Kirk Gallaway

Whew! Maga boys, feeling their oats! Gaining steam!

Whoa, Trump in filmed deposition.Some men here may actually find this funny. Trump says that she said she loved being raped! Trump reiterates proudly what he said, "if you're a star you can do anything." "That's true, unfortunately or fortunately" I think you can say I'm a star!

Something I'm sure you won't hear from Mearsheimer is that the conflict was winding down before Putin's invasion. Between 2014 and 2022, There were 29 failed ceasefires. About 14,000 people were killed in the war: 6,500 Russian and Russian proxy forces, 4,400 Ukrainian forces, and 3,400 civilians on both sides of the frontline. The vast majority of civilian casualties were in the first year! The info is spotty but I'm able to retrieve civilian deaths year by year. Which should reflect a correlation to combatant totals to an extent, as a indicator of the amount of the war's direct engagement. And it shows the conflict sharply de escalating after 2014. Things were getting steadily better. This is also very congruent with the fact that, I believe there were 11 countries who joined NATO up to 2004, and only 3 since, in 18 years!, prior to the Russian invasion. Which begs the question to Putin, Why now? Look at how the civilian casualties slowed to almost a standstill prior to the Russian invasion. Civilian deaths (2014-2021) 2014-----2084 2015-----1955 2016-----112 2017-----117 2018-----58 2019-----27 2020-----26 2021-----25 Of course getting a dependable neutral source on the deaths since Russia invaded is very hard and there is no consistent neutral source. U.S. documentation, for whatever it's worth estimates are below. Obviously I make no claim for the accuracy of these totals.. If one has concern about protecting lives. There's little doubt that the overall number of deaths since Putin's invasion is over 4 times the total of the projected of deaths (14,000) in the region between 2014-2021! And perhaps 10-20 times the casualties! Though I don't have that specific information the casualties. Russian combat casuallties and killed 189,500–223,000 casualties (35,500–43,500 killed in action Ukraine combat casualties and killed 124,500–131,000 casualties (16,000–17,500 killed) The United Nations estimates Ukraine civilian casualties 8,709 killed, 14,666 wounded (conf. minimum, thought higher) https://ukraine.un.org/sites/default/files/2022-02/Conflict-related civilian casualties as of 31 December 2021 (rev 27 January 2022) corr EN_0.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War

There's some question whether Fox was behind the new leaks of Carlson's embarrassing comments. Fox denies it and says they are looking into it. But did you know Fox can prohibit Carlson from having any show until 2025! after the election? https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/05/business/media/tucker-carlson-tv-fox-news.html?algo=combo_clicks_decay_6_lda_unique_80_diversified&block=3&campaign_id=142&emc=edit_fory_20230506&fellback=false&imp_id=605776967&instance_id=91962&nl=for-you&nlid=61798350&pool=pool/664aa27c-36c0-47d3-9e70-1844ce1d737e&rank=1&regi_id=61798350&req_id=90863630&segment_id=132307&surface=for-you-email-channelless&user_id=48552702f942aacb0810b9de5ca41c55&variant=5_icymi_pool_popularity_pers

