Mark Knight

Historically, nations which have shown favoritism toward one religion over another have been nations filled with strife. Theocratic societies are generally not democratic; they're usually somewhat dictatorial. I oppose Christian Nationalism in America for the same reasons I oppose Muslim Nationalism in America, or even Pastafarian Nationalism in America. I'm not anti-Christian; I simply don't believe that anyone should be held to the interpretation of Christian law, as even different denominations of Christians can't agree as to which interpretation of Christian law should be followed. The same with Sunni and Shiite Muslims. No matter whose religious laws are codified, someone else's freedoms are trampled upon. Hell, Christians [Catholics and Protestants] in Ireland have trouble getting along, to this very day. My beliefs are my beliefs. My religion should be no more binding on you, in a legal sense, than your religion is binding upon me.

Directly beneath the point on the receiver where the scope mount attaches to the rifle is the bolt, which must slide and twist to load and eject a cartridge. IF one of the holes is drilled through the receiver, the working of the bolt might cause a slightly-too-long screw to loosen at the mount. Thread locking chemicals, such as today's Loctite products, weren't around, to my knowledge, in 1963. In fact, at that time it would have been common for a gunsmith to place a dab of clear lacquer [such as fingernail polish] on the head of a screw and the adjoining surface [in this case, the scope mounting bracket] to try to keep the screw from backing out...if they were aware that this had been a previous problem. [My dad mounted a red dot scope on the receiver of Browning Auto-5 shotgun in the '60s, and the gas-powered action of the bolt caused the screws he drilled and tapped to loosen to the point that the red dot scope couldn't be used accurately. Therefore, I know that such a problem is possible.] The screw holes could be tapped to a slightly larger diameter, but the availability of a screw in the proper length in the larger diameter might pose a problem. Or it might not. Going from a #6-32 to a #8-32 screw, for example. The #6 and #8 refer to the diameter of the screw, and the -32 is the number of threads per inch [in this case, 32.] A minimal length #8-32 screw might be a couple millimeters longer than the minimal #6-32 screw. But those numbers are simply examples. For example, in the McMaster-Carr online catalog, their shortest #6-32 round headed slotted screws, of the type used on the Carcano, is 1/8" long. The shortest #8-32 screw of the same type is 3/16" long.

Because certain members' messages are full and I cannot contact them personally, I am requesting in my Administrator role here that members please refrain from the ad hominem attacks. Criticizing another's arguments is fine. Criticizing their logic is within bounds. But calling them names, twisting someone's name intentionally, and being generally insulting with their name simply because it's alliterative is a violation of the Forum decorum. You can disagree all you want. But keep the disagreements centered on the argument at hand and NOT on the person making the argument. We are all better than that. If you are guilty of the above, please edit your own posts to bring them into compliance so the moderators and administrators don't have to keep responding to "Cleanup on aisle three!" complaints. If this behavior continues, I will start calling out the violators publicly, rather than privately. [This violates a basic tenet of good management, but at this point, I am beginning to exhaust all other avenues toward keeping order.]

If it's not a video, but only available in print media, Mr. Koch won't read it. That was established on this thread long ago. But no one here is actually changing anyone else's mind. If changing someone else's mind is your intent, let me remind you that we are now 1103 pages into a large exercise in futility. As a moderator, I once wanted to delete this entire thread, due to its lack of relevance to the JFK assassination. Another mod intervened because [in my words, not theirs], if we allow the unruly "discussions" to proceed on this thread, it will allow members to vent and keep the REST of the forum more peaceful. And so here we are. 1103 pages and no one is swaying anyone else's opinions.

I am HIGHLY offended by Matthew Koch's comment that Biden "speaks like an amputee." My grandfather lost his left hand in a farming accident in the 1940s. His amputation had NO AFFECT on his ability to speak clearly or coherently. To imply that there is something wrong with the speaking ability of those who have had an amputation of any sort is blatantly offensive. I demand that Mr. Koch retract that offensive statement, on behalf of all the amputees around the world whose ability to speak was not affected by the amputation of an appendage or a limb.

