Kirk Gallaway
-
Posts
3,093 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Kirk Gallaway
-
-
Biden did greatly exceed my expectations. Which was pretty easy to do for the public at large as all he had to do was show up alive for them! The first 5 - 7 minutes were fantastic, starting with WWll, and then first with enemies from without (Putin invasion of Ukraine)then enemies from within., 1/6 insurgence, though I think he should have also mentioned all he the other efforts with fake electors and directly divvy into some of Mike Johnson's attempts to defraud the election without mentioning him directly. Now he's got to keep it up!
One great propaganda point the Dems could use, but it wouldn't be fair, but still you know the Repubs would use it in a heartbeat is to pan the Republican reaction on the floor when Biden said:
Biden:And make clear –political violence
has absolutely no place in America!
History is watching.
I went to FOX and they were squealing that Biden was "angry", Awwww, Sorry but after 3 years of trying to use rhetoric to bring the country together, Fox and Maga country only responded by calling Biden the most evil President in the history of the country! This was the wrong tack by Biden and their reaction never surprised me. I even think the appointment of Merrick Garland was sort of second time middle of the road appointment that we're suffering for now. Hopefully justice can still be done in a timely manner. Our system is ridiculous if a President can get in office and pardon himself from so many crimes!
I may be wrong, but I don't think there are going to be debates now, I think they'll put in a unreasonable effort in negotiating and blame one another for it not happening.
-
Apart from LBJ involvement in the plot to kill JFK. It served his purposes to alert Warren of the possible threat of USSR involvement and the risk of nuclear war, and then to switch his story after meeting Harriman, if in fact as Cliff says, he was taking orders from the "Wise men" or even just confused and relying on Harriman as his foremost Soviet authority. Any discrepancy in LBJ's private statements and public announcements would be understood by Warren and others.Sort of an aside, in light of the Nichter's recording where Lodge informs JFK that Diem was to be overthrown, and JFK expresses some regret but acquiesces and his eventual personal recording made in early November 63 where he expresses regret after the deed was done.I've been to many countries in the last 5 years and Vietnam is truly fascinating. I was in "Ho Chi Minh City," affectionately referred to by the natives there as "Saigon." I went to Independence Palace, the seat of government that was overthrown in 1975. I took many pictures there as well as the Vietnam War Museum. I took this picture of Nguyen Cao Ky's office (below)Ky's involvement in the 1963 coup against President Diem led to his appointment to the air force command. Following a military coup led by Nguyen Van Thieu in 1965, Ky became premier, and was Nguyen Van Thieu's vice-presidential running mate in the 1967 election.Anyway, look whose picture is immediately behind where his left shoulder would be.I take this to mean, whatever JFK's misgivings about how Diem was disposed of, the leaders of the coup thought they had JFK's good graces.
https://share.icloud.com/photos/077qbxDs-JBr-fuahbjvMtVPw
JFK's personal recording on Nov 1st, 1963, expressing regret about details of Diem's removal,and taking blame and assigning who was on which side of the decision. .
-
On 3/7/2024 at 6:47 PM, Sandy Larsen said:
I cannot believe my eyes... Doug is now resorting to posting pro-Hamas propaganda!
Sandy, what the hell's a matter with you? So Doug can't even mentionan isolated Hamas act of kindness while I've never heard you mention even once that 30,000 mostly innocent men, women and children have have been slaughtered, and we've been supplying them weapons ?
Come on!! Besides if it makes you feel better, they can be just protecting their bargaining chips.
-
19 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:
I watched about 5 minutes of Britt's response.
It was like watching a bad audition to drama school acting class.
When she got to the fake crying part, I had to go to the bathroom and be physically ill.
Steve Thomas
Defnitely Steve, a great tribute to what bad acting can do . All you need to watch is a 22 second sement here. 2:22-2:44 when she goes throigh a manic transformation from a giggly schoolgirl intoxicated with the American Dream to then say the Anerican Dream has become a nightmare. The conscious manipulation is so transparent.throughout this.
-
On 3/4/2024 at 10:20 PM, Matt Allison said:
Alito and Thomas want to retire, but will only be allowed to do so under a Republican administration.
Matt, where did you hear they want to retire? I would think they are finally where they want to be.
Unless hopefully, they are feeling possible heat from their improprieties.
Yeah more monkey business from Scrotus does not bode well for the future!
Ted Cruz is such a douche bag, no one on either side of the aisle in the Senate likes him.
That's interesting Doug, it would be nice to see how many people died in each of those Israeli war crime incidents against the Palestinians.
