Joe Quinn on 'CIA Candidate'

Post by **Linnea** » 10-25-2009 05:41 PM

Originally posted by SquidInk
In this case - contract law.

Agree, SquidInk. Contract law is the entire basis for society. And, it is perfect - or as close as we will ever get.

Post by **Linnea** » 10-25-2009 06:02 PM

Originally posted by Live365
Or maybe some people aren't the Pied Pipers they wish they were.

I'm sure T.S. Eliot could relate.

Live - I can understand this statement at a very basic level. Everyone has a level of truth which is comfortable to them. Some others have a different comfort level - that of truth at any cost - and who knows, this may be dysfunctional at this point, suicidal in fact.

I believe Joe has already already acceded this point:

But the facts are irrelevant in this essentially political struggle, aren't they? Aren't they? Which is precisely why, in an age of UNIVERSAL deceit, telling the truth --- as one understands it, in the light of understanding it better --- is a revolutionary act.

Bless him for his courage - even as you curse him for his vision.

Live365 · Post by **Live365** » 10-25-2009 06:17 PM

Linnea wrote: Bless him for his courage - even as you curse him for his vision.

Linn, his "vision" is the very thing I question. Where does he suppose it leads us?

You have been a strong and loyal friend to this man. It would be refreshing not to see him forget it. This time.

Post by **Linnea** » 10-25-2009 06:30 PM

Live - Joe's vision is the thing I want to see him unpack. I do not see how that can really threaten anyone. And, yes - as we always seem to get to the 'personal' here - which I do regret - and the issue of 'feet of clay' when it comes to moderation of the forum.

But, isn't all this is a diversion from the topic of discussion?

HB3 · Post by **HB3** » 10-25-2009 06:33 PM

joequinn wrote: I have reported, as honestly as I can (there's the way out of your dilemma, HB3), what I have read and been told. Now corroborate or debunk the information. It's as simple as that...

Of course, I agree. But you're not looking further down the rabbit hole. In addition to hate speech, we now have "hate facts," which means facts which are hateful and/or inspire hate. And that sort of throws a monkeywrench in your whole phallocratic, Eurocentric notion of truth. Recourse to "facts" is unacceptable when those facts could lead to a hateful result.

HB3 · Post by **HB3** » 10-25-2009 06:41 PM

And if the facts point to Obama not being a citizen, well, those are unquestionably hate facts.

When you are in Room 101, you will learn two things:

1) There is no truth

2) The ability of the state to enforce its vision of the truth is the highest beauty.

joequinn · Post by **joequinn** » 10-25-2009 06:55 PM

Linnea, I was being sarcastic when I made the remark that I made about the subjectivity of truth. I most assuredly do not believe that. I just heard a couple of things; I reprinted what I heard as clearly as possible; and I just wish to know whether these things are true or false. If I learn that they are false, then I will try to persuade other people that they are false. But if I am not persuaded that they are false, well, then, I can't persuade others, can I?

I do NOT believe that truth is subjective perception masquerading as something more. Oh no, as I have said on numerous occasions, truth is the daughter of time. It could not be the daughter of time if it were merely subjective perception.

I think that it is highly interesting that nobody has tried to refute what I printed. That may be telling me something. What do you think?

Post by **Linnea** » 10-25-2009 07:26 PM

I read your statement as one of reasoned cynicism, not of fact. Also, sarcasm. And, even - at least to my ears - of despair. Subjective and Truth are at nearly opposite ends of reality. Agreed.

As for comment on and/or exploration of the information in your post. I set up some google inquiry strings - with some results, but am still looking for more information. As I did already state here - I do find this information compelling as it has that 'ring of truth' in its tone and trajectory.

I have really taken up in earnest that book I mentioned, and urge you to get - and hope to find some sources of further information therein.

Will report back here, for sure, on anything which sheds further light. And soon!