I would agree this thread should have died long ago and was probably ill conceived in the first place. At the end Michael was making the same points over and over again. Then he a produced what was really a smoking gun about Prouty's anti semitism, and no one denies the authenticity. But the most salient counter was a Jeff' "10 year long Prouty dingbat defense." But let's let go of these sordid allegations. I''m sorry I missed this earlier. There's another matter concerning Prouty's credibility from an earlier thread started by Joe that took an unexpected turn. No less than Oliver Stone, who propped up Prouty through his Donald Sutherlin character in the forum's favorite scene from his movie "JFK " actually attacks Prouty's credibility! As Michael said in the thread "As a matter of fact, it was a reckless, baseless charge to suggest that Lansdale played any role in JFK's murder, much less a clearly crucial role." I would agree with this statement. It was apparently the turn in this thread that incensed W. to start the present thread. Of course wouldn't it be the ultimate coup here if in fact, as Michael has suggested that Lansdale was actually liked by JFK! Essentially everybody who has come here over the last 10 years has had Lansdale portrayed, by innuendo as a sinister figure, and learned the complete opposite, and charges against Lansdale here go as far as speculating he was nothing less than the chief of operations in Dallas of the JFKA!, and we're also lead in that direction by Stone's movie, while those who defend it will cite artistic license. And that is all largely due to the allegations of one man. As Stone attests above. Prouty filmed his assertion that a picture of a man from the back was in fact Lansdale at Dealey Plaza on 11/22, not long after the assassination. Though, there has been a number of other accusatory things written here about Lansdale, perhaps in some cases, spawned from that.. I recall reading something involving his work in the Phillipines with Magsaysay,and references to other sordid things from other books. Of course is one expected here to just blindly accept everything one reads? It seems so some times. But there have also been books praising Lansdale, including a recent one by Max Boot, saying that Lansdale opposed sending large numbers of American troops to South Vietnam, opposed most of the recommendations in the Taylor-McNamara report, and even opposed bombing North Vietnam. Now I've come across this 1970 interview with Lansdale from nobody less than the JFK library. Apparently they're not so suspicious of Lansdale I'm sure many here who have speculated that he was chief of operation in Dallas, will think he's just lying, (but curiously a sleazebag anti semite is of course, telling the truth? It's a joke! ha ha!) But you don't get a hint of that impression at all in this. Lansdale doesn't ever really put down the Kennedys, but complements them. Though he does turn out a bit self aggrandizing. But sort of a maverick, and outsider to the JCS, which JFK would have liked! And at one point, he states some of his general philosophy, which I think JFK would have liked as well. The link is below.I tried to take excerpts of it.It has so many scribbled notes it was like hell to copy and paste and my apologies, I've tried to edit it as close as I could, but it is a mess in parts. . Lansdale:The Kennedy administration had eliminated . a bureaucratic boondoggling O'BRIEN:•. LANSDALE:what the hell was that called._ OBRIEN: CB1 @Operations Coordinating Boar~(() Lansdale accounts first meeting AG Bobby Kennedy. Incidentally; in that inquiry into the Cuban bit was the first time that I met (Robert ~ Bobby Kennedy. For some reason or other, I didn't connect him personally with the pictures of · him and so on, and I wondered what the youngster was doing sitting in the meeting talking so much. ·· O'BRIEN: ? Was he pretty tough . LANSDALE: Well, he wasn't tough. He was the most interested of anyone in the room there of what I would say on things and plague me with many questions. O'BRIEN: How were his questions? Was he fairly naive about the problems? LANSDALE: No this was· on questions of how the government would operate at a decision level; and they weren't naive at all. .He had a very good understanding. He was very much concerned about his brother getting good service in the way of information and full details and alternatives and so on, on a policy decision. Dulles BOP plan O'BRIEN: Who were some o:f the inner circle people at this point Lansdale:Let' s see a,Oh golly. Bissell, richard Bissell was the overall chief of chief.of the group. Yes, but initially it was all ·CIA. They borrowed some military personnel to help with the planning~earlier-~but they were _people who had been attached to CIA for temporary duty on other matters, and they hadn't come in initially for this specific planning. In , December, when the planning had .obviously' started coming in with a beach landing and so on, the way it turned out, I urged at that point to · get military planning in on the thing. I was worrying about it. 'As a matter of fact, Allen Dulles brought his planners to a policy meeting, a policy group meeting, and they were explaining the concepts. My -questioning was such that Allen Dulles pleaded *with me not to spoil the plan at an early stage. I remember General (Lyman L .) Lemnitzer was sitting in on the meeting and - was chairman of the _JCS {Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time and he backed up my urging them to get some military planing in on that~. After that, there was an apparent agreement among our policy people on that, and then the JCS set up. a special section to plan along . with the -Central Intelligence~ Agency on that. And who the hell headed that? O'BRIEN: This is yet in the Eisenhower administration. LANSDALE: This is all back in 1960. O'BRIEN: Well, I suppose you had some conversations with Dulles and with Bissell and some of these people about it. LANSDALE: Yes. O'BRIEN: What's their feeling? You already discussed 'Dulles and his sort of asking you to hold your criticism. LANSDALE: Well, Bissell definitely felt the same way Bissell was a very . hard-working, intense person. almost high\strung type of/\individual. He became rather impatient with my questioning of the changed concept when it took place. I thought initially if they if they had the correct personnel and· they had a correct reading of dissent inside o! CUba, that was a fair chance . to do something. My only concern at the time was: did thee CIA have Americans who could work ·with such a situation? I just didn't know of! any, but I was assured that 1'there were such Americans.I'm not certain that there were. - O BRIEN: Well, in that period right after the . Bay of Pigs--of course you had a lot of contacts and friendships in other places outside the Pentagon.A What kind of an impact A~the Bay of Pigs have, let's say over in the Agency;) and State Department, and in Defense)Land