Banning Conspiracy from YouTube

[John McAdams]

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/23/us/infowars-youtube-videos-trnd/index.html

It seems that CNN is working to get videos from Alex Jones INFOWARS
banned from YouTube. In fact, they obviously would like to get Jones
entire channel banned.

Since some of Jones' theories are far fringe, it's tempting to applaud
this.

The problem, of course, it: who gets to decide what it "fringe," and
how long until more mainstream conspiracies are judged to be a
"violation" of some "guidelines" and banned?

Not to speak of the fact that, in a free society, even fringe theories
have a right to be heard.

The mentality of Cass Sunstein is definitely out there, and not
without supporters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunstein#"Conspiracy_Theories"_and_government_infiltration

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[claviger]

More proof Liberals are control freaks who have no interest in
free speech democracy.

[David Von Pein]

Along similar lines, I've been experiencing two new "conspiracy trends"
amongst the outer-fringe conspiracy nuts when it comes to some comments
I've been receiving in the last few months on my JFK YouTube channel:

1.) Many goofball CTers now apparently have it fixed in their minds that
John & Nellie Connally weren't really sitting in the Presidential
limousine with JFK when the assassination occurred on 11/22/63. These
nuts embrace something called "The Mandela Effect" (collective false
memory)...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory

...and evidently these people believe that a regular (non-stretch) Lincoln
limousine was used for the Dallas motorcade, instead of the stretch limo
(SS-100-X) that all sensible people know President Kennedy and Governor
Connally were sitting in when they were shot by rifle bullets on November
22nd.

I regularly see comments on some of my YouTube videos from people saying
they just don't believe that Kennedy and Connally were riding in a stretch
limousine in Dallas, despite the fact those same conspiracy theorists have
undoubtedly gazed upon the hundreds of still photographs and films that
depict the men riding in the President's stretch "bubbletop" limo through
the streets of Dallas, Texas. I guess the "Mandela" believers must also
believe that ALL of those hundreds of pictures and films have been faked
in unison in order to perpetuate some grandiose "Mandela Effect" among
unsuspecting Americans. (Can CTers get much sillier than this?)

I think some of the "Mandela" believers (the ones who are just too lazy to
look up all the various photos of the stretch limo being used on Nov. 22)
could be merely mixing up the vehicles that JFK and John Connally rode in
on 11/22/63, because the two men (and Jackie) DID travel in a white
non-stretch Lincoln convertible for their drive from the Hotel Texas to
Carswell Air Force Base in Fort Worth before departing for Dallas that
morning. And there *is* film footage showing them in that car (see the
last minute of the video on this page)....

http://jfk-in-fort-worth.blogspot.com


2.) And the second fairly new conspiracy trend I've been seeing lately at
YouTube is the "crisis actors" theory. On more than one occasion in
just the last few months, conspiracy fanatics have left comments on my
YouTube videos saying that they believe that some of the various
people who were interviewed following JFK's assassination were, in
reality, merely "crisis actors" and are not to be trusted, including
witnesses such as Bill Newman, Gayle Newman, Abraham Zapruder, and
Marrion Baker.

So, it would seem as though not only are the old staple JFK conspiracy
theories alive and well here in the 21st century (e.g., the motorcade
route was changed; Oswald didn't have enough time to get to the 2nd-floor
lunchroom; Mac Wallace's fingerprint was found in the Sniper's Nest; "Back
and to the left" proves there was a shot from the front; the "Mystery
Deaths"; the backyard photos of Oswald are fakes; etc.), but a brand-new
set of crackpot conspiracy theories have blossomed to keep those other
crackpot theories company, such as "The Mandela Effect" and "The Crisis
Actors".

The conspiracy silliness never ends. And it never will.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-conspiracy-myths-continue.html

[David Von Pein]

I agree with John McAdams, though ..... even kooky fringe conspiracy
theorists have a right to voice their opinions (and their theories).

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/24/2018 10:38 AM, John McAdams wrote:
>
> https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/23/us/infowars-youtube-videos-trnd/index.html
>
> It seems that CNN is working to get videos from Alex Jones INFOWARS
> banned from YouTube. In fact, they obviously would like to get Jones
> entire channel banned.
>
> Since some of Jones' theories are far fringe, it's tempting to applaud
> this.
>
> The problem, of course, it: who gets to decide what it "fringe," and
> how long until more mainstream conspiracies are judged to be a
> "violation" of some "guidelines" and banned?
>
> Not to speak of the fact that, in a free society, even fringe theories
> have a right to be heard.
>

To me it's not just about Free Speech, it's also about a Duty to Warn.
When I tell my Liberal friends about the Nazi things I see they don't
believe me and dismiss it. So I have to print out the messages here and
show them that there really are very dangerous rightwing nuts saying the
most vike things every day.

> The mentality of Cass Sunstein is definitely out there, and not
> without supporters.
>

First they came for .....

[David Von Pein]

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SmC8EQ0n49M/WpHMXL0w2vI/AAAAAAABOTA/lO1y6Rfwx34ZcN08dG15yWG9bRZThsh5gCLcBGAs/s7000-h/YouTube-Comments.png

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/24/2018 10:20 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> Along similar lines, I've been experiencing two new "conspiracy trends"
> amongst the outer-fringe conspiracy nuts when it comes to some comments
> I've been receiving in the last few months on my JFK YouTube channel:
>
> 1.) Many goofball CTers now apparently have it fixed in their minds that
> John & Nellie Connally weren't really sitting in the Presidential
> limousine with JFK when the assassination occurred on 11/22/63. These
> nuts embrace something called "The Mandela Effect" (collective false
> memory)...
>

Jeez, I wasn't even aware of those. Do they post here?
So do they think they are imposters, Second Connallys, or aliens (grey
or blue)?

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory
>

Yes, even the best witness can confuse memory. See Loftus. But even
worse is when people LIE about what a witness said or misquote such as
the newspapers or the autobiography. It helps to play the original tape
so that the audience gets to actually hear what the witness actually said.

> ...and evidently these people believe that a regular (non-stretch) Lincoln
> limousine was used for the Dallas motorcade, instead of the stretch limo

Not sure how that would work. Maybe they think it was the backup limo?
But why?

> (SS-100-X) that all sensible people know President Kennedy and Governor
> Connally were sitting in when they were shot by rifle bullets on November
> 22nd.
>

Define sensible? What about WC defenders who lie about the limo?

> I regularly see comments on some of my YouTube videos from people saying
> they just don't believe that Kennedy and Connally were riding in a stretch
> limousine in Dallas, despite the fact those same conspiracy theorists have
> undoubtedly gazed upon the hundreds of still photographs and films that

And some of us have done actual research and have copies of the original
drawings, specs, and photos.

> depict the men riding in the President's stretch "bubbletop" limo through
> the streets of Dallas, Texas. I guess the "Mandela" believers must also
> believe that ALL of those hundreds of pictures and films have been faked

Mandela? Is that a Voodoo thing? Magically transplanting objects from
one place to another?

> in unison in order to perpetuate some grandiose "Mandela Effect" among
> unsuspecting Americans. (Can CTers get much sillier than this?)
>

Sure. Why not a second JFK or a head shot at frame 210 or JFK survived?
Lots of theories out there.

> I think some of the "Mandela" believers (the ones who are just too lazy to
> look up all the various photos of the stretch limo being used on Nov. 22)

What about the photos they never got to see showing it being loaded or
unloaded from the plane, being used in the other motorcades that day?
Another reason why ALL the files should be released to the PUBLIC.

> could be merely mixing up the vehicles that JFK and John Connally rode in
> on 11/22/63, because the two men (and Jackie) DID travel in a white
> non-stretch Lincoln convertible for their drive from the Hotel Texas to
> Carswell Air Force Base in Fort Worth before departing for Dallas that
> morning. And there *is* film footage showing them in that car (see the
> last minute of the video on this page)....
>

I wasn't aware there was a shooting then. WHat's their point?
COlor blind?

> http://jfk-in-fort-worth.blogspot.com
>
>
> 2.) And the second fairly new conspiracy trend I've been seeing lately at
> YouTube is the "crisis actors" theory. On more than one occasion in
> just the last few months, conspiracy fanatics have left comments on my
> YouTube videos saying that they believe that some of the various
> people who were interviewed following JFK's assassination were, in
> reality, merely "crisis actors" and are not to be trusted, including
> witnesses such as Bill Newman, Gayle Newman, Abraham Zapruder, and
> Marrion Baker.
>

Jeez, even worse than that. We have some kook who claims that the
witnesses were part of the conspiracy!
Then again, it may just be a troll trying to smear all conspiracy believers.

> So, it would seem as though not only are the old staple JFK conspiracy
> theories alive and well here in the 21st century (e.g., the motorcade
> route was changed; Oswald didn't have enough time to get to the 2nd-floor
> lunchroom; Mac Wallace's fingerprint was found in the Sniper's Nest; "Back
> and to the left" proves there was a shot from the front; the "Mystery
> Deaths"; the backyard photos of Oswald are fakes; etc.), but a brand-new
> set of crackpot conspiracy theories have blossomed to keep those other
> crackpot theories company, such as "The Mandela Effect" and "The Crisis
> Actors".
>

Whatever happened to the Oswald was left-handed or the Driver Did It
theory?

> The conspiracy silliness never ends. And it never will.
>

As long as you support the government cover-up and refuse to release the
files. People can make up any crazy theory and you can't show them the
files and/or photos to prove them wrong.
Look at what happened to the Oswald in the doorway theory.
That was quite popular until Robert Groden was allowed to study the
original material and prove it wrong. Same with the backyard photos.

> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-conspiracy-myths-continue.html
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Silly. I always want the rightwing nuts to spout their nonsense so that
people can see for themselves how crazy they are.
How can we be control freaks if we don't control the evidence?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Bud]

On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 10:29:06 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 2/24/2018 10:38 AM, John McAdams wrote:
> >
> > https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/23/us/infowars-youtube-videos-trnd/index.html
> >
> > It seems that CNN is working to get videos from Alex Jones INFOWARS
> > banned from YouTube. In fact, they obviously would like to get Jones
> > entire channel banned.
> >
> > Since some of Jones' theories are far fringe, it's tempting to applaud
> > this.
> >
> > The problem, of course, it: who gets to decide what it "fringe," and
> > how long until more mainstream conspiracies are judged to be a
> > "violation" of some "guidelines" and banned?
> >
> > Not to speak of the fact that, in a free society, even fringe theories
> > have a right to be heard.
> >
>
> To me it's not just about Free Speech, it's also about a Duty to Warn.
> When I tell my Liberal friends about the Nazi things I see they don't
> believe me and dismiss it. So I have to print out the messages here and
> show them that there really are very dangerous rightwing nuts saying the
> most vike things every day.

