific conversation - which, according to you, is with a "confused" person (me) - is giving you "pleasure". To say that you're engaging in this conversation to remove or reduce some felt uneasiness is tautological, if you ask me. So you could say I'm really asking what felt uneasiness are you experiencing that motivates you to engage in conversation with a person who you think is "confused"?

John James:
I'm not sure if any answer one might offer to a question like that would suffice a mind that would actually ask such a question. How exactly does doing whatever it is you do give you pleasure?

I mean, you've basically already admitted you're either here because you

a) care about what I think and want to convince me to agree with your positions

b) are attempting to feel better about yourself by "winning"

c) are masturbating

d) are trolling

So which of those is the reason you come to the forum, and how exactly does that give you pleasure?

Nice try, John, but I'm not going to play this game. Asking me the same question I asked you does not provide the information I seek. Try again.

John James:
Uh. Then what were you saying? What was the point of bringing up JFK?

The point was to refute your apparent claim that Ron Paul wouldn't be assassinated because he's too popular.

John James:
One more time, the analogous characteristic is that in both situations the statements are naive at best because in both situations there are too many other factors in play that you're not considering.

Once again, I'd like you to list the factors that you think are in play and that you think I'm not considering. Or, to use your lingo for once, why don't you give me an idea of just what the hell you're talking about.

John James:
You expect me to list everything that makes 2012 different from 1963, and everything that makes Ron Paul different from John F. Kennedy. Wow. You sure weren't kidding with "exhaustively" were you?

I expect you to list everything that you think makes 2012 different from 1963 in this context, and to list everything that you think makes Ron Paul different from JFK in this context. In other words, I expect you to list every factor that you think is relevant to this issue. Remember, I used the words "you think" in my original request. So I see no reason for you to be disingenuous here - aside from having an ulterior motive.

John James:
I guess so. I just didn't realize you were ~~so dense as to~~ not be able to understand the point from such statements and would require "exhaustive lists" of things like "everything that makes 2012 different from 1963." I mean, you are on the Internet. So that's one thing. And you should be able to use it to help you determine the rest. If you tell me you can't, I would have to say I don't believe you.

Please see above.

John James:
What's more, if you weren't trying to say "well JFK was actually President, and was more popular than Ron Paul, and they killed him, so they could easily kill Paul and get away clean", then it doesn't even matter, as the entire point of my statements in response to your JFK comment were made under the impression that that's what you were implying.

So if that's not the reason you brought up JFK (i.e. to make such a point), then please, reveal why you did introduce the subject of Kennedy, and in the way you did.

The part of the statement that you attribute to me, but that I actually didn't make, is the "easily... and get away clean" part. I've already pointed this out once before, you know. But anyways, like I said before, it seemed to me that you were arguing that, in effect, it was impossible for "Them" to knock off Ron Paul simply because he's too popular. That's why I brought up JFK. I maintain that, as much as I'd like it to be otherwise, JFK was more popular on November 22, 1963 than Ron Paul is today.

John James:
That isn't what I was really talking about, I was more referring to the actual attitude toward Kennedy and the level and form of any "support" he had, especially when benchmarked to Ron Paul.

Well, that was entirely lost on me, because you seemed to be trying to rebut my claim about Ron Paul supporters being much less trustful of authority than JFK supporters were. Furthermore, the fact that you worded your attempted rebuttal the way you did ("You obviously weren't around in the 60s. I can't believe anyone would even try to make that comparison.") strongly suggested to me that you had the famous protests and counterculture of the (later) 60s in mind. But then again, John, I'm not a mind-reader. I think a little clarification can go a long way - if you're actually interested in an exchange of ideas and so forth.

John James:
You could at least click to see what the links even are. Only one is a video. It's less than 3 minutes long. You could have easily just clicked the first link and gotten the refutation in the headline and first few sentences.

Since you apparently don't have the few seconds it takes to click a link and read a few sentences (but evidently have time to read and offer lengthy replies here), I'll reproduce the first few lines for you:

Either I hovered over the links too quickly and only saw the YouTube address, or I mistakenly assumed that both were videos. Either way, that's my mistake.

John James:

Germans knew of Holocaust horror about death camps

-Details of deaths of Jews and other groups in concentration camps were well publicised

The mass of ordinary Germans did know about the evolving terror of Hitler's Holocaust, according to a new research study. They knew concentration camps were full of Jewish people who were stigmatised as sub-human and race-defilers. They knew that these, like other groups and minorities, were being killed out of hand.

