Kirk Gallaway

Everyone knows the difficulty and the standard of proof required to prove collusion, but you have to be an investigative fool to think that Trump isn't compromised by a foreign power. To not suspect that, calls their entire investigatory process in question. Questionable allegations and assertions are made with infinitely less proof on this forum every day.Though I will grant recently less, with the absence of certain posters. How effective a Russian e-mail or hacking campaign ultimately was or whether it rises to any more of a concerted effort at destabilization than we routinely do to them is a relevant question. Leaving out all foreign leader fanboy considerations. The real question is: After taking our rightful responsibility for corruption in our election system, the general gullibility and vulnerability of our citizenry, and our subsequent election of such a loose canon. How are we are to look upon such a power?. However, I do wonder about the usefulness of NATO. I am in agreement with Cliff and Jim and the instances of overstepping of it's bounds. However historically it is noteworthy that 13 previous Russian satellites eventually joined NATO. Who was it that they were seeking protection from? Almost no previous satellites of the Soviet Union have any thing very good to say about their previous relation with the Soviet Union.The Baltic states in particular are very leery of Putin and Russia. If this is a useful alliance it would be good to see all countries foot the bill and demonstrate that they're not just being coerced into continuing this Cold War stance to perpetuate the U.S. need for control and to satisfy increased expenditures to their war machine.

Welcome Frank, it's interesting hearing your account of some of his last accounts of his life. I don't know how long you browsed this forum. But Doug Caddy posts here, and he defended Sol Estes. And while I don't want to speak for Doug, I know he does afford Sol Estes some credibility. There are people here who buy this whole story, some people who are agnostic but find it interesting and some who are are very skeptical, and the cornerstone of the criticism is that Sol Estes is a crook and a con. It's good to hear your account.

Joe Bauer said: I can remember feeling a little uneasy when the comedy show "Hogan's Heroes" first debuted on national TV back in 1965.This was a totally silly comedic version of the film "Stalag 17" which itself even exhibited a little humor but in a much more serious tone. Re: Hogan's Heroes and this political sensitivity thing.. I was traveling around Europe in 1996, and I wanted to see Amsterdam, with their legal window shopping prostitution and the open marijuana venues, which was what I was interested in. I came to this row of clubs. I first went to some regular bars and they were kind of pick up scenes that was roughly 50-50% men and women, with women dressed up pretty sexy. I then went into a hash bar, it was completely different.. It was about 80-20 male and very laid back. I met these 2 Dutch guys and I smoked at a public establishment for the first time with them. These guys actually spoke English like Americans, though every once in a while with certain words, they'd sound British. I mentioned to them how American they sounded and they said they grew up on American TV without subtitles and mentioned that Germany had the same American TV shows but they had subtitles. I asked what shows, and they said like, "Bonanza", "the Fugitive" and "Hogan's Heroes." And I said "The Germans grew up with "Hogan's Heroes"? and they said "Yes."

Re: the Americans How it was to end, was an intriguing exercise in storytelling. I never would have accepted an end, where they just got back to their homeland without a stitch, even without Henry. Yet several women I know, would have chosen that as their ideal ending. (They know in case you don't, that they are married in real life.) David said: Who among us didn't want to see Pastor Tim get it in the neck? Hmmm,........ Can't say I did David. I didn't really even see that as a possibility.............But I could see some guy having a male fantasy where every potential antagonist to the Jennings family could be seen as dead meat for our bloodthirsty, little, psycho killing Marxist wife! ---------So that's cool man!😃 I thought Pastor Tim comported himself very well, of course he is "Pastor Tim." Though it was a more obvious conclusion, I was quite willing to sacrifice Elizabeth, perhaps in like fashion. But I knew it wouldn't end that way, and didn't really want it to. That's a good paradox for a viewer to have. Paige's actions were great, they had to somehow reconcile their ideals, and what better way, than to sacrifice their nurturing, which with their lives of total depravity, they never had much of anyway. Phillip's "pitch to the stars" ("My whole sh-tty life".) with Stan was great heartfelt drama interspersed with egregious omissions, but what could he do? Given Stan's suspicion at both of them leaving at Thanksgiving and the resultant deaths in Chicago, his reaction was pretty remarkable. Yes the end, one is characteristically wistful and one is characteristically "moving on".

