Kirk Gallaway

Jim:The new documents prove that MacGregor and Ritter were and are correct. Then predictably Chris: Chris:A few of us said most of this in real time. And a belligerent majority here preferred to believe illusions from MSM. Oh yeah? Scott Ritter proclaimed "Putin will not invade Ukraine". After the invasion, Ritter said Ukraine would fall "in a week maximum." Then in a link, Chris provided shortly after the invasion, Ritter, with a snicker confidently predicted that NATO was so weak, and broken, and they would provide no real assistance to Ukraine. He was wrong on that account too. And now this war has gone on another year, with literally the whole time Ritter was telling us a Russian victory was around the corner. Will you admit his first 14 months of prediction have been a disaster?----------- I didn't think so. heh heh heh As far as Ritter ultimately being wrong about Nato. I was a Ritter fan when he first asked the questions about WMD, back in the Iraq War. I myself have wondered about the usefulness of Nato. But I don't anymore. To those of us who talk about the U.S. Perpetual War policy, and want to curb U.S. Defense spending. Do you realize what a terrible blow was dealt to that hope when Putin invaded Ukraine? You can forget it for quite a while now, even apart from any escalation from China.on Taiwan. And whose fault is that? Who did "the unspeakable" that none of you predicted? It looks like Ritter was convicted by a sex sting with a 15 year old, and did some time. I know some will just dismiss it as the work of the "deep state"! But it's not a charge to be ignored either. ****** Re: Ritter: He was once highly respected and helped with decommissioning Iraq's WMD programs from 1991–1998. However, since 2011 he has twice been convicted of attempted sexual assault of a minor and gone to prison for it. Since his release he has been a regular contributer for RT (Russia Today). Now I don't have any proof he's being paid by the Russian government but at least here in the United States because of his convictions, and especially the type of offense, he would find it very hard to find employment. So make of that what you will.. Ex-U.N. official Ritter convicted in underage Internet sex sting https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sex-ritter/ex-u-n-official-ritter-convicted-in-underage-internet-sex-sting-idUSTRE73E0EK20110415 And this is about the accuracy of Ritter's opinions up to now. Hey there's no doubt this thread is completely partisan. https://www.quora.com/How-accurate-and-trustworthy-is-Scott-Ritter-former-US-military-analyst-and-his-professional-opinions-about-the-Ukrainian-crisis O

Jim quotes Paul: Why did you feel you needed to include this from Paul, Jim? Is just another indirect non reply? Here you make an attack on Matt, and don't explain yourself. I hold you to task, Paul overlooks your attack, immediately assumes you're a victim,(annoying and pathetic, Paul?) and now you make a plaintive cry that you're a victim for simply being asked direct questions? Ok, but this is your answer to what's going on in Ukraine. I guess we'll be hearing from you more often now that you are confident the Russians are now winning and you can verify it's from the CIA? OK, we'll see.. But regarding the geopolitical aspect, This is now the standard answer seized upon since Putin had the great meeting with Xi. The world's going to splinter against the West but it's a long way from that. Who ultimately offers Xi more? An oil burning kleptocracy? Xi's entire empire was first built on American consumers. I can fully understand that a person, whose not a self proclaimed pacifist who would want an immediate negotiation over a year ago. But hardly someone like you and Oliver Stone, Jim, who thought they knew all the facts and were so incensed when Yanukovych was ousted that you approved of Putin seizing Crimea. You were in favor escalation when Putin profited from it, and now de escalation when Putin profits from it. And then when Putin launches his bloody invasion, Stone says "we (the U.S.) made them do it." Sorry, doesn't get it! But I'm sure Stone will lunge at that idea that the U.S. siding with the Ukraine resistance drove Putin and Xi into each other's arms and say he told you so, after he came out of his 10 hour interview with Putin so completely goo goo gaga over Putin that he was driven to probably spend millions of his own money making a film to the West that Putin could eventually use as a justification for his bloody invasion of Ukraine. I'm sure it was unintentional. But you don't think he's desperately looking for some excuse to make him look right after he saw the Ukrainian Fascist tale he told would give pretext to an even greater bloody Fascist invasion of a sovereign country? Oops! Oh, but I know it's not my place as a commoner to dare utter that here among so many free thinking individuals here who "defy the herd". People like John,Jim Di, Chris and of course Kierkegaard to whom the truth is not more "repugnant than death". Right John? heh heh heh ho ho ho! ohhh you notice my use of "irony" there? heh heh

