|
JBS.org Forums |
|
|
|
|
Subject ::Re:I found disturbing material written about the JBS..
2009-11-12 12:58:22
|
|
|
| rprew |
|
| Pro Bircher |
 |
Joined: 2008-07-30 09:47:06
Posts: 188
Location: A few diplomas on my wall that prove nothing |
|
|
|
This thread has gone around in circles so many times it is making people dizzy. About the time we think the spinning has stopped, a new "variation" is introduced and off we go again.
I believe it is time for the administrators to shut it down. This horse is long dead.
[cbentley 2009-10-30 08:36:29]:
gwbush39,
"Courting" support from the Society doesn't mean that the Society endorsed Bush (the JBS has never, ever, ever endorsed a political candidate).
Nor does it mean that Bush was a member. Bush could have attended a local Birch meeting for all we know, and if he did, in his own mind that could have been his assuming he was now a member. But that doesn't make him one.
"Courting support" means that he sought political/electoral support from local Birchers in his district. That was those members' individual choices to do so, not an official approval from the Society.
Our members are free to work in political campaigns whenever, wherever, and for whomever they wish. It has always been that way.
For the last time in this thread, or I'll shut this one down, George H. W. Bush has never been, and never was, a member of the JBS.
In fact, if you go back and reread my response, with the accompanying sources, you'll see that he cynically exploited that "support" and then turned leftward and has never looked back.
He became the president who put the New World Order (his words, not mine) on the front burner for U.S. policy.
That's the most unAmerican thing a U.S. citizen can do: sell out our nation's independence to a globalist body like the UN in pursuit of world government and world socialism.
If you are that much of a Bush apologist (your user name would lend credence to that, though when I first saw it I thought it was sarcastic), you might be more comfortable in the GOP forum.
[gwbush39 2009-10-28 22:29:36]:
My reference again, is the biographies I mentioned. Herbert Parmet in George Bush: The L
ife of a Lone Star Yankee said that Bush courted the John Birch Society's support when he challenged Yarborough for the Senate. Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin said in George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography that Bush courted JBS support even after Goldwater repudiated the group. Parmet said in his book that Yarborough claimed that Bush later on admitted to him that he had been a member of JBS during the 1964 Senate campaign.
[Sweet William 2009-10-28 13:12:12]:
You said "...the group supported him..."? Please cite the reference, as the John Birch Society has never endorsed political candidates.
[gwbush39 2009-10-28 04:46:47]:
Maybe he wasn't actually a member of JBS itself but he courted their votes and at least pretend to agree with their ultraconservative political ideology and the group supported him when he ran for the Senate against Yarborough, maybe that's it. Maybe that's why they thought he was a member because he was politically supported by and aligned with JBS at the time. Is that possible?
|
IP Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject :Re:Re:I found disturbing material written about the JBS..
2009-11-12 13:18:49
|
|
|
| TheGolfer38 |
|
| Just Arrived |
 |
Joined: 2009-11-12 02:34:21
Posts: 24
Location: |
|
|
|
Well why did Archibald Roosevelt claim to be a Bircher and why did Teddy's biographer claim that Archie was a Bircher then. I know he's not an expert on JBS, but he probably is an expert on Teddy Roosevelt and his family since he wrote a book about Teddy. Archie said he was a Bircher, he made no bones about it he was open about it. Why would he lie and claim to be involved in JBS if he wasn't involved in it, I don't see how it would benefit him, since JBS is a controversial organization.
[kdunn 2009-11-12 12:50:55]:
An assumption is something taken for granted, or accepted as true without proof.
FACT: The John Birch Society DOES NOT release it's membership roster to anyone.
An authority is someone who has special knowledge on a particular subject. We are appealing to an authority when we claim something is true because an authority said it was true. However, if the person (via a statement, book, online article, etc.) we are appealing to is NOT actually an authority in the area we are discussing (JBS membership), our appeal is faulty.
Summary: A faulty appeal to authority is an appeal to someone who has no special knowledge in the area being discussed.
One last comment... It has been said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again (i.e. refuting a faulty appeal to authority), but expecting different results.
|
|
IP Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject :Re:I found disturbing material written about the JBS..
2009-11-12 14:31:01
|
|
|
| cadillac |
|
| Just Arrived |
|
Joined: 2008-10-13 14:45:32
Posts: 23
Location: |
|
|
|
It is really too bad that Mr. McManus has to waste his time responding to bunk like this. It is so absurdly freakazoidal that it hardly rates a response. But I'm overjoyed that rantacop finds the JBS so threatening to his ideology that he must resort to fabricating pipedreams about it.
Every time I read some punk piece like this it revitalizes my belief that the John Birch Society is without peers in its keen insight into the strategies and mindset of the Insiders, and that truth will prevail.
Keep firing those blanks, rantacop! |
|
IP Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject :Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:I found disturbing material written about the JBS..
2009-11-12 15:18:21
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 2010-09-08 06:18:00
Posts: 0
Location: |
|
|
|
It appears Mr. Edward J. Renehan Jr. has a felonious background, definitely a questionable source of information, do you not agree? Or, do you prefer relying upon dubious sources for information? How well have your sources been researched and has that research been verified and substantiated? Thus far, the sources you have provided are questionable at best. Again, until you can provide a credible and reliable source, I will rightfully question the source. Until the John Birch Society makes an official statement clearly supporting any claims of the organization's membership, there remains a justifiable doubt.
Regardless, one's membership within an organization does not equate to that particular organization's support or endorsement of an individual's personal activities. However, an individual's behavior, if unethical, will likely get them denounced and disassociated by any responsible membership organization. So, truly, your point of bringing up Archibald Roosevelt is moot, whether or not he had a membership with the John Birch Society.
Lastly, the John Birch Society does not disclose the identities of its members. Therefore, the point of bringing up alleged members, past and present, is further rendered moot.
[TheGolfer38 2009-11-12 11:19:00]:
"During the 50s and 60s Archie became involved
with the John Birch Society
and other extreme right-wing groups". Source
The Lion's Pride: Theodore Roosevelt and His Family in Peace and War by Edward J. Renehan Jr.
I also had mentioned this source. This is a biography of Teddy Roosevelt, and therefore much more credible than a website like wikipedia or ourcampaigns. Is this a source that counts?
[Sweet William 2009-11-12 11:03:22]:
Golfer, With all due respect, why, instead of going through the difficulty of creating a new account, didn't you simply go through the motion of a password retrieval? It is much easier, simpler, and less time consuming. In regard to your "sources", they fall far short of the accuracy litmus test. In the words of Randy Parker, the creator for the website you cite, I post the following: ABOUT OUR CAMPAIGNS
Our Campaigns is the implementation of an idea I had for a collaborative political website.
