Jump to content
The Education Forum

Kirk Gallaway

Members
  • Posts

    1,494
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Status Replies posted by Kirk Gallaway

  1. Hi Paul, Interesting your brief review of "The Inheritance". Has it brought you to again consider LBJ as being behind the assassination.If such a notion would start to proliferate i would certainly expect a lot of resistance from Jim. i don't tend to believe  but I don't have a great resistance to the LBJ idea. Sounds like a successfully guarded deep state secret that has left us completely clueless.

    Might as well give up, .But I understand who can? I don't say that facetiously. I've come to the conclusion that the idea that we're here because someday people will learn the truth is not as important to most here , as it is to me, but more of a personally obsessive search that people have no choice over. And judging from the progress over the last 20 years. I don't give it much hope unfortunately.But like you, I'm checking for the newest angle.

    Did you like your stay in San Pancho?  How was that area North of PV.?  I always thought it was beautiful.

     

    1. Kirk Gallaway

      Kirk Gallaway

      Some people, (including Jim Di) never seem to consider  the dangers of a severely weakened Trump looking for a Hail Mary Pass.(football analogy) We should  1)come in with humanitarian assistance, and 2)agree to take in refugees. About #2, yeah fat chance!

      About Jim in general, I suppose we could have a long discussion. That's a good lineup at that symposium. I remember my high school history teacher loved John Kenneth Galbraith, who I believe you said Jim Di talked about.Talking to Galbraith's virtue as an influence on JFK might be fine for other wonks like us, at the Symposium, but I'm reminded of a Jim and Roger Stone interview, when Jim has the floor , i believe after a commercial break and he goes into Guillome. We've heard his wrap on that countless times and it's impressive, but in trying to persuade a new audience to consider the JFKAC, it puts audiences to sleep. Don't introduce and try to color some character no one''s heard of. A publicity whore like Stone immediately sensed that and started fidgeting around, I think considering trying to bail Jim out. It was quite an incongruity considering that Stone. as I say, is a complete charlatan as far as the JFKA. Jim is prolific and intensely ambitious, but part of his unwitting frustration that I always sense is really  because he's clueless as to what translates to people.

      I've only checked threads I have a particular interest in. Does Robert Card contribute much of use?

    2. (See 1 other reply to this status update)

  2. Hi Paul, I was hoping to get up there to the Talbot interview with RFK Jr. and meeting you as well. Unfortunately it was the one weekday I couldn't make it. I'll be  curious to hear what you think of it. Again thanks for informing me and let me know of any other such events in the future.

    Kirk

    1. Kirk Gallaway

      Kirk Gallaway

      Maybe we can benefit from unfortunate events and I'll be able to make it next time.

    2. (See 1 other reply to this status update)

  3. The big question I have now (I know I'm way off topic) is whether the 'deep state' which to my mind controls the center of the Democratic Party, has lost control of the Republican right, and of Trump and his criminal gang in particular. When Bush and Romney start looking like good guys you gotta wonder. "

     

    Paul I often find that you and I are in agreement about some of the greater issues behind the JFK Assassination, and our broad viewpoints are similarly humanistic.

    I think it's better to PM you about this, because I notice people on this forum mention the "Deep State" but  it seems to be a topic that no one here ever dares to explain. As if keeping it in the dark will somehow make us better able to deal with it. Nobody wants to bring it out in the open.

    In that paragraph, you seem to have a very good idea what you think it is. Having conversations with you previously, I assume your definition is not say the Fox News definition. (but maybe it is) But you've lost me here.. What specifically are talking about that controls the center of the Democratic Party?.

    1. Kirk Gallaway

      Kirk Gallaway

      Hi Paul, Forgive me, I'm  waxing  a bit tonight.

      We know how the CIA made a point  of controlling the message and media by creating and supporting liberal media outlets.

      Yes but the brunt of that was 50 years ago.

      This forum thinks the "Deep State"   that definitely existed in the 50's and 60 is today.  I'll toss a saIvo out there and say those forces aren't near as prodigious as they were back then.In the 50's and 60's. at that time, they were newly emergent and there were little checks and balances on their power. But the current deep state wasn't 't powerful enough to keep Trump from being elected. The Russians "Deep State" was much more instrumental in our own election than  ours.
       
      A lot of people who talk of the "deep state" today refer to  government intrusion, but the government's no more sinister, it's the power to intrude on our everyday lives is greater than ever as result of the advent of the internet and information technology and a great many people who have grown up under that influence,  are really just  fine with that. There are a lot of Fox viewers who think that the deep "surveillance" state is really some creation of the Democrats. It's true, Obama got caught with his pants down when Snowden revealed the extent and capability of domestic spying. At that point he went the route that "as a free society we have to have a national dialog,about safeguards"" blah blah blah, but in reality , he pushed the limits on an unsuspecting public.,and has there really been any public dialog? But to ascribe deep state to one political party?, I don't think for a second any presidential candidate from either party, Obama,the Bush's, the Clintons, Trump Mc Cain, Romney, or Kerry wouldn't have all done the same thing or simply wouldn't have asked. If people don't care nothing will get done.
       