Do you realize how much noise we've had to hear from Ben about Hunter Biden over years now? Now it turns out, head of the Oversight Committee, James Comer (who Larry Shnapf is trying to get an audience with for the JFKA Files), has admitted they have nothing on Hunter Biden except the usual nepotism questions. And how hypocritical does that look after Jared Cushner made a billion dollars from his connections to the President?

Jesse Ventura says there shouldn't be any billionaires.

John, I left out the invective part, though it is entertaining to a point to listen to you and W. go at it, I confess. But the truth is. If you live in the U.S. and are at all knowledgeable about U.S, politics. These points W. makes are undeniable! This is going to sound America centric. But you can make a point that if there was one political party in the world where the hope of Western Civilization lies, it's in the base of the American Democratic Party. If they can kick out their donor base, and it has been proven with the Bernie Sanders campaign that small campaign contributions can compete with the mega donors of the existing 2 American parties. And it's not as crazy a notion as some might think. I'm seeing people, mostly in the Democratic but now the 2 major parties starting to identify who and what the problem is. First it started with a vague notion that "people should pay their fair share of taxes". Even now Biden has adopted this*. Then with Sanders candidacy, sort of establishing a minimum people's rights to have free Health Care, and Education and training. Then Elizabeth Warren started to specifically talk about a tax plan and a wealth tax on the super wealthy. And now RFK Jr. has identified the problem as the corporations. (I think more effectively it could be termed the "corporate state", let the MSM deal with that phrase specifically, force them to say it, and let them know, we're gunning after them as well!) But in fairness, Marianne Williamson has also identified the corporations as the problem, but not quite so specifically, now as RFK Jr. It would be great to have Biden debate both RFK Jr. and Marianne Williamson and any other candidate who could drop in who specifically identifies these issues that Sanders, Warren, RFK Jr. and Williamson have now identified ,because the parameters of conversation would greatly increase and exceed any previous Party Presidential debate. *Biden, in public statements has up to now mostly just alluded to sitting down with the corporations like a Father to his son and whispers to them. "Come on guys, pay your fair share of taxes!". He does, however have a plan to revamp the antiquated technology of the IRS and hire many more agents. In my thinking, he could have been more proactive and done 2 things. 1)Levy a windfall profits tax on the oil companies who a year ago were making all time record profits, and 2. levy a windfall profit taxes on the internet and social media companies that made record profits during the covid lock down. That may have been harder to do, because it was in Trump's final year in office, and an election year. Even right now, the Biden administration could be talking about how the corporations have used this spike up in interest rates to raise their profits even further, and start putting them on their heels. A good phrase that I think could be used very effectively is "greedflation". heh heh ** Incidentally I'm getting e mail notifications now every time someone posts on this thread. I thought I'd report it. This has never happened to me before.

I haven't in years Paul. First off, some of us don't take lightly invasions of foreign countries. I'm sorry if you don't appreciate that. There's an issue here. So there's a wake for a close member of the Kennedy family at the RFK Community Center, who took a bullet in the head on the night of RFK's assassination and Jim was surprised that RFK Jr. was there? Jim credits RFK Jr, for going back to his home in L.A. and not campaigning when RFK Jr. knew Shrade died 5 months earlier and probably has known the date of the wake for months. We don't need to endlessly legendize the Kennedys. Didn't someone remark here recently that if we knew the unblemished truth, at least some of us might appreciate the Kennedys more?