They knew that Adolf Hitler had repeatedly forecast the extermination of every Jew on German soil. They knew these details because they had read about them. They knew because the camps and the measures which led up to them had been prominently and proudly reported step by step in thousands of officially-inspired German media articles and posters according to the study, which is due to be published simultaneously in Britain and the US early next month and which was described as ground-breaking by Oxford University Press yesterday and already hailed by other historians.

But according to you, the "vast majority" of Germans didn't know what was going on. You'll have to excuse me if I find actual historians with published scholarship on the topic, hailed by other historians in their field more convincing than...well, you.

It seems I need to clarify my position. That's fine.

From what I understand, many (if not most) Germans knew that the Nazi-run German government had built and was operating concentration camps. Furthermore, they knew that Jews, Gypsies, Communists, and people from other categorized groups were sent there. I wouldn't be surprised if they heard reports of people dying in the concentration camps, and they certainly knew about mass executions (which were typically presented as though those executed were some sort of criminal). But as that Guardian article itself notes, the extermination camps (i.e. the ones with the gas chambers) were not publicized in German media, and it was those camps which constituted the "final solution to the Jewish question". Compared to those who died in the camps from malnutrition, disease, and simply being overworked, the slaughter of Jews in the extermination camps was far more systematic. The fact that no details of this systematic extermination of six million people was not reported on in the German media at the time implies an official conspiracy to me, which I maintain seems to be well-supported by the historical evidence.

John James:
I honestly didn't see that question, but I don't even see how it's relevant....as the whole underlying topic is the nature of "conspiracy" and the need of "secrecy". There is a reason there are different words to describe a single killing of a targeted person and the mass extermination of millions of people.

Again, the entire dispute in this regard is the idea of the Holocaust being considered a "conspiracy" like a Kennedy or Ron Paul assassination. You introduced the existence of the Holocaust to try to suggest that if such a "conspiracy" on a grand scale could take place, certainly the assassination of a single man could just as (or possibly much more) easily take place.

What I'm saying is that

a) alleging those are the same kind of "conspiracy" is pretty ridiculous (I would even go as far to say "conspiracy" is one of the last things the Holocaust would or should be described as)

b) in doing so, you are alleging that the "They" you keep referring to in quotes with a capital "T" operates and carries out its objectives in essentially the same way as the Nazi Party. Which I find to be quite ridiculous.

It seems that you're just reaching for whatever possible ground you could possibly try to stand on. First you try to say "well hey, the Nazis killed 4 million Jews in what is probably the biggest conspiracy ever, so "They" could pretty easily knock off Ron Paul." When I contest the use of the word "conspiracy" and point out that it implies secrecy and is basically an entirely different mode of operation than what the Nazis did, you come back with "well it was secret enough that the vast majority of the German people didn't know what was going on, so, yeah. And besides, is a genocide not just a bunch of assassinations in a short period of time?"

If you want to play semantics, yeah, I guess you could argue "well actually a 'genocide' is nothing more than a bunch of assassinations", but that really makes it seem like you're guilty of your "attempting to feel better about yourself by 'winning'" thing, because the whole point under discussion here is whether at this point it would be worth the attention and trouble it would cause this "They" you keep referring to to assassinate Ron Paul. And your support for the idea that it would be is referencing the fact that over 70 years ago a ruling party in the government of Germany essentially publically "assassinated" millions of people.

My entire point is, that's a terrible comparison, so much so that I wouldn't even consider it a support for your argument.

I think the fact that the Nazi extermination camps weren't publicized strongly suggests some significant (if not large) level of secrecy was at work for the "final solution to the Jewish question". Furthermore, my point about genocide being many assassinations, which you dismiss as mere semantic games, was actually supposed to support the idea that a conspiracy to commit genocide and a conspiracy to assassinate someone are both conspiracies to kill one or more people. That seems perfectly logical to me, so I don't see how the logic of it is lost on you. The details of the conspiracies are most assuredly different, but those details are irrelevant to my point. And my whole point of bringing up the Nazis' "final solution to the Jewish question" (i.e. the systematic extermination of Jews in the gas chambers) was to show how even such massive undertakings can be veiled in secrecy to the point that most people don't know what really went on until years later. Basically I was trying to pre-empt any argument that such massive conspiratorial undertakings would be blown open well before they got anywhere close to achieving their goals.

John James:
Of course you would. You want "to feel better about yourself by 'winning'", right?