in the White House? LANSDALE: It was a traumatic experience at top levels~~~ in the government.' President Kennedy more-than any other single "thing. It was almost a taboo subject if you were going in to do business and to get an approval on some. It was an.intensely sore subject . among all of these people. I felt that almost all of the key executives · in the administration must have dreamt about it at night or something, and during the daytime working hours they just .didn't Want to contemplate it• And yet they were honest enough people that they knew they had to face up and i look at it and . would do so, . but it was an extremely emotional subject with them, very much so. ****** LANSDALE:We have some wonderful.: Americans and this was what I was trying to do which was to find /which Americans have not only our interests at heart but were enough interested in foreign countries to be able to understand and have . sympathy and really would be serving the best interests of other countries in things. I'd\ far rather see one man get in on something like that than send a whole team in with ~ sorts of things and sort of aggravate a situation. Rather than do something rather simple ******* LANSDALE:Then let's make the military establish- ment serve the country in a much bigger way than merely toting guns around and guarding borders. It's usually the organization that is nationwide and there might not be any other organization that's nationwide in the . country, such as agriculture~ ~ven the -administrative structure that usually comes under department or · ministry of the Interior won't really have the manpower, · ~e communi- cations) and so forth> that the military forces 'do. So, given that, why not then get the military to start doing constructive things around and making full use of the manpower that you have anyhow. Have them be good JFK liked his report Lansdale:Well, . one of · the stories on Kennedy I'd like to put in was: On my reports from Vietnam in the very early days of- just before he was inaugurated, and he read it .apparently right after the inaugural--one of the reports was a little side piece that I did on a village in South Vietnam inhabited by some Chinese refugees that (Diem had located down in the midst of a communist-held territory, and I was very impressed by the~,.j' _Just as an example of what humans will do in such a situation, I'd written it up and turned in a separate report on it. And about the time.. It was still .January '61, about ten days ·after the inaugural My telephone in the Pentagon rang and this voice that sounded like Kennedy's to1d me it was President Kennedy talking 1 and he had read this report of mine and wanted me to' have it published in the Saturday Evening Post. I was wondering which joker in the Pentagon~~~ was imitating . this Harvard, Massachusetts accent and was putting me on) I said, "Yes, yes, yes." I then had my secretary check over at the White House,and sure enough, it had been President Kennedy, so I had to then go ahead I'd promised to do it.figuring out I didn't know how to get something in the Saturday Evening Post, but quickly found out how and they published this thing afterwards as a report that the President wanted published in their magagazine. Lansdale approached with the job as ambassador to Vietnam? O'BRIEN: Were you ever approached with the job as ambassador to Vietnam? LANSDALE: y:&s.b :.·--¥eah-:---- 0 'BRIEN: Who was push~.ng that LANSDALE: I don't know. I heard about it~ first Saturday after the inaugural I think that's it. It was very early in the administration. McNamara asked me to correspond to tge.m to the 'ff.ai te House and meet him there, and I thought it was to brief him on something.I was·. . working an a number of intelligence matters in Defense at the time and I showed up; and he asked me to just wait outside; and they were meeting in the Cabinet roe~ ana-~s I said, it was essentially an NSC group..And after. a bit, they asked me to come on in and they had me sit opposite the president.And he looked at me) and he said, "Did Dean [Rusk] tell you they want you to be ambassador to Vietnam?" I said, "No, he didn't mention that." Well, he hadn't. A long, painful silence and I figured, Well, maybe he's asking me if I want to be. If I would I accept the job. So I finally said, "We1,1t would be a great honor, and that was the last I ever heard of it. Afterwards I heard that Dean Rusk was very much opposed to it, and opposed on the ground that I was a military man and they didn't want military people in on the situation. OBRIEN yeah' LANSDALE: And then later I met one of Rusk staff officers at the time, and he was telling me .that Rusk was figuring; he could get me a job some other place or a promotion or something to get me out of the way at the time? apparently, I had become a target for a lot of gossip and rumors at the time. '' But after that; then, they asked me~-Kennedy asked me pretty point blank--about Durbrow; and I said, "Well, After what you just asked me and so forth, I'm a little hesitant, but you're the President and you need the truth.:so I'll just tell you right now, I think ·he's a very ill man..- men that' s impaired by his physical condition~s a fine professional foreign service officer.and - -- -could be used some_place;but don't keep him on in Vietnan. anymore. He's sick,he's on his back a lot of the time and you need someone very alert. But these things would usually only come to me sort of second or third hand or 4th. One time apparently President Kennedy had said something to the JCS because suddenly my relations with the Chiefs went down to less than zero and sub-zerov and I finally asked General (Curtis E.] Lemay of the Air Force, because I'm an Air Force officer, what the trouble was. And he said, "You and your ambitions to have four stars." I said, "'What' s this again? · Apparently Kennedy had said something to the Chiefs of; what would they think of my being given four stars and being put in charge of operations in Vietnam? And I didn't knew about it, and they took it that I was pushing myself for it. I said again that i didn't want want to do. So this is about the time that--, maybe [William /Westmoreland] Westy was coming in about then;. it was around that time ********. It's a lot of notes, but a great read. https://www.jfklibrary.org/sites/default/files/archives/JFKOH/Lansdale%2C%20Edward/JFKOH-EL-01/JFKOH-EL-01-TR.pdf Scientology, Carto, the Jewish Sargent comment, and reckless allegations about Lansdale.! Ok, he may have written what some here consider a couple of good books. I'm glad I didn't read any of them. And such devotion!, you guys are like hard core Trumpists. So it's just impossible to consider that this guy couldn't be some wacko colleague that his superiors, who are not planning to kill the POTUS just occasionally got fed up with, and would decide to ship him off to the South Pole? Colonel Prouty, I know Donald Sutherlin, and you're no Donald Sutherlin! heh heh

