Kirk Gallaway

It's the same pattern over and over. You're absolving Trump of any responsibility for his actions, and saying we're just being diverted, or we're somehow being manipulated by the msm, because we don't want a President who absconds with government files and either refuses or hides the fact that he's not giving them all back. This thread is largely commenting on current news and Trump in the news as result of his own actions! As I said before, it's obvious it really always upsets you when Trump is being criticized. That's not a desirable condition, I would say to that, bite the bullet, and get a candidate whose not a perpetual embarrassment to you.

The easiest way for the corporate state to swindle Ben out of his lifelong benefits as a U.S. citizen is to tell Ben the National Security State is fighting for Ben to keep his benefits! Game over! Do you ever suspect you've been diverted? Trump has nothing to do with your true political interests. There are actual issues that involve more than personalities. Your political beliefs are based solely on parroting the examples of your idols and being on the other side of their enemies. It's a bit more complicated. Learn the ABC's of you political interests. From what I've seen most people here have a pretty good idea where their interests lie. This below is where your interests should lie, If for some reason in life it's not. I'm sorry, but please don't deny us our interests.

Also a complete accounting of what loans have been forgiven to Congress men or women would be in order. Repubs and Dems, but at least the Dems won't look like complete hypocrites.

Right on Ron! About Texas, Good luck to Beto, Let's start ridding Texas of their fascist overlords!

Whew! Eureka, I have found it! If this isn't a cudgel the Democrats can use to batter the Republicans in the Congressional races, I don't know what is!

I think there are true things said on both sides. I've mentioned this before, but I take issue on the commentary we've heard for years ,largely from Jim that JFK was a great liberal hope "hence Destiny Betrayed" but JFK was always primarily a centrist for his time. He was a popular president who was going to face an easy reelection, largely for the hawkish reason that he stood up to Khrushchev, so he combined the social progress outlook of the day with a strong cold war stance. Even so there wasn't a great groundswell for JFK in 1964. His policies were measured, all Democrats talked unabashedly like liberals back then, (unlike the 50 years following the 70's!) and Michael's right, the liberal party was was an automatic endorsement. Michael:JFK was determined to do all he could to save South Vietnam but that he did not want to introduce combat troops, that he had every intention of providing South Vietnam with all the weapons and supplies they needed, and possibly air support, even if he eventually decided to withdraw all American troops. I think Micheal's right here. But he seems to downplay it as if not wanting to introduce combat troops is something small, when in reality, that's a lot! When LBJ did aggressively introduce combat troops, we went into an almost 10 year war where we lost 55,000 people and wreaked destruction on millions!. The difference between them would have been monumental! Michael:However, in his 1964 oral interview, Bobby allowed that JFK may have decided to introduce combat troops if South Vietnam had been on the verge of collapse. Yeah, I personally think that's just Bobby cold war posturing. I think when the reality presented itself, JFK would have ducked out, and taken some heat for it. I don't think that would have happened. But because no one would have known what the outcome of fighting the Viet Nam War turned out to be. JFK wouldn't have been given the historical credit he would have deserved for not introducing huge numbers of ground troops. So he wouldn't have been riding a great peace wave. And it's hard to believe that JFK's charisma. alone would have been enough to stop the race riots of the 60's. That was just inevitable. Conversely, Jim never has given LBJ any credit for his civil rights legislation even though it was greater than anything a Northeasterner like JFK could accomplish. It's true Bobby was important to the JFK administration taking out the arms length between JFK and MLK, and he would have been in a great position to do more if he were to be elected President. The JFK Presidency arc could have been good, but not overwhelming. Any idea that the JFK Presidency could have a strong effect on our present history inevitably has to include the idea of RFK being elected for another 8 years. I think he would have been a much greater activist. The greatest, perhaps naive hope anyone could have was that Bobby could have so zealously gone after social justice, and lived to tell about it, while bigotry was backing up a little bit, and perhaps we could have won a messy battle and come out more to the other side than we did 100 years earlier under Reconstruction and we wouldn't have to deal so much now with people who have been causing us trouble for the last 150 years. At least that's my opinion. But perhaps too much had to go right to make that a realistic possibility.

No, no no. Everybody has known about the $1000 toilet seat for what 20 years now? You used this as evidence to further go on your "secret government" theme, but the question is: Find me the source that this information was classified, please.

I realize you just "recall", but can you find a source for that?