I noticed that people on these types of sites like to contribute a lot of links, news and information, so I decided to put together a site where the users help create the site's content.
You can see a lot without creating an account, but when you do create an account you will be able to access the true power of the website. People with accounts can help create the site itself, as well as access convenient features such as the automatic display on the home page of all new items since your last log-on.
As soon as you create an account, you have access to message posting. With good solid participation in this area, I may increase your access to more functions of site creation.
Enjoy the site, and let me know what you think.
- Randy Parker
|
Therefore, the website has the same amount of accuracy as Wikipedia.org, which is precisely where the information you cite originated from.
[TheGolfer38 2009-11-12 10:11:31]:
During the early 1950s, Archie became affiliated with a variety of extreme right wing organizations and causes. He joined the John Birch Society, and was the founder of the controversial Veritas Foundation, dedicated to the routing out of presumed socialist influence at Harvard and other major colleges and universities. Writing in the book America's Political Dynasties (Doubleday, 1966), Stephen Hess commented: "Archie Roosevelt has, in recent years, added the family's name to many ultra-rightist causes. As a trustee of the Veritas Foundation he is a leader among those seeking to root out subversion at Harvard. He also sent a letter to every U.S. Senator, stating 'modern technical civilization does not seem to be as well handled by the black man as by the white man in the United States.' Present civil rights difficulties he blamed on 'socialist plotters.'" source http://www.ourcampaigns.com/CandidateDetail.html?CandidateID=174226 "During the 50s and 60s Archie became involved
with the John Birch Society
and other extreme right-wing groups".
The Lion's Pride: Theodore Roosevelt and His Family in Peace and War by Edward J. Renehan Jr. Those sources both say that Teddy Roosevelt's
son Archie was a member of the John Birch Society.
So I have provided sources, as for your statement that I and another user on this thread might
be the same person I will be honest we are. The reason I created a new account was not to pretend there were
2 different people on this thread but because I forgot the password to my old account, that's the only reason I created the new 1.
[Sweet William 2009-11-12 06:46:37]:
Until I have substantiated evidence to support your claim, it lacks credibility. Do you have substantiating evidence to support your statement or is it expected to be taken at face value? The problem is, there are far too many individuals claiming to have been "former" members and there are far too many people claiming that other individuals have been members when the truth is quite contrary. Undisputed evidence is always a requirement to support a claim, and you have failed to provide any. As for me? I am a dues paid member of the John Birch Society and have the membership card and billing statement to prove that fact. Until I see the same from others, especially those who are of questionable character and claiming an equal membership status, I will continue to doubt their/your claim. Nothing personal, I merely expect people to be able to support their doubtful statements. Also, I am noticing newly registered post contributors (you being one of "two" allegedly separate individuals which I am referring to) making outlandish and unsubstantiated claims on this thread alone, failing to establish any history elsewhere on the JBS site. Even to the novice bloggers, such a tactic appears contemptuous and orchestrated. Are you merely a single individual attempting to appear as two (or later, three and possibly more) different people? Regardless, this recent orchestration, targeting this particular thread alone, is clearly an attempt by one or two trying to cause disruption. If so, does your life/lives serve so little purpose that you have nothing better to do? If not, as a matter of passing suggestion, you should consider using your time in a much more meaningful and constructive manner.
[TheGolfer38 2009-11-11 21:39:12]:
You guys find it hard to believe that Bush was involved in JBS. But I found out that another scion of the Eastern Liberal Anglophile Establishment, Archibald Roosevelt, was a confirmed member of JBS. Archibald Roosevelt was the son of Theodore Roosevelt, the liberal Republican president who later bolted the GOP and formed the Bull Moose Party, which was supported by various Eastern Liberal Anglophile Establishment families including JP Morgan's family, and was made up of moderate and liberal Republican networks in New England who believed in Roosevelt's internationalist ideology. If his son Archie could be in JBS, is it so hard to believe Bush could be in it?
|
|
IP Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject :Re:Re:I found disturbing material written about the JBS..
2009-11-12 15:20:09
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 2010-09-08 06:18:00
Posts: 0
Location: |
|
|
|
LOL, Well stated.
[kdunn 2009-11-12 12:50:55]:
An assumption is something taken for granted, or accepted as true without proof.
FACT: The John Birch Society DOES NOT release it's membership roster to anyone.
An authority is someone who has special knowledge on a particular subject. We are appealing to an authority when we claim something is true because an authority said it was true. However, if the person (via a statement, book, online article, etc.) we are appealing to is NOT actually an authority in the area we are discussing (JBS membership), our appeal is faulty.
Summary: A faulty appeal to authority is an appeal to someone who has no special knowledge in the area being discussed.
One last comment... It has been said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again (i.e. refuting a faulty appeal to authority), but expecting different results.
|
|
IP Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject :Re:I found disturbing material written about the JBS..
2009-11-12 16:01:57
|
|
|
| TheGolfer38 |
|
|
| Just Arrived |
|
Joined: 2009-11-12 02:34:21
Posts: 24
Location: |
|
|
|
|
Liars have been known to speak the truth sometimes, especially in cases where there interests are not affected, so just because he's a felon doesn't neccesarily mean we can't trust any of his information. |
|
IP Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject :Re:Re:I found disturbing material written about the JBS..
2009-11-12 16:16:25
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 2010-09-08 06:18:00
Posts: 0
Location: |
|
|
|
That may be correct in some rare cases. However, when a felon's personal interest is at stake, especially the financial interests of a thief, it brings forth all the more reason to question that felon's credibility.
Regardless, as I stated earlier, Archibald Roosevelt's possible membership with the John Birch Society remains a moot point nor can the claim of his membership be substantiated by the sources you have thus far provided.
[TheGolfer38 2009-11-12 16:01:57]:
Liars have been known to speak the truth sometimes, especially in cases where there interests are not affected, so just because he's a felon doesn't neccesarily mean we can't trust any of his information.
|
|
IP Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject :Re:Re:Re:I found disturbing material written about the JBS..
2009-11-12 16:19:42
|
|
|
| TheGolfer38 |
|
|
| Just Arrived |
|
Joined: 2009-11-12 02:34:21
Posts: 24
Location: |
|
|
|
How would Mr. Renehan's financial interests be affected by whether or not Archie Roosevelt was thought to have been in the John Birch Society or not? What would his motive be to lie about that?
[Sweet William 2009-11-12 16:16:25]:
That may be correct in some rare cases. However, when a felon's personal interest is at stake, especially the financial interests of a thief, it brings forth all the more reason to question that felon's credibility. Regardless, as I stated earlier, Archibald Roosevelt's possible membership with the John Birch Society remains a moot point nor can the claim of his membership be substantiated by the sources you have thus far provided.