Nice one, John! 😄 Yeah , very cute, coming from you John. Do you know Ireland is the world's #1 tax haven stealing profits made from the U.S. from corporations like Apple and other tech companies and adding it to Ireland''s GDP? Of course, maybe John''s bitterness is because he and the other everyday Irish people don't really see this great wealth but the Irish banks just use it for credit for their international dealings. Obviously John, like the everyday chump is scarcely aware of this and actually is teasing us about the U.S. about being a kleptocracy. So John's driven to conspiracy websites where he can muse from on high with very little detail and play the role of his esteemed "philosopher king" dealing out nuggets of wisdom. Cush job, John.

Since I think Stone's conversion to Putin, that was so inspiring he made a movie for Putin that would end up justifying his invasion, started with his 4 hour interview. I remember there was a passage in the 4 hour Putin interview where Stone was asking Putin about how much Putin has benefited by being the head of his klepto kingdom for 20 years (some accounts are into many billions!)and Putin masterfully evaded the question by diverting Stone by appealing to his ego, by saying that after all, the greatest things in life don't come from money and then holding up Stone as an example of a successful film maker who makes his own film projects following his own vision, for the betterment of society and mankind, and does what he wants to do. And that's more important than any material gain. Stone is stopped in his tracks that anyone could appreciate him so fully, he forgets the question, never ends up pursuing it again leaving a huge question unanswered. Then I went back to the interview more recently to retrieve that question in the interview and I swear the older version was edited. In Stone's question to Putin , he was trying to get Putin to admit his benefiting financially by sort of validating it by saying he can understand the temptation of the power of Putin's office by saying "I would like to be rich". I remember this comment distinctly because it illustrates something I've always seen, that even super wealthy mega million dollar people like Stone, nevertheless marvel at people who are much richer than them. After all, by estimates, he's worth 60-70 million, yet still too cheap to even send Jim Di to Cannes! heh heh heh Just talking out of my butt. heh heh Guys like Putin can be brilliant men of the world with interesting opinions that can snow someone like Stone. Putin and maybe Bolosenaro and Erdogan might give serious competition to the "Dos Equis" Most interesting man in the world!" The reason we don't have many leaders that come off like that and you often hear their real thoughts later in a book, has to do with Democracy, because in a Democracy politicians are careful not to turn off a groups of people,so there words are very measured and often boring. The reason why people like Putin, and Trump to some people appear so brilliant to political novices is because they answer to no one! Actually IMO, he does have a point with nuclear power. Many, including Bill Gates has said we should have many more smaller nuclear power plants. Oh my God! is it a conspiracy! Oh....... no it's Oliver, it couldn't be! ****** Stone will decry the war but has said after all we made Putin do it. He'll never mention all the destruction that Putin has wrought on these people. But will mention that Putin is popular with his people, yeah, so was Stalin. Stone's big on Free Speech rights, making a movie about Snowden, but if asked about Navalny and Gerrasmoiv and countless others, he'd probably say they're malcontent troublemakers who had it coming!. Oliver claims Biden, "the worst of the Cold war." But Stone forgets Biden was trying to give Zelensky exile and when he refused and fought, the matter became escalated to the point where there was a potential question of whether the West and Nato would roll over and allow Putin to slaughter 10's of 1000's of civilians and And as it turned out. Whatever may happen next. It's now been 15 months, and his invasion has been a miserable failure where we've seen how ineptly run their entire military operation is, and yet there are still some knuckleheads here, who in a recent post have acted like this invasion has been a stunning success all along! Stone asks how could Biden have unilaterally let this thing escalate?. Yet he forgets the Grand Daddy of all escalations was when JFK and Khruschev let the Cuban Missile Crisis escalate to bring the world to the brink of complete destruction! What the hell is he talking about? We're not near that! There's so much crap going around about JFK "we mustn't be afraid to negotiate", that even his nephew takes it up as a talking point" Which I also see as smart politicking. It's so superficial to say if JFK had been elected in 2020, this whole matter could have been peacefully resolved to everyone's satisfaction 15 months ago.. And it ignores any thought to evolution of the Kennedy's, in an attempt to simplify and whitewash them! There's so much politics here about JFK. Do you know the fundamental basis for JFK's popularity in late 1963? It wasn't through JFK's economic policies, which hadn't gotten off the ground, or any stand he took on Civil Rights, which the public was just digesting. Do you really think JFK would have expected certain re election if he didn't stand up to the Russians in the Cuban Missile Crisis? He didn't start out with a candidacy in 1960 that was peace at all costs, at all!. The reason he became popular is because there was a new post war generation coming to power that wanted a liberal outlook and the JFK Presidency finally permitted it, and he got there, in the public's mind, because he was not peace at all cost, but by drawing a line with the Russians, he dispelled the pinko label that started in the red scare and vanquished the hawks! In the public's mind, for the first time since the beginnings of the Cold War. The future for World Peace looked bright!