This is what I mean by Spam. Ben has posted at least 4 posts on this. Now he dredges up a 5 year article and feigns faux astonishment of Schumer merely saying something everyone here already knows? And citing this as evidence that" Schumer and da donks" being in bed with the "Shadow Government Deep State" and couldn't just be an overall statement of common sense? Just like telling Roger Stone he's a complete fool for his tweets insulting his judge in his ongoing trial? And probably about a dozen posts saying this. Ben: Still waiting for a court trial, with an able well-funded defense, in an open courtroom. State investigations and prosecutions deserve detached, and skeptical review. Ben, We know by now you're an American justice homey who in this case thinks a 1/6 court trial will entirely turn around every testimony of all Trump's personal advisors , lawyers, cabinet members and his own family who desperately urged him to take action to call off the rioters that he ignored for over 3 hours, not even to mention the many who discouraged him from pursuing his election fraud claims in the first place. Just taking your advice, and giving a "detached, skeptical review."

There are definitely trends and counter trends . Certainly there's a more hard core conspiracy element in the population today, and as I've said before, I think the misinformed people and their wacko theories take the JFKA conspiracy down with it. I'm not sure how much faith I put in fluctuating polls about how many people believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. I don't how many here have seen these man in the street interviews with everyday people asking questions about history, politics and geography, but the level of knowledge of the everyday person is just appalling to when I grew up, and these people can seem reasonably intelligent and even articulate! I think with the everyday person in the general population, the general support is soft. Which can be expected in a now almost 60 year historic event, and with the general lack of knowledge or enthusiasm for history presently. I think the general response to the question, "Was JFK killed by a conspiracy" to the average person who of course has never been motivated to study it at all, and whose main exposure is maybe some documentary on TV .has become sort of a sociological weather vane now, or a sort of badge by which he or she might of course acknowledge that JFK died as result of conspiracy to simply reaffirm that they are "no fool" and don't blindly believe what their government or authorities in general say, but will never really translate to any concrete action.

i would have thought that. I know the idea that Bobby would have suggested Dulles as emissary is outright heresy here. And though I don't believe that. It is Bobby who goes into very fine detail to Dulles just exactly what the job description is. Whereas it seems LBJ job is just to close the deal and close it in that phone call, as Dulles suggests that they first get together in a meeting and LBJ and Bobby in essence say there's no time for that. isn't it interesting that Dulles tries to put Bobby on the defense about his hurt feelings about the BOP. And Bobby is very detached as if he has one goal, to put aside feelings in order to quickly implement their plan. I liked the Devil's Chessboard too. Of course we do have Phil Shenon, the guy who first suggested that a position on the WC was offered to Allen Dulles by Bobby and Nicholas Katzenbach, in a memo that he got from the Johnson Library. But after all of LBJ's other lies, how credible could that be? However, He quoted RFK from his book "Robert Kennedy, in His Own Words" which was a collection of transcripts of interviews edited by his close friend Edwin Guthman,as praising Dulles below, for how he handled his ouster after the BOP... “”He dealt with his ouster with a great deal of dignity and never attempted to shift the blame…. The President was very fond of him, as was I.” Does anybody have this book? i wonder what year that quote would be from? It seems to me, either the quote is in the book, or it isn't.

Below is a June 1964, 3 way conversation between LBJ, RFK and Allen Dulles. In June 1964, the Mississippi governor asks LBJ to send a representative of the administrative to oversee activities going on during racial tensions where 3 civil rights workers were killed down there. LBJ discusses with AG RFK, what to do and this is a phone call where LBJ and RFK phone Dulles to ask him to represent the administration and be their emissary to Mississippi in an advisory role and come back and report about it. This appears on the surface to be your taxpayer dollars at work. LBJ, RFK putting aside their animosities and enlisting Alan Dulles to help the administration de escalate Civil Rights tensions in the South with Dulles's onsite observance, advice and counsel. ***** 2:08--One part of the recording appears to be edited and repetitively skipping at one point, At first Dulles might be confused about offering condolences. to RFK about his brother's assassination when he's really offering condolences about Teddy's recent injury in a plane crash. 5:20-Dulles to RFK: "What is the timing on this, you know I'm on this other commission you know" (namely investigating your brother's assassination!) But Bobby assures Allen that won't get in the way at all! 7:00 Dulles:Why did you pick me for this? RFK: Because I know you. (Dulles laughs uproariously.) Dulles: I've been a little mad at you because of this Bay of Pigs thing, a little bit, but I can forget that very easily. I don't stay angry long. Dulles is now back with LBJ, 8:40 Dulles: You know you put me on this commission with the Chief Justice and others where we're now reaching a point where I wouldn't want to neglect that. LBJ: No I understand that. I assume some here are hearing this for the very first time.I have brought this conversation up before to what I assume was in some cases a stunned silence, yet the visible reaction was as if it wasn't really noteworthy to a group that largely suspects Alan Dulles had a direct hand in the assassination of JFK. A curious reaction, no doubt. Because in conversation, it touches directly on the alleged Dulles motive, but perhaps it's because it doesn't further the Dulles-and-friends-did-it- narrative. I do remember in print comments to this by a number of JFKA researchers, a sort of scrambling. Though I'm not sure that was really necessary. Because this is not conclusive, but I don't see a hint of suspicion that Bobby suspects Dulles had any hand in his brother's death here.. And I don't think Bobby is a guy who hides what he thinks that well. I've never seriously heard the topic here discussed "What did Bobby truly know, and when did he know it? Or did he positively know anything at all ?, other than someone quoting one author in passing. It could also shed light on another topic that I've posted in the past. Why did the Kennedy's spend decades spurning the JFKA research community? Was there an early opportunity lost, because Bobby was just paralyzed because he had no clue who among a number of enemies were behind the assassination of his brother?, and with no central head, the rest of the family just floundered? A similar topic has been recently posted here with a provocative partisan political title, blaming the Democrats but then everything is politics these days. If anything, this clip should be fun to speculate about, rather than sweep under a rug. What do you think? Does it give any new insight into the relationships between these 3 men?

