Ex US Congressman that studied Quran charged in terror conspiracy

My intelligence is what leads me to reject JBS and what it stands for.

 

HUAC != JBS. McCarthy != JBS.

JBS is the conservative grassroots movement. They've spend most of their time, focused on getting out of the UN.

 

No, Roy Cohn was legal counsel to McCarthy, and one of the leading intellectual lights of the JBS.

JBS was founded on the principle of conspiracy, and any means necessary - including any essentially un-American means - to sniff it out, right or wrong.

This about sums my understanding:

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ohq/105.2/toy.html

Etc. Un-American, by how I define liberty.

I remember as a kid growing up in suburban Southern California. I actually remember being accosted by JBS members pushing their lit on my family, and as a kid, I was freaked, even then. The sulfurous stench of conspiracy dripped from the page of the one book I stopped long enough to see - I sensed it then, and remember it now, quite clearly.

 

Honest to god, I cannot conceive how these two thoughts can peacefully co-exist within the same intellectual and moral universe. And by the way, you're doing it again:

And by the way - you do not need to comment on my intelligence. My intelligence is evident for what it is, and what you are doing, again, is a subtle attempt to impugn a stand in contradiction to yours, without reliance on facts or the merits of the argument. You've attempted it several times now. Please don't do it anymore.

 

I'm sorry you had a bad experience. I don't think that is how the JBS operates anymore.

I will say, anyone who doesn't believe in conspiracy, is a poor student of history. Some people might rather not like to know, but most of the history of mankind has involved us as a species being herded and worked, usually to satisfy a very select group.

If anyone believes that today's vacuous society, where a journalistic hero like Larry King, wastes his time on Anna Nichole Smith during wartime, has somehow overcome all of it's existential threats, then I would say they are terrible naive.

You might not like the messenger, but that doesn't discredit the message. Which is where we are today with cult of personality politics, short on substance, long on style.

 

Again, as a deep student of history, I take issue with this kind of statement.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion

I don't advocate coercion. Lobbying? Arguing? Debating? Absolutely.

Lately, debating with you has been a constant challenge to avoid being demoralized. We don't argue the substance of ideology, just my perceived flaws. I've even made the point that I do not consider myself perfect, or even absolutely rational. And that seems to open up the floodgates to face what I feel is interrogation.

 

Great, maybe we should go through some exposed conspiracies and some proposed ones, where you can share that deep study with us.

I'll be back on this tomorrow.

 

North, it's impossible for guerrilla to be against the JBS, as his savior Ron Paul has already pledged allegiance to them. Here's what Paul has to say about his fellow moonbats:

"The beneficial, educational impact of the John Birch Society over the past four decades would be hard to overestimate. It is certainly far more than most people realize. Anyone who has been in the trenches over the years battling on any of the major issues - whether it’s pro-life, gun rights, property rights, taxes, government spending, regulation, national security, privacy, national sovereignty, the United Nations, foreign aid - knows that members of the John Birch Society are always in there doing the heavy lifting. And most importantly, they approach all of these issues from a strong moral and constitutional perspective. Lots of people pay lip service to the Constitution, but Birchers study it, understand it, apply it, and are serious about protecting it and holding public officials accountable to it."​

 

Great quote, thanks Will. That is the JBS I am talking about.

 

"Coercion" - I'm not talking about you, Guerilla, I'm talking about the HUAC, and the intelligence gathering methods of your much vaunted JBS - the "Western Goals Foundation."

I find an absolute disconnect between your vociferous defense of individual freedom, and your praise of the ideals and practices espoused by the JBS, birthed in a culture of overwhelming coercion, and matured in an egregious intrusion of individual privacy.

"Debating":

In this thread:

I tell you a life was very nearly ruined by the HUAC. You respond with a flippant:

By saying:

You intimate that a position in disagreement is necessarily lacking in intelligent thought.

By saying:

and your sarcastic:

You intimate that anyone that doesn't agree with your position, is uninformed.