Ok, talk about it. Are you saying because Matt agrees with the current U.S. support of the war , that he's succumbing to the tyranny of the "democratic establishment". I know at the time of the ousting of Yanukovych, you were in favor of Putin taking Crimea. Maybe some of us didn't agree with that invasion either. Is that because we were under the tyranny of the "Democratic establishment"? Why wouldn't you expect RFK Jr. to be there? Shrade was shot in the head when his own Father was assassinated! He's obviously a family friend. I'm more interested how you got there than RFK Jr. Ok, and what's unusual about that? Jim; Today, about 48 hours after he declared in Boston, he was in LA. As you know Jim, RFK Jr. lives in LA. Shrade died 5 months ago. You don't think these dates to declare for the Presidency and attend Shrade's wake wasn't pre planned?

Wow Steve! Overturning the unmarried couples law in Michigan. Still 9 Republicans opposed it? Matt, great photo! So i assume the guy next to the mayor is JFK's Grandfather? Doug, always love those News Race stats about the Aggravated Viewers--- Count me in ! heh heh I guess those figures can fluctuate a lot from week to week. I've never understood Laura Ingraham's popularity, and just how that translates on camera for her. Emotionally, she always strikes me as such a dead fish. Even if she heartily approves something, I almost don't believe it. I thought this was sort of insightful from her brother. Who seems like a pretty cool guy. National Socialist sympathizer Father! It explains a lot.

RFK Jr.: Is it a sign of my campaign’s strength that the Elite of DC’s establishment media simultaneously and shamelessly published an orchestrated and baseless lie to smear me, even before I announce my presidential campaign? CBS News’s Bob Costa, The Washington Post, The Daily Beast, Vanity Fair, and Salon are circulating fake news that the American people have come to expect and despise. Steve Bannon has nothing to do with my presidential campaign. I have never discussed a presidential run with Mr. Bannon. Journalism should be about “investigate and report” not “invent and report.” The story here thank God, is that RFK is renouncing Banon involvement in his candidacy, but given pictures like below. would it be any wonder the MSM might be asking these questions? They're asking these questions for citizens like me! Is this really an intentional attempt to smear RFK, ( because of establishment fear of the release of the remaining JFK files? Give me a break!) .Are they currently smearing Ron de Santis and the pundits conjecturing that his bid for the Presidency may be over before it started because the MSM wants a Trump nomination in 2024? Does that make sense? Is this really the deliberate attempt by the deep state? Or is really just the MSM normal state of affairs about not really informing people about the candidates and the issues because creating news even when they don't exist helps boost ratings in the 24 hour news cycle. That is, the blind spot that no one ever considers here, money? Obviously the corporate state is not thrilled about someone who like RFK Jr. or Bernie Sanders, knows what they're doing. But they don't have to make any special effort to block RFK Jr, particularly in this early stage. Because their current mode of operation, to pound home the vaccination news story, the repudiation of his brothers and sisters etc. maximizes profits and works quite well. 2 birds with one stone! I've made some predictions that when they come through, people here decry as the work of of some conspiracy by the deep state. In all these cases there should have been no surprise or agonizing, if you were aware of the present political reality. But in this case there's a number of people like me who have predicted that unless there's some real clarification about the vaccine issue, RFK JR will be thumped over and over again. But unfortunately maybe for the next year, we're going to have to listen over and over again about how the MSM deep state killed RFK Jr's Presidency. The fact that RFK Jr. is moaning like a Trumpian victim, doesn't sit well with me either. Apparently he doesn't have a clue of the present political reality either, and that's his business, now. What is his plan, to dump this baggage? That everybody's going to realize, he was right all along about vaccines? The Kennedy name, then maybe Biden's ill health? If I was his campaign manager. I'd wake him up!

