Discussion:
Ruth Paine on JFK Conspiracy Theories
(too old to reply)
John McAdams
2017-05-18 17:55:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/7003986-181/smith-finding-strange-bedfellows-among

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
s***@yahoo.com
2017-05-19 17:24:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/7003986-181/smith-finding-strange-bedfellows-among
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
In Mallon's book, "Mrs. Paine's Garage", he describes this scene:

"That afternoon [i.e., the day of the assassination], when the police went
about their roughshod business [going through the house, taking the
Paine's belongings, believing she was a communist, et cetera], Ruth had
begun to realize that 'they had no clue...what kind of people we were.'"

"No clue...what kind of people we were."

Indeed, Mrs. Paine.

Of all of the absurdities that the conspiracy crowd believes in the idea
that Ruth Paine was some sort of CIA asset hunting down pro-Castro people
in Ft. Worth, Texas (!!!) has to be at the top of the long, long list.

Quaker housewife with small children, liberal/progressive politics, Fort
Worth, Texas.

Right.
John McAdams
2017-05-19 17:34:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by John McAdams
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/7003986-181/smith-finding-strange-bedfellows-among
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
"That afternoon [i.e., the day of the assassination], when the police went
about their roughshod business [going through the house, taking the
Paine's belongings, believing she was a communist, et cetera], Ruth had
begun to realize that 'they had no clue...what kind of people we were.'"
"No clue...what kind of people we were."
Indeed, Mrs. Paine.
Of all of the absurdities that the conspiracy crowd believes in the idea
that Ruth Paine was some sort of CIA asset hunting down pro-Castro people
in Ft. Worth, Texas (!!!) has to be at the top of the long, long list.
Quaker housewife with small children, liberal/progressive politics, Fort
Worth, Texas.
Right.
I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her, since she was a
mush-minded liberal. She thought learning Russian was a step toward
world peace. As though Americans not knowing Russian was the cause of
the Cold War.

Then, later in the 60s, she seemed to move left, like other fifties
liberals.

The following is interesting:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/paine_letter.htm

But I can't be too hard on her. She was scrupulously
well-intentioned.

But as Clare Boothe Luce said: "No good deed goes unpunished."

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
David Von Pein
2017-05-20 00:17:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
JOHN McADAMS SAID:

I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her [Ruth Paine], since she
was a mush-minded liberal. She thought learning Russian was a step toward
world peace. As though Americans not knowing Russian was the cause of the
Cold War. Then, later in the 60s, she seemed to move left, like other
fifties liberals.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why does everything always seem to have to come down to "Right vs. Left"
with you, .John? It's ridiculous, IMO.

And when did Ruth Paine ever even *HINT* at the idea that "Americans not
knowing Russian was the cause of the Cold War"?

I'll answer that last question myself --- Never!

I can't believe you said such a ludicrous thing, John.
BOZ
2017-05-20 15:04:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Von Pein
I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her [Ruth Paine], since she
was a mush-minded liberal. She thought learning Russian was a step toward
world peace. As though Americans not knowing Russian was the cause of the
Cold War. Then, later in the 60s, she seemed to move left, like other
fifties liberals.
Why does everything always seem to have to come down to "Right vs. Left"
with you, .John? It's ridiculous, IMO.
And when did Ruth Paine ever even *HINT* at the idea that "Americans not
knowing Russian was the cause of the Cold War"?
I'll answer that last question myself --- Never!
I can't believe you said such a ludicrous thing, John.
David, do you think Oswald was left or right?
BOZ
2017-05-20 17:37:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Von Pein
I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her [Ruth Paine], since she
was a mush-minded liberal. She thought learning Russian was a step toward
world peace. As though Americans not knowing Russian was the cause of the
Cold War. Then, later in the 60s, she seemed to move left, like other
fifties liberals.
Why does everything always seem to have to come down to "Right vs. Left"
with you, .John? It's ridiculous, IMO.
And when did Ruth Paine ever even *HINT* at the idea that "Americans not
knowing Russian was the cause of the Cold War"?
I'll answer that last question myself --- Never!
I can't believe you said such a ludicrous thing, John.
David, why does the left always attack John McAdams?
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-21 22:56:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by David Von Pein
I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her [Ruth Paine], since she
was a mush-minded liberal. She thought learning Russian was a step toward
world peace. As though Americans not knowing Russian was the cause of the
Cold War. Then, later in the 60s, she seemed to move left, like other
fifties liberals.
Why does everything always seem to have to come down to "Right vs. Left"
with you, .John? It's ridiculous, IMO.
And when did Ruth Paine ever even *HINT* at the idea that "Americans not
knowing Russian was the cause of the Cold War"?
I'll answer that last question myself --- Never!
I can't believe you said such a ludicrous thing, John.
David, why does the left always attack John McAdams?
Maybe because he's an extreme rightwinger. Why was he fired? For being
too Liberal?
BOZ
2017-05-20 17:38:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Von Pein
I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her [Ruth Paine], since she
was a mush-minded liberal. She thought learning Russian was a step toward
world peace. As though Americans not knowing Russian was the cause of the
Cold War. Then, later in the 60s, she seemed to move left, like other
fifties liberals.
Why does everything always seem to have to come down to "Right vs. Left"
with you, .John? It's ridiculous, IMO.
And when did Ruth Paine ever even *HINT* at the idea that "Americans not
knowing Russian was the cause of the Cold War"?
I'll answer that last question myself --- Never!
I can't believe you said such a ludicrous thing, John.
David, why did Oswald try to assassinate Walker? Where was WAlker on the
political spectrum? Oswald read Marx. Do you think he was influenced by
Marx?
BOZ
2017-05-20 17:38:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Von Pein
I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her [Ruth Paine], since she
was a mush-minded liberal. She thought learning Russian was a step toward
world peace. As though Americans not knowing Russian was the cause of the
Cold War. Then, later in the 60s, she seemed to move left, like other
fifties liberals.
Why does everything always seem to have to come down to "Right vs. Left"
with you, .John? It's ridiculous, IMO.
And when did Ruth Paine ever even *HINT* at the idea that "Americans not
knowing Russian was the cause of the Cold War"?
I'll answer that last question myself --- Never!
I can't believe you said such a ludicrous thing, John.
She thought learning Russian was a step toward
world peace. (I THINK JOHN MCADAMS WAS USING SARCASM).
John McAdams
2017-05-20 17:39:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by David Von Pein
I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her [Ruth Paine], since she
was a mush-minded liberal. She thought learning Russian was a step toward
world peace. As though Americans not knowing Russian was the cause of the
Cold War. Then, later in the 60s, she seemed to move left, like other
fifties liberals.
Why does everything always seem to have to come down to "Right vs. Left"
with you, .John? It's ridiculous, IMO.
And when did Ruth Paine ever even *HINT* at the idea that "Americans not
knowing Russian was the cause of the Cold War"?
I'll answer that last question myself --- Never!
I can't believe you said such a ludicrous thing, John.
She thought learning Russian was a step toward
world peace. (I THINK JOHN MCADAMS WAS USING SARCASM).
No, not at all.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
BT George
2017-05-20 17:52:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
David,

I've gotta' largely side with John on this one, though I would not have
said "I am frankly not too sympathetic to her..." because at a personal
level I am.

But while I don't see everything as left vs. right, I do believe she
possessed some of the same good-intentioned, ill thought out, Liberal
notions that---if anything---prolonged the course of the Cold War.

Reagan called the Soviets what they were---an evil empire. And it is no
coincidence that when he set a policy of confronting their aggression via
peace through strength, they soon had to cry uncle because their
inefficient economy and repressive policies were bankrupting them trying
to keep up.

And it was only then that they became willing to *really* seek an
accommodation with the West and give up their dreams of global domination
in the name of Communism, with Russia as the leader of some kind of
(delusional) work-wide communist utopia.

Brock
John McAdams
2017-05-20 17:57:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
David,
I've gotta' largely side with John on this one, though I would not have
said "I am frankly not too sympathetic to her..." because at a personal
level I am.
But I didn't say that. I said I "could say that."

I too am sympathetic with her on a personal level.
Post by BOZ
But while I don't see everything as left vs. right, I do believe she
possessed some of the same good-intentioned, ill thought out, Liberal
notions that---if anything---prolonged the course of the Cold War.
Yes, I agree.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-21 22:33:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
David,
I've gotta' largely side with John on this one, though I would not have
said "I am frankly not too sympathetic to her..." because at a personal
level I am.
So, does McAdams think that only Liberals can be kind? Good Samaritans?
Post by BOZ
But while I don't see everything as left vs. right, I do believe she
possessed some of the same good-intentioned, ill thought out, Liberal
notions that---if anything---prolonged the course of the Cold War.
Reagan called the Soviets what they were---an evil empire. And it is no
coincidence that when he set a policy of confronting their aggression via
peace through strength, they soon had to cry uncle because their
inefficient economy and repressive policies were bankrupting them trying
to keep up.
And it was only then that they became willing to *really* seek an
accommodation with the West and give up their dreams of global domination
in the name of Communism, with Russia as the leader of some kind of
(delusional) work-wide communist utopia.
Brock
John McAdams
2017-05-20 18:41:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Von Pein
I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her [Ruth Paine], since she
was a mush-minded liberal. She thought learning Russian was a step toward
world peace. As though Americans not knowing Russian was the cause of the
Cold War. Then, later in the 60s, she seemed to move left, like other
fifties liberals.
Why does everything always seem to have to come down to "Right vs. Left"
with you, .John? It's ridiculous, IMO.
First of all, Steve brought up "right vs. left," mentioning the
liberal politics of the Paines.

Second, "right vs. left" is all over this case. Most conspiracists
are leftists who want to blame people the left doesn't like. But
right wingers, not surprisingly, blame communists.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/context4.htm
Post by David Von Pein
And when did Ruth Paine ever even *HINT* at the idea that "Americans not
knowing Russian was the cause of the Cold War"?
I'll answer that last question myself --- Never!
OK, a little logic lesson here:

I said "as though."

Let me make you an analogy. I might say "Conspiracy people think *as
though* scores or hundreds of people would lie, fake evidence and
remain silent to cover up a conspiracy."

You might reply: "When did conspiracy people say that?"

They didn't, but they reasoned "as though" that was true.
Post by David Von Pein
I can't believe you said such a ludicrous thing, John.
You need to check out Mallon, p. 24.

<Quote on>

Ruth had been studying Russian since 1957--at Berlitz, on photograph
records, in summer classes at Penn and Middlebury. Her interest in
the language itself was only increased by participation in the Young
Friends organization, specifically its East-West Contacts Committee,
which sponsored the American travels of three young Soviets--a
journalist, a factory worker, and an economics student--in 1958....

She had more direct involvement with the Young Friends' pen-pal
program, a good-will exchange set up with the Committee of Youth
Organizations. . . .

<end quote>

In a different era, this might suggest communist sympathies, but in
the 50s and early 60s, mainstream liberalism was staunchly
anti-communist. JFK being the prime example.

I blamed her for "mush-minded liberalism," but credited her with being
sincere and well-intentioned. I don't dislike her. In fact I like
those 50s liberals way better than the current politically correct
types.

The notion that learning other's languages is a strategy for "peace"
is not dead.

https://www.google.com/#q=learning+each+others+languages+peace

I seem to have punched one of your buttons. Perhaps you view her as a
victim. I do too, but I think she has been mature and self-confident
enough that buff vilification hasn't terribly harmed her.

It is true that when she went down to Central America with some
leftists who wanted to help install Marxist regimes, they were
paranoid about her, thinking she was a CIA spook.

She should have avoided such people.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
David Von Pein
2017-05-21 22:31:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by David Von Pein
I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her [Ruth Paine], since she
was a mush-minded liberal. She thought learning Russian was a step toward
world peace. As though Americans not knowing Russian was the cause of the
Cold War. Then, later in the 60s, she seemed to move left, like other
fifties liberals.
Why does everything always seem to have to come down to "Right vs. Left"
with you, .John? It's ridiculous, IMO.
First of all, Steve brought up "right vs. left," mentioning the
liberal politics of the Paines.
Second, "right vs. left" is all over this case. Most conspiracists
are leftists who want to blame people the left doesn't like. But
right wingers, not surprisingly, blame communists.
As far as "CTers vs. LNers" are concerned, I've never been comfortable
labelling people "Leftists" or "Right-wingers". Therefore, I have never
engaged in such labelling. I don't like placing such definitive labels on
people, whether they are LNers or conspiracy believers.
Post by John McAdams
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/context4.htm
Post by David Von Pein
And when did Ruth Paine ever even *HINT* at the idea that "Americans not
knowing Russian was the cause of the Cold War"?
I'll answer that last question myself --- Never!
I said "as though."
Let me make you an analogy. I might say "Conspiracy people think *as
though* scores or hundreds of people would lie, fake evidence and
remain silent to cover up a conspiracy."
You might reply: "When did conspiracy people say that?"
They didn't, but they reasoned "as though" that was true.
OK. Point taken.
Post by John McAdams
Post by David Von Pein
I can't believe you said such a ludicrous thing, John.
You need to check out Mallon, p. 24.
<Quote on>
Ruth had been studying Russian since 1957--at Berlitz, on photograph
records, in summer classes at Penn and Middlebury. Her interest in
the language itself was only increased by participation in the Young
Friends organization, specifically its East-West Contacts Committee,
which sponsored the American travels of three young Soviets--a
journalist, a factory worker, and an economics student--in 1958....
She had more direct involvement with the Young Friends' pen-pal
program, a good-will exchange set up with the Committee of Youth
Organizations. . . .
<end quote>
In a different era, this might suggest communist sympathies, but in
the 50s and early 60s, mainstream liberalism was staunchly
anti-communist. JFK being the prime example.
I blamed her for "mush-minded liberalism," but credited her with being
sincere and well-intentioned. I don't dislike her. In fact I like
those 50s liberals way better than the current politically correct
types.
The notion that learning other's languages is a strategy for "peace"
is not dead.
https://www.google.com/#q=learning+each+others+languages+peace
I seem to have punched one of your buttons. Perhaps you view her as a
victim. I do too, but I think she has been mature and self-confident
enough that buff vilification hasn't terribly harmed her.
It is true that when she went down to Central America with some
leftists who wanted to help install Marxist regimes, they were
paranoid about her, thinking she was a CIA spook.
She should have avoided such people.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
It's just that I don't expect a prominent "LNer" to say something like
this about Ruth Paine:

"I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her, since she was a
mush-minded liberal." -- J. McAdams

That's a pretty harsh comment. And it's a comment that I don't think Ruth
Paine deserves.