Post by **Linnea** » 10-25-2009 07:41 PM

Originally posted by joequinn

I think that it is highly interesting that nobody has tried to refute what I printed. That may be telling me something. What do you think?

I see there was a subtlety here which I overlooked as well. Why indeed?

*'It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble; it's what we know that ain't so' - Will Rogers

Joolz · Post by **Joolz** » 10-25-2009 10:06 PM

SquidInk wrote: The U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual, & Gabriel J. Chin: University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law; University of Arizona School of Government and Public Policy don't work for you?

Sorry, SquidInk. My apologies. You did source, and I wasn't referring to you. Linnea's assessment of my post was correct:

Linnea wrote: Perhaps Joolz is referring to the substance of the topic post. It seems so to me. It would be helpful in assessing some of this to have good references to the research material, for instance.

I honestly don't have time to search out others' source material. If presented as research, then I appreciate sources cited that I can check. Simple as that.

SquidInk · Post by **SquidInk** » 10-25-2009 10:32 PM

Joolz wrote: Sorry, SquidInk.

No problemo. I was gonna go get more, if you required it.

Post by **Linnea** » 10-25-2009 11:19 PM

Moderator Comment: *(in reference to a deleted post)

This might be another left wing story to defame Obama. However, such speculation is specifically not invited or allowed in this particular area of this forum. No partisan comments, consideration, or analysis are allowed here.

Anyone is welcome to start a thread in P&G for such discussion.

This policy will be strictly enforced This is only one thread on the forum - and it is essential to have such a thread.

The description of this thread:

Pirates and Skeptics -P&G, etc
For non-partisan discussion ONLY. This policy will be strictly moderated and enforced. For those with eyes wide open, visionaries, lunatics, humorists (definitely!)

I also take exception to your tone of appearing to chastize or moderate the posting of others in this thread. Your comments regarding 'starting rumors' 'no provenance' 'judging the truth for oneself', and etc. are crafted to broadcast an opinion and to influence - without engaging the issues raised.

I know this seems a fine line, but it is important to keep this one thread wide open - even for wild conspiracy theories - if that is one of the directions it goes in. I think this is well understood here.

Your post will most likely be deleted.

joequinn · Post by **joequinn** » 10-26-2009 06:25 AM

Where are the documented refutations of the claims that I transmitted in my original posts in this thread? If the refutations could be made, then the people who have refused to make them are either morons or intellectual slobs or both; if the refutations could not be made, then the people who have refused to admit the fact are cowards or liars or both.

It all seems pretty clear and pretty simple to me. And a casual wave of the magisterially dismissive hand is not enough, in itself, to refute these claims.

SquidInk · Post by **SquidInk** » 10-26-2009 09:01 AM

It's difficult to refute/prove the Obama situation because, as you stated, the critical records have been sealed away. After all, it is a conspiracy, and conspiracies are designed to be difficult to expose.

Joolz · Post by **Joolz** » 10-26-2009 11:31 AM

joequinn wrote: Where are the documented refutations of the claims that I transmitted in my original posts in this thread? If the refutations could be made, then the people who have refused to make them are either morons or intellectual slobs or both; if the refutations could not be made, then the people who have refused to admit the fact are cowards or liars or both.

It all seems pretty clear and pretty simple to me. And a casual wave of the magisterially dismissive hand is not enough, in itself, to refute these claims.

This is a rather lame accusation seeing as how you've refused to provide any support for the claims you've made. Morons? Intellectual snobs? Cowards? Liars? WTF? Why should anyone bother to go to the trouble to "refute" with "documentation" something that is unsupported with any "documentation" in the first place? I'd rather talk to the wall.

As for this:

I think that it is highly interesting that nobody has tried to refute what I printed. That may be telling me something. What do you think?

Yes, this may be telling you something, but I doubt you're hearing it. Talking with you means subjecting yourself to insults and dogmatic cynicism. What honest and open dialogue is even possible under such circumstances? And who in their right mind wants to even try? I don't. I'm done here.