[TheGolfer38 2009-11-12 16:01:57]:
Liars have been known to speak the truth sometimes, especially in cases where there interests are not affected, so just because he's a felon doesn't neccesarily mean we can't trust any of his information.
|
|
IP Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject :Re:Re:Re:Re:I found disturbing material written about the JBS..
2009-11-12 16:42:55
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 2010-09-08 06:18:00
Posts: 0
Location: |
|
|
|
Really? Do you sincerely fail to understand how the biographer of the book you cited as a source of information has a direct financial interest through the sale of said biography? Further, do you fail to understand how that same biographer's credibility is at stake when he is known for stealing research material for his biographies and selling said research material at private auctions?
By what logical reasoning do you fail to understand Edward J. Renehan Jr.'s lack of trustworthiness? Such a dubious character hardly qualifies as an expert of firsthand knowledge. But then, some people are easily duped into believing anything presented in print. How else can one explain the longevity of the New York Times, for example?
And, lastly, once again, the issue of Archibald Roosevelt remains a moot point.
[TheGolfer38 2009-11-12 16:19:42]:
How would Mr. Renehan's financial interests be affected by whether or not Archie Roosevelt was thought to have been in the John Birch Society or not? What would his motive be to lie about that?
[Sweet William 2009-11-12 16:16:25]:
That may be correct in some rare cases. However, when a felon's personal interest is at stake, especially the financial interests of a thief, it brings forth all the more reason to question that felon's credibility. Regardless, as I stated earlier, Archibald Roosevelt's possible membership with the John Birch Society remains a moot point nor can the claim of his membership be substantiated by the sources you have thus far provided.
[TheGolfer38 2009-11-12 16:01:57]:
Liars have been known to speak the truth sometimes, especially in cases where there interests are not affected, so just because he's a felon doesn't neccesarily mean we can't trust any of his information.
|
|
IP Logged
|
|
Last Edited On: 2009-11-12 16:42:55 By for the Reason Spelling, double word deletion. |
|
|
|
|
|
Subject :Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:I found disturbing material written about the JBS..
2009-11-12 16:49:11
|
|
|
| TheGolfer38 |
|
|
| Just Arrived |
|
Joined: 2009-11-12 02:34:21
Posts: 24
Location: |
|
|
|
Ok I understand. He might have been lying. I understand why you think he might have said it to increase book sales, I can see why you think that. But I still don't agree because he only mentioned Archie's involvement in the JBS 1 time, and in passing. It wasn't a major part of the book. If he were doing it just to increase books sales I would think he would mention it more than that. Also he didn't mention it until the epilogue, I would think he would mention it in a more prominent place if he was trying to increase sales. But he might have been lying. But I've seen Archie's membership in JBS attested to in so many articles, and Archie was an ultraconservative who also founded the Veritas Foundation, which was similiar to JBS, and he also was against illegal immigration and against anti-war demonstrators, so it would kind of make since if Archie was in JBS. And I read he published a book about his father's opposition to communism and illegal immigration and crime that JBS endorsed, Theodore Roosevelt on Race Riots, Reds and Crime.
[Sweet William 2009-11-12 16:42:55]:
Really? Do you sincerely fail to understand how the biographer of the book you cited as a source of information has a direct financial interest through the sale of said biography? Further, do you fail to understand how that same biographer's credibility is at stake when he is known for stealing research material for his biographies and selling said research material at private auctions? By what logical reasoning do you fail to understand Edward J. Renehan Jr.'s lack of trustworthiness? Such a dubious character hardly qualifies as an expert of firsthand knowledge. But then, some people are easily duped into believing anything presented in print. How else can one explain the longevity of the New York Times, for example? And, lastly, once again, the issue of Archibald Roosevelt remains a moot point.
[TheGolfer38 2009-11-12 16:19:42]:
How would Mr. Renehan's financial interests be affected by whether or not Archie Roosevelt was thought to have been in the John Birch Society or not? What would his motive be to lie about that?
[Sweet William 2009-11-12 16:16:25]:
That may be correct in some rare cases. However, when a felon's personal interest is at stake, especially the financial interests of a thief, it brings forth all the more reason to question that felon's credibility. Regardless, as I stated earlier, Archibald Roosevelt's possible membership with the John Birch Society remains a moot point nor can the claim of his membership be substantiated by the sources you have thus far provided.
[TheGolfer38 2009-11-12 16:01:57]:
Liars have been known to speak the truth sometimes, especially in cases where there interests are not affected, so just because he's a felon doesn't neccesarily mean we can't trust any of his information.
|
|
IP Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject :Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:I found disturbing material written about the JBS..
2009-11-12 17:10:06
|
|
|
| TheGolfer38 |
|
|
| Just Arrived |
|
Joined: 2009-11-12 02:34:21
Posts: 24
Location: |
|
|
|
Also why do you keep calling him Edward J. Renehan, Jr., we've already established what his first name is, so why not just call him by his last name after that, most people only use a 1st or a last name, they don't use both at the same time, when they are talking about another person, for example if I was talking about John Nerge or Lauren Dixon after I've established what their first names are I thereafter refer to them as either Nerge and Dixon or John and Lauren I don't keep calling them John Nerge and Lauren Dixon each time, it sounds awkward.
[Sweet William 2009-11-12 16:42:55]:
Really? Do you sincerely fail to understand how the biographer of the book you cited as a source of information has a direct financial interest through the sale of said biography? Further, do you fail to understand how that same biographer's credibility is at stake when he is known for stealing research material for his biographies and selling said research material at private auctions? By what logical reasoning do you fail to understand Edward J. Renehan Jr.'s lack of trustworthiness? Such a dubious character hardly qualifies as an expert of firsthand knowledge. But then, some people are easily duped into believing anything presented in print. How else can one explain the longevity of the New York Times, for example? And, lastly, once again, the issue of Archibald Roosevelt remains a moot point.
[TheGolfer38 2009-11-12 16:19:42]:
How would Mr. Renehan's financial interests be affected by whether or not Archie Roosevelt was thought to have been in the John Birch Society or not? What would his motive be to lie about that?
[Sweet William 2009-11-12 16:16:25]:
That may be correct in some rare cases. However, when a felon's personal interest is at stake, especially the financial interests of a thief, it brings forth all the more reason to question that felon's credibility. Regardless, as I stated earlier, Archibald Roosevelt's possible membership with the John Birch Society remains a moot point nor can the claim of his membership be substantiated by the sources you have thus far provided.
[TheGolfer38 2009-11-12 16:01:57]:
Liars have been known to speak the truth sometimes, especially in cases where there interests are not affected, so just because he's a felon doesn't neccesarily mean we can't trust any of his information.
|
|
IP Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject :Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:I found disturbing material written about the JBS..
