Create a free forum in seconds.
zIFBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Welcome to Loose Change Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Name:   Password:


Pages: (2) [1] 2  ( Go to first unread post )

 W. G. Tarpley 4 President, Dude knows his stuff
George Hayduke
Posted: Jul 31 2007, 02:01 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 759
Member No.: 4
Joined: 18-October 06



Top
discobee
Posted: Jul 31 2007, 11:22 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,515
Member No.: 3,492
Joined: 29-March 07



Yeah he may not get it right every time, but he explains his reasoning very well which is all you can do. He seems honest and came out with direct advice on starting these truth actions which are proving very effective. When they're talking about banning photography in New York, you just know its working.
Top
TyMe2RiSe
Posted: Jul 31 2007, 11:38 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Gone
Posts: 58
Member No.: 5,948
Joined: 26-July 07



Banning Photography in NY????
Top
discobee
Posted: Jul 31 2007, 11:53 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,515
Member No.: 3,492
Joined: 29-March 07



QUOTE (TyMe2RiSe @ Jul 31 2007, 11:38 PM)
Banning Photography in NY????

Effectively ...

The new rules, which were proposed by the Mayor’s Office of Film, Theater and Broadcasting, would require any group of two or more people who want to use a camera in a public place for more than 30 minutes to get a city permit and $1 million in liability insurance. The same requirements would apply to any group of five or more people who plan to use a tripod in a public location for more than 10 minutes, including the time it takes to set up the equipment. The permits would be free.

The rules apply to still photographers as well. There are no exceptions for amateurs.

The New York Civil Liberties Association has pledged to sue the city if these unconstitutional restrictions become law.


http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/...bergs-plan.html

The PDF's here ... http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/...permit_regs.pdf
Top
discobee
Posted: Jul 31 2007, 11:57 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,515
Member No.: 3,492
Joined: 29-March 07



Maybe I should have said, private photography, or anyone who can't afford million dollar insurance. MSM will be OK and so will the police.
And just when high quality video camera's became so cheap as well.
Top
Realist
Posted: Aug 1 2007, 12:39 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 582
Member No.: 814
Joined: 30-October 06



I appreciate Tarpley's research and knowledge, but I disagree with some of his ideas on what we need to do.

BTW, it's funny to see an Obama ad on the bottom of this page!
Top
Hierosis
Posted: Aug 1 2007, 06:30 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,495
Member No.: 2,153
Joined: 13-February 07



QUOTE (George Hayduke @ Jul 31 2007, 07:01 PM)
Tarpley is impressive. No?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6428

Not really. Try pointing out a mistake he made in his work and he acts like a writer for the Weekly Standard in his denial.
Top
storieskeepchanging
Posted: Aug 1 2007, 07:24 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 698
Member No.: 644
Joined: 25-October 06



I like Webster.
Top
King Solomon
Posted: Aug 2 2007, 02:46 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 398
Member No.: 3,299
Joined: 22-March 07



Personally I think he is a Jesuit operative.

Tarpley seems intelligent. l don't know what to think about his apparent attempts to justify Bush and blame Israel in his book 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in the USA. In his mock speech on what a real president would have said (he should have said what HE WOULD SAY). On page 308 during "The Presidents' speech" he invited congress "to consider what response may be required" clearly referring to the powers of Congress to declare war as authorized in Article 1 section 8 of the US Constitution. He seems as if he may turn the truth movement into or possibly has the potential to make us look like anti-shemites. Fetzer and Shayler are making us look like wackos and crack pots while Tarpley will make us look like Nazis. Germany and France warned us also. Was their warnings not enough either? Should Congress "consider what response may be requored" of those countries also?

I can smell his Catholicism throughout the pages in his book.

I know it is not Israel's job to protect us when we have a very powerful CIA and FBI that had plenty of prior knowledge of 9/11. Tarpley accuses Israel of not sharing intelligence of prior knowledge on page 327 of his book 9/11 Synthetic Terror in the Cameron Reports section. Then he seems to try indicate they deceitfully have warned us in advance that the attack was imminent on page 332 (the last sentence of the first paragraph that was continued from the previous page). Which is it? Did Israel warn us or did they not?

Israel warned us that is for certain. http://propagandamatrix.com/israeli_securi...or_attacks.html

Heck we were warned by numerous intelligence agencies about the attacks including members of our own intelligence agencies. It seems Tarpley's statement implies that Israel should have a foreign policy of protecting other countries which probably doesn't jive with most people on this forum who are more than likely adherents of a non intervention foreign policy.

I have some Catholic/Jesuit suspicions of Tarpley. Tarpley starts his book off with an alleged "false flag" terror plot that would indicate that the poor ole murderous Catholic Church was "wrongly accused". He did not mention the thousands of real Christians that have been tortured and killed for simply having the scriptures.

