The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: My mistake

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Not you (see in situ)

My mistake

"The reason it is mental gymnastics is because my brain cannot do gymnastics. Do you not remember having to explain Joe's Law to me?"

One of the many things reported in those history lessons by Gatto was the absence (censorship) of how learning works, and another is how teaching works, as opposed to how dictators dictate to their subjects (the fleas).

I read into your words something that was not there, and so with your teaching I am able to identify those errors - thanks.

"I may not see red, but that does not mean I am not afraid of communism. And what I think you are saying is that “we” are now the communists, and the socialists are not, and it is hard for me to comprehend even though wall street funds it all."

No, not exactly that, and I think it is important to be precise, and that may be one big problem with your lack of power to learn how to learn, since any reliance upon ambiguity is false, and the false properties of ambiguity can be measured as lies of omission.

My error in misreading your words, and visa versa, are not lies, of omission, unless that is our intent, which as far as I know, so far, is not our intent, we don't set out to deceive.

Ambiguity is useful in a general sense, to be less than precise, generally due to a lack of interest, or lack of time and energy, so as to merely point in a direction and say, something is over there, but we don't have to know what it is, other than some possible future concern, don't go over there, and leave it at that, a general understanding, without prejudice. But if the idea is to pre-judge the nature of the invention of ambiguity as a method of deception, then the targets are made to think only in terms of ambiguity, to be made into passive observers, molding people to be incapable of questioning, or if one does question, that one will not have the tools required to be effective in reaching accurate answers, and certainly not capable of formulating vital questions.

See no problem, hear no problem, speak no problem, but if told that there is a problem, it will be a false problem, and the targets are set against each other as the false solution to the false problem.

You guys there are red.

You gals there are blue.

Have at it, hate each other, and solve the final problem with the final solution, and do so quickly, times a wastin'.

"I see the shells moving, but I cannot understand what I see, nor can I guess which one is holding the ball."

If the goal is always POWER, for each criminal, without exception, and the best ones at it always end up with the most power, then does it stand to reason that the one's holding the ball can be found by following the ONE dominant legal fraud money to the source of it?

Ron Paul shows how to begin the process, asking Ben Bernanke questions, but who is the one with the power in that power struggle?

It is not Ron Paul, if it were Ron Paul, then Ben Bernanke would be tried for treason, or answering questions with accurate, and not ambiguous, answers.

Who can write a check for as much money as everyone else combined?

The same person can commit treason live on television during a congressional hearing with impunity.

If Ben Bernanke is in jail, who is going to answer the vital questions being asked, and will they answer accurately or will they be tried and convicted of the treason that they commit too?

How many Ben Bernanke's are lined up to take his place?

When do we as a people run out of very good liars for us to pay them so much reward for the best lies possible?

How many liars can be schooled to meet the demand?

If they flunk out, and can't find a liar job in the liar's club, then send them to prison, failing to pay their debts, and teach them how to be a violent criminal instead?