First off, I have absolutely no dog in this fight, so I may have some clarity about this. Though I'm definitely not one of the herd on this issue and expect that might be made an issue rather than directly addressing my points. Wow, it will be interesting to see how the fiercely pro Prouty sleuths reacts to this information. I would think the best tack you can take is to attack the authenticity of it, otherwise you're faced some serious questions about what kind of character Prouty really is. There's absolutely no question at all about what the beliefs of this group is, it appears plastered all over the first page. That Prouty never read it, and never addressed it until he was confronted with it is beyond rational belief. His rantings are just the kind of old man crank thinking that sometimes passes on this forum as "conspiracy wisdom". Which is not to say there aren't elements of it I'm in complete agreement with. My guess is they'll be no attack on the authenticity of this document but absolutely no revision among the active naysayers to Michael on this thread. Of those who are not well versed in Holocaust denier propaganda, I suggest you might read the specific headline articles from Carlos Mattogno, William Grimstad and James J. Martin, which I haven't, and see if you counter Micheal's arguments by spinning the authors commentaries to be just not "pro Israel." But otherwise, in the face of such evidence, and the subsequent inability that I suspect, to question the authenticity of this document. I think you're best defense was probably stated by Chris earlier, that he may even be complete Anti Semite crank, and yet that doesn't mean his suspicions aren't entirely correct. And yet, his complete denial when confronted with these Anti Semite charges supported with this document, completely reminded me of how he folded, and betrayed at least me (and apparently no one else)during his hearing. In a corporation, results are measured by the bottom line, and if a inept person becomes CEO, his performance will show for all to see. This thread started with Prouty's resume which sounds very impressive, but would it be near as impressive as J. Edgar Hoover? or Alan Dulles?, or as Michael pointed out Curtis LeMay? Has any one here ever considered that in government, there are people who are allowed to keep power and in some cases, ruthlessly rule for decades? Doesn't the tenor of that last page sound a bit like a bitter old man who was very ambitious but didn't have any people skills, was maybe a little quirky, or maybe just couldn't kiss ass to his superiors and was forever bitter he was passed by for lesser beings? That's not completely conclusive, by any means but try reading it again. Ok, I've suggested your best directions, in opposition. Let's see what you got. * Hint: To read this whole thing and come out of it merely invoking his relation to Mae Brussel is not good sleuthing!