The Ruth bashers are usually on the "CT" side of the debate (see top link
below). So I felt compelled to run to Ruth's defense.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-87.html

http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/ruth-paine.html
BOZ
2017-05-22 20:22:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Von Pein
Post by John McAdams
Post by David Von Pein
I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her [Ruth Paine], since she
was a mush-minded liberal. She thought learning Russian was a step toward
world peace. As though Americans not knowing Russian was the cause of the
Cold War. Then, later in the 60s, she seemed to move left, like other
fifties liberals.
Why does everything always seem to have to come down to "Right vs. Left"
with you, .John? It's ridiculous, IMO.
First of all, Steve brought up "right vs. left," mentioning the
liberal politics of the Paines.
Second, "right vs. left" is all over this case. Most conspiracists
are leftists who want to blame people the left doesn't like. But
right wingers, not surprisingly, blame communists.
As far as "CTers vs. LNers" are concerned, I've never been comfortable
labelling people "Leftists" or "Right-wingers". Therefore, I have never
engaged in such labelling. I don't like placing such definitive labels on
people, whether they are LNers or conspiracy believers.
Post by John McAdams
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/context4.htm
Post by David Von Pein
And when did Ruth Paine ever even *HINT* at the idea that "Americans not
knowing Russian was the cause of the Cold War"?
I'll answer that last question myself --- Never!
I said "as though."
Let me make you an analogy. I might say "Conspiracy people think *as
though* scores or hundreds of people would lie, fake evidence and
remain silent to cover up a conspiracy."
You might reply: "When did conspiracy people say that?"
They didn't, but they reasoned "as though" that was true.
OK. Point taken.
Post by John McAdams
Post by David Von Pein
I can't believe you said such a ludicrous thing, John.
You need to check out Mallon, p. 24.
<Quote on>
Ruth had been studying Russian since 1957--at Berlitz, on photograph
records, in summer classes at Penn and Middlebury. Her interest in
the language itself was only increased by participation in the Young
Friends organization, specifically its East-West Contacts Committee,
which sponsored the American travels of three young Soviets--a
journalist, a factory worker, and an economics student--in 1958....
She had more direct involvement with the Young Friends' pen-pal
program, a good-will exchange set up with the Committee of Youth
Organizations. . . .
<end quote>
In a different era, this might suggest communist sympathies, but in
the 50s and early 60s, mainstream liberalism was staunchly
anti-communist. JFK being the prime example.
I blamed her for "mush-minded liberalism," but credited her with being
sincere and well-intentioned. I don't dislike her. In fact I like
those 50s liberals way better than the current politically correct
types.
The notion that learning other's languages is a strategy for "peace"
is not dead.
https://www.google.com/#q=learning+each+others+languages+peace
I seem to have punched one of your buttons. Perhaps you view her as a
victim. I do too, but I think she has been mature and self-confident
enough that buff vilification hasn't terribly harmed her.
It is true that when she went down to Central America with some
leftists who wanted to help install Marxist regimes, they were
paranoid about her, thinking she was a CIA spook.
She should have avoided such people.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
It's just that I don't expect a prominent "LNer" to say something like
"I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her, since she was a
mush-minded liberal." -- J. McAdams
That's a pretty harsh comment. And it's a comment that I don't think Ruth
Paine deserves.
The Ruth bashers are usually on the "CT" side of the debate (see top link
below). So I felt compelled to run to Ruth's defense.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-87.html
http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/ruth-paine.html
How would you label Harold Unwiseberg? A fan of Austrian economics?
How would you label Oswald? Free MarkEt Capitalist?
You do use labels Von Pein. You label people kooks do you not?
BOZ
2017-05-22 20:23:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Von Pein
Post by John McAdams
Post by David Von Pein
I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her [Ruth Paine], since she
was a mush-minded liberal. She thought learning Russian was a step toward
world peace. As though Americans not knowing Russian was the cause of the
Cold War. Then, later in the 60s, she seemed to move left, like other
fifties liberals.
Why does everything always seem to have to come down to "Right vs. Left"
with you, .John? It's ridiculous, IMO.
First of all, Steve brought up "right vs. left," mentioning the
liberal politics of the Paines.
Second, "right vs. left" is all over this case. Most conspiracists
are leftists who want to blame people the left doesn't like. But
right wingers, not surprisingly, blame communists.
As far as "CTers vs. LNers" are concerned, I've never been comfortable
labelling people "Leftists" or "Right-wingers". Therefore, I have never
engaged in such labelling. I don't like placing such definitive labels on
people, whether they are LNers or conspiracy believers.
Post by John McAdams
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/context4.htm
Post by David Von Pein
And when did Ruth Paine ever even *HINT* at the idea that "Americans not
knowing Russian was the cause of the Cold War"?
I'll answer that last question myself --- Never!
I said "as though."
Let me make you an analogy. I might say "Conspiracy people think *as
though* scores or hundreds of people would lie, fake evidence and
remain silent to cover up a conspiracy."
You might reply: "When did conspiracy people say that?"
They didn't, but they reasoned "as though" that was true.
OK. Point taken.
Post by John McAdams
Post by David Von Pein
I can't believe you said such a ludicrous thing, John.
You need to check out Mallon, p. 24.
<Quote on>
Ruth had been studying Russian since 1957--at Berlitz, on photograph
records, in summer classes at Penn and Middlebury. Her interest in
the language itself was only increased by participation in the Young
Friends organization, specifically its East-West Contacts Committee,
which sponsored the American travels of three young Soviets--a
journalist, a factory worker, and an economics student--in 1958....
She had more direct involvement with the Young Friends' pen-pal
program, a good-will exchange set up with the Committee of Youth
Organizations. . . .
<end quote>
In a different era, this might suggest communist sympathies, but in
the 50s and early 60s, mainstream liberalism was staunchly
anti-communist. JFK being the prime example.
I blamed her for "mush-minded liberalism," but credited her with being
sincere and well-intentioned. I don't dislike her. In fact I like
those 50s liberals way better than the current politically correct
types.
The notion that learning other's languages is a strategy for "peace"
is not dead.
https://www.google.com/#q=learning+each+others+languages+peace
I seem to have punched one of your buttons. Perhaps you view her as a
victim. I do too, but I think she has been mature and self-confident
enough that buff vilification hasn't terribly harmed her.
It is true that when she went down to Central America with some
leftists who wanted to help install Marxist regimes, they were
paranoid about her, thinking she was a CIA spook.
She should have avoided such people.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
It's just that I don't expect a prominent "LNer" to say something like
"I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her, since she was a
mush-minded liberal." -- J. McAdams
That's a pretty harsh comment. And it's a comment that I don't think Ruth
Paine deserves.
The Ruth bashers are usually on the "CT" side of the debate (see top link
below). So I felt compelled to run to Ruth's defense.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-87.html
http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/ruth-paine.html
You are perfectly comfortable labeling people as CTers vs. LNers." That's
a label.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-23 11:29:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by David Von Pein
Post by John McAdams
Post by David Von Pein
I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her [Ruth Paine], since she
was a mush-minded liberal. She thought learning Russian was a step toward
world peace. As though Americans not knowing Russian was the cause of the
Cold War. Then, later in the 60s, she seemed to move left, like other
fifties liberals.
Why does everything always seem to have to come down to "Right vs. Left"
with you, .John? It's ridiculous, IMO.
First of all, Steve brought up "right vs. left," mentioning the
liberal politics of the Paines.
Second, "right vs. left" is all over this case. Most conspiracists
are leftists who want to blame people the left doesn't like. But
right wingers, not surprisingly, blame communists.
As far as "CTers vs. LNers" are concerned, I've never been comfortable
labelling people "Leftists" or "Right-wingers". Therefore, I have never
engaged in such labelling. I don't like placing such definitive labels on
people, whether they are LNers or conspiracy believers.
Post by John McAdams
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/context4.htm
Post by David Von Pein
And when did Ruth Paine ever even *HINT* at the idea that "Americans not
knowing Russian was the cause of the Cold War"?
I'll answer that last question myself --- Never!
I said "as though."
Let me make you an analogy. I might say "Conspiracy people think *as
though* scores or hundreds of people would lie, fake evidence and
remain silent to cover up a conspiracy."
You might reply: "When did conspiracy people say that?"
They didn't, but they reasoned "as though" that was true.
OK. Point taken.
Post by John McAdams
Post by David Von Pein
I can't believe you said such a ludicrous thing, John.
You need to check out Mallon, p. 24.
<Quote on>
Ruth had been studying Russian since 1957--at Berlitz, on photograph
records, in summer classes at Penn and Middlebury. Her interest in
the language itself was only increased by participation in the Young
Friends organization, specifically its East-West Contacts Committee,
which sponsored the American travels of three young Soviets--a
journalist, a factory worker, and an economics student--in 1958....
She had more direct involvement with the Young Friends' pen-pal
program, a good-will exchange set up with the Committee of Youth
Organizations. . . .
<end quote>
In a different era, this might suggest communist sympathies, but in
the 50s and early 60s, mainstream liberalism was staunchly
anti-communist. JFK being the prime example.
I blamed her for "mush-minded liberalism," but credited her with being
sincere and well-intentioned. I don't dislike her. In fact I like
those 50s liberals way better than the current politically correct
types.
The notion that learning other's languages is a strategy for "peace"
is not dead.
https://www.google.com/#q=learning+each+others+languages+peace
I seem to have punched one of your buttons. Perhaps you view her as a
victim. I do too, but I think she has been mature and self-confident
enough that buff vilification hasn't terribly harmed her.
It is true that when she went down to Central America with some
leftists who wanted to help install Marxist regimes, they were
paranoid about her, thinking she was a CIA spook.
She should have avoided such people.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
It's just that I don't expect a prominent "LNer" to say something like
"I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her, since she was a
mush-minded liberal." -- J. McAdams
That's a pretty harsh comment. And it's a comment that I don't think Ruth
Paine deserves.
The Ruth bashers are usually on the "CT" side of the debate (see top link
below). So I felt compelled to run to Ruth's defense.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-87.html
http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/ruth-paine.html
You are perfectly comfortable labeling people as CTers vs. LNers." That's
a label.
We need labels to keep track of things.
I change Lone Nutter to WC defender to be less offensive. I do not call
all of them Nazis.

But it seems that there is still a Nazi enclave in the US:


New York enclave with Nazi roots agrees to change policies

By frank eltman, associated press

YAPHANK, N.Y. ??? May 20, 2017, 11:08 AM ET

In this May 22, 1938 photo provided by the New York City Municipal
Archives, a large swastika is surrounded by a white picket fence at Camp
Siegfried in Yaphank, N.Y. The enclave of former summer bungalows, where
Nazi sympathizers once proudly marcheThe Associated Press In this May 22,
1938 photo provided by the New York City Municipal Archives, a large
swastika is surrounded by a white picket fence at Camp Siegfried in
Yaphank, N.Y. The enclave of former summer bungalows, where Nazi
sympathizers once proudly marched near streets named for Adolf Hitler and
other Third Reich figures, is being forced to end policies that limited
ownership to people of German descent. (New York City Municipal Archives
via AP) more +

Email

An enclave of former summer bungalows, where Nazi sympathizers once
proudly marched near streets named for Adolf Hitler and other Third
Reich figures, is being forced to end policies that limited ownership to
people of German descent.

The German American Settlement League, which once welcomed tens of
thousands in the 1930s to pro-Nazi marches at Camp Siegfried on eastern
Long Island, has settled an anti-discrimination case brought by New York
state. The settlement calls for a change in the league's leadership and
adherence to all state and federal housing laws.

Many residents in the tiny community of about 40 homes that is a small
part of the rural hamlet of Yaphank declined to speak on the record, but
those who did disputed their community is tainted by discrimination.

"There's a mixed bag; it's not like it was," said Fred Stern, a member
of the league's board and a 40-year resident, who conceded the community
was once primarily occupied by those of German descent. "It's not like
whatever they're saying. If you went to every house and asked people's
nationality, it wouldn't be any different than any other neighborhood."

Kaitlyn Webber told a television interviewer that her "family's always
been very open. We've never had any issues with anyone discriminating
against anyone up here."

The homes, which stretch down a narrow street called Private Road and
surround a large grassy ballfield along Schiller Court, are a combination
of small bungalows and larger suburban-type ranches. Lawns are carefully
landscaped and mailboxes ??? many with German surnames ??? sit street-side
in the curbless enclave.

News accounts recall a groundswell of Nazism in the enclave in the years
before the start of World War II. Camp Siegfried, where the homes stand
today, was sponsored by the German-American Bund to promote Hitler,
although many at the time also voraciously expressed loyalty to the
United States.

Trains from New York City's Penn Station were often jammed with people
who traveled 60 miles (96 kilometers) east to Yaphank. A New York Times
story from August 1938 reported 40,000 people had attended the annual
German Day festivities at Camp Siegfried.

Swastikas were commonplace, including on some of the homes in the
enclave at the time, said Geri Solomon, archivist at Hofstra University.
"Some of the photos I have seen are kind of amazing," Solomon said.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said a 2016 settlement of a
federal lawsuit brought by two former residents, who claimed The German
American Settlement League policies hindered their attempts to sell
their homes, called for an end to discriminatory practices. That
settlement paid the former residents, who eventually did sell and moved
out of state, $175,000.

Despite that agreement, Schneiderman found the league "continued to make
new membership and property re-sale within the GASL community
unreasonably difficult."

The league owns the land on which the homes are situated and leases the
property to homeowners, Schneiderman said. State investigators found
that the league prohibited public advertisement of properties for sale.
Members seeking to sell their homes could only announce a listing in
person at member meetings or through internal flyers and meeting minutes
circulated to the existing membership.

Stern, the league's board member, conceded that much of the real estate
turnover through the years had taken place by word of mouth. There was
no need to advertise a sale, he said, because "everybody knew when a
house would become available." He blamed the complaints by the couple
who brought the federal lawsuit on sour grapes, contending they had
asked too much money for their home and that was the reason it didn't
initially sell.

Stern said homes in the community range in price from about $95,000 for
a small bungalow to $300,000 or more.

An attorney for the couple involved in the 2016 settlement declined to
comment on the attorney general's announcement.

Schneiderman's settlement with the league calls for the immediate
replacement of the organization's leadership, and requires it to
regularly report compliance.

An attorney representing the league did not return emails seeking comment.

?????????

Associated Press investigative researcher Randy Herschaft contributed to
this report.

?????????

Online: New York City Department of Records
http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/html/home/home.shtml
David Von Pein
2017-05-23 11:30:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by David Von Pein
Post by John McAdams
Post by David Von Pein
I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her [Ruth Paine], since she
was a mush-minded liberal. She thought learning Russian was a step toward
world peace. As though Americans not knowing Russian was the cause of the
Cold War. Then, later in the 60s, she seemed to move left, like other
fifties liberals.
Why does everything always seem to have to come down to "Right vs. Left"
with you, .John? It's ridiculous, IMO.
First of all, Steve brought up "right vs. left," mentioning the
liberal politics of the Paines.
Second, "right vs. left" is all over this case. Most conspiracists
are leftists who want to blame people the left doesn't like. But
right wingers, not surprisingly, blame communists.
As far as "CTers vs. LNers" are concerned, I've never been comfortable
labelling people "Leftists" or "Right-wingers". Therefore, I have never
engaged in such labelling. I don't like placing such definitive labels on
people, whether they are LNers or conspiracy believers.
Post by John McAdams
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/context4.htm
Post by David Von Pein
And when did Ruth Paine ever even *HINT* at the idea that "Americans not
knowing Russian was the cause of the Cold War"?
I'll answer that last question myself --- Never!
I said "as though."
Let me make you an analogy. I might say "Conspiracy people think *as
though* scores or hundreds of people would lie, fake evidence and
remain silent to cover up a conspiracy."
You might reply: "When did conspiracy people say that?"
They didn't, but they reasoned "as though" that was true.
OK. Point taken.
Post by John McAdams
Post by David Von Pein
I can't believe you said such a ludicrous thing, John.
You need to check out Mallon, p. 24.
<Quote on>
Ruth had been studying Russian since 1957--at Berlitz, on photograph
records, in summer classes at Penn and Middlebury. Her interest in
the language itself was only increased by participation in the Young
Friends organization, specifically its East-West Contacts Committee,
which sponsored the American travels of three young Soviets--a
journalist, a factory worker, and an economics student--in 1958....
She had more direct involvement with the Young Friends' pen-pal
program, a good-will exchange set up with the Committee of Youth
Organizations. . . .
<end quote>
In a different era, this might suggest communist sympathies, but in
the 50s and early 60s, mainstream liberalism was staunchly
anti-communist. JFK being the prime example.
I blamed her for "mush-minded liberalism," but credited her with being
sincere and well-intentioned. I don't dislike her. In fact I like
those 50s liberals way better than the current politically correct
types.
The notion that learning other's languages is a strategy for "peace"
is not dead.
https://www.google.com/#q=learning+each+others+languages+peace
I seem to have punched one of your buttons. Perhaps you view her as a
victim. I do too, but I think she has been mature and self-confident
enough that buff vilification hasn't terribly harmed her.
It is true that when she went down to Central America with some
leftists who wanted to help install Marxist regimes, they were
paranoid about her, thinking she was a CIA spook.
She should have avoided such people.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
It's just that I don't expect a prominent "LNer" to say something like
"I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her, since she was a
mush-minded liberal." -- J. McAdams
That's a pretty harsh comment. And it's a comment that I don't think Ruth
Paine deserves.
The Ruth bashers are usually on the "CT" side of the debate (see top link
below). So I felt compelled to run to Ruth's defense.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-87.html
http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/ruth-paine.html
You are perfectly comfortable labeling people as CTers vs. LNers." That's
a label.
Not the same thing at all. I was talking about labelling people "Lefties"
or "Righties".
John McAdams
2017-05-22 20:39:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Von Pein
Post by John McAdams
Post by David Von Pein
I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her [Ruth Paine], since she
was a mush-minded liberal. She thought learning Russian was a step toward
world peace. As though Americans not knowing Russian was the cause of the
Cold War. Then, later in the 60s, she seemed to move left, like other
fifties liberals.
Why does everything always seem to have to come down to "Right vs. Left"
with you, .John? It's ridiculous, IMO.
First of all, Steve brought up "right vs. left," mentioning the
liberal politics of the Paines.
Second, "right vs. left" is all over this case. Most conspiracists
are leftists who want to blame people the left doesn't like. But
right wingers, not surprisingly, blame communists.
As far as "CTers vs. LNers" are concerned, I've never been comfortable
labelling people "Leftists" or "Right-wingers". Therefore, I have never
engaged in such labelling. I don't like placing such definitive labels on
people, whether they are LNers or conspiracy believers.
Like it or not, ideology matters. It's not an accident that leftists
blame people leftists don't like, such as people in the CIA,
anti-Castro exiles, rich Texas millionaires, etc.

