Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Debate: DiEugenio v McAdams
#3
"Debating" what, exactly?

When we "debate" anyone on the conspiracy/no conspiracy "controversy," we play into the killers' hands. We help to preserve them and protect them. We do their bidding.

With all due respect: Unless Jim DiEugenio in his opening statement declares that A) conspiracy in the death of JFK is established fact, B) anyone with reasonable access to the supporting evidence who does not so conclude is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime, and C) his intention is to expose McAdam as an accessory after the fact to first degree murder, this exercise will do enormous harm to the cause.

Again: All that McAdams's masters desire is to prolong the illusion of a level playing field for their lies and our truth.

This "debate" likely will aid and abet the killers of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
Charles Drago
Co-Founder, Deep Politics Forum

If an individual, through either his own volition or events over which he had no control, found himself taking up residence in a country undefined by flags or physical borders, he could be assured of one immediate and abiding consequence: He was on his own, and solitude and loneliness would probably be his companions unto the grave.
-- James Lee Burke, Rain Gods

You can't blame the innocent, they are always guiltless.  All you can do is control them or eliminate them.  Innocence is a kind of insanity.
-- Graham Greene
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Debate: DiEugenio v McAdams - by John Geraghty - 24-09-2009, 12:57 PM
Debate: DiEugenio v McAdams - by Magda Hassan - 24-09-2009, 01:11 PM
Debate: DiEugenio v McAdams - by Charles Drago - 24-09-2009, 04:07 PM
Debate: DiEugenio v McAdams - by Bernice Moore - 24-09-2009, 09:09 PM
Debate: DiEugenio v McAdams - by Peter Lemkin - 24-09-2009, 10:01 PM
Debate: DiEugenio v McAdams - by Bernice Moore - 24-09-2009, 10:16 PM
Debate: DiEugenio v McAdams - by Myra Bronstein - 25-09-2009, 05:55 AM
Debate: DiEugenio v McAdams - by Peter Lemkin - 25-09-2009, 07:29 AM
Debate: DiEugenio v McAdams - by Myra Bronstein - 25-09-2009, 07:48 AM
Debate: DiEugenio v McAdams - by Bernice Moore - 25-09-2009, 08:19 AM
Debate: DiEugenio v McAdams - by Bernice Moore - 25-09-2009, 08:19 AM
Debate: DiEugenio v McAdams - by Bernice Moore - 26-09-2009, 04:05 AM
Debate: DiEugenio v McAdams - by Bernice Moore - 26-09-2009, 04:11 AM
Debate: DiEugenio v McAdams - by Bernice Moore - 26-09-2009, 07:45 PM
Debate: DiEugenio v McAdams - by Bernice Moore - 26-09-2009, 10:39 PM
Debate: DiEugenio v McAdams - by Peter Lemkin - 27-09-2009, 06:33 AM
Debate: DiEugenio v McAdams - by Charles Drago - 27-09-2009, 01:45 PM
Debate: DiEugenio v McAdams - by Bernice Moore - 27-09-2009, 08:42 PM
Debate: DiEugenio v McAdams - by Bernice Moore - 27-09-2009, 08:49 PM
Debate: DiEugenio v McAdams - by Bernice Moore - 27-09-2009, 09:11 PM
Debate: DiEugenio v McAdams - by Bernice Moore - 27-09-2009, 09:40 PM
Debate: DiEugenio v McAdams - by Peter Lemkin - 28-09-2009, 06:34 AM
Debate: DiEugenio v McAdams - by Bernice Moore - 28-09-2009, 06:55 AM
Debate: DiEugenio v McAdams - by Bernice Moore - 28-09-2009, 07:04 AM
Debate: DiEugenio v McAdams - by Peter Lemkin - 28-09-2009, 07:20 AM
Debate: DiEugenio v McAdams - by John Kelin - 28-09-2009, 03:50 PM
Debate: DiEugenio v McAdams - by Peter Lemkin - 29-09-2009, 06:33 AM
Debate: DiEugenio v McAdams - by Gil Jesus - 30-09-2009, 02:50 PM
Debate: DiEugenio v McAdams - by Peter Lemkin - 30-09-2009, 06:21 PM
Debate: DiEugenio v McAdams - by Jack White - 30-09-2009, 07:45 PM
Debate: DiEugenio v McAdams - by Bernice Moore - 30-09-2009, 10:50 PM
Debate: DiEugenio v McAdams - by Bernice Moore - 30-09-2009, 10:59 PM
Debate: DiEugenio v McAdams - by Gil Jesus - 30-09-2009, 11:22 PM
Debate: DiEugenio v McAdams - by Bernice Moore - 30-09-2009, 11:25 PM
Debate: DiEugenio v McAdams - by Gil Jesus - 30-09-2009, 11:27 PM
Debate: DiEugenio v McAdams - by Charles Drago - 01-10-2009, 12:00 AM
Debate: DiEugenio v McAdams - by Bernice Moore - 01-10-2009, 12:05 AM
Debate: DiEugenio v McAdams - by Peter Lemkin - 26-09-2009, 07:34 AM

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Jim DiEugenio: Not to be Trusted Richard Gilbride 28 12,975 18-07-2025, 06:13 PM
Last Post: Brian Doyle
  DiEugenio And Stone Blow Victoria Adams Story Brian Doyle 1 1,465 05-05-2025, 05:14 PM
Last Post: Brian Doyle
  The Hypocritical Fraud Jim DiEugenio Brian Doyle 4 1,950 29-03-2025, 08:27 PM
Last Post: Brian Doyle
  DiEugenio On "The Loser's Club" Brian Doyle 0 1,387 30-12-2023, 07:06 PM
Last Post: Brian Doyle
  DiEugenio Reviews Kamp's Book But Doesn't Mention Prayer Man Brian Doyle 0 1,699 06-10-2023, 02:54 PM
Last Post: Brian Doyle
  Jim DiEugenio Betrays Deep Politics Forum Over Prayer Man Brian Doyle 4 2,967 05-10-2023, 05:11 PM
Last Post: Brian Doyle
  DiEugenio Gives Reference To ROKC Troll Farm And Kamp Brian Doyle 0 1,561 09-08-2023, 03:02 PM
Last Post: Brian Doyle
  DiEugenio Betrays Conspiracy Research Brian Doyle 1 2,014 07-07-2023, 04:32 PM
Last Post: Brian Doyle
  Jim DiEugenio Reviews The House of Kennedy Jim DiEugenio 0 3,561 26-04-2020, 06:50 PM
Last Post: Jim DiEugenio
  James DiEugenio, I have a single question, would you answer? Scott Kaiser 12 11,259 11-06-2019, 04:32 AM
Last Post: Scott Kaiser

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)