David Andrews said: I dunno, I thought The Americans was pretty even-handed, and indicted America for several evils from an imagined Soviet point-of-view. If anything, I thought it soft-pedaled many ills of the Soviet system, though it also ignored some elephants in our room, notably the Contra war. I agree David, Though I don't want to spoil it for any who haven't seen it. Obviously spies in the arch enemy foreign country would have to be more discreet than murdering so many nationals and even officials (FBI agents). It's lack of realism is just artistic license in storytelling, and it's understood, and not any commentary on the ruthlessness of the old KGB. Nor should there be any partisan commentary about the ultimate revealed motives of the handlers in the end. The hero Soviet Agent who in the conclusion is in jail, Costa Ronin is also the current villain in the past season of "Homeland".

Interesting discussion, almost nothing offends me. But it is a good point that people are using The KA to push a product and make money. Though I suppose you could say all movies and films, even documentaries are commercial enterprises. Cliff, Seinfeld, (interesting, after Newman appears in JFK!) but you had me at "Paris Team America World Police", excellent! That's the most currently relevant to this discussion. After that, I don't think anyone here would disapprove of any of the rest. Certainly no one's going to rush to the defense of Hitler! I think I get your point about Dr. Strangelove. I guess there was an absurd controversy, But it would seem any one at that time who would actually make a point about the movie trivializing the Nuclear situation of the early 60's, would have to ask themselves why this is real?, and how did we all get into such a situation? Monty Python, the first to make satire of the Crucifixion. Satirically, There was a lot of low hanging fruit in the 60's and 70's! (satire) Ok, Mel Brooks, I liked Young Frankenstein, I guess I've always thought him to be just pummeling the obvious. Bill Hicks, definitely a ground breaker, a bit hip for this forum, but you're highlighting the right material. "Land Without Bread", I'll have to check that out , Thank You. Cliff, I noticed Matthew Rhys in your video selection. Does anybody here think that "The Americans" is anti Soviet propaganda? Jim Di ?

You beat me to the punch there Joseph. And who better to be the closing act of the Dallas Conference and enlighten us about the topic of the "Deep State" than dirty trickster Roger Stone. How else could he earn a living? A Nixon man to the end, that he actually had Nixon's image tattooed on his back.

Agreed,I dug it too. But definitely not for young souls. David, I might be the only other person here who remembers the chorus "I'm MIKE FINK!, King of the River!"

Here is the link to Andrew's BBC documentary in it's entirety. https://youtu.be/Sp4h39qJKqU Some footnotes; John Mac Cormack of the Mac Cormack Dickstein committee that investigated this treason was in Congress from 1928 until 1971, and became Speaker of the House during JFK's term of Presidency (1962-1971). He was pro New Deal, Johnson's War on Poverty and a supporter of the Vietnam War. He was challenged to keep his seat in 1969 and retired in 1971. Similar to Smedley Butler, though he died at 59, the major antagonist , the bond trader who first approached Butler, Charles Maguire died at the age of only 37. Fascism wasn't as nasty a word back in the 30's, as it was seen as a necessary or in some cases a "necessary evil" to preserve order in unsettled times for international corporate state.