"Lately":

A sampling, Guerilla, from the "other thread":

When we were discussing an issue solely along rational lines, you came in with:

And I replied with:

You classified my argument with buzzwords:

and "fellow traveller" speak (in this case, intimations of Islamophobia), with statements such as:

When nothing, not a single thing I posted, even remotely suggested this; nor is this my wish or belief. It was a gross attempt to artfully construe it so, in my opinion.

We discussed this previously, as you'll recall, Guerilla, regarding this thread. When it was a single instance, I considered it an anomaly, and moved on.

But there seems to me to be a pattern here, and from my perspective, it's growing to be a load of crap. My disagreement, even my strong disagreement, as evidenced here, isn't a flare signal to send up the kinds of tactics you are pursuing, as the samples above illustrate, in my opinion. I remind you of your statement:

And that's what I'm doing, although it isn't via PM - we've made public statements, on the forum, and in this thread, so it belongs in the public arena. I'm speaking truthfully to you, as I know it. I'm calling you on your defense of liberty, while supporting the ideals of the John Birch Society. And I'm calling on you to stop engaging in some of the tactics, as I see them, from among the examples provided above.

If I'm wrong, please tell me how.

 

Will, first of all - and I will say this again, as a standing statement of principle - I'm just not into name calling. I can't speak for you, of course, but it's important for me to say here, as I've been saying for a while now, that I think everyone has the right to be heard on the merits of what they post, and I do not want to put a label on anyone. I have been guilty as hell of all of the stuff I now decry, but I truly want to be done with all of it. I just don't think it gets us anywhere.

Thanks very much for the quote. Do you have a source?

 

In a civilized debate, I would agree with you 100%. However, I can't quite see adhering to Marquise of [SIZE=-1]Queensbury rules when fighting barbarians. Frankly, the idiots here don't deserve that level of respect. They should feel lucky that I deign to spend time on them at all.[/SIZE]

When arguing with intelligent rational opponents who take the time to do their research, then I take the time and effort to give them a performance which they deserve.

Truthfully, I hadn't expected anyone to argue that point. The moonbats are all proud supporters of the JBS.

Does http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbirchS.htm work for you?

 

Thanks for the source.

I'm not trying to come off holier than thou. I'm just truly burnt on the constant rounds of personal exchanges - mine and others. When I think how much time I squander talking as if any of this matters, and then calculate, of that, how much time has been spent in a personal spat with one member or another, I want to wretch. And I don't mind calling a spade a spade, when I think I see it - as this last stretch above obviously shows - but I'm just burnt on the other crap.

Have you seen my brilliance in action? No? I'm sure you'll love the preaching!:

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=6083473&postcount=68

 

I can't blame anyone for a bit of good old-fashioned idealism. I try to generate as much idealism as possible inside myself. It's often a very good thing. It represents the best in human nature.

I know that the results are almost invariably disappointment, but it's that almost that keeps us all going.

 

It would seem that most fanatical Muslims and Christians are idealists.

On another note.

For those of you who don't believe a conspiracy is possible at the highest level of political office I have two words for you.

Richard Nixon.

 

do you consider having US officials "in bed" with somebody else is a bad thing?

 

@NPT, I'm incredibly disappointed that you won't let the comments from the other thread go, you seem to be carrying them around from thread to thread, coloring our discussion.

1. When I said, "one radical side of the argument", I meant that your example or position was an extreme, not a norm.

2. You may consider my comment about your teacher flippant, but it was far from it. I could spend all day telling you my mistakes and sorrows, but I can only carry them with so much regret, because without them, I wouldn't be who I am today, and while not perfect, I don't mind the fella I see in the mirror each morning.

3. "too smart", I find it amazing that you feel I think so little of you, when I have made a point of trying to communicate that I think a lot of you. Unfortunately, words on a forum aren't the best way to communicate deeper meaning, and if I was saying this to you face-to-face, I doubt you would get the impression from my body language and inflections that it was in any way meant to diminish your intelligence.

4. "Poor student", at this point, I was a little pissed off at my position basically being undermined by your earlier comments about conspiracy. But I stand by it. For someone to imply that seeking to expose conspiracy is dirty bothers me, or that conspiracies are somehow illegitimate bothered me greatly.