And the Birch Society blamed communists.
Post by David Von Pein
Post by John McAdams
Post by David Von Pein
I can't believe you said such a ludicrous thing, John.
You need to check out Mallon, p. 24.
<Quote on>
Ruth had been studying Russian since 1957--at Berlitz, on photograph
records, in summer classes at Penn and Middlebury. Her interest in
the language itself was only increased by participation in the Young
Friends organization, specifically its East-West Contacts Committee,
which sponsored the American travels of three young Soviets--a
journalist, a factory worker, and an economics student--in 1958....
She had more direct involvement with the Young Friends' pen-pal
program, a good-will exchange set up with the Committee of Youth
Organizations. . . .
<end quote>
In a different era, this might suggest communist sympathies, but in
the 50s and early 60s, mainstream liberalism was staunchly
anti-communist. JFK being the prime example.
I blamed her for "mush-minded liberalism," but credited her with being
sincere and well-intentioned. I don't dislike her. In fact I like
those 50s liberals way better than the current politically correct
types.
The notion that learning other's languages is a strategy for "peace"
is not dead.
https://www.google.com/#q=learning+each+others+languages+peace
I seem to have punched one of your buttons. Perhaps you view her as a
victim. I do too, but I think she has been mature and self-confident
enough that buff vilification hasn't terribly harmed her.
It is true that when she went down to Central America with some
leftists who wanted to help install Marxist regimes, they were
paranoid about her, thinking she was a CIA spook.
She should have avoided such people.
It's just that I don't expect a prominent "LNer" to say something like
"I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her, since she was a
mush-minded liberal." -- J. McAdams
That's a pretty harsh comment. And it's a comment that I don't think Ruth
Paine deserves.
Except that I didn't *say* that, I said I "could say" that.

Actually, I'm not as solicitous of her as I might be, but mainly
because she seems to have the poise and self-confidence not to be
bothered by the crazy buffs.
Post by David Von Pein
The Ruth bashers are usually on the "CT" side of the debate (see top link
below). So I felt compelled to run to Ruth's defense.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-87.html
http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/ruth-paine.html
But you don't have to make those arguments to *me.*

Good luck with the conspiracy crazies. All I said is that she was a
bit of a mush-minded liberal.

If you want to argue politics, particularly whether 50s liberals were
a bit mush minded, we can do that. That would be fine.

But there is no need to argue with me about whether she was a CIA
spook, or an evil person, or dishonest. She was none of those things.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-23 11:25:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by David Von Pein
Post by John McAdams
Post by David Von Pein
I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her [Ruth Paine], since she
was a mush-minded liberal. She thought learning Russian was a step toward
world peace. As though Americans not knowing Russian was the cause of the
Cold War. Then, later in the 60s, she seemed to move left, like other
fifties liberals.
Why does everything always seem to have to come down to "Right vs. Left"
with you, .John? It's ridiculous, IMO.
First of all, Steve brought up "right vs. left," mentioning the
liberal politics of the Paines.
Second, "right vs. left" is all over this case. Most conspiracists
are leftists who want to blame people the left doesn't like. But
right wingers, not surprisingly, blame communists.
As far as "CTers vs. LNers" are concerned, I've never been comfortable
labelling people "Leftists" or "Right-wingers". Therefore, I have never
engaged in such labelling. I don't like placing such definitive labels on
people, whether they are LNers or conspiracy believers.
Like it or not, ideology matters. It's not an accident that leftists
blame people leftists don't like, such as people in the CIA,
anti-Castro exiles, rich Texas millionaires, etc.
And the Birch Society blamed communists.
Post by David Von Pein
Post by John McAdams
Post by David Von Pein
I can't believe you said such a ludicrous thing, John.
You need to check out Mallon, p. 24.
<Quote on>
Ruth had been studying Russian since 1957--at Berlitz, on photograph
records, in summer classes at Penn and Middlebury. Her interest in
the language itself was only increased by participation in the Young
Friends organization, specifically its East-West Contacts Committee,
which sponsored the American travels of three young Soviets--a
journalist, a factory worker, and an economics student--in 1958....
She had more direct involvement with the Young Friends' pen-pal
program, a good-will exchange set up with the Committee of Youth
Organizations. . . .
<end quote>
In a different era, this might suggest communist sympathies, but in
the 50s and early 60s, mainstream liberalism was staunchly
anti-communist. JFK being the prime example.
I blamed her for "mush-minded liberalism," but credited her with being
sincere and well-intentioned. I don't dislike her. In fact I like
those 50s liberals way better than the current politically correct
types.
The notion that learning other's languages is a strategy for "peace"
is not dead.
https://www.google.com/#q=learning+each+others+languages+peace
I seem to have punched one of your buttons. Perhaps you view her as a
victim. I do too, but I think she has been mature and self-confident
enough that buff vilification hasn't terribly harmed her.
It is true that when she went down to Central America with some
leftists who wanted to help install Marxist regimes, they were
paranoid about her, thinking she was a CIA spook.
She should have avoided such people.
It's just that I don't expect a prominent "LNer" to say something like
"I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her, since she was a
mush-minded liberal." -- J. McAdams
That's a pretty harsh comment. And it's a comment that I don't think Ruth
Paine deserves.
Except that I didn't *say* that, I said I "could say" that.
Actually, I'm not as solicitous of her as I might be, but mainly
because she seems to have the poise and self-confidence not to be
bothered by the crazy buffs.
Post by David Von Pein
The Ruth bashers are usually on the "CT" side of the debate (see top link
below). So I felt compelled to run to Ruth's defense.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-87.html
http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/ruth-paine.html
But you don't have to make those arguments to *me.*
Good luck with the conspiracy crazies. All I said is that she was a
bit of a mush-minded liberal.
If you want to argue politics, particularly whether 50s liberals were
a bit mush minded, we can do that. That would be fine.
Oh, so you think it was ONLY the 50s Liberals who were mush minded. All
others are OK.
Post by John McAdams
But there is no need to argue with me about whether she was a CIA
spook, or an evil person, or dishonest. She was none of those things.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Glenn V.
2017-06-01 17:52:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Von Pein
It's just that I don't expect a prominent "LNer" to say something like
"I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her, since she was a
mush-minded liberal." -- J. McAdams
It seems to me John is not too sympathetic to liberals, period.
Mush-minded or not, in- or outside of the JFK assassination.
John McAdams
2017-06-01 17:59:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Glenn V.
Post by David Von Pein
It's just that I don't expect a prominent "LNer" to say something like
"I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her, since she was a
mush-minded liberal." -- J. McAdams
It seems to me John is not too sympathetic to liberals, period.
Mush-minded or not, in- or outside of the JFK assassination.
Actually, I like Ruth Paine a lot better than the current crop of
liberals, who don't believe in free speech.

Google "Citizens United."

Or who try to shout down campus speakers they don't like.

Or who would punish "hate speech."

Ruth Paine was just a well-meaning lady who thought learning Russian
was a strike for World Peace. Muddle-headed, but well meaning.

What about leftists in Sweden (liberal means something different in
Europe)?

Do they protect free speech? Or do they censor and punish speech
that's deemed politically incorrect?

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Glenn V.
2017-06-06 03:44:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by Glenn V.
Post by David Von Pein
It's just that I don't expect a prominent "LNer" to say something like
"I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her, since she was a
mush-minded liberal." -- J. McAdams
It seems to me John is not too sympathetic to liberals, period.
Mush-minded or not, in- or outside of the JFK assassination.
Actually, I like Ruth Paine a lot better than the current crop of
liberals, who don't believe in free speech.
Google "Citizens United."
Or who try to shout down campus speakers they don't like.
I'm a liberal, John. I publicly supported your right to speak out. and
subsequently defending yourself, at your University. With one particular
exception, naming the person in question.
Post by John McAdams
Or who would punish "hate speech."
Ruth Paine was just a well-meaning lady who thought learning Russian
was a strike for World Peace. Muddle-headed, but well meaning.
Muddle-headed, perhaps. But you are underestimating the value of learning
other languages. To me, Mrs Paine was ahead of her time, muddle-headed or
not. Let me ask you John, if your grandchildren tells you they are about
to learn how to speak Mandarin Chinese - would you then consider them
Muddle-headed? Or forward looking professionals to be?

Unfortunately, I think the underestimation of learning other languages is
an American problem, more than anything else. As you are used to others
learning how to speak English. Think again, the world is changing, and for
whatever reason people decides to learn other languages, it's a good
thing, it will bring people and cultures together. And sometimes it may
even be a requirement, more so now then ever in the world of
professionals, no matter what field they happen to be working within. It's
not, John, a muddle-headed thing from well-intentioned liberals.
Post by John McAdams
What about leftists in Sweden (liberal means something different in
Europe)?
As you surely know, the meaning is a bit different in Europe, yes.
Post by John McAdams
Do they protect free speech? Or do they censor and punish speech
that's deemed politically incorrect?
We defend free speech, period. But certainly this does not mean that
anyone can say anything, which I'm sure you understand.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
2017-06-06 03:54:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Glenn V.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Glenn V.
Post by David Von Pein
It's just that I don't expect a prominent "LNer" to say something like
"I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her, since she was a
mush-minded liberal." -- J. McAdams
It seems to me John is not too sympathetic to liberals, period.
Mush-minded or not, in- or outside of the JFK assassination.
Actually, I like Ruth Paine a lot better than the current crop of
liberals, who don't believe in free speech.
Google "Citizens United."
Or who try to shout down campus speakers they don't like.
I'm a liberal, John. I publicly supported your right to speak out. and
subsequently defending yourself, at your University. With one particular
exception, naming the person in question.
We could argue about that later. But thanks for your (mostly)
support.
Post by Glenn V.
Post by John McAdams
Or who would punish "hate speech."
Ruth Paine was just a well-meaning lady who thought learning Russian
was a strike for World Peace. Muddle-headed, but well meaning.
Muddle-headed, perhaps. But you are underestimating the value of learning
other languages. To me, Mrs Paine was ahead of her time, muddle-headed or
not. Let me ask you John, if your grandchildren tells you they are about
to learn how to speak Mandarin Chinese - would you then consider them
Muddle-headed? Or forward looking professionals to be?
I would *not* think their studying Mandarin had anything to do with
World Peace.

There are plenty of other good reasons for studying a language.
Occupational (wanting to work for a multinational corporation, or be
in the Foreign Service) or even personal (liking the literature of a
country).

Does the fact that you (and I gether) a lot of Swedes learn English
mean that Sweden is less likely to go to war against the U.S.? Or is
it that English is probably the most valuable second language to have?
Post by Glenn V.
Unfortunately, I think the underestimation of learning other languages is
an American problem, more than anything else. As you are used to others
learning how to speak English. Think again, the world is changing, and for
whatever reason people decides to learn other languages, it's a good
thing, it will bring people and cultures together. And sometimes it may
even be a requirement, more so now then ever in the world of
professionals, no matter what field they happen to be working within. It's
not, John, a muddle-headed thing from well-intentioned liberals.
You are arguing that learning languages is good. I've never said
otherwise.

My kids studied in Argentina and Spain (one daughter) and Chile (my
son) so they could learn Spanish.

But that had nothing to do with World Peace.
Post by Glenn V.
Post by John McAdams
What about leftists in Sweden (liberal means something different in
Europe)?
As you surely know, the meaning is a bit different in Europe, yes.
Post by John McAdams
Do they protect free speech? Or do they censor and punish speech
that's deemed politically incorrect?
We defend free speech, period. But certainly this does not mean that
anyone can say anything, which I'm sure you understand.
Then how is it possible to end up in jail for being a Holocaust
denier?

Or for saying unkind things about homosexuality?

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Ace Kefford
2017-06-06 20:30:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by Glenn V.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Glenn V.
Post by David Von Pein
It's just that I don't expect a prominent "LNer" to say something like
"I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her, since she was a
mush-minded liberal." -- J. McAdams
It seems to me John is not too sympathetic to liberals, period.
Mush-minded or not, in- or outside of the JFK assassination.
Actually, I like Ruth Paine a lot better than the current crop of
liberals, who don't believe in free speech.
Google "Citizens United."
Or who try to shout down campus speakers they don't like.
I'm a liberal, John. I publicly supported your right to speak out. and
subsequently defending yourself, at your University. With one particular
exception, naming the person in question.
We could argue about that later. But thanks for your (mostly)
support.
Post by Glenn V.
Post by John McAdams
Or who would punish "hate speech."
Ruth Paine was just a well-meaning lady who thought learning Russian
was a strike for World Peace. Muddle-headed, but well meaning.
Muddle-headed, perhaps. But you are underestimating the value of learning
other languages. To me, Mrs Paine was ahead of her time, muddle-headed or
not. Let me ask you John, if your grandchildren tells you they are about
to learn how to speak Mandarin Chinese - would you then consider them
Muddle-headed? Or forward looking professionals to be?
I would *not* think their studying Mandarin had anything to do with
World Peace.
There are plenty of other good reasons for studying a language.
Occupational (wanting to work for a multinational corporation, or be
in the Foreign Service) or even personal (liking the literature of a
country).
Does the fact that you (and I gether) a lot of Swedes learn English
mean that Sweden is less likely to go to war against the U.S.? Or is
it that English is probably the most valuable second language to have?
Post by Glenn V.
Unfortunately, I think the underestimation of learning other languages is
an American problem, more than anything else. As you are used to others
learning how to speak English. Think again, the world is changing, and for
whatever reason people decides to learn other languages, it's a good
thing, it will bring people and cultures together. And sometimes it may
even be a requirement, more so now then ever in the world of
professionals, no matter what field they happen to be working within. It's
not, John, a muddle-headed thing from well-intentioned liberals.
You are arguing that learning languages is good. I've never said
otherwise.
My kids studied in Argentina and Spain (one daughter) and Chile (my
son) so they could learn Spanish.
But that had nothing to do with World Peace.
Post by Glenn V.
Post by John McAdams
What about leftists in Sweden (liberal means something different in
Europe)?
As you surely know, the meaning is a bit different in Europe, yes.
Post by John McAdams
Do they protect free speech? Or do they censor and punish speech
that's deemed politically incorrect?
We defend free speech, period. But certainly this does not mean that
anyone can say anything, which I'm sure you understand.
Then how is it possible to end up in jail for being a Holocaust
denier?
Or for saying unkind things about homosexuality?
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
A little off-topic and offered in humor, John, but you might want to be
careful about irking the Clintons.

