Kirk Gallaway

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.

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.

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?

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?!

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?

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."

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.

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

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.