5. Artist comment. Purposely made to appeal to the irrational side of the argument. That we are not wholly rational beings, and we can't resolve our experiences, biases and decision making exclusively by rational means.

Frankly, I can't see the issue with this comment at all.

6. Condemning for religious beliefs. That was exactly where the conversation was going. I made clear that I didn't subscribe exactly or precisely to the OP's beliefs, and yet I was being held to answer (repeatedly) for the variety of opinions Muslims may hold on the subject. The only place continuing to answer the question (and I think the participants in that thread figured out) was that they would either have to refute the idea of personal liberty (which I believe to a degree, Islam does, or perhaps sees as liberty being found in obeying the scripture), or reject their belief system.

One either rejects the call from your faith to avoid and prevent display of the pictures, or you do not.

I had made it very clear that it's not my objective to reduce someone's faith, regardless if I believe in it or not.

But apparently this is a load of crap, so I'll agree with your statement about lost time, and avoid this in the future, in the interest of co-existence if mutual respect is not possible from my actions.

I'm apologize for anything I have said or done to cause ill will. Have a nice weekend.

 

Guerilla, I am "carrying them around," in order to reply to your comment in this thread, "carrying them around.":

Now, since we are here.

I understand you were saying my argument is "the extreme," and "not the norm." This is one definition of "radical," anyway. And that is my point. You may disagree with my contention, but your choosing buzzwords such as "radical" avoids the substance of the debate. If you would like to revisit that substance, please let me know.

Yes, I consider responding to:

with

As flippant, and let's cut the crap, okay?

Saying "you're too smart" isn't an estimation of my intelligence, as we both know. It's what I said it is - an intimation that anyone believing other than you must somehow bear the sniff of, oh, I don't know - diminished? I'll give you a really broad example. All cartoonists are revolutionary commies. You disagree. I reply with, "Guerilla, you're too smart for this. It isn't about what they are perceived to be. Look at what they have done!"

You may be pissed off at my comment, that JBS was founded on the principle of conspiracy. Here's from among what I posted to support that notion, which was in line with what I held, previously:

I told you that even as a kid, my family and I were accosted by a group of JBS, pushing their literature in sunny suburban Southern California:

These are the facts, as I know them. You don't agree with my statement, that JBS was founded on the principles of conspiracy? Refute it. Don't call me a poor student of history.

We've covered the artist comment. Its being stated is like spending considerable time in debate, discussing the molecular structure of cruciferous cell walls, and proceeding along these lines, and then the comment is tossed in, "well, yeah - but you're relying on science, and you're limited because of it. C'mon - look at how greeeeen the veggie is!" In other words, I consider it a diverting tactic. As discussed.

It is absolute horseshit that "the conversation was heading" to condemning Ala101 for his religious beliefs, and I resent the hell out of that kind of bullshit tactic. Here, I'll say it again, in case it was forgotten the first time:

Guerilla, I admit this sucks.

It sucks for me to hear you say many things - your belief in personal liberty, for instance, while you call JBS one of the beacons of that liberty, when I've seen the destruction to that liberty that HUAC and JBS have wrought, in the way of lost lives and livelihoods.

It sucks for me to hear you rail, on the one hand, against the Bush administration's unconstitutional intrusions into the private life of the individual citizen - and I am in agreement - while, more than giving a pass to the JBS, its children, and its activities, you laud them, abhorrent as they are. JBS calling it "intelligence gathering" for the "Western Goals Foundation" doesn't make it any more palatable.

It sucks for me that I have seen a pattern come unbidden, which though subtle, isn't any more right - the above examples may make you feel uncomfortable to talk about, but they are bullshit tactics, in my book. You are free to show me where I am wrong, or, if I'm not, you are free to stop and debate me without resorting to them.

 

NPT, thanks for making my point, and I apologize for any "bullshit tactics", real or perceived.

I'll pass on future debate. It seems apparent that regardless of what is posted from this point forward, whatever I write will have to bear the subjective weight of what was posted before, relevant or not. And it seems that they have become considered highly personalized, much more personal than I had ever intended, and certainly without any malice towards you.

Have a good weekend.