Can someone debunk this tarpley guy? says austerity measures are the worst thing to do right now

Reply

excel replied on Tue, Jun 5 2012 12:57 PM

rated by 0 users

I can think of worse. I think a repeated holocaust would be far worse than cutting welfare by 5 % or raising taxes by 2%. I guess Webster Tarpley disagrees.

Anyway, I don't want to waste an hour listening to this guy anyway, the Kokesh interview was enough.

Reply

Clayton replied on Tue, Jun 5 2012 3:07 PM

rated by 0 users

I have a better idea - let's stop starting threads about obvious disinfo agents and pay attention to people who actually have credentials.

Clayton -

Reply

Aristophanes replied on Wed, Jun 6 2012 9:00 AM

rated by 0 users

Clayton, are you familiar with Tarpley's credentials?  Princeton Grad, summa cum laude; he was the person who directed the investigation that led to the discovery of Operation GLadio and the role of NATO in the assassination of Aldo Moro.  Granted he is a screaming LaRouche/New Dealer who has wet dreams about FDR, he has fairly compelling points regarding realpolitik.

Just ignore him when he talks about his economic plan.  Just like we do Chomsky; listen for the realpolitik/geopolitics, go to the bathroom during the economic rants.

Reply

Clayton replied on Wed, Jun 6 2012 10:23 AM

rated by 0 users

Chomsky is another one - just ignore him completely, he adds so little to the discussion and his economics are so horrible that he might as well just drop the act and join the Establishment. Tarpley and Chomsky are both disinfo agents in my opinion.

Clayton -

Reply

Anenome replied on Wed, Jun 6 2012 1:02 PM

rated by 0 users

People opposed to austerity are invariably Keynesian in one form or another. Want to debunk those arguing against austerity simply look up arguments against Keynesianism.

Reply

Aristophanes replied on Wed, Jun 6 2012 11:55 PM

rated by 0 users

Chomsky is another one - just ignore him completely, he adds so little to the discussion and his economics are so horrible that he might as well just drop the act and join the Establishment. Tarpley and Chomsky are both disinfo agents in my opinion.

I think that is going a little far.  Chomsky was the first to really refute behaviorism.  Behaviourism was a basic pillar for the advancement of social engineering; one of the true aims of the state, no?  He has great essays on civil disobedience and the state terror programs (he does say that the government could never pull off 9/11, but I think he is doing he same thing the Ron Paul campaign is, namely, preventing the total and complete chaos that would result from mass realization of that magnitude due to a few influential personality cults..).  I'm dead serious.  You know Ron Paul has deep suspicion about 9/11 that he will not own up to.  He is all over some of the arcane news that Alex Jones always talks about.  He has to visit to infowars right after mises.org...

Chomsky used to add more to the conversation.  His books used to have bite.  He has lost his zeal in his old age.  And I think he speaks many words with very little substance as a way to sound vague and thus not ever be proven wrong.  (An ego driven intellectual)

Like I said about Tarpley, he was involved with Lyndon LaRouche (the link detail his crimes) for some time and that is what his opinions are like, LaRouche (the more I read about LaRouche the less confidence I have).  It almost seems that LaRouche had the intelligence he had because he was simultaneously a Scientology-like political cult and mafia level gangster.  He may have simply knowing the goings on and published some of it  But Tarpley has the most cohesive academic theory of 9/11 out there.  It is absurd to call him a disinfo agent because he writes off austrian economics (the LaRouche thing is more damaging).  Not every who isn't a libertarian is dumb.  Both Chomsky and Tarpley are simply egomaniacs that manifest their egos differently..

I know you will admit that the mafia and the intelligence agencies are indistinguishable at this point.  They is the rogue netwok Tarpley refers to.

Reply

weedface replied on Thu, Jun 7 2012 7:49 AM

rated by 0 users

been listening to him a lot lately... he makes a lot of sense, certainly more than alex jones.

Reply

Clayton replied on Thu, Jun 7 2012 11:36 AM

rated by 0 users

Tarpley has the most cohesive academic theory of 9/11 out there

Nonsense, David Ray Griffin puts Tarpley to shame. Griffin begins with the single most compelling piece of evidence - the inexplicable collapse of WTC 7 - and combines this with a clear and simple debunking of the "there was a training exercise going on... we were so confused!" excuse that was also reused in the 7/7 London bombing. Only after showing the simple and unavoidable case for skepticism does he move into the in-depth evidence.

I've watched as much of Tarpley as I can stand. And while he does present a lot of the same evidence, it's like if you chewed up David Ray Griffin's books, vomited them out and then made a Power Point and then put a droning, sleep-inducing, tenured professor to read the slides.

Richard Gage is another fairly cogent guy. Steven E Jones also good. Alex Jones is fine as far as he goes but he gets too hysterical. With so many other great explainers of 9/11, why listen to anything Tarpley says when it's just confusing, boring, and muddled by comparison?

