Why don't you just go and find your own evidence? It's the only truth you will accept anyway. Seems most of the time all you do is try to prove something to everybody else. I have nothing to prove and neither should you. If you question something that is said on these forums, then you should do your own research rather than asking the person who made the claim to do it for you.
You're here presenting an argument. I'm challenging your argument. It's up to you to refute my challenge. That's basic debate protocol. Sure, I could do my own research - and I have. The conclusion that I've arrived at is that this conspiracy is bollocks. So when you present it as truth, I have no resource left but to inquire as to exactly what makes you believe it to be true. Now, you could just BELIEVE, an act which requires faith and no concrete evidence. Or, you could KNOW. Knowledge requires evidence. As we're all intelligent, critical thinkers here, I would hope that you KNOW it rather than BELIEVE it, so I ask you present evidence.
I do so also because I am sympathetic to such ideas, and I know that sooner or later, if you ever want this idea to go public, that you're going to have to answer to somebody far more hostile than me who will serve as a gatekeeper to the hearts and minds of the wider public. It's a door through which this theory must pass, and unless you offer rock solid chains of logic it's a door through which you will not pass, and this whole theory will amount to nothing.
If you find through your own research they were wrong, then make a post with your own information.
I don't have the answers. I'm agnostic on your ideas about Rockefeller. But in order to ever embrace them I need to see the granite beneath your foundation, one that is not apparent through neutral analysis.
It is almost like you find pleasure in provoking arguments.
You're mistaken.
When I read something I find questionable, I check it myself and see if I can find anything that contradicts what the person claimed. If I do find a problem with what was said, then I take what was said with a grain of salt. This is often what one does when reading things on the internet.
This is a forum. You're making a claim. When I make a claim on a forum, I know that it's my duty to defend that claim. Perhaps you just expected to preach to the choir. If that was your expectation, then I see your hesitance to engage in a contentious exchange on the subject. If you you were here presenting the idea for the members to consider and weigh in on, then you should come in expecting to have to defend your ideas.
What is your own personal agenda on the Ron Paul forums?
To challenge people not used to criticism, inform campaigns about strategy, and further the movement in a meaningful, sustainable way.
Is it to find problems with what people post and then make a big deal about it?
Sometimes it entails that. It's more wrong to let a bad idea fester than to engage it, no matter how much the boat is rocked in doing so.
If so, then I would suggest people ignore you and go on with what they are discussing.
If somebody is incapable of handling an open conversation and all that it entails then I would agree that they should ignore me. But that wouldn't help the movement, because the movement only benefits when these ideas are discussed, challenged, and thus strengthened for the time when they become our policy.
If you are here to see what is being said and do your own research on the subject, then you wouldn't be provoking others with arguments on the subject.
I'm not provoking you. You made the claim. If you wanted the conversation limited to pats on the back that's fine and dandy, just let us know.