He never mentioned the true motive of the catholic Guy Fawke in the "Gun Powder Plot". Fawke was attempting to kill them because King James and the Parliament were in the process of having the Bible translated more accurately into English. The popes were never fond of the idea of the scriptures being translated into the language of the common people because they would soon discover that the church was an unscriptural hoax that it was. They still performed the mass in Latin until recent years for crying out loud. The Catholics did not translate the Bible into the language of the foreign lands they conquered until or unless the Bible was translated into that language already. They had to add and take from the Bible in order to poison the spiritual education so they could keep them under bondage to the church.

Here is a good documentary called The Forbidden Book on the Bible and the Pope's contempt for the Bible throughout history. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5...036332156&hl=en

Numerous great men were burned at the stake for daring to translate the Bible into the common language. The Jesuits have never been our friends both because they serve the Pope and want to destroy America so that we will be under the full yoke of the Pope.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2056809713202851835

Tarpley stated that he was a correspondent in Rome in 1978 on page 8. Hmmmmm?

Interesting isn't it? He quotes Jesuit Gerard and "Father" Gerard on page 69 of his book as resources he has used. Just a little reminder about calling people father in a religious context-

Matthew 23:9 (KJV)
9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.


Tarpley seemed to forget to mention the reign of terror committed by the Popes in what is known as the Dark Ages. This is what numerous teachers and professors refer to when they attempt to remind us that "Christians" also murdered people throughout history and persecuted people. They forget to clarify that it was Catholics and not Christians that did those acts.

Tarpley demonized Protestants in his book while conveniently forgetting the very bloody history of the terrorist Popes.

One more link for the old Roman Whore (Revelation 17)
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/anti1.htm

Brian Solomon John 6:68


PS- We had better watch out on who all we put faith in. Fetzer and Shayler have already shown themselves different than their first impressions. I don't even remember Tarpley making any pro gun statements in his book. He still seems a little mysterious to me.
Top
storieskeepchanging
Posted: Aug 2 2007, 04:04 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 698
Member No.: 644
Joined: 25-October 06



The guy who wrote this:

http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm

would "justify" Bush, Jr.?

Seems unlikely.


As to the rest, Catholics are not the only ones with a bloody past.

Look up John Calvin and Michael Servetus

Look up Oliver Cromwell.

Jim Jones.

And expressing a belief that Guy Fawkes was a patsy is hardly "demonizing Protestants." Not only that, but he uses the phrase "Catholic fanatics" THREE times on page 63. An interesting thing to leave out that seems incongruous with a "Jesuit Operative"--- whatever that is.

As to "Tarpley making us look like Nazis" comment, I just did a quick search of the internet and found a bunch of articles that accuse him (and Alex Jones for that matter) of being zionists and/or "minimizing the role of zionists" in various matters.

Further, I looked through his book and found thirty nine references to NAZIs. NONE of them show anything short of utter contempt for Nazis, national socialism, or anything resembling them. It's a big book, maybe I missed some.

The only thing I found was suspicion or criticism of the modern State of Israel's actions in some matters-- or being in the interests of the United States. That is indeed, present in the book.

But he also put this in, "Another who deserves my thanks is the late G. L. Bondarevsky, the distinguished Soviet orientalist and member of the Russian Academy of Sciences. A Russian Jew born in Odessa, Bondarevsky became the dean of Soviet and later Russian experts on the five republics of central Asia and beyond into the Middle East; he was the author of the definitive scholarly study on the pre-World War I Berlin to Baghdad railway." at Page 8.

And this description of what he calls a sick society can be found on page 327. "Under the Nazi regime, “the non-German world seems to a large extent seems to have been interpreted in terms of the postulate that the enemy world was homogeneous. This was less because of a working hypothesis about propaganda than ideological convictions of a delirious nature….” (Gabel 120) The Nazis portrayed a world of capitalists, Bolsheviks, and Jews who were all mythically united in their hatred for Germany." Tarpley compares this thinking to Bush's axis of evil speech, and other things.


So, in short, I find your analysis unconvincing.
Top
King Solomon
Posted: Aug 2 2007, 04:55 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 398
Member No.: 3,299
Joined: 22-March 07



QUOTE (storieskeepchanging @ Aug 2 2007, 04:04 AM)
Look up John Calvin and Michael Servetus

And expressing a belief that Guy Fawkes was a patsy is hardly "demonizing Protestants." Not only that, but he uses the phrase "Catholic fanatics" THREE times on page 63. An interesting thing to leave out that seems incongruous with a "Jesuit Operative"--- whatever that is.


So, in short, I find your analysis unconvincing.


I know about Calvin burning Servetus at the stake. Calvin and Luther were reformers. They were for "reforming" the Catholic Church while I am for leaving that puppy and not looking back. I am not a protestant in the strict sense since "protesant implies protest of the Catholic Church. Christians existed before the invention of the Catholic Church.