The weird thing in the California Senate race is that Schiff wanted to run against Republican Steve Garvey, who i always hated as a Dodger., so he gave him name recognition by attacking him in his campaign adds, falsely claiming he was "surging in the polls" but Garvey didn't even have the money to buy adds himself. i would have sooner see the finalists be 2 Democrats, Schiff and Katie Porter. i voted for Porter knowing Schiff would win, but I really like both Schiff and Porter.
-
9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
Expect to see Biden come out fighting beginning with his State of the Union address.
That has been Biden's strategy all along. First to befriend Netanyahu and gain his ear. The to try and get Netanyahu to reduce collateral killings as much as possible. And finally to demand payback from Israel in the form of their support (or at least tolerance) of two states.
Biden has been working behind the scenes for several weeks now trying to get a humanitarian ceasefire. Netanyahu has barely budged and that is why Biden has ordered humanitarian airdrops.
Sandy, That has been Biden's strategy all along. First to befriend Netanyahu and gain his ear. The to try and get Netanyahu to reduce collateral killings as much as possible.
Sort of, But Biden has been friends with Bibi for decades. Sort of political friends, which was an asset.
Speaking for myself,
For those us who wanted a cease fire by November and as I said in my posts at the time, knew that this would come to months of devastation , mass murder and genocide, and knew Biden couldn't stop it if he wanted to without paying a huge political loss in an election year that could very well end his political career in November with a loss to Trump, as there would as no political will in the U.S. to support Biden in that effort until we got the Sandys on board, by that I mean the everyday decent folk. heh heh a joke!
I knew it was inevitable that eventually the American public after watching months of genocide and starvation in Gaza, would lose their appetite for backing Israel, and the good, humanitarian instincts would come to the fore. I was hoping it would start coming with the New Year, and have been continually disappointed with U.S. public response. But it appears now that it is coming and any Democrat Peace candidate will no longer be pummeled to death by Republican hawks. As there is no longer any fear among them that Israel can't prevail, which was always obvious to me.
For me, the script that was written for Biden, couldn't give him anything more than a "C" in his handling of this because he just didn't have the support at the beginning, to stop the catastrophe , and that "C' is only if he can seize this moment, and engineer a 2 state solution. Then history will remember Biden as doing what no other President could do since the end of World War 2 and he will be remembered as a Great President. Because in the end, history will rationalize all the senseless death, destruction and suffering as a means to an end leading to a free Palestinian State.
Part of my "C' is also because I wonder if Biden was at first naive, even with all his Intelligence that he couldn't see the disaster coming that I could see. But I suppose it's academic because as I said he didn't have the popular support to stop it anyway. But if he's not successful at going for the brass ring , and going full bore for a 2 state solution and bringing peace to the region, then he'll be remembered as a Bozo, who had a lot of naive faith that he could temper Netanyahoo that he couldn't back up with anything and will have ended up just further plummeting America's reputation as the world's premiere superpower.
-
10 hours ago, Matt Allison said:
So the fake polls are becoming an issue; they are being weaponized and being used as propaganda to set a narrative. This is concerning and I would personally like to know why it's happening, and who is driving it. Is it the wealthy owners of the media conglomerates that want their tax break welfare back?
That NYT poll from yesterday had Trump winning women and Hispanics, and we know that is simply ridiculous.
The pollster has been getting heat on Twitter because of the obvious fakery.
These are deliberate acts; the NYT poll used rural voters as 35% of their sample pool, despite rural voters only being 18% of the electorate.
Yeah, sh-t polls. But maybe they are a good thing. Providing the public can live with any gaffes either Biden or Trump may have between now and election time. I think if the Dems turn out the vote, they will win, and maybe this is an incentive that they can't just do nothing and expect to win.
I think the Dems messaging had been terrible up to now. Biden has to look engaging. In the last few months. I don't now if his strategy has been to convince everybody his hibernating in the White House is because he's so engaged in being President is really working. The Dems have most of the creative minds in their camp, but they never seem to use them.
Is there really going to be a debate in this election? I don't think I ever was more anxious before a debate as I was at the first one between BIden and and Trump in 2020. But Biden beat him because Trump came on with early covid and was thrashing around like a pig. Then Biden held his own and beat him in the other debates, but with the climate now, I wonder if Biden can still do it. Or will Trump look stronger because the whole thing is a bs show anyway. I'd almost sooner skip it, but Biden may later not feel he has a choice because he'll be under pressure from these polls.
Biden should start using his position to turn the tables and go to the Knesset to push for his ceasefire plan and tell them there has to be some post war plan and as revolting as it may be now to think of, it should involve a 2 state solution with the region kicking in funds. The previous PM Israeli Ehud Ohmert says the visit would help Biden politically in the U.S. with Jews, Arabs, and liberals, and I agree. Biden should push that he's the only guy who can make a difference. He can't look bad for trying.
