" A monolithic and ruthless conspiracy"

page: 9
7
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 7 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


How am I suppose to know if it was televised or not? I was born 20 years after he was killed. However, his speech was recorded by a camera and there is little to no recording of that speech made public.




posted on May, 7 2013 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by OnTheLevel213
 





Please explain why, if JFK was speaking on behalf of freedom of the press, he explicitly extols "the need for far greater official secrecy".


" I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight."

Does this suggest working together?

" This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy."

Its is a comparison BETWEEN, FIRST "a far greater public information" and SECOND, the need for far greater official security"


So, he opens his speech with " The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society;..."

"For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed."

Ho can the public be well informed when all major News Corporations say the exact same thing in todays NEWS MARKET."

This speech will be debated and cut and pasted to prove it is about Secret Societies, and it is Not.

Im sure like Kennedy, In the business sector and POLITICAL sector it is who you know and not WHAT you know.

Once Kennedy, like myself, found out WHAT really goes on behind the scenes of the SECRET SOCIETIES and their NWO Agenda, he opposed this and tried to get out, which is why they killed him and his son, who would of surely made the step into office with the right people backing him.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatzshaken
as will agustus who said there is no video of the speech, so that discredits his opinion about the speech not being about freedom of the press vs National Security.


The speech was not televised, hence is was not possible for anyone to 'watch it live' as was claimed.


Kennedy never mentions, communism and Russia...



Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath to the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war..


In the opening monolouge Kennedy clearly mentions Marx as the seed of Leninism, Stalinism and the cold war, What politcal ideology did Marx espouse and Russia adopt via revolution?


...don't be lazy, you could of fact checked yourself...


Follow your own advice, Kennedy made it clear that communism was the danger faced by the United States.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatzshaken
How am I suppose to know if it was televised or not? I was born 20 years after he was killed. However, his speech was recorded by a camera and there is little to no recording of that speech made public.


Recorded does not equal broadcast. Kennedy's televised speeches and addresses are fully catolouged in multiple places. This is not one of them.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


I will agree with you on that recorded does not equal broadcast.

I only caught the last page of you two disputing, I did not realize he said it was televised. my bad.

"Follow your own advice, Kennedy made it clear that communism was the danger faced by the United States. "

Communism was this great vast monolithic conspiracy?
I hear the Holiday Inn has a great bar menu you should take your comedy act on the road.

like I said this will be disputed over and over, you have your opinion I have mine. You can not sway me, I will not sway you, yet, I stress yet, because the NWO/Zionist/ agenda that use the Illuminati/Freemason, Entertainment Industry/Media/ Politics/Science/ is on the verge of become Main Stream Media and once that happens once the people know the truth of this great deception, I wont ask for an apology, or say I told you so, a simple Thank you will suffice.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatzshaken
I only caught the last page of you two disputing, I did not realize he said it was televised.


Not only did he say it was televised, but that he watched live.


Communism was this great vast monolithic conspiracy?


To Kennedy it was:


its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.


Who was the United States engaged in the Cold War with? The Soviets.


You can not sway me, I will not sway you, yet, I stress yet, because the NWO/Zionist/ agenda that use the Illuminati/Freemason...


I would ask you to outline how this occurs but I highly doubt we will get a rational and plausible explanation.



edit on 7-5-2013 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer because a ruthless and monolithic conspiracy drank it all



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by SimonPeter
 

He was not warning anyone about Freemasons or any other fraternal groups. You have further proven that age doesn't equate wisdom or knowledge. His words are there and show that he was talking about the freedom of the press and the need to protect national security secrets.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatzshaken
Knights of Columbus, Freemason, Shriners, etc, all do good for their community, it is the ELITE, that have infiltrated these organizations and pull said strings.


I do not think you have adequately addressed the point that Kennedy himself was a member of a secret society.

How much more 'elite' does it get than the President of the United States? Why did he not demit prior to or after giving this speech if it truly was about secret societies? How can you rationalize that without making Kennedy a giant hypocrite?



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by KSigMason
 


Are you for real ? You must be looking at another speech . Youtube has this Kennedys secret Society speech on it . He says SECRET OATHS , SECRET PROCEEDINGS , SECRET SOCIETIES.
To say he did not say that is a down right lie .



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


Are all Masons ignorant of the NWO conspiracy that was devised by Mayer Amschel Rothschild who was an Ashkenazi Jew as was the founder of Communism in Russia . The Rothschilds were responsible for the funding of the Bolshevik Revolution that toppled Tsar Nikolas who opposed their plan and set up Communism .
I know now that Kruschev knew what he was talking about when he said he would crush America with out firing a shot . The Protocols of Zion is doing just that .



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimonPeter
Are all Masons ignorant of the NWO conspiracy that was devised by Mayer Amschel Rothschild who was an Ashkenazi Jew as was the founder of Communism in Russia . The Rothschilds were responsible for the funding of the Bolshevik Revolution that toppled Tsar Nikolas who opposed their plan and set up Communism .
I know now that Kruschev knew what he was talking about when he said he would crush America with out firing a shot . The Protocols of Zion is doing just that .