Are they aghast that someone somewhere is saying something they don`t
approve of?

[mainframetech]

You need to listen to some of the wacky conspiracy theories coming out
of FOX News these days, or the Republican party to aid an abet Trump!
The faking of an intelligence memo from Devon Nunes, Trump's lap dog.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/26/2018 5:46 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 10:29:06 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 2/24/2018 10:38 AM, John McAdams wrote:
>>>
>>> https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/23/us/infowars-youtube-videos-trnd/index.html
>>>
>>> It seems that CNN is working to get videos from Alex Jones INFOWARS
>>> banned from YouTube. In fact, they obviously would like to get Jones
>>> entire channel banned.
>>>
>>> Since some of Jones' theories are far fringe, it's tempting to applaud
>>> this.
>>>
>>> The problem, of course, it: who gets to decide what it "fringe," and
>>> how long until more mainstream conspiracies are judged to be a
>>> "violation" of some "guidelines" and banned?
>>>
>>> Not to speak of the fact that, in a free society, even fringe theories
>>> have a right to be heard.
>>>
>>
>> To me it's not just about Free Speech, it's also about a Duty to Warn.
>> When I tell my Liberal friends about the Nazi things I see they don't
>> believe me and dismiss it. So I have to print out the messages here and
>> show them that there really are very dangerous rightwing nuts saying the
>> most vike things every day.
>
> Are they aghast that someone somewhere is saying something they don`t
> approve of?
>

WTF? Why are there ever any limits to free speech then. Why can't you
shout fire in a crowde theatre? Under Ttump you are not allowed to
mention that the emoke alarm does not work.

[Robert Harris]

On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 10:20:50 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> Along similar lines, I've been experiencing two new "conspiracy trends"
> amongst the outer-fringe conspiracy nuts when it comes to some comments
> I've been receiving in the last few months on my JFK YouTube channel:
>
> 1.) Many goofball CTers now apparently have it fixed in their minds that
> John & Nellie Connally weren't really sitting in the Presidential
> limousine with JFK when the assassination occurred on 11/22/63. These
> nuts embrace something called "The Mandela Effect" (collective false
> memory)...

Yes, I have had a dozen or so of those on my Youtube channel. They are
never by anyone whose name I have seen before, however. I think this is a
troll thing, not necessarily related to conspiracy advocates.

Pretty much all of the bad theories I have seen are predicated on
something people think they saw - Greer shooting JFK, a painted-over place
in the Zfilm, hiding damage to the BOH, etc.

But no one has ever seen anything that would make them think there were
only four people in the limo. This is deliberate, probably by a nutter,
looking for another excuse to ridicule conspiracy advocates.




Robert Harris

[Jason Burke]

Harris, Harris, Harris.
Nutters don't need an excuse to "ridicule conspiracy advocates".
Y'all do just a fine job of that all by yourselves.

>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

I haven't seen the theory that says that.
Maybe the theory says the Connallys were imposters. Do you see the
difference?

[Anthony Marsh]

You and the other minions are here only to slander conspiracy believers.
None of you slackers have ever done any actual research of your own.

>>
>>
>>
>> Robert Harris
>>
>
>

[OHLeeRedux]

Oh. Poor little babies. Tell you what -- You're in my thoughts and
prayers. [snicker].

[Jason Burke]

1) Learn the difference between slander and libel.
2) While you wuz driving a bus to the mall I was learning about science.
In fact, if you had the Mass Ave route, you prob'ly drove by once or
twice. One of the thangs they larned us in science was that when somefin
is shown to be untrue, no amount of holding your breath, kicking, and
screaming will make it true.
3) Apply #2 to the acoustic, uh, "evidence".

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Robert Harris
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Robert Harris]

On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 2:42:29 PM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
> On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 10:20:50 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > Along similar lines, I've been experiencing two new "conspiracy trends"
> > amongst the outer-fringe conspiracy nuts when it comes to some comments
> > I've been receiving in the last few months on my JFK YouTube channel:
> >
> > 1.) Many goofball CTers now apparently have it fixed in their minds that
> > John & Nellie Connally weren't really sitting in the Presidential
> > limousine with JFK when the assassination occurred on 11/22/63. These
> > nuts embrace something called "The Mandela Effect" (collective false
> > memory)...
>
> Yes, I have had a dozen or so of those on my Youtube channel. They are
> never by anyone whose name I have seen before, however. I think this is a
> troll thing, not necessarily related to conspiracy advocates.
>
> Pretty much all of the bad theories I have seen are predicated on
> something people think they saw - Greer shooting JFK, a painted-over place
> in the Zfilm, hiding damage to the BOH, etc.
>
> But no one has ever seen anything that would make them think there were
> only four people in the limo.

Ok, it happens every decade or so. I was wrong. This is probably where
this "mandela effect" theory originated. Scroll down to page 23.

https://books.google.com/books?id=U1IEAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false



Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

I don't think so. I don't think you were old enough.

> In fact, if you had the Mass Ave route, you prob'ly drove by once or
> twice. One of the thangs they larned us in science was that when somefin
> is shown to be untrue, no amount of holding your breath, kicking, and
> screaming will make it true.

Silly. YOU are thinking of the MBTA. I never drove those routes.
I used to drive people to and from MIT though. What's your point?
You are not an acoustical scientist no matter what alias you use.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 2:20:17 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 2/26/2018 5:46 PM, Bud wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 10:29:06 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> On 2/24/2018 10:38 AM, John McAdams wrote:
> >>>
> >>> https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/23/us/infowars-youtube-videos-trnd/index.html
> >>>
> >>> It seems that CNN is working to get videos from Alex Jones INFOWARS
> >>> banned from YouTube. In fact, they obviously would like to get Jones
> >>> entire channel banned.
> >>>
> >>> Since some of Jones' theories are far fringe, it's tempting to applaud
> >>> this.
> >>>
> >>> The problem, of course, it: who gets to decide what it "fringe," and
> >>> how long until more mainstream conspiracies are judged to be a
> >>> "violation" of some "guidelines" and banned?
> >>>
> >>> Not to speak of the fact that, in a free society, even fringe theories
> >>> have a right to be heard.
> >>>
> >>
> >> To me it's not just about Free Speech, it's also about a Duty to Warn.
> >> When I tell my Liberal friends about the Nazi things I see they don't
> >> believe me and dismiss it. So I have to print out the messages here and
> >> show them that there really are very dangerous rightwing nuts saying the
> >> most vike things every day.
> >
> > Are they aghast that someone somewhere is saying something they don`t
> > approve of?
> >
>
> WTF?

It was a simple question. When you print out things said in this
newsgroup are your liberal friends aghast that someone somewhere is saying
things they don`t approve of?

> Why are there ever any limits to free speech then.

Liberal cannot be trusted to set those boundaries. They are generally
poor thinkers and hypocrites. The leftists who run youtube, for instance,
routinely take down videos they feel are offensive to women when there are
Islamic videos explaining how to beat your wife that have been on there
for years with tens of thousands of views.

Steven Pinker, a liberal, is currently under fire from the left for
having the audacity of saying that men and women are different and that
certain racial groups commit a disproportionate amount of crime. If the
extreme left had their way the stating of these simple facts would be a
criminal offense.

> Why can't you shout fire in a crowde theatre?

I`ll let Alan Dershowitz explain to you why this is an intellectually
false argument...

https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/89jan/dershowitz.htm

Hitchens on the issue...

https://youtu.be/K4hqFvXm57M

What the left is actually trying to do (successfully in some cases) is
outlaw speech that they don`t approve of. They want to not allow certain
speech that might offend someone, and that offends me. They want to
infringe on my right to hear such things that they might not approve
of.

This comedian has the idea of being offended exactly right...

https://youtu.be/ceS_jkKjIgo

> Under Ttump you are not allowed to
> mention that the emoke alarm does not work.

I`ll ignore that non sequitur and mention something that will attempt to
bring this on topic a bit. Tony and the other leftist see the infringement
of free speech as necessary to prevent the rise of Nazism. Ironic that
they want to use the tools of the Nazis to accomplish this, outlawing
speech, locking up people who hold opposing viewpoints, violence in the
streets, intimidation and even assassination. They become what they
profess to hate. This is what Marina testified to...

Mr. RANKIN. "Did he tell you why he had shot at General Walker?"

Mrs. OSWALD. "I told him that he had no right to kill people in
peacetime, he had no right to take their life because not everybody has
the same ideas as he has. People cannot be all alike. He said that this
was a very bad man, that he was a fascist, that he was the leader of a
fascist organization, and when I said that even though all of that night
be true, just the same he had no right to take his life, he said if
someone had killed Hitler in time it would have saved many lives. I told
him that this is no method to prove your ideas, by means of a rifle."

A leftist extremist who has himself convinced that extreme measures were
needed to prevent the rise of Nazism. But no great harm was done because
Walker lived and no great accomplishment would have occurred had Oswald
been successful. Yet Oswald had himself convinced he was fighting the good
fight against Nazi evil. What were Oswald`s actions other than an effort
to prevent Walker from saying things he didn`t like? Just like the
liberals of today who want to take drastic and evil measures to fight what
is essentially a non-existent threat, except they use politics and the law
to do their dirty work for them. And they are basically using nukes on a
boogeyman, because real Nazism hasn`t a chance in this country.

[Anthony Marsh]

WTF?
They are just amazed at the stupid things that racists say here.

>> Why are there ever any limits to free speech then.
>
> Liberal cannot be trusted to set those boundaries. They are generally
> poor thinkers and hypocrites. The leftists who run youtube, for instance,
> routinely take down videos they feel are offensive to women when there are
> Islamic videos explaining how to beat your wife that have been on there
> for years with tens of thousands of views.
>

Forget YouTube.
Someone has to set the limits and often it is Liberals, because
Conservatives have a habit of allowing racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc.
One college professor was fired for supporting a student's anti-gay speech.
THAT's what happens when conservatives are in charge. Then we have Nazi
rallies and conservatives driving over Liberals with their cars and
killing them. Conservatives are inherently murderers. It's in their DNA.
When have Liberal ever lynched anybody?