Dave, It's certainly shouldn't be any surprise to anyone whose read anything I've written here in the forum,concerning the nature of the current problem facing us, that I think what you've written is spot on here. After the assassinations there was a disillusionment about the assassinations and the Viet Nam War, and people came to distrust authority. I remember in a thread here about Ken Burns PBS documentary "Vietnam", that I didn't mention this because I wanted to be sensitive to people here who had served, and I wanted to respect that there were still deep seated divisions about that war. But I see myself at odds with a lot of the say, general powerlessness and gloomy projections made here, because I have been witness to and a small part of a movement that grinded the American War machine to a halt. That is, the Anti-Viet Nam War Movement stopped the Vietnam War, and grinded the American War Machine to a halt, or temporarily thwarted their course of action. I don't think the fact that a lot of average Americans saw their kids or their neighbor's kids come home in body bags really was any deciding factor. I think the incidents were still rare enough that they wouldn't really even moved the needle much in public opinion, but when you add the number of families that were ideologically torn apart from the Viet Nam War, families who may or may have not suffered any direct tragedies. There were many patriots, some who had served in WWll who turned the corner and started to ask, if all this killing abroad and domestic strife at home was really any longer worth it. It involved a radical rethinking of some of the major premises of the Cold War, and the questioning of a long held perception of American invincibility, which was cathartic and painful. All this public passivity came out of failure to oppose the culture of assassination, or to even acknowledge it. The same psychology operated over the decades, and the failure to rise then is the same as the failure to rise now. Re: public passivity: I don't think there is any shortage of people questioning authority now, many are just striking out blindly, some of their psychosis involves adapting conspiracy theories, some well directed, and some that aren't. There is definitely a "dummying down' of the public at large over the last 30 years. The real problem (which honestly I see evidenced here as well) is that they don't know the true nature of the real problems, or in the case of the public at large, are taken in by very surface arguments propagated by their ideological enemies or worse yet, false leaders. As a person who perhaps romanticizes the success of the anti war movement. Where I do agree with the sentiments shared above is that I've looked every decade for the slightest glimmer of a movement that would end the apathy of the last 45 years. Though I see these little "head fakes" that have been propping up a bit more recently. Over the years, I've been very disappointed. But I don't see this at all as being the product of the 3 assassinations of the 60's, though at one time, I can say that was very real. The average age of America is 37 years old, born 17 years after the assassination. It just isn't sufficiently on the average person's mind. Though I think the Kennedy's now coming out of their shell, certainly helps. It does make you wonder where they've been for 50 years. I think doing it many years ago would have made a real difference. Outside of a completely polarizing event, I've come to see it as demographics. The ultimate conditions for change are when a baby boom comes of age in a very affluent society. I feel privileged that I was able to be part of a group of people who were coming of age during the apex of perhaps the greatest civilization in the history of our planet. I hold a lot of hope that the new generation of millenials will have the courage to as Bobby said, "Dream of things that never were, and ask, why not?" Some people think they could f-ck things up real badly, but they were saying the same things about us too, and eventually we did f-ck things up really badly. But there is that first push that is honest and innocent and has nothing to lose. And there are lot of movements that came into being in the 60's, that now no one can deny are worthwhile, or are even ultimately critical to our survival to now understand. And the status quo now is definitely not going to cut it. But it can be helped if there are some elders there to give guidance.

Bobby actually could change. The time was right for him, probably too right, hence what happened. Bobby had soul.