Straightening out some of the Republican lead misinformation over the decades about the IRS in this Bloomberg article. In the past decade alone, even as the number and complexity of tax filings have steadily risen, the agency’s inflation-adjusted budget has plunged 15%, from $12.2 billion in 2010 to $10.3 billion last year. The number of revenue agents—auditors who handle more complex returns—fell almost 40%, from about 14,500 to 8,500 over the same dozen years. And the chance that an American reporting income of $5 million or more gets audited fell from 16% in 2010 to 2.35% nine years later.. Ex-employees describe a dysfunctional agency gutted by budget cuts, staff departures and lousy tech, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-04-12/irs-funding-bill-will-add-agents-but-won-t-fix-all-problems?leadSource=uverify wall

We've got the inside scoop my friends, of the dialog that lead to Musk removing all of Taibbi's twitter files from Twitter! Elon Musk posted & then deleted his private messages w/ Matt Taibbi. As you can tell from the screenshots, they were using the secure comms app Signal which allows users to auto delete messages on a timer. This could prevent, for instance, Congressional oversight of said messages Now Musk: Taibbi: Then Taibbi: Mehdi Assan: I guess Elon Musk releasing his private DMs with Matt Taibbi kinda clears up once and for all that whole kerfuffle in Congress over whether Musk was Taibbi’s source. It’s also a reminder that Musk, a la Trump, is loyal to no one. A lesson Taibbi learned the hard way. This is particularly ironic in the case of Taiibbi citing earlier, supposed adoration for Seymour Hersch's example of refusing to use a story provided to him by either Government intelligent services or wealthy private interests. And then Taibbi goes to work editing cherry picked excerpts out of twitter and calling them the "twitter files" He and his reputation ended up learning a lesson! "Elon Musk stabbing Matt Taibbi in the back should serve as a warning to left or “post-left” journalists who ally with right-wing billionaires: YOU don’t use them; THEY use you. And when they’re done, they cast you aside like trash."

This is your post W. . This is what I mean when I say when people start losing the argument. They start trying to make the issue the person they're arguing against. W: I used the term "crackpot" in the original thread title as a satire about the 30-year CIA propaganda campaign to smear and discredit CIA whistleblower, Fletcher Prouty, after his critically important revelations about CIA history were publicized in Oliver Stone's film, JFK. W. you don't seem to realize, you were stripped of that title, so the mods also saw your title as demeaning and you're the only one who saw it as "satire.' But if your first diatribe agsainst Michael wasn't lame enough. W. says Michael, Instead of continuing to highjack this thread with your John McAdams-type, defamatory nonsense about Prouty, how about answering a few questions for us? Who paid for your stint at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California? Was it part of your military service in the USAF? What do you do for a living in McLean, Virginia, when you're not posting lengthy diatribes on the Education Forum denying that JFK intended to get out of Vietnam in 1963, and falsely impugning Col. L. Fletcher Prouty's reputation? Also, I haven't visited the area for many years, but isn't McLean close to Langley? Oops! So Michael's CIA now? W. This is outright wacko BS, and you should apologize, but Michael wasn't distracted, didn't go for tit for tat and continued his argument. Or is this just more "satire?" But you're not answering the greater point W.. I've seen your interaction previously with Griffith over Prouty before. And I know you're not who can readily detach himself. Come on, Weren't you just trying to goad Griffith? Whereas Jeff has contributed substantively. W. you haven't contributed anything in rebuttal to Griffith's points except your expressed outrage over and over again that anybody couldn't think as you do about this. I sense there's just so much invested in this by everybody, that no one is going to come out of this thinking any differently. But it's no deal breaker to me, as I've said. You cite Burnham and Hemming? I've listened to a few of their, I'd guess we'd call it "freewheeling" "interviews". Ok, people are entitled to their viewpoints. A while back, Burnham came here briefly "blathering" (to use your phrase) right wing nonsense and quickly got discouraged and left. Though it sounded so trite, I can't remember specifically what it was about. JMO