> Steven Pinker, a liberal, is currently under fire from the left for
> having the audacity of saying that men and women are different and that
> certain racial groups commit a disproportionate amount of crime. If the
> extreme left had their way the stating of these simple facts would be a
> criminal offense.
>

I don't know who the Hell he is and neither do you. He may be just a
Russian Bot sent spread hatred. And you fall for it.

>> Why can't you shout fire in a crowde theatre?
>
> I`ll let Alan Dershowitz explain to you why this is an intellectually
> false argument...
>

He has. And he supports Trump no matter what crimes he commits.
Not all Jews are Liberals.

> https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/89jan/dershowitz.htm
>
> Hitchens on the issue...
>

Forget Hitchens. He is a kook.

> https://youtu.be/K4hqFvXm57M
>
> What the left is actually trying to do (successfully in some cases) is
> outlaw speech that they don`t approve of. They want to not allow certain
> speech that might offend someone, and that offends me. They want to
> infringe on my right to hear such things that they might not approve
> of.
>

Yeah, because we don't think cannibalism is a good idea.

> This comedian has the idea of being offended exactly right...
>
> https://youtu.be/ceS_jkKjIgo
>

As I said, FRAK YouTube. It is not real.
It is a hoax.

>
>> Under Ttump you are not allowed to
>> mention that the emoke alarm does not work.
>
> I`ll ignore that non sequitur and mention something that will attempt to

It's an example of the failure of capitalism. Capitalism always relies
on corruption.

> bring this on topic a bit. Tony and the other leftist see the infringement
> of free speech as necessary to prevent the rise of Nazism. Ironic that

Not solely. That is only one of the manyt dangers.

> they want to use the tools of the Nazis to accomplish this, outlawing
> speech, locking up people who hold opposing viewpoints, violence in the
> streets, intimidation and even assassination. They become what they
> profess to hate. This is what Marina testified to...
>

No, I just said about 200 times that I want to see the Nazis spew their
nonsense so that people can see how dangerous they are. Same with
Republicans.

> Mr. RANKIN. "Did he tell you why he had shot at General Walker?"
>
> Mrs. OSWALD. "I told him that he had no right to kill people in
> peacetime, he had no right to take their life because not everybody has
> the same ideas as he has. People cannot be all alike. He said that this
> was a very bad man, that he was a fascist, that he was the leader of a
> fascist organization, and when I said that even though all of that night
> be true, just the same he had no right to take his life, he said if
> someone had killed Hitler in time it would have saved many lives. I told
> him that this is no method to prove your ideas, by means of a rifle."
>
> A leftist extremist who has himself convinced that extreme measures were
> needed to prevent the rise of Nazism. But no great harm was done because

That's a bit of a stretch. I don't think Oswald said that Walker would
become a Hitler.

> Walker lived and no great accomplishment would have occurred had Oswald
> been successful. Yet Oswald had himself convinced he was fighting the good

You can't predict the future that way.
Others had tried to assassinate Hitler and maybe it even backfired.
After one attempt Hitler said that the failure proved that his mission
was blesed by God.

> fight against Nazi evil. What were Oswald`s actions other than an effort
> to prevent Walker from saying things he didn`t like? Just like the

Say things? How about DO things? How about inciting violence? But if it
wasn;t Walker it could have been someone else. That is why assassination
has risky consequences.

> liberals of today who want to take drastic and evil measures to fight what
> is essentially a non-existent threat, except they use politics and the law
> to do their dirty work for them. And they are basically using nukes on a
> boogeyman, because real Nazism hasn`t a chance in this country.
>

Oh really? Tell us about this evil and which Liberals are taking drastic
and eveil measures to fit it. Maybe this is just part of your
persecution complex.


> Subject: Emmet J.Hubson
> Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 23:05:35 +0300
> From: "Voyager" <ji...@dmail.com>
> Organization: Hellenic Telecommunications & Telematics Applications Company FORTHnet S.A., Thetidos 6, GR-11528 Athens, Greece, Tel: +30 (1) 7295100, Fax: +30 (1) 7258520, url: http://www.forthnet.gr
> Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
>
> VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86
> SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
>
> COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS
>
> Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22nd day of November A.D.
> 1963 personally appeared Emmett Joseph Hudson, Address 107 South Bishop,
> Dallas, Texas Age 56 , Phone No. WH 2-2008
>
> Deposes and says:
>
> I am presently employed by the City of Dallas, Texas in the Park Department.
> I have been so employed for the past 6 years. My position is to take care of
> the property on the West side of Houston Street between Houston Street and
> the Tripple [sic] Underpass. I also take care of the fountain in front of
> the Union Terminal. This day a was sitting on the front steps of the sloping
> area and about half way down the steps. There was another man sitting there
> with me. He was sitting on my left and we were both facing the street with
> our backs to the railroad yards and the brick building. At the same time the
> President's car was directly in front of us, I heard a shot and I saw the
> President fall over in the seat. I do not know who this other man was that
> was sitting beside me. In our conversation he talked about having a hard
> time finding a place to park. He also talked about working somewhere over on
> Industrial Blvd. This man said Lay down and we did. I definately [sic] heard
> 3 shots. The shots that I heard definately [sic] came from behind and above
> me. When I laid down on the ground I laid on my right side and my view was
> still toward the street where the President's car had passed. I did look
> around but I did not see any firearms at all. This shot sounded to me like a
> high powered rifle.
>
> /s/ Emmett J. Hudson
>
> Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the 22nd day of Nov A. D. 1963

[Bud]

So your liberal friends are aghast that someone somewhere is saying
things they don`t approve of. They`d prevent it if they could.

> >> Why are there ever any limits to free speech then.
> >
> > Liberal cannot be trusted to set those boundaries. They are generally
> > poor thinkers and hypocrites. The leftists who run youtube, for instance,
> > routinely take down videos they feel are offensive to women when there are
> > Islamic videos explaining how to beat your wife that have been on there
> > for years with tens of thousands of views.
> >
>
> Forget YouTube.
> Someone has to set the limits and often it is Liberals, because
> Conservatives have a habit of allowing racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc.

Allowing? What right or power does anyone have to prevent those things?

> One college professor was fired for supporting a student's anti-gay speech.

And this is why liberals can`t be trusted to set boundaries, it wasn`t
anti-gay speech. And why should it be punishable to express anti-gay
ideas?

> THAT's what happens when conservatives are in charge. Then we have Nazi
> rallies and conservatives driving over Liberals with their cars and
> killing them.

If you see it as an ideology battle why wouldn`t you expect people on the other side to see it the same way? If you try to strip the rights of Americans away you have to expect to trigger some people.

> Conservatives are inherently murderers. It's in their DNA.
> When have Liberal ever lynched anybody?

Liberals are inherently cowards. It`s in their DNA. Sure, they will
occasionally shoot a President in the back, but they generally prefer more
insidious methods.

> > Steven Pinker, a liberal, is currently under fire from the left for
> > having the audacity of saying that men and women are different and that
> > certain racial groups commit a disproportionate amount of crime. If the
> > extreme left had their way the stating of these simple facts would be a
> > criminal offense.
> >
>
> I don't know who the Hell he is and neither do you.

I just watched this video of him yesterday...

https://youtu.be/PnitLNObR7c

> He may be just a
> Russian Bot sent spread hatred. And you fall for it.

Liberals hate the free expression of thought. They want to control
everything that is said and everything that is thought.

> >> Why can't you shout fire in a crowde theatre?
> >
> > I`ll let Alan Dershowitz explain to you why this is an intellectually
> > false argument...
> >
>
> He has. And he supports Trump no matter what crimes he commits.
> Not all Jews are Liberals.
>
> > https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/89jan/dershowitz.htm
> >
> > Hitchens on the issue...
> >
>
> Forget Hitchens. He is a kook.
>
> > https://youtu.be/K4hqFvXm57M
> >
> > What the left is actually trying to do (successfully in some cases) is
> > outlaw speech that they don`t approve of. They want to not allow certain
> > speech that might offend someone, and that offends me. They want to
> > infringe on my right to hear such things that they might not approve
> > of.
> >
>
> Yeah, because we don't think cannibalism is a good idea.

Then why did you mention it? Surely liberals want to outlaw mentioning
anything bad. But aren`t cannibals an oppressed minority? Once you get
that status with liberals you can do no wrong.

> > This comedian has the idea of being offended exactly right...
> >
> > https://youtu.be/ceS_jkKjIgo
> >
>
> As I said, FRAK YouTube. It is not real.
> It is a hoax.

Nothing I linked to was for your benefit, Tony.

> >
> >> Under Ttump you are not allowed to
> >> mention that the emoke alarm does not work.
> >
> > I`ll ignore that non sequitur and mention something that will attempt to
>
> It's an example of the failure of capitalism. Capitalism always relies
> on corruption.
>
> > bring this on topic a bit. Tony and the other leftist see the infringement
> > of free speech as necessary to prevent the rise of Nazism. Ironic that
>
> Not solely. That is only one of the manyt dangers.

Yes, hurting the feelings of select groups is another.

[Anthony Marsh]

Aghast is not the correct word. They know that there are hate groups out
there. They were just surprised to see people spewing hate speech so
freely.

>>>> Why are there ever any limits to free speech then.
>>>
>>> Liberal cannot be trusted to set those boundaries. They are generally
>>> poor thinkers and hypocrites. The leftists who run youtube, for instance,
>>> routinely take down videos they feel are offensive to women when there are
>>> Islamic videos explaining how to beat your wife that have been on there
>>> for years with tens of thousands of views.
>>>
>>
>> Forget YouTube.
>> Someone has to set the limits and often it is Liberals, because
>> Conservatives have a habit of allowing racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc.
>
> Allowing? What right or power does anyone have to prevent those things?
>

It's called Terms of Service. Read the fine print. They own the platform
so they have a right to say what can be posted.

>> One college professor was fired for supporting a student's anti-gay speech.
>
> And this is why liberals can`t be trusted to set boundaries, it wasn`t
> anti-gay speech. And why should it be punishable to express anti-gay
> ideas?
>

WTF? You don't even know what I am talking about and it was anti-gay
speech. That was the whole point of the dispute.

