Kirk Gallaway

Ah yes, the irony, so much outrage about a movie. Life in the bubble. This thread has turned out exactly as I predicted in my first post. Jim,100,000 words later, if we had any doubt (I certainly didn't) that you're not a "feel good movie" guy, we certainly know now. We get it.We appreciate your vigilance in setting your record straight, and shepherding those of us who can't make our own judgments. To tally: You definitely have struck a chord with Don, but it's a bit like preaching to the choir, isn't it?, As I would already put Don at a "9" on the "outrage meter". Certainly no match for your "10", but close. And he paid you a complement, which you gotta feel pretty good about. But it does appear you got Joe who argued against Paul's general approval, but I might characterize him as a "soft 7". Hey but what do I know?! I suppose I'm still in the middle as I've yet to see the movie. But there are some interesting posts that make me think I should.

"The people who did well in the news media were those who didn't write the big stories, who looked the other way, when history was happening in front of them, and went along consciously or just by cowardice with the deception of the American people." I always thought of Dan Rather.

Thank God, there is at last, some brave men in Congress who are finally telling it like it is, and isn't it about time? And it all ads up. We're finally getting some idea of the nature of the Deep State in E-mails between FBI Peter Strzok and his girlfriend Lisa Page . We now know there's a "Secret Society" within the Deep State". I can only imagine the God they pray to! Thank God we have a leader who's probably watching. IMO, He's the only thing keeping us from becoming N. Korea! The FBI got rid of them, to throw the whole thing off on a few underlings. Yeah!, but they got to get up pretty early in the morning to pull the wool over our eyes! https://youtu.be/UUwXhunT5h0 And now we have an admission from an actual FBI agent! https://youtu.be/4ULgAZ2NNDA A primer on this fast moving news story. https://youtu.be/q8XzWBadFiU

https://youtu.be/A25rBXkjbX0

Paul says: Pat - do you think Spielberg knows he’s not being truthful and is making a conscious cinematic decision to tell the story a certain way for effect? I've asked myself that question too Paul. I think what Pat's trying to tell you is that if Spielberg wanted to start the movie with the demise of Phillip Graham, and showed a scene of Graham drunk at a newspaper publishing conference, making a lot of provocative comments, among them the revelation that JFK was sleeping with Mary Pinchot Meyer. The movie would not have been made. If it’s in some way about Trump, are we supposed to believe the Times and the Post are telling truth now? Paul having some idea of your sensibilities from this forum and through private messaging. I would just say, as to Trump's fitness to be President, believe your eyes. I do go with Pat's depiction about the final scene with Joe Pesci as Ferrie, it's not accurate, and is the least believable dialog in the whole film and still it's the probably the most quoted, because Stone knew the masses would love it. I would say the masses second most memorable quote was from Kevin Bacon to Kevin Costner. "Dat's cause you never been f-cked up de xxx, counselor. " I suppose some people would say that Stone is pandering to the gay hysteria during the Aids epidemic, but I wouldn't. I bet if I checked "JFK" again, I know there's a number of other things. I do think in interviews Stone has , on the whole been pretty discerning, though he does believe that Beverly Oliver's story that she was the Babushka Lady, which I personally don't. Pat, It's here in the forum that Richard Helms and Ben Bradlee were childhood friends and that i n 1961 Richard Helms tipped off Bradlee that his grandfather, Gates White McGarrah, a board member of the Vincent Astor Foundation, was willing to sell Newsweek. (31) Bradlee went to Philip Graham with the story. " http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKbradleeB.htm

"Jim Di Eugenio spanks the Post" By Jim Di Eugenio! We're certainly reaching new levels of self promotion. I wonder if Jim got competitively inspired by the thread entitled "Rich Pope" . heh heh--- a joke. Jim is the self appointed forum "Minister of Information" about the MSM. IMO, Some of it I like and contribute to, some leaves me scratching my head, most of it gets a bit obsessive and goes on too long. (like the above,--- I guess that's my critique) I remember his criticism of "Viet Nam" was that it was a 10 part documentary that didn't focus on the role of Dulles and Lansdale, as if he wasn't the least aware of the type of movies Ken Burns makes, or maybe he's not. A real criticism of that documentary is that we weren't just innocent bystanders who stumbled into Viet Nam. But this is a drama. I don't plan to see it in a theater, almost anything with Tom Hanks now is sort of a distraction for me. But I'll definitely catch it at home. No they're not historians. Neither Stone nor Spielberg would argue that they're sacrificing historical accuracy for dramatic effect. The end of "Argo' is a perfect example, it's called storytelling! It's not a vehicle for great indignity! It's a movie! If some factual inaccuracy in the movie actually led the masses to revolt and cause great bloodshed for a false purpose, that would be one thing. But there's no clear and present danger. The story is 50 years old!