Not me. But nice try at deflecting criticism of yourself by throwing the same criticism back at me (also known as the "I know you are, but what am I?" tactic).

John James:
If you honestly need "substantive support" that the assassination of Ron Paul is "a completely different thing" from the Holocaust, I can't be completely sure you're not actually retarded. I don't think you are, which would lead me to believe you would be engaging in one of the only 3 other possible reasons one would be engaging in a conversation. One would be inclined to bet on "D".

Going along with what I said above, an assassination and a genocide are both instances of one or more people being killed (if not murdered). So I don't think they're completely different. But in any case, my point was really about wanting you to offer some substantive statements instead of just asserting that "they're two completely different things" without explaining anything about your reasoning there, and apparently expecting that to be believed by me and/or others just because you asserted it. Call me "retarded" all you want - I couldn't care less, and it won't make me feel "retarded" in the slightest.

John James:
Correlate maybe. But "summarize"...nuh uh.

I suppose I'll take the bait here as well. So how not?

Re: Theories on the Ron Paul Campaign

Aristophanes — Thu, 17 May 2012 03:29:42 GMT

What you wrote about Tarpley after admitting you "trust [him] on almost everything he says", and I subsequently point out that a great deal of what he says is complete nonsense and smear talk against the Austrian School is irrelevant. My only point was to confirm that you know what people really mean, whether they say it, or something completely different.

I pointed out that his hatred and irrational explanations of Austrianism stem from his idolization of FDR and his LaRochian past. What else do you want? How else can I say that I listen to him for GEOPOLITICS (I even give the exact same example of Chomsky; economics bad, duh. intn'l relations decent, worth listening). In no way do I say it is irrelevant, I said it is predictable and explainable through his politican convictions (FDR & LaRouche). You play word games like a little kid that 'plomises' he wont wet the bed if he gets one more juice box.

Glad you're here to decode everything for us.

Right? You ignore what you want and press things that you can continue to paint as bad through petty semantics. Just like a politician. That key word of 'almost' gives no indication to the level of disagreement that it may or may not represent for my view of Tarpley. I explained what I meant and you ignore it...

When you wrote that statement, you had not suggested that Paul was "gotten to" by a threat.

This is such a moot point, - infer from the following -

"The Paul campaign has copped out after they realized that the RNC will get violent (in the wake of AZ and OK being comparatively worse than the other states). 'If the Paul delegates really think they are going to get away with voting to suspend the rules on live TV, they've got another thing coming.' The GOP will have them arrested on live TV and, I think, Paul is trying to prevent that at the very least. (I realize it might not quite be live tv.)"

You see, when you read certain books the authors do not come right out and say everything in demotic language (I'll use Chomsky for an example again or George Orwell). You seem like you like to examine the actual words, but you miss the things that are simply left unsaid for the reader to infer from the other points.

OK - so then why do you keep saying there is a "Bilderberg connection" to Ron Paul?? A trojan horse PAC whose purpose is to promote RP for ancillary purposes (e.g. to knock down other primary contenders) is the opposite of a connection. The connection, in that case, would be to Romney exclusively. Why do you insist on playing word games on this point?? I'm really confused by your behavior.

Well, I guess I'd just not looked at it that way. I wasn't trying to play 'words games'. I simply wished to point out that the BB donations at least points out that Paul is on their radar. Paul being on their radar (and not laughed off) would indicate that there is certainly a possibility that they are getting more belligerent about their wish for him to exit.

I think the most obvious thing is that the GOP convention will get violent and put a permenet stain on Paul's reputation and will sink the GOP for the election. Those stakes outweigh their care for Paul himself.

Re: Ron Paul ends campaign

John James — Thu, 17 May 2012 02:34:08 GMT

Clayton:
Well, it is my gut feeling that EndorseLiberty was never a genuinely "Elect Ron Paul" PAC and the fact that they can support Romney is proof that they most certainly do not endorse liberty.

That's great. But what does that have to do with those ads being "half-hearted" or "farcical"?

Clayton:
Why do you insist on playing word games on this point?? I'm really confused by your behavior.

Uh...because it's the only way he can try to save face. I thought that was obvious like a long time ago.

Re: Ron Paul ends campaign

John James — Thu, 17 May 2012 02:32:34 GMT

Aristophanes:
If you ignore what else I wrote about Tarpley and the Austrian theory, you can use that as an example...you see what you want to as well.

What you wrote about Tarpley after admitting you "trust [him] on almost everything he says", and I subsequently point out that a great deal of what he says is complete nonsense and smear talk against the Austrian School is irrelevant. My only point was to confirm that you know what people really mean, whether they say it, or something completely different.