As I've been saying since his Presidency, the fact that Trump hasn't been assassinated is absolutely no surprise to me. The illusions in this article come from a misunderstanding of where the power really is. Talbot, kind of goes in and out for me in this piece but I think this is the most significant thing he says. I think JFK was more at risk because in his day the national security complex was a smaller, more cohesive organism than it is today. It was simpler for a power player like Allen Dulles to build consensus within his circles (Wall Street and the security establishment) The 50's-60's was a time of teeming profusion at the start of the era of big government. The heads of these agencies could amass great power. Government was the place to be. Now most people in government can make more money in the private sector. This kind of power just doesn't exist in government anymore. That's why I'd like to ask Talbot, what is the nature and goals of the "deep state". I bet he couldn't give any better answer than he does in this article,as he just alludes to it as something we can 'all agree upon'. I don''t know if he's still stuck on this image of a bunch of mighty generals and intelligence in their dark little windowless rooms, plotting our future, because he is smart enough to recognize that there was a whole other world behind Allen Dulles.(Wall street and the Security Establishment) One person who seems from his public statements to be stuck in those dark, bureaucratic quarters is Oliver Stone. IMO Oliver's done great things for open government, and intuitively I think he has a high character and he follows his ideals and who, despite his family exposure to Wall Street, and the fact that he's made 2 movies about the greed of Wall Street. Still,it's the one element that's seriously missing and barely touched upon in his and Peter Kuznic's otherwise excellent series, "The Untold history of the United States." To grasp it , you have to change your mindset and realize that there's not the need for subversion that there once was. These people don't have to form secret societies! We've become an oligarchic, corporate state. (You'll never hear that phrase from Talbot, Stone) And in what serious way, does Trump really pose any threat to that? His agenda is the multi national corporate agenda. And what is that? That agenda poses the idea that capital is best left in the hands of people who can really do something with it. Government programs that seek to redistribute the wealth run counter to that. Rather than have legislation to protect the consumer or the environment, that can better be handled by individual lawsuits in the courts, ( a lot of people and groups just won't have the money, but tough luck!) They'd like to gut the SEC, the cops and regulators on Wall Street and promote their idea of freer markets, as well as to cut disaster relief agencies.To them, everything is better off being privatized including basic services and Education.(De Voss-vouchers) Taxes should be lower for those who can best appropriate capital and people should get used to the idea of an era of government limits, hence they perpetuate talk that Social Security is a ponzi scheme that won't be around when you retire anyway to lower the public expectation. If this agenda was implemented on a global scale, the financial opportunities freed up from government spending would be a great windfall for a small select group of people (1-2%) When countries like Venezuela go belly up and can't make their payments to the international banking cadre, what do you think they do? The everyday people are starved out indefinitely until inevitably a deal is made where a payment plan is re enacted, but it's not free, the country agrees to privatize their previously state owned resources, as in this case Venezuela, that's their oil industry. This isn't just their pipe dream, it's being accomplished little by little over about the last 35 years without firing a shot..Anyone who has been following the Trump administration can see this direction. Why in the world would they stop it? They've gotten a lot of things they wanted, this is the most pro business era in almost 100 years. But there's not that much fear of Trump not filling out his term, because it's understood, Mike Pence would just be an extension they could never have gotten any other way, with any mainstream Presidential political candidate. These people are smart and know their candidates and how their government works. As gloomy as it all sounds. There is one simple and very reachable step that can be made that would radically change everything for the better. and that is, to simply get the money out of politics. There are a lot of ways to do it. Maximum contributions $100, no pacs, public financing, (sure there's d be a lot less money for campaigns, and what's wrong with that? Shorter campaigns without near the the number of commercials or compel the TV and radio stations to donate more in depth coverage than just sound bytes) Make it so politicians aren't spending 1/3 of their time soliciting for sponsorship. That would be the beginning of a new kind of public servant in Washington. Maybe it will take a generation of millennials to put it in action, but it would be a good start and it's a revolution that has broad support and is very doable..

That's a good article Jeff. It is the worst refugee crisis in the past quarter century, and to my surprise worse than the Iraq War. MSM or not, as a citizen i can tell you the news coverage from about 6 months after the Iraqi invasion for the next 7 years was hardly encouraging! In all there were about 3 million Iraqis displaced from their homes and 2 million refugees. not even half the estimated 11 million total estimates for Syria. The Iraqi refugees settled largely in population centers in neighboring countries in the Middle East. in Syria, there is a much higher settlement in refugee camps, which presents an even greater problem. "Glimmer of hope"' and everything's looking up? Let's hope Syria has a renaissance in 5 years! Jeff said: It is absolutely a humanitarian disaster - but is the primary cause of this disaster because Assad is engaged in a war against his own people with the support of Putin or because regional adversaries have been financing a regime change operation in that country? I say it is the latter. It's solely the latter?, and not both? Regional financing from who? I would not take the UN’s numbers at face value, as they had been very wrong in claiming 250,000 civilians at risk in east Aleppo when fighting there was approaching government victory about 18 months ago. That's the kind of information where they might be inaccurate, but when we're talking numbers of refugees, rather than reputed good sources with good people on the ground, I don't think there's any better source to count refugees than agencies whose jobs are to count and take care of them, though I don't expect complete accuracy. Early 2016 was the high water mark of the rebel’s control of territory, so there weren’t then “government protected areas” that were particularly safe at all. Don't be too sure. I've traveled though El Salvador and Nicaragua during their civil wars, and what I was struck with is that 99% of the country is peaceful. Check out this from October 2017. But if 2016 was the terrorist high water mark, check out the second August 2016 clip from Syrian tourism. Pretty inviting huh? A lot warmer right now than Canada! https://youtu.be/Uk8LSQbybo0 https://youtu.be/saXH4yQARqg