2009-11-12 17:11:59
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 2010-09-08 06:18:00
Posts: 0
Location: |
|
|
|
The biographer stated it one time, as well as stating Archibald Roosevelt's membership in several other organizations, in his literary effort to project his subject as being a person of a specific persona, which may or may not have been accurately portrayed.
Regardless, as continually stated in previous responses, the mentioning of Archibald Roosevelt's possible but unsubstantiated membership with the John Birch Society continues to remain a moot point.
I am certain someone along they way has stated that Charles Manson was an iconic definition and result of the 1960's era. Such a statement hardly possesses much validity nor is such a statement relevant when referencing that particular era. Therefore, exercising logical reasoning, what intellectual point are you hoping to establish in making unsubstantiated claims that your aforementioned historical figures may have had a membership with the John Birch Society? In no way has the John Birch Society ever endorsed or sponsored said individuals nor has it ever been substantiated that said individuals had a membership with the John Birch Society to begin with. Therefore, beyond continually presenting an ever failing argument, precisely what is the intellectual point you are unmercifully trying to make?
[TheGolfer38 2009-11-12 16:49:11]:
Ok I understand. He might have been lying. I understand why you think he might have said it to increase book sales, I can see why you think that. But I still don't agree because he only mentioned Archie's involvement in the JBS 1 time, and in passing. It wasn't a major part of the book. If he were doing it just to increase books sales I would think he would mention it more than that. Also he didn't mention it until the epilogue, I would think he would mention it in a more prominent place if he was trying to increase sales. But he might have been lying. But I've seen Archie's membership in JBS attested to in so many articles, and Archie was an ultraconservative who also founded the Veritas Foundation, which was similiar to JBS, and he also was against illegal immigration and against anti-war demonstrators, so it would kind of make since if Archie was in JBS. And I read he published a book about his father's opposition to communism and illegal immigration and crime that JBS endorsed, Theodore Roosevelt on Race Riots, Reds and Crime.
[Sweet William 2009-11-12 16:42:55]:
Really? Do you sincerely fail to understand how the biographer of the book you cited as a source of information has a direct financial interest through the sale of said biography? Further, do you fail to understand how that same biographer's credibility is at stake when he is known for stealing research material for his biographies and selling said research material at private auctions? By what logical reasoning do you fail to understand Edward J. Renehan Jr.'s lack of trustworthiness? Such a dubious character hardly qualifies as an expert of firsthand knowledge. But then, some people are easily duped into believing anything presented in print. How else can one explain the longevity of the New York Times, for example? And, lastly, once again, the issue of Archibald Roosevelt remains a moot point.
[TheGolfer38 2009-11-12 16:19:42]:
How would Mr. Renehan's financial interests be affected by whether or not Archie Roosevelt was thought to have been in the John Birch Society or not? What would his motive be to lie about that?
[Sweet William 2009-11-12 16:16:25]:
That may be correct in some rare cases. However, when a felon's personal interest is at stake, especially the financial interests of a thief, it brings forth all the more reason to question that felon's credibility. Regardless, as I stated earlier, Archibald Roosevelt's possible membership with the John Birch Society remains a moot point nor can the claim of his membership be substantiated by the sources you have thus far provided.
[TheGolfer38 2009-11-12 16:01:57]:
Liars have been known to speak the truth sometimes, especially in cases where there interests are not affected, so just because he's a felon doesn't neccesarily mean we can't trust any of his information.
|
|
IP Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject :Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:I found disturbing material written about the JBS..
2009-11-12 17:16:49
|
|
|
| TheGolfer38 |
|
|
| Just Arrived |
|
Joined: 2009-11-12 02:34:21
Posts: 24
Location: |
|
|
|
What "specific persona" was the author trying to portray Roosevelt as having, was he trying to argue that the former president was more conservative than people thought he was or what?
[Sweet William 2009-11-12 17:11:59]:
The biographer stated it one time, as well as stating Archibald Roosevelt's membership in several other organizations, in his literary effort to project his subject as being a person of a specific persona, which may or may not have been accurately portrayed. Regardless, as continually stated in previous responses, the mentioning of Archibald Roosevelt's possible but unsubstantiated membership with the John Birch Society continues to remain a moot point. I am certain someone along they way has stated that Charles Manson was an iconic definition and result of the 1960's era. Such a statement hardly possesses much validity nor is such a statement relevant when referencing that particular era. Therefore, exercising logical reasoning, what intellectual point are you hoping to establish in making unsubstantiated claims that your aforementioned historical figures may have had a membership with the John Birch Society? In no way has the John Birch Society ever endorsed or sponsored said individuals nor has it ever been substantiated that said individuals had a membership with the John Birch Society to begin with. Therefore, beyond continually presenting an ever failing argument, precisely what is the intellectual point you are unmercifully trying to make?
[TheGolfer38 2009-11-12 16:49:11]:
Ok I understand. He might have been lying. I understand why you think he might have said it to increase book sales, I can see why you think that. But I still don't agree because he only mentioned Archie's involvement in the JBS 1 time, and in passing. It wasn't a major part of the book. If he were doing it just to increase books sales I would think he would mention it more than that. Also he didn't mention it until the epilogue, I would think he would mention it in a more prominent place if he was trying to increase sales. But he might have been lying. But I've seen Archie's membership in JBS attested to in so many articles, and Archie was an ultraconservative who also founded the Veritas Foundation, which was similiar to JBS, and he also was against illegal immigration and against anti-war demonstrators, so it would kind of make since if Archie was in JBS. And I read he published a book about his father's opposition to communism and illegal immigration and crime that JBS endorsed, Theodore Roosevelt on Race Riots, Reds and Crime.
[Sweet William 2009-11-12 16:42:55]:
Really? Do you sincerely fail to understand how the biographer of the book you cited as a source of information has a direct financial interest through the sale of said biography? Further, do you fail to understand how that same biographer's credibility is at stake when he is known for stealing research material for his biographies and selling said research material at private auctions? By what logical reasoning do you fail to understand Edward J. Renehan Jr.'s lack of trustworthiness? Such a dubious character hardly qualifies as an expert of firsthand knowledge. But then, some people are easily duped into believing anything presented in print. How else can one explain the longevity of the New York Times, for example? And, lastly, once again, the issue of Archibald Roosevelt remains a moot point.
[TheGolfer38 2009-11-12 16:19:42]:
How would Mr. Renehan's financial interests be affected by whether or not Archie Roosevelt was thought to have been in the John Birch Society or not? What would his motive be to lie about that?