Jeff: What you left out is the fact that "the critic" referred has engaged a process of insults and name-calling from the start in the interest of reputational disparagement, The other day, for example," the critic" offered a list of twelve bullet points to bolster his argument, Hmmm, "Process of insults and name calling." Wasn't the first title to this thread something to in effect to say, that only crackpots don't believe Fletcher Prouty? Do you think such an autocratic title may have set a tone? Did you ever consider, Jeff, that maybe you were entering a personal vendetta that one member was driven to post against another to settle some butthurt score? Ok, but let's get back to substance. Jeff, Your first paragraph, I couldn't stand. Why are you calling him "the critic?" His name is Michael, Jeff. It looked like you were trying to skirt around not answering Michael's points, and attacking Michael personally, and hiding it by not giving him a name. Ok, but in the next paragraph, I congratulate you for making the first substantive counterpoint against Michael. For almost 2 pages I saw Michael make a case, and it was met with total BS responses, making Michael the issue. I'll deal with what I think are Jeff's major points. Jeff: for example, the characterization of a “close and prolonged” relationship with the Lobby's top leadership when there is no record to even suggest the parties had ever met or corresponded in any way. So "close and prolonged" is a quotation from Michael? As far as "close" , it might be difficult without direct quotes or evidence that they vacation with each other, for example. But as far as prolonged, the duration of speaking engagements does mean something. But in fairness, Micheal does answer back in spades, concerning Mark Lane and implicating Prouty. Mark Lane never, but Prouty has! -- never recommended that people read The Spotlight-------Did Prouty?, do you have the quote, Michael? -- never praised Carto and Marcellus ----------Again, a direct quote? -- never blamed high oil prices on the Israelis and associated them with a "High Cabal" bent on world domination -- never had a book published by the Holocaust-denying IHR and never said he was "proud" of having done so Ok, for these 4 charges, can you provide any direct quotes, dates and places, Michael?. -- never sat on a Liberty Lobby board Well, that should be easy to prove. Jeff responds with Prouty's outright denial. Prouty: "I never go to their own meetings" **** And of course, fair is fair Jeff. Why did you snip out this sentence from your Liberty Lobby, wikipedia submission? "Critics also charged the newspaper with subtly incorporating antisemitic and white racialist undertones in its articles, and with carrying advertisements in the classified section for openly neo-N-azi groups and books." Next point: Jeff: Or cite a willingness to be a “character witness” which not only never materialized but there is also no contextual information available to describe the process by which that allegedly occurred. (the only reference is in an article which itself serves as a prosecutor's brief) Michael, what proof do you have of that? Jeff:(the only reference is in an article which itself serves as a prosecutor's brief) That's vague Jeff, what article?, maybe you can further explain that. I do like your overview, Jeff. Jeff: That said, using the Liberty Lobby as a stick is an effective point of argument as it, by default, puts a cross-examination on the backfoot, in a “when did you stop beating your wife?” kind of way." Faced with that sort of inflamed rhetoric, one might decide is is best to avoid the topic altogether and forego any sort of cross-examination. Sure, you seem confident that Michael is very aware, and doing his "prosecutor brief " very adeptly. Jeff's quote of Prouty: That sole speech was years ago and was no different than the speech I gave at the Holocaust Memorial Conference. ---If true, a very good point as to Prouty's non partisanship on the issue. Prouty:"I do admit to having been a rather active public speaker for all types of audiences, on a commercial except for Rotary". "They (Libert Lobby) had a national convention at which asked me to speak and they paid me very, very well. I took my money and went home and that's it. I go to the meeting, I go home, I don't join. This sounds like it's coming from a guy, whose very conscious of charges that will be leveled on him in the future, and his excuse is, he goes where the money is. Watching him fold in that hearing, makes me a little more uneasy. Anyway, this is actually what a discussion would be, people listening to each other and responding to their points.

