Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send these  to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Kirk Gallaway

Members
  • Content count

    369
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Kirk Gallaway

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Los Gatos, Ca.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,572 profile views
  1. The KGB and the JFK case

    No you're right David, it was to a "subordinate". It is: "Ok, but I hope you are not being taken in. I can't forget the CIA withholding the French espionage activities in USA nor the false story re Oswald's trip to Mexico City, only to mention ...
  2. The KGB and the JFK case

    David, I remembered this quote of Hoover , to LBJ. and the first sentence is: " "Ok, but I hope you are not being taken in."
  3. The KGB and the JFK case

    Yeah, that Jim, he's a real live wire! Sandy said: What I can't understand is why the Soviets would want to assassination Kennedy. I mean, if he was such a pain in the xxx, why not just wait for his term(s) to end? I can't believe that Khrushchev and his comrades at the Kremlin would be so stupid as to kill an American president. Talk about a death wish. Why do you think the Soviets would want to kill Kennedy? Sandy's right. It ignores what was really happening. The retreat from the brink in the Missile Crisis, the correspondences between Kennedy and Khrushev, the Nuclear Test ban Treaty, the American University speech. And the historic accounts of insider Kremlin response to it. There are things that are mind boggling about the Kennedy Assassination. So maybe there's no wonder that there's always "this 1+1 has be 3" thinking that's always lurking behind the scenes. Tommy, I understand you implore everyone to read these books. Just like Jim D. But I probably never will. And just because some theory is cleverly put together in some book is not going to change my life about it. So I look at the bottom line, and your theory posits that the Soviet Union killed JFK, and with all due respect Tommy, I'd be more inclined to believe Paul T's theory. At least there, is legitimate motive. But there is no shortage of other people here who are curious, and want to put in the time to really understand as well as argue with your theory, and share their theories. And for that, I'd imagine you gotta feel good.
  4. This has always been around. What surprises me is that I thought this conversation took place the next morning after the assassination. That is it seems now that this was too long after the official story of the assassination was created, at least as I had thought.
  5. The KGB and the JFK case

    Quote from : Anti Trumpists use Mueller Indictments to escalate tension America’s unelected power establishment doesn’t care about impeaching Trump, it cares about hobbling Russia in order to prevent the rise of a potential rival superpower in its ally China. All this lunacy makes perfect sense when you realize this. The U.S. deep state is using the hysterical cult of anti-Trumpism to manufacture support for increasing escalations with Russia, and the anti-Trumpists are playing right along under the delusion that pushing for moves against Russia will hurt Trump. It certainly is lunacy. I've been trying to get some idea of the motivations of the "Deep State" from anybody who would offer here, with no results but this explanation makes absolutely no sense at all. How would hobbling Russia have any effect on the rise of potential rival Superpower China? Do you think China sees Russia as anything other than a pitiful broken giant, with nuclear weapons? Russia has no influence on China. It's total misguided b.s If people want to get fearful, then go to Shanghai or Beijing, and see what true modernism and a 21st century infrastructure looks like, and then maybe go to Moscow where they can see a dilapidated 1930's America infrastructure in a third rate fossil fuel based economy, and tell me who they should fear most. And due to Trumps and the Republicans artificial stimulus at a point in the cycle that we least need it. To hopefully project to the middle class a false sugar high that will last through 2020, That will just hasten the day when interests rise to the point that China will pull out from financing our debt. Then you'll see a real cause for war. She is right about Trump's militarism. Ollie Stone has been 180 degrees off and completely alarmist in his fears about Hillary Clinton getting us in a war against Russia. It's actually more dangerous to have a President whose been financially compromised in his dealings with Russia. Of course the hacking has become a smoke screen by which nobody considers any of the other conflicts of Trump's finances, or that Trump's Commerce Secretary has ties to Cypriot Bank a known money launderer for many, including Russian Oligarchs, is not even considered. Anyway our "Utopian prepper" author knows nothing about International Relations or economics. I may have liked Robert Parry's work in Iran Contra, but I'm no fan boy, I'm not the least impressed with this article.
  6. The Men Who Killed Kennedy series

    Bruce, You certainly have a unique perspective about this issue. Iwould also be curious to your answers to a number of Joe's questions. If you PM Joe , please include me. One sideline to this story I've never seen followed up. According to Marvin, Marvin and Vanek were on a list that was shown in the film of maybe 15 names of people witnessing this seminar if you will, of how to assassinate someone and pin it on somebody else, and they used a mockup of Dealey Plaza, and at the end, Marvin thought that the instructors said something to the effect that "things went very well in Dealey Plaza." If you believe Marvin's story you have at least a dozen other people who were there who can attest to the Dealey Plaza mock up and the content of the seminar given. I've never heard any follow up about that.
  7. JFK vs the Liberal Blogosphere