>> THAT's what happens when conservatives are in charge. Then we have Nazi
>> rallies and conservatives driving over Liberals with their cars and
>> killing them.
>
> If you see it as an ideology battle why wouldn`t you expect people on the other side to see it the same way? If you try to strip the rights of Americans away you have to expect to trigger some people.
>

Say what, silly person. I am not trying to strip any American of any
rights. You are saying tthat some people do not want to be told that they
are behaving badly. Then don't behave badly. Problem solved.

>> Conservatives are inherently murderers. It's in their DNA.
>> When have Liberal ever lynched anybody?
>
> Liberals are inherently cowards. It`s in their DNA. Sure, they will
> occasionally shoot a President in the back, but they generally prefer more
> insidious methods.
>

It's not the liberals who are doing the killing. It's the conservatives
who are the killers.

>>> Steven Pinker, a liberal, is currently under fire from the left for
>>> having the audacity of saying that men and women are different and that
>>> certain racial groups commit a disproportionate amount of crime. If the
>>> extreme left had their way the stating of these simple facts would be a
>>> criminal offense.
>>>
>>
>> I don't know who the Hell he is and neither do you.
>
> I just watched this video of him yesterday...
>

Why? Are you sick?

> https://youtu.be/PnitLNObR7c
>
>> He may be just a
>> Russian Bot sent spread hatred. And you fall for it.
>
> Liberals hate the free expression of thought. They want to control
> everything that is said and everything that is thought.
>

False. Liberals fought to let people like you say whatever silly things
you want.

>>>> Why can't you shout fire in a crowde theatre?
>>>
>>> I`ll let Alan Dershowitz explain to you why this is an intellectually
>>> false argument...
>>>
>>
>> He has. And he supports Trump no matter what crimes he commits.
>> Not all Jews are Liberals.
>>
>>> https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/89jan/dershowitz.htm
>>>
>>> Hitchens on the issue...
>>>
>>
>> Forget Hitchens. He is a kook.
>>
>>> https://youtu.be/K4hqFvXm57M
>>>
>>> What the left is actually trying to do (successfully in some cases) is
>>> outlaw speech that they don`t approve of. They want to not allow certain
>>> speech that might offend someone, and that offends me. They want to
>>> infringe on my right to hear such things that they might not approve
>>> of.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, because we don't think cannibalism is a good idea.
>
> Then why did you mention it? Surely liberals want to outlaw mentioning
> anything bad. But aren`t cannibals an oppressed minority? Once you get

I just mentioned it.
No, cannibalism is not an alternative lifestyle. Some things are just
right or wrong.

> that status with liberals you can do no wrong.
>

No one ever said that or believed it. You just think that you have to
bash Liberals to prove to your friends that you are a sightwinger.

>>> This comedian has the idea of being offended exactly right...
>>>
>>> https://youtu.be/ceS_jkKjIgo
>>>
>>
>> As I said, FRAK YouTube. It is not real.
>> It is a hoax.
>
> Nothing I linked to was for your benefit, Tony.
>

My comment stands. It's my advice to everyone.

>>>
>>>> Under Ttump you are not allowed to
>>>> mention that the emoke alarm does not work.
>>>
>>> I`ll ignore that non sequitur and mention something that will attempt to
>>
>> It's an example of the failure of capitalism. Capitalism always relies
>> on corruption.
>>
>>> bring this on topic a bit. Tony and the other leftist see the infringement
>>> of free speech as necessary to prevent the rise of Nazism. Ironic that
>>
>> Not solely. That is only one of the manyt dangers.
>
> Yes, hurting the feelings of select groups is another.
>

Uh?

No.

>>> is essentially a non-existent threat, except they use politics and the law
>>> to do their dirty work for them. And they are basically using nukes on a
>>> boogeyman, because real Nazism hasn`t a chance in this country.
>>>

You are paranoid.
Just like McAdams saying that the ACLU is out to get him.

[John McAdams]

On 6 Mar 2018 15:06:23 -0500, Anthony Marsh

<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 3/5/2018 6:22 PM, Bud wrote:
>
>You are paranoid.
>Just like McAdams saying that the ACLU is out to get him.
>

I never said the ACLU is out to get me.

And you know that.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

On 6 Mar 2018 15:06:23 -0500, Anthony Marsh
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 3/5/2018 6:22 PM, Bud wrote:
>> On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 8:50:16 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>> On 3/4/2018 9:15 AM, Bud wrote:
>>>
>>> WTF?
>>> They are just amazed at the stupid things that racists say here.
>>
>> So your liberal friends are aghast that someone somewhere is saying
>> things they don`t approve of. They`d prevent it if they could.
>>
>
>Aghast is not the correct word. They know that there are hate groups out
>there. They were just surprised to see people spewing hate speech so
>freely.
>

If your friends think anybody is spewing "racism" here, they are a
bunch of yahoos. Bigots who use the slur "racism" against arguments
the don't like. And can't refute.

>>>>> Why are there ever any limits to free speech then.
>>>>
>>>> Liberal cannot be trusted to set those boundaries. They are generally
>>>> poor thinkers and hypocrites. The leftists who run youtube, for instance,
>>>> routinely take down videos they feel are offensive to women when there are
>>>> Islamic videos explaining how to beat your wife that have been on there
>>>> for years with tens of thousands of views.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Forget YouTube.
>>> Someone has to set the limits and often it is Liberals, because
>>> Conservatives have a habit of allowing racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc.
>>

So Tony is overt in saying liberals have a right to censor.

>> Allowing? What right or power does anyone have to prevent those things?
>>
>
>It's called Terms of Service. Read the fine print. They own the platform
>so they have a right to say what can be posted.
>

That isn't relevant where the First Amendment applies, such as when a
speaker leftists don't like speaks on the campus of a public
university, or holds a rally in a public square.

>>> One college professor was fired for supporting a student's anti-gay speech.
>>
>> And this is why liberals can`t be trusted to set boundaries, it wasn`t
>> anti-gay speech. And why should it be punishable to express anti-gay
>> ideas?
>>
>
>WTF? You don't even know what I am talking about and it was anti-gay
>speech. That was the whole point of the dispute.
>

Tony thinks people should be punished for opposing gay marriage.

>>> THAT's what happens when conservatives are in charge. Then we have Nazi
>>> rallies and conservatives driving over Liberals with their cars and
>>> killing them.
>>
>> If you see it as an ideology battle why wouldn`t you expect people on the other side to see it the same way? If you try to strip the rights of Americans away you have to expect to trigger some people.
>>
>
>Say what, silly person. I am not trying to strip any American of any
>rights. You are saying tthat some people do not want to be told that they
>are behaving badly. Then don't behave badly. Problem solved.
>

Liberals can't tolerate being told they are behaving badly. They try
to shut up people who say that.

>>> Conservatives are inherently murderers. It's in their DNA.
>>> When have Liberal ever lynched anybody?
>>
>> Liberals are inherently cowards. It`s in their DNA. Sure, they will
>> occasionally shoot a President in the back, but they generally prefer more
>> insidious methods.
>>
>
>It's not the liberals who are doing the killing. It's the conservatives
>who are the killers.
>

Who shot up Republican members of the House of Representatives?

>>
>> Liberals hate the free expression of thought. They want to control
>> everything that is said and everything that is thought.
>>
>
>False. Liberals fought to let people like you say whatever silly things
>you want.
>

Irony alert!

Tony has done a lot post defending liberals right to shut up speech
they don't like, and then he posts this!

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Bud]

"aghast" was the right word, then.

I rarely shocked or surprised by the stupid things liberals say any
more. I need only think of the most idiotic stance I can think of and wait
a few days and some liberal will be taking it.

> >>>> Why are there ever any limits to free speech then.
> >>>
> >>> Liberal cannot be trusted to set those boundaries. They are generally
> >>> poor thinkers and hypocrites. The leftists who run youtube, for instance,
> >>> routinely take down videos they feel are offensive to women when there are
> >>> Islamic videos explaining how to beat your wife that have been on there
> >>> for years with tens of thousands of views.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Forget YouTube.
> >> Someone has to set the limits and often it is Liberals, because
> >> Conservatives have a habit of allowing racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc.
> >
> > Allowing? What right or power does anyone have to prevent those things?
> >
>
> It's called Terms of Service. Read the fine print. They own the platform
> so they have a right to say what can be posted.

Certainly. And since it is progressives doing the censoring you can`t
expect it to be done evenhandedly, fairly or to make much sense.

This guy gives it to them pretty good...

https://youtu.be/YA0GQNtI8lQ

> >> One college professor was fired for supporting a student's anti-gay speech.
> >
> > And this is why liberals can`t be trusted to set boundaries, it wasn`t
> > anti-gay speech. And why should it be punishable to express anti-gay
> > ideas?
> >
>
> WTF? You don't even know what I am talking about and it was anti-gay
> speech. That was the whole point of the dispute.

I knew exactly what you were talking about, and it wasn`t anti-gay
speech.

> >> THAT's what happens when conservatives are in charge. Then we have Nazi
> >> rallies and conservatives driving over Liberals with their cars and
> >> killing them.
> >
> > If you see it as an ideology battle why wouldn`t you expect people on the other side to see it the same way? If you try to strip the rights of Americans away you have to expect to trigger some people.
> >
>
> Say what, silly person.

What I said. You`re whole shtick is ad hominem, misdirection, handwaving
away inconvenient information, ect. If somebody says something about
Kennedy you don`t like, just call them a "Kennedy hater" and flit away. If
someone says something racially that goes against your tender progressive
sensibilities just call them a racist. If somebody puts forth a
conservative idea just label them a Nazi. You have no chance in an honest
exchange of ideas so this is all you can offer, grade school name
calling.

> I am not trying to strip any American of any
> rights.

Of course you are. The extreme left wing wants to drown out civilized
discourse with buzzwords like "Nazi" and "racist". They play these cards
as if they are wild cards that automatically make their ideas the winner.
That way they don`t have to go through the tedious ordeal of actually
defending their ideas.

> You are saying tthat some people do not want to be told that they
> are behaving badly. Then don't behave badly. Problem solved.

Lets apply that wisdom to African-Americans. If African-Americans don`t
like it pointed out that they commit a disproportionate amount of crime
all they need to do is stop committing a disproportionate amount of crime.
Problem solved.

Print that out for your liberal friends, let them be aghast some more.

> >> Conservatives are inherently murderers. It's in their DNA.
> >> When have Liberal ever lynched anybody?
> >
> > Liberals are inherently cowards. It`s in their DNA. Sure, they will
> > occasionally shoot a President in the back, but they generally prefer more
> > insidious methods.
> >
>
> It's not the liberals who are doing the killing.