-
1 hour ago, Douglas Caddy said:
Highlight: President Biden eats an ice cream cone while talking about the starvation in Gaza.
Good podcast Doug! Napolitano could never get away with this on Fox. Biden being held to task.
But you do trivialize it by mentioning the Biden ice cream cone incident. Here's what happened. Biden was a guest on Seth Myers show.With all these previous photos out in the public of Biden nonchalantly licking an ice cream cone. For entertainment value, Myers took Biden to a nearby ice cream shop. There a person unexpectedly asked Biden about the prospects of a ceasefire in Gaza. Biden hesitated a little, (which of course make people jeer him for being slow.) because he was wondering if he should reveal a potential policy direction at an ice cream shop. But he wanted to deliver something of substance so he mentions the upcoming plans for a ceasefire that haven't been finalized, and gets a lot of heat for it. That's the story.
-
On 3/1/2024 at 8:30 AM, Sandy Larsen said:
Here, I fill in your blanks with bold text:
The Israelis are not as piously religious as I had thought, so they are grievously violating the Jewish principle of "an eye for an eye" (exacting punishment that is commensurate with the crime) by killing so many Gazans. (Not to mention violating their religious belief in "loving your neighbor," when it comes to the collateral killing and maiming of Gazans, and causing them to suffer.)
Ok Sandy , I think we can discuss this stuff reasonably. I have a question for both you and W.
I've always thought Sandy has no problem, speaking from his heart so to speak. Sandy, I'd like you to hold off from answering.
W. Ive asked you a number of times now to answer in your own words and your response is just to start quoting books and authors. Like your recent post, It should be obvious to you that I question any motive involved in trying to establish a premise that the good old time religious genocides through the millennia are more humane than, in your terms the Social or atheist based genocides of the 20th Century. I've explained that to me, Genocide is genocide" and I have no desire to read any of your authors who would pose that argument or read the Talmud, for other reasons we could perhaps discuss later. Could we start with you?
Ok,
It's not a trap or a "gotcha" question. I don't presume to know the answer. For example, I sometimes have felt like we're going to "hell in a hand basket." heh heh
Is the decline in religiosity in the U.S. (less church attendance, etc. ) a concern for either of you? Have at it.
-
13 hours ago, Tony Krome said:
Mr. TRULY. She said, "Mr. Truly,"---words to this effect---you understand---" Mr. Truly, you don't know who I am but I have a neighbor whose brother works for you. I don't know what his name is. But he tells his sister that you are very busy. And I am just wondering if you can use another man,"
Why would you be "wondering if you can use another man" if you knew definitely they were looking for someone.
Egad Tony, " words to the effect".? So this your lead to establish RP is lying?
There are no recordings of the call. As far as the Truly account, do you remember every detail of a phone call you made over a month ago?
So from this second hand "Tony transcript," people are suppose to make an RP defense?
Greg answered anyway. Some people are more presumptuous than others. Some might say "I understand you got a job there, and I know somebody", and some may say "I'm wondering if you could use another man" if that was said at all!
Cory:And when Ruth called for Lee (the violent abusive husband) how did she get the number to call Truly at the Book Depository? From the phone book?
Yes Cory, I'm not sure how your reference to the violent husband fits in , but everyone had phone books back then. And you could pretty much find the great majority of people and even more businesses because there were no robocalls and every business wanted to be contacted!
-
On 2/28/2024 at 2:12 PM, Kirk Gallaway said:
Sandy:65% of Israelis say they are either "not religious" or are "convinced atheists", while only 30% say they are "religious". That may explain it. Of course, even religious Israelis could be not living their religion.
Ok, Sandy, I'm not the least bent out of shape. I see where your coming from,. You're much easier to dialog with.
I see you're generally addressing this above. Still I'm unsure. I think I at first, instead of assuming what you were you driving at. I should have just let you talk. But still I'm unsure.
But to what you wrote above. I asked you this question.
Kirk: That may explain it." ? Explain what?
That is you're saying the Israelis are ---------------? ( maybe summarize your findings)so they are doing-------------?.
****
Sandy:Who says I'm not for a ceasefire?
Ok, that's news to me. I think the first step, though not necessarily the only possible step, but it is the one it seems that people are now coalescing toward is a ceasefire. Of course, there's almost nothing to save anymore. Even though, they've fled their homes ,they're still being bombed in their camps and 100 died today, but last I heard there are 2 sides to the story, we'll see. In our discussions over the last few months I've continually floated that by you, and you haven't responded but we're in agreement. Personally I would have long ago also cut off our usual aid, and definitely not have sold them arms to perpetuate this genocide, but that's me.