    I looked a bit more into Joe Kennedy lll . From his Demo response State of the Union, on a domestic front, I see him as an activist government Liberal. But on a foreign policy front. For those who believe the Russian hacking is all a hoax, you might find yourself conflicted. U.S. Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy III plans to introduce a bill today creating the National Russian Threat Response Center, a $20 million agency charged with snuffing out Russian hacking. In an interview with the Herald, Kennedy said he’s convinced Russian government intelligence agencies have engaged in “sustained, sophisticated attacks against the foundation of our democracy,” and will strike again. For those who are fervent anti-globalist, you may be surprised as well. This is called globalist talk. The United States’ leadership in health care, advanced manufacturing, biotechnology, clean energy and defense makes us a natural champion for strong and integrated global markets.
  8. JFK vs the Liberal Blogosphere

    Yes, the Bluebloods didn't like Joe and his boys. But the great majority of Democrats now living, largely because of the martyrdom of the JFK and RFK assassinations and what they've gleaned about "Camelot" and seen enacted in modern media, would readily welcome a Kennedy candidacy. There just hasn't been anybody in the following generation who really stood out. Times are changing, whereas, my first response to Joe Kennedy lll is that he is a bit touchy, feely for me and might get eaten alive. Maybe with the bubble of emerging millennials, All candidates are becoming more superhero caricatures of their policies now. If a completely self obsessed narcissist can be a candidate who convincingly emphasizes self interest in one's personal life and an America First policy abroad, why not have a counterpart candidate whose a classic bleeding heart liberal and emphasizes the collective and a positive role of government for nurturing the greater majority of people.
  9. JFK vs the Liberal Blogosphere

    1.) Does Kirk ever get anything correct about what I write? This is what I said: "Hannity must have been giggling the whole time. He probably called up Stone and said, "Hey Roger, it worked. That idiot GIlibrand fell for it." " This is the passage you wrote in full. And you provided only the last sentence. Jim di wrote: GIlibrand then helped Roger Stone and Hannity scheme to get rid of the guy who was the most progressive senator in the whole chamber, Al Franken. To me, there is no excuse for something like that which is more or less trading with the enemy. And since Moore lost, there was no strategic advantage to it anyway. Hannity must have been giggling the whole time. He probably called up Stone and said, "Hey Roger, it worked. That idiot GIlibrand fell for it." Then Cliff wrote: Gillibrand conspired with Roger Stone and Sean Hannity? Prove it. Then I said: That's Jim conspiracy talk. I think he just means that all of them ended up in their own pursuits bringing Franken down. I was trying to help you out. Since you really can't prove any of these 3 people conspired with each other at all! "I think he just means that all of them ended up in their own pursuits bringing Franken down." Now isn't that 1)more accurate? 2) less histrionics", What did Gildebrand fall for exactly???? Is that because she's an unwitting woman who fell for Stone and Hannity's trap? No, She wasn't fooled into anything! She made a calculated political move to shame Al Franken and it lead to remove him from office, and that happens to aid a general Republican goal to unseat Democrats , and Stone and Hannity are Republicans. Period! Do we really need the dramatization with phone prop? Jim, Did you say you're from Jersey?
  10. JFK vs the Liberal Blogosphere

    Gillibrand conspired with Roger Stone and Sean Hannity? Prove it. That's Jim conspiracy talk. I think he just means that all of them ended up in their own pursuits bringing Franken down. Obviously there's a double standard between the Republicans (and their sexual predator President) and Democrats over this issue. It is too bad, a Progressive Senator had to go. Cliff,I think you overestimate Gillebran as a Presidential candidate. Don't let the current climate fool you. I don't think a strident feminist will work. I don't like Clinton, but I wouldn't have wanted him removed from office for the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Bernie's old, but he did have the simple platform that did cut through and will work. I get the East West, black woman thing, but Harris turns off some of the middle. Could be branded as angry. If it's a woman, I say Gabbard. If it's a man. Newsome. In fact maybe either of them, at the top of the ticket. New blood. I don't think Carolyn Kennedy had the heart for politics, but she is a beautiful babe! Oh sorry Cliff, what am I saying?!
  11. Two Questions For James DiEugenio

    Excellent post Paul! The policies of this group will actually affect your future life. And for the vast majority of us not well. The central point that you've brought up with Cambridge Analytica is not that we've proven anything illegal. It's the incredible power that FB for example and Murcer could potentially have or maybe do have to weaponize information and possibly consort with others?
  12. Two Questions For James DiEugenio

