The Murder of JFK

[LibertyEagle]

Um, no they are not. Try not to be so childish.

Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

And so for the last few years in the 1940s, Cord really went around the country speaking on behalf of an organization called the United World Federalists, who were trying to bring together some structure of world government that would, you know, adjudicate any kind of armed conflict going around the world, and stopping it or bringing it to a halt so that it could not proliferate in a way that it could get out of control.

As for my 2nd statement..

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/disarmament_for_all_except_the.html

The statements I made were correct. You have chosen to have a temper tantrum and derail your own thread.

 

[green73]

Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

Your said "So, the summary is that the United World Federalists were good guys and hey, world government is good too. " Then you said these "world government folks" are "being put up as saints."

First "they" were not being "put up as saints" in the interview. Your just throwing a red herring into the mix. Cord Meyer ended up going into the CIA and "making a deal with devil". She left him soon after. He doesn't come off too well. But what does it matter what their political persuasion was? That had very little to do with what was being discussed in the interview. So, forgive me for taking issue with your inane summary.

 

[MelissaCato]

Good Ole Operation Norwoods

Has anyone actually done a complete researched background check on all mentioned in the interview? I shows America is run by 'marionettes & maniacs'
Here's a interesting subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Walker

Ya interesting.

 

[acptulsa]

Sounds like an interesting book, and a new wrinkle on the subject. I don't think I'd recommend it for neoplytes to the subject. For those who don't know much about it but would like to, I think something like the LaFontaines' Oswald Talked: The New Evidence in the JFK Assassination would be a better place to start. Having read that already, though, I think I'll check this one out as well.

I have a question. Are you retarded?

I have a question. Are you incapable of considering a person's statement before you pop off in a rude and insulting manner, or merely unwilling? Because rereading the passage in question would have cleared up your confusion much better than going full sixth-grader and accusing people of being 'a retard' did.

And so for the last few years in the 1940s, Cord really went around the country speaking on behalf of an organization called the United World Federalists, who were trying to bring together some structure of world government that would, you know, adjudicate any kind of armed conflict going around the world, and stopping it or bringing it to a halt so that it could not proliferate in a way that it could get out of control.

Casting world government advocates in a positive light is dangerous, no matter how good their intentions may be or may have been. They are, at best, useful idiots for tyranny.

 

[green73]

I have a question. Are you incapable of considering a person's statement before you pop off in a rude and insulting manner, or merely unwilling? Because rereading the passage in question would have cleared up your confusion much better than going full sixth-grader and accusing people of being 'a retard' did.

Casting world government advocates in a positive light is dangerous, no matter how good their intentions may be or may have been. They are, at best, useful idiots for tyranny.

Are you capable of reading the thread before interjecting on something that's already been addressed? See my comments above. Don't accuse me of acting like a six grader. I didn't accuse her of being retarded. But seeing you two proclaiming that this interview in anyway promotes world government is asinine, the kind of reasoning a child (or somebody with diminished mental faculties) might use.

 

[acptulsa]

...proclaiming that this interview in anyway...

Ah, I see the problem. The English language is a real problem for you, isn't it?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anyway?s=t

Usage note
The adverb anyway is spelled as one word: It was snowing hard, but we drove to the play anyway. The two-word phrase any way means “in any manner”: Finish the job any way you choose. If the words “in the” can be substituted for “any,” the two-word phrase is called for: Finish the job in the way you choose.

 

[green73]

Ah, I see the problem. The English language is a real problem for you, isn't it?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anyway?s=t

Weak.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Are you capable of reading the thread before interjecting on something that's already been addressed? See my comments above. Don't accuse me of acting like a six grader. I didn't accuse her of being retarded. But seeing you two proclaiming that this interview in anyway promotes world government is asinine, the kind of reasoning a child (or somebody with diminished mental faculties) might use.

Um...

I have a question. Are you retarded?

 

[acptulsa]

Weak.

So is hijacking a whole thread and starting a flame war over a simple observation. Eagle never said that was the whole point of the interview, just that she didn't like it when anyone anywhere talks about anything resembling the 'New World Order' like it's a good thing. And considering that's the stuff propaganda campaigns and paradigm shifts in public perception is made of, I don't blame her--I even agree. Live with it.

She didn't turn it into the major focus of this thread. You did.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Exactly. To me, it was like there were 2 sides being presented. The world government guys, who were being presented as the good guys and the CIA, who was being presented as the bad guys. I will take neither, thank you. It reminded me a lot of when FOX used to present someone like McCain as the supposed good guy and if you didn't like him, they would say your choice was someone like Hillary. This type of thing is how old-time conservatives were slowly propagandized.

