Saturday, November 12, 2011
Speaking of Conspiracy Theories
"Stinnett’s book is dedicated to Congressman John Moss, the author of America’s Freedom of Information Act. According to Stinnett, the answers to the mysteries of Pearl Harbor can be found in the extraordinary number of documents he was able to attain through Freedom of Information Act requests. Cable after cable of decryptions, scores of military messages that America was intercepting, clearly showed that Japanese ships were preparing for war and heading straight for Hawaii. Stinnett, an author, journalist, and World War II veteran, spent sixteen years delving into the National Archives. He poured over more than 200,000 documents, and conducted dozens of interviews. This meticulous research led Stinnet to a firmly held conclusion: FDR knew."............This, folks, from the Independent Institute, the subject matter being Robert Stinnett's controversial book, "Day of Deceit"..................................................................................................P.S. I did not want to go here. I DID NOT. But when start throwing shit against the wall, you have to throw it ALL against the wall, not just the stuff that hurts the other fellow's "team".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
Sounds like "theory" may not be the right word.
It's like the assassination of John Paul 1.
Honestly, gentlemen, I don't know if any of this stuff has merit. If you listen to certain people, Churchill was actually behind the sinking of the Lusitania.
dmarks....who is John Paul 1?
I know there was an attempt on JP II,but I dont know anything about John Paul1.
Will: I did not want to go here. I DID NOT.
Baloney. Where you do not want to go is a serious consideration of the facts regarding Reagan's treason and bush's war crimes. Everyone who reads this blog knows how much you hate FDR.
As for FDR having advance knowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbor, "The U.S. government made nine official inquiries into the attack between 1941 and 1946, and a tenth in 1995".
The conclusion of these TEN inquires was that our failure to stop the attack can be blamed on "incompetence, underestimation, and misapprehension of Japanese capabilities and intentions; problems resulting from excessive secrecy about cryptography; division of responsibility between Army and Navy (and lack of consultation between them); and lack of adequate manpower for intelligence (analysis, collection, processing)".
In regards to Robert Stinnett's book, "Historians of the period... in general reject its thesis, pointing to several key errors and reliance on doubtful sources".
CIA historian Donald Steury says, "[Stinnett] concocted this theory pretty much from whole cloth. Those who have been able to check his alleged sources also are unanimous in their condemnation of his methodology. Basically, the author has made up his sources; when he does not make up the source, he lies about what the source says".
Shit thrown, shit debunked.
Well well well,
will pushing a shit theory when it concerns FDR,
... but screeching like a banchee when somebody asks pertinent question about a political question from the 21st century about the criminal activities of Bush Jr. ET AL;
I am shocked WD.
Shocked I tell you about the naked partisan way will attacks the left and defends the right all the time here.
Hope I didn't hurt his feelings again.
#37:
"about the criminal activities of Bush Jr. ET AL"
1) He is not a Jr. Oddly enough, Al Gore is.
2) There's no evidence of Bush's criminal activities. In fact, the ICC has rejected such claims.
The U.S. made 9 official queries? I thought that government investigations meant nothing. What, they only mean nothing when a Republican is exonerated? How frigging convenient, wd. And Mr. Stinnet had doubtful sources, but that idiot from the highly partisan Consortium News didn't? Give me a fucking break, Charlie. Like I said, it's probably ALL a bunch of bullshit but I DO know for certain that one of your assholes (LBJ) lied us into war and another one (Wilson) unnecessarily got us into another. Not that that makes them war criminals of traitors, mind you. Those types if idiotic accusations I save for the weaselly partisan stooges.
There's no evidence of Bush's criminal activities.
Sorry dummy but there is LOTS of evidence just not any the people who run the system for the richest 1% is willing to actually investigate.
Just like there was lots of evidence Reagan knew more then he admitted but with diversionary tactics by Meese, and a willing and compliant congress that was never very seriously investigated either.
37,why are you so damn angry at success?
I'd guess 37 was waiting on the corner trying to catch the American Dream,and it just tooted the horn,waved at him and left him standing there.
There cant be any other explination for his antagonistic attitude towards anyone more successful then him....
Rusty asked: "dmarks....who is John Paul 1?"
He was right before John Paul 1. There's a book called "In God's Name" which alleged that he was poisoned. It seemed to be well argued. I asked a few Catholics about it after I read it, and they actually agreed with the idea that this happened.
---------
#37: The 99% thing has nothing to do with baseless claims about the previous President.
There cant be any other explination for his antagonistic attitude towards anyone more successful then him....
Retired and living the American dream, but rusty KNOWS all?
No rusty like you said in another thread;
Rusty Shackelford said...
Guess i was wrong.
So 37...you are sucking off the public teat?
So 37...you are sucking off the public teat?
Why is EARNING a retirement sucking off the public teat.
Isn't it earned by YEARS of contributions?
Or does rusty think the retirement people earn through hard work should be denied them when retirement age comes around.
SS is a slush fund for Congress anyway. It should be eliminated, or at best kept as a voluntary system. Regardless of either choice, have a strong welfare safety net available to make sure there is no poverty among seniors.