Jeff, I've never said I supported the assassination of Assad. That's Jim at least implying that I said that. And I don't accept the MSM interpretation or purported facts, , and as you can see, I'm not using them. Nobody here assumes that one side is responsible for everything. I can accept from your article that most of the dead are combatants, but there's also that thing called collateral damage, and using your fatality figures, over 25 times that figure are currently displaced or are refugees! It's a huge humanitarian disaster, do you accept the UN figures of refugees? What is the source of this article that you appear to be quoting, or any articles you're using? Please cite them. Here are the U.N. sources again. In 2016, from an estimated pre-war population of 22 million, the United Nations (UN) identified 13.5 million Syrians requiring humanitarian assistance, of which more than 6 million are internally displaced within Syria, and around 5 million are refugees outside of Syria. Please break this down for me, of these 6 million people who are internally displaced and the 5 million who are now refugees outside of Syria, Since you're claiming to be privy to a bit information. Do you know 1) How many of these people who are displaced or refugees are pro Assad? That is a bit difficult to gauge, isn't it?, because a lot of people if given free elections may not choose to vote for Assad, but basically just want peace for their families and their dwellings. I would think pro Assad people would gravitate toward government protected areas and not be that prevalent on the refugee list. Jeff, Would you really be as likely to leave your home country, if your chosen leader was in power, and maybe later, if he wins the cooperation of a powerful ally. (Russia)? What do you think? 2)how many of them have been displaced or are refugees because of their opposition to Assad? Wouldn't you be more likely to leave your mother country if you feared there would be government reprisals, if you were to return? Are there any figures for the displacement of Democratic forces such as the the SDF, which no one's mentioned. -(I notice you're article never once mentions ISIS, but is lumping all the terrorist groups together, that's cool.)

I actually remember Kinzer. Good research, Jim. Jim quotes an ex -Reaganite. In the 80's, he once very adamantly anti-Sandinista, though in fairness, I'm not sure if he was pro Contra, but a lot of Reaganites were back then. You can really pick em' Jim. I prefer sources who were always anti imperialists to ones who later had some "born again" epiphany. And I'd prefer hard numbers from the U.N. as to a refugee crisis , rather than prose about "glimmers of hope" and endless political pontifications, which I know puts you at somewhat of a disadvantage.

Paul said: Kirk - in regards to Syria, what course of history would you prefer? In your view, what caused the tragic destabilization of Syria? What was your point of view on the first, or second, US and allied wars in Iraq? Just curious. I’m pretty sure all of us would prefer a world without despots. What’s the solution? That's a good question Paul, and as I said I wish it were that simple. But Jim thinks it is. Jim says this as to my raising doubts about the outcome of Putin's alliance with Assad. I am still in favor of what Assad did with Putin. Because if that would not have happened, you would have had the same thing occur in Syria as what happened in Libya. Yes It's probably the 30th time I've heard Jim's obsession with Libya and Hillary again, but it's like comparing New York City to Hoboken. We're talking about a country with 4 times as many people as Libya and an authentic culture that's been around for milleniums, (oh I'm sorry, why did I even mention that!) News flash! Actually a country can be broken without a regime change, Jim. Jim says: I am still in favor of what Assad did with Putin. Well, I'm glad you think it was worth the risk for you, Jim. But like slavery, I think the ones that suffered might disagree. These are the facts: Try this: In 2016, from an estimated pre-war population of 22 million, the United Nations (UN) identified 13.5 million Syrians requiring humanitarian assistance, of which more than 6 million are internally displaced within Syria, and around 5 million are refugees outside of Syria. That's 2/3 of the population requiring humanitarian assistance and half the population either displaced or refugees out of the country! Numbers are boring,but they don't lie. And where are they going? They're migrating throughout East and West Europe. The victors can spin it whatever way they want. Putin's foraying into being a Middle East power broker is the biggest humanitarian disaster since Bush's War on Iraq. I see little difference in outcome, but unfortunately the Russian economy is such a piss poor basket case, (do you know all Russia, economically is about half the size of California!!)) so there's not going to be any real reconstruction anytime soon, but of course they can just throw all the millions of refugees on Europe. Good plan! Nobody can ignore the facts. We don't need idealogues, we have to face what works and what doesn't. If it worked better, I would have had no problem admitting it. But it's a disaster, a complete over extension.