-
And the winner of the 'Bad Timing Award' goes to Lauren Boebert, ...whose son was arrested the same day this was posted!
-
6 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:
Kirk,
Like most Americans and Western Europeans, you're a walking case of Dunning-Kruger syndrome when it comes to understanding the Babylonian Talmud and the 2,000 year history of Eastern Christianity-- too ignorant to recognize your profound ignorance. What Netanyahu is doing in Gaza is, basically Talmudic-- destroying the unclean Goyim for the benefit of Israel. I'm simply saying the quiet part out loud.
You also haven't studied history in sufficient depth to learn that the worst genocides in modern world history were all perpetrated by anti-Christian atheists -- 1) Joseph Stalin, 2) Adolph Hitler, 3) the Khmer Rouge, and 4) the (non-atheistic) Muslim Turkish genocide of Armenian Orthodox Christians.
Hitler and his Nazi Wotanists were rabidly anti-Christian, as were Lenin, Stalin, Beria, Yagoda, and the Bolsheviks who murdered an estimated 20 million Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox Christians after 1917. They also destroyed and desecrated Orthodox churches and monasteries throughout Russia, just as the communist Chinese desecrated Buddhist temples and monasteries in Tibet.
Naziism took root in a post-Christian culture that celebrated Nietzsche and Wagnerian neo-paganism.
The Bolshevik genocide of Orthodox Christians took root in a sub-culture of atheistic Marxist-Leninism.
The history of these 20th century atheist atrocities has remained largely untold in the West-- with the exception of the Nazi Holocaust.
I can direct you to some excellent historical sources if you want to educate yourself on these subjects.
7 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:Kirk,
Like most Americans and Western Europeans, you're a walking case of Dunning-Kruger syndrome when it comes to understanding the Babylonian Talmud and the 2,000 year history of Eastern Christianity-- too ignorant to recognize your profound ignorance. What Netanyahu is doing in Gaza is, basically Talmudic-- destroying the unclean Goyim for the benefit of Israel. I'm simply saying the quiet part out loud.
You also haven't studied history in sufficient depth to learn that the worst genocides in modern world history were all perpetrated by anti-Christian atheists -- 1) Joseph Stalin, 2) Adolph Hitler, 3) the Khmer Rouge, and 4) the (non-atheistic) Muslim Turkish genocide of Armenian Orthodox Christians.
Hitler and his Nazi Wotanists were rabidly anti-Christian, as were Lenin, Stalin, Beria, Yagoda, and the Bolsheviks who murdered an estimated 20 million Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox Christians after 1917. They also destroyed and desecrated Orthodox churches and monasteries throughout Russia, just as the communist Chinese desecrated Buddhist temples and monasteries in Tibet.
Naziism took root in a post-Christian culture that celebrated Nietzsche and Wagnerian neo-paganism.
The Bolshevik genocide of Orthodox Christians took root in a sub-culture of atheistic Marxist-Leninism.
The history of these 20th century atheist atrocities has remained largely untold in the West-- with the exception of the Nazi Holocaust.
I can direct you to some excellent historical sources if you want to educate yourself on these subjects.
W. I remember that silly attempted lecture of yours a while back endeavoring to say you could offer positive proof that non religious genocides of the last century were somehow less humane than the religious based genocides of the previous 2000 years. I would never be so presumptuous to make such an argument. Genocides are genocides. Not only were there much fewer people in millennia past. Socialism was was the fastest growing religion in the 20th century. It was an evolutionary social movement beyond religion that nonetheless was embraced with a religious fervor, just as the previous fanaticism that caused religious genocides of the past. It's not a competition for me as it is for you. I'm only concerned with results, and both sides are the same. That is, they are genocidal.
Back to your inflammatory comments about your alleged "custom" of Jews spitting on Christian clerics in Israel. You missed my point entirely.W. the more you get onto your comparative religions raps, which you love to do, the more you reinforce to me these religious assholes are going to be fighting each other into God's eternity. And you'll be there, rooting one side on.Nobody will ever accuse you of being uplifting. Since our views are similar about Israel carrying out genocide in Gaza. Can't you argue against Israel's policies without condemning the people as being the mindless product of their religion that you so vehemently scorn? You really end up just contaminating the real issues with your religious fervor.Maybe you could take a deep breathe and think about that. -
On 2/27/2024 at 12:16 AM, Sandy Larsen said:
Ah, okay. You were referring to the first of the Ten Commandments.
I don't think of the Ten Commandments as being Christian. I think of them as being part of the Old Law that was fulfilled and obsoleted with the Coming of Christ.
