Jump to content
The Education Forum

Kirk Gallaway

Members
  • Posts

    1,500
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Kirk Gallaway

  1. That's true Ron, but what's so completely pathetic is what a squirming l-ar he was in these interviews when asked if he conversed with Trump on Jan.6th. First, obviously feeling he was on home ground with Fox's Bret Baier, he was completely taken sideways by the Baier asking him. Watch how he hems and haws and obfuscates. But if that isn't pathetic enough, you'd think he would have been better prepared the second time when further questioned by another guy. Look at the first 2:08 of this for the clips. It wasn't at all significant to Jordan if he talked to Trump before, during, or after the riots. You'd think maybe the content of the conversation with Trump might jog his memory, but he can hardly remember. I love how Jordan positions himself in the second interview with an American flag and a football behind him. You'd think after the allegations of him being quiet about the pedophile coach in the locker room in his past, he's be careful about evoking his locker room past. And to think Kevin Mc Carthy actually wanted to include him on the Jan.6th hearings, before Pelosi nixed it. He's accomplished almost nothing in Congress other than, of course being a a legendary Republican hero against the National Security State to Benjamin heh heh
  2. Richard said: it would be political suicide--he would only gain points among far-left radical progressives and marginalized groups. No gains anywhere else. For the vast majority of moderates and average liberals he certainly gains nothing, and it will give conservatives ammo to use against when he runs for President. Last thing he wants to see is the campaign TV commercial with pictures of RFK's corpse lying on the kitchen floor and having that tied to his insincere smiling face. Richard, You're pretty much reiterating the political angle I was saying. But the way things have polarized now. I don't think Newsome would care what the Conservatives say about the Sirhan parole in Conservative ads in Red states, he'd just go for the blue states, but why would he take that unnecessary chance in moderate states?. There is no political pick up in Newsome not taking action. And you're probably right.
  3. I agree with your sentiments, Ben. But I'll give you a different slant than the "victim" slant you're looking for and liable to hear here. These stories have been around for a long time, and even if they were a concerted MSM effort to discredit JFK. It's always backfired. In fact, I think with post 40's crowd who were aware of the power dynamic they grew up with, by in large it's only added some mystique to JFK, as well as a lot of naughty actions, by the young Kennedy siblings of the 70's. The Kennedy's despite all the tabloid action, are the most durable political dynasty on the American scene, and it's not even close. Not that the successive generations of Kennedy politicians can get away with that now. The only outlier, is the millenials and younger super politically correct crowd, who might view this article with disgust.But I don't see that impairing the new somewhat wholesome generation of Kennedy politicians.
  4. This is good stuff! And not easy to predict. 1)Personally I don't think Newsome will be recalled. 2) I don't think this recall will interfere at all in his ambitions for higher office. Which is not to say, he'd be successful. He'll be trounced over and over again for his dinner in Napa , as he should be. But a lot of it is sour grapes about the pandemic, and he's definitely made mistakes. But most people understand that's a hard thing for any politician to navigate, but he comes out on the right side of history. Though the variant has complicated things in what was to be a cakewalk. Some think because of results in the UK and India, that it should peak within a couple of weeks in the U.S., but in California, it's confined mostly to rural, unvaccinated areas. Jim's right, if he lets Sirhan go free, it won't be in any activist sense, he'll just say "let the will of the courts be done", and distance himself from any involvement, because he is an unabashed politician, and as Richard says, 1) the thing he least wants to do is entangle himself in a conspiracy theory. but 2 )it's not a good decision for the straight liberals who support him who believe that Sirhan did kill RFK, 3) He gains nothing with the moderate crowd, but looks like a bleeding heart liberal, which is not a good look for a liberal like Newsome. heh heh.