Green, I wish you could see that this is exactly what I see happening with the whole world government deal. It's not just that interview, although it was done there too; it's all around us. As people get more and more ticked at our government, they are going to be pushed towards the idea of how world government would save them from their evil governments. Of course, it would make the problems much, much worse.

I simply cannot just stand by when I see it happening. Even in a Lew Rockwell interview. And yes, I do realize there was much more being said in the interview, Green. I just wanted to point out that one facet and you chose to blow it up beyond all proportion. Beyond that, you wouldn't even talk about the issue. You chose to start flinging personal insults. If this is your approach in talking to people, I highly recommend you learn a new approach. Because this one is NOT effective; nor endearing.

 

[acptulsa]

Exactly. To me, it was like there were 2 sides being presented. The world government guys, who were being presented as the good guys and the CIA, who was being presented as the bad guys.

Whereas the real world government guys are owned by the CIA. So, if you think they're the good guys, then the bad guys have the perfect cover. And people like the woman who was murdered promote the idea of a benevolent world government, and either get used as useful idiots to give the bad guys cover, or get quietly killed.

Doesn't change the fact that the author seems to have discovered a rich vein if interesting history.

/hijack

 

[LibertyEagle]

Whereas the real world government guys are owned by the CIA. So, if you think they're the good guys, then the bad guys have the perfect cover. And people like the woman who was murdered promote the idea of a benevolent world government, and either get used as useful idiots to give the bad guys cover, or get quietly killed.

I'm not sure who owns them. I rather think they are tools of a higher power.

Doesn't change the fact that the author seems to have discovered a rich vein if interesting history.

For sure.

 

[green73]

Exactly. To me, it was like there were 2 sides being presented. The world government guys, who were being presented as the good guys and the CIA, who was being presented as the bad guys. I will take neither, thank you. It reminded me a lot of when FOX used to present someone like McCain as the supposed good guy and if you didn't like him, they would say your choice was someone like Hillary. This type of thing is how old-time conservatives were slowly propagandized.

Green, I wish you could see that this is exactly what I see happening with the whole world government deal. It's not just that interview, although it was done there too; it's all around us. As people get more and more ticked at our government, they are going to be pushed towards the idea of how world government would save them from their evil governments. Of course, it would make the problems much, much worse.

I simply cannot just stand by when I see it happening. Even in a Lew Rockwell interview. And yes, I do realize there was much more being said in the interview, Green. I just wanted to point out that one facet and you chose to blow it up beyond all proportion. Beyond that, you wouldn't even talk about the issue. You chose to start flinging personal insults. If this is your approach in talking to people, I highly recommend you learn a new approach. Because this one is NOT effective; nor endearing.

You weren't pointing out one fact. You summarized the entire interview as being about that.

JFK was also for the global governance of the UN to end all conflicts. He had a lot of terrible political positions. Is he also being "put up as a saint" when we discuss why he was assassinated?

 

[green73]

Um...

A question is not an accusation.

 

[green73]

So is hijacking a whole thread and starting a flame war over a simple observation. Eagle never said that was the whole point of the interview, just that she didn't like it when anyone anywhere talks about anything resembling the 'New World Order' like it's a good thing. And considering that's the stuff propaganda campaigns and paradigm shifts in public perception is made of, I don't blame her--I even agree. Live with it.

She didn't turn it into the major focus of this thread. You did.

It takes two to tango. And her comments were more than a simple observation.

 

[TheGrinch]

Misguided views about world government is rather irrelevant to who really killed JFK, no?

 

[LibertyEagle]

Misguided views about world government is rather irrelevant to who really killed JFK, no?

No, it is never irrelevant. That is how people have gotten lulled to sleep and now believe that world government would be a viable alternative.

Thirty years ago you would be hard-pressed to find even 1 American who wouldn't say HELL NO.

My point was to just bring it to the readers' attention. It doesn't mean that the rest of the interview isn't interesting.

Case in point.

You weren't pointing out one fact. You summarized the entire interview as being about that.

JFK was also for the global governance of the UN to end all conflicts. He had a lot of terrible political positions. Is he also being "put up as a saint" when we discuss why he was assassinated?

 

[green73]

I give up. Continue your temper tantrum as you will.

I'm quite calm actually. You were wrong. You don't want to admit it. That's fine. Carry on.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I'm quite calm actually. You were wrong. You don't want to admit it. That's fine. Carry on.

I freely admit when I am wrong, when I am wrong.

But, on this, I was quite accurate and do not regret pointing out what I did.

You, on the other hand, are behaving like a 10 year old.

 

[green73]

Roll your eyes all you want but in 1945 he envisioned a world where the people of the planet would end all wars by "relinquishing international sovereignty".