Yes. Attention!, this isn't a meme! It's the new Trumpette Hyperthyroid Model!, coming soon!

Yay, Chris if he wants it, is my vote!

I'm' not sure it was"probable" but certainly a lot more likely than what they accomplished sitting on the sidelines. I think Michael's right. If say Bobby was actively involved in spearheading public opinion against the single gunman theory he wouldn't have emboldened his enemies and I think the chances of him being assassinated would have been much less than greater. Richard makes a number of good points, all of them are political, but after all Bobby was a politician Richard:He tamped down some of the initial (pardon the pun), rush to judgement because he, as a lawyer knew not to get out ahead of what he knew or could prove. "A man's got to know his limitations" and Robert Kennedy understood his limitations very well. He also understood the implications to national security, the operation of government and the implications on international policy and standing. As Paul says, of course the media failed. Ironically, I'm not sure Bobby lacked courage, though I suspect everyone around him did. One attitude that's always been portrayed on this forum. And I see it playing out right now, in that no one's mentioned this. Could Bobby have just been completely perplexed with considering any one of a number of his enemies that were possibly behind the assassination of his brother, and was just paralyzed with no certain place to go?

Whoa! I didn't know about this. “The Speaker has been removed from the chambers.” -Lauren Boebert, 2:18pm, Jan 6 I fact checked with 2 sources. One is snopes which the right always hates because they say they're skewed to the left. Then i tried ed USA Today, and their responses were identical! First Snopes: What's True Rep. Boebert posted a message on Twitter saying "The Speaker has been removed from the chambers" as a pro-Trump mob breached the U.S. Capitol. What's False Boebert's tweet did not reveal the location to which Pelosi had been removed. But the message never claimed to know where Pelosi went and in all probability Boebert didn't know where Pelosi was taken! The tweet is true! And she was the first person to tweet it! She claims she got it from c-span. USA Today confirms that and largely confirms that it was Boebert who lead the tour through the Capitol days before! The claims about Boebert tweeting 1776 and leading a tour of the Capitol are mostly in line with the evidence, but the notion that Boebert live-tweeted the speaker’s location is an exaggeration. In one tweet Boebert said the speaker was removed from the House chamber, but she did not say where Pelosi was. Here is the most complete story with a time stamp. https://truenorthresearch.org/2022/01/a-year-later-all-known-evidence-still-points-to-rep-lauren-boebert-being-the-first-to-report-that-speaker-pelosi-had-been-removed-from-the-house-chamber-on-january-6/