  5. A motley crew of anti vaxer's speaking out of their oppression in a San Diego board of supervisors meeting.
  6. My best wishes as well. Rest up, do only what you're comfortable with. Get well!
  7. I think Obama could have and should have gotten out of Afghanistan in his first term. It would have put the blame on the War, squarely on the people who started it, Bush and the Republicans. As it is now, any online newbie from anywhere can parachute into, and be an expert on the American political scene and make no distinctions and declare the Democrats just another war party. I don't really forgive Obama for that. I think of Obama as the "Jackie Robinson" of the Presidents, and he saw himself as that.. I think it has to do with Obama's psychological make up. I guess anybody can be an armchair psychoanalyst. There's an interesting anecdotal story about Obama. As a student at Harvard when Obama won editor of the Harvard Review, later his leftist allies who voted for him over the conservative candidate became upset with Obama , for bending over backwards to the conservative he beat. Later as President, Obama was honorable and too concerned with being fair and got steamrolled by Mitch Mac Connell. There are numerous incidents of that, including one in the fall of 2016. Being the first black President he didn't want to be seen as uppity. Just my take.
  8. Ben: Concerning his exhaustive research into Amy Klobuchar talking points. BEN:There is more, but your eyes would glaze over. A big section on China (I loathe the CCP, btw). China is a real economic threat. It's the one thing Trump got right. If you loathe the CCP, then why are you putting her down for that? But my eyes are already glazed over. I'm not sure why you chose a midwest Democrat Amy Klobuchar's sort of boiler plate foreign policy statement to mean anything. She actually ran for President in 2020 and was beaten soundly. So she doesn't represent a sizable chunk of the dems. About the only good foreign policy things I can say about her is that she was for the U.S, Iran multi national agreement,( that actually was backed by Putin and Russia if that validates it for you,) and that was opposed by Cheney and was jettisoned by peacenik Trump. She also favored Obama opening up relations with Cuba, again opposed by Cheney, and Trump dumped that as well.. These are substantive issues. Unfortunately in the U.S. there are only 2 parties, so they cover a lot of ideological ground. Ben:If there is anybody opposed to the national security state today, it is the populist wing of the GOP On the surface, that may seem so , but you're confusing the pablum that Tucker is directly feeding you, but Steve Banon was the architect of, as reality. You talk about the "populist wing of the GOP". Do you have anything specific on who you're talking about? Can you name me one person that you'd like to defend? The great majority of the "populists" you're mentioning were never really on record espousing anti national security state views, (maybe the Paul's,) and if you look through their history in public statements, were pro Bush's War in Iraq. They're just blindly following whatever Trump says. There is a character element in all this stuff as well. So there's a bit more going on under the surface. Ben I get from you there's one big issue and that's the U.S. National Security State. Oh and of course "identity politics". But since you were probably the last person here to predict Biden would get out of Afghanistan, you can now see there's a lot more resistance in the U.K. and Europe and throughout the world than just the U.S, "Deep State". But there's also a myriad of other issues that we citizen's of the U.S. face; there's issues of Environmental Protection and climate change. There's a struggle for civil rights and voting rights. In the U.S.. there are severe income inequality issues and some of us are trying to build a more equitable health care system. We're going through a pandemic and there's been a massive economic displacement here and throughout the world. These problems do exist whether Tucker and Glen Greenwad talk about them or not. No I don't agree with that either Ron. So Biden has a choice, but Obama didn't have a choice, because he would have been assassinated.?
  9. Wow! Not the first Stone I thought to roll, but I did think Keith may have had 9 lives! RIP
  10. John said: However, I am not sure Larry is right when he says a capitalist country should be able to compete economically with communist China. It would be true if China was a communist country. However, it is more accurately described as "state capitalist". This is the most effective economic system ever and very difficult to compete with. Most importantly, the government controls "labor costs" and major investment in the economy (it also controls outside investment). This is really a cogent point. It's really a hybrid of Capitalism and a planned economy. For example, Two of the biggest issues in the U.S. now are 1) wealth inequality. The CCP are going after the billionaires and are going to be a lot more successful than the U.S. ever could be. 2) There's a lot of talk by both parties in the U.S. about the power of social media. Europe has taken a more regulatory stance, but The CCP is just sweeping in and taking control in a manner we would consider Draconian, and there's not a long history, or culture of respecting individual rights to offer much resistance. The weakness is it rests on critical decisions, by a very centralized group and if the judgment is wrong it could be, at some time disastrous, as for example it has occasionally been with overbuilding, as there are 100,000 people cities that are completely unoccupied. But up to now, the economy has been such a powerhouse, it can easily be absorbed. The Chinese are everywhere funding foreign infrastructure projects. There is a total of about 800 foreign infrastructures projects in every major continent. In Panama they are talking about the increased Chinese influence. There is still a loyalty or a willingness in Latin America to look upon the U.S. as a big brother. I'm not sure why, but there is a perception that the U.S. could be their natural benefactor if the government didn't from time to time get in the way. But that perception has to be changing. I remember for many decades there was a grueling, bumpy 9 hour bus ride from Guatemala City to a remote region in the Guatemalan rain forest and the Mayan temples of Tikal. I didn't go there over a decade and 15 years ago when I last went, I found that whole route had now been paved. I wondered how the Guatemalan government managed to do that? And I found out it was an infrastructure project funded by the Germans. The Germans? If the U.S. had done more of that rather than just selling arms to perpetuate a 5% middle class that preserved our corporate interests, they had the chance to be the benevolent super power that the West so much looked up to after WWll.