Glad you're here to decode everything for us.

The reality is only one person did. It kinda changes the whole connotation.

I am a person who is not z1235. Voila, "people" in this thread...

Uh. When you wrote that statement, you had not suggested that Paul was "gotten to" by a threat. Nice try though. (I mean, if you were like 9.)

Re: Ron Paul ends campaign

John James — Thu, 17 May 2012 02:26:26 GMT

Autolykos:
To try to answer your question: a long time ago, Ron Paul did not have anywhere near as many supporters, followers, and the like as he's had in recent years. All I can surmise is that Paul Wellstone may have appeared to be more of a threat to "Them" at the time than Ron Paul

Certainly you wouldn't be dense enough to try to claim Ron Paul hasn't long surpassed this what's-his-name in popularity and threat to whoever you're talking about when you keep saying "They" in quotes with a capital "T".

Again, if it was worth it to kill this no-name guy, how was it not worth it to kill Ron Paul years ago...let alone yesterday?

Why else would people interact in a forum like this, if they didn't have an interest in trying to convince each other of things (and thus care about what each other believes)? Here are the alternatives, as I see them: 1) to feel better about themselves by "winning" (which many people think can consist of the opponent retreating from the thread in question), 2) intellectual masturbation (i.e. to see how well their arguments hold up against others'), or 3) to derive amusement or some other sort of pleasure from the responses they get (i.e. trolling). If you see any other alternatives, feel free to list them.

The pleasure of conversation, perhaps?

Montaigne is credited as saying "the most fruitful and natural play of the mind is conversation. I find it sweeter than any other action in life..." and that "Human understanding is marvellously enlightened by daily conversation with men, for we are, otherwise, compressed and heaped up in ourselves, and have our sight limited to the length of our own noses."

You're incredibly cynical. I'm glad you shared your view and revealed the fact that you literally can think of no positive reason as to why someone might engage in conversation. It explains a lot.

Autolykos:
How exactly does making conversation with a person who you think is "confused" give you "pleasure"? I don't think you're trolling here, but of course I could be wrong.

You're seriously asking someone in an Austrian forum "how" something gives "pleasure"? I can't imagine that you are actually inquiring as to the chemical/physiological process that takes place, so I would have to understand your question as something along the lines of "how can making conversation with a confused person give pleasure".

I'm not sure if any answer one might offer to a question like that would suffice a mind that would actually ask such a question. How exactly does doing whatever it is you do give you pleasure?

I mean, you've basically already admitted you're either here because you

a) care about what I think and want to convince me to agree with your positions

b) are attempting to feel better about yourself by "winning"

c) are masturbating

d) are trolling

So which of those is the reason you come to the forum, and how exactly does that give you pleasure?

You attributed this argument to me: "well JFK was actually President, and was more popular than Ron Paul, and they killed him, so they could easily kill Paul and get away clean". I'm not saying the latter would necessarily be easily done, either right now or in the future.

Uh. Then what were you saying? What was the point of bringing up JFK?

I already did. Let me repeat myself: I'm sorry but I don't see how your statement is analogous. Either you're interested in convincing me of its analogy or you have some other (i.e ulterior) motive for making that assertion.

One more time, the analogous characteristic is that in both situations the statements are naive at best because in both situations there are too many other factors in play that you're not considering.

Autolykos:
John James:
Such as everything that makes 2012 different from 1963, and everything that makes Ron Paul different from John F. Kennedy.
Let me be more explicit. I'd like you to list - exhaustively, if you please - everything that you see as a factor in play that you think I'm not considering.

You expect me to list everything that makes 2012 different from 1963, and everything that makes Ron Paul different from John F. Kennedy. Wow. You sure weren't kidding with "exhaustively" were you?

Making blanket statements like the above inform me of nothing, understand?

I guess so. I just didn't realize you were so dense as to not be able to understand the point from such statements and would require "exhaustive lists" of things like "everything that makes 2012 different from 1963." I mean, you are on the Internet. So that's one thing. And you should be able to use it to help you determine the rest. If you tell me you can't, I would have to say I don't believe you.

What's more, if you weren't trying to say "well JFK was actually President, and was more popular than Ron Paul, and they killed him, so they could easily kill Paul and get away clean", then it doesn't even matter, as the entire point of my statements in response to your JFK comment were made under the impression that that's what you were implying.