In defense of Biden, he and Chuck Shumer were able to maneuver well enough to get the Congress to pass most of his agenda in the last Congress. Most Presidents are judged on that sort of standard. And for the most part, I think he has placed the right people in the right Cabinet offices to implement most of his policies adequately, if not exactly flawlessly. I think that a major slip-up on his part was waiting over 2 years to address border/immigration issues. The leaders of both parties in Congress SHOULD put on their big-boy and big-girl britches and sit down and hammer out an immigration policy that addresses the issues that the US is dealing with on its borders, primarily but not exclusively on the southern border. The congressional leaders need to be willing to make compromises, because when it comes to immigration, neither party is going to get 100% of what it wants. My dad traded horses, cars, and farm equipment, and his philosophy was, "If you can't get a loaf, go for half a loaf. And if you can't get half a loaf, get a slice." I think that the combination of the documents and Biden's age will eventually preclude him from grabbing a re-nomination that seemed almost certain a few months ago. If Republicans remain intent on attempting to cut Social Security and Medicare, they will be handing the Democratic nominee a large advantage in 2024. If the Republican-majority House makes this session of Congress exclusively a "revenge" tour, while it'll play well to the MAGA crowd, I believe the rest of the voters are clear-headed enough to see that no one is actually served by following this path. Bottom line: I don't see Old Joe as a successful nominee in 2024, based upon what I know today.

As of this date, I've yet to see or hear anything from Kamala Harris to suggest she's ready for prime time. IMHO, she's the equivalent of a Dan Quayle, chosen to occupy the VP slot to appeal to a certain voter demographic. Yes, they wanted a woman on the ticket. But they wanted one with none of the high level of voter animosity displayed toward Hillary Clinton. When the bright lights shine on Harris, she fails to cast a long shadow. She doesn't appear eloquent, she doesn't appear self-confident. What were JFK's assets, as a candidate? He was eloquent, he was self-confident without coming across as cocky, he displayed a sense of humor, and he sounded intelligent. That is the essence of charisma. I simply see none of that in our current VP. Harris, to me, seems to be full of self-doubt. Politically, you can have self-doubt, but not in public. On the positive side, Harris doesn't come across as vengeful and dour like a Nixon or a Trump. But to me, that's not quite enough to function well as a Chief Executive. And I'm a left-leaning moderate. And to me, that's why the Biden classified docs haven't greased the skids under Old Joe. Because if Old Joe were to be gone tomorrow, I don't see Harris as being strong enough politically to hold the White House for the Democrats in 2024.

Chris, I'm not a computer code-type guy. My background is in the journalism classes I took, plus a few years in radio broadcasting. I'm about 5 small steps beyond a Luddite. I see that David has given you a map to access the poll function. I hope it works out well for you.

Ben, Many musicians of the day sneeringly referred to The Monkees as "the Prefab Four," a derisive nod to The Beatles' nickname "The Fab Four." Mike Nesmith (Nez) and Peter Tork had some musical experience going in. Davey Jones was a drummer, but Don Kirschner decided the diminutive Brit would get lost if he were to become the lead singer while sitting behind a drum kit. So they made a drummer out of Mickey Dolenz, used LA's "The Wrecking Crew" [Hal Blaine on drums, among others] on Monkees recording sessions, and I STILL believe that the voices we hear on The Monkees' Theme are actually Tommy Boyce and Bobby Hart. Oh, and the TV show was about as slapstick as anything you'll ever see. But The Monkees sold MILLIONS of records. Peter Tork's gone. Davy Jones is gone. Nez is gone. And Mickey Dolenz was still touring, last I noticed.

David Crosby and his music were a big part of my teens and 20s. His passing once more shows me that our musical influences of the '60s and '70s are at "that age." And many of us aren't far behind. My favorite CSNY album is 4 Way Street, the live double album. All four artists doing solos and harmonies. That's an act that most bands would hesitate to follow. In my college days, I had an 8-track tape of that album, and many nights I would drift off to sleep with my headphones on, listening to that album.