Some of the top thought leaders among your fellow right-wing Republicans
(Gingrich and Hannity) were recently highlighting more "suspicions" about
the famed "Clinton Death Squads." In this case reappearing to allegedly
kill a young man. And like true deep-thinking conspiracy folks they
believe in killing the person AFTER he or she has done the damage (in this
case allegedly and with no actual evidence having given Clinton/DNC
documents to WikiLeaks).
John McAdams
2017-06-06 20:34:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Glenn V.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Glenn V.
Post by David Von Pein
It's just that I don't expect a prominent "LNer" to say something like
"I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her, since she was a
mush-minded liberal." -- J. McAdams
It seems to me John is not too sympathetic to liberals, period.
Mush-minded or not, in- or outside of the JFK assassination.
Actually, I like Ruth Paine a lot better than the current crop of
liberals, who don't believe in free speech.
Google "Citizens United."
Or who try to shout down campus speakers they don't like.
I'm a liberal, John. I publicly supported your right to speak out. and
subsequently defending yourself, at your University. With one particular
exception, naming the person in question.
We could argue about that later. But thanks for your (mostly)
support.
Post by Glenn V.
Post by John McAdams
Or who would punish "hate speech."
Ruth Paine was just a well-meaning lady who thought learning Russian
was a strike for World Peace. Muddle-headed, but well meaning.
Muddle-headed, perhaps. But you are underestimating the value of learning
other languages. To me, Mrs Paine was ahead of her time, muddle-headed or
not. Let me ask you John, if your grandchildren tells you they are about
to learn how to speak Mandarin Chinese - would you then consider them
Muddle-headed? Or forward looking professionals to be?
I would *not* think their studying Mandarin had anything to do with
World Peace.
There are plenty of other good reasons for studying a language.
Occupational (wanting to work for a multinational corporation, or be
in the Foreign Service) or even personal (liking the literature of a
country).
Does the fact that you (and I gether) a lot of Swedes learn English
mean that Sweden is less likely to go to war against the U.S.? Or is
it that English is probably the most valuable second language to have?
Post by Glenn V.
Unfortunately, I think the underestimation of learning other languages is
an American problem, more than anything else. As you are used to others
learning how to speak English. Think again, the world is changing, and for
whatever reason people decides to learn other languages, it's a good
thing, it will bring people and cultures together. And sometimes it may
even be a requirement, more so now then ever in the world of
professionals, no matter what field they happen to be working within. It's
not, John, a muddle-headed thing from well-intentioned liberals.
You are arguing that learning languages is good. I've never said
otherwise.
My kids studied in Argentina and Spain (one daughter) and Chile (my
son) so they could learn Spanish.
But that had nothing to do with World Peace.
Post by Glenn V.
Post by John McAdams
What about leftists in Sweden (liberal means something different in
Europe)?
As you surely know, the meaning is a bit different in Europe, yes.
Post by John McAdams
Do they protect free speech? Or do they censor and punish speech
that's deemed politically incorrect?
We defend free speech, period. But certainly this does not mean that
anyone can say anything, which I'm sure you understand.
Then how is it possible to end up in jail for being a Holocaust
denier?
Or for saying unkind things about homosexuality?
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
A little off-topic and offered in humor, John, but you might want to be
careful about irking the Clintons.
Some of the top thought leaders among your fellow right-wing Republicans
(Gingrich and Hannity) were recently highlighting more "suspicions" about
the famed "Clinton Death Squads." In this case reappearing to allegedly
kill a young man. And like true deep-thinking conspiracy folks they
believe in killing the person AFTER he or she has done the damage (in this
case allegedly and with no actual evidence having given Clinton/DNC
documents to WikiLeaks).
Well . . . Ace, you might want to be careful about irking the Bushes,
since a lot of your fellow left-wing Democrats believe George Bush
arranged the 9/11 attacks.

If he would do that, offing one guy on an Internet newsgroup would be
child's play.

Not to speak of your fellow left-wing Democrats who think the CIA
killed Kennedy.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Ace Kefford
2017-06-13 01:19:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Glenn V.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Glenn V.
Post by David Von Pein
It's just that I don't expect a prominent "LNer" to say something like
"I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her, since she was a
mush-minded liberal." -- J. McAdams
It seems to me John is not too sympathetic to liberals, period.
Mush-minded or not, in- or outside of the JFK assassination.
Actually, I like Ruth Paine a lot better than the current crop of
liberals, who don't believe in free speech.
Google "Citizens United."
Or who try to shout down campus speakers they don't like.
I'm a liberal, John. I publicly supported your right to speak out. and
subsequently defending yourself, at your University. With one particular
exception, naming the person in question.
We could argue about that later. But thanks for your (mostly)
support.
Post by Glenn V.
Post by John McAdams
Or who would punish "hate speech."
Ruth Paine was just a well-meaning lady who thought learning Russian
was a strike for World Peace. Muddle-headed, but well meaning.
Muddle-headed, perhaps. But you are underestimating the value of learning
other languages. To me, Mrs Paine was ahead of her time, muddle-headed or
not. Let me ask you John, if your grandchildren tells you they are about
to learn how to speak Mandarin Chinese - would you then consider them
Muddle-headed? Or forward looking professionals to be?
I would *not* think their studying Mandarin had anything to do with
World Peace.
There are plenty of other good reasons for studying a language.
Occupational (wanting to work for a multinational corporation, or be
in the Foreign Service) or even personal (liking the literature of a
country).
Does the fact that you (and I gether) a lot of Swedes learn English
mean that Sweden is less likely to go to war against the U.S.? Or is
it that English is probably the most valuable second language to have?
Post by Glenn V.
Unfortunately, I think the underestimation of learning other languages is
an American problem, more than anything else. As you are used to others
learning how to speak English. Think again, the world is changing, and for
whatever reason people decides to learn other languages, it's a good
thing, it will bring people and cultures together. And sometimes it may
even be a requirement, more so now then ever in the world of
professionals, no matter what field they happen to be working within. It's
not, John, a muddle-headed thing from well-intentioned liberals.
You are arguing that learning languages is good. I've never said
otherwise.
My kids studied in Argentina and Spain (one daughter) and Chile (my
son) so they could learn Spanish.
But that had nothing to do with World Peace.
Post by Glenn V.
Post by John McAdams
What about leftists in Sweden (liberal means something different in
Europe)?
As you surely know, the meaning is a bit different in Europe, yes.
Post by John McAdams
Do they protect free speech? Or do they censor and punish speech
that's deemed politically incorrect?
We defend free speech, period. But certainly this does not mean that
anyone can say anything, which I'm sure you understand.
Then how is it possible to end up in jail for being a Holocaust
denier?
Or for saying unkind things about homosexuality?
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
A little off-topic and offered in humor, John, but you might want to be
careful about irking the Clintons.
Some of the top thought leaders among your fellow right-wing Republicans
(Gingrich and Hannity) were recently highlighting more "suspicions" about
the famed "Clinton Death Squads." In this case reappearing to allegedly
kill a young man. And like true deep-thinking conspiracy folks they
believe in killing the person AFTER he or she has done the damage (in this
case allegedly and with no actual evidence having given Clinton/DNC
documents to WikiLeaks).
Well . . . Ace, you might want to be careful about irking the Bushes,
since a lot of your fellow left-wing Democrats believe George Bush
arranged the 9/11 attacks.
If he would do that, offing one guy on an Internet newsgroup would be
child's play.
Not to speak of your fellow left-wing Democrats who think the CIA
killed Kennedy.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Nah, we don't believe Bush arranged the 9/11 attacks. That's just the
nuts. The difference is a large number of non-nut Republicans believe
nutty conspiracy theorists (birthers, Vince Foster, etc.) It's flipped
since the 60s/70s.

Back then your right-wing big buddies had only one big conspiracy theory,
the Communist conspiracy, and while too many of them went overboard with
that -- anyone or anything they opposed was part of that conspiracy
including well-known Commie dupes like Eisenhower, fluoridation, school
prayer -- it's worth remembering that there WERE Communist spies and
pinkos who did turn over stuff to their Kremlin masters for ideological
reasons and not just cash.

Now they have too many conspiracy theories to keep track of. Just think
of the republican spins on Benghazi. The GOP has become the party of
irrational party discipline purely pursuing power.
John McAdams
2017-06-13 01:34:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
A little off-topic and offered in humor, John, but you might want to be
careful about irking the Clintons.
Some of the top thought leaders among your fellow right-wing Republicans
(Gingrich and Hannity) were recently highlighting more "suspicions" about
the famed "Clinton Death Squads." In this case reappearing to allegedly
kill a young man. And like true deep-thinking conspiracy folks they
believe in killing the person AFTER he or she has done the damage (in this
case allegedly and with no actual evidence having given Clinton/DNC
documents to WikiLeaks).
Well . . . Ace, you might want to be careful about irking the Bushes,
since a lot of your fellow left-wing Democrats believe George Bush
arranged the 9/11 attacks.
If he would do that, offing one guy on an Internet newsgroup would be
child's play.
Not to speak of your fellow left-wing Democrats who think the CIA
killed Kennedy.
Nah, we don't believe Bush arranged the 9/11 attacks. That's just the
nuts. The difference is a large number of non-nut Republicans believe
nutty conspiracy theorists (birthers, Vince Foster, etc.) It's flipped
since the 60s/70s.
Back then your right-wing big buddies had only one big conspiracy theory,
the Communist conspiracy, and while too many of them went overboard with
that -- anyone or anything they opposed was part of that conspiracy
including well-known Commie dupes like Eisenhower, fluoridation, school
prayer -- it's worth remembering that there WERE Communist spies and
pinkos who did turn over stuff to their Kremlin masters for ideological
reasons and not just cash.
Glad you recognize that.
Post by Ace Kefford
Now they have too many conspiracy theories to keep track of. Just think
of the republican spins on Benghazi. The GOP has become the party of
irrational party discipline purely pursuing power.
Ace, you can't get away with trying to pull that on me.

It's a standard tactic of partisans to portray their opponents as
crazies.

But you can't get around the fact that the 9/11 Truther movement is
mostly Bush-hating leftists.

Some examples from here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories

<Quote on>

Rasmussen Reports published the results of their poll May 4, 2007.
According to their press release, "Overall, 22% of all voters believe
the President knew about the attacks in advance. A slightly larger
number, 29%, believe the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. White
Americans are less likely than others to believe that either the
President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. Young
Americans are more likely than their elders to believe the President
or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance.", "Thirty-five percent
(35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and
26% are not sure." and "Republicans reject that view and, by a 7-to-1
margin, say the President did not know in advance about the attacks.
Among those not affiliated with either major party, 18% believe the
President knew and 57% take the opposite view."[18]

In September 2009, a National Obama Approval Poll, by Public Policy
Polling, found that 27 percent of respondents who identified
themselves as Liberals, and 10 percent as Conservatives, responded
"yes" to the question, "Do you think President Bush intentionally
allowed the 9/11 attacks to take place because he wanted the United
States to go to war in the Middle East?"[21]

<end quote>

Then this:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/04/democrats-and-republicans-differ-on-conspiracy-theory-beliefs.html

<quote>

44% of voters believe the Bush administration intentionally misled the
public about weapons of mass destruction to promote the Iraq War,
while 45% disagree. 72% of Democrats believed the statement while 73%
of Republicans did not. 22% of Democrats, 33% of Republicans and 28%
of independents believe Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11
terrorist attacks.

<end quote>

Then there is the fact that it's the *liberals* who now believe the
Russians have engaged in an evil conspiracy to undermine American
democracy. And indeed, that anybody who ever *talked* to a Russian is
suspect.

And as you know perfectly well, JFK assassination conspiracists
overwhelmingly blame people the left doesn't like: the CIA, the FBI,
Cuban Exiles, Texas Oil Millionaires.

So you can't get away with playing the "people on the other side are
crazies" game with me.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-14 13:38:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
A little off-topic and offered in humor, John, but you might want to be
careful about irking the Clintons.
Some of the top thought leaders among your fellow right-wing Republicans
(Gingrich and Hannity) were recently highlighting more "suspicions" about
the famed "Clinton Death Squads." In this case reappearing to allegedly
kill a young man. And like true deep-thinking conspiracy folks they
believe in killing the person AFTER he or she has done the damage (in this
case allegedly and with no actual evidence having given Clinton/DNC
documents to WikiLeaks).
Well . . . Ace, you might want to be careful about irking the Bushes,
since a lot of your fellow left-wing Democrats believe George Bush
arranged the 9/11 attacks.
If he would do that, offing one guy on an Internet newsgroup would be
child's play.
Not to speak of your fellow left-wing Democrats who think the CIA
killed Kennedy.
Nah, we don't believe Bush arranged the 9/11 attacks. That's just the
nuts. The difference is a large number of non-nut Republicans believe
nutty conspiracy theorists (birthers, Vince Foster, etc.) It's flipped
since the 60s/70s.
Back then your right-wing big buddies had only one big conspiracy theory,
the Communist conspiracy, and while too many of them went overboard with
that -- anyone or anything they opposed was part of that conspiracy
including well-known Commie dupes like Eisenhower, fluoridation, school
prayer -- it's worth remembering that there WERE Communist spies and
pinkos who did turn over stuff to their Kremlin masters for ideological
reasons and not just cash.
Glad you recognize that.
Post by Ace Kefford
Now they have too many conspiracy theories to keep track of. Just think
of the republican spins on Benghazi. The GOP has become the party of
irrational party discipline purely pursuing power.
Ace, you can't get away with trying to pull that on me.
It's a standard tactic of partisans to portray their opponents as
crazies.
But you can't get around the fact that the 9/11 Truther movement is
mostly Bush-hating leftists.
Wow, you figured that out all by yourself?
You must be some type of professor or something.
So, how many Bush-hating righties are there?
Post by John McAdams
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories
Not enough. Wimpy. What, no Native American suspects?
Post by John McAdams
<Quote on>
Rasmussen Reports published the results of their poll May 4, 2007.
According to their press release, "Overall, 22% of all voters believe
the President knew about the attacks in advance. A slightly larger
number, 29%, believe the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. White
Americans are less likely than others to believe that either the
President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. Young
Americans are more likely than their elders to believe the President
or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance.", "Thirty-five percent
(35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and
26% are not sure." and "Republicans reject that view and, by a 7-to-1
margin, say the President did not know in advance about the attacks.
Among those not affiliated with either major party, 18% believe the
President knew and 57% take the opposite view."[18]
In September 2009, a National Obama Approval Poll, by Public Policy
Polling, found that 27 percent of respondents who identified
themselves as Liberals, and 10 percent as Conservatives, responded
"yes" to the question, "Do you think President Bush intentionally
allowed the 9/11 attacks to take place because he wanted the United
States to go to war in the Middle East?"[21]
<end quote>
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/04/democrats-and-republicans-differ-on-conspiracy-theory-beliefs.html
<quote>
44% of voters believe the Bush administration intentionally misled the
public about weapons of mass destruction to promote the Iraq War,
while 45% disagree. 72% of Democrats believed the statement while 73%
of Republicans did not. 22% of Democrats, 33% of Republicans and 28%
of independents believe Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11
terrorist attacks.
<end quote>
Then there is the fact that it's the *liberals* who now believe the
Russians have engaged in an evil conspiracy to undermine American
democracy. And indeed, that anybody who ever *talked* to a Russian is
suspect.
Something like that. So it's ok to talk to a Russian as long as you
don't know he's an intelligence officer?
Post by John McAdams
And as you know perfectly well, JFK assassination conspiracists
overwhelmingly blame people the left doesn't like: the CIA, the FBI,
Cuban Exiles, Texas Oil Millionaires.
And then there's the old CIA officers who blame Castro and/or the
Russians.
Post by John McAdams
So you can't get away with playing the "people on the other side are
crazies" game with me.
Why not? Isn't that what you've been teaching here?
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Ace Kefford
2017-06-15 00:46:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
A little off-topic and offered in humor, John, but you might want to be
careful about irking the Clintons.
Some of the top thought leaders among your fellow right-wing Republicans
(Gingrich and Hannity) were recently highlighting more "suspicions" about
the famed "Clinton Death Squads." In this case reappearing to allegedly
kill a young man. And like true deep-thinking conspiracy folks they
believe in killing the person AFTER he or she has done the damage (in this
case allegedly and with no actual evidence having given Clinton/DNC
documents to WikiLeaks).
Well . . . Ace, you might want to be careful about irking the Bushes,
since a lot of your fellow left-wing Democrats believe George Bush
arranged the 9/11 attacks.
If he would do that, offing one guy on an Internet newsgroup would be
child's play.
Not to speak of your fellow left-wing Democrats who think the CIA
killed Kennedy.
Nah, we don't believe Bush arranged the 9/11 attacks. That's just the
nuts. The difference is a large number of non-nut Republicans believe
nutty conspiracy theorists (birthers, Vince Foster, etc.) It's flipped
since the 60s/70s.
Back then your right-wing big buddies had only one big conspiracy theory,
the Communist conspiracy, and while too many of them went overboard with
that -- anyone or anything they opposed was part of that conspiracy
including well-known Commie dupes like Eisenhower, fluoridation, school
prayer -- it's worth remembering that there WERE Communist spies and
pinkos who did turn over stuff to their Kremlin masters for ideological
reasons and not just cash.
Glad you recognize that.
Post by Ace Kefford
Now they have too many conspiracy theories to keep track of. Just think
of the republican spins on Benghazi. The GOP has become the party of
irrational party discipline purely pursuing power.
Ace, you can't get away with trying to pull that on me.
It's a standard tactic of partisans to portray their opponents as
crazies.
But you can't get around the fact that the 9/11 Truther movement is
mostly Bush-hating leftists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories
<Quote on>
Rasmussen Reports published the results of their poll May 4, 2007.
According to their press release, "Overall, 22% of all voters believe
the President knew about the attacks in advance. A slightly larger
number, 29%, believe the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. White
Americans are less likely than others to believe that either the
President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. Young
Americans are more likely than their elders to believe the President
or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance.", "Thirty-five percent
(35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and
26% are not sure." and "Republicans reject that view and, by a 7-to-1
margin, say the President did not know in advance about the attacks.
Among those not affiliated with either major party, 18% believe the
President knew and 57% take the opposite view."[18]
In September 2009, a National Obama Approval Poll, by Public Policy
Polling, found that 27 percent of respondents who identified
themselves as Liberals, and 10 percent as Conservatives, responded
"yes" to the question, "Do you think President Bush intentionally
allowed the 9/11 attacks to take place because he wanted the United
States to go to war in the Middle East?"[21]
<end quote>
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/04/democrats-and-republicans-differ-on-conspiracy-theory-beliefs.html
<quote>
44% of voters believe the Bush administration intentionally misled the
public about weapons of mass destruction to promote the Iraq War,
while 45% disagree. 72% of Democrats believed the statement while 73%
of Republicans did not. 22% of Democrats, 33% of Republicans and 28%
of independents believe Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11
terrorist attacks.
<end quote>
Then there is the fact that it's the *liberals* who now believe the
Russians have engaged in an evil conspiracy to undermine American
democracy. And indeed, that anybody who ever *talked* to a Russian is
suspect.
And as you know perfectly well, JFK assassination conspiracists
overwhelmingly blame people the left doesn't like: the CIA, the FBI,
Cuban Exiles, Texas Oil Millionaires.
So you can't get away with playing the "people on the other side are
crazies" game with me.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
On the Trump-Russia connection who knows what is there but why do all of
the Trump people involved initially lie about their contacts or forget to
mention things?