Michael: Until yesterday, I assumed that everyone in this forum knew the basic facts about Liberty Lobby and their founder Willis Carto, That's true, there's only been a very superficial interest in the Liberty Lobby concerning Hunt's litigation.That's a little like people who come here from the right, never hearing of the Koch Bros. But Geez, Can we at least admit Michael knows more about the Liberty Lobby than anyone else here? What I see is Michael's has made all the recent points here, making a pretty solid case that it's not likely Prouty doesn't know who the Liberty Lobby is. And there's been zero points made against his assertions except an attempt to make this issue about Michael himself and impugn his motives on this thread, and now another thread,, which is always a tactic of people who are losing the argument. You have a choice, whether to really bone up and attack Michael's repeated incidents of Prouty support for the Liberty Lobby or try to attack Michael's assertion further that Prouty is L. Ron Hubbard fan, while if true, by itself wouldn't be a deal breaker, but is just more icing on the cake. Or 2) choose to let it ride and say it's impossible to know what was going on in Prouty's head, and damn it, I believe him! Chris: We tend to ever increasingly fall into the emotional thinking, attacking the man as opposed to specifically what they have said, the matter in contention. I'm not sure I would call that emotional, Chris. If Prouty spent several years as an ardent defender of the Liberty Lobby, it says a whole lot about his judgment. But it's true, it's not a reason to dismiss everything he says whole cloth, as I previously said. But let's examine your emotional thinking point from the other side. This forum is heavily wedded to Oliver Stone's "JFK". It is a movie without a climax per se. The most powerful moment by everyone's account here is the meeting between Garrison and Prouty. That is the revealing moment of the movie. The articulation of the "whodunit." Now we, who have invested so much emotion in that scene, and now the title of this thread has been turned from a title that originally implied everybody who denies Prouty's assertions is a crackpot to having to entertain the assertion that maybe Prouty himself is a crackpot! That is a very bitter pill to swallow. This of course was never going to be accepted here gracefully. I felt like I was the only one in this forum who felt any disappointment in Prouty when he folded like a lounge chair in front of that questioning body Prouty stood before.* He didn't stick up for anything he had previously said! Didn't that bother anybody here? And I know there are factors we can't know, such as Prouty's fear maybe of losing his pension etc. My guess is that's because Prouty then becomes like a Garrison martyr figure here, who later lost his confidence and came off very badly in public appearances but we sympathize with his frustration, just as we sympathize with Prouty's capitulation because both of them are being grinded down by the deep state. I think the evidentiary basis for the JFKAC still holds up very well, Thank you, without some cleverly written dialog in a movie, or even Prouty's viewpoint. By that, I'm not saying, he has no credibility. I just don't have to believe him. * I assume his assertions about getting rid of Trujillo were after his testimony, or it would have really interesting if he was questioned about making that assertion. Of course not saying it couldn't be true.

So I was wondering if that could be said Ron. So I investigated a little and found out things I didn't remember at first. Hunt sued Liberty Lobby – but not the Sunday News Journal – for libel. Liberty Lobby stipulated, in this first trial, that the question of Hunt's alleged involvement in the assassination would not be contested. Hunt prevailed and was awarded $650,000 damages. I assume only a handful of people here know that. I had forgotten. But in the second Liberty Lobby lawsuit Lane does some excellent cross examining of Hunt. I remember this now, involving his kids.. Then lane ties Hunt to Marita Lorenz's story, even though it should be mentioned, for whatever it's worth, the HSCA had previously discarded her story, though Blakey, obviously was never interested in tying the CIA to the JFKA. But in the retrial, it is critical to establish Liberty Lobby had malice. And Liberty Lobby won. To support his position, Lane cites jury Foreperson Leslie Armstrong. Lane describes Armstrong’s statements to the media as follows:Juror Armstrong said:The evidence was clear, she said. The CIA had killed President Kennedy. Hunt had been part of it, and that evidence, so painstakingly presented should now be examined by the relevant institutions of the United States government so that those responsible for the assassination might be brought to justice. Armstrong apparently did say that, and doubtless believed it. But there were five other jurors. Two of them told the Miami Herald that they most certainly did not believe that Lane had proven that Hunt was a conspirator. Suzanne Reach said that “We were very disgusted and felt it was trash . . . . The paper published material that was sloppy – but it wasn’t malicious.” Reach added that “We were worried that our verdict might give the wrong impression to the public” and added that Lane’s conspiracy theories were “absolutely not” the reason for the verdict. The Herald also quoted another juror, who refused to be identified, saying that the verdict was the result of Hunt failing to demonstrate that the article was published with “reckless disregard for the truth,” and added that Lane’s conspiracy theories were “so much extraneous matter.” Thus, depending on whether the unidentified juror in the Miami Herald story is the same person as the juror quoted by the Associated Press, three or four of the six jurors went on record as denying Lane’s claims to have proven a conspiracy. Anyway, interesting link. https://www.jfk-assassination.net/denial.htm

