15-01-2011, 12:27 AM
Well, let's shine some more light in dark places, Charles.
My dictionary says a mastermind is "A highly intelligent person; especially, one who plans and directs a project." You do not say why you find this a preposterous role for LBJ in the crime of the century. Why preposterous or objectionable? You know it did not happen that way? How? On its face? The evidence you adduced to prove your position is...?
I explained why LBJ had the capability, history and intense motivation to be Macbeth in this regicide, granted, a few layers removed. LBJ was the Political Operator Supreme, was he not? For example, he made his big money by accepting bribes for "services rendered," fixing this, that and the other in service of big bucks, etc. Operator Supreme. Then we have ruthless, ambitious, bitter, humiliated, cornered, all that stuff. There is no doubt in my mind that LBJ had the motivation, intelligence and other attributes to "get the job done," assisted by many others at the hub and spoke. Yet this apparently is an impossibility to you. It certainly is "anathema" to you, yet WHY? Look at all the skullduggery LBJ committed throughout his life. What is your argument and evidence to back up your opinion that LBJ was a bit player pre-assassination, if that is a proper inference about your theory? I don't know and that's why I'm asking for it. Maybe you have some new facts to bring to our discussion.
False sponsor? You define that and maybe I'll have an answer.
And JFK's assassination was going to happen anyway? What? Instigated by what, the forces of history? By international bankers? Without participation by LBJ? Name who was standing in the wings and how that would work. History is made by acting individuals, not "forces." Crimes are committed by specific criminals for specific motives, not structure or some other abstraction. In any case, it's not clear why we need this "counterfactual." We can always use more facts that are relevant to improve understanding.
And what does "the power of the presidency was the sine qua non" mean? All I get from that is that gigantic means would not be applied to acquire it if the office were powerless and/or worthless. That is a given though, too obvious, so I'm not sure what you mean. I wonder how far you go? Do you deny that LBJ was and had to be in on it in advance?
I'm asking to find out how far to back up to find common ground. Pure negativity does not tell me what your theory and evidence are, all I see is that you gag at the thought of LBJ as mastermind, shout prevarication, etc. Speaking of disinfo, what lie(s) did Nelson tell?
My dictionary says a mastermind is "A highly intelligent person; especially, one who plans and directs a project." You do not say why you find this a preposterous role for LBJ in the crime of the century. Why preposterous or objectionable? You know it did not happen that way? How? On its face? The evidence you adduced to prove your position is...?
I explained why LBJ had the capability, history and intense motivation to be Macbeth in this regicide, granted, a few layers removed. LBJ was the Political Operator Supreme, was he not? For example, he made his big money by accepting bribes for "services rendered," fixing this, that and the other in service of big bucks, etc. Operator Supreme. Then we have ruthless, ambitious, bitter, humiliated, cornered, all that stuff. There is no doubt in my mind that LBJ had the motivation, intelligence and other attributes to "get the job done," assisted by many others at the hub and spoke. Yet this apparently is an impossibility to you. It certainly is "anathema" to you, yet WHY? Look at all the skullduggery LBJ committed throughout his life. What is your argument and evidence to back up your opinion that LBJ was a bit player pre-assassination, if that is a proper inference about your theory? I don't know and that's why I'm asking for it. Maybe you have some new facts to bring to our discussion.
False sponsor? You define that and maybe I'll have an answer.
And JFK's assassination was going to happen anyway? What? Instigated by what, the forces of history? By international bankers? Without participation by LBJ? Name who was standing in the wings and how that would work. History is made by acting individuals, not "forces." Crimes are committed by specific criminals for specific motives, not structure or some other abstraction. In any case, it's not clear why we need this "counterfactual." We can always use more facts that are relevant to improve understanding.
And what does "the power of the presidency was the sine qua non" mean? All I get from that is that gigantic means would not be applied to acquire it if the office were powerless and/or worthless. That is a given though, too obvious, so I'm not sure what you mean. I wonder how far you go? Do you deny that LBJ was and had to be in on it in advance?
I'm asking to find out how far to back up to find common ground. Pure negativity does not tell me what your theory and evidence are, all I see is that you gag at the thought of LBJ as mastermind, shout prevarication, etc. Speaking of disinfo, what lie(s) did Nelson tell?