• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Kenn Thomas says what?

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

> I would be interested in hearing how you can tie the 'deleterious effect' you see taking place in public discourse directly to Bush. Other than the fact that the man was president when you saw the SC Beauty Queen video, what do you base this on? I see no cause/effect relationship between the average citizen being rather dumb, and the president being rather dumb. When the masses are dumb, the odds are your leaders will be too, since they arise from the larger population.

Huh? Bush arose from an elite family and was not even elected by a popular vote in the first election. My point about the beauty queen was that she was 12 years old when Bush was appointed president, even younger as he was developing into a national presence. Maybe we can get Chomsky to verify this, but her syntax and stumbling phraseology had the imprimatur of Bushism, as if they had been imprinted on her young mind. It was not that she didn't know the answer, it was the way she bumbled through her response. A sign of the times, whether you get it or not.
 
Kenn Thomas said:
Huh? Bush arose from an elite family and was not even elected by a popular vote in the first election.
Click to expand...

We don't elect people based on popular vote in this country, we use the electoral college. The 'elitism' of his family doesn't seem to amount to much when it comes to brain power. As elite as his family may be, he's still a bozo.

My point about the beauty queen was that she was 12 years old when Bush was appointed president, even younger as he was developing into a national presence. Maybe we can get Chomsky to verify this, but her syntax and stumbling phraseology had the imprimatur of Bushism, as if they had been imprinted on her young mind.
Click to expand...

Say wha??? Man, you're really reaching. If this is the reasoning behind the statement I feel that I've done the matter justice in my previous posts.

It was not that she didn't know the answer, it was the way she bumbled through her response.
Click to expand...

That's one opinion. My opinion is she didn't know the answer, or really have the capacity to fathom the question. If she did have the answer she never shared it with us.

A sign of the times, whether you get it or not.
Click to expand...

I get that you're making an incredible, conspiratorial stretch by trying to link Bush with the ignorant mannerisms of the SC beauty queen, and further expanding this spurrious link to a larger point about the populace in general. I get it, I just don't buy it.

Your first twenty minutes were strong; you made sound, reasonable points . . . but the wheels came off the wagon those last twenty. I see no evidence of 'Bushism mania' catching on like wildfire, and spreading through the populace like Spanish flu. I just see the same 'dumb' I've always seen. It never occurred to me to blame it all on one figurehead. Will every person in the public eye who fumbles words be able to blame their ineptitude on Bush? I guess we'll see.
 
I’m sorry Mr. Thomas, but I think it is weak of you to use that “troofer” term seeing many of the topics that interest you. That pot is calling the kettle black IMO.

As for Chomsky being a “disinfo agent” or any of that I do not endorse that. I stand by my statement that he is a “Left Gatekeeper” to the 9/11 topic, but have zero evidence to promote or prove that idea. I guess it can be considered if people want to get into ideas with no data backing them up but I don’t think that is true. I think in his case he is being stubborn and has already made up his mind so he refuses to consider anything other then his conclusion.
 
Chomsky and Bill Moyer federal disinformation agents? And the New World Order is behind 9/11? Guys, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
 
Although I find Chomsky's dismissal of the 9/11 conspiracy to be annoying, I don't believe that he is a disinfo agent. It seems to me that Chomsky just hasn't given the subject much thought or analysis.

I would highly recommend that Gene and David try to get Webster Griffin Tarpley to come onto the show. I am not personally vouching for the guy, but he seems to make a hell of a good argument for the idea of 911 being an inside job. Also, it would be good if the work of Prof. Steven Jones could be covered in a show.

9/11 essentially gave the green light to the corporate-US power-system to implement a new wave of neo-facist foreign policy which has resulted in untold suffering. This subject is extremely important.
It's fine to talk about politics with regards to UFOs, why not this?
 
RedFist said:
Although I find Chomsky's dismissal of the 9/11 conspiracy to be annoying, I don't believe that he is a disinfo agent. It seems to me that Chomsky just hasn't given the subject much thought or analysis.

I would highly recommend that Gene and David try to get Webster Griffin Tarpley to come onto the show. I am not personally vouching for the guy, but he seems to make a hell of a good argument for the idea of 911 being an inside job. Also, it would be good if the work of Prof. Steven Jones could be covered in a show.

9/11 essentially gave the green light to the corporate-US power-system to implement a new wave of neo-facist foreign policy which has resulted in untold suffering. This subject is extremely important.
It's fine to talk about politics with regards to UFOs, why not this?
Click to expand...

Gene and David have said they are not going to go in that direction with the show (politics) so those folks will not be on. Tarpley has an excellent book IMO. He also put out a very good paper called "Helicopter Ben Unleashes Dollar Hyperinflation" that is in regards to the economy. I don't always agree with Webster but he is a good writer and an intelligent man.

Found that article he put out:
HELICOPTER BEN UNLEASHES DOLLAR HYPERINFLATION
 
As we've said before, The Paracast is not a political show. We sometimes - OK, often - show our own political colors on the program, but we will not have on guests that deal exclusively in political topics.
 
David Biedny said:
As we've said before, The Paracast is not a political show. We sometimes - OK, often - show our own political colors on the program, but we will not have on guests that deal exclusively in political topics.
Click to expand...

What?

No Ann Coulter interview?

-DBTrek
 
DBTrek said:
No Ann Coulter interview?
Click to expand...

Well, Travis Taylor was given a respectable interview by Laura Ingraham when his very interesting book on planetary defense came out earlier this year. With a Doctorate in Optical Science and Engineering as well as at least three Master's degrees, he would be a great guest.

The incessant political bashing, where "progressives" are, of course, always the intelligent ones can be tiresome. It never ceases to amaze me that the open-minded, compassionate, uh... liberals, only view like-minded opinions as intelligent. Those holding opposing opinions are subject to 2nd-grade name calling ("morons", "inbreds", etc.). But, I do recall that a famous talk show host recently commented that it's tough to think out of the box when you're in the box.

And this is coming from someone whose family has been and is a longtime supporter of the Democratic party. But as I said before, if UFOlogy is seen as catering to every nutty left-wing thought and conspiracy of the week, it will "never" be taken seriously. This undermines the credibility of each of us who hold an interest in the subject.

(P.S. Steve Bassett was out of line when he rebuffed Gene's comment saying that the government is not believed except when it comes to UFOs. When you get down to it and take into account the dismissal of the subject by the media, Gene was entirely correct.)
 
Back
Top