The three basic theories of what the Russians have over Trump are (1)
prior finacing/money laundering, (2) the "pee pee" tapes, and (3) at least
tacit go ahead for the Russians to release through Wikileaks.
John McAdams
2017-06-15 01:24:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
A little off-topic and offered in humor, John, but you might want to be
careful about irking the Clintons.
Some of the top thought leaders among your fellow right-wing Republicans
(Gingrich and Hannity) were recently highlighting more "suspicions" about
the famed "Clinton Death Squads." In this case reappearing to allegedly
kill a young man. And like true deep-thinking conspiracy folks they
believe in killing the person AFTER he or she has done the damage (in this
case allegedly and with no actual evidence having given Clinton/DNC
documents to WikiLeaks).
Well . . . Ace, you might want to be careful about irking the Bushes,
since a lot of your fellow left-wing Democrats believe George Bush
arranged the 9/11 attacks.
If he would do that, offing one guy on an Internet newsgroup would be
child's play.
Not to speak of your fellow left-wing Democrats who think the CIA
killed Kennedy.
Nah, we don't believe Bush arranged the 9/11 attacks. That's just the
nuts. The difference is a large number of non-nut Republicans believe
nutty conspiracy theorists (birthers, Vince Foster, etc.) It's flipped
since the 60s/70s.
Back then your right-wing big buddies had only one big conspiracy theory,
the Communist conspiracy, and while too many of them went overboard with
that -- anyone or anything they opposed was part of that conspiracy
including well-known Commie dupes like Eisenhower, fluoridation, school
prayer -- it's worth remembering that there WERE Communist spies and
pinkos who did turn over stuff to their Kremlin masters for ideological
reasons and not just cash.
Glad you recognize that.
Post by Ace Kefford
Now they have too many conspiracy theories to keep track of. Just think
of the republican spins on Benghazi. The GOP has become the party of
irrational party discipline purely pursuing power.
Ace, you can't get away with trying to pull that on me.
It's a standard tactic of partisans to portray their opponents as
crazies.
But you can't get around the fact that the 9/11 Truther movement is
mostly Bush-hating leftists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories
<Quote on>
Rasmussen Reports published the results of their poll May 4, 2007.
According to their press release, "Overall, 22% of all voters believe
the President knew about the attacks in advance. A slightly larger
number, 29%, believe the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. White
Americans are less likely than others to believe that either the
President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. Young
Americans are more likely than their elders to believe the President
or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance.", "Thirty-five percent
(35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and
26% are not sure." and "Republicans reject that view and, by a 7-to-1
margin, say the President did not know in advance about the attacks.
Among those not affiliated with either major party, 18% believe the
President knew and 57% take the opposite view."[18]
In September 2009, a National Obama Approval Poll, by Public Policy
Polling, found that 27 percent of respondents who identified
themselves as Liberals, and 10 percent as Conservatives, responded
"yes" to the question, "Do you think President Bush intentionally
allowed the 9/11 attacks to take place because he wanted the United
States to go to war in the Middle East?"[21]
<end quote>
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/04/democrats-and-republicans-differ-on-conspiracy-theory-beliefs.html
<quote>
44% of voters believe the Bush administration intentionally misled the
public about weapons of mass destruction to promote the Iraq War,
while 45% disagree. 72% of Democrats believed the statement while 73%
of Republicans did not. 22% of Democrats, 33% of Republicans and 28%
of independents believe Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11
terrorist attacks.
<end quote>
Then there is the fact that it's the *liberals* who now believe the
Russians have engaged in an evil conspiracy to undermine American
democracy. And indeed, that anybody who ever *talked* to a Russian is
suspect.
And as you know perfectly well, JFK assassination conspiracists
overwhelmingly blame people the left doesn't like: the CIA, the FBI,
Cuban Exiles, Texas Oil Millionaires.
So you can't get away with playing the "people on the other side are
crazies" game with me.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
On the Trump-Russia connection who knows what is there but why do all of
the Trump people involved initially lie about their contacts or forget to
mention things?
Because a "contact" can be so trivial (you briefly chat with somebody
at a large reception) as to be forgotten.

Doesn't some of this "contact" stuff remind you are McCarthyism?
Post by Ace Kefford
The three basic theories of what the Russians have over Trump are (1)
prior finacing/money laundering,
You do understand that "financing" is not the same as "money
laundering," right.
Post by Ace Kefford
(2) the "pee pee" tapes,
Known to be forged.
Post by Ace Kefford
and (3) at least
tacit go ahead for the Russians to release through Wikileaks.
Huh? Are you claiming that Trump had to give Putin the OK to release
these?

I thought the theory was that Trump is in Putin's pocket, and vice
versa.

I don't think Putin really wanted Trump elected. Certainly, Hillary
was no threat. But he would have viewed Trump is volatile and
erratic, which is not the sort of person you want to deal with.

I think Putin simply wanted a weakened Hillary as president.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-16 01:03:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
A little off-topic and offered in humor, John, but you might want to be
careful about irking the Clintons.
Some of the top thought leaders among your fellow right-wing Republicans
(Gingrich and Hannity) were recently highlighting more "suspicions" about
the famed "Clinton Death Squads." In this case reappearing to allegedly
kill a young man. And like true deep-thinking conspiracy folks they
believe in killing the person AFTER he or she has done the damage (in this
case allegedly and with no actual evidence having given Clinton/DNC
documents to WikiLeaks).
Well . . . Ace, you might want to be careful about irking the Bushes,
since a lot of your fellow left-wing Democrats believe George Bush
arranged the 9/11 attacks.
If he would do that, offing one guy on an Internet newsgroup would be
child's play.
Not to speak of your fellow left-wing Democrats who think the CIA
killed Kennedy.
Nah, we don't believe Bush arranged the 9/11 attacks. That's just the
nuts. The difference is a large number of non-nut Republicans believe
nutty conspiracy theorists (birthers, Vince Foster, etc.) It's flipped
since the 60s/70s.
Back then your right-wing big buddies had only one big conspiracy theory,
the Communist conspiracy, and while too many of them went overboard with
that -- anyone or anything they opposed was part of that conspiracy
including well-known Commie dupes like Eisenhower, fluoridation, school
prayer -- it's worth remembering that there WERE Communist spies and
pinkos who did turn over stuff to their Kremlin masters for ideological
reasons and not just cash.
Glad you recognize that.
Post by Ace Kefford
Now they have too many conspiracy theories to keep track of. Just think
of the republican spins on Benghazi. The GOP has become the party of
irrational party discipline purely pursuing power.
Ace, you can't get away with trying to pull that on me.
It's a standard tactic of partisans to portray their opponents as
crazies.
But you can't get around the fact that the 9/11 Truther movement is
mostly Bush-hating leftists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories
<Quote on>
Rasmussen Reports published the results of their poll May 4, 2007.
According to their press release, "Overall, 22% of all voters believe
the President knew about the attacks in advance. A slightly larger
number, 29%, believe the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. White
Americans are less likely than others to believe that either the
President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. Young
Americans are more likely than their elders to believe the President
or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance.", "Thirty-five percent
(35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and
26% are not sure." and "Republicans reject that view and, by a 7-to-1
margin, say the President did not know in advance about the attacks.
Among those not affiliated with either major party, 18% believe the
President knew and 57% take the opposite view."[18]
In September 2009, a National Obama Approval Poll, by Public Policy
Polling, found that 27 percent of respondents who identified
themselves as Liberals, and 10 percent as Conservatives, responded
"yes" to the question, "Do you think President Bush intentionally
allowed the 9/11 attacks to take place because he wanted the United
States to go to war in the Middle East?"[21]
<end quote>
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/04/democrats-and-republicans-differ-on-conspiracy-theory-beliefs.html
<quote>
44% of voters believe the Bush administration intentionally misled the
public about weapons of mass destruction to promote the Iraq War,
while 45% disagree. 72% of Democrats believed the statement while 73%
of Republicans did not. 22% of Democrats, 33% of Republicans and 28%
of independents believe Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11
terrorist attacks.
<end quote>
Then there is the fact that it's the *liberals* who now believe the
Russians have engaged in an evil conspiracy to undermine American
democracy. And indeed, that anybody who ever *talked* to a Russian is
suspect.
And as you know perfectly well, JFK assassination conspiracists
overwhelmingly blame people the left doesn't like: the CIA, the FBI,
Cuban Exiles, Texas Oil Millionaires.
So you can't get away with playing the "people on the other side are
crazies" game with me.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
On the Trump-Russia connection who knows what is there but why do all of
the Trump people involved initially lie about their contacts or forget to
mention things?
Because a "contact" can be so trivial (you briefly chat with somebody
at a large reception) as to be forgotten.
I like that. Is that going to be Flynn's defense?
Post by John McAdams
Doesn't some of this "contact" stuff remind you are McCarthyism?
So you say spies never really exist in real life?
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
The three basic theories of what the Russians have over Trump are (1)
prior finacing/money laundering,
You do understand that "financing" is not the same as "money
laundering," right.
Post by Ace Kefford
(2) the "pee pee" tapes,
Known to be forged.
Tell us more.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
and (3) at least
tacit go ahead for the Russians to release through Wikileaks.
Huh? Are you claiming that Trump had to give Putin the OK to release
these?
Trump publically asked the Russians to find and leak Clinton e-mails.
Case Closed.
Post by John McAdams
I thought the theory was that Trump is in Putin's pocket, and vice
versa.
Pupppet?
Post by John McAdams
I don't think Putin really wanted Trump elected. Certainly, Hillary
We KNOW he did. Anybody but Hillary. She was too tough for him.
Post by John McAdams
was no threat. But he would have viewed Trump is volatile and
erratic, which is not the sort of person you want to deal with.
Exactly the person he needed to destroy the US from within, without
firing a shot.
Post by John McAdams
I think Putin simply wanted a weakened Hillary as president.
Silly cover-up is silly.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-16 14:15:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
A little off-topic and offered in humor, John, but you might want to be
careful about irking the Clintons.
Some of the top thought leaders among your fellow right-wing Republicans
(Gingrich and Hannity) were recently highlighting more "suspicions" about
the famed "Clinton Death Squads." In this case reappearing to allegedly
kill a young man. And like true deep-thinking conspiracy folks they
believe in killing the person AFTER he or she has done the damage (in this
case allegedly and with no actual evidence having given Clinton/DNC
documents to WikiLeaks).
Well . . . Ace, you might want to be careful about irking the Bushes,
since a lot of your fellow left-wing Democrats believe George Bush
arranged the 9/11 attacks.
If he would do that, offing one guy on an Internet newsgroup would be
child's play.
Not to speak of your fellow left-wing Democrats who think the CIA
killed Kennedy.
Nah, we don't believe Bush arranged the 9/11 attacks. That's just the
nuts. The difference is a large number of non-nut Republicans believe
nutty conspiracy theorists (birthers, Vince Foster, etc.) It's flipped
since the 60s/70s.
Back then your right-wing big buddies had only one big conspiracy theory,
the Communist conspiracy, and while too many of them went overboard with
that -- anyone or anything they opposed was part of that conspiracy
including well-known Commie dupes like Eisenhower, fluoridation, school
prayer -- it's worth remembering that there WERE Communist spies and
pinkos who did turn over stuff to their Kremlin masters for ideological
reasons and not just cash.
Glad you recognize that.
Post by Ace Kefford
Now they have too many conspiracy theories to keep track of. Just think
of the republican spins on Benghazi. The GOP has become the party of
irrational party discipline purely pursuing power.
Ace, you can't get away with trying to pull that on me.
It's a standard tactic of partisans to portray their opponents as
crazies.
But you can't get around the fact that the 9/11 Truther movement is
mostly Bush-hating leftists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories
<Quote on>
Rasmussen Reports published the results of their poll May 4, 2007.
According to their press release, "Overall, 22% of all voters believe
the President knew about the attacks in advance. A slightly larger
number, 29%, believe the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. White
Americans are less likely than others to believe that either the
President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. Young
Americans are more likely than their elders to believe the President
or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance.", "Thirty-five percent
(35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and
26% are not sure." and "Republicans reject that view and, by a 7-to-1
margin, say the President did not know in advance about the attacks.
Among those not affiliated with either major party, 18% believe the
President knew and 57% take the opposite view."[18]
In September 2009, a National Obama Approval Poll, by Public Policy
Polling, found that 27 percent of respondents who identified
themselves as Liberals, and 10 percent as Conservatives, responded
"yes" to the question, "Do you think President Bush intentionally
allowed the 9/11 attacks to take place because he wanted the United
States to go to war in the Middle East?"[21]
<end quote>
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/04/democrats-and-republicans-differ-on-conspiracy-theory-beliefs.html
<quote>
44% of voters believe the Bush administration intentionally misled the
public about weapons of mass destruction to promote the Iraq War,
while 45% disagree. 72% of Democrats believed the statement while 73%
of Republicans did not. 22% of Democrats, 33% of Republicans and 28%
of independents believe Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11
terrorist attacks.
<end quote>
Then there is the fact that it's the *liberals* who now believe the
Russians have engaged in an evil conspiracy to undermine American
democracy. And indeed, that anybody who ever *talked* to a Russian is
suspect.
And as you know perfectly well, JFK assassination conspiracists
overwhelmingly blame people the left doesn't like: the CIA, the FBI,
Cuban Exiles, Texas Oil Millionaires.
So you can't get away with playing the "people on the other side are
crazies" game with me.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
On the Trump-Russia connection who knows what is there but why do all of
the Trump people involved initially lie about their contacts or forget to
mention things?
Many of us know. The silly thing is to cover up when telling the truth
would be much easier.
Post by Ace Kefford
The three basic theories of what the Russians have over Trump are (1)
prior finacing/money laundering, (2) the "pee pee" tapes, and (3) at least
tacit go ahead for the Russians to release through Wikileaks.
Tell us more about #2.