This isn't new. We saw this clip before only a couple of months ago. These 2 guys were once 2 peas in a pod. Both Boot and Carlson were quite pro the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Neocons are a problem. But Jim calls anybody who disagrees with him a Neocon,or a Mc Carthyite, as he called me and Hancock. Just yesterday in his "What is the Kennedy cult anyway" Jim in his paranoia, imagines the stealthy neocon presence on this forum. Total irrational BS! He himself, starts the thread, and retreats into dark accusations when the thread doesn't produce the hegemony he wants. Jim was pretty enthusiastic about the Royal Wedding of Putin and Assad a couple of years ago. Yeah that really turned out well, Jim. I have some really fine imported pieces for sale for your rubble garden if you're interested.. It's being done on all sides now, and the people to suffer are the real people. Now we're propping up the "Strong Man' in Saudi Arabia,Iraq, and Afghanistan, and now that Putin's gotten in the act. It's noble to Jim. I wish it were that simple. And of course, his expressed fear now, is that the U.S. will hijack Syria from his beloved Putin, as if that's such a prize. Now that him and Assad have bombed every major city North of Damascus back into the Stone Age. The everyday people are just pawns in a global Super Power game.

Cliff said: Ever see JDiE admit Kennedy ever screwed up? No, in years on this forum. I have never once seen Jim Di acknowledge that JFK ever made a mistake in anything. And for the first time in my memory only a few days ago, Jim was forced to admit to me he's wrong, in assertions he just couldn't possibly deny. While most everyone here has a healthy idealistic vision of JFK,. I've felt given Di Eugenio's continual fawning over JFK, and his continual sort of soap box propagandizing is such that I might in the same somewhat biting sarcasm Cliff's using, classify Di Eugenio as a "JFK fanboy". But I prefer to characterize Jim Di's emulation of JFK, as having an element of "adolescent hero worship" which you could argue is pretty similar language. For Jim there's always this compulsion to defend the nobility and heroism of JFK. You have no further to look than this very thread itself, rather than tit for tat answering Hagger's charges, who other than Jim would opt to start a whole other thread to rally support of others? (which is always very important to him) Obviously where there's a cult, there has to be followers. I've seen a bit of knee jerk agreement and rather kiss butt comments to Jim that don't make me feel comfortable, but some of it is an healthy admiration for Jim's authorship and his efforts in the forum, which are substantial, and greater than any other single individual at this point. I think what makes me feel uncomfortable is that I find myself often in essence saying either outright to Jim or in my own thoughts, "Thank You, but I can make my own judgments". But I know I'm not the only one, so no cult. I think of JFK as a more fallible and human figure than Jim, and to me it makes his story greater.. As an aside, I should say, I personally do find Jim's outlook as dark, gloomy, and paranoid, and IMO the more closer to present day realities, the less relevant and more clueless his pronouncements become. Jim seems preoccupied with perpetuating this dark ongoing victimization of the Kennedy's, which is at odds with the facts. Jim insisted that Caroline Kennedy was somehow robbed because she just wasn't rewarded outright Hillary Clinton's vacated Senate seat, even though she was a complete newcomer who really hadn't done much work for the party. I don't think we should resort to conspiracy name calling when decisions are made through a meritocracy. The truth is, the Clinton's and the Bush's are gone. There's a lot that the follower's of the Kennedy legacy might be able to look forward to. The Kennedy political identity is largely untarnished, and is currently the most viable political dynasty on the American political scene, and the name now has a more broad base of political support than ever before. That probably runs counter to Jim's fatal story line. I've certainly never heard anything in the present that is at all hopeful from Jim. ***************** Jim says:The two best sources on this by far are John Newman's milestone book JFK and Vietnam, Chapter 18. That tells the story from the American side. In JFK and the Unspeakable pp 148-211, you will see it more from the Saigon side. Not to key just on Jim here, But isn't that what it so often comes down to? One researcher/ author arrogantly proclaiming another in some cases, cherry picked author as the definitive source? **********