  11. Jim, we had this discussion, maybe a year ago. Didn't you argue that Nixon was the worst for the reasons that Ben stated. The overall loss of life during Nixon's administration was the greatest and he and Kissinger knew early on the war was unwinnable. It's a persuasive argument, the overall loss of life. But anyway, welcome aboard! I agree of the two, W. is worse because he chose to enter a completely elective war, and was under no real pressure from the MIC, and the extent of both his and Nixon's actions were both very far reaching. But you can always argue Nixon inherited the Vietnam War, though his role in history shows a sinister influence before he ever became President. As for Trump, I'd say, he was the least fit for President, and the extent of the damage he's caused to the Nation itself, isn't fully known and can't really be assessed truly for probably the decade. Though it's a good argument to say the loss of life under Trump because of the pandemic will always be hard to determine, but will at least contained to the country, that he was President. And I notice W's chief partner in crime, Tony Blair has now called Biden's actions "imbecilic".
  12. That's funny Adam! For awhile you really had me going there! I can think of another thread here, where utterings like that are almost commonplace. So literally nothing can make me even flinch anymore! ** It's like the U.S. is so empty within, that they're completely given over to the world and idle pleasures come streaming in from without, and are welcomed as a diversion. And wielding the fate of others becomes an amusement which will always find an opportunity toward indulgence. -Maybe Trump was the true American President! heh heh ***** Larry said: Yep, there will never be a shortage of reasons for foreign intervention - strategic, humanitarian, security. And that will generally come to include cultural intervention (projecting our system of democracy and equal rights overseas), regime change, nation building, and all the opportunities that go along with it. After all, its worked so well for us.... Well put! Larry, you can see it now in the myriad of rationalizations to stay. It's like we're coming to grips that we're going to have to jettison our true egalitarian Afghanistan dream of the convenience of home delivery from Amazon, and a Mac Donald's at every corner and a Starbucks on every block. for every Afghani man, woman, and child.
  13. Well Pat's posted this. How are you doing Pat? How is your recovery going? Great interview! Interesting to hear about your unique JFKA journey, and I've always wanted to hear about your encounters with hard core JFKA "experts" or in some cases dogmatists.
  14. There's nothing "macro" about this at all. She's going after Dylan's deep pockets and hopes to settle out of court. As far as the media carrying this story. In this day, it's called "news". You can expect them to report on an ongoing suit against a celebrity like this every time. The reason is that it is of interest to some people. People really eat this stuff up!
  15. Yes I remember that. I thought you might be confusing Cheney's statement as to Sadamm not being directly involved with 911, to Bin Laden. For Cheney to admit that, credibility wise, would be in fact giving away his store. Maybe I missed it but have you found any evidence to back up your assertion that some of the alleged hijackers are still alive?