So if that's not the reason you brought up JFK (i.e. to make such a point), then please, reveal why you did introduce the subject of Kennedy, and in the way you did.

You wrote earlier: "You obviously weren't around in the 60s. I can't believe anyone would even try to make that comparison." I went out on a limb and assumed you were talking about all the protesting and counterculture that's attributed to "the 60s". However, those things were really only indicative of the later years of the 60s, particularly 1967 through 1969. Yes, the New Left was active even before 1960, but AFAIK their influence didn't really start spreading until the "Summer of Love" in 1967. In any case, there was hardly anything in the way of anti-war protests or counterculture in 1963 as compared to 1967-1969.

That isn't what I was really talking about, I was more referring to the actual attitude toward Kennedy and the level and form of any "support" he had, especially when benchmarked to Ron Paul.

Autolykos:
I'll respond to this later, when I can watch those videos.

You could at least click to see what the links even are. Only one is a video. It's less than 3 minutes long. You could have easily just clicked the first link and gotten the refutation in the headline and first few sentences.

Since you apparently don't have the few seconds it takes to click a link and read a few sentences (but evidently have time to read and offer lengthy replies here), I'll reproduce the first few lines for you:

Germans knew of Holocaust horror about death camps

-Details of deaths of Jews and other groups in concentration camps were well publicised

The mass of ordinary Germans did know about the evolving terror of Hitler's Holocaust, according to a new research study. They knew concentration camps were full of Jewish people who were stigmatised as sub-human and race-defilers. They knew that these, like other groups and minorities, were being killed out of hand.

They knew that Adolf Hitler had repeatedly forecast the extermination of every Jew on German soil. They knew these details because they had read about them. They knew because the camps and the measures which led up to them had been prominently and proudly reported step by step in thousands of officially-inspired German media articles and posters according to the study, which is due to be published simultaneously in Britain and the US early next month and which was described as ground-breaking by Oxford University Press yesterday and already hailed by other historians.

But according to you, the "vast majority" of Germans didn't know what was going on. You'll have to excuse me if I find actual historians with published scholarship on the topic, hailed by other historians in their field more convincing than...well, you.

However, I'll also note for the record that you haven't bothered to refute my point that methodical mass extermination could be thought of as a large number of single assassinations.

I honestly didn't see that question, but I don't even see how it's relevant....as the whole underlying topic is the nature of "conspiracy" and the need of "secrecy". There is a reason there are different words to describe a single killing of a targeted person and the mass extermination of millions of people.

Again, the entire dispute in this regard is the idea of the Holocaust being considered a "conspiracy" like a Kennedy or Ron Paul assassination. You introduced the existence of the Holocaust to try to suggest that if such a "conspiracy" on a grand scale could take place, certainly the assassination of a single man could just as (or possibly much more) easily take place.

What I'm saying is that

a) alleging those are the same kind of "conspiracy" is pretty ridiculous (I would even go as far to say "conspiracy" is one of the last things the Holocaust would or should be described as)

b) in doing so, you are alleging that the "They" you keep referring to in quotes with a capital "T" operates and carries out its objectives in essentially the same way as the Nazi Party. Which I find to be quite ridiculous.

It seems that you're just reaching for whatever possible ground you could possibly try to stand on. First you try to say "well hey, the Nazis killed 4 million Jews in what is probably the biggest conspiracy ever, so "They" could pretty easily knock off Ron Paul." When I contest the use of the word "conspiracy" and point out that it implies secrecy and is basically an entirely different mode of operation than what the Nazis did, you come back with "well it was secret enough that the vast majority of the German people didn't know what was going on, so, yeah. And besides, is a genocide not just a bunch of assassinations in a short period of time?"

If you want to play semantics, yeah, I guess you could argue "well actually a 'genocide' is nothing more than a bunch of assassinations", but that really makes it seem like you're guilty of your "attempting to feel better about yourself by 'winning'" thing, because the whole point under discussion here is whether at this point it would be worth the attention and trouble it would cause this "They" you keep referring to to assassinate Ron Paul. And your support for the idea that it would be is referencing the fact that over 70 years ago a ruling party in the government of Germany essentially publically "assassinated" millions of people.

My entire point is, that's a terrible comparison, so much so that I wouldn't even consider it a support for your argument.

I'll take that as an implicit concession until further notice.

Of course you would. You want "to feel better about yourself by 'winning'", right?

Autolykos:
John James:
Because they're two completely different things.
Perhaps you'd like to offer some substantive support for this assertion.