Anthony Marsh
2017-06-14 13:38:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Glenn V.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Glenn V.
Post by David Von Pein
It's just that I don't expect a prominent "LNer" to say something like
"I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her, since she was a
mush-minded liberal." -- J. McAdams
It seems to me John is not too sympathetic to liberals, period.
Mush-minded or not, in- or outside of the JFK assassination.
Actually, I like Ruth Paine a lot better than the current crop of
liberals, who don't believe in free speech.
Google "Citizens United."
Or who try to shout down campus speakers they don't like.
I'm a liberal, John. I publicly supported your right to speak out. and
subsequently defending yourself, at your University. With one particular
exception, naming the person in question.
We could argue about that later. But thanks for your (mostly)
support.
Post by Glenn V.
Post by John McAdams
Or who would punish "hate speech."
Ruth Paine was just a well-meaning lady who thought learning Russian
was a strike for World Peace. Muddle-headed, but well meaning.
Muddle-headed, perhaps. But you are underestimating the value of learning
other languages. To me, Mrs Paine was ahead of her time, muddle-headed or
not. Let me ask you John, if your grandchildren tells you they are about
to learn how to speak Mandarin Chinese - would you then consider them
Muddle-headed? Or forward looking professionals to be?
I would *not* think their studying Mandarin had anything to do with
World Peace.
There are plenty of other good reasons for studying a language.
Occupational (wanting to work for a multinational corporation, or be
in the Foreign Service) or even personal (liking the literature of a
country).
Does the fact that you (and I gether) a lot of Swedes learn English
mean that Sweden is less likely to go to war against the U.S.? Or is
it that English is probably the most valuable second language to have?
Post by Glenn V.
Unfortunately, I think the underestimation of learning other languages is
an American problem, more than anything else. As you are used to others
learning how to speak English. Think again, the world is changing, and for
whatever reason people decides to learn other languages, it's a good
thing, it will bring people and cultures together. And sometimes it may
even be a requirement, more so now then ever in the world of
professionals, no matter what field they happen to be working within. It's
not, John, a muddle-headed thing from well-intentioned liberals.
You are arguing that learning languages is good. I've never said
otherwise.
My kids studied in Argentina and Spain (one daughter) and Chile (my
son) so they could learn Spanish.
But that had nothing to do with World Peace.
Post by Glenn V.
Post by John McAdams
What about leftists in Sweden (liberal means something different in
Europe)?
As you surely know, the meaning is a bit different in Europe, yes.
Post by John McAdams
Do they protect free speech? Or do they censor and punish speech
that's deemed politically incorrect?
We defend free speech, period. But certainly this does not mean that
anyone can say anything, which I'm sure you understand.
Then how is it possible to end up in jail for being a Holocaust
denier?
Or for saying unkind things about homosexuality?
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
A little off-topic and offered in humor, John, but you might want to be
careful about irking the Clintons.
Some of the top thought leaders among your fellow right-wing Republicans
(Gingrich and Hannity) were recently highlighting more "suspicions" about
the famed "Clinton Death Squads." In this case reappearing to allegedly
kill a young man. And like true deep-thinking conspiracy folks they
believe in killing the person AFTER he or she has done the damage (in this
case allegedly and with no actual evidence having given Clinton/DNC
documents to WikiLeaks).
Well . . . Ace, you might want to be careful about irking the Bushes,
since a lot of your fellow left-wing Democrats believe George Bush
arranged the 9/11 attacks.
If he would do that, offing one guy on an Internet newsgroup would be
child's play.
Not to speak of your fellow left-wing Democrats who think the CIA
killed Kennedy.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Nah, we don't believe Bush arranged the 9/11 attacks. That's just the
nuts. The difference is a large number of non-nut Republicans believe
nutty conspiracy theorists (birthers, Vince Foster, etc.) It's flipped
since the 60s/70s.
I like how ANY controversy can be used by any side to make up a
conspiracy theory about the other side. I bet the aliens have a
conspiracy theory about the Earthlings!
Post by Ace Kefford
Back then your right-wing big buddies had only one big conspiracy theory,
the Communist conspiracy, and while too many of them went overboard with
that -- anyone or anything they opposed was part of that conspiracy
including well-known Commie dupes like Eisenhower, fluoridation, school
prayer -- it's worth remembering that there WERE Communist spies and
pinkos who did turn over stuff to their Kremlin masters for ideological
reasons and not just cash.
It's worth remembering that there were rightwing nuts having their own
versions of those evil things like trying to make a poison to kill only
blacks, or righting nuts spying FOR the Russians.
Post by Ace Kefford
Now they have too many conspiracy theories to keep track of. Just think
of the republican spins on Benghazi. The GOP has become the party of
irrational party discipline purely pursuing power.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-07 16:11:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by Glenn V.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Glenn V.
Post by David Von Pein
It's just that I don't expect a prominent "LNer" to say something like
"I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her, since she was a
mush-minded liberal." -- J. McAdams
It seems to me John is not too sympathetic to liberals, period.
Mush-minded or not, in- or outside of the JFK assassination.
Actually, I like Ruth Paine a lot better than the current crop of
liberals, who don't believe in free speech.
Google "Citizens United."
Or who try to shout down campus speakers they don't like.
I'm a liberal, John. I publicly supported your right to speak out. and
subsequently defending yourself, at your University. With one particular
exception, naming the person in question.
We could argue about that later. But thanks for your (mostly)
support.
Post by Glenn V.
Post by John McAdams
Or who would punish "hate speech."
Ruth Paine was just a well-meaning lady who thought learning Russian
was a strike for World Peace. Muddle-headed, but well meaning.
Muddle-headed, perhaps. But you are underestimating the value of learning
other languages. To me, Mrs Paine was ahead of her time, muddle-headed or
not. Let me ask you John, if your grandchildren tells you they are about
to learn how to speak Mandarin Chinese - would you then consider them
Muddle-headed? Or forward looking professionals to be?
I would *not* think their studying Mandarin had anything to do with
World Peace.
There are plenty of other good reasons for studying a language.
Occupational (wanting to work for a multinational corporation, or be
in the Foreign Service) or even personal (liking the literature of a
country).
Does the fact that you (and I gether) a lot of Swedes learn English
mean that Sweden is less likely to go to war against the U.S.? Or is
it that English is probably the most valuable second language to have?
Is there ever any logic to youe comments or do you just Tweet whatever
comes into your head?

You think that only people who refuse to learn English would ever go to
war with the US? So that rules out the English in 1776 and 1812? Why do
you want to start a war with Sweden? Just because Trump criticized them
for being humanitarian about immigrants?

During the time frame referenced by Trump, nothing bad happened in Sweden.
???Sweden? Terror attack? What has he been smoking? Questions abound,???
tweeted Carl Bildt, a former Swedish prime minister. It turned out Trump
had been watching a Fox News segment that featured an interview with a
documentary filmmaker who produced a film that links rape and violence in
Sweden to an increase in refugees from Muslim countries. That???s what he
was referencing.

Did you watch that same show?
Post by John McAdams
Post by Glenn V.
Unfortunately, I think the underestimation of learning other languages is
an American problem, more than anything else. As you are used to others
learning how to speak English. Think again, the world is changing, and for
whatever reason people decides to learn other languages, it's a good
thing, it will bring people and cultures together. And sometimes it may
even be a requirement, more so now then ever in the world of
professionals, no matter what field they happen to be working within. It's
not, John, a muddle-headed thing from well-intentioned liberals.
You are arguing that learning languages is good. I've never said
otherwise.
Well, maybe you aren't old enough to remember, but a long time ago
French used to be the universal language or at least the diplomatic
language. Now everyone must speak English. In some places they kick you
out if you don't.
Post by John McAdams
My kids studied in Argentina and Spain (one daughter) and Chile (my
son) so they could learn Spanish.
But that had nothing to do with World Peace.
You mean they weren't in the Peace Corps?
Oh that's right, you HATE for starting the Peace Corps. A bunch of
wimps, eh?
Post by John McAdams
Post by Glenn V.
Post by John McAdams
What about leftists in Sweden (liberal means something different in
Europe)?
As you surely know, the meaning is a bit different in Europe, yes.
Post by John McAdams
Do they protect free speech? Or do they censor and punish speech
that's deemed politically incorrect?
We defend free speech, period. But certainly this does not mean that
anyone can say anything, which I'm sure you understand.
Then how is it possible to end up in jail for being a Holocaust
denier?
Yes. Who? Where? Do you even realize tat different countries have
different laws? And you don't even respect the rights that our
constitution gives us.
Post by John McAdams
Or for saying unkind things about homosexuality?
Depends on where and how.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
2017-06-07 16:15:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 7 Jun 2017 12:11:49 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Glenn V.
Post by John McAdams
Ruth Paine was just a well-meaning lady who thought learning Russian
was a strike for World Peace. Muddle-headed, but well meaning.
Muddle-headed, perhaps. But you are underestimating the value of learning
other languages. To me, Mrs Paine was ahead of her time, muddle-headed or
not. Let me ask you John, if your grandchildren tells you they are about
to learn how to speak Mandarin Chinese - would you then consider them
Muddle-headed? Or forward looking professionals to be?
I would *not* think their studying Mandarin had anything to do with
World Peace.
There are plenty of other good reasons for studying a language.
Occupational (wanting to work for a multinational corporation, or be
in the Foreign Service) or even personal (liking the literature of a
country).
Does the fact that you (and I gether) a lot of Swedes learn English
mean that Sweden is less likely to go to war against the U.S.? Or is
it that English is probably the most valuable second language to have?
Is there ever any logic to youe comments or do you just Tweet whatever
comes into your head?
You think that only people who refuse to learn English would ever go to
war with the US? So that rules out the English in 1776 and 1812?
That was *my* point, Tony.

You don't even read what you are bitching about when you reply.


.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Jason Burke
2017-06-08 02:51:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
On 7 Jun 2017 12:11:49 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Glenn V.
Post by John McAdams
Ruth Paine was just a well-meaning lady who thought learning Russian
was a strike for World Peace. Muddle-headed, but well meaning.
Muddle-headed, perhaps. But you are underestimating the value of learning
other languages. To me, Mrs Paine was ahead of her time, muddle-headed or
not. Let me ask you John, if your grandchildren tells you they are about
to learn how to speak Mandarin Chinese - would you then consider them
Muddle-headed? Or forward looking professionals to be?
I would *not* think their studying Mandarin had anything to do with
World Peace.
There are plenty of other good reasons for studying a language.
Occupational (wanting to work for a multinational corporation, or be
in the Foreign Service) or even personal (liking the literature of a
country).
Does the fact that you (and I gether) a lot of Swedes learn English
mean that Sweden is less likely to go to war against the U.S.? Or is
it that English is probably the most valuable second language to have?
Is there ever any logic to youe comments or do you just Tweet whatever
comes into your head?
You think that only people who refuse to learn English would ever go to
war with the US? So that rules out the English in 1776 and 1812?
That was *my* point, Tony.
You don't even read what you are bitching about when you reply.
Dang. You *just* noticed this?
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
OHLeeRedux
2017-06-08 02:52:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
On 7 Jun 2017 12:11:49 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Glenn V.
Post by John McAdams
Ruth Paine was just a well-meaning lady who thought learning Russian
was a strike for World Peace. Muddle-headed, but well meaning.
Muddle-headed, perhaps. But you are underestimating the value of learning
other languages. To me, Mrs Paine was ahead of her time, muddle-headed or
not. Let me ask you John, if your grandchildren tells you they are about
to learn how to speak Mandarin Chinese - would you then consider them
Muddle-headed? Or forward looking professionals to be?
I would *not* think their studying Mandarin had anything to do with
World Peace.
There are plenty of other good reasons for studying a language.
Occupational (wanting to work for a multinational corporation, or be
in the Foreign Service) or even personal (liking the literature of a
country).
Does the fact that you (and I gether) a lot of Swedes learn English
mean that Sweden is less likely to go to war against the U.S.? Or is
it that English is probably the most valuable second language to have?
Is there ever any logic to youe comments or do you just Tweet whatever
comes into your head?
You think that only people who refuse to learn English would ever go to
war with the US? So that rules out the English in 1776 and 1812?
That was *my* point, Tony.
You don't even read what you are bitching about when you reply.
That's the way Anthony rolls.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-08 14:34:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
On 7 Jun 2017 12:11:49 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Glenn V.
Post by John McAdams
Ruth Paine was just a well-meaning lady who thought learning Russian
was a strike for World Peace. Muddle-headed, but well meaning.
Muddle-headed, perhaps. But you are underestimating the value of learning
other languages. To me, Mrs Paine was ahead of her time, muddle-headed or
not. Let me ask you John, if your grandchildren tells you they are about
to learn how to speak Mandarin Chinese - would you then consider them
Muddle-headed? Or forward looking professionals to be?
I would *not* think their studying Mandarin had anything to do with
World Peace.
There are plenty of other good reasons for studying a language.
Occupational (wanting to work for a multinational corporation, or be
in the Foreign Service) or even personal (liking the literature of a
country).
Does the fact that you (and I gether) a lot of Swedes learn English
mean that Sweden is less likely to go to war against the U.S.? Or is
it that English is probably the most valuable second language to have?
Is there ever any logic to youe comments or do you just Tweet whatever
comes into your head?
You think that only people who refuse to learn English would ever go to
war with the US? So that rules out the English in 1776 and 1812?
That was *my* point, Tony.
You don't even read what you are bitching about when you reply.
Your remarks were Xenophobic and Trumpian.
I was pointing out the illogic of your premise that people who speak
English are less likely to go to war with the US.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
2017-06-08 14:35:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8 Jun 2017 10:34:10 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 7 Jun 2017 12:11:49 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Glenn V.
Post by John McAdams
Ruth Paine was just a well-meaning lady who thought learning Russian
was a strike for World Peace. Muddle-headed, but well meaning.
Muddle-headed, perhaps. But you are underestimating the value of learning
other languages. To me, Mrs Paine was ahead of her time, muddle-headed or
not. Let me ask you John, if your grandchildren tells you they are about
to learn how to speak Mandarin Chinese - would you then consider them
Muddle-headed? Or forward looking professionals to be?
I would *not* think their studying Mandarin had anything to do with
World Peace.
There are plenty of other good reasons for studying a language.
Occupational (wanting to work for a multinational corporation, or be
in the Foreign Service) or even personal (liking the literature of a
country).
Does the fact that you (and I gether) a lot of Swedes learn English
mean that Sweden is less likely to go to war against the U.S.? Or is
it that English is probably the most valuable second language to have?
Is there ever any logic to youe comments or do you just Tweet whatever
comes into your head?
You think that only people who refuse to learn English would ever go to
war with the US? So that rules out the English in 1776 and 1812?
That was *my* point, Tony.
You don't even read what you are bitching about when you reply.
Your remarks were Xenophobic and Trumpian.
I was pointing out the illogic of your premise that people who speak
English are less likely to go to war with the US.
But that wasn't my premise, which you would have known had you
actually *read* the exchange.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Glenn V.
2017-06-15 00:45:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
I would *not* think their studying Mandarin had anything to do with
World Peace.
There are plenty of other good reasons for studying a language.
Occupational (wanting to work for a multinational corporation, or be
in the Foreign Service) or even personal (liking the literature of a
country).
Does the fact that you (and I gether) a lot of Swedes learn English
mean that Sweden is less likely to go to war against the U.S.? Or is
it that English is probably the most valuable second language to have?
Post by Glenn V.
Unfortunately, I think the underestimation of learning other languages is
an American problem, more than anything else. As you are used to others
learning how to speak English. Think again, the world is changing, and for
whatever reason people decides to learn other languages, it's a good
thing, it will bring people and cultures together. And sometimes it may
even be a requirement, more so now then ever in the world of
professionals, no matter what field they happen to be working within. It's
not, John, a muddle-headed thing from well-intentioned liberals.
You are arguing that learning languages is good. I've never said
otherwise.
My kids studied in Argentina and Spain (one daughter) and Chile (my
son) so they could learn Spanish.
But that had nothing to do with World Peace.
Post by Glenn V.
Post by John McAdams
What about leftists in Sweden (liberal means something different in
Europe)?
As you surely know, the meaning is a bit different in Europe, yes.
Post by John McAdams
Do they protect free speech? Or do they censor and punish speech
that's deemed politically incorrect?
We defend free speech, period. But certainly this does not mean that
anyone can say anything, which I'm sure you understand.
Then how is it possible to end up in jail for being a Holocaust
denier?
You will have to ask those countries where this applies, Germany, Austria,
for example. The nazi's and their ruining of Europe may have something to
do with it. Sweden, along with UK among others in the EU, have blocked any
attempts to streamline EU laws along these lines.
Post by John McAdams
Or for saying unkind things about homosexuality?
Interesting example, John. Had I been an American citizen I would've been
far more concerned with the Fifteenth Amendment and current voter
suppression in the US. Than the rights to trash talk gays. A matter of
opinion, perhaps.
John McAdams
2017-06-15 01:29:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Glenn V.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Glenn V.
Post by John McAdams
Do they protect free speech? Or do they censor and punish speech
that's deemed politically incorrect?
We defend free speech, period. But certainly this does not mean that
anyone can say anything, which I'm sure you understand.
Then how is it possible to end up in jail for being a Holocaust
denier?
You will have to ask those countries where this applies, Germany, Austria,
for example. The nazi's and their ruining of Europe may have something to
do with it. Sweden, along with UK among others in the EU, have blocked any
attempts to streamline EU laws along these lines.
Post by John McAdams
Or for saying unkind things about homosexuality?
Interesting example, John. Had I been an American citizen I would've been
far more concerned with the Fifteenth Amendment and current voter
suppression in the US. Than the rights to trash talk gays. A matter of
opinion, perhaps.
If you think there has been "voter suppression," that means you have
been attentive to biased leftist media outlets.