Matt, the last I checked, the complete report was still available online. I posted it the night it was released. If Ben's not going to read it for free, you can bet your a** he's not going to pay for it. But here's the link again: Select January 6th Committee Final Report and Supporting Materials Collection | GovInfo

I see that Ben has failed to acknowledge that the Capitol Police force is comprised of 2,249 officers, not 3,500. And they are divided into three different bureaus. *The Uniformed Services Bureau is divided into 4 units. *The Protective Services Bureau is divided into 5 units. *The Operational Services Bureau is divided into 8 units. That is 17 different units. Only ONE is the Containment Emergency Response [SWAT] unit. They're spreading 2,249 personnel over 17 different units. Not all of these units are trained to handle the sort of invasion of the Capitol that we saw on January 6, 2021. And we must also consider that some units operate on different shifts. So there are NOT 2.249 Capitol Police officers available 24/7 in case of an attack. That's simply a fact of life.

To the best of my knowledge, the Capitol Police were [and are] not the 3,500-man SWAT team that Ben seems to think they were [and are]. Therefore, they were not equipped on January 6, 2021, to stop an invasion on the US Capitol. Maybe they should've been. Then again, my source says the total number of personnel is 2.249...not the 3,500 Ben keeps citing. That is 36% fewer personnel than Ben claims for them. I have no idea where Ben got his 3,500 number. Here's my source: https://appropriations.house.gov/news/press-releases/appropriations-committee-releases-fiscal-year-2023-legislative-branch-funding

Just wondering. Were the people in the 1930's who said out loud that Al Capone should be in jail accused of suffering from "Capone Derangement Syndrome"?? Somebody has to ask these things.

I'm encouraged that we've had no posts reported in the past 24 hours. Remember...only YOU can prevent forum fires!

It's blatantly obvious that the Republicans aren't seeking to govern. Instead, this is the Revenge Tour. A large segment of the Republicans simply want to use their majority in the House to wreak revenge on those they designate as "enemies." In another sense, what we've seen over the past 3 days is the legacy of the "Reagan Revolution." This generation was brought up on the "government is evil" rhetoric of those years. They are out to dismantle government in any and every way possible. The only legislation I've heard any of them advocate is repeal oriented. The want no part of DOING anything; their mission is UNDOING things that came before. The anarchy they are demonstrating in the House is an example of how they intend to "govern." I also don't think McCarthy deserves to be Speaker of the House, because he's spineless. But until someone nominates a candidate who is moderate enough to win over some Democrats, the 20 who are staunchly against McCarthy will continue to have their way, and gum up the works of government. And that is not by accident. That's by design.

Lately it seems there have been a number of reports to the Education Forum administrators regarding posts that are, or could be interpreted as, personal attacks. Apparently, there are MANY current forum members who didn't learn the lessons of Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People." [If you've never read that book, you should.] Some forum members may have forgotten that this is a DISCUSSION forum, not an INSULT or ARGUMENT forum. The other administrators and I do agree that on some threads the insults are getting out of hand. I know something needs to change. For the most part, our forum members are adults. But occasionally some don't act like adults when they're behind a keyboard and a screen. I don't think our function as administrators should be spending all our time on the forum putting out fires. In Smokey the Bear fashion, maybe we need to remind the members that "Only YOU can prevent forum fires." Not that we want forum members to police other members' posts; rather, I suggest that forum members should be adult enough to police their own posts. I know that people tend to get passionate about the JFK assassination. But it would be prudent to dial back some of that passion, especially if it contains vitriol towards other forum members. There are forum rules, and none of the administrators want to be babysitters or prison wardens. We simply want the discussions to be less personal and more about the JFK assassination...remember, that's the topic of the forum. I don't care if you believe your personal opinions about the JFK assassination "prove" that your intellect is superior to everyone else on the forum. If you believe that, keep the condescending thoughts to yourself, please. This forum can still be a place where ideas and thoughts can be exchanged without rancor. THAT is our goal as administrators. Demeaning someone else's intelligence, or anything else, does NOT elevate your own position in this forum. We're all adults here, and it's time we let our words on the forum reflect the fact that we can discuss evidence and theories as adults. Your cooperation will be greatly appreciated. REMEMBER...only YOU can prevent forum fires.