Really? Those thugs in the inner cities racking up those death tolls are
Republicans?

> It's the conservatives
> who are the killers.

There are between 15,000 and 20,000 murders in the US a year. I`d love
to see the political breakdown of those murderers. Are people in favor of
smaller government overly represented?

> >>> Steven Pinker, a liberal, is currently under fire from the left for
> >>> having the audacity of saying that men and women are different and that
> >>> certain racial groups commit a disproportionate amount of crime. If the
> >>> extreme left had their way the stating of these simple facts would be a
> >>> criminal offense.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I don't know who the Hell he is and neither do you.
> >
> > I just watched this video of him yesterday...
> >
>
> Why? Are you sick?

I`m fine. I like it when thinking people express ideas, especially ones
that go against the ideas the mainstream media is spoon feeding the
public.

The guy is a liberal but he is disturbed by the way liberalism has
become a religion, with accepted doctrine that can`t be spoken out
against. Liberalism is rife with bad and indefensible ideas, so they
attempt to shut down dialog.

> > https://youtu.be/PnitLNObR7c
> >
> >> He may be just a
> >> Russian Bot sent spread hatred. And you fall for it.
> >
> > Liberals hate the free expression of thought. They want to control
> > everything that is said and everything that is thought.
> >
>
> False. Liberals fought to let people like you say whatever silly things
> you want.

Right, that is why they riot and burn when conservative speakers try to
speak at universities. The truth is as I explained it, liberals hate the

free expression of thought. They want to control everything that is said
and everything that is thought.

> >>>> Why can't you shout fire in a crowde theatre?
> >>>
> >>> I`ll let Alan Dershowitz explain to you why this is an intellectually
> >>> false argument...
> >>>
> >>
> >> He has. And he supports Trump no matter what crimes he commits.
> >> Not all Jews are Liberals.
> >>
> >>> https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/89jan/dershowitz.htm
> >>>
> >>> Hitchens on the issue...
> >>>
> >>
> >> Forget Hitchens. He is a kook.
> >>
> >>> https://youtu.be/K4hqFvXm57M
> >>>
> >>> What the left is actually trying to do (successfully in some cases) is
> >>> outlaw speech that they don`t approve of. They want to not allow certain
> >>> speech that might offend someone, and that offends me. They want to
> >>> infringe on my right to hear such things that they might not approve
> >>> of.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yeah, because we don't think cannibalism is a good idea.
> >
> > Then why did you mention it? Surely liberals want to outlaw mentioning
> > anything bad. But aren`t cannibals an oppressed minority? Once you get
>
> I just mentioned it.
> No, cannibalism is not an alternative lifestyle. Some things are just
> right or wrong.

Yes, they are. Like the kidnapping and torturing of autistic children.
Yet the liberal judge in the one case that came to trial in that case
didn`t feel it was so bad...

"On December 8, 2017, Brittany Covington plead guilty to the charges of
committing a hate crime, intimidation and aggravated battery. Additional
charges, such as kidnapping, were dropped as part of her plea deal.
Covington was sentenced to four years of probation and 200 hours of
community service. Cook County Circuit Judge William Hooks said that he
could have sentenced her to prison, but did not because
“I’m not sure if I did that you’d be coming out
any better.”

"better", how does that apply? Is the fear that if she does jail time
the next time she kidnaps and tortures someone she might put their eyes
out or kill them?

So this liberal judge decides no jail time for fear of making this
heinous criminal a worse person. One might argue, if they were sane, that
she was already a bad person, and that the judge`s job was to mete out
punishment for the evil this criminal did. And if someone took this insane
liberal thinking further they might argue that the rightwinger who ran
down leftists with his car might also become a bad person if given jail
time. In fact, why have any prisons at all, sending people who commit
crimes to prison runs the risk of making them worse, or at least not
improving them.

> > that status with liberals you can do no wrong.
> >
>
> No one ever said that or believed it. You just think that you have to
> bash Liberals to prove to your friends that you are a sightwinger.

<snicker> You are the one printing things out from this forum and making
your liberal friends aware of them. Liberals always like to preach to the
converted. Reminds one of the famous line from Pauline Kael, who couldn`t
understand Nixon`s landslide victory (just like they are clueless about
Trump`s victory)...

“I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who
voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re
outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel
them.”

Liberals are out of touch with reality in all things. And this one saw
conservatism as some kind of ominous presence.

> >>> This comedian has the idea of being offended exactly right...
> >>>
> >>> https://youtu.be/ceS_jkKjIgo
> >>>
> >>
> >> As I said, FRAK YouTube. It is not real.
> >> It is a hoax.
> >
> > Nothing I linked to was for your benefit, Tony.
> >
>
> My comment stands. It's my advice to everyone.

Your advice is for people to follow your lead and handwave away any
information that goes against what they want to believe.

> >>>
> >>>> Under Ttump you are not allowed to
> >>>> mention that the emoke alarm does not work.
> >>>
> >>> I`ll ignore that non sequitur and mention something that will attempt to
> >>
> >> It's an example of the failure of capitalism. Capitalism always relies
> >> on corruption.
> >>
> >>> bring this on topic a bit. Tony and the other leftist see the infringement
> >>> of free speech as necessary to prevent the rise of Nazism. Ironic that
> >>
> >> Not solely. That is only one of the manyt dangers.
> >
> > Yes, hurting the feelings of select groups is another.
> >
>
> Uh?

Play dumb, pretend that part of the liberal agenda is not limiting free
speech to protect the feelings of select groups.

Yes.

> >>> is essentially a non-existent threat, except they use politics and the law
> >>> to do their dirty work for them. And they are basically using nukes on a
> >>> boogeyman, because real Nazism hasn`t a chance in this country.
> >>>
>
> You are paranoid.

Yet you see Nazis everywhere.

> Just like McAdams saying that the ACLU is out to get him.

You seems to think that Nazis are out to get you.

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

"They" already "came" for you, Anthony. But "they" just left you there

[Anthony Marsh]

THEY came for me, but they didn't have any evidence, just rumors from
Nazis here.

[OHLeeRedux]

False. Absolutely false.

Marsh Rule: Make things up then deny saying them.

[bpete1969]

"Inside every progressive is a totalitarian screaming to get out"...David
Horowitz

[Anthony Marsh]

And who is Horowitz to lecture us? A Neocon?

[bpete1969]

Touch a nerve did he?

[claviger]

A brilliant Neocon. He started life as a Liberal then realized how phony
and morally bankrupt they are, who believe The End Justifies The Means.

[claviger]

On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 3:44:31 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 3/16/2018 5:58 PM, bpete1969 wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 8:50:16 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> On 3/4/2018 9:15 AM, Bud wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 2:20:17 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >>>> On 2/26/2018 5:46 PM, Bud wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 10:29:06 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2/24/2018 10:38 AM, John McAdams wrote:
> >>>>>>> https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/23/us/infowars-youtube-videos-trnd/index.html
> >>>>>>> It seems that CNN is working to get videos from Alex Jones INFOWARS
> >>>>>>> banned from YouTube. In fact, they obviously would like to get Jones
> >>>>>>> entire channel banned.
> >>>>>>> Since some of Jones' theories are far fringe, it's tempting to applaud
> >>>>>>> this.
> >>>>>>> The problem, of course, it: who gets to decide what it "fringe," and
> >>>>>>> how long until more mainstream conspiracies are judged to be a

Did you know that Neocons were mostly Jewish Liberals who with maturity
and experience realized how utterly and unabashed corrupt Liberals in the
US Government have been for decades? When that fact became manifest they
started a movement to expose all the lies and scams of US Liberalism.

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, in the old days of this newsgroup we discussed that.
But more importantly they were zionists who had an agenda to protect
Israel by weakening Arab countries in the region.

> and experience realized how utterly and unabashed corrupt Liberals in the
> US Government have been for decades? When that fact became manifest they

More Bannon babble. You are just one example of the extreme rightwingers
who are here only to attack Liberals, including JFK.

> started a movement to expose all the lies and scams of US Liberalism.
>
>

Not exactly.
Just because someone is Jewish does not mean he is a Liberal.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/18/2018 9:50 PM, claviger wrote:

So indeed you can admit that he is a neocon.
I don't know if he would agree with your description of his motives.
I think you are just injecting your own bias.

[Anthony Marsh]

Irrelevant drivel.

[Bud]

JFK was first and foremost a cold warrior.

As far as attacking liberals, here is a poster put out be progressives
here in Philadelphia...

http://static.wixstatic.com/media/71bde8_8f536b406db94460a52d0dec4f1ca595~mv2_d_1650_2550_s_2.jpg

Notice who liberals don`t stand with? White males. So the libs call the
white guys who voted for Trump racist, but purposely exclude them for any
kind of consideration (unless they are crippled or suck dick, inflammatory
language purposely selected so you can schlep back to your progressive
friends and make them aghast some more).

[claviger]

On Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 10:02:56 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 3/18/2018 9:50 PM, claviger wrote:
>
> >>> "Inside every progressive is a totalitarian screaming to get out"...David
> >>> Horowitz
> >> And who is Horowitz to lecture us? A Neocon?
> > Did you know that Neocons were mostly Jewish Liberals who with maturity
> Yes, in the old days of this newsgroup we discussed that.
> But more importantly they were zionists who had an agenda to protect
> Israel by weakening Arab countries in the region.

Zionist
a supporter of Zionism; a person who believes in the development
and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel.

Zionism
a movement for the re-establishment and the development and
protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel.

What's wrong with that? Jews from around the world are coming back
to their Biblical homeland Eretz Israel "Land of the Israelites."

> > and experience realized how utterly and unabashed corrupt Liberals in the
> > US Government have been for decades? When that fact became manifest they
> More Bannon babble. You are just one example of the extreme rightwingers
> who are here only to attack Liberals, including JFK.

I don't attack JFK because he was the last of the Conservative Democrats.
He was replaced by a Liberal Vice President who exploded the budget and
ran up big deficits.

The huge deficits we have today started with LBJ (Liberal Bad Judgement).

> > started a movement to expose all the lies and scams of US Liberalism.
> Not exactly.
> Just because someone is Jewish does not mean he is a Liberal.

