Rachael Maddow....before & after; A true shame.

[Camp]

You don't even know what revisionist history is you dumb ass. A history has to already be written for a revision to take place. Conspiracy theories are revisionist by nature and definition. In your dopey mind, a critique of a conspiracy theory is revisionism.

Revisionist history as in "I defeated Dale in a debate"...that was my point ya dumb fuck. You disproved nothing.
So....given what we know now...did Oswald act alone in your opinion? Do you believe the Warren Report? Because your answer will tell me all I need to know about you.

Why are you using quotation marks as if you are quoting me? Why do you have to use a misquote to make a point? I clearly said that the links I provided proved my case and put you on the losing side of the discussion. You admit to not reading the link that has your source admitting to not using real factual data in the very book you use as a main source for your ideas. How convenient. In the other link, the essay provides numerous mistakes and untrue statements made by Sutton.
The first link shows the untruthfulness of Sutton. The second link is an interview where Sutton admits much of his work in the very exact book in question contains untrue statements. His excuse,"factual accuracy was not my priority".

"factual accuracy was not my priority"....hmmmm? I plugged that into Google search and got nothing. You are obviously confused because Sutton was a meticulous researcher and what he found upset the establishment so much that they wanted to censor his work. Losing side of the debate? Hardly...... people have tried to debunk the work of Eustace Mullins by trying to claim he was a racist sans any proof. You must know what that link was since you quoted it verbatim.

Here you go dunce. He also gets demolished in this interview about his accuracy.

publiceye.org/conspire/rough/sutton.htm

Sutton isn't being interviewed here, dumb ass....did you even read the whole thing? Gerry Rough is a dinfo agent that actually DEFENDS the Federal reserve bank and that's all I need to know about that piece of shit. He takes cheapshots at the Tea Party and the leftard clown posse touts his work on sites such as Huffington Post and that's an "ender" for me. Ezra Pound, Eustace Mullins are the ones that discovered the meeting at Jekyll Island. Griffin took their work and combined it with his but it did happen and they even admitted that it took place. Do you defend the Fed because it is one of the planks of the communist manifesto? I suspect that may be the case. Either way, you debunked nothing. You found some little website from 2000 ansd you think you have ptoved that this parasitic entity known as the Fed is a good thing and those that speak out against it are "Birchers" and rightwing whackos....BFD. I stand behind the things I read and write about and just consider the source of a mis-information whore like Gerry Rough.

Our debate has nothing to do with the fed and your obsession with the conspiracy theories that surround it. I have not mentioned that subject, let alone defended anything about it. It was about subjective data vs objective data used to establish factual data. You just keep dragging it into your default because you can not debate any other subject. You mentioned a specific author and I focused on him as an agent of misinformation and example of how subjective data can not be use to counter objective data. The links I provided showed that conspiracy theories were dependent on subjective data. Instead of contesting that, you are obsessed with your federal reserve conspiracies and America, Inc. nonsense.
You are unable to focus on the topic of subjective data and speculation not being able to give an objective and definitive analysis and conclusion. The links I provided showed how and why your chosen methodology can not be used to determine factual conclusions. You still insist that if enough opinions are given, eventually the opinions equal real facts.
You are debating yourself about a topic no one is paying attention to.