Yes Cory, Re Bolivia: you sure this doesn't have something to do with that really cool alpaca sweater Lee bought? Just kidding. Hope it has legs! Re Mervyn: Mervyn seemed to think his pronouncements were headline news and commanded acclaim, and they got some curiosity for a short while, but he ended just attention mongering and sucking energy. His desired niche of being the pushback author of moral outrage about the JFK personal life is nothing new, didn't sell sh-t before and won't now. And some of his JFK, RFK foreign policy assertions neither him nor anyone can prove.

Corey, with the Warriors? Well I'm currently alone in my room. But yes, that is my hometown team for many bleak years, and I am a very happy fan now.

Kind of crazy. We wrapped up round 2 on Wednesday the 9th, and by a week from today we will have played only 2 games in 11 days! But I think that works to our advantage because we can prepare more than a team that depends so much on isos. I think tomorrow will be all out for both teams. We win and we can probably take it in 5, ok maybe 6 at the worst! "Drive west on Sunset to the sea---Turn that jungle music down!---Just until we're out of town." DF+WB(RIP)=SD

Cliff, I generally like where you take some of these discussions. The Globalists are cool with Trump because he cut their taxes, and they know they can keep his anti-trade impulses bottled up. I think that's on target. This is the greatest pro globalist business atmosphere of the post war era. They are a bit upset at the China rhetoric. But are confident as in all situations that a President that has tied his fortunes to the well being to the stock market, ultimately won't let them down. Michael, I would agree with you. I think Trump's desire to bring down drug prices is one of the few things he has advocated I can agree with, that I think he has a fair chance of doing something that no other candidate can do. But the reality is the Biotech sector started declining an hour before his speech, and rebounded after when Trump made no specifics about what he was going to do. This sort of dismissing Trump is now just commonplace in the markets and done out of habit. Hopefully he'll get specific in the future, and I do think he'll probably get something accomplished, but not near as much as many of us would like. IMO The Institutionalists are pissed at Trump because he's incredibly incompetent. I definitely agree, how can you get anything done, with someone who knows absolutely about how his government works? There are actually people here who think the institutionalists (deep state) are the cause of everything! But the Globalists are tickled pink and welcome the "Deep Staters" and their diverting attention from the ecstatic roll they've been on for the last 35 years, by which they've been able to accomplish what they want while barely firing a gun. Now they find themselves where there's not a lot of need for subversion and they pretty accomplish everything they want, largely out in the open, legislatively. And the big bonus is that if the proponents of the "Deep State government conspiracy" can make enough trouble, they just might be able to dismantle the safety net and maybe someday completely dismantle Social Security (because there isn't enough money ,right?) And the Globalists will say, "We agreed with you, government just by nature is corrupt". Now you can have the self reliant satisfaction of foraging for yourself in your old age. And we'll see how powerful the proponents of the "Deep State government conspiracy" advocates, (who got what they wished for), or the rest of us, become then. There are elements devoted to the evangelical Khristian Kaucasian Kaliphate, the GOP right wing -- Dominionists. Yes, the cultural aspect. The white racism. Never ever mentioned, just the callous disregard of anyone's needs outside of themselves, just pawns in their game. Oh come on, Cliff. Don't be so PC. Just get over it!

No, Jim misread and misspoke and he admitted he was wrong. I suggested some other ways we might be able to communicate better. Ok, You're incensed by my response to you in another thread, and that's ok.

I'm not talking about your books. It was assertions you made in our threads, and yes I did ask you on a few occasions to cite your sources. The final time I asked you twice, and you ignored it twice. That's all right. Maybe you'll be more conscious of it in the future.

Congratulations Jim!!!! That's the first time I ever heard you admit you're wrong! In the future I'm hopeful you'll respond to my requests to "cite your sources." That would also be good.