But you seem to be admitting that saying things that offend certain
politically correct victim groups can be punished in Sweden.

Is "trash talk" directed at Christians protected in Sweden? (Spoiler:
it's is.)

What about an Imam who discusses and endorses Islamic teaching about
homosexuality?

And yes, I know that this is embarrassing, since it pits gay political
correctness against Muslim political correctness.

In the non-politically correct USA all these kinds of speech would be
allowed. Except on university campuses, where the fascists rule.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-16 01:02:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by Glenn V.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Glenn V.
Post by John McAdams
Do they protect free speech? Or do they censor and punish speech
that's deemed politically incorrect?
We defend free speech, period. But certainly this does not mean that
anyone can say anything, which I'm sure you understand.
Then how is it possible to end up in jail for being a Holocaust
denier?
You will have to ask those countries where this applies, Germany, Austria,
for example. The nazi's and their ruining of Europe may have something to
OMG. He just said the word NAZI. Ban him.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Glenn V.
do with it. Sweden, along with UK among others in the EU, have blocked any
attempts to streamline EU laws along these lines.
Post by John McAdams
Or for saying unkind things about homosexuality?
Interesting example, John. Had I been an American citizen I would've been
far more concerned with the Fifteenth Amendment and current voter
suppression in the US. Than the rights to trash talk gays. A matter of
opinion, perhaps.
If you think there has been "voter suppression," that means you have
been attentive to biased leftist media outlets.
But you seem to be admitting that saying things that offend certain
politically correct victim groups can be punished in Sweden.
it's is.)
What about an Imam who discusses and endorses Islamic teaching about
homosexuality?
Sure, which one? What about a Rabbi who discusses homosexuality?
What about a rightwing nut professor who discusses homosexuality?
Post by John McAdams
And yes, I know that this is embarrassing, since it pits gay political
correctness against Muslim political correctness.
YFI Muslims don't have Political Correctness.
Post by John McAdams
In the non-politically correct USA all these kinds of speech would be
allowed. Except on university campuses, where the fascists rule.
Are you allowed to say Fascists, but I'm not?
That's not Politically Correct.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-07 16:43:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Glenn V.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Glenn V.
Post by David Von Pein
It's just that I don't expect a prominent "LNer" to say something like
"I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her, since she was a
mush-minded liberal." -- J. McAdams
It seems to me John is not too sympathetic to liberals, period.
Mush-minded or not, in- or outside of the JFK assassination.
Actually, I like Ruth Paine a lot better than the current crop of
liberals, who don't believe in free speech.
Google "Citizens United."
Or who try to shout down campus speakers they don't like.
I'm a liberal, John. I publicly supported your right to speak out. and
subsequently defending yourself, at your University. With one particular
exception, naming the person in question.
Yea, please don't name her. No one here is smart enough to find her name
with Google. Are you going to attend the trial?
Post by Glenn V.
Post by John McAdams
Or who would punish "hate speech."
Ruth Paine was just a well-meaning lady who thought learning Russian
was a strike for World Peace. Muddle-headed, but well meaning.
Muddle-headed, perhaps. But you are underestimating the value of learning
McAdams thinks that being a Liberal is a mental disease.
What's that old saying?
Anyone who isn't a Liberal when he's young has no heart.
Anyone who isn't a conservative when he's old has no brain.
Post by Glenn V.
other languages. To me, Mrs Paine was ahead of her time, muddle-headed or
not. Let me ask you John, if your grandchildren tells you they are about
to learn how to speak Mandarin Chinese - would you then consider them
Muddle-headed? Or forward looking professionals to be?
Unfortunately, I think the underestimation of learning other languages is
an American problem, more than anything else. As you are used to others
Not just American, but particularly conservatives. Like Trump's America
First. Can we retroactively blame Trump for all the Xenophobia of the
past centuries?
Post by Glenn V.
learning how to speak English. Think again, the world is changing, and for
whatever reason people decides to learn other languages, it's a good
thing, it will bring people and cultures together. And sometimes it may
even be a requirement, more so now then ever in the world of
professionals, no matter what field they happen to be working within. It's
not, John, a muddle-headed thing from well-intentioned liberals.
Post by John McAdams
What about leftists in Sweden (liberal means something different in
Europe)?
As you surely know, the meaning is a bit different in Europe, yes.
Post by John McAdams
Do they protect free speech? Or do they censor and punish speech
that's deemed politically incorrect?
We defend free speech, period. But certainly this does not mean that
anyone can say anything, which I'm sure you understand.
Well, the old standby is usually that you can't shout fire in a crowded
theater. McAdams would not allow someone to complain about the lack of
exits. #The Station
Post by Glenn V.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
OHLeeRedux
2017-06-08 02:54:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Glenn V.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Glenn V.
Post by David Von Pein
It's just that I don't expect a prominent "LNer" to say something like
"I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her, since she was a
mush-minded liberal." -- J. McAdams
It seems to me John is not too sympathetic to liberals, period.
Mush-minded or not, in- or outside of the JFK assassination.
Actually, I like Ruth Paine a lot better than the current crop of
liberals, who don't believe in free speech.
Google "Citizens United."
Or who try to shout down campus speakers they don't like.
I'm a liberal, John. I publicly supported your right to speak out. and
subsequently defending yourself, at your University. With one particular
exception, naming the person in question.
Yea, please don't name her. No one here is smart enough to find her name
with Google. Are you going to attend the trial?
Post by Glenn V.
Post by John McAdams
Or who would punish "hate speech."
Ruth Paine was just a well-meaning lady who thought learning Russian
was a strike for World Peace. Muddle-headed, but well meaning.
Muddle-headed, perhaps. But you are underestimating the value of learning
McAdams thinks that being a Liberal is a mental disease.
What's that old saying?
Anyone who isn't a Liberal when he's young has no heart.
Anyone who isn't a conservative when he's old has no brain.
That last one explains you perfectly. Thank you, Anthony!
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-09 02:37:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Glenn V.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Glenn V.
Post by David Von Pein
It's just that I don't expect a prominent "LNer" to say something like
"I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her, since she was a
mush-minded liberal." -- J. McAdams
It seems to me John is not too sympathetic to liberals, period.
Mush-minded or not, in- or outside of the JFK assassination.
Actually, I like Ruth Paine a lot better than the current crop of
liberals, who don't believe in free speech.
Google "Citizens United."
Or who try to shout down campus speakers they don't like.
I'm a liberal, John. I publicly supported your right to speak out. and
subsequently defending yourself, at your University. With one particular
exception, naming the person in question.
Yea, please don't name her. No one here is smart enough to find her name
with Google. Are you going to attend the trial?
Post by Glenn V.
Post by John McAdams
Or who would punish "hate speech."
Ruth Paine was just a well-meaning lady who thought learning Russian
was a strike for World Peace. Muddle-headed, but well meaning.
Muddle-headed, perhaps. But you are underestimating the value of learning
McAdams thinks that being a Liberal is a mental disease.
What's that old saying?
Anyone who isn't a Liberal when he's young has no heart.
Anyone who isn't a conservative when he's old has no brain.
That last one explains you perfectly. Thank you, Anthony!
You confirm what you are.
OHLeeRedux
2017-06-09 20:15:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Glenn V.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Glenn V.
Post by David Von Pein
It's just that I don't expect a prominent "LNer" to say something like
"I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her, since she was a
mush-minded liberal." -- J. McAdams
It seems to me John is not too sympathetic to liberals, period.
Mush-minded or not, in- or outside of the JFK assassination.
Actually, I like Ruth Paine a lot better than the current crop of
liberals, who don't believe in free speech.
Google "Citizens United."
Or who try to shout down campus speakers they don't like.
I'm a liberal, John. I publicly supported your right to speak out. and
subsequently defending yourself, at your University. With one particular
exception, naming the person in question.
Yea, please don't name her. No one here is smart enough to find her name
with Google. Are you going to attend the trial?
Post by Glenn V.
Post by John McAdams
Or who would punish "hate speech."
Ruth Paine was just a well-meaning lady who thought learning Russian
was a strike for World Peace. Muddle-headed, but well meaning.
Muddle-headed, perhaps. But you are underestimating the value of learning
McAdams thinks that being a Liberal is a mental disease.
What's that old saying?
Anyone who isn't a Liberal when he's young has no heart.
Anyone who isn't a conservative when he's old has no brain.
That last one explains you perfectly. Thank you, Anthony!
You confirm what you are.
Another of your "brilliant" non sequiturs. It must be tough not being able
to communicate intelligibly with others.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-21 22:32:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by David Von Pein
I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her [Ruth Paine], since she
was a mush-minded liberal. She thought learning Russian was a step toward
world peace. As though Americans not knowing Russian was the cause of the
Cold War. Then, later in the 60s, she seemed to move left, like other
fifties liberals.
Why does everything always seem to have to come down to "Right vs. Left"
with you, .John? It's ridiculous, IMO.
First of all, Steve brought up "right vs. left," mentioning the
liberal politics of the Paines.
Second, "right vs. left" is all over this case. Most conspiracists
are leftists who want to blame people the left doesn't like. But
right wingers, not surprisingly, blame communists.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/context4.htm
Post by David Von Pein
And when did Ruth Paine ever even *HINT* at the idea that "Americans not
knowing Russian was the cause of the Cold War"?
I'll answer that last question myself --- Never!
I said "as though."
Let me make you an analogy. I might say "Conspiracy people think *as
though* scores or hundreds of people would lie, fake evidence and
remain silent to cover up a conspiracy."
You might reply: "When did conspiracy people say that?"
They didn't, but they reasoned "as though" that was true.
Post by David Von Pein
I can't believe you said such a ludicrous thing, John.
You need to check out Mallon, p. 24.
<Quote on>
Ruth had been studying Russian since 1957--at Berlitz, on photograph
records, in summer classes at Penn and Middlebury. Her interest in
the language itself was only increased by participation in the Young
Friends organization, specifically its East-West Contacts Committee,
which sponsored the American travels of three young Soviets--a
journalist, a factory worker, and an economics student--in 1958....
She had more direct involvement with the Young Friends' pen-pal
program, a good-will exchange set up with the Committee of Youth
Organizations. . . .
<end quote>
In a different era, this might suggest communist sympathies, but in
the 50s and early 60s, mainstream liberalism was staunchly
anti-communist. JFK being the prime example.
I blamed her for "mush-minded liberalism," but credited her with being
sincere and well-intentioned. I don't dislike her. In fact I like
those 50s liberals way better than the current politically correct
types.
The notion that learning other's languages is a strategy for "peace"
is not dead.
https://www.google.com/#q=learning+each+others+languages+peace
I seem to have punched one of your buttons. Perhaps you view her as a
victim. I do too, but I think she has been mature and self-confident
enough that buff vilification hasn't terribly harmed her.
It is true t
So, do you really think that Quakers are mushy Liberals? Is that why you
voted for Kennedy instead of Nixon, because you thought Nixon was a
mushy Liberal?

hat when she went down to Central America with some
Post by John McAdams
leftists who wanted to help install Marxist regimes, they were
paranoid about her, thinking she was a CIA spook.
She should have avoided such people.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
BOZ
2017-05-22 03:40:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by David Von Pein
I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her [Ruth Paine], since she
was a mush-minded liberal. She thought learning Russian was a step toward
world peace. As though Americans not knowing Russian was the cause of the
Cold War. Then, later in the 60s, she seemed to move left, like other
fifties liberals.
Why does everything always seem to have to come down to "Right vs. Left"
with you, .John? It's ridiculous, IMO.
First of all, Steve brought up "right vs. left," mentioning the
liberal politics of the Paines.
Second, "right vs. left" is all over this case. Most conspiracists
are leftists who want to blame people the left doesn't like. But
right wingers, not surprisingly, blame communists.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/context4.htm
Post by David Von Pein
And when did Ruth Paine ever even *HINT* at the idea that "Americans not
knowing Russian was the cause of the Cold War"?
I'll answer that last question myself --- Never!
I said "as though."
Let me make you an analogy. I might say "Conspiracy people think *as
though* scores or hundreds of people would lie, fake evidence and
remain silent to cover up a conspiracy."
You might reply: "When did conspiracy people say that?"
They didn't, but they reasoned "as though" that was true.
Post by David Von Pein
I can't believe you said such a ludicrous thing, John.
You need to check out Mallon, p. 24.
<Quote on>
Ruth had been studying Russian since 1957--at Berlitz, on photograph
records, in summer classes at Penn and Middlebury. Her interest in
the language itself was only increased by participation in the Young
Friends organization, specifically its East-West Contacts Committee,
which sponsored the American travels of three young Soviets--a
journalist, a factory worker, and an economics student--in 1958....
She had more direct involvement with the Young Friends' pen-pal
program, a good-will exchange set up with the Committee of Youth
Organizations. . . .
<end quote>
In a different era, this might suggest communist sympathies, but in
the 50s and early 60s, mainstream liberalism was staunchly
anti-communist. JFK being the prime example.
I blamed her for "mush-minded liberalism," but credited her with being
sincere and well-intentioned. I don't dislike her. In fact I like
those 50s liberals way better than the current politically correct
types.
The notion that learning other's languages is a strategy for "peace"
is not dead.
https://www.google.com/#q=learning+each+others+languages+peace
I seem to have punched one of your buttons. Perhaps you view her as a
victim. I do too, but I think she has been mature and self-confident
enough that buff vilification hasn't terribly harmed her.
It is true that when she went down to Central America with some
leftists who wanted to help install Marxist regimes, they were
paranoid about her, thinking she was a CIA spook.
She should have avoided such people.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
You used the word SPOOK, You are in trouble again.
Chosen Ten
2017-05-21 03:07:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Von Pein
I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her [Ruth Paine], since she
was a mush-minded liberal. She thought learning Russian was a step toward
world peace. As though Americans not knowing Russian was the cause of the
Cold War. Then, later in the 60s, she seemed to move left, like other
fifties liberals.
Why does everything always seem to have to come down to "Right vs. Left"
with you, .John? It's ridiculous, IMO.
Well said Mr. Von Pein. I applaud you for voicing this.
Post by David Von Pein
And when did Ruth Paine ever even *HINT* at the idea that "Americans not
knowing Russian was the cause of the Cold War"?
I'll answer that last question myself --- Never!
I can't believe you said such a ludicrous thing, John.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-21 22:59:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Von Pein
I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her [Ruth Paine], since she
was a mush-minded liberal. She thought learning Russian was a step toward
world peace. As though Americans not knowing Russian was the cause of the
Cold War. Then, later in the 60s, she seemed to move left, like other
fifties liberals.
Why does everything always seem to have to come down to "Right vs. Left"
with you, .John? It's ridiculous, IMO.
And when did Ruth Paine ever even *HINT* at the idea that "Americans not
knowing Russian was the cause of the Cold War"?
I'll answer that last question myself --- Never!
I can't believe you said such a ludicrous thing, John.
You don't get out much, do you?
Ace Kefford
2017-05-23 01:24:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Von Pein
I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her [Ruth Paine], since she
was a mush-minded liberal. She thought learning Russian was a step toward
world peace. As though Americans not knowing Russian was the cause of the
Cold War. Then, later in the 60s, she seemed to move left, like other
fifties liberals.
Why does everything always seem to have to come down to "Right vs. Left"
with you, .John? It's ridiculous, IMO.
And when did Ruth Paine ever even *HINT* at the idea that "Americans not
knowing Russian was the cause of the Cold War"?
I'll answer that last question myself --- Never!
I can't believe you said such a ludicrous thing, John.
David,

I had the same reaction, but you put it better and clearer. The idea that
one should not be sympathetic to another person because of where their
politics fall on a left-right scale is pretty narrow-minded, especially
when you are talking about a person who became part of a situation as a
result of an unhappy coincidence of history.