Note: To those who feel uncomfortable with 9/11 skepticism, it is fairly easy to see that the NIST report on WTC7 is fabricated. Look at this video (also check out this video for better resolution though more smoke, you get a brief glance at the base of the building). You will notice there is a massive gash running the entire visible height of the building (and most of the building is visible), right in the dead center of the building. It appears that the exterior siding between two columns has simply been completely removed. The NIST report nowhere mentions this gash nor is the gash incorporated into the NIST model. Hence, even if we grant that the model itself "works" to explain the WTC7 collapse due to fire (LOL!), there's this slight problem that the model simply has no correlation to the actual state of WTC7 as it was when it collapsed.

Clayton -

Reply

Aristophanes replied on Thu, Jun 7 2012 1:03 PM

rated by 0 users

Clayton, you are splitting hairs.  Tarpley is one of the people in the crowd of people you mentioned...

It is tarpley's contribution that the drills are flipped live at certain times to ensure that the drills actually happen.  He mentions Gage, Steven Jones, and Griffin all the time.

To me, the most compelling evidence is the drills that were run.

And while he does present a lot of the same evidence, it's like if you chewed up David Ray Griffin's books, vomited them out and then made a Power Point and then put a droning, sleep-inducing, tenured professor to read the slides.

Yeah, it is totally not because they do research together...not that at all.  It is because Tarpley is disinfo and Griffin isn't (even though you not once have provided evidence of Tarpley's disinfo).  You just don't like Tarpley because he shits on the Austrian school and libertarianism.   An IVY league libertarian is fairly rare (i know they do exist).

been listening to him a lot lately... he makes a lot of sense, certainly more than alex jones.

Exactly.  Alex Jones brings together like minded conspiracists and lets them present w/e information they have.  It is up to people to sort out the fearmongering from the plausible.

Tarpley, Griffin, Madsen, Jones, Gage, P. D. Scott, etc. - the same crowd.

Reply

Clayton replied on Thu, Jun 7 2012 1:31 PM

rated by 0 users

You just don't like Tarpley because he shits on the Austrian school and libertarianism.

Actually, I didn't even know he disagreed with AE until people began posting threads about it. I don't like Tarpley because I believe he's disinfo. Can I prove it? Nope, but I don't care to or need to when all the information Tarpley presents in his lectures is available in more accessible form from multiple other sources. Tarpley comes across with a conspiracy-theoretic air right from the beginning. He doesn't give the audience a chance to ask "well, this all sounds absolutely insane, why should I listen to you for even one second??" Griffin does. Gage does. Even Alex Jones does. Tarpley doesn't and that's a mark of a disinfo agent in my book.

He's supposed to come across as a nut-job because that's his role... to get his name put alongside the names of Griffin, Gage, Steven Jones, et. al. and then people who have only heard Tarpley will say, "Wow, those guys are all a bunch of conspiracy theory wackos!" They did it with JFK assassintion research, of course they're going to do it with their 9/11 crimes.

Clayton -

Reply

Aristophanes replied on Thu, Jun 7 2012 1:49 PM

rated by 0 users

Tarpley comes across with a conspiracy-theoretic air right from the beginning. He doesn't give the audience a chance to ask "well, this all sounds absolutely insane, why should I listen to you for even one second??" Griffin does. Gage does. Even Alex Jones does. Tarpley doesn't and that's a mark of a disinfo agent in my book.

Okay, that is fair.  I disagree that jones does, but okay.  So, if he doesn't take questions from the audience you seem him as dictating truth to people?  I've noticed that he does this as well, particularly on his radio show.  And it has always bothered me.  But, that is what the debate was for and I think he did fairly well presenting why.

And if he is disinfo, isn't their character to act as limited hangouts?  What does Gage or Griffin say that Tarpley does not?  What crucial characterization is he obfuscating that in any way helps the Establishment?

I think you are seeing his LaRouchian traits (he was with them for like 20 years) and it comes off to you as it LaRouche did to everyone else.  LaRouche did run a highly successful financial securities/intelligence business.  No doubt he was a criminal  and no doubt that the Establishment had it out for him.

He's supposed to come across as a nut-job because that's his role... to get his name put alongside the names of Griffin, Gage, Steven Jones, et. al. and then people who have only heard Tarpley will say, "Wow, those guys are all a bunch of conspiracy theory wackos!" They did it with JFK assassintion research, of course they're going to do it with their 9/11 crimes.

Ha, you said Alex Jones in the preivious paragraph, but omitted him here...hmmm.  Could it possibly be because he comes off as a "nut-job"?

Why would I think Gage, or Griffin, or (stephen) Jones are conspiracy whackos if I have only heard Tarpley?  His stuff sounds just as plausible, he just peppers in his opinions as well (which, again, I am not fond of)

.