      Certainly Feinstien and Warner will never change anything. The strongest feature of Bernie Sanders campaign was his simple campaign platform, which most Americans in polls are in favor of.So why don't the Democrats win? There are definitely forces, bureaucratic  and private "deep state" , conspiracies if you will, working against it, but again not sizable enough to defeat Trump. It's a war of ideas, and unfortunately the average American isn't very bright, and considerably less by European and Canadian standard .For example , when Trump did that pre-arranged bombing of Syria, there were a considerable number of people who said" Yay, it's just good that we're finally doing something". That's a big hurdle  to be overcome. This isn't because of military propaganda, it's more of a boredom, anxiety issue.
       
      Off topic, Yeah, we want successive generations to remember and investigate the Kennedy Assassination, but unfortunately  I'm convinced all the conspiracy talk has now just become corrosive to the new generations, and has become an exploitive  tool of the right. It's just a message of paranoia and hopelessness that causes the younger generation to strike out against imagined enemies while having no real concept who the real enemies are..
       
       
    2. (See 3 other replies to this status update)

  4. The big question I have now (I know I'm way off topic) is whether the 'deep state' which to my mind controls the center of the Democratic Party, has lost control of the Republican right, and of Trump and his criminal gang in particular. When Bush and Romney start looking like good guys you gotta wonder. "

     

    Paul I often find that you and I are in agreement about some of the greater issues behind the JFK Assassination, and our broad viewpoints are similarly humanistic.

    I think it's better to PM you about this, because I notice people on this forum mention the "Deep State" but  it seems to be a topic that no one here ever dares to explain. As if keeping it in the dark will somehow make us better able to deal with it. Nobody wants to bring it out in the open.

    In that paragraph, you seem to have a very good idea what you think it is. Having conversations with you previously, I assume your definition is not say the Fox News definition. (but maybe it is) But you've lost me here.. What specifically are talking about that controls the center of the Democratic Party?.

    1. Kirk Gallaway

      Kirk Gallaway

      Paul,

      The American Empire, I thought you might say the MICC. But they are integral, you can't have one without the other. But If you just follow the money in campaign contributions , though the Democrats have been catching up in the last few decades. The Republicans still have a sizable edge in military procurement. Even some Tea Party reps are big on that. There is an intersection between the alt.right and the left concerning interventionism and the use of military power abroad. The left usually out of humanistic grounds, that the reason we usually get involved is to exploit others for our own ends, with  the right, it's out of an isolationism basically saying it's their business, or let them "do whatever they will to each other."

      I'm not sure why you singled the Dems out. I think the traditional roles still apply, The Republicans have always been the Defense party, and since they control all branches, we still are. I think the Dems, since Clinton have almost caught up to  Repubs in that they are now  equally as globalist but the alt right is running a Republican counter trend to that.

    2. (See 3 other replies to this status update)

  5. Hi Michael, I've always appreciated the content and general thoughtfulness of your posts and i think I share a lot of your sensibilities. i came back yesterday and and I saw the progression of DVP's trivia post. Tommy is skating on thin ice with me, and earlier in the thread, i was prepared to toe- to-toe him. I was curious as to what you're deleted post said. Was the person you were talking about, Tommy?

    1. Kirk Gallaway

      Kirk Gallaway

      i don't have any problem with DVP either. He's very conscious he can't piss us off too much.He argues for the most part honorably.

      I'm bored a bit as well with EF.   I understand  going through a stage where i just wanted more and more knowledge about the Kennedy assassination, but there is certainly an obsessive quality to some of the posters here.I actually welcomed the distraction of the Trump election victory on the forum. It just seems like there's a lot of relevant political intrigue going on now, and it's not 50 years old.

      Tommy might as well post this forum as where he lives. It's a good cheap living. All he needs is about 15 cups of coffee a day and he's all set. i've thought about going after him and bringing him down a peg, and hopefully clearing out the dynamic a bit. But like you, i'm wondering if it's worth protecting..In the trivia thread, his post after about newbies rubbed me the wrong way. As if he thinks he's some scholar here? He's pure quantity, obsessed with going down lame back roads, which is ok, they might be interesting, but seldom get anywhere.

      Clarke is an obsessive  airhead. I thought we were done with him early, and would have been except Paul B. at a critical juncture, when being attacked for posting a certain topic felt he should be more inclusive and extended an olive branch to him.I told him I thought that was a mistake.But in fairness, he's become a little more focused, (if you could call it that), and almost tolerable.

      I appreciated what you said about bumping, I've never done it.  it's almost like an adolescent crying out for special attention.I wish other people placed the same values on the relative worth of some posts and lines of inquiry as I do, but that's just the way it is.

       

    2. (See 2 other replies to this status update)

×
×
  • Create New...