As so often, Pat, the voice of reason. He leads the discussion in the right direction. I've just got a bit of a time lag. I'll address the 911 thing later. Pat: Most everyone will discuss a "they" that they believe is acting against their interests, and attributes powers to this "they" that they do not have. No matter which side you talk to, this "they" is always bigger and stronger than they are. They are always the underdog and this "they" is always the big dog. While I think everyone has an aspect of that. I don't think most people think like that, but there is an increasing trend in that direction. .But if you spend enough time here on the forum, you'll hear that frequently because everything's a conspiracy here. This thinking is thoroughly ingrained, and in advanced stage here, in that it's continually repeated, it's over, we're toast, the adversary is omnipotent, can do anything with impunity, and there's no way back. But I think it's in an earlier stage of development with the public at large also, which is the result of more people feeling their lives and the lives of those around them are getting out of control. Pat:It comes from a deep-rooted psychological need. People take comfort in being oppressed. It's far easier than admitting the world is chaos and that they are "losing" through natural selection. I think the people here do it as just a defense mechanism that people use to not take control of their lives. They've concocted these super devils for whom they will never hope to get out from under and unknowingly use places like this forum to validate and reinforce with others their sense of overwhelming helplessness, so as never take any real action. So I guess that is taking comfort in being "oppressed." But, as I said it is true, apart from this forum that more and more people are attributing things to the great "they' or "the powers that be" conspiracy theories that can be attributed to just logic. (which I think you use the term "random"*) Look at how many things are attributed to conspiracies here, and now a few new ones.. First the Granddaddy, Donald Trump lost in 2020 because the MIC establishment decided he had to go down, not because he lost by 7 million votes. That couldn't be, because Trump said himself the election was a hoax because the "deep state" is going after him. Don't you understand? Now, Tucker Carlson got canned because he was exposing the "deep state"and then with the JFKA files, "they" really started getting scared when Tucker revealed just what those remaining JFKA files contain, right? "They" saw we were breathing down their necks! Then "they" seamlessly pulled Tucker's firing ......, and no one will ever know about it but me and my friends at the forum! This despite that external realities should tell you there's an obvious repetitive wave of the same thing happening with Bill O'Reilly and Roger Ailes. Whether you agree with it or want to believe it or not, times are changing, and you probably don't like it. And of course the hippies** here can't understand such abstractions as 787.5 million dollars! It's all fake, right? That's just peanuts for Murdoch anyway! Duh! And now I read here some joe blow, in an article say that the MIC just will never allow RFK Jr. to be President. I wish I had the quote. So through their MSM, they've seized on this RFK Jr. anti vaxxer thing, right?, Like that's completely insignificant, a non issue, just played up by the "deep state" and the MSM right? And yet in the case of Trump, Carlson or Kennedy, you're actually saying the majority of people in each case, have also been hoodwinked by the "deep state" and the MSM, myself included, because none of this could be the result of their political stands or their actions? P.S- And so timely. I just posted this on another thread. And finally I don't believe John Lenon's assassination was deep state hit! I also love John. But he lived in a bubble. He finally got political largely after it became passe. He died 10 years after "Working class hero" and if you lived through the 70's, you know everything changed. Hoover was dead. John could freely live and travel in the U.S. He was no longer any political threat and would go on Mike Douglas daytime TV with Yoko, present awards at the Grammies. The most controversial things he said in the last 5 years of his life were personal recollections, mostly about the Beatles. * Pat, I'm sort of unsure of your term, random. I could see it as meaning "free will", that people are creating these realities and have to answer to their actions, and in every one of these 3 case it's not a conspiracy. It's the logical result of their actions Trump, Carlson, or their unfavorable political stands, ** you see some old pictures of me, you would have thought me a hippie.

I don't believe John Lenon's assassination was deep state hit. I also love John. But he lived in a bubble. He finally got political largely after it became passe. He died 10 years after "Working class hero" and if you lived through the 70's, you know everything changed. Hoover was dead. John could freely live and travel in the U.S. He was no longer any political threat and would go on Mike Douglas daytime TV with Yoko, present awards at the Grammies. The most controversial things he said in the last 5 years of his life were personal recollections, many about the Beatles..

The gift that keeps giving.

Aaron Sharpe: There's something monstrously ironic—downright paradoxical, in fact—about criticizing Carlson and labeling him "far right," clearly aligning one's self with the current globalist Regime and shameless sycophancy of the legacy media, while also purporting to champion ... getting to the truth of the JFK assassination?? To not just continue the same old left vs. right discussion. There's a lot of confusion of terms here, and melding terms with large international policy positions. For example liberals will not be very tolerant of anyone, (like Carlson) who was in favor of the Bush Cheney PNAC War in Iraq because they may have fought to stop it before it happened, and even to this day are saddled with it on forums like these. To divvy through the left/far left, right/far right you have to have a wonky discussion that most people quickly tire of. Thanks for the comment Aaron. But I believe labeling Carlson far right is not at all "aligning one's self with the current globalist Regime and shameless sycophancy of the legacy media," and that's very dualistic and is a trap in thinking. I may be wrong, I believed I noticed some of this in Michael Griffith's comments for example, that he associates Carlson's taking up the JFKA issue as being leftist so any criticism of Tucker as being far right is a radical left notion, and is wrong. Carlson is definitely playing to a crossover crowd, of a mostly conservative audience. But the question is: what does he believe and where does he end up?. The arguments about left and right and liberal/ conservative have to do with one's philosophy about the use of government, and what role government has in the life of everyday citizens.. The most liberal sees an active role in government, which plays out in the U.S. currently as in the issues of providing it's citizens health care and and largely paying for education and training. The pure conservative model is that the government should primarily be used for the defense of the country and little else. The vast majority of people fall between these parameters. I've seen Carlson and he is quite aware of these philosophical differences, but is careful to not wed them to his political philosophy on air, as he's playing to a largely older audience, and wants to extend his crossover appeal. Carlson's craftiness can be seen in how far he goes in any direction and what he's careful to avoid talking about. Whatever it may appear, these are the overriding issues that Carlson cares about. In a time when the left and indeed many everyday people, including some conservatives are being economically squeezed and think income equality has reached a crisis and breaking point in the Capitalist structure. Tucker Carlson gives only diversionary lip service to corporate malfeasance with selected corporate entities that are said to have Democrat party funding,such as tech and pharmaceutical, (curiously while him and his party have never proposed any any curb on prescription drug prices) which does not tackle the overall problem of an overwhelming increasingly oppressive Corporate State. As a conservative, you can also notice Carlson is not at all, an activist, or has any concrete proposals to help people, and his show is mostly just complaining about his areas of discontent. He occasionally gives lip service to the "problems of the middle class" but he's measured and proposes nothing. Carlson is far rightist in that his overall aim is to villainize the government in the eyes of his viewers, asking a question, "What does government do any way, but take your taxes?", (which he's legally shielded by law to pay very little) and take away your rights as they did withe CIA killing JFK 60 years ago?", Trying to push people to his viewpoint which is to eventually defund the government and bring government to maybe a level we had in the 50's.(At least IMO) That is a much smaller government with much lower taxes. In this current predicament,of teetering Capitalist resentment, and a newfound resentment of younger people not being able to fulfill their economic dreams of income stability and an ability to have a family.That would precipitate a brutal repression. I'm not sure how Carlson thinks this could be pulled off. But i personally think he's content in that it's been gradually pretty successfully pulled off for 40 years, and he's trying to cloud the issues for his class of people as a counterbalance to a growing awareness of the fundamental problem. If you don't believe there are any fundamental issues involving wealth inequality or issues of "late stage Capitalism". Carlson is digestible except for a certain walking on a little on the wild side introducing topics that have had left appeal. I think the reputed "left" here on this forum, is just looking at this in broader terms regarding current specific goals. But regarding the JFKA, both parties are about the same. The truth is even a smoking gun revelation from the JFK files will not curb defense spending or alter foreign policy, particularly now. It's a huge issue here, but it's not in the top 40 of any politician holding federal office.That's the political reality. But the truth must be pursued for truth's sake. I hope I've shed some light regarding some of the mistrust involving Carlson.