[Sweet William 2009-11-12 16:16:25]:
That may be correct in some rare cases. However, when a felon's personal interest is at stake, especially the financial interests of a thief, it brings forth all the more reason to question that felon's credibility. Regardless, as I stated earlier, Archibald Roosevelt's possible membership with the John Birch Society remains a moot point nor can the claim of his membership be substantiated by the sources you have thus far provided.
[TheGolfer38 2009-11-12 16:01:57]:
Liars have been known to speak the truth sometimes, especially in cases where there interests are not affected, so just because he's a felon doesn't neccesarily mean we can't trust any of his information.
|
|
IP Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject :Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:I found disturbing material written about the JBS..
2009-11-12 17:21:04
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 2010-09-08 06:18:00
Posts: 0
Location: |
|
|
|
I have a legitimate question. Do you suffer from ADD or are you simply attempting to employ diversion tactics to further steer the subject off course?
Precisely what does it matter to you how I refer to your source of reference, Edward J. Renehan Jr.? I am properly refering to him within proper and formal context, why does that seem to annoy you? Before you begin to lecture anyone in proper writing, I happily refer you to, "The Holt Handbook" [Second Edition] by Kirszner & Mandell. You might find it to be invaluable and it certainly appears you would not be hurt by studying it. Merely a constructive suggestion.
[TheGolfer38 2009-11-12 17:10:06]:
Also why do you keep calling him Edward J. Renehan, Jr., we've already established what his first name is, so why not just call him by his last name after that, most people only use a 1st or a last name, they don't use both at the same time, when they are talking about another person, for example if I was talking about John Nerge or Lauren Dixon after I've established what their first names are I thereafter refer to them as either Nerge and Dixon or John and Lauren I don't keep calling them John Nerge and Lauren Dixon each time, it sounds awkward.
[Sweet William 2009-11-12 16:42:55]:
Really? Do you sincerely fail to understand how the biographer of the book you cited as a source of information has a direct financial interest through the sale of said biography? Further, do you fail to understand how that same biographer's credibility is at stake when he is known for stealing research material for his biographies and selling said research material at private auctions? By what logical reasoning do you fail to understand Edward J. Renehan Jr.'s lack of trustworthiness? Such a dubious character hardly qualifies as an expert of firsthand knowledge. But then, some people are easily duped into believing anything presented in print. How else can one explain the longevity of the New York Times, for example? And, lastly, once again, the issue of Archibald Roosevelt remains a moot point.
[TheGolfer38 2009-11-12 16:19:42]:
How would Mr. Renehan's financial interests be affected by whether or not Archie Roosevelt was thought to have been in the John Birch Society or not? What would his motive be to lie about that?
[Sweet William 2009-11-12 16:16:25]:
That may be correct in some rare cases. However, when a felon's personal interest is at stake, especially the financial interests of a thief, it brings forth all the more reason to question that felon's credibility. Regardless, as I stated earlier, Archibald Roosevelt's possible membership with the John Birch Society remains a moot point nor can the claim of his membership be substantiated by the sources you have thus far provided.
[TheGolfer38 2009-11-12 16:01:57]:
Liars have been known to speak the truth sometimes, especially in cases where there interests are not affected, so just because he's a felon doesn't neccesarily mean we can't trust any of his information.
|
|
IP Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject :Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:I found disturbing material written about the JBS..
2009-11-12 17:23:58
|
|
|
| TheGolfer38 |
|
|
| Just Arrived |
|
Joined: 2009-11-12 02:34:21
Posts: 24
Location: |
|
|
|
To be honest somebody I know named Tim Callow attacked me for referring to people I know by their full names, for example I would call Lauren Lauren Dixon instead of Lauren and I would call John Nerge instead of John, Tim was irritated by that and said he was annoyed by that and that I should only call people by their 1st name by itself or their last name by itself, never by their full names. He said it was awkward to use people's full names. I thought it was considered socially awkward to do that because that is what my classmate Tim told me, I guess Tim was wrong, I'm sorry. Tim used to get really irritated when I referred to people by their full names.
[Sweet William 2009-11-12 17:21:04]:
I have a legitimate question. Do you suffer from ADD or are you simply attempting to employ diversion tactics to further steer the subject off course? Precisely what does it matter to you how I refer to your source of reference, Edward J. Renehan Jr.? I am properly refering to him within proper and formal context, why does that seem to annoy you? Before you begin to lecture anyone in proper writing, I happily refer you to, "The Holt Handbook" [Second Edition] by Kirszner & Mandell. You might find it to be invaluable and it certainly appears you would not be hurt by studying it. Merely a constructive suggestion.
[TheGolfer38 2009-11-12 17:10:06]:
Also why do you keep calling him Edward J. Renehan, Jr., we've already established what his first name is, so why not just call him by his last name after that, most people only use a 1st or a last name, they don't use both at the same time, when they are talking about another person, for example if I was talking about John Nerge or Lauren Dixon after I've established what their first names are I thereafter refer to them as either Nerge and Dixon or John and Lauren I don't keep calling them John Nerge and Lauren Dixon each time, it sounds awkward.
[Sweet William 2009-11-12 16:42:55]:
Really? Do you sincerely fail to understand how the biographer of the book you cited as a source of information has a direct financial interest through the sale of said biography? Further, do you fail to understand how that same biographer's credibility is at stake when he is known for stealing research material for his biographies and selling said research material at private auctions? By what logical reasoning do you fail to understand Edward J. Renehan Jr.'s lack of trustworthiness? Such a dubious character hardly qualifies as an expert of firsthand knowledge. But then, some people are easily duped into believing anything presented in print. How else can one explain the longevity of the New York Times, for example? And, lastly, once again, the issue of Archibald Roosevelt remains a moot point.
[TheGolfer38 2009-11-12 16:19:42]:
How would Mr. Renehan's financial interests be affected by whether or not Archie Roosevelt was thought to have been in the John Birch Society or not? What would his motive be to lie about that?
[Sweet William 2009-11-12 16:16:25]:
That may be correct in some rare cases. However, when a felon's personal interest is at stake, especially the financial interests of a thief, it brings forth all the more reason to question that felon's credibility. Regardless, as I stated earlier, Archibald Roosevelt's possible membership with the John Birch Society remains a moot point nor can the claim of his membership be substantiated by the sources you have thus far provided.
[TheGolfer38 2009-11-12 16:01:57]:
Liars have been known to speak the truth sometimes, especially in cases where there interests are not affected, so just because he's a felon doesn't neccesarily mean we can't trust any of his information.
|
|
IP Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject :Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:I found disturbing material written about the ..