Dave, Interesting. Ruth, tai chi no less! But Arthur, obviously a brilliant guy, but quite the metaphysician! I've seen his book, but didn't know it was him. Pretty groovy couple, with high aspirations!

That's because George's estimate was wrong. Putin was born in 1952.

Ok, just to confine ourselves to the immediate issue. IMO, To use a baseball analogy, any theory that posits that the Soviets killed JFK, (given the relations between the 2 powers at that time) is pretty far out there in a ballpark with a very spacious right field. There's no motive.

Ok, some interesting stuff. Almost every city now has a site where they show you old pictures of their history and memorabilia, which is very cool. I guess you live along enough, even Dallas becomes "in". What a typical obnoxious redneck kid interviewing Jimi! (characterizing him as a high school dropout!) Screw you! He was almost saying, I haven't heard you play guitar but Dylan must be a big influence?????? Ok he did 2 songs from Dylan. Were they trying to bait Glenn Campbell to say something lame about the Smother's Brothers? I imagine they were very disappointed later when Glenn Campbell did a version of "Universal Soldier"

Yes Das Boot is quite the hawk! If we had just done it like Lansdale wanted to do it, with his hearts and minds diplomacy. Vietnam would have been completely different!. We could have done it again and again and again! Who knows what we could have accomplished! Fletcher Prouty would not be prout!

Yes funny you mention that, I was watching "Ollie North's War Stories". I agree Andrew, in some ways it's thankless work. We musn't always expect gratitude from the country's who are ordained to be touched by our hand of American Exceptualism. But sometimes the seeds of such actions, that may be hardly noticeable at the time, sprout into huge trees of prosperity, as perhaps the drug culture that has fomented throughout Central America and Mexico today! Who would have thought at the time?!

That's right, Kissinger, with his complicity with the CIA should have been in jail for War Crimes years ago. By your statement It's hard to know what Kissinger was warning Trump about. Leaving aside the subsequent issues that have arisen about emoluments, international money laundering, obstruction of justice, conspiring with foreign powers. In hindsight, it could be very simple. Maybe he correctly foresaw Trump was a fool and thought it necessary to explain the obvious that you're going to need these agencies backing and have to work with them and there's no percentages in pissing them off. And it's obvious now, he's not going to bring them down. Polls show more people think he's probably guilty of some wrong doing than those who don't. Trumps base is an unlikely but firm coalition of Corporate Elites who love him (though some wish he'd get off twitter) and people who have had no hope for so long, that they have no expectation of hope in the future, and so will not hold his feet to the fire over anything.(To the joy of the corporate elites!) But equally entrenched are the "Never Trump" people.

Steve, I opened your link, but I really don't have any idea of your direction. But I assume you are drawing parallels to the current world market condition. Currently foreign markets, are bouncing off each other in a celebration of a new leg up in world Globalism, and unregulated free markets. This is the most pro corporate, pro business climate in the history of the world. In the U.S. this has meant an orderly continuation of the current fall in unemployment but no increase in wages. The lowering of corporate taxes and repatriation of dollars are being heralded as bringing on a new age for hiring. Yet nearly all the increase in windfall profits over the last 10 years haven't been used to increase hiring so much as the buying back the corporations stock, concentrating the wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people. The benefits of this go to the shareholders, and the 1% who by so doing, exponentially increase their % holdings of their company stock.

And to you James, and to all here. Merry +mas and Happy Holiday Beatles live concert in England in 65, strong vocal mix, except at the very start with P&G, go to 1:17-1:30, -----Stones 34:30-43:00. Eric Burdon-Animals 1:05-1:16, Kinks at the end--Early Moody Blues before pyschedelics at beginning.

I checked it out Dave. First post is 2005, in the same general time period as the Hunt confession.