Neil Gorsuch should be INVESTIGATED and face CONSEQUENCES! Not disclosing a sale of real estate he made to a firm that has now brought cases before the Supreme Court 22 times! OUTRAGEOUS: Justice Neil Gorsuch FAILED to properly report a real estate sale to the CEO of law firm with cases before Supreme Court. After nearly two years of finding no buyers, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch found a buyer for his 40-acre co-owned tract of property in rural Colorado just NINE DAYS after he was confirmed to the Supreme Court. Who bought it? The chief executive of Greenberg Traurig, one of the nation’s biggest law firms with cases before the Supreme Court. Gorsuch reported making between $250,001 and $500,000 from the sale but DID NOT disclose the identity of the purchaser. He left the box BLANK. Politico reports Greenberg Traurig “has been involved in at least 22 cases before or presented to the court.” We MUST hold the Supreme Court accountable if our system is to have any legitimacy. Enough with the corruption. ***** It could be a lot of the Republic appointed Supreme Court justices have glaring ethical conflicts of interest!

John, If you got the transcript, I can show where Carlson nods in agreement with RFK Jr. and where he doesn't and later says he doesn't agree but we should get it all out there. Carlson's a pretty crafty guy, and sees RFK Jr. as an influence getter, who he has confidence he can manage. I'll let the usual people speculate about how real his sincerity is about the JFK files. I don't watch his show, but if Carlson was to use the term "corporate kleptocracy" in his show, which i don't believe he does it would* be exclusively about the tech industry or the pharmaceutical industries. Look for issues about taxation the mega wealthy paying their fair share. Or any substantive policy to raise the status of the working class. Those aren't Fox issues, despite their rhetoric. And we know from Tucker texts now. He's was a gung ho Fox employee, eager to forward Fox's bottom line. I know there might be a blind spot, being an outraged older male, John. You and I in our younger years were hearing much more misogynist stuff. In younger years some of it could be dismissed as a general astonishment and maybe frustration at the opposite sex. But even despite that, there were men who were foulmouthed assholes. As time went, these guys still existed, but hopefully incidents with those men were less and less in our lives, and we came to face ourselves and know ourselves better. But some of the most influential power people at Fox were talking and acting like that in their 50's and 60's. John: Hence, they have to be shut down. Sorry John, can't give you your conspiracy on this one either. No it's going to turn out, that Carlson's just a garden variety sexist pig. That's gotta be the last thing you wanted to hear, right John? No conspiracy, and a woman bringing him down? * correction: i first said wouldn't.