2009-11-12 17:34:25
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 2010-09-08 06:18:00
Posts: 0
Location: |
|
|
|
Subject :Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:I found disturbing material written about the JBS
Interesting, for someone who uses a biography for reference, you appear to have never read your reference or you simply appear slow to understand that the biographer was portraying the subject as a member of several specific political groups, illuminating the subject's ideological character. But then most avid readers comprehend such a basic writing technique.
Your diversion tactics were initially fun but are beginning to become overly mundane. How about answering my question for a change and begin defining your logic and reasoning for the purpose of referencing irrelevent historical figures as possibly having been John Birch Society members? Do you think you might find it possible to address that very simplistic question or should I continue to expect nothing more than diversionary tactics? (curious if I will even receive an answer to the second question, if not the previous one)
[TheGolfer38 2009-11-12 17:16:49]:
What "specific persona" was the author trying to portray Roosevelt as having, was he trying to argue that the former president was more conservative than people thought he was or what?
[Sweet William 2009-11-12 17:11:59]:
The biographer stated it one time, as well as stating Archibald Roosevelt's membership in several other organizations, in his literary effort to project his subject as being a person of a specific persona, which may or may not have been accurately portrayed. Regardless, as continually stated in previous responses, the mentioning of Archibald Roosevelt's possible but unsubstantiated membership with the John Birch Society continues to remain a moot point. I am certain someone along they way has stated that Charles Manson was an iconic definition and result of the 1960's era. Such a statement hardly possesses much validity nor is such a statement relevant when referencing that particular era. Therefore, exercising logical reasoning, what intellectual point are you hoping to establish in making unsubstantiated claims that your aforementioned historical figures may have had a membership with the John Birch Society? In no way has the John Birch Society ever endorsed or sponsored said individuals nor has it ever been substantiated that said individuals had a membership with the John Birch Society to begin with. Therefore, beyond continually presenting an ever failing argument, precisely what is the intellectual point you are unmercifully trying to make?
[TheGolfer38 2009-11-12 16:49:11]:
Ok I understand. He might have been lying. I understand why you think he might have said it to increase book sales, I can see why you think that. But I still don't agree because he only mentioned Archie's involvement in the JBS 1 time, and in passing. It wasn't a major part of the book. If he were doing it just to increase books sales I would think he would mention it more than that. Also he didn't mention it until the epilogue, I would think he would mention it in a more prominent place if he was trying to increase sales. But he might have been lying. But I've seen Archie's membership in JBS attested to in so many articles, and Archie was an ultraconservative who also founded the Veritas Foundation, which was similiar to JBS, and he also was against illegal immigration and against anti-war demonstrators, so it would kind of make since if Archie was in JBS. And I read he published a book about his father's opposition to communism and illegal immigration and crime that JBS endorsed, Theodore Roosevelt on Race Riots, Reds and Crime.
[Sweet William 2009-11-12 16:42:55]:
Really? Do you sincerely fail to understand how the biographer of the book you cited as a source of information has a direct financial interest through the sale of said biography? Further, do you fail to understand how that same biographer's credibility is at stake when he is known for stealing research material for his biographies and selling said research material at private auctions? By what logical reasoning do you fail to understand Edward J. Renehan Jr.'s lack of trustworthiness? Such a dubious character hardly qualifies as an expert of firsthand knowledge. But then, some people are easily duped into believing anything presented in print. How else can one explain the longevity of the New York Times, for example? And, lastly, once again, the issue of Archibald Roosevelt remains a moot point.
[TheGolfer38 2009-11-12 16:19:42]:
How would Mr. Renehan's financial interests be affected by whether or not Archie Roosevelt was thought to have been in the John Birch Society or not? What would his motive be to lie about that?
[Sweet William 2009-11-12 16:16:25]:
That may be correct in some rare cases. However, when a felon's personal interest is at stake, especially the financial interests of a thief, it brings forth all the more reason to question that felon's credibility. Regardless, as I stated earlier, Archibald Roosevelt's possible membership with the John Birch Society remains a moot point nor can the claim of his membership be substantiated by the sources you have thus far provided.
[TheGolfer38 2009-11-12 16:01:57]:
Liars have been known to speak the truth sometimes, especially in cases where there interests are not affected, so just because he's a felon doesn't neccesarily mean we can't trust any of his information.
|
|
IP Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject :Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:I found disturbing material written about the ..
2009-11-12 17:38:29
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 2010-09-08 06:18:00
Posts: 0
Location: |
|
|
|
Subject :Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:I found disturbing material written about the JBS
Yes, I believe I may know about Tim, having read about his adventures with Dick, Jane, and Spot. Those wacky kids, eh?
Heaven forbid we offend Tim by conducting a formal debate, his sensitivities may find such an engagement somewhat "awkward".
[TheGolfer38 2009-11-12 17:23:58]:
To be honest somebody I know named Tim Callow attacked me for referring to people I know by their full names, for example I would call Lauren Lauren Dixon instead of Lauren and I would call John Nerge instead of John, Tim was irritated by that and said he was annoyed by that and that I should only call people by their 1st name by itself or their last name by itself, never by their full names. He said it was awkward to use people's full names. I thought it was considered socially awkward to do that because that is what my classmate Tim told me, I guess Tim was wrong, I'm sorry. Tim used to get really irritated when I referred to people by their full names.
[Sweet William 2009-11-12 17:21:04]:
I have a legitimate question. Do you suffer from ADD or are you simply attempting to employ diversion tactics to further steer the subject off course? Precisely what does it matter to you how I refer to your source of reference, Edward J. Renehan Jr.? I am properly refering to him within proper and formal context, why does that seem to annoy you? Before you begin to lecture anyone in proper writing, I happily refer you to, "The Holt Handbook" [Second Edition] by Kirszner & Mandell. You might find it to be invaluable and it certainly appears you would not be hurt by studying it. Merely a constructive suggestion.
[TheGolfer38 2009-11-12 17:10:06]:
Also why do you keep calling him Edward J. Renehan, Jr., we've already established what his first name is, so why not just call him by his last name after that, most people only use a 1st or a last name, they don't use both at the same time, when they are talking about another person, for example if I was talking about John Nerge or Lauren Dixon after I've established what their first names are I thereafter refer to them as either Nerge and Dixon or John and Lauren I don't keep calling them John Nerge and Lauren Dixon each time, it sounds awkward.
[Sweet William 2009-11-12 16:42:55]:
Really? Do you sincerely fail to understand how the biographer of the book you cited as a source of information has a direct financial interest through the sale of said biography? Further, do you fail to understand how that same biographer's credibility is at stake when he is known for stealing research material for his biographies and selling said research material at private auctions? By what logical reasoning do you fail to understand Edward J. Renehan Jr.'s lack of trustworthiness? Such a dubious character hardly qualifies as an expert of firsthand knowledge. But then, some people are easily duped into believing anything presented in print. How else can one explain the longevity of the New York Times, for example? And, lastly, once again, the issue of Archibald Roosevelt remains a moot point.