Some good questions to ask Doug at the end, Joe. When I first read the interview and saw the video tape, what struck me was how little St. John seemed to know about the business of his Father. (Particularly in view of some of stories later about his complicity with his Father in certain acts) Hunt's LBJ did it theory was ultimately Hunt's speculation and it really left more questions unanswered than it answered. If I had the opportunity to get that once in a lifetime interview , I would have left no stone unturned. He never seemed to entertain the possibility that his Father might be covering for Dulles/ or the agency. I had a short correspondence with him a while back. I briefly mentioned Dulles and the agency to him. Later on, presumably after he had been on a number of media shows, his concepts have increasingly inculcated the Agency than just the LBJ did it theory. I also was wondering at the time why the MSM didn't run with story? St. John said 60 minutes were going to do a segment than later mysteriously backed out. Is it because the MSM got word from on high not to run the story?, or did they research it and find the story wasn't credible or simply didn't find enough information that they wanted to go out on a limb and say that a former POTUS actually killed his predecessor to fulfill his titanic ambition to be President. People who don't hold the LBJ-Did -It theory maybe should be thankful that the MSM viewed the story with the same skepticism they do. As making such an allegation that later would prove not to hold up to scrutiny would set the JFK conspiracy movement even further back. A lot of media skepticism is because of the lack of focus, countervailing theories, quack theories, and no big break in the case, and potentially having a huge hoax theory that the VP arranged the murder of the sitting President would send it back irrevocably. Having said that, I know those who believe in that theory, think that drawing light to the theory may have been the big break they needed to blow the whole story open. Central to Hunt's theory, is that LBJ had a profound ambition. I've thought about this a bit, as there is definitely another side to LBJ that no one sees, even apart if you believe that he had his own hit man in Malcolm Wallace. How ambitious was LBJ really? There is one fact that I've never heard anyone say here. And that is, LBJ never really campaigned for President in 1960, he never ran in one primary. He entered in July after all the primaries hoping to get a draft on a potential second ballot. Personally I thought that Cord Meyer being the linchpin tying LBJ to the Assassination, was just the kind of juicy spy novel connection Hunt, being a spy novelist might make. That coupled with the fact, that I had never heard of Cord Meyer being considered in any JFK conspiracy theory prior to that, made me even more skeptical of his LBJ did it connection.

Maybe it's the Texas thing, but I always thought Connally and LBJ looked kind of similar in cowboy hats. This is to me the most relevant phone call on record between the two. In 1967, notably after the death of David Ferrie, Connally phoned LBJ to tell him his speculation about a mistaken theory he had heard about the direction of Garrison's case. He tells LBJ he heard there were 4 teams of conspirators and Oswald, Ferrie and Clay Shaw (I guess because of his inter national connections) were part of one team in a Cuban conspiracy to avenge alleged plots to kill Castro, that the CIA was" instructed" to do. inferring that Bobby may have made the instructions without his brother knowing, despite assurances to the contrary after the Cuban Missile crisis. LBJ responds that he's heard that theory, notably also from Jimmy Hoffa's attorney, but his sources have dismissed it as "ridiculous". What I thought was curious was when LBJ refers to the CIA "reconstructing their request of me when I became President". I've always wanted to think it's NSAM 273, but it seems like too much of a setup. https://youtu.be/N50cBXvS_G0?t=7 I'm getting an error message that youtube doesn't allow the imbedding of this video, but I find that if you go to youtube and put this link into the url, it will come up.

Absolutely, No substance to the Breitbart article at all. I'm sure it is Milo, as the article is London based. Great article, Jeff, you give me some hope. Dummying down a bit, This is a humorous stab about Net Neutrality from John Oliver, where he often on his show goes into a subject, such as Net Neutrality, in full depth and it is entertaining , but very informative, and good primer for people who might find such a subject tedious. In this, he humorously profiles the commissioner. He also makes reference to the previous transgressions of AT&T and Verizon, and Verizon's public statements to shareholders at their quarterly earnings reports, where they stress that the current Title 2 classification doesn't really present a financial hardship to Verizon at all, despite their present protests of hardship. https://youtu.be/92vuuZt7wak

Figure it out, folks. Trump appointed Ajit Pai (that silly guy with the huge Reese's coffee cup, anyone ever see "Bob Roberts"?) Those who voted for Trump naively ended up voting for the Republican Corporate power structure. Now it's simple math, 3-2 Republican. Our hope is to fight it in court and that's iffy. Ron asks: Are political activists protesting this? Will it not affect Democrats, Independents and Republican's internet usage all? I guess you might think that but relax!, our great proponents of liberty who also rail against the "Deep State", Breitbart doesn't think that way at all and they tell you "what to think about it". http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/11/13/here-s-what-net-neutrality-is-and-what-to-think-about-it/ Yes, Bannon approved, So do we finally have a litmus test issue? Actually we've already had a few.Under this equation, there will be more battles in the future concerning your economic rights as citizens. I can understand wanting something different, I did too, but for those who drank the Trump Kool Aid, you have a decision to make, do you want to be a fact based, informed citizen, or a grovelling slave. I'm confident whatever choice you make will be the right one. Good Luck!