  16. W. I agree with you. i think Doug is greatly overestimating the Taliban as an international threat. W: Both Dick Cheney and FBI Director Robert Mueller later testified that evidence implicating Osama Bin Laden in the 9/11 attacks "was never forthcoming." What is the source of this? This was in some Senate Subcommittee hearing? ***** The reaction to this withdrawal is pretty much as I predicted. The outrage, the pressure on Biden. The people on the ground, the soldiers who previously fought, the same usual historian media "talking heads" weighing in in the news media. But now positively on the withdrawal, I am starting to hear more stories in reflection of what a miserable boondoggle this entire war was. Despite Biden's claims a month ago, that there wasn't a complete fall to be reckoned with, at least anytime soon. I knew that was BS. But I thought that it might take a month rather than 10 days. Isn't that all the more reason that we shouldn't be there? Obviously the haste by which this has happened has produced some problems. The Taliban is prudent to appear moderate and cooperate with the evacuation. Why step on the tale of a tiger when the tiger's leaving? I was hoping to find the interview to post here of Jim Acosta with Jerry Brown on Saturday where Brown praised Biden's actions as showing courage, and went into one of his good rants about the endless wars, hitting upon JFK, and the CIA's role in the Bay of Pigs briefly and pleading for these cycles of endless war to stop. I thought "not bad for an 83 year old!"
  17. President Ghani of Afghanistan has now fled the capital leaving it completely open for the Taliban. ******* Absolutely right W. As I said, Biden was going to take a lot of heat for this. It's sort of a cheap shot that the Republicans and the media are delivering. You notice none of them are coming out for a massive military action to fight back one last time to salvage the 20 years. Though Biden's going to send more troops to assist in evacuation, which is technically a blunder that they'll also thrash him for. A President does this in the first year of office, so he has plenty of time to recover in the next 3 years. In the case of Biden, he's hoping his covid relief package, infrastructure bill and relative vaccination success, (most people understand Biden's not going to hold much sway over people who simply refuse to get vaccinated) offset the 20 year foreign policy embarrassment. Trump could have done this in his first year and won some begrudging approval from Democrats and would have looked brilliant with Middle America for breaking up the "stalemate" in Washington. But despite his campaign rhetoric, he didn't. Obama, if he had listened to Biden, could have also and lay the historic responsibility of these occupations where it belongs, on the Republicans, who initiated them. But he ended saddling the Democrats to another pro war party, which is a perception with a sizable number of people, that lasts to this day.
  18. W: I'm not one to blame Trump or Biden for trying to get us out of the quagmire, Trump trying to get us out of the quagmire?? If he wanted to, he could have, in his first year in office back in 2017, just like Biden did. Whatever Trump's rhetoric, in the end he's blaming the withdrawal on the Democrats. That tells you how sincere he was about pulling out of Afghanistan. Just as the increased Intelligence and Defense budgets under Trump. W: What concerns me is whether the American public will get an honest, accurate appraisal of the 20 year Afghanistan War fiasco, "Honest, accurate appraisal?" In the final analysis, most people can see it's a 20 year war, that's probably going to end in images similar to the fleeing from Saigon in 1975. That's not going to be perceived as successful. As far as the "Rambo syndrone": The case that we could have bombed our way to victory as some alleged in Vietnam is not going to be swallowed in such a disfragmented ,tribal country and culture that foreign powers have been warring over for centuries. People aren't, at least that stupid. After 1975, Jimmy Carter had a very peaceful administration. Why?, in part it was Carter, and in part, because people didn't want to go war. Then Reagan got in, and it gradually escalated, Beirut , Grenada, bombing Khadaffy, escalating to Iran contra etc.. In the future, the choice to not fight is always there. Keep in mind, the Democrats in the house voted solidly opposing going to war in Iraq. Now we've finally got a few right leaning people who have abandoned the neocons.
  19. Re: Trump, you know I've been thinking about something that might get us out of this mess. It may seem a little far fetched but hear me out. Why don't we produce a "Truman " like movie where Trump still thinks he's President. Trump's followers after watching a few episodes will follow in suit and in a couple of months, we'll be right back to normal! 😃 What do you guys think?