I've always just assumed that the Israeli Jews tended to be devout. I mean, why else would they choose to live there?
But now we have new generations of Israeli Jews. And I guess they have become less religious.
There is good reason for me to think that Jews are more religious than others. The fact that they tend to be much more successful than other peoples. Only 2% of Americans are Jews, and yet you see successful ones all the time in the news.
And so I've wondered what it is about Jews that makes them so successful. The only thing I could think of that would be common among them all is their religion. I thought it was their religious teachings that led to their being successful.
But maybe they tend to be successful merely because they are the Chosen People. God favors them.
I grew up in a Mormon household in the center of Mormonism, but have been agnostic most my life. I didn't think there was any way to prove there is a god, etc.
I became a believing Christian ten or fifteen years ago, when I discovered what I believe is proof that Jesus rose from the dead. I have also identified Old Testament prophesies that were were fulfilled with amazing accuracy.
Also, several years ago I learned that there actually is proof of a god. Amazingly, even Steven Hawking (among numerous other physicists) knew/know the proof, but may not have realized it as such.
I've been wondering whether to comment on this. Kathy may come on the forum and stop our discussion and say "it's just gets too personal because after all, that's what religion does and is not appropriate on the forum."I actually have no personal attachment, and resent talking about it about as much as caring about how Michigan and Wisconsin vote in the primaries.But I do have serious problems in what I see as a very parochial "homeboy" religious hypocrisy in statements both you and W. have made.Sandy:Wondering how Israeli Jews could justify their excessive response to the Oct. 7 Hamas attack, I did some digging and discovered that a 2015 Gallup survey determined that 65% of Israelis say they are either "not religious" or are "convinced atheists", while only 30% say they are "religious". That may explain it. Of course, even religious Israelis could be not living their religion."That may explain it." ? Explain what? Sandy please explain the point you're trying to make here. That they're committing genocide because they're not religious, like you ?I'm turning this around on you. Policy wise I think many Israelis are like you and do not like the genocide but they don't want a ceasefire. In their case, it's more understandable. They were attacked. We in the U.S. have lost nothing. You see IMO, despite your proclaimed religiosity, you're position is not near as justified as the typical Israeli. You've lost nothing! Just to give an alternative view. Should I hold the fact that you're religious against you, like you do the non religious Jews? That is that you are similar to them in that you don't like genocide but are not ready for a ceasefire?You understand, I'm not arguing about your viewpoint on a ceasefire.. I'm just arguing against, what I see as the parochial religious hypocrisy of your statement.
*****and now W.Most Americans don't know about the Orthodox Jewish custom of spitting on Orthodox Christian priests and bishops in Israel. But I have known Orthodox Christian priests who have been spat upon there. The Talmud has always taught that Christ and Christians are an abomination. Someone needs to tell the bad news to Trump's clueless Evangelicals.Once in a while W. makes these old world one way cookie cutter comments that are designed to inflame, .Oh, thanks for informing us about that W. This sort of one sided trash talk between religions is exactly why religions will never transform anything and are politically so destructive. Yeah, and that should even the score toward Christians who only recently in history slaughtered 6 million of them? That's about all the retribution they're entitled to, the teeniest minority of them spitting on Christian clergy in their own land? You sound like Donald Trump, W. Ahhhh such indignity!!W. the Talmud teaches that non-Jews, the Goyim, have the spiritual status of beasts! The Goyim are considered unclean,W. thanks for, as usual getting sucked right into the middle of it, and increasing the separation. Again this perfectly illustrates my point about the horrendous political record of religion throughout the centuries. I was asking you politically speaking, to this day, has the net political effect of religion on humanity, been anything other than horrendous? And I don't see it getting any better..As if the Christian hands are clean, and the reverse hasn't happened many times throughout history. All religion has been used to oppress other religions and humanity over millennia. Ignoring the holocaust by saying that Hitler wasn't a true Christian is Christian BS! And any assertion that someone's hands are clean because in this case, they're Christian and not a Catholic perfectly reflects the cowardice in the U.S. by the traditional Christian churches to take any kind of stand against the evangelicals, or the present genocide in Gaza. Again, where is the Christian outrage?. Their attitude is, "Hey, it's not my problem."Whatever forces for good the largest religion in the world was, they were silent during WWll. To be clear W. your 1937 Pope Pious Xl secret communique with Hitler is rendered completely irrelevant by what happened just 5 years later, when Hitler comes to the doorstep of the Vatican in Rome and snatches 1200 Jews from their grasp, and takes them to Auschwitz, and when the Pope asked his German Ambassador if the Catholic Church can secretly make a protest to Germany, the Ambassador tells him he probably shouldn't and the Pope obeys. I asked you the question, since they knew what was going on, what good are they if they have no real courage?I see these comments as reflecting a lot of phony piety. I find it ironic that both Popes coming and entering WWll were named Pious! i guess that was because piousness was their specialty?Isn't it interesting not many people are named "Pious" anymore?heh heh -
W. I've talked with you before about this same matter concerning Griffith. Griffith talks his same barrage of talking points. over and over again. As far as your charge of "repeating falsehoods." You can specifically look them up and dispute them, but you choose not to. So like your response here, you contribute no real counter points and resort to insulting him. It doesn't take much courage to insult and try to turn forum sentiment against someone whose views are generally greatly at odds with the general forum. It really is just bullying. Your retorts are much more repetitive than even his talking points.If you're not going to challenge him directly. You look better just leaving it as it is.