For some reason I don't understand, most Jewish people in the USA vote
Liberal. The strange part about that Liberals are now critical of Israel
and pro-Palestinian. A case in point, how anti-Israel the Obama
administration was and the Israeli Prime Minister had to come plead with
Congress to not enable Iran to develop Nuclear weapons. The US President
responded by moving forward with helping Iran to have nuclear capability.
It was clear in his second term as President he much preferred Iran over
Israel. Few if any Democrats objected to putting Israel in danger. The
Republicans were very opposed to the Iranian deal. Based on this
extremely bad situation for the State of Israel I do not understand why
any American Jew would ever vote for Democrats again.

[John McAdams]

On 20 Mar 2018 22:10:51 -0400, claviger <histori...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I think the key thing is that Israel is successful, and that
Palestinians less so. So the Palestinians can be portrayed as
"victims." And politically correct Democrats are always looking for
victims to glom onto.

http://www.people-press.org/2018/01/23/republicans-and-democrats-grow-even-further-apart-in-views-of-israel-palestinians/
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[OHLeeRedux]

Reminds me of The Puzzle Palace.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/20/2018 10:15 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 20 Mar 2018 22:10:51 -0400, claviger <histori...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 10:02:56 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>> On 3/18/2018 9:50 PM, claviger wrote:
>>>
>>
>> For some reason I don't understand, most Jewish people in the USA vote
>> Liberal. The strange part about that Liberals are now critical of Israel
>> and pro-Palestinian. A case in point, how anti-Israel the Obama
>> administration was and the Israeli Prime Minister had to come plead with
>> Congress to not enable Iran to develop Nuclear weapons. The US President
>> responded by moving forward with helping Iran to have nuclear capability.
>> It was clear in his second term as President he much preferred Iran over
>> Israel. Few if any Democrats objected to putting Israel in danger. The
>> Republicans were very opposed to the Iranian deal. Based on this
>> extremely bad situation for the State of Israel I do not understand why
>> any American Jew would ever vote for Democrats again.
>>
>
> I think the key thing is that Israel is successful, and that
> Palestinians less so. So the Palestinians can be portrayed as
> "victims." And politically correct Democrats are always looking for
> victims to glom onto.
>

You could also have pointed out that Southern slave owners were
successful and their slaves were not.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/20/2018 10:10 PM, claviger wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 10:02:56 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 3/18/2018 9:50 PM, claviger wrote:
>>
>>>>> "Inside every progressive is a totalitarian screaming to get out"...David
>>>>> Horowitz
>>>> And who is Horowitz to lecture us? A Neocon?
>>> Did you know that Neocons were mostly Jewish Liberals who with maturity
>> Yes, in the old days of this newsgroup we discussed that.
>> But more importantly they were zionists who had an agenda to protect
>> Israel by weakening Arab countries in the region.
>
> Zionist
> a supporter of Zionism; a person who believes in the development
> and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel.
>
> Zionism
> a movement for the re-establishment and the development and
> protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel.
>
> What's wrong with that? Jews from around the world are coming back
> to their Biblical homeland Eretz Israel "Land of the Israelites."
>

What's wrong with that is that they do so by harming others. Like Moses
slaying the Caaninites.

Nothing wrong with buiding a country as long as you don't do it by war,
slavery and genocide.

>>> and experience realized how utterly and unabashed corrupt Liberals in the
>>> US Government have been for decades? When that fact became manifest they
>> More Bannon babble. You are just one example of the extreme rightwingers
>> who are here only to attack Liberals, including JFK.
>
> I don't attack JFK because he was the last of the Conservative Democrats.

OK, so we are making progress in your therapy.
You now can admit that you attack JFK.

> He was replaced by a Liberal Vice President who exploded the budget and
> ran up big deficits.
>

Oh, you mean LBJ?
You think maybe, just maybe the VIetnam War might have had something to
do with that? Wars tend to do that. Just ask youe buddy George Bush.

> The huge deficits we have today started with LBJ (Liberal Bad Judgement).
>

Oh, so it's not really JFK you hate, it's LBJ. You liked The income tax
rate of 91% under JFK. Then why don't you voluntarily pay 91% on your
taxes this April to remember the good old days before the Liberal LBJ
took office and lowered our taxes?

>>> started a movement to expose all the lies and scams of US Liberalism.
>> Not exactly.
>> Just because someone is Jewish does not mean he is a Liberal.
>
> For some reason I don't understand, most Jewish people in the USA vote
> Liberal. The strange part about that Liberals are now critical of Israel

I am not allowed to say what that sentiment is, but it is not very nice
and even not even Christian to say.

> and pro-Palestinian. A case in point, how anti-Israel the Obama
> administration was and the Israeli Prime Minister had to come plead with
> Congress to not enable Iran to develop Nuclear weapons. The US President

Who WANTS Iran to develop nuclear weapons? No one, maybe Russia. But
Trump lets Russia do whatever they want.
Do you know what sanctions are? No Caviar for you!

> responded by moving forward with helping Iran to have nuclear capability.

No.

> It was clear in his second term as President he much preferred Iran over
> Israel. Few if any Democrats objected to putting Israel in danger. The

According to your rightwing buddies at Fox.

> Republicans were very opposed to the Iranian deal. Based on this

That's ok. Do you know what Sanctions are?

> extremely bad situation for the State of Israel I do not understand why
> any American Jew would ever vote for Democrats again.
>
>

Nice try, Bannon.

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, I hate to be the one to tell you the facts of life, but most
racists ARE white men. Some women, but not so much. The KKK or the
neo-Nazi groups do not allow black men to join.

> kind of consideration (unless they are crippled or suck dick, inflammatory
> language purposely selected so you can schlep back to your progressive
> friends and make them aghast some more).
>

They had a hard time believing that you and .John actually said those
things in public.

[Bud]

Only if you buy into the myth that black people can`t be racist.

> Some women, but not so much. The KKK or the
> neo-Nazi groups do not allow black men to join.

Those black thugs that tortured that autistic kid din`t invite any white
people to their racist attack.

> > kind of consideration (unless they are crippled or suck dick, inflammatory
> > language purposely selected so you can schlep back to your progressive
> > friends and make them aghast some more).
> >
>
> They had a hard time believing that you and .John actually said those
> things in public.

They were accurate, which is more than can be said for your response.
.John didn`t say anything about this issue. BTW, do you friends realize
you are portraying them as idiots?

[claviger]

On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 1:47:46 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 3/20/2018 10:08 PM, Bud wrote:
>
> >>> Did you know that Neocons were mostly Jewish Liberals who with maturity
> >> Yes, in the old days of this newsgroup we discussed that.
> >> But more importantly they were zionists who had an agenda to protect
> >> Israel by weakening Arab countries in the region.
> >>> and experience realized how utterly and unabashed corrupt Liberals in the
> >>> US Government have been for decades? When that fact became manifest they
> >> More Bannon babble. You are just one example of the extreme rightwingers
> >> who are here only to attack Liberals, including JFK.
> > JFK was first and foremost a cold warrior.
> > As far as attacking liberals, here is a poster put out be progressives
> > here in Philadelphia...
> > http://static.wixstatic.com/media/71bde8_8f536b406db94460a52d0dec4f1ca595~mv2_d_1650_2550_s_2.jpg
> >
> > Notice who liberals don`t stand with? White males. So the libs call the
> > white guys who voted for Trump racist, but purposely exclude them for any
> Well, I hate to be the one to tell you the facts of life, but most
> racists ARE white men.

A blatantly racist statement.

> Some women, but not so much. The KKK or the
> neo-Nazi groups do not allow black men to join.

Do Black Panthers allow white men to join? No,
because they would have to change their name
to the Not So Black Panthers or maybe Zebras.
The problem of course is Zebras doesn't sound
predatory or malevolent as Black Panthers.

> > kind of consideration (unless they are crippled or suck dick, inflammatory
> > language purposely selected so you can schlep back to your progressive
> > friends and make them aghast some more).
> They had a hard time believing that you and .John actually said those
> things in public.
> >>> started a movement to expose all the lies and scams of US Liberalism.
> >> Not exactly.
> >> Just because someone is Jewish does not mean he is a Liberal.

Jewish Americans need to realize US Liberals no longer consider it cool to
be Pro-Jewish, and certainly not Pro-Zionist! Liberals now have new
heroes, the so-called Palestinians, the name ancient Romans called the
Minoan "sea-peoples" known as Philistines.

So the original Palestinians were Greeks, the Philistines. After they
faded away, several regional powers took over the land of the Roman
Province called Palestine. The surviving Jews from Europe who moved back
to the Biblical Jewish homeland were initially called Palestinians.

The Jews know their history and Philistines were Biblical enemies of the
ancient Judeans and Israelites. Goliath was a Philistine. So the
Biblical Hebrews now call themselves by the correct Biblical name
Israelis, the people of Eretz Israel. In the Bible we learn God gave this
land to Abram, who became Abraham. His son Issac had a son named Jacob
who was renamed Israel by God.

All Jews trace their lineage back to this second name for Jacob: "The name
Israel is a Hebrew baby name. In Hebrew the meaning of the name Israel is:
May God prevail. He struggles with God. God perseveres; contends. In the
bible when Jacob was in his nineties as a token of blessing God changed
his name to Israel."

[claviger]

On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 1:45:04 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 3/20/2018 10:15 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 10:02:56 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >>> On 3/18/2018 9:50 PM, claviger wrote:
> >> For some reason I don't understand, most Jewish people in the USA vote
> >> Liberal. The strange part about that Liberals are now critical of Israel
> >> and pro-Palestinian. A case in point, how anti-Israel the Obama
> >> administration was and the Israeli Prime Minister had to come plead with
> >> Congress to not enable Iran to develop Nuclear weapons. The US President
> >> responded by moving forward with helping Iran to have nuclear capability.
> >> It was clear in his second term as President he much preferred Iran over
> >> Israel. Few if any Democrats objected to putting Israel in danger. The
> >> Republicans were very opposed to the Iranian deal. Based on this
> >> extremely bad situation for the State of Israel I do not understand why
> >> any American Jew would ever vote for Democrats again.
> > I think the key thing is that Israel is successful, and that
> > Palestinians less so. So the Palestinians can be portrayed as
> > "victims." And politically correct Democrats are always looking for
> > victims to glom onto.
> You could also have pointed out that Southern slave owners were
> successful and their slaves were not.