  20. The question by David was: CIA budget cut? Does anyone know their total yearly budget, for any year? The answer is yes, there is a budget, that's approved every year, and is a matter of public record. But that of course doesn't stop a black budget within the budget, and money going to very nefarious things. The biggest parts of the pie are to the National Intelligence budget, (NIP 62.7 billion in 2020.) which includes the CIA, and the Military Intelligence budget (MIP 23.1 billion in 2020). I love this disclaimer by the Director of national Intelligence. In addition, other departments and agencies may engage in certain activities related to intelligence for their own mission needs that are not captured here. I found out some interesting things. During the last 4 Obama years, Intelligence was largely underfunded , actually given less money than they asked for(with one exception on MIP in 2014), and during the Trump years they were almost all over funded. 2017 budget is largely done by the time Trump gets to office. https://www.dni.gov/index.php/what-we-do/ic-budget Of course this doesn't eve take in account, Homeland Security.
  21. Matt's right, nobody cares that much about this other than us. Nobody in any number is going to take to the streets about this So what political pressure can there be? Nobody in government fears us. Those are just the facts. As far as defunding the modern day CIA. It's a pipe dream! No major industrial power is going to dismantle their intelligence apparatus. Period! Ben" But who can be against the full release of the JFK Records? In theory not many Ben. But most people aren't going to get up in a soapbox like you and decry, "Why doesn't the ACLU defend Nazis anymore, like they did in the good old 60s? To give you a realistic idea of the political reality. Which is all that really matters! The JFKA Assassination Conspiracy movement, if you will, does not currently have the political will of the "TQ" in the LGBTQ. It's not in the top 40 in political priorities in either party. We can bitch and moan forever about it and it won't the change the reality. Matt's right, the only thing that can change the status is in the hearts of minds of people. The best shot right now is the success of the movie. Those are facts. This is purely my conjecture. If the CIA, or MIC is so ominous and all powerful, do you really think they would leave behind information that directly lead to them? There would be nothing left in the files, and the general MSM commentary , would be "Ok,. now we've been through all this. And it turns out there's nothing there."
  22. One of the first of the outspoken anti covid vaccine pioneers, who leaves a rabid legacy in many online forums, such as ours, to this day. He courageously first called Faucci "a power tripping freak"., and said that the infectious disease expert and “power trip libb loons” Democrats were conspiring to make it seem like the pandemic was ongoing so they could grab more power.". He said : So,you think it wasn’t a SCAM DEMIC? NOT ONE ELECTED DEMOCRAT ever tested positive.” He called masks “face diapers” and “face pantys.” His name was Dick Farrell. Unfortunately our brave outspoken hero is now dead. He died of what else?, but covid. Amy Leigh Hair, a close friend of Farrel, wrote on Facebook, “COVID took one of my best friends! RIP Dick Farrel. He is the reason I took the shot. He texted me and told me to ‘Get it!’ He told me this virus is no joke! RIP https://www.thedailybeast.com/anti-vaxx-radio-host-and-former-newsmax-anchor-dick-farrel-dies-of-coronavirus
  23. Just to highlight a chronology I read leading up to Jan. 6th, of Trump's actions to thwart the results of the election, apart from any direct effort to overthrow the capitol, and any attempt to disrupt the certification of the election on Jan. 6th.. Nov 4th: Refuses to admit defeat, started with the 'frankly, we did win' Dec 12th: The SCOTUS shoots down the lawsuits that reached it concerning the elections. Dec 14th: Biden has enough electoral college votes from certified state results, he has finally and definitely won at this point. Dec 19th: Trump tweets 'be there, it will be wild'; which seems to be one of the first mentions of the upcoming protest on the 6th by him Dec 27th: Trump calls and fails to change the opinions of Rosenberg and others to turn the DOJ into his agency. Trump realizes everything so far failed, the 6th will be last chance. Jan 2nd, Trump calles Raffensberger in a last attempt to have Georgia overrule its own election results. Jan 3rd, Trump has last meeting with both Rosenberg and Clarke to decide what to do with Rosenberg (to replace him with Clarke, but all senior staff at the DOJ would quit) So what we have is that after the lawsuit got shot down by SCOTUS, in December/early January we see a multiprong attack on our democracy: State and election officials are pressured with personals call by the President to lie on his behalf the DOJ is pressure to make bold untruthful declarations about the election (they refused) the DOJ, FBI and CIA leadership are loyalty tested and threatened with being replaced (they and the military made clear they would quit en-masse if that happened) the GOP loyalists in Congress put pressure on their peers to object to the vote counting on the 6th the rhetoric leading up to the Jan 6th protest becomes more and more with fighting words, there are communications about this between organizers and the White House the protest is more and more planned as an assault on the capitol, with tours and shared maps etc. On nearly all of these points, the Jan 6th committee need to question Meadows and others. My guess is that somewhere in early January, Trump with a small group of trustees make the final decision that they will send the horde towards the capitol on the 6th, as it is their last ditch chance to stay in power. It wasn't just a coup attempt. The Jan 6th protest was a last hail mary of a weekslong campaign by the White House to overthrow the election results by illegal means after they exhausted all legal means. It was the grand final of weeks of illegal behavior by Trump and a group of loyalist around him. And as the article states, it is clear why Trump or his cronies were pushing for pardons for people like Meadows.