Real Christians existed way before the reformation and were called numerous names and titles throughout history such as: Ana-Baptists, Lollards, Menoites, Novations, Donatists, Bogomiles, Bulgarians and sometimes Paulicians. There is no debate here about whether Calvin didn't reform enough of Catholicism's Church-State leanings. Not to mention the heresy of the 5 point TULIP with only the P being scriptural.


Let me clarify my "justifying Bush" statement. I think he provided an explanation that minimized Bush's possible 9/11 connection. It was interesting and possibly true, I don't know. I didn't intended for my post to be "proof positive" that he is not a truther it was only to share some things I observed from reading 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in the USA.

He may be the real deal but I'm just saying that I am not putting all of my chips on him at this time. I have yet to read some of his other books which I plan on doing Lord willing.


My analysis was not intended to be dogmatic only to show my suspicions. I hope I am wrong but only future writings or actions of his could weaken or strengthen my suspicions.
Top
Therm8
  Posted: Aug 2 2007, 06:41 AM


Armchair Quarterback


Group: Gone
Posts: 212
Member No.: 1,187
Joined: 12-December 06



QUOTE (King Solomon @ Aug 2 2007, 07:46 AM)
He seems as if he may turn the truth movement into or possibly has the potential to make us look like anti-shemites.

anti-shemites? OH NO! :o

But seriously... If Ishrael were involved (and they have means, motive and opportunity) would that make us anti-semites or...? :blink:
Top
Hierosis
Posted: Aug 2 2007, 10:17 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,495
Member No.: 2,153
Joined: 13-February 07



QUOTE (King Solomon @ Aug 2 2007, 07:46 AM)
Personally I think he is a Jesuit operative. 

Um... no. But thank you for giving me a good laugh. I love it when pious individuals try to pion all wrong doign in the wrold on the Vatican.
Top
King Solomon
Posted: Aug 3 2007, 07:47 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 398
Member No.: 3,299
Joined: 22-March 07



QUOTE (Therm8 @ Aug 2 2007, 06:41 AM)
If Ishrael

Are you speeking tongue in cheek about my spelling of anti-shemitic instead of anti-semetic? If so sometimes I get tired of conforming to the news media vocabulary and get back to the language of the Bible. The Bible spells it Shem not Sem. Noah's sons were Shem, Ham and Japeth not Sem, Ham and Japeth.

Read Genesis 6-9 and see how his name is spelled. The Jews are descendants of Shem hence the term Shemetic. I think the media has changed it over the years so the biblical reference would be lost.
Top
dave3006
Posted: Aug 3 2007, 09:00 AM


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21
Member No.: 30
Joined: 18-October 06



I read Synthetic Terrorism. He makes some incredible claims.

One question, where does he get his information?

For example, in the section where "Angel is next", he states that the real people behind 9/11 gave Bush an ultimatum to go along or they would launch nukes. How does he know this?

I liked the book. But, where is the proof?
Top
Hierosis
Posted: Aug 3 2007, 09:13 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,495
Member No.: 2,153
Joined: 13-February 07



QUOTE (dave3006 @ Aug 3 2007, 02:00 PM)
I read Synthetic Terrorism. He makes some incredible claims.

One question, where does he get his information?

For example, in the section where "Angel is next", he states that the real people behind 9/11 gave Bush an ultimatum to go along or they would launch nukes. How does he know this?

I liked the book. But, where is the proof?

That's the problem. There is none. The ENTIRE section on "Angel is next" is based on pure speculation. And as I found when I asked him about it, it seems for Mr. Tarpley, pure speculation is an EXCELLENT source.
Top
George Hayduke
Posted: Aug 3 2007, 09:21 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 759
Member No.: 4
Joined: 18-October 06



His book, "George Bush, the Unauthorized Biography," is stellar. ;)
Top
dave3006
Posted: Aug 3 2007, 03:38 PM


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21
Member No.: 30
Joined: 18-October 06



He doesn't even claim he has an inside source?
Top
Therm8
Posted: Aug 3 2007, 08:07 PM


Armchair Quarterback


Group: Gone
Posts: 212
Member No.: 1,187
Joined: 12-December 06



QUOTE (King Solomon @ Aug 3 2007, 12:47 PM)
QUOTE (Therm8 @ Aug 2 2007, 06:41 AM)
If Ishrael were involved (and they have means, motive and opportunity) would that make us anti-semites or...? :blink:

Are you speeking tongue in cheek about my spelling of anti-shemitic instead of anti-semetic?

Partly, but partly also to skip over the 3ch3lon tag... ;)
Top
Hierosis
Posted: Aug 3 2007, 10:45 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,495
Member No.: 2,153
Joined: 13-February 07



QUOTE (dave3006 @ Aug 3 2007, 08:38 PM)
He doesn't even claim he has an inside source?

Negative. It's entirely his own narrative.
Top
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
« Next Oldest | The Lounge | Next Newest »
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you

Topic OptionsPages: (2) [1] 2 



Hosted for free by zIFBoards* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.0329 seconds · Archive