I do of course have exceptions. When a bully like Rush Limbaugh has to
admit his illegal drug addiction I don't have much sympathy, with his
hypocrisy only adding to it. As I said at the time, "He should be treated
with the same open-minded and fair respect and sympathy he extends to
those he considers his opponents and enemies." Likewise, Bill "Falafel"
O'Reilly. Personally I generally also have an exception if someone is a
hateful or violent extremist. I know those are vague categories which can
be expanded or contracted depending on the person applying them, but I
don't see how being a mush-minded liberal means scorn for Ruth Paine.
John McAdams
2017-05-23 01:34:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by David Von Pein
I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her [Ruth Paine], since she
was a mush-minded liberal. She thought learning Russian was a step toward
world peace. As though Americans not knowing Russian was the cause of the
Cold War. Then, later in the 60s, she seemed to move left, like other
fifties liberals.
Why does everything always seem to have to come down to "Right vs. Left"
with you, .John? It's ridiculous, IMO.
And when did Ruth Paine ever even *HINT* at the idea that "Americans not
knowing Russian was the cause of the Cold War"?
I'll answer that last question myself --- Never!
I can't believe you said such a ludicrous thing, John.
David,
I had the same reaction, but you put it better and clearer. The idea that
one should not be sympathetic to another person because of where their
politics fall on a left-right scale is pretty narrow-minded, especially
when you are talking about a person who became part of a situation as a
result of an unhappy coincidence of history.
But I didn't say I disliked Ruth Paine. I said I *could* say I
dislike her as a mush-minded 50s liberal.
Post by BOZ
I do of course have exceptions. When a bully like Rush Limbaugh has to
admit his illegal drug addiction I don't have much sympathy, with his
hypocrisy only adding to it. As I said at the time, "He should be treated
with the same open-minded and fair respect and sympathy he extends to
those he considers his opponents and enemies."
Do you even understand that Limbaugh was in the same category as (say)
Brett Favre, and *John Kennedy?*

There is a difference between being a recreational drug user, and
somebody who needs pain medication, but then becomes hooked.
Post by BOZ
Likewise, Bill "Falafel"
O'Reilly.
How about Bill Clinton, who is right up there was O'Reilly as a sexual
harasser?

And even rapist (remember, it was NBC that exposed and found credible
the Juanita Broaddrick business).
Post by BOZ
Personally I generally also have an exception if someone is a
hateful or violent extremist.
Like the "antifa" crowd?
Post by BOZ
I know those are vague categories which can
be expanded or contracted depending on the person applying them, but I
don't see how being a mush-minded liberal means scorn for Ruth Paine.
I think you have undermined your argument by making too many
Post by BOZ
one should not be sympathetic to another person because of where their
politics fall on a left-right scale is pretty narrow-minded.
You have listed people you judge "because of whether their politics
fall on a left-right scale."

And remember: I don't dislike Ruth Paine. I simply pointed out she
was rather a mush-mined 50s liberal.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-23 19:35:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by BOZ
Post by David Von Pein
I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her [Ruth Paine], since she
was a mush-minded liberal. She thought learning Russian was a step toward
world peace. As though Americans not knowing Russian was the cause of the
Cold War. Then, later in the 60s, she seemed to move left, like other
fifties liberals.
Why does everything always seem to have to come down to "Right vs. Left"
with you, .John? It's ridiculous, IMO.
And when did Ruth Paine ever even *HINT* at the idea that "Americans not
knowing Russian was the cause of the Cold War"?
I'll answer that last question myself --- Never!
I can't believe you said such a ludicrous thing, John.
David,
I had the same reaction, but you put it better and clearer. The idea that
one should not be sympathetic to another person because of where their
politics fall on a left-right scale is pretty narrow-minded, especially
when you are talking about a person who became part of a situation as a
result of an unhappy coincidence of history.
But I didn't say I disliked Ruth Paine. I said I *could* say I
dislike her as a mush-minded 50s liberal.
Post by BOZ
I do of course have exceptions. When a bully like Rush Limbaugh has to
admit his illegal drug addiction I don't have much sympathy, with his
hypocrisy only adding to it. As I said at the time, "He should be treated
with the same open-minded and fair respect and sympathy he extends to
those he considers his opponents and enemies."
Do you even understand that Limbaugh was in the same category as (say)
Brett Favre, and *John Kennedy?*
Not sure what you are trying to do. Are you trying to slander a dead man,
JFK by pointing out that he was taking drugs legally? Silly. Why don't you
point out the ILLEGAL drugs that he was taking with Mary Cord Meyer?
Wouldn't that be more of a scandal? I once heard that you once too an
aspirin.
Post by John McAdams
There is a difference between being a recreational drug user, and
somebody who needs pain medication, but then becomes hooked.
Post by BOZ
Likewise, Bill "Falafel"
O'Reilly.
Yes, Falafels should be illegal when they cause that kind of an addiction.
Post by John McAdams
How about Bill Clinton, who is right up there was O'Reilly as a sexual
harasser?
Wow, you just figured out that most husbands cheat on their wives?
Did you know that JFK had mistresses and whores?
Are you shocked like Claude Raines in Casablanca?
Post by John McAdams
And even rapist (remember, it was NBC that exposed and found credible
the Juanita Broaddrick business).
Rape? Whom are you trying to libel today? JFK? Clinton? Trump? All
Liberals?
Post by John McAdams
Post by BOZ
Personally I generally also have an exception if someone is a
hateful or violent extremist.
Like the "antifa" crowd?
Like the Alt-REICH NATION.
Post by John McAdams
Post by BOZ
I know those are vague categories which can
be expanded or contracted depending on the person applying them, but I
don't see how being a mush-minded liberal means scorn for Ruth Paine.
I think you have undermined your argument by making too many
Post by BOZ
one should not be sympathetic to another person because of where their
politics fall on a left-right scale is pretty narrow-minded.
You have listed people you judge "because of whether their politics
fall on a left-right scale."
And remember: I don't dislike Ruth Paine. I simply pointed out she
was rather a mush-mined 50s liberal.
But wasn't your point that ALL Liberals are mush-minded and should be
hated? If the homicidal maniac is a Republican, that's OK with you.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Ace Kefford
2017-05-25 05:45:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by BOZ
Post by David Von Pein
I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her [Ruth Paine], since she
was a mush-minded liberal. She thought learning Russian was a step toward
world peace. As though Americans not knowing Russian was the cause of the
Cold War. Then, later in the 60s, she seemed to move left, like other
fifties liberals.
Why does everything always seem to have to come down to "Right vs. Left"
with you, .John? It's ridiculous, IMO.
And when did Ruth Paine ever even *HINT* at the idea that "Americans not
knowing Russian was the cause of the Cold War"?
I'll answer that last question myself --- Never!
I can't believe you said such a ludicrous thing, John.
David,
I had the same reaction, but you put it better and clearer. The idea that
one should not be sympathetic to another person because of where their
politics fall on a left-right scale is pretty narrow-minded, especially
when you are talking about a person who became part of a situation as a
result of an unhappy coincidence of history.
But I didn't say I disliked Ruth Paine. I said I *could* say I
dislike her as a mush-minded 50s liberal.
Post by BOZ
I do of course have exceptions. When a bully like Rush Limbaugh has to
admit his illegal drug addiction I don't have much sympathy, with his
hypocrisy only adding to it. As I said at the time, "He should be treated
with the same open-minded and fair respect and sympathy he extends to
those he considers his opponents and enemies."
Do you even understand that Limbaugh was in the same category as (say)
Brett Favre, and *John Kennedy?*
There is a difference between being a recreational drug user, and
somebody who needs pain medication, but then becomes hooked.
Post by BOZ
Likewise, Bill "Falafel"
O'Reilly.
How about Bill Clinton, who is right up there was O'Reilly as a sexual
harasser?
And even rapist (remember, it was NBC that exposed and found credible
the Juanita Broaddrick business).
Post by BOZ
Personally I generally also have an exception if someone is a
hateful or violent extremist.
Like the "antifa" crowd?
Post by BOZ
I know those are vague categories which can
be expanded or contracted depending on the person applying them, but I
don't see how being a mush-minded liberal means scorn for Ruth Paine.
I think you have undermined your argument by making too many
Post by BOZ
one should not be sympathetic to another person because of where their
politics fall on a left-right scale is pretty narrow-minded.
You have listed people you judge "because of whether their politics
fall on a left-right scale."
And remember: I don't dislike Ruth Paine. I simply pointed out she
was rather a mush-mined 50s liberal.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Actually, what you wrote was "I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic
to her [Ruth Paine], since she was a mush-minded liberal." Try defending
that instead of your incorrect characterization of what you wrote.

Nice try bringing Bill Clinton into it, which has nothing to do with what
we were writing about. With that weak misdirection, I would think you
never advanced far as an amateur magician.

I did not undermine my "argument" by making too many exceptions. Unlike
your extremist pals like illegal drug buyer and user Rush, I felt it was
important to NOT be too extreme in my statements, but rather more honest
as to how most people actually approach the world and how the world works.
It's not all black-and-white and led by simple rules.

As for your big mouthed buddy, you are right that there is a difference
between Rush and your average drug user. He had the resources and the
power to get treatment. He didn't until he was caught. Plus he was a
hypocrite on drug use. Asstonishing that anyone would even try to defend
him.
deke
2017-05-30 23:28:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Regarding Ruth Payne, I believe the left-liberal-Quaker thing was just a
cover which she seemed to use quite effectively. Many "missionaries" have
been known to be CIA assets. Her knowledge of Russian was used not to
promote world peace but to connect with people like Marina Oswald. She
seems to have been a low level intelligence asset involved in handling the
Oswalds and given information on a need to know basis only and therefore
had no prior knowledge of or direct involvement in the assassination. I
think she was genuinely shocked at how thing played out and has been in
denial of her unwitting role in setting up Oswald to this day.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-31 14:44:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by deke
Regarding Ruth Payne, I believe the left-liberal-Quaker thing was just a
cover which she seemed to use quite effectively. Many "missionaries" have
been known to be CIA assets. Her knowledge of Russian was used not to
Is this a new theory? Have you written a book or an article about this?
Did the CIA recruit agents when they were children by making them join
the Quakers? So all their relatives were Catholic and all of a sudden at
age 5 she becomes a Quaker to join the CIA?
Post by deke
promote world peace but to connect with people like Marina Oswald. She
seems to have been a low level intelligence asset involved in handling the
Oswalds and given information on a need to know basis only and therefore
had no prior knowledge of or direct involvement in the assassination. I
think she was genuinely shocked at how thing played out and has been in
denial of her unwitting role in setting up Oswald to this day.
Maybe her "job" was to spy on Oswald.
Does the CIA use Quakers a lot? Is there a special cadre of Quakers in
the CIA?

I have a kook friend who claims that ALL Indonesians who were brought
here to Hawaii, including Obama's parents, were recruited by the CIA, so
Barak was handpicked as a child to work for the CIA.

Some of the kooks in the local JFK group said that I was recruited by
the CIA as a child because my father had worked with the CIA.
It's called paranoia.
Jason Burke
2017-06-01 01:34:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by deke
Regarding Ruth Payne, I believe the left-liberal-Quaker thing was just a
cover which she seemed to use quite effectively. Many "missionaries" have
been known to be CIA assets. Her knowledge of Russian was used not to
Is this a new theory? Have you written a book or an article about this?
Did the CIA recruit agents when they were children by making them join
the Quakers? So all their relatives were Catholic and all of a sudden at
age 5 she becomes a Quaker to join the CIA?
Makes just as much sense as anything else the CT crowd has ever offered.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by deke
promote world peace but to connect with people like Marina Oswald. She
seems to have been a low level intelligence asset involved in handling the
Oswalds and given information on a need to know basis only and therefore
had no prior knowledge of or direct involvement in the assassination. I
think she was genuinely shocked at how thing played out and has been in
denial of her unwitting role in setting up Oswald to this day.
Maybe her "job" was to spy on Oswald.
Does the CIA use Quakers a lot? Is there a special cadre of Quakers in
the CIA?
I have a kook friend who claims that ALL Indonesians who were brought
here to Hawaii, including Obama's parents, were recruited by the CIA, so
Barak was handpicked as a child to work for the CIA.
Some of the kooks in the local JFK group said that I was recruited by
the CIA as a child because my father had worked with the CIA.
It's called paranoia.
Ace Kefford
2017-06-02 00:55:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by deke
Regarding Ruth Payne, I believe the left-liberal-Quaker thing was just a
cover which she seemed to use quite effectively. Many "missionaries" have
been known to be CIA assets. Her knowledge of Russian was used not to
Is this a new theory? Have you written a book or an article about this?
Did the CIA recruit agents when they were children by making them join
the Quakers? So all their relatives were Catholic and all of a sudden at
age 5 she becomes a Quaker to join the CIA?
Post by deke
promote world peace but to connect with people like Marina Oswald. She
seems to have been a low level intelligence asset involved in handling the
Oswalds and given information on a need to know basis only and therefore
had no prior knowledge of or direct involvement in the assassination. I
think she was genuinely shocked at how thing played out and has been in
denial of her unwitting role in setting up Oswald to this day.
Maybe her "job" was to spy on Oswald.
Does the CIA use Quakers a lot? Is there a special cadre of Quakers in
the CIA?
I have a kook friend who claims that ALL Indonesians who were brought
here to Hawaii, including Obama's parents, were recruited by the CIA, so
Barak was handpicked as a child to work for the CIA.
Some of the kooks in the local JFK group said that I was recruited by
the CIA as a child because my father had worked with the CIA.
It's called paranoia.
Well, the Quakers might be good at keeping silent as that old child's
rhyme goes "if you show your teeth or tongue you'll have to pay a
forfeit."
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-20 17:54:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by John McAdams
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/7003986-181/smith-finding-strange-bedfellows-among
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
"That afternoon [i.e., the day of the assassination], when the police went
about their roughshod business [going through the house, taking the
Paine's belongings, believing she was a communist, et cetera], Ruth had
begun to realize that 'they had no clue...what kind of people we were.'"
"No clue...what kind of people we were."
Indeed, Mrs. Paine.
Of all of the absurdities that the conspiracy crowd believes in the idea
that Ruth Paine was some sort of CIA asset hunting down pro-Castro people
in Ft. Worth, Texas (!!!) has to be at the top of the long, long list.
Quaker housewife with small children, liberal/progressive politics, Fort
Worth, Texas.
Right.
I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her, since she was a
mush-minded liberal. She thought learning Russian was a step toward
world peace. As though Americans not knowing Russian was the cause of
the Cold War.
Exactly. Thanks for admitting the truth finally.
You hate all Liberals because you think they are traitors to your
rightwing cause. That even includes President John F. Kennedy.
Post by John McAdams
Then, later in the 60s, she seemed to move left, like other fifties
liberals.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/paine_letter.htm
But I can't be too hard on her. She was scrupulously
well-intentioned.
But as Clare Boothe Luce said: "No good deed goes unpunished."
Clare Boothe Luce was a Nazi.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
2017-05-20 17:56:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 20 May 2017 13:54:07 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by John McAdams
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/7003986-181/smith-finding-strange-bedfellows-among
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
"That afternoon [i.e., the day of the assassination], when the police went
about their roughshod business [going through the house, taking the
Paine's belongings, believing she was a communist, et cetera], Ruth had
begun to realize that 'they had no clue...what kind of people we were.'"
"No clue...what kind of people we were."
Indeed, Mrs. Paine.
Of all of the absurdities that the conspiracy crowd believes in the idea
that Ruth Paine was some sort of CIA asset hunting down pro-Castro people
in Ft. Worth, Texas (!!!) has to be at the top of the long, long list.
Quaker housewife with small children, liberal/progressive politics, Fort
Worth, Texas.
Right.
I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her, since she was a
mush-minded liberal. She thought learning Russian was a step toward
world peace. As though Americans not knowing Russian was the cause of
the Cold War.
Exactly. Thanks for admitting the truth finally.
You hate all Liberals because you think they are traitors to your
rightwing cause. That even includes President John F. Kennedy.
You are as irresponsible as always, Tony, always attributing to people
things they did not say, and don't even believe.

But things that fit into your warped worldview.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Then, later in the 60s, she seemed to move left, like other fifties
liberals.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/paine_letter.htm
But I can't be too hard on her. She was scrupulously
well-intentioned.
But as Clare Boothe Luce said: "No good deed goes unpunished."
Clare Boothe Luce was a Nazi.
Warped.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Mark OBLAZNEY
2017-05-19 17:39:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/7003986-181/smith-finding-strange-bedfellows-among
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
That poor lady. They do it to Frazier and Moorman-Krahmer as well.

Oh, and they're doing it to you at Duncan's place, John. But I'm
defending you, even though I'm just a NEWBE.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-20 17:51:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark OBLAZNEY
Post by John McAdams
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/7003986-181/smith-finding-strange-bedfellows-among
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
That poor lady. They do it to Frazier and Moorman-Krahmer as well.
Oh, and they're doing it to you at Duncan's place, John. But I'm
defending you, even though I'm just a NEWBE.
You can't say Newbe. Just say Minion.
Hey, I defended .John's life.
Loading...