  24. I hear there's a new "macho dare" thing going on between some white males where they goad each other into arrogant confidence that their superior immune systems can easily withstand anything the covid virus throws at them. **** I understand from Dennis who speaks very authoritively, that in a couple of years the vaccinated will die because of increased susceptibilities to other illnesses through their hasty decision to get vaccinated. Obviously nobody can dispute that directly because of course that's in the future. But, since it's been tested for over a year, we'll start getting some idea about that in a year. Imagine what that world would then be? It would be populated with a lot of the world's poor who couldn't afford a vaccine and the anti vaxers in the wealthy nations, in effect ruling the world. I can't imagine a sillier group to inherit the earth, and to perpetuate the species... On the surface that would seem like an excellent opportunity to set the world anew with maybe two thirds of the current population. Maybe a one time chance in history to stem pollution and conquer climate change, if they could harbor any such idea.?. In the industrialized nations there would be great opportunities for those with cash ,including the opportunity to scoop up luxury homes and properties at deflated prices, and cheap labor. And maybe after a few years,a Trumpian renaissance of opportunity! But of course. not a chance. The most affluent and powerful of the world population would then be represented by a literal clown car of a social consciousness, a literal clown car of civic mindedness, The resulting contentiousness would end up in a feuding cycle of mistrust, wacko theories and completely insular, misguided policy by adamant ideologues. To entrust the future of the human species to this group would be such a disaster that the ones who first got vaccinated and perished would at last certainly be referred to as "the grateful dead."
  25. Ben: When Biden's neoliberal, globalist views are germane. Why was Biden installed? Wrong!, Talk about drinking the Trump Kool aid. He wasn't installed, he was elected, by a strong margin. Yes Biden has contributors who are globalists, and Trump is a globalist. You seem to be another who got lost in a cave in Thailand. The world is globalist Ben. Whether you and i like it or not. These are facts. In any of this anti globalist ideology you attributed to Trump, you were probably just biting the bait set up by Steve Banon. Are you really prepared to have a discussion about World globalism Ben? Maybe have the UK renounce the fruits you've in part been living off of all your life, and go off, honestly on their own with scant resources, maybe a little fossil fuel at the worst possible time? They saw their problems centuries ago and created an empire that you've benefited from. (Or maybe they didn't see their problem and were just naturally aspiring, greedy and warlike) heh heh When I first came here. Many were still living the cold war paradigm and there was no talk really of the corporate state. Every thing was the "government deep state" that derailed JFK 50 years ago. So as Greg as noted, What happened to the government deep state? They effectively 1)checked many of Trumps impulses toward being a global bully, stopped several global confrontations, some that would have resulted in the loss of perhaps many lives, and 2)wouldn't play ball with his hopes for a fascist takeover of the U.S.. Oh, how could it be so! We can call that "the reinstallation of the old regime" or a thwarting of an inept fascist coup or just a return to some normalcy. Again we could just say it's between picking the lesser of 2 evils, if you choose. But any hope of any lasting improvement hardly starts with a fascist takeover. And if you don't think a fascist takeover is worth avoiding Ben, well maybe I'm privileged, but all I can say is, when an old duff like you tells me he has nothing to lose...I believe him! heh heh,
×
×
  • Create New...