[TheGolfer38 2009-11-12 16:19:42]:
How would Mr. Renehan's financial interests be affected by whether or not Archie Roosevelt was thought to have been in the John Birch Society or not? What would his motive be to lie about that?
[Sweet William 2009-11-12 16:16:25]:
That may be correct in some rare cases. However, when a felon's personal interest is at stake, especially the financial interests of a thief, it brings forth all the more reason to question that felon's credibility. Regardless, as I stated earlier, Archibald Roosevelt's possible membership with the John Birch Society remains a moot point nor can the claim of his membership be substantiated by the sources you have thus far provided.
[TheGolfer38 2009-11-12 16:01:57]:
Liars have been known to speak the truth sometimes, especially in cases where there interests are not affected, so just because he's a felon doesn't neccesarily mean we can't trust any of his information.
|
|
IP Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject :Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:I found disturbing material written about t..
2009-11-12 18:32:59
|
|
|
| TheGolfer38 |
|
|
| Just Arrived |
|
Joined: 2009-11-12 02:34:21
Posts: 24
Location: |
|
|
|
Subject :Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:I found disturbing material written about the JBS
Well its kind of frustrating that I can't please everybody. When I use proper spelling and grammar Tim calls me to "akward" but when I use informal spelling and grammar people like you and my parents say I'm not formal enough. When I criticize Obama people like Tim and Lauren say I'm to conservative, but when I defend Bush people like you and my parents say I'm to liberal. So it seems like I'm always in a lose/lose situation. I haven't read the biography we were discussing I only looked at it to find out if what I heard about Archie Roosevelt being in JBS was true, I was using it as a reference, eventually I plan to read the whole thing, I just don't have time to right now. I made no claim that I read the whole book.
[Sweet William 2009-11-12 17:38:29]:
Yes, I believe I may know about Tim, having read about his adventures with Dick, Jane, and Spot. Those wacky kids, eh? Heaven forbid we offend Tim by conducting a formal debate, his sensitivities may find such an engagement somewhat "awkward".
[TheGolfer38 2009-11-12 17:23:58]:
To be honest somebody I know named Tim Callow attacked me for referring to people I know by their full names, for example I would call Lauren Lauren Dixon instead of Lauren and I would call John Nerge instead of John, Tim was irritated by that and said he was annoyed by that and that I should only call people by their 1st name by itself or their last name by itself, never by their full names. He said it was awkward to use people's full names. I thought it was considered socially awkward to do that because that is what my classmate Tim told me, I guess Tim was wrong, I'm sorry. Tim used to get really irritated when I referred to people by their full names.
[Sweet William 2009-11-12 17:21:04]:
I have a legitimate question. Do you suffer from ADD or are you simply attempting to employ diversion tactics to further steer the subject off course? Precisely what does it matter to you how I refer to your source of reference, Edward J. Renehan Jr.? I am properly refering to him within proper and formal context, why does that seem to annoy you? Before you begin to lecture anyone in proper writing, I happily refer you to, "The Holt Handbook" [Second Edition] by Kirszner & Mandell. You might find it to be invaluable and it certainly appears you would not be hurt by studying it. Merely a constructive suggestion.
[TheGolfer38 2009-11-12 17:10:06]:
Also why do you keep calling him Edward J. Renehan, Jr., we've already established what his first name is, so why not just call him by his last name after that, most people only use a 1st or a last name, they don't use both at the same time, when they are talking about another person, for example if I was talking about John Nerge or Lauren Dixon after I've established what their first names are I thereafter refer to them as either Nerge and Dixon or John and Lauren I don't keep calling them John Nerge and Lauren Dixon each time, it sounds awkward.
[Sweet William 2009-11-12 16:42:55]:
Really? Do you sincerely fail to understand how the biographer of the book you cited as a source of information has a direct financial interest through the sale of said biography? Further, do you fail to understand how that same biographer's credibility is at stake when he is known for stealing research material for his biographies and selling said research material at private auctions? By what logical reasoning do you fail to understand Edward J. Renehan Jr.'s lack of trustworthiness? Such a dubious character hardly qualifies as an expert of firsthand knowledge. But then, some people are easily duped into believing anything presented in print. How else can one explain the longevity of the New York Times, for example? And, lastly, once again, the issue of Archibald Roosevelt remains a moot point.
[TheGolfer38 2009-11-12 16:19:42]:
How would Mr. Renehan's financial interests be affected by whether or not Archie Roosevelt was thought to have been in the John Birch Society or not? What would his motive be to lie about that?
[Sweet William 2009-11-12 16:16:25]:
That may be correct in some rare cases. However, when a felon's personal interest is at stake, especially the financial interests of a thief, it brings forth all the more reason to question that felon's credibility. Regardless, as I stated earlier, Archibald Roosevelt's possible membership with the John Birch Society remains a moot point nor can the claim of his membership be substantiated by the sources you have thus far provided.
[TheGolfer38 2009-11-12 16:01:57]:
Liars have been known to speak the truth sometimes, especially in cases where there interests are not affected, so just because he's a felon doesn't neccesarily mean we can't trust any of his information.
|
|
IP Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject :Re:I found disturbing material written about the JBS..
2009-11-12 18:44:41
|
|
|
| rprew |
|
|
| Pro Bircher |
|
Joined: 2008-07-30 09:47:06
Posts: 188
Location: A few diplomas on my wall that prove nothing |
|
|
|
|
You are reading the wrong books. Read The Shadows of Power by James Perloff. Read The Blue Book of The John Birch Society by Robert Welch.
There are a LOT of other books I could suggest, but these two will help you come to the realization (and understanding) that Obama and Bush have much more in common with each other than you have been led to believe. You will come to understand just how these two sides of the same coin play off each other to their own advantages (and to the disadvantage of true constitutional conservatives). You see two single edged swords. We see a single double edged sword.
[TheGolfer38 2009-11-12 18:32:59]:
Well its kind of frustrating that I can't please everybody. When I use proper spelling and grammar Tim calls me to "akward" but when I use informal spelling and grammar people like you and my parents say I'm not formal enough. When I criticize Obama people like Tim and Lauren say I'm to conservative, but when I defend Bush people like you and my parents say I'm to liberal. So it seems like I'm always in a lose/lose situation. I haven't read the biography we were discussing I only looked at it to find out if what I heard about Archie Roosevelt being in JBS was true, I was using it as a reference, eventually I plan to read the whole thing, I just don't have time to right now. I made no claim that I read the whole book.
|
|
IP Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject :Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:I found disturbing material written about t..