I am not interested with your rabid Jew-hating, only that you have no idea what Kennedy was talking about and you lied to make your point by claiming to watch a speech that was never televised.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by SimonPeter
 

Nope. I'm looking at the speech he gave on April 27, 1961, called The President and the Press.


He says SECRET OATHS , SECRET PROCEEDINGS , SECRET SOCIETIES.

I didn't say that he didn't say these words, but it appears to me that you are being incredibly myopic.

If you take these words in conjunction with the rest of his speech, you'd see that he was talking about a government that is too secretive and won't release information to the media. You have to look at the current events as well as understand the political environment at that time.

reply to post by SimonPeter
 

Yes, yes, we understand you need someone to blame...the rest of us don't need a scapegoat to cope with our lives. We understand there's nothing those dastardly Joos and Rothschilds aren't doing.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatzshaken
Does this suggest working together?


Yes, it does. What's your point?


Its is a comparison BETWEEN, FIRST "a far greater public information" and SECOND, the need for far greater official security"


It's "secrecy", not "security". If this whole thread is going to play semantics, I'm going to demand you be honest with it.


So, he opens his speech with " The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society;..."


No, he opened his speech with a comment about its title, and then spoke for a paragraph about his intended point. You can't call the third paragraph the "opening" just because it's convenient to your argument.


Ho can the public be well informed when all major News Corporations say the exact same thing in todays NEWS MARKET."


Take that up with Kennedy. He very clearly gives a vote of complete confidence to the established press.


This speech will be debated and cut and pasted to prove it is about Secret Societies, and it is Not.


I'm here because that argument's being made. If you don't agree, I'm not sure what the conflict is.


Im sure like Kennedy, In the business sector and POLITICAL sector it is who you know and not WHAT you know.


A little from Column A, a little from Column B. I'd say for politics, the phrase is better stated, "It's not what you're working for, it's who you're working with."


Once Kennedy, like myself, found out WHAT really goes on behind the scenes of the SECRET SOCIETIES and their NWO Agenda


I thought you said it had nothing to do with "secret societies". (For your own sake, continue saying that. It's right.)


he opposed this and tried to get out


Get out of what? He made no effort to exit politics, and the KofC don't have any records of a request for resignation.


which is why they killed him and his son, who would of surely made the step into office with the right people backing him.


JFK Jr. died in 1999, and with no apparent plans to run for public office. I think it's a stretch to include him.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


Little man you don't know everything . You can't look up every network transmission that has occured 50 years ago. I have no reason to lie about it . I could care less about your Freemasons or impressing you . You can go and play in your little club of alcoholics if you want , I don't care ! What is the point in climbing the ranks to the 33rd degree ? Who's rear did you have to kiss to get to each level and what does your family get from it ? You get to dress up in your funny skirts and act like real men huh?



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by KSigMason
 


First of all Eisenhower , you know the outgoing president made a speech about the Military Industrialist who was trying to no doubt escalate the Vietnam war . In this speech that I saw on TV he warned about them trying to influence our policy . He was very sure to avoid calling names but these war material suppliers including Howard Hughes stood to make billions if the war expanded . Those same people did not quit when Kennedy got in . I am sure that Kennedy was talking about everything they were trying to influence but mostly the Vietnam war . The Bay of Pigs was a blunder by the CIA but was over . But the next coming conflict in Vietnam was not Kennedy's idea . He inherited both the Cuban invasion and Vietnam from Eisenhower . I also heard that Howard Hughes trained men for 6 weeks in the Everglades to assassinate Kennedy because Hughes Helicopter was in production for that war and now Kennedy was stalling it down and other arms dealers like Charter Arms was about to lose out too.
So the pressure to expand the US involvement was very great , especially with powerful people threatening to form a coup .



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by SimonPeter
 

Fact remains, he wasn't talking about the Freemasons or any other fraternal order in his speech.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by KSigMason
 


Yeah right ! I guess he didn't say secret societies , secret oaths , secret proceedings . The Masons are all about secrecy . The Death penalty for divulging secrets is just a stupid ritual .And the closed favoratism between the Masons is just in our imaginations . The real power of a union of any kind is to influence or overpower a situation .
He didn't like being pressured .



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by SimonPeter
 


Did you seriously just do that? Attacked a poster who called you out without first dealing with WHY you were called out? Wow. Are you just trying to demonstrate how to show no integrity to the youngsters?

You screwed up, you lied, and you won't admit it. And now instead of admit it, you want to deflect and attack? Pathetic.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatzshaken

And just for the record, everyone's opinion is valued but don't be lazy, you could of fact checked yourself and found out that the speech I posted, the Thread I started was about the same speech in question.
edit on 7-5-2013 by whatzshaken because: (no reason given)


I stand corrected, and I don't call it lazy, just pacing myself. But never the less, you are correct. I just wonder if You Tube was working in '61?



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by whatzshaken
 


How do you explain the wording in the first two parts of that speech? Why would he name the speech what he did if that wasn't the subject?





new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join