Yes in fact I do make judgments about Mitt Romney and his historic ties to Corporate America. But as far as his credentials, he is consistent in that he's a long time member of Congress and ran for the Presidency, and he has dreams of taking his party back. It's like in this forum. To the vast majority here, there are 2 groups, pro JFK conspiracy and LNers. I'm aligned with former. But that doesn't matter so much to me, I separate it into 2 categories, those who want to have an intellectually honest discussion and those who run away from it. Sandy, it sounds like you're assuming to know the various factions that supposedly once existed in the Liberty Lobby, and that Prouty's politics could only be respectable?

I have no idea about the extent of involvement with Fletcher Prouty and the Liberty Lobby. All I've ever heard here about the Liberty Lobby is their successful win in court against E.Howard Hunt. But I had some exposure to their newsletter, as a teenager. They sent their newsletter, the Spotlight out to my Dad, who was a Republican. I read it and I did remember language about international money conspiracies and some sort of veiled Anti Semitism. It was my first sort of contact with that. The next such contact I remember that struck me as similar was Lyndon La Rouche, but with colorful, tabloid stories about powerful politicians. These guys clearly weren't good guys. Just because they beat E. Howard Hunt about being in Dallas, doesn't mean they're good guys and more than a super MAGA induced new JFK convert like Roger Stone is. They probably don't wheel out there big knives on their publication, but use it to draw in people to come to their forums. I do have an anecdotal story. I remember as a teenager, the Spotlight came out with a front page headline claiming the Beatles were steering youth toward Communism , specifically with their song, "Back in the U.S.S.R". That told me very overtly these guys were wacko. I mentioned it to my Dad, and he concurred that that is what he thought too. It's one thing to banish somebody because of an early association. That was done time and time again in the Mc Carthy hearings. But for a log standing association, should that exist , it is relevant as to his judgment. Just like I'm waiting to see RFK Jr., apart from clearing up his vaccine position, quickly and thoroughly renounce any association with Roger Stone,or Steve Banon, IMO for example. If someone had a long term association with a group like the Liberty Lobby and didn't know any of the major tenants of that organization's belief system. Like a sort of sleepwalking Reagan, that isn't good either. P.S. Sandy, Bill Maher is also going to do an interview with Tucker Carlson. Though Carlson's producers wanted to just talk about stuff they both agree about, and Maher refused. I don't think Larry will have any of that problem. How could anybody not want to see more people from the opposite ideology come on Carlson's show? But long term associations with nut job organizations, if that in fact did happen, without a thorough explanation why, did he really explain ? Are not to be wholly dismissed. Of course that doesn't mean that everything he says should be dismissed whole cloth. But these are all factors that must be taken in account to determine someone's credibility.

Trump interview with Tucker Carlson Wow! Can you believe the contortions Carlsen makes at looking enthralled at Trump, (when usually he's such scrub face!). in this interview since Trump was indicted! That means Trump knows that Carlsen said in those private tweets that he hated Trump passionately, and Trump was a destroyer, a demonic force, and as a president was a disaster. Are we supposed to understand that these 2 guys are just so ambitious. Their game is to use each other to squeeze every bit of marketability out of it they can, No matter how much they may dislike each other. And it leads to Trump 2024 and Carlsen back in his driver's seat. It was a softball kiss ass interview. But for now, everything continues, their audience is just dumbstruck to be in their own living room, listening to these great men. And no more need be said.