    Jeff, I like your post(s) and that disclaimer is worth mentioning. But it is called "intelligence gathering" and really says that's there's a lot of due diligence still involved in ferreting out the situation to establish the facts with a high degree of certainty. I'm sure high confidence in judgments from potentially other spies, and practiced liars can be pretty dubious. But it's more than just the NYT and the Wapo, CNN, CNBC. It's the public admissions from witnesses and some of the principals involved, and I think confessions count, and some is corroborated by intelligence outside of the U.S. If all these other MSM supporting connections are wrong, we could have a revolution on our hands. Ok Then on other hand, what do we have? I've posted a thread and I've PM'd members for privacy on this forum who have mentioned a "Deep State" and asked them what is the nature and goals of the current deep state. Everyone of them could not articulate any idea. It finally gets down, to essentially "Gee Whiz Kirk, can't you just let me have my "deep state", I've had it so long." I guess we accept it as "Faith" and there's just some things in life we don't need to talk about? We have Jim Di, who some think brilliant, stymied, unable to say a word about Trump other than to make a reference to "Stormy Daniels" as if that's the primary thing going on with Trump. Jim Di , who won't pass on anything, including reviewing every movie as an historical document and writing a manifesto about it.. Jeff says: To my knowledge, actual facts about purported “Russian hacking” or other election meddling have not yet been conclusively established. Jeff, now we have Putin buddy, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson saying that the Russians are going to interfere with our elections in 2018, but we may not be able to do anything about it! What a sell out to the Deep State! Oh well. But it's about more than just Russian hacking, though I admit you certainly wouldn't know that from Tommy and his continual obsession with Putin. But it's like this Russian hacking issue has become a smoke screen for the deep state people to hide from any real discussion. . It's amazing the dummying down I'm seeing, of people who won't even consider the case against the President, or the Constitutional issues behind it, and they won't even consider it short of the "Russian hacking" . It's a shame because it's really a fascinating topic, and there's much still to see, and it addresses the nature of the "deep state" today as opposed to 50 years ago,. But I guess if the "deep state" isn't as prevalent in the same form as it as it was 50 years ago, it would somehow invalidate their JFK conspiracy theories, it doesn't at all. But I guess we can still conjecture endlessly about Ruth Paine. IMO, this silence is a consensual suspension of all critical thinking and inductive reasoning. It's as if a number of physics majors took a right turn and graduated into the "Flat Earth " society. I'm not saying I have all the facts, but I prefer facts than unsubstantiated theories and feelings. Meanwhile the JFK assassination conspiracy is passively waiting for the release of the April 26th documents. They're fragmented and can't get together on a list of demands for public information, which if even futile, would at least inform the public what the outstanding issues are and give an ongoing narrative. Oh well But at least we'll be able to blame it on the "Deep State."
  13. Two Questions For James DiEugenio

    Don says: Whatever money Trump might have accepted from Russians over the years in no way differentiates him from any other corporate One Percenter. Don, Cliff's right. I appreciate your general comments about the compulsions of billionaires, but you're clearly wrong, not every billionaire is heavily invested in Russia, or was driven by credit problems to seek relief by dubious foreign sources, among those Russian Oligrachs. Talk about Trump lowering expectations, I guess we should thank him for being a parody of the corruption that already exists. It's strange now seeing the Republican party which was always the unabashed corporate party, until only relatively recently since Clinton, having that corporate party infiltrated by the Democrats. And now watching the Republicans get usurped by a populist wave that really has nothing in common with the Republicans of the post war era, but identifies with White identity issues, and has learned to become indifferent as to having any hope of any politician actually being held to task, and implementing policies that could ever help them. So they won't hold Trumps feet to the fire. What a strong base! Don says, We are able to "choose" between an establishment left that loves war, and the Establishment right that loves War. I know that historical recall is talked about quite a bit by Oliver and Roger Stone, for example, but also a lot of Democrats who were disappointed by Obama's foreign policy.. That's almost right, but a bit too broad a brush.. It's true, All the military actions taken this century: the invasion of Afghanistan after 911. The relative reactions to the false U.S. enthusiasm of the Arab Spring, and the bombing and subversion in Libya, the increased use of drones, (which has increased further under Trump), the increased military presence in Africa. The political reality at the time is all of them would have been done by either party in power. Except for one action, and that was the Iraq War. This was GW's elective war, he was under no political pressure to enter a war in Iraq. And wasn't that a doozy of a war! The entire Middle East has never been the same. The loss of a million lives, refugee problems, with estimates of 1.7 million displaced from Iraq, 6 million from Afghanistan, and now 5 million from Syria. (You could in part blame Putin for that, but I guess you could argue what choice did he really have to instill order other than bomb the major cities North of Damascus into the Stone age!) And since the Iraq War, there's been the creation of Isis and all the destruction they've done, largely caused by the dislocation of the ruling Sunni Iraqi majority after our invasion. And 5000 of our own lives, not to mention all the injured. At a cost of between 1 and 2 trillion dollars to us! And not to make apologies for the Dems, but just to get the record straight, they voted 128 to 82 in the House against going to that war. The Republicans voted 215 to 6. In the Senate the Republicans were 48 to 1, and the Democrats were in favor 39 to 21, including Hillary Clinton. My point being is that however much you think both parties are "War" parties, it's not irrevocable.
  14. Jim DiEugenio spanks The Post

    Jim, I'm on topic and giving you my wrap up of the previous 6 pages! And now you're off topic, talking about Tommy, for some reason. Just as well, You've done a helluva job Jim. I think you should just kick back and relax and spank your post! You deserve it! heh heh
×