IMO, Di Eugenio set a standard with this on the forum with his sort of "circling the wagons bullying" but they were generally against LNers so no one ever called him on it. Sill there used to be good arguments say, between Jim and DVP. I generally but not always agreed with Jim because I'm not an LNer, but there were also disputes that were inconclusive. But unfortunately after while Jim contributed less points, but just dog whistled and let his followers do the arguing and bullying for him and it got ridiculous!
Robert, I once had Brancato call me a "CIA rooter" and "a fan of the Joint Chiefs!" This was for merely pointing out contradictions between Di Eugenio and another forum Superstar author concerning a witness, (while I wasn't even taking a side. It was merely for pointing out that both couldn't be right! ). Some people just have too much of their identity involved in this.
-
9 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:
Kirk,
From what I've seen, some of the most dedicated exterminators of the Palestinian goyim are devout Israelis.
I've even seen video clips of Israeli soldiers reciting Jewish prayers while they blow up mosques in Gaza.
It's Talmudic-- like Netanyahu quoting the Torah scriptures in which the Prophet Samuel was instructed (by Yahweh) to annihilate the Amaleks.
As for the Roman Catholic Church and fascism, it is true that many conservative Christians in the 1930s initially viewed European fascism as a bulwark against atheistic communism. But, in fact, Pope Pius XI issued an encyclical condemning Naziism as fundamentally antithetical to Christianity, in 1937. (Not 1939, as I stated above.)
The 1937 Papal encyclical condemning Naziism was entitled, Mit brennender Sorge.
Mit brennender Sorge - Wikipedia
Interesting article about the Pope but there's a lot of controversy about that. Including some newly released documents. that were every bit as hard to get out of the Vatican as the remaining JFK files.
Pious was on thin ice because he feared the Nazis would take over Europe. And despite that document you cite sent from the Vatican to Germany in 1937. In 1943, the Nazis came up to the Vatican's doorstep in Rome and rounded up 1250 Jews to take back to Auschwitz. The only angle that Pope Pious XII could work was that some of them had been baptized and he managed to spare 250 but the remaining 1200 were sent back to Auschwitz and all but 7 of them were exterminated!
You can read and watch here.
I know I brought that up, but my intention wasn't to talk history. But I do see similar things going on right now, and what I'm curious about is trying to get your thoughts in your own words about these questions.
Kirk: America is still a largely Christian nation. American Christians have seen 4 months of genocide going on in Gaza on TV and whatever their expressed revulsion is, it's not enough to translate even into the first step of calling for a ceasefire.
W. Where is the humanitarian outrage of the American Christian community? As I've said, politically they are very pro Israeli, and they exert absolutely zero pressure in Congress against the genocide. Quite the opposite. They are forging on , with their support of Israeli which seems to be the one issue that Dems and Repubs are united on.
Then on a more macro level. Purely on a political level now, isn't religion in America a huge net negative force with horrendous consequences? The only people who are trying to make any difference are the right wing, who are the most active, the most vocal, and the most well financed and are Fascistic in their trampling of human rights, and the traditional Christians have no courage to oppose them because they are other Christians. So what good are they?
-
Kenneth Chesbro lied about having a secret twitter account in his plea deal They better indict him for this.
According to the report, Chesebro promoted a “far more aggressive” plot than he had admitted to investigators, laying the groundwork on X for a scheme to overturn the results of the election even in the event Trump lost his legal battles—despite later claiming the fake electors were primarily a backup plan in case Trump won his legal cases.
ttps://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbushard/2024/02/26/who-is-kenneth-chesebro-trump-attorney-behind-fake-electors-strategy-reportedly-hid-tweets-from-investigators/?sh=d0f4e1c5176c
-
Thanks for the historical background W. But that's not what I'm talking about.