Gee, what is this? A 60 year old Democrat party vendetta! I think there was a lot of government rationale, real and phony used to not rock the boat any further after the JFK assassination. My take is a little different than the established view here. I do agree in one aspect. I'll comment about the Kennedy's reaction.. People were shocked and looking for some sign from AG Bobby, after all he was the AG. You could see that transference in martyrdom in the RFK entry into the 1964 Democratic convention. Some say the applause went on for 20 minutes! I can't say but I remember it, and it was a long and a tremendous pent up feeling of release. I think, at that point a large segment of the population would have followed Bobby anywhere, including after a conspiracy of his brother's death..The Kennedy family passivity to the findings of the Warren Report, does lead credence to the theories that Bobby had something to hide, perhaps a complicity with possible assassination plots of Castro. Though there could have been a window when that was happening. I don't tend to believe that, so it is puzzling. In recent years, there's talk of RFK's alleged plan to wait until he became President to look into his brother's death.There would have been more on Bobby's plate than any U.S. President in 25 years, so I don't think that was a politically practical consideration but I suppose he might have. IMO, The capitulation by the Kennedys to the official story of the JFKA assassination and Warren Report findings was a major untold factor in essentially killing public fervor to getting to the bottom of the assassination. As unlikely as it would seem, with back to back 2 alleged lone nut killings, people went on with their lives, and actually wanted to forget about it. It seems incredible that it took 12 years for the U.S. citizenry to view the Zapruder film. But there were no protests demanding that it should be shown. With no real msm support, The JFKA investigation was left to the courage and incentive of small time researchers and reporters. From someone who was young at this time, and remembers the reaction of people around me and the public. I take issue with a lot assertions made here that "the JFKA started a distrust of government in the U.S. that's never recovered". No way, It was the tragedy of the Viet Nam War and the war resistance, and the race riots of the 60's that changed the U.S.for good. The JFKA was sort of an afterthought, a sort of icing on the cake that reared it's ugly head after people finally started doubting their government narrative, and their kids were coming home in body bags. That was the lead story for almost a decade!.

Trai-tors for sale or rent! Re: Elvis My older brothers were into Elvis so I had an early exposure to him. The Beatles liked Elvis up to the point he went into the service, but I also liked early 60's Elvis "Stuck on you" "His latest flame" Elvis. I personally thought Elvis was over by the Beatles and I could never stand the Las Vegas Elvis. Though friends of mine always remind me of "In the ghetto" and I have to admit there was a pang of social relevance there which I thought was cool. Wow Steve! Matt Gaetz as informant on Trump is pretty powerful Deep State! Ben I think you better get on that one and report back to us!

It is really good. There is film footage you don't see anywhere else.

I'm not sure if this is a nomination page. But I think Chris, Sandy and Ty have all been actively involved in seeking creative solutions to the funding problems.I don't know who would be interested. But I trust all of them and I think they'd all be good. To be clear. It appears the applicant would be picked by the mods. I just want the people I've mentioned to know, if they're thinking of applying, IMO, I approve and I think they should.

Yeah Steve, as ridiculous as that seems, but then all the multiple excuses up to that point. To people who are always upset when others put down Trump in millions of ways. Get off your masochistic kick, and try getting a candidate who isn't an ongoing, perpetual embarrassment to you.

This documents Trumps self righteousness when he passed the law. https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalMemes/comments/wo4xe0/trump_on_mishandling_of_classified_documents/

Of course that's true, "there but for the grace of God" as Matt said. That's why people fought for a safety net for you. While you're off pontificating about "Da donks!" and "da deep state"and.Hilary Clinton and the Presidency that never existed. There's another party that wants to take away your 50 year contribution to ss, before you might choose to collect it. Get engaged in at least knowing what your economic interests are and finding out what you could collect, not only for you, but for your wife and kids sake then. It sounds from your illogical answers that maybe your afraid to look because maybe you haven't contributed as much on the ss grid. But you might be somewhat pleasantly surprised. Ben:Perhaps you have tread through life without blunder. Congratulations. A little drama there, Ben.? No I haven't treaded through my life without blunder, who really has? For example , in regards to this stuff, I've wondered if I've made the right decisions concerning medicare. Now that's a real morass! You should see this is how you react to somebody giving you well needed advice. **** Incidentally Liz Cheney called and says now that she has more time, she wants to have that "man to man" talk with you. I told her Ben "can't be reached." I thought that was the best thing to say to protect you and not have to lie about it. heh heh

I'm only asking, and you might be happy I did. Your experts sound like they're full of crap. What!? I realize? if you realized it, you'd be retired. But haven't you spent your last 10 years in Thailand? From your responses. Why in the world would I take your advice? If you have faith SS will continue for a long time, the age you retire should be mostly governed by how long you think you have a probability of living. You say you're working "unfortunately" and you have 50 years contributing to ss. You're over 65, yet you have no idea what you'd collect? I might suggest you get more engaged and you might end up thanking me. Isn't it great being in Thailand and having a thread like this?

So you've paid into ss for 50 years and you say you've been in Thailand for 10? So you're well into your 70's, and you're still working .. What do you do for worK?