Outside of that, it's silly and 'nanny statish' of the government to manage (and manage badly) the retirement money of non-needy people.
Sooooo 37,you think you've earned this retirement money thru years of contributions from your "hard work?"
Thats funny....I would have pegged you for a social worker or school consular agent....not exactly the hardest jobs.
"...have a strong welfare safety net available to make sure there is no poverty among seniors."
A worthy goal, dmarks. How would you fund such a project differently from what SS already does?
"I would have pegged you for a social worker or school consular agent....not exactly the hardest jobs."
Careful, Rusty. Your stupid is showing again.
Russ, I have to agree with Jerry on this one. Most of the social workers that I've known (through my years in special education and geriatrics) have been overworked and underpaid. No, not all but most.
Jerry: From the general fund, like food stamps and the like.
"From the general fund, like food stamps and the like."
Since it will come from the federal income tax, are you willing to raise taxes to pay for it?
Will: The US made 9 official queries?
No. There were 10. The last one was in 1995, which means everyone involved with the other inquires was out of office... thereby eliminating one incentive to not arrive at the truth (protecting themselves).
Will: I thought that government investigations meant nothing.
I never said that.
Will: ...it's probably ALL a bunch of bullshit...
Because you're a "Moderate" and you don't want it to appear as though you're partisan, even though you do tend to defend Republicans and go after Democrats like #37927 says? How convenient.
Will: I do know for certain that one of your assholes...
I wasn't alive when either of these individuals was president, yet somehow I'm responsible for everything each did as president? And, let me guess, you've got no "assholes" of your own, because you're a moderate? How convenient.
Will: another one (Wilson) unnecessarily got us into another.
Why was WWI "unnecessary"? In any case, there was a vote. Congress authorized our entry into the war, so I don't know how you can blame ONE man.
Will: And Stinnet has doubtful sources...?
Hmm, let's see... how am I going to believe, Historians of the period who generally reject Stinnett's thesis, or Moderate extremist Will Hart? That's a hard one... NOT!
Will: ...that idiot from the highly partisan Consortium News doesn't?
Both authors made claims of wrongdoing by people who were or later became president, and in your mind that means both of their sources could be suspect? Give ME a break! I think I'll evaluate each of their claims independently and not lump them together for no logical reason like you.
dmarks: He (George W. bush) is not a Jr.
Dictionary.com says "junior" means "younger (usually designating the younger of two men bearing the same full name, as a son named after his father)...
Notice that it says "usually". Junior can also simply mean younger, and GWb is definitely a younger bush, so calling him "junior" is not technically incorrect. Also, he WAS named after his father. They are BOTH named "George". And they also share one of two middle names.
dmarks: There's no evidence of Bush's criminal activities. In fact, the ICC has rejected such claims.
There is a LOT of evidence. You just chose to ignore it. The ICC has NOT rejected such claims. No such statement of rejection has EVER been issued. I've asked you numerous times to produce some proof of this claim... and you never have... Nor will you ever... because it doesn't exist.
dmarks: have a strong welfare safety net available to make sure there is no poverty among seniors
Jerry: A worthy goal, dmarks. Since it will come from the federal income tax, are you willing to raise taxes to pay for it?
Sorry Jerry, but I strongly disagree. Doing the absolute minimum isn't a "worthy goal". There is a difference between poverty and even a lower-middle class life. So dmarks is generous enough that he thinks we should do something about seniors dying due to poverty (starvation, not being able to afford to heat/cool their residences, being homeless, etc)?
I say BFD. He thinks everyone except the upper middle class and the wealthy need to take a huge pay cut. And so long as seniors aren't starving to death that's good enough for him. I think we should aim a little higher than the absolute minimum.
Also, of course dmarks is NOT willing to raise taxes to pay for it! Even though taxes are at historical lows, dmarks thinks they should be even lower. With dmarks it's all about doing what's "right" for the wealthier among us.
WD said "There is a LOT of evidence. You just chose to ignore it. The ICC has NOT rejected such claims. No such statement of rejection has EVER been issued. I've asked you numerous times to produce some proof of this claim... and you never have... Nor will you ever... because it doesn't exist."
There's no evidence to ignore. As for ignoring, that is what the ICC has done with poorly thought out rants from cranks like Boyle. Rejected. The proof of the claim is in the fact that Boyle sent the "claims" to the ICC and nothing was ever done in regards to it. It wasn't even worth their time refuting it; more comedy for the recycle box.
I don't think a "strong welfare safety net" implies the "doing the absolute minimum".
And WD said: "With dmarks it's all about doing what's "right" for the wealthier among us."
When there is no evidence of this. In fact, all evidence is to the contrary, including the comments in this post, when I mention cutting off handouts to the rich while I also mention maintaining a safety net for the poor and indigent.
WD, it is you who have repeatedly said that welfare programs should include handouts to the rich so that there is some sort of buy-in by them in order to make the rich support welfare programs more.
Post a Comment