If you honestly need "substantive support" that the assassination of Ron Paul is "a completely different thing" from the Holocaust, I can't be completely sure you're not actually retarded. I don't think you are, which would lead me to believe you would be engaging in one of the only 3 other possible reasons one would be engaging in a conversation. One would be inclined to bet on "D".

Having much less trust in authority would seem to correlate with much greater motivation to do the things you list above, now wouldn't it?

Correlate maybe. But "summarize"...nuh uh.

Re: Theories on the Ron Paul Campaign

Clayton — Thu, 17 May 2012 01:22:23 GMT

It is/was a trojan horse.

OK - so then why do you keep saying there is a "Bilderberg connection" to Ron Paul?? A trojan horse PAC whose purpose is to promote RP for ancillary purposes (e.g. to knock down other primary contenders) is the opposite of a connection. The connection, in that case, would be to Romney exclusively. Why do you insist on playing word games on this point?? I'm really confused by your behavior.

Clayton -

Re: Ron Paul ends campaign

Aristophanes — Thu, 17 May 2012 01:14:25 GMT

This is the sane component of Aristophanes's position.

This is the thrust of my point. EL is the BB connection to Paul first, then to Romney.

Just like the brothel campaigning for Paul. It is/was a trojan horse.

Re: Theories on the Ron Paul Campaign

Aristophanes — Thu, 17 May 2012 01:12:37 GMT

dude, what I said about Paul ending his campaign is not that different. cymini sectores. seriously.

So I guess when Tarpley calls the Austrian School an "alien, poisonous, foreign ideology", what he really means is that he just doesn't know what it is.

If you ignore what else I wrote about Tarpley and the Austrian theory, you can use that as an example...you see what you want to as well.

It kinda changes the whole connotation.

I wrote 'people' thinking that I had read two people sympathetic to the idea (one presented it and the other confirmed suspision. I must have been wrong.) Not all of us document the forum post by post...there are ... other things to do. Not everyone seeks validation by condescedning strangers on the internet, JJ.

The reality is only one person did. It kinda changes the whole connotation.

I am a person who is not z1235. Voila, "people" in this thread...

Re: Theories on the Ron Paul Campaign

Clayton — Thu, 17 May 2012 01:10:29 GMT

Well, it is my gut feeling that EndorseLiberty was never a genuinely "Elect Ron Paul" PAC and the fact that they can support Romney is proof that they most certainly do not endorse liberty. I'm not going to crystal-ball-gaze and try to guess what precisely was going on behind closed doors at EL headquarters but my gut feeling is that getting Ron Paul elected was never their true goal.

This is the sane component of Aristophanes's position.

Clayton -

Re: Ron Paul ends campaign

John James — Thu, 17 May 2012 00:38:41 GMT

Clayton:
EndorseLiberty is a SuperPAC. Its ads "supporting" Ron Paul strike me as half-hearted and some border on the farcical. Those that attempt humor are painfully un-funny.

If you call this "half-hearted" or "farcical", I honestly don't know what you're looking for. And I'd hate to hear what you'd say about official Ron Paul campaign ads or RevolutionPAC ads.

(Please visit the site to view this media)

Re: Ron Paul ends campaign

John James — Thu, 17 May 2012 00:05:20 GMT

Aristophanes:
Okay, I didn't realize you were splitting hairs over "how" the SuperPACs expend money.

Oh please. Nice try at a face save, but you have no way to dodge yourself out of this hole. You're already in it and have been digging it for something like three posts now. Just admit you didn't know what a SuperPAC actually was nor what it could do in terms of spending.

It makes no difference if the money actually goes to Paul

Wow. Hundreds of thousands of donors seem to disagree.

the money is spent in Paul's name without any of his acknowledgement.

Hey! Look who's almost getting it! Now just change "in Paul's name" to "(allegedly) in support of Paul" and you'll actually (finally) have an accurate comment about SuperPACs!

Who knows what their intentions are (which is my point of suspicion)?

Ron Paul certainly doesn't. So I don't see how this supports your boy Tarpley's contention that Paul is in cahoots with Romney, and that's why "he has his superpac in Salt Lake City instead of Galveston."

Just fyi for anyone curious, Endorse Liberty is the PAC that publicized and popularized (if not actually created) what I consider the best Ron Paul promo video I've ever seen, as well as supplemental ads like this and ran them on television

This also still doesn't conflict with my point of the Bilderberg member using Paul.

Explain how helping Paul and spreading his message helps the Bilderberg group.