Since we were talking Presidential politics, Regarding Biden's declaring for 2024. I'm in the camp that Joe Biden shouldn't have run for re election. He is too old. He served a great transition for the Nation away from Trump, and for that historically, he will be seen as a great hero. It's too bad he's not discouraged by his low polls numbers and doesn't make what I think would be a reasonable decision for his health, but he's been around politics a long time, and knows if he stays alive, he can win. And he's actually right! A lot of his minority groups who are not happy in the polls with him now, will eventually come back. People vote their pocket books. And super low unemployment with the current trend of decreasing inflation bode well for him. I'd just like to see some new younger blood. But I don't think Newsome is going to challenge him, but 2028 could be a very good year for him. But again, who wants to wait? I look upon Carlson getting canned and Lemon also getting canned as a 2fer. Lemon is closer to my political philosophy and I guess he is good for LGBT rights. But I never really liked him, and his evening show to me was boringly repetitive. I think both moves will create a better dialog between America's feuding factions. As far as the JFKA, I agree with Bob Ness's statement that " hitching your horse to a septic truck isn't the best strategy." Though I'm sure younger souls won't understand. There is matter of quality over eyeballs and quantity, and holding on to that absurd faction will just create problems, and the issues facing the nation have a much greater priority. Also, IMO, concerning the files, Tucker's whet everybody's appetite when after all this time, there's really no "there there" to use a phrase they'd understand.

https://www.newsweek.com/tucker-carlson-gets-offer-russia-state-media-1796379 Carlson gets offer from Russia state media. Certainly no surprise there. What is a surprise is that they'd say that out in the open. I would have thought they'd approach him behind the scenes because there are a few Tucker enthusiasts that don't like his connection to the Russians. But could they pay him enough?

I would tend to agree with Matt. Barring a completely dramatic screw up from Biden. There is not a path to a Trump victory in 2024. And right now it appears the Republicans are just going to march on for their 4th time to the Little Big Horn with Trump! Maybe the Trump lawsuits might give the Republicans a reprieve? Or strengthen Trump if they're drawn out for another millennium? Jim Di: Finally, Hunter Biden is a time bomb waiting to explode. Apparently you haven't heard Jim. For fun, I'll quote my post on it. Since House Oversight Committee Chairman Comer now admits they got nothing on Hunter Biden and Fox has canned Tucker Carlson, who else with any real influence is going to pursue Hunter Biden anymore? 4 year old story. RIP, Read it, watch it and weep. ******* 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?

I think the chief reason Fox settled is because they didn't want to be dragged though the mud with all these texts of Fox personalities like Tucker, Sean Hannity, Ingraham and the perpetually breathlessly alarmed Maria Bartiromo. But still it surprised me because there's a lot of viewers , even some who are reasonably intelligent like Michael Griffith who apparently wants Tucker to lie to him, or at least it won't affect any desire he has to continue watching him. They also were making a very stupid defense that they were merely following the lead of Trump and his lawyers. Ben said twice: "That is what many lawyers said; the case was up in the air." And then a third time with a link from Alan Dershowitz. That's what you get when you follow Fox pundit lawyers , like Alan Dershowitz.

Jim:The new documents prove that MacGregor and Ritter were and are correct. "Were?" Ok, Now let’s look at some quotes from Mac Gregor. One is in an interview with Tucker Carlson. .The battle in eastern Ukraine is really almost over, all of the Ukrainian troops there have been largely surrounded and cut off. You have a concentration down in the Southeast of 30 or 40,000 of them, and if they don't surrender in the next 24 hours, I suspect Russia will ultimately annihilate them. - Douglas MacGregor, February 2022 The Siege of Maruipol would last almost three months beyond that 24 hour prediction. 10 days after that was March 14, 2022. It is now March 22 2023. It’s not over yet. Again over a year ago. That was just the first month of the war. Let’s see if he managed to make better predictions later in the war.The war, with the exception of Kharkiv and Odessa, as far as the Russians are concerned is largely over. There is no intention to do anything else - Douglas MacGregor, July 08, 2022 It’s now March 2023. Nowhere near over and the Russians are further from Kharkiv and Odesa than they were then.this war may be over soon.: …“Right now things are going very, very badly, [for Ukraine] - Douglas MacGregor, early September 2022 Lest anyone forget September 2022 was the month of the Kharkiv offensive MacGregor was talking when the Ukranians had kicked the Russians back across the border by Kharkiv and back to the Oskil River. They would go on to advance far further later in the month. Douglas MacGregor has been consistently and thoroughly wrong throughout the war as well as being a consistent pro-Putin voice. He might get a prediction right eventually on the “a stopped clock is right twice a day” principle, but his track record ranks significantly below either a mystic 8-ball or a coin flip. Siegfried Sassoon: MacGregor is an anti-American fabulist who has sold anti-semitism and racism to anyone who is willing to pay. Instead of accepting his service when he was forced out as a colonel, unable to advance in rank, he grew angry at the US Army and anyone of General rank. You sure can pickem' Jim! Sorry for spamming, but it's so much fun!

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.