Wherever ANY war is fought, it is the civilian casualties that decide how long that war continues. And by casualties, I don't simply mean deaths and injuries. Jobs lost, homes destroyed, businesses ruined all become part of the toll of war. With the exception of Hawaii, the US was spared from most of the physical damage of WWII. The US was TOTALLY spared from the physical damage of Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. While it can be argued that 9/11 is the event that precipitated the war in Iraq [which is insane, since 17 of the 19 people involved in 9/11 were Saudi Arabians], other than the loss of troops, the US has been spared the direct costs of war since WWII. There are, of course, indirect costs of war. Vast portions of the federal budget are spent on our military as they fight in many corners of the globe [I won't get into a discussion of the oxymoronic quality of that mental picture]. While conservatives scoff at the term "peace dividend," imagine what good could be done in our world if such vast sums weren't being spent on warfare and armaments. I don't advocate eliminating defense spending; I simply advocate reallocating SOME of those resources toward peaceful ends. In WWII, the German air raids over London strengthened British resolve to defeat the Germans. In Ukraine, the same effect is occurring toward Russia today. By the same token, it was the dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki that broke the will of the Japanese to continue fighting in WWII. In Vietnam, it was the will of the majority of the American people that made the US exit the war. So it seems that it has often been the will of the civilian population who are victims of warfare that have determined the outcome, rather than the successes of the soldiers on the battlefields.

I disagree with your initial premise. The out-of-control defense budget is something easily demagogued. If the defense budget gets cut in any significant way, the Republicans will bludgeon the Democrats with the image that Democrats are leaving America "defenseless." And Democrats will go along with any defense spending increases in order to avoid being placed into that position. But the line about Putin ending chances for a reduction in defense spending IS true. JFK was a proponent of self-determination for countries around the world, leaning toward democracies [CIA actions in the banana republics and Africa notwithstanding]. Biden is obviously trying to emulate JFK, at least in his own mind, on that level. In a similar vein, I read an article this week quoting Trump's national security John Bolton as saying that had a second trump term become a reality, Trump was planning to withdraw the US from NATO and to "allow" Putin to take Ukraine unchallenged.

Ray Epps claims he's not worked for the government since he left the Marine Corps: Ex-Oath Keeper Ray Epps pokes holes in right-wing conspiracies during Jan. 6 panel testimony - Raw Story - Celebrating 18 Years of Independent Journalism

Doubtless there will be those here and elsewhere who will denounce the report without having read a single word of the 845 pages. It would make much more sense to have read the entire report before declaring it good or bad. Making either position yours from a position of willful ignorance simply because you refuse to read the report is a foolish play. I intend to read the whole report before I pass judgement on its contents.

The January 6th Select Committee has released its report: Report_FinalReport_Jan6SelectCommittee.pdf (house.gov)

That's a very valid conclusion.

Just because you refrained from hysterics and profanity, that doesn't make this post a civil response. Instead, it's more of a "celebration" of your self-acknowledged superior mental prowess over those whose interpretations of the evidence differ from your own. I come to the JFK assassination discussion as an agnostic. I believe that there is enough information that is either hidden or yet unknown to prevent someone with an open mind from coming to a definitive conclusion as to whether or not there was a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK. Since I'm not a "true believer" in your LN conclusions, you would lump me together with your "cult," which you denigrate ceaselessly. It seems to me that your sole purpose on this forum is to insult anyone who isn't a LNer. If that is the major purpose in your life, you've done that. You accomplished your goal. Now move along and rest on your "laurels"...preferably elsewhere. Your work here, it seems, is finished. Anything more you could post here would be simply self-congratulatory, and quite boring to those of us who come here to learn.

“Whether it's Trump or Elon Musk who hits bottom first is anyone's guess.” I wonder if they are going to have bubblegum. This is beyond insane. Steve Thomas For $100, that had better be DAMN good bubblegum.