Prove it. And when you do, gloss over the fact that this makes my point even more apt.

More apt? Because of circumstancial evidence that has a perfectly logical explanation? Maybe you shouldn't be a detective after all. Me and Tarpley will just be a duo.

If RevPAC was being run by people in the Black Liberation Front, I might buy that. But, as it stands this is still a red herring for the point that Mormons, who have since endorsed Romney and got their money from a Bilderberg member fronted for Paul. This kept his campaign going for like two months.

Wha? Now you're alleging that without Endorse Liberty, Paul's campaign would have ended two months ago? Are you fricking serious? Jeez you're desperate.

Just because the words are slightly different, doesn't mean that the content behind them is...

Oh I see. So now when someone says something different from you say they did, it's okay, because you know what they really meant. I guess it's a lucky thing we have you to interpret when what people say means just that, or when it means something completely different.

So I guess when Tarpley calls the Austrian School an "alien, poisonous, foreign ideology", what he really means is that he just doesn't know what it is.

Yeah, you wouldn't get that. Even as you call others ignorant.

No, I mean, I understood what you wrote there, I just can't understand why in the world anyone would think that was an actual comeback. You said "people" as if to infer that multiple individuals believe and have voiced an opinion about something. The reality is only one person did. It kinda changes the whole connotation.

Kind of like if someone said "People in this thread have said Aristophanes eats babies" sounds a quite a bit different than "some guy named Frank said Aristophanes eats babies".

And you respond as if you were retorting with a comeback by essentially trying to say your "ah splitting hairs, tomato/tomotto" thing.

Re: Theories on the Ron Paul Campaign

Autolykos — Wed, 16 May 2012 17:32:11 GMT

John James:
Sure. Again, I said your story doesn't add up. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying it doesn't make sense. I'm not saying "'They' must not have thought it worth it to eliminate Paul Wellstone"...obviously the guy's dead, and if your conspiracy theory is true, then someone did find it worth it to kill him. What I'm saying is that if that's the case, how was it not worth it to kill Ron Paul a long time ago?

Feel free to offer your explanation.

I don't see how that's different from my characterization of your apparent position. To repeat, that characterization was the following: since "They" apparently don't think it worth it to eliminate Ron Paul, "They" must not have thought it worth it to eliminate Paul Wellstone.

To try to answer your question: a long time ago, Ron Paul did not have anywhere near as many supporters, followers, and the like as he's had in recent years. All I can surmise is that Paul Wellstone may have appeared to be more of a threat to "Them" at the time than Ron Paul - especially since the latter (according to Eric Dondero) didn't directly protest the foreign policy decisions that the US government made in the aftermath of 9/11.

If you still don't think my position makes sense, that's fine. But we'll be at an impasse, as I'll still think it does make sense.

John James:
There you go again. You really do say stuff like this quite often. Where did you ever get this idea that I was ever trying to convince you of anything? Is it some kind of self-esteem reinforcement bias or something?...related to your delusion [sic] that everyone [sic] is out to try to intimidate you? You have a need to feel important and don't get enough attention elsewhere (and apparently in the forum as well) so you just assume (or pretend) that people care what you believe and have some interest in trying to convince you of things?

I honestly don't get it.

Why else would people interact in a forum like this, if they didn't have an interest in trying to convince each other of things (and thus care about what each other believes)? Here are the alternatives, as I see them: 1) to feel better about themselves by "winning" (which many people think can consist of the opponent retreating from the thread in question), 2) intellectual masturbation (i.e. to see how well their arguments hold up against others'), or 3) to derive amusement or some other sort of pleasure from the responses they get (i.e. trolling). If you see any other alternatives, feel free to list them.

John James:
Pleasure.

How exactly does making conversation with a person who you think is "confused" give you "pleasure"? I don't think you're trolling here, but of course I could be wrong.

John James:
...how is that different than what I said?

You attributed this argument to me: "well JFK was actually President, and was more popular than Ron Paul, and they killed him, so they could easily kill Paul and get away clean". I'm not saying the latter would necessarily be easily done, either right now or in the future.

John James:
Check the sentence right below it.

I already did. Let me repeat myself: I'm sorry but I don't see how your statement is analogous. Either you're interested in convincing me of its analogy or you have some other (i.e ulterior) motive for making that assertion.

John James:
Such as everything that makes 2012 different from 1963, and everything that makes Ron Paul different from John F. Kennedy.