This, not the release of declassified JFK assassination documents is the MSM conspiracy issue of the day! You can e-mail the commissioner directly through here. gofccyourself.com , Don't worry, he won't see that title, but it gets you quickly to the specific case. When you've filled out the form, go up to the top to hit "review " before submitting. At least that's how I had to do it. In the 2016 elections, Despite the populist rhetoric.There was never a doubt in my mind where Trump would weigh in on this issue, given the people backing his campaign. What was a little unclear was Hillary's support of net neutrality, as I had read in the Podesta hacked e-mails that her stand on it was a bit more ambivalent, than her public posture for net neutrality. (though she said nothing specifically that was anti net neutrality) However, this is no surprise , as Hillary, being the centrist she was, was actually rather ambivalent about a lot of issues. That's why these inferences that Hillary would have started WW3 with the Russians that are sometimes bantered about by Oliver and Roger Stone are such BS! ( One I love, but I can freely say, "Natural Born Killers" sucks!, and the other I loathe!) However the one thing you can be sure about with Hillary is she knows her bread and butter and she would not reverse her position and defy Obama's stance on net neutrality. But now, we have to contend with this. It's practically a done deal! You poor guy's in the middle get suckered again! But now it's for all of us! The internet is potentially such a great equalizer. The highest overall internet use is in Nordic countries where the government takes an active hand in making the internet accessible to their citizens. In my mind any infrastructure bill, as one of the few good things that Trump has proposed which he could actually have accomplished, should also include bringing dependable broadband to a greater number of our citizens. I think this article is enlightening in telling you about the rise and the current state of the internet, though it doesn't specifically address the Net Neutrality issue. Later on, Check out 34 and 35, and which states where well financed interests have the most pull to crush municipal internet. https://www.vox.com/a/internet-maps

That's right. Joe. And similarly, the problems involving the release of the newly classified documents isn't the latest "MSM media conspiracy" du jour! The mainstream media is to our viewpoint very ignorant about the Kennedy assassination because they were born after it, their parents were probably confused by it, they were educated to view it with some skepticism and all their journalistic idols and career contacts didn't emphasize it. I would predict it would very gradually continue unless there's a major break in this case.

Remarkably a lot of this is like Joe, I was 12 soon to become 13, about 80 miles north of Joe on the SF Bay peninsula. . I was in the 7th grade and the last person coming in from the playground of a mid morning recess,when I saw the whole class was milling around and my home room teacher was the only home room of 7 that had a radio and we were all listening when a friend who I know to this day informed me Kennedy had been hit in the head and LBJ had been hit in his body as well. Probably a half hour later we heard JFK died.Some girls were crying, everyone was stunned. Call it the loss of innocence but I've never seen such a mass stunning after any such event in my life. I never thought an incident as 911 was really that unexpected. The people who would compare those 2 events obviously didn't live during the first. The American public at that time was not at all aware of all that we were doing in the world. Later,we heard of the apprehension of Oswald, and his alleged Communist connections. America didn't talk much about itself at the time,but we had just been through the Cuban Missile Crisis and the first thought of the repercussions that could ensue form the Russians or Cubans could getting involved in the Assassination of our President was a thought that no one wanted to entertain. But I remember thinking there was a lack of continuity in the reporting about the apprehension of LHO. There was never an assassins profile, we hadn't heard of that vague profile given of the man in the window the TSBD, and the next thing we know, some guy had been apprehended in a theater after shooting a policeman. It did seem to me, that after shooting the President,an a assassin would try to keep a lower profile than to shoot a policeman 10 miles away.and why there? Had there been a chase directly out of the place where the assassination was committed? If there had been, which we know there wasn't, how come we hadn't heard about it? Then it just seems like divine good fortune that this guy who shot the cop just happened to work in building that people were now saying was where the shots came from and owned this rifle they recovered! It seemed really fishy to me but I voiced that to my friends but we pretty much thought when more details were released it would all come together. But in that next week, subsequent accounting by the major networks of the sequence of events that happened, none of the randomness of these events were explained. Oswald's appearance didn't conjure up any sympathy. That late recess, there were about 5 of us 12 year old boys wanting to become men talking about how we'd like to exact justice on LHO, a friend of mine talked about getting a dagger and starting at his throat , coming down the center of his torso driving the dagger deeper and deeper. Just tough talking young boys! I do remember either a clip or an account in those next few days, was it from Bringuer that LHO had come to their organization offering his services to help the Anti Castro forces, only to find Oswald a few days later in the street distributing leaflets for FPFC. I remember thinking that was strange. But it didn't seem like the public wanted to digest it too much further. We were all watching when LHO was murdered by Ruby. I think the general consensus was that this Dallas must be the craziest , loonville place on earth.. All these stupid f-cking men running around in their cowboy hats!