We have a good idea where Israel's at. They're in the drivers seat and have constructed this genocidal policy and despite our pleas, have shown no signs in letting up.
But it takes 2 to tango. Let's talk about present realities.. America is still a largely Christian nation. And American Christians have seen 4 months of genocide going on in Gaza on TV and whatever their expressed revulsion is, it's not enough to translate even into the first step of calling for a ceasefire.
This reflects in their representatives in Congress. Joe Biden is under little pressure from largely Christian Republicans and Christian Democrats, and feels he can take his time. Even the issue of the Arab population in Michigan turning against him in the 2024 election is really a long way down the road. In the meantime 1000's of innocent people have and will die.
We're not going to go in there with troops. The ceasefire initiated by the U.N. is probably the most logical first step.
I'm not necessarily an absolutist who says. "either your part of the solution, or you're part of the problem". But what I was saying to Sandy is I think his initial premise that Israel is more apt to engage in genocide because in his poll, they' re not devout, can be easily be debunked and without trying pigeonhole him as I know he's sincere, he demographically falls right into the typical American Christian in that he's offended by what he sees on TV, but it doesn't translate into any real policy, probably like a lot of Israelis. So effectively, what's the difference?
Just as the Pope never took a direct stand against Hitler and Mussolini. Neither have the American Christians. But I suspect they will I just wonder when.
-
Sandy, I think to understand what I said, you first have to know the First Commandment and the First Amendment. What i was commenting on first was the First Commandment which is "I am the Lord thy God, thou shall not have strange Gods before me."* This was in reference in part to both W. and Matt's comments that the Trump Christian movement are not truly Christians. And I understand where they're coming from. .
The First Amendment is about freedom of speech, and in essence allows false gods to propagate themselves and accumulate power. So I said they are at cross purposes to one another.
i then drew a parallel noting that there are existential times in life where people whether religious or not have to stand up for policies that are against genocide.
I'm not trying to be challenging, but I'm not sure if your poll about Israel religious devoutness is any real indication,as policy wise. How are Israeli's any different than you? That is, I'm sure there are good numbers of people there who abhor the genocide, like you but still are in compliance with the 4 U.S. /Israel vetoes against the U.N. resolution calling for a ceasefire.
In fact, I don't think religious devoutness has anything to do with this at all. As the vast majority of Christians in the U.S. are not in favor of a ceasefire and are going along with U.S./Israeli policy.
IMO, religious identification in the U.S. exacerbates this problem of condoning genocide, drawing false allegiances to Israel as "God's chosen people" through that imagery Christians share of Israel being the Holy Land, and supposed Biblical prophecies such as "the Rapture" which some fringe Christian groups believe, among other religious dogma.
* like Joseph Smith, heh heh. That' really interesting Sandy, I guess i thought Mormons being Christians had sort of basic knowledge of the traditional tenets like the 10 commandments. As being brought up Catholic, I had to memorize them in my youth!
Shame on you!, heh heh... a joke!
-
Why the second response, Jim? Do you think maybe, despite Jim's claims, he is listening to me?
Jim, Your first response was hazy. Was Bobby's direct response Feb. 1967 or December 1967?
You have the dates. it makes a difference.
16 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:But William, more to the point, see back in 1961 when the first debates began on whether there should be direct intervention RFK served as an appendage to JFK and secretly Galbraith.
"Secretly Galbraith". RFk served as "an appendage". What kind of writing is that? What is this,"Inside edition". This is proof?
20 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:Galbraith vigorously objected to direct American intervention in November of 1961 and he told JFK about this.
Oh, Galbraith now coming out of the closet? Yes he was the liberal scholar of his day, and definitely an upstanding member of JFK's cabinet, but his background was in economics. We know many members of JFK's cabinet told him many different things. So what proof is that of anything?
22 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:So at the showdown meeting on November 15th I think, whenever anyone would say something about inserting American troops, Bobby would step forward and say, "There will be no combat troops in Vietnam." Clearly this had been worked out with JFK. And this is in Kaiser's book.
Ok, so we're supposed to embrace Kaiser, because he reinforces your theories Jim?
How many times here have you any of you read supposedly esteemed sources that end up being incorrect?
Do we have any other author's take on the the Nov 15th or thereabouts meeting? Or is it just the one we like?
26 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:But then I found a newspaper story where after the JFK assassination, while Bobby was still in office, he made a speech at some college in VIrginia in 1964 and he admitted the war was not going well, but he still said, there should be no American direct intervention especially with combat troops.
Then please post it, Jim. That was of course, what a politician would say in 1964. Nobody wanted to go to war. But why the 3 year lag from 1964 to, what was the month in 1967?