Let me be more explicit. I'd like you to list - exhaustively, if you please - everything that you see as a factor in play that you think I'm not considering. Making blanket statements like the above inform me of nothing, understand? And if your purpose here isn't to inform me of anything, then again I'd like to ask, just what is your purpose? I fail to see how you could find this entertaining.

John James:
What does that have to do with anything?

You wrote earlier: "You obviously weren't around in the 60s. I can't believe anyone would even try to make that comparison." I went out on a limb and assumed you were talking about all the protesting and counterculture that's attributed to "the 60s". However, those things were really only indicative of the later years of the 60s, particularly 1967 through 1969. Yes, the New Left was active even before 1960, but AFAIK their influence didn't really start spreading until the "Summer of Love" in 1967. In any case, there was hardly anything in the way of anti-war protests or counterculture in 1963 as compared to 1967-1969.

John James:
Vast majority, huh?

I'll respond to this later, when I can watch those videos.

However, I'll also note for the record that you haven't bothered to refute my point that methodical mass extermination could be thought of as a large number of single assassinations. I'll take that as an implicit concession until further notice.

John James:
Because they're two completely different things.

Perhaps you'd like to offer some substantive support for this assertion.

John James:
If all you get from "wouldn't be satisfied with any official story given for his death, would call it an assassination from day 1, would do everything in his power to uncover the truth, and would be ever-more motivated to investigate and shine a light on Bilderberg/TriLat/CFR like never before and create havoc for them, and their operations" is "they have much less trust in authority that people who supported JFK", then you're either dishonest, or more dense than I thought.

Having much less trust in authority would seem to correlate with much greater motivation to do the things you list above, now wouldn't it? You can think of my term "have much less trust in authority" as a way to summarize your list. That's essentially what I intend it as, in this context.

Re: Ron Paul ends campaign

Aristophanes — Wed, 16 May 2012 17:31:13 GMT

EndorseLiberty is a SuperPAC. Its ads "supporting" Ron Paul strike me as half-hearted and some border on the farcical. Those that attempt humor are painfully un-funny.

So, you do recognize that it is indeed not a whole hearted supporter. This indicates that they could be used for trojan horse campaigning.

For someone who sees conspiracies behind every bush, you seem to think in a very linear manner about EndorseLiberty, as if anyone who says "I support Ron Paul" thereby is proven to be, as a matter of fact, supporting Ron Paul. It's not possible that someone could say they support Ron Paul for the express purpose of trying to distort public opinion about his views? What does any of that have anything to do with Ron Paul himself?

I don't think we disagree on EndorseLiberty. I don't exactly know what you think I meant other than the implication of what you just stated.

Also, do you not see conspiracies in the political realm almost everywhere? If I can recall from some of your posts....

Tarpley isn't confused, he's disinfo.

He's not disinfo, he is a progressive LaRouchian. I suggest you watch that 9/11 presentation.

Re: Theories on the Ron Paul Campaign

Aristophanes — Wed, 16 May 2012 17:25:59 GMT

Okay, I didn't realize you were splitting hairs over "how" the SuperPACs expend money. Endorse Liberty just spends money fronting for Paul, they don't give it to him. For God's sake. It makes no difference if the money actually goes to Paul and, frankly, it makes it worse that the money is spent in Paul's name without any of his acknowledgement. Who knows what their intentions are (which is my point of suspicion)? It reminds me of the brothel that was campaigning for Paul. (The brothel was an obvious trojan horse campaign tactic.)

This also still doesn't conflict with my point of the Bilderberg member using Paul. Anyway you split the hairs Paul is being financially supported by him.

He [Thiel] picked a PAC run by people he knew

Prove it. And when you do, gloss over the fact that this makes my point even more apt.

RevolutionPAC is headquartered in Northbrook, IL...suburb of Chicago. Guess we all know what that means: Paul's totally in bed with Obama. I mean the proof's right there. Like, totally obvious to anyone who would open their eyes! Like writing on the wall, man.

If RevPAC was being run by people in the Black Liberation Front, I might buy that. But, as it stands this is still a red herring for the point that Mormons, who have since endorsed Romney and got their money from a Bilderberg member fronted for Paul. This kept his campaign going for like two months.

That is the same thing I said he said.

Ron Paul: If we don't reach our $2.5 million goal, I am not sure our campaign can go on.

Aristophanes: He just said at the last money bomb if he didn't get 2.5 million he'd close up shop

Just because the words are slightly different, doesn't mean that the content behind them is...

huh?

Yeah, you wouldn't get that. Even as you call others ignorant.