It turns out now, just like Trump and his Mueller Report spinner William Barr had a falling out. Now Elon Musk and Matt Taibbi have had a falling out. Maybe Musk wasn't satisfied that Taibbi didn't successfully convince anyone about the Twitter Files. But the cover story is: Matt Taibbi quit the microblogging website after he claimed it blocked access to embedding tweets with posts on the online publishing platfotrm, Substack. Twitter also won't allow any retweets, likes or engagement with posts that contain links to Substack articles, Taibbi claimed "It turns out Twitter is upset about the news Substack notes feature which they see as a hostile rival. Taibbl wrote in a Substack post ."The craziest Friday ever", adding "I'm staying at Substack".... There's been a lot of hanging on to Greenwald and Taibbi from people who unthinkingly mimic their old heroes because they don't have the critical judgment to see when time has passed them by. IMO Similarly, I think Barr and TaibbiI found out the heroes they thought they were working for are assholes. If they had just listened to us first! https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/why-journalist-matt-taibbi-substack-and-elon-musks-twitter-are-at-loggerheads/articleshow/99354028.cms

That's right Michael. Kennedy won every state you mentioned in 1960 except for Alabama and Mississippi where they split the votes, but segregationist Harry Byrd won the majority of Electoral votes over Kennedy.. in 1964, Kennedy would have lost the south, including S. Carolina but would have held on to everything else he had in 1960 except Goldwater's Arizona, but he would have gained California, (Nixon's home state in 1960), and the West Coast, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida.

This isn't a RFK comment. It was just the most recent reference to the Cal Neva Lodge I could find. I just thought people might be interested. The Cal Neva lodge, which from the time I first saw it at 18 years old, I thought was kind of a dump,though it was never in a glitzy neighborhood , despite all the star power at one time behind it, and then all the eventual history we've come to read. Well for the last 10 years, it's been shut down. It was owned by billionaire Larry Ellison. Now some new people have bought it and they are going to open it again! https://www.sfgate.com/renotahoe/article/lake-tahoe-cal-neva-resort-sold-17883366.php

Doug, I confess. I really wasn't taken that much with the Pope's fashion statement. I was having a joke with W. The 2 Pope photos he posted were also AI fakes. Bosom buddies. Tucker and Bolsonaro, making fun of the rain forest people! jej jej

I may stand corrected on that Paul. I read it was JFK negotiating with whoever the Governor was that freed MLK. But I did find this quote through KIng Institute Stanford. "Following a call to Atlanta judge J. Oscar Mitchell by Robert F. Kennedy, brother and campaign manager to John F. Kennedy, King is freed on $2,000 bond. King flies back to Atlanta and addresses a mass rally at Ebenezer." https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/mlk-topic/martin-luther-king-jr-arrests

Contemporary to that time. As for the NYT quote. Of course there are political stories of this nature written up all the time. Sometimes rather immediately and some times the info gets out a year later.. I don't assume back in the early 60's that the New York Times and Wapo has any reason to make the story up. They're all trying to get the inside scoop and they generally get along well with the Kennedy's. They honored a code of not delving onto JFK's private life as well as other politicians. It was nothing like it is today Paul. I'm not an expert on this, but I would say I expect the NYT article to be accurate, because it makes good sense. Bobby had no power. He acted as the campaign manager who was trying to win a campaign. I'm not sure what you're saying Paul, so you think the whole story involving JFK's brother in law Sargent Shriver and Wofford weren't involved at all, and didn't advise JFK to the phone Coretta King, and this was made up whole cloth?, but it was Bobby who told JFK to phone King? Well first there is a record that Coretta King was phoned. It's not impossible both things could have happened. Bobby didn't want the phone call to be made and made a last ditch effort and coerced the Sheriff to let King out.I hadn't heard that. Is there any other corroboration of the fact? and where? That's something maybe Jim Di can get a source. Paul: Do you suppose Junior just made it up? As I said, I have no idea Paul, he was only 7 years old, how would that incident be planted in his mind if it never happened? I don't know. .

This is my favorite, The Pope just seems to have a certain sort of flair!