38 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:So you have 1961, 1963, 1964, and 1967.
? My bar of truth says one public statement in 1967, and none between 1964 and 1967, which is a long drought! and I'm looking for your Bobby quotes in 1964 please. Though that was easy to say in 1964.
Is there legitimate room for discourse here about what JFK's follow through in Vietnam might have been? Because it's been one of the most hotly debated subjects in history.
-
Good question W. !!! Keep it up, the date is paramount. That's the kind of relevant questioning I'd ask Di Eugenio but he has half the world on ignore. I think how many other 'keeping them honest" questions that could have been asked.
Actually there was quite a vigilant liberal movement of people who were wondering where Vietnam was going by 1965. Some of them were my junior high teachers. You can see traces of that in, was it August 1963 with the Huntley Brinkley interview with JFK where they're really trying to pin JFK down.
As far as Jim's answer. That's what I remember. Many people were against the war by 1967. I gave and give Bobby a C minus.
In actuality. This question of JFK's intentions and eventual follow through about Vietnam is not as clear cut as people here say. It may just be the Kennedy penchant for secrecy but it also wasn't clear from any public statements from JFK's advisors either.
By 1967, it was becoming very clear that the war was an albatross over any Democrat politicians head. If they were on the right side of history, what did they have to lose?
-
I don't get what you're saying Sandy, or what you're inferring from what i said.
But when I think of the antithesis of "love your neighbor", i think of the current situation of Israel bombing the sh-t out of a region and killing 30,000 innocent civilians. That can rattle me a little.
But I admit, I'm not feeling that charitable toward Melania!
They just recently got a new nuptial , I understand.
-
W. I appreciate the article about Roman, but this shouldn't have been any surprise to Willis and Wade and is really the high stakes part of the league they're playing in, and is an unforced error. If the tables were turned the Democrat attorney's would probably be looking into the same thing. This whole thing could have just been avoided if Wade had just made a quick settlement with his ex-wife.Willis and Wade paid for everything in cash, because Willis testifies that to pay everything in cash was the way she was raised by her Father, who they then asked to testify, and he confirms that is how he raised his daughter. They make a big deal that Willis's Father had no special knowledge about Willis's relationship with Wade. Hey, if I were an attorney, like he is. I probably wouldn't ask my daughter either.Sandy: It doesn't matter that they had a romantic relationship. What matters is if Nathan Wade paid her way or bought her stuff after she hired him. Quid pro quo.Of course Willis and Wade are lawyers and know what's going on. It's obvious under this circumstance, their use of cash was completely intentional. But like some of Trump's defense, you can't really prove it. And if you can't prove the intention, you've got nothing. Willis and Wade should have realized that they had to be squeaky clean. But this has no bearing directly on Trump's trial.*******Unfortunately the victorious cases against Trump that are the simplest would tend to be the first prosecuted and they don't do a lot by themselves to sway the non aligned voters. I think you can make a case that the enormous settlement of 385 million is thought of by many to be excessive as at least in principle many people have bumped up their incomes to apply for credit cards and bumped up or down their asset values to either apply for a loan or get favorable tax consideration. The only difference is that Trump's bump ups were absolutely insane!
-
Matt:Hatred like that is the antithesis of the teachings of Jesus Christ, and the Bible warns of those that treat people that way.
Yes, the good old First Commandment. I was going to say "amendment" but they really are at cross purposes, aren't they?
Obviously none of us can know the figures. But I'd say 10-15% of America are Christo Fascists and a great number of the rest of the Christian population are very malleable and suggestible and could become a Christo Fascist majority, as I don't think there is sufficient mental discipline when under pressure to distinguish matters of Church and State.
A good contingent of Trump support are these Christians, and any matters for them of Trump's character and virtue can readily be swept under the rug. For me it's been very disheartening in the last few years just to see how shallow Christian conviction is in the U.S. Such a thing can't be minimized and shouldn't be swept under the rug.
The only counterbalance are the remaining, Christians, people of other faiths, agnostics and atheists under maybe the broad term "secularists."
Thank God, we have the abortion issue and this newest IVF Alabama ruling to fractionalize this group.
The Men Who Murdered President Kennedy...REDUX-REDUX!
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
What Joe? Are you serious,? Is it because he's a white military guy?
Well there goes Morrow's theory that Lansdale killed JFK because he ok'd Diem's death! n heh heh
Though I don't subscribe to that theory, I have to say , it's about as good a motive for Lansdale killing JFK as I've heard yet. Up to now, it's been that he's a real evil guy who got wind somehow that JFK was pulling out of Vietnam.
I looked closer, that guy looks older. I'd be very surprised if that was him.