Trajan –
“Now I expect yet another dodge and a post with absolutely no substance except your own opinion and conjecture.”
Oh man, that is so pathetic...
Trying to use my own tactic against me? Creative! Good job. Did you really just do that? Haha, holy cow…
FDR may have wanted a war; I never ever once said that he did not. Never. I said that it is speculation at best that he did and that, “The rest of your post follows this foundation (of speculation), thus being opinion,
although it is logical, if you are operating an incorrect platform, you are following the incorrect path.” Non-threatening and accurate; just logical. A point? Yes, one of those things that you repeated I never made.
Just because I say it is speculation does not mean that FDR did not want to purposely set a course for war…I don’t think that he did, regardless, I feel that many historians (not all) have made a conclusion, opinion, or theory reached by conjecture, by making an inference on inconclusive evidence and you agree with these historians.
There may be documents, yet you provided none that make the case for FDR wanting war. I have not seen them and I have researched this a bit and others that I know have researched it, (those within the actual profession), and they state that they think the evidence is inconclusive. That people can only speculate about FDR’s true motive. I agree with them. I do not agree with you. All this means is that you could be right. Absolutely. But I stated it in such a manner that indicates that you could very well be incorrect as well. And this is accurate too. There is a possibility, no matter how remote, that you could be incorrect. This is reasonable doubt. You never talked with FDR personally and you have offered no evidence written, video, or audio to support your claim. This is what you have been fighting. Why? I have no idea. I doubt any person has an idea. This is all I have been saying. That you could be wrong, but you are fighting this, twisting points and creating tangents all over the place, and of this, I am not the only one who notices it. It is transparent. It is boring. It is ridiculous, and after this post, after conclusively addressing this first point, I am done. I was correct. This should all be unnecessary, but I guess I will have to spell it out to you. I am surprised at your lack of recognition skills, you must have had some crappy teachers. I remain correct.
POINT:
You used a conspiracy inadvertently as an analogy to discount Robodoon’s theory that you thought was conspiratorial rhetoric.
That said, Initially this whole ridiculous circus started when I pointed out the irony that you did not differentiate between your conspiracy theory and the one that Robodoon supplied. He stated this at the beginning…
“COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN B. Carroll Reece warned fellow congressmen of a "diabolical conspiracy," that a certain few foundations were financing the Socialist and Communist overthrow of the United States."
The Reece Committee learned that the Rockefeller Foundation and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, were, with tax-exempt dollars, funding leftist propaganda operations, aimed at changing America through the brain, not the battlefield. Patriotism, national sovereignty, individual responsibility, and Christian beliefs were belittled while the concepts of a one world government, socialism, collectivism and humanism were deemed essential for peace in the modern age.”
To this you responded…
“Yes FDR was a socialist as is evident in his New Deal policies, yes FDR wanted to enter the war that's why he placed the oil embargo on Japan, yes FDR believed that it was the corrupt institutions under which the people lived that were the problem and to combat this an international community through the U.N. must be established, however, this was never intended to erode American soveriegnty nor was it a conspiratorial plot to bring about Communism in the U.S..
Your theory of history is one sided and steeped in conspiratorial rhetoric.”
He supplied some aspects of “Historical Record” that may or may not be true and you have yet to counter with anything other than conjecture. Just your opinion...that is it, that is all.
I then made my first response that bugged out of you and you have not let go of it since, being unable to comprehend the above and the following chronology. What I said was…
“Trajan Octavian Titus –
‘FDR wanted to enter the war that's why he placed the oil embargo on Japan’
Trajan Octavian Titus - To Robodoon
‘Your theory of history is one sided and steeped in conspiratorial rhetoric’
Bodisatva –
‘Uh huh...there appears to be an issue of non-recognition here’”
This is where I point out the use of conspiracy…
I then explained to Robodoon that…
“I was pointing out the irony that Trajan did not differentiate between your conspiracy theory and the one that he supplied, thus showing either ignorance or hypocrisy. Either way it is all good, just humorous.”
Conspiracy:
con·spir·a·cy P Pronunciation Key (k n-spîr -s )
n. pl. con·spir·a·cies
1.
An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or
subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.
3. Law. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
4.
A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.
An agreement to perform together a subversive act…
Subversive act is defined as:
sub·ver·sive P Pronunciation Key (s b-vûr s v, -z v)
adj.
Intended or serving to subvert, especially
intended to overthrow or undermine an established government:
Intended to undermine an established government:
Undermine:
un·der·mine P Pronunciation Key ( n d r-m n )
tr.v. un·der·mined, un·der·min·ing, un·der·mines
1. To weaken by wearing away a base or foundation: Water has undermined the stone foundations.
2.
To weaken, injure, or impair, often by degrees or imperceptibly; sap: Late hours can undermine one's health.
3. To dig a mine or tunnel beneath.
FDR may well have conspired to set in motion these events, propelling Japan and America into war. THAT WAS NOT THE POINT. The point was that since FDR did not ever nor could he ever state publicly that he was taking actions to lead us directly into war…IT WAS A CONSPIRACY. By every definition of the word, it was a conspiracy. It may or may not have happened, that is not the point, the point is that if it did it was a conspiracy and if it did not, those that think it did think that it was a conspiracy itself or the act of hiding it was a conspiracy.
So when Robodoon asked about what I meant, he simply said…” We can't know everything”. But not you, you say, “It's not a conspiracy theory it's historical record”…and then you supply no proof. “FDR wanted in to the war to fight Fascism” and all the blah blah blah that went with it.
POINT:
You used a conspiracy inadvertently as an analogy to discount his theory that you thought was conspiratorial rhetoric.
That is it. That is all.
You did not think that the FDR/Japan thing was a conspiracy when it was.
I pointed it out.
I laid it all out so that any dipsh/t could follow it.
I was correct.
I am correct.
Acknowledge this simple little fact and move on.
I will check your response and if it is appropriate, we can move on…
No response?
No acknowledgement?
Nothing will change the fact that for this point, this issue…
I was correct.