2009-11-12 18:52:51
|
|
|
| TheGolfer38 |
|
|
| Just Arrived |
|
Joined: 2009-11-12 02:34:21
Posts: 24
Location: |
|
|
|
Subject :Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:I found disturbing material written about the JBS
"How about answering my question for a change and begin defining your logic and reasoning for the purpose of referencing irrelevent historical figures as possibly having been John Birch Society members?" Well this whole thread started with an obscure historical figure, I didn't start the thread someone else did. He said Rockefeller helped found JBS. Hardly anybody these days remembers him, for those who do he is mostly remembered as loser, since he attempted the GOP presidential nomination three times and failed, and then was dumped from the GOP vice presidential ticket by President Ford in 1976. Other people were saying Rockefeller could not possibly have been involed in JBS because JBS is opposed to the Eastern Liberal Anglophile Establishment that he, or at least his family, represent. And I was pointing that some other scions of that same Eastern Establishment have been in JBS, so maybe it is possible for someone from the Eastern Establishment to be in JBS. I was not even saying he was involved in JBS, he probably wasn't I was just saying it was possible. My 2 examples were George Bush and Archie Roosesvelt. Bush is hardly an "iirelevant historical figure" he was president of the USA from 1989-1993 and before that vice president from 1981-1989. I merely cited the overwhelming number of claims that Bush was involved in JBS, and the claim that Archie Roosevelt was involved in JBS, to illustrate that Eastern Establishment people perhaps can be involved in JBS. After all the Roosevelts are more liberal than either the Bushes or the Rockefellers are, Teddy Roosevelt started the Progressive movement and began government regulation of business including antimonopoly laws, environmental regulations, civil rights laws, and internationalist and pro-British foreign policy, he also laid the foundations for our alliance with Britain in World War I and for the League of Nations, he advocated giving women the right to vote at a time when even Wilson opposed the idea and he believed in family planning, and FDR started the New Deal and our alliance with Britain World War II and created the UN. If 1 member of his family could be involved in JBS, I'm sure a Bush or a Rockefeller could have been to, or any Eastern Liberal Anglophile Establishment person. "Do you think you might find it possible to address that very simplistic question or should I continue to expect nothing more than diversionary tactics? (curious if I will even receive an answer to the second question, if not the previous one)" I just did answer your first question, and I won't resort to diversionary tactics, my point about Tim, Lauren, and the others was just that people generally don't like it when I use people's full names in conversations about them, so I thought it was generally considered socially taboo to do that, clearly I was wrong.
[Sweet William 2009-11-12 17:34:25]:
Interesting, for someone who uses a biography for reference, you appear to have never read your reference or you simply appear slow to understand that the biographer was portraying the subject as a member of several specific political groups, illuminating the subject's ideological character. But then most avid readers comprehend such a basic writing technique. Your diversion tactics were initially fun but are beginning to become overly mundane. How about answering my question for a change and begin defining your logic and reasoning for the purpose of referencing irrelevent historical figures as possibly having been John Birch Society members? Do you think you might find it possible to address that very simplistic question or should I continue to expect nothing more than diversionary tactics? (curious if I will even receive an answer to the second question, if not the previous one)
[TheGolfer38 2009-11-12 17:16:49]:
What "specific persona" was the author trying to portray Roosevelt as having, was he trying to argue that the former president was more conservative than people thought he was or what?
[Sweet William 2009-11-12 17:11:59]:
The biographer stated it one time, as well as stating Archibald Roosevelt's membership in several other organizations, in his literary effort to project his subject as being a person of a specific persona, which may or may not have been accurately portrayed. Regardless, as continually stated in previous responses, the mentioning of Archibald Roosevelt's possible but unsubstantiated membership with the John Birch Society continues to remain a moot point. I am certain someone along they way has stated that Charles Manson was an iconic definition and result of the 1960's era. Such a statement hardly possesses much validity nor is such a statement relevant when referencing that particular era. Therefore, exercising logical reasoning, what intellectual point are you hoping to establish in making unsubstantiated claims that your aforementioned historical figures may have had a membership with the John Birch Society? In no way has the John Birch Society ever endorsed or sponsored said individuals nor has it ever been substantiated that said individuals had a membership with the John Birch Society to begin with. Therefore, beyond continually presenting an ever failing argument, precisely what is the intellectual point you are unmercifully trying to make?
[TheGolfer38 2009-11-12 16:49:11]:
Ok I understand. He might have been lying. I understand why you think he might have said it to increase book sales, I can see why you think that. But I still don't agree because he only mentioned Archie's involvement in the JBS 1 time, and in passing. It wasn't a major part of the book. If he were doing it just to increase books sales I would think he would mention it more than that. Also he didn't mention it until the epilogue, I would think he would mention it in a more prominent place if he was trying to increase sales. But he might have been lying. But I've seen Archie's membership in JBS attested to in so many articles, and Archie was an ultraconservative who also founded the Veritas Foundation, which was similiar to JBS, and he also was against illegal immigration and against anti-war demonstrators, so it would kind of make since if Archie was in JBS. And I read he published a book about his father's opposition to communism and illegal immigration and crime that JBS endorsed, Theodore Roosevelt on Race Riots, Reds and Crime.
[Sweet William 2009-11-12 16:42:55]:
Really? Do you sincerely fail to understand how the biographer of the book you cited as a source of information has a direct financial interest through the sale of said biography? Further, do you fail to understand how that same biographer's credibility is at stake when he is known for stealing research material for his biographies and selling said research material at private auctions? By what logical reasoning do you fail to understand Edward J. Renehan Jr.'s lack of trustworthiness? Such a dubious character hardly qualifies as an expert of firsthand knowledge. But then, some people are easily duped into believing anything presented in print. How else can one explain the longevity of the New York Times, for example? And, lastly, once again, the issue of Archibald Roosevelt remains a moot point.
[TheGolfer38 2009-11-12 16:19:42]:
How would Mr. Renehan's financial interests be affected by whether or not Archie Roosevelt was thought to have been in the John Birch Society or not? What would his motive be to lie about that?
[Sweet William 2009-11-12 16:16:25]:
That may be correct in some rare cases. However, when a felon's personal interest is at stake, especially the financial interests of a thief, it brings forth all the more reason to question that felon's credibility. Regardless, as I stated earlier, Archibald Roosevelt's possible membership with the John Birch Society remains a moot point nor can the claim of his membership be substantiated by the sources you have thus far provided.
[TheGolfer38 2009-11-12 16:01:57]:
Liars have been known to speak the truth sometimes, especially in cases where there interests are not affected, so just because he's a felon doesn't neccesarily mean we can't trust any of his information.
|
|
IP Logged
|
|
|
|
|