What about Northern slave owners? At one time slavery was legal
in every state except Vermont. The largest African slave cemetery
ever discovered in the United States was located in downtown of
New York City. You obviously misuse the word "slave" exclusively
as African slaves, yet the historical record is Native Americans
were the first slaves, the most slaves, and the last slaves in the
history of the Western Hemisphere.

When northern slave owners agreed to do away with African slavery
they sold them down South instead of giving them freedom. Native
American slaves had little or no value. They were more a nuisance
and still are in Massachusetts where they own Casinos and pay no
tax to the State or Federal Government.

One of biggest myths in US history is that "Lincoln freed the slaves".
He only freed African slaves in States who declared independence
from the Union. He did not free any slaves in the Border States of
Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, or West Virginia creating
the most bizarre situation in US history that slavery was still legal
in Union States, just not in the Confederated States!

Lincoln accepted the secession of West Virginia while maintaining
States had no right to secession! Keep in mind the 13 Colonies all
seceded from Great Britain.

Lincoln politically rewarded all those Border States for not joining
the Confederacy. His wife was from a politically influential family
and one of the largest slave owning families in Kentucky. She did
have abolitionist sympathies but her family continued ownership
of slaves throughout the war. Evidently they thought the Border
States would be exempted after the war as well, since their own
son-in-law would be the President.

What was the Native Americans experience during the Civil War
under Lincoln? Not good. In Minnesota they became slaves and
lost 90% their ancient homeland. When the Sioux fought back in
defense of their rights to maintain a homeland Lincoln sent in the
Union Army and defeated their rebellion. He then approved the
largest mass hanging in US history of 38 native prisoners without
any legal representation or trials.

To notice this was a racially motivated decision would be obvious.
After all these many years the Sioux tribe considers Mt Rushmore
a monstrosity.

[claviger]

On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 1:45:04 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 3/20/2018 10:15 PM, John McAdams wrote:

> > On 20 Mar 2018 22:10:51 -0400, claviger wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 10:02:56 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >>> On 3/18/2018 9:50 PM, claviger wrote:
> >> For some reason I don't understand, most Jewish people in the USA vote
> >> Liberal. The strange part about that Liberals are now critical of Israel
> >> and pro-Palestinian. A case in point, how anti-Israel the Obama
> >> administration was and the Israeli Prime Minister had to come plead with
> >> Congress to not enable Iran to develop Nuclear weapons. The US President
> >> responded by moving forward with helping Iran to have nuclear capability.
> >> It was clear in his second term as President he much preferred Iran over
> >> Israel. Few if any Democrats objected to putting Israel in danger. The
> >> Republicans were very opposed to the Iranian deal. Based on this
> >> extremely bad situation for the State of Israel I do not understand why
> >> any American Jew would ever vote for Democrats again.
> > I think the key thing is that Israel is successful, and that
> > Palestinians less so. So the Palestinians can be portrayed as
> > "victims." And politically correct Democrats are always looking for
> > victims to glom onto.
> You could also have pointed out that Southern slave owners were
> successful and their slaves were not.

The Southern slave system operated basic models of Socialism on each
plantation using forced labor with resulting inefficiencies. After the
Civil War former slaves with skills did surprisingly well in the Free
Enterprise system as independent business operators. They soon grasped
pricing competition in the open market and began to dominate certain
trades, such as wheelwrights, wagon repairs, and tool repairs with mostly
white customers. Free Enterprise brings out the best in people who learn
to improve their skills. Socialism has the opposite influence.

Former slaves became business operators and learned to be innovative,
efficient, and frugal. Others became share croppers, and in some states
are successful tobacco farmers to this day. Freedom to relocate allowed
former slaves access to higher paying industrial jobs in Northern states.

The Plantation system had mixed results and in some areas became a
cumbersome economic model that ceased to be cost effective. Some
historians have written the Plantation system would have eventually
collapsed under its own weight and was on the decline without a civil war.
Brazil was the second largest economy using slave labor in the Western
Hemisphere who successfully did away with slavery and no civil war.

The US Civil War was more about a battle of egos. Had Douglas and Toombs
been elected there would not have been a civil war and the slave system
would have eventually disintegrated. One historian did some calculations
and claims the US Federal Government could have purchased all slaves in
the southern states and restored them back home to Africa much cheaper
than what it cost to fight the Civil War.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/23/2018 12:33 AM, claviger wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 1:45:04 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 3/20/2018 10:15 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 20 Mar 2018 22:10:51 -0400, claviger wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 10:02:56 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>>> On 3/18/2018 9:50 PM, claviger wrote:
>>>> For some reason I don't understand, most Jewish people in the USA vote
>>>> Liberal. The strange part about that Liberals are now critical of Israel
>>>> and pro-Palestinian. A case in point, how anti-Israel the Obama
>>>> administration was and the Israeli Prime Minister had to come plead with
>>>> Congress to not enable Iran to develop Nuclear weapons. The US President
>>>> responded by moving forward with helping Iran to have nuclear capability.
>>>> It was clear in his second term as President he much preferred Iran over
>>>> Israel. Few if any Democrats objected to putting Israel in danger. The
>>>> Republicans were very opposed to the Iranian deal. Based on this
>>>> extremely bad situation for the State of Israel I do not understand why
>>>> any American Jew would ever vote for Democrats again.
>>> I think the key thing is that Israel is successful, and that
>>> Palestinians less so. So the Palestinians can be portrayed as
>>> "victims." And politically correct Democrats are always looking for
>>> victims to glom onto.
>> You could also have pointed out that Southern slave owners were
>> successful and their slaves were not.
>
> The Southern slave system operated basic models of Socialism on each

You call slavery Socialism? Are you nuts?

> plantation using forced labor with resulting inefficiencies. After the
> Civil War former slaves with skills did surprisingly well in the Free
> Enterprise system as independent business operators. They soon grasped
> pricing competition in the open market and began to dominate certain
> trades, such as wheelwrights, wagon repairs, and tool repairs with mostly
> white customers. Free Enterprise brings out the best in people who learn
> to improve their skills. Socialism has the opposite influence.
>

Sure, skills they had already mastered as slaves. Watch Roots.

> Former slaves became business operators and learned to be innovative,
> efficient, and frugal. Others became share croppers, and in some states
> are successful tobacco farmers to this day. Freedom to relocate allowed
> former slaves access to higher paying industrial jobs in Northern states.
>
> The Plantation system had mixed results and in some areas became a
> cumbersome economic model that ceased to be cost effective. Some
> historians have written the Plantation system would have eventually
> collapsed under its own weight and was on the decline without a civil war.
> Brazil was the second largest economy using slave labor in the Western
> Hemisphere who successfully did away with slavery and no civil war.
>
> The US Civil War was more about a battle of egos. Had Douglas and Toombs
> been elected there would not have been a civil war and the slave system
> would have eventually disintegrated. One historian did some calculations
> and claims the US Federal Government could have purchased all slaves in
> the southern states and restored them back home to Africa much cheaper
> than what it cost to fight the Civil War.
>
>

So I take it you're a neoconfederate?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/23/2018 12:18 AM, claviger wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 1:45:04 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 3/20/2018 10:15 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 10:02:56 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>>> On 3/18/2018 9:50 PM, claviger wrote:
>>>> For some reason I don't understand, most Jewish people in the USA vote
>>>> Liberal. The strange part about that Liberals are now critical of Israel
>>>> and pro-Palestinian. A case in point, how anti-Israel the Obama
>>>> administration was and the Israeli Prime Minister had to come plead with
>>>> Congress to not enable Iran to develop Nuclear weapons. The US President
>>>> responded by moving forward with helping Iran to have nuclear capability.
>>>> It was clear in his second term as President he much preferred Iran over
>>>> Israel. Few if any Democrats objected to putting Israel in danger. The
>>>> Republicans were very opposed to the Iranian deal. Based on this
>>>> extremely bad situation for the State of Israel I do not understand why
>>>> any American Jew would ever vote for Democrats again.
>>> I think the key thing is that Israel is successful, and that
>>> Palestinians less so. So the Palestinians can be portrayed as
>>> "victims." And politically correct Democrats are always looking for
>>> victims to glom onto.
>> You could also have pointed out that Southern slave owners were
>> successful and their slaves were not.
>
> What about Northern slave owners? At one time slavery was legal

That didn't count. They were not rebelling against the United States.

> in every state except Vermont. The largest African slave cemetery
> ever discovered in the United States was located in downtown of

So? Are you trying to act shocked?

> New York City. You obviously misuse the word "slave" exclusively
> as African slaves, yet the historical record is Native Americans

No, in THIS case only. Whites have been slaves. Jews were slaves.

> were the first slaves, the most slaves, and the last slaves in the
> history of the Western Hemisphere.
>
> When northern slave owners agreed to do away with African slavery
> they sold them down South instead of giving them freedom. Native

They were considered property, not humans.

> American slaves had little or no value. They were more a nuisance
> and still are in Massachusetts where they own Casinos and pay no
> tax to the State or Federal Government.
>

You mean we still have Native American slaves in my state?

> One of biggest myths in US history is that "Lincoln freed the slaves".
> He only freed African slaves in States who declared independence
> from the Union. He did not free any slaves in the Border States of
> Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, or West Virginia creating
> the most bizarre situation in US history that slavery was still legal
> in Union States, just not in the Confederated States!
>

I think we've been over this a few thousand times.
You are delusional if you think that you are the only one who knows
this. BTW, did you know that George Washington had slaves?
Did you know that Thomas Jefferson had slaves?
Ever hear of Sally Hemmings?

> Lincoln accepted the secession of West Virginia while maintaining
> States had no right to secession! Keep in mind the 13 Colonies all
> seceded from Great Britain.
>

Not exactly. Was West Virginia in the Confederacy? Did it take up arms
against the United States? Any famous battles there?

> Lincoln politically rewarded all those Border States for not joining
> the Confederacy. His wife was from a politically influential family
> and one of the largest slave owning families in Kentucky. She did

I think that's what they call Politics.
Politics makes strange bedfellows. Politics is often self-contradictory.

> have abolitionist sympathies but her family continued ownership
> of slaves throughout the war. Evidently they thought the Border
> States would be exempted after the war as well, since their own
> son-in-law would be the President.
>

Wow. Do you know what the term Brother Versus Brother refers to?

> What was the Native Americans experience during the Civil War
> under Lincoln? Not good. In Minnesota they became slaves and
> lost 90% their ancient homeland. When the Sioux fought back in
> defense of their rights to maintain a homeland Lincoln sent in the
> Union Army and defeated their rebellion. He then approved the
> largest mass hanging in US history of 38 native prisoners without
> any legal representation or trials.
>

The Native American experience is fill with broken promises.

> To notice this was a racially motivated decision would be obvious.
> After all these many years the Sioux tribe considers Mt Rushmore
> a monstrosity.
>

Many agree with them.

>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/23/2018 12:11 AM, claviger wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 1:47:46 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 3/20/2018 10:08 PM, Bud wrote:
>>
>>>>> Did you know that Neocons were mostly Jewish Liberals who with maturity
>>>> Yes, in the old days of this newsgroup we discussed that.
>>>> But more importantly they were zionists who had an agenda to protect
>>>> Israel by weakening Arab countries in the region.
>>>>> and experience realized how utterly and unabashed corrupt Liberals in the
>>>>> US Government have been for decades? When that fact became manifest they
>>>> More Bannon babble. You are just one example of the extreme rightwingers
>>>> who are here only to attack Liberals, including JFK.
>>> JFK was first and foremost a cold warrior.
>>> As far as attacking liberals, here is a poster put out be progressives
>>> here in Philadelphia...
>>> http://static.wixstatic.com/media/71bde8_8f536b406db94460a52d0dec4f1ca595~mv2_d_1650_2550_s_2.jpg
>>>
>>> Notice who liberals don`t stand with? White males. So the libs call the
>>> white guys who voted for Trump racist, but purposely exclude them for any
>> Well, I hate to be the one to tell you the facts of life, but most
>> racists ARE white men.
>
> A blatantly racist statement.
>

No, a historically true statement. Out of 1000 KKK members how many are
black?

>> Some women, but not so much. The KKK or the
>> neo-Nazi groups do not allow black men to join.
>
> Do Black Panthers allow white men to join? No,

Don't know. Maybe. I doubt there are still any active.

> because they would have to change their name
> to the Not So Black Panthers or maybe Zebras.

Zebras might be a ghetto term.
Like Oreo.

> The problem of course is Zebras doesn't sound
> predatory or malevolent as Black Panthers.

Well, did you see the movie?
Too high tech.

>
>>> kind of consideration (unless they are crippled or suck dick, inflammatory
>>> language purposely selected so you can schlep back to your progressive
>>> friends and make them aghast some more).
>> They had a hard time believing that you and .John actually said those
>> things in public.
>>>>> started a movement to expose all the lies and scams of US Liberalism.
>>>> Not exactly.
>>>> Just because someone is Jewish does not mean he is a Liberal.
>
> Jewish Americans need to realize US Liberals no longer consider it cool to
> be Pro-Jewish, and certainly not Pro-Zionist! Liberals now have new
> heroes, the so-called Palestinians, the name ancient Romans called the
> Minoan "sea-peoples" known as Philistines.
>

They are well aware of that and most Jewish neocons don't bring it up.
As I said before: You Don't Have to be Jewish to Be a Neo-con: John Bolton.

> So the original Palestinians were Greeks, the Philistines. After they

OK. How far back do you want to go? Neanderthal versus Homo Sapiens?

> faded away, several regional powers took over the land of the Roman
> Province called Palestine. The surviving Jews from Europe who moved back
> to the Biblical Jewish homeland were initially called Palestinians.
>

Well, some did live together peacefully, for a few months. See Exodus.

> The Jews know their history and Philistines were Biblical enemies of the
> ancient Judeans and Israelites. Goliath was a Philistine. So the

Don't have to be.

> Biblical Hebrews now call themselves by the correct Biblical name
> Israelis, the people of Eretz Israel. In the Bible we learn God gave this
> land to Abram, who became Abraham. His son Issac had a son named Jacob
> who was renamed Israel by God.
>

That's how they want to tell it to justify Zionism.

> All Jews trace their lineage back to this second name for Jacob: "The name
> Israel is a Hebrew baby name. In Hebrew the meaning of the name Israel is:
> May God prevail. He struggles with God. God perseveres; contends. In the
> bible when Jacob was in his nineties as a token of blessing God changed
> his name to Israel."
>
>

Not perfectly. Heritage DNA. Remember the Diaspora?

>

[claviger]

I call Socialism neo-slavery.

> > plantation using forced labor with resulting inefficiencies. After the
> > Civil War former slaves with skills did surprisingly well in the Free
> > Enterprise system as independent business operators. They soon grasped
> > pricing competition in the open market and began to dominate certain
> > trades, such as wheelwrights, wagon repairs, and tool repairs with mostly
> > white customers. Free Enterprise brings out the best in people who learn
> > to improve their skills. Socialism has the opposite influence.
> Sure, skills they had already mastered as slaves. Watch Roots.

Skills that gave then a chance to be a success after they had the freedom
to be self sustaining and make their own decisions.

> > Former slaves became business operators and learned to be innovative,
> > efficient, and frugal. Others became share croppers, and in some states
> > are successful tobacco farmers to this day. Freedom to relocate allowed
> > former slaves access to higher paying industrial jobs in Northern states.
> >
> > The Plantation system had mixed results and in some areas became a
> > cumbersome economic model that ceased to be cost effective. Some
> > historians have written the Plantation system would have eventually
> > collapsed under its own weight and was on the decline without a civil war.
> > Brazil was the second largest economy using slave labor in the Western
> > Hemisphere who successfully did away with slavery and no civil war.
> >
> > The US Civil War was more about a battle of egos. Had Douglas and Toombs
> > been elected there would not have been a civil war and the slave system
> > would have eventually disintegrated. One historian did some calculations
> > and claims the US Federal Government could have purchased all slaves in
> > the southern states and restored them back home to Africa much cheaper
> > than what it cost to fight the Civil War.
> So I take it you're a neoconfederate?

So you can take it I'm a neo-historian not a propagandist like you.

[Anthony Marsh]

Cute. Did you copyright that? Don't want anyone else stealing it!

>>> plantation using forced labor with resulting inefficiencies. After the
>>> Civil War former slaves with skills did surprisingly well in the Free
>>> Enterprise system as independent business operators. They soon grasped
>>> pricing competition in the open market and began to dominate certain
>>> trades, such as wheelwrights, wagon repairs, and tool repairs with mostly
>>> white customers. Free Enterprise brings out the best in people who learn
>>> to improve their skills. Socialism has the opposite influence.
>> Sure, skills they had already mastered as slaves. Watch Roots.
>
> Skills that gave then a chance to be a success after they had the freedom
> to be self sustaining and make their own decisions.
>

Yes, nothing wrong with that. But you overlook the fact that some of the
slaves already had those skills when they were slaves.
Most did not just suddenly learn them the day they were emancipated.

>>> Former slaves became business operators and learned to be innovative,
>>> efficient, and frugal. Others became share croppers, and in some states
>>> are successful tobacco farmers to this day. Freedom to relocate allowed
>>> former slaves access to higher paying industrial jobs in Northern states.
>>>
>>> The Plantation system had mixed results and in some areas became a
>>> cumbersome economic model that ceased to be cost effective. Some
>>> historians have written the Plantation system would have eventually
>>> collapsed under its own weight and was on the decline without a civil war.
>>> Brazil was the second largest economy using slave labor in the Western
>>> Hemisphere who successfully did away with slavery and no civil war.
>>>
>>> The US Civil War was more about a battle of egos. Had Douglas and Toombs
>>> been elected there would not have been a civil war and the slave system
>>> would have eventually disintegrated. One historian did some calculations
>>> and claims the US Federal Government could have purchased all slaves in
>>> the southern states and restored them back home to Africa much cheaper
>>> than what it cost to fight the Civil War.
>> So I take it you're a neoconfederate?
>
> So you can take it I'm a neo-historian not a propagandist like you.
>

Hey, you can't use neo for everything. Yes, I am a propagandist, but I
am not a neo-propagandist. That's silly. In the conspiracy research
community we talk about decades. The earliest researchers are part of
the First Decade. Then came the Second Decade, especially after Mark
Lane and Tink. I am part of the Third Decade.

>

[claviger]

And they used those skills to earn a living as free men and women.
Same thing happened in ancient Greece and Rome. As slaves they
worked for room and board. As freedmen they did the same work
and earned income and some even accumulated wealth.

The Battle of Bull Run was fought around the Robinson House:
"Robinson House sits at the bottom of Henry Hill, near Bull Run in Virginia.
The house was named for the family of James "Gentleman Jim" Robinson,
a free African American, who built the house. The Robinson family,
descendants of Gentleman Jim, owned and occupied the house and
a large portion of the land around it from the 1840s until 1936."

In the 1860 Census: State of Virginia
Free Colored Persons 476,748

If they were free persons, they were earning a living by selling
labor, skills, crops, and products in the free market.

> >>> Former slaves became business operators and learned to be innovative,
> >>> efficient, and frugal. Others became share croppers, and in some states
> >>> are successful tobacco farmers to this day. Freedom to relocate allowed
> >>> former slaves access to higher paying industrial jobs in Northern states.
> >>> The Plantation system had mixed results and in some areas became a
> >>> cumbersome economic model that ceased to be cost effective. Some
> >>> historians have written the Plantation system would have eventually
> >>> collapsed under its own weight and was on the decline without a civil war.
> >>> Brazil was the second largest economy using slave labor in the Western
> >>> Hemisphere who successfully did away with slavery and no civil war.
> >>> The US Civil War was more about a battle of egos. Had Douglas and Toombs
> >>> been elected there would not have been a civil war and the slave system
> >>> would have eventually disintegrated. One historian did some calculations
> >>> and claims the US Federal Government could have purchased all slaves in
> >>> the southern states and restored them back home to Africa much cheaper
> >>> than what it cost to fight the Civil War.
> >> So I take it you're a neoconfederate?
> > So you can take it I'm a neo-historian not a propagandist like you.
> Hey, you can't use neo for everything. Yes, I am a propagandist, but I
> am not a neo-propagandist. That's silly. In the conspiracy research
> community we talk about decades. The earliest researchers are part of
> the First Decade. Then came the Second Decade, especially after Mark
> Lane and Tink. I am part of the Third Decade.

Correct, you are a dedicated CT propagandist. Nothing neo about that.

[Anthony Marsh]

Some worked to earn enough money to buy their freedom.

[claviger]

That can only happen in a bottom up Free Market, but never in a
top down Socialist Market.

[Anthony Marsh]

Not sure why you call it top down, but I wouldn't even call it a market.