Ruth Paine IDs March 20 as the Day Oswald ordered the rifle

[Steven Gaal]

that brings to my mind the next question. what do I want out of this, finally? vindication? for the bad guys to suffer (many are already dead)? for this "other" form of government to fall...?

to regain the america we once had...?

am i effin' crazy?

Uh, yup, I'd say you're crazy...

There was never "the america we once had"... never existed Glenn. The evils we all accept today were much better hidden - but they were still there and running things...

So I'm not sure to what you refer.

When the decision was made to sacrifice people and planet for profit... or people and planet for control... I fail to see the ability to stop that slide.

My other project has to do with the history of nation owning and how the intelligence services arose from the wealthy private sector...

What I'm saying is that even in Plato's days, the rich were controlling the strings.

Property rights and sovereignty related to the Tragedy of the Commons remains, imo, the root of humanity's problems.

There are always people who feel that if they do not exploit the Commons, they in turn we be exploited.

Kant wrote about it in "Perpetual Peace"

I think what we do here is to increase the awareness base. And turn the tide a millimeter at a time.

That 911 can happen and be so in your face about the lies just shows we've made no progress since 1964... in fact the progress is in the wrong direction, now they don't even bother hiding much...

The reply is "so what, deal with it"...

And we do.

POSTED BEFORE ED FORUM CONSPIRCY SIDE , RELATES YOUR COMMENTS ,gaal

========================================================================

- Michael Parenti - The Assassination of Julius Caesar

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IO_Ldn2H4o

[Glenn Nall]

in a nutshell, i pretty much agree.

as i've become enamored with the way our country was created, and with the spirit (and the letter) of our US Constitution, i've imagined our 'forefathers' to be a group of well-meaning, idealistic people who valued an idealistic, independent society and then created it. i'm "reading" (through) The Federalist Papers and there's no denying Hamilton's fervor for freedom and social independence from a large government - his honorable ideals.

in studying the Murder for the past 30+ years i've become awakened to the truth that, you're right, they turned against us pretty quickly. It took me a while to accept this, being the idealist that i am. My realist won out, though. Yes, greed and power has been the rule for a long, long time, but i still feel that the final coup occurred in Dallas and that's when this "new, other" government took over and it all went to xxxx. I think there is a definite change that took place then.

before, what we had was tolerable. now it is not. i too fail to see an ability to stop the slide. but neither can i do nothing. Eldridge Cleaver said that if we are not part of the solution then we are part of the problem, and i do believe that, in something like this, it's that simple. to ignore it is to condone it.

the slide can be hindered, and maybe, just maybe, stopped. if there is a round table that spreads as wide as it's suspected to, then no, it'll never be stopped. but i'll die knowing that i stood against the spineless f***s.

the study of "this thing of ours" is a godsend to me - the Assassination has given me an outlet through which i can put into practice this "spreading of the awareness" without getting abjectly frustrated and demoralized. without it, i'm too lazy to remain passionate. with it my passion can breath.

i wax poetic. peace

[Stephen Roy]

that brings to my mind the next question. what do I want out of this, finally? vindication? for the bad guys to suffer (many are already dead)? for this "other" form of government to fall...?

to regain the america we once had...?

am i effin' crazy?

Uh, yup, I'd say you're crazy...

There was never "the america we once had"... never existed Glenn. The evils we all accept today were much better hidden - but they were still there and running things...

So I'm not sure to what you refer.

When the decision was made to sacrifice people and planet for profit... or people and planet for control... I fail to see the ability to stop that slide.

My other project has to do with the history of nation owning and how the intelligence services arose from the wealthy private sector...

What I'm saying is that even in Plato's days, the rich were controlling the strings.

Property rights and sovereignty related to the Tragedy of the Commons remains, imo, the root of humanity's problems.

There are always people who feel that if they do not exploit the Commons, they in turn we be exploited.

Kant wrote about it in "Perpetual Peace"

I think what we do here is to increase the awareness base. And turn the tide a millimeter at a time.

That 911 can happen and be so in your face about the lies just shows we've made no progress since 1964... in fact the progress is in the wrong direction, now they don't even bother hiding much...

The reply is "so what, deal with it"...

And we do.

Now I understand.

[David Josephs]

Now I understand.

That's good to hear Stephen.. the Tragedy of the Commons and Perpetual Peace are wonderful pieces of work on the human condition...

[James DiEugenio]

DJ: There was never "the america we once had"... never existed Glenn. The evils we all accept today were much better hidden - but they were still there and running things..

I agree in general but I think this is overstated.

​What FDR put together during the New Deal and WW 2 was a pretty good progressive model that was actually even better compared to what came before it, that is Coolidge--Mellon--Hoover. Both domestically and in foreign policy. And if that had been left intact, I think a lot of progress would have been made on several fronts. Most significantly, the Cold War may have been prevented.

​Truman, to say the least, did not follow up on this. In fact, as several historians agree today, the hawks in FDR's cabinet saw Truman as their opportunity to reverse policies they thought were too dovish. Most notably Jimmy Byrnes, who Truman made Secretary of State. And boy did they reverse FDR.

Then, Eisenhower and Foster Dulles exacerbated this, especially in the Third World, with the help of Allen Dulles and the CIA.

The way I look at Kennedy is this: his administration is trying to get back to Roosevelt's model. And he is trying to do it fast. IMO, and I label this as such, Kennedy was going too fast for his own good.

Or as a working colleague of Allen Dulles once said to an acquaintance of mine, "He [JFK] deserved to die. He was trying to change things too fast."

I personally believe that the model of America under FDR and Kennedy made for a pretty good country. And those two guys did, and would have done, a lot of good things, both domestically and in foreign policy. I mean, just to give you one example:

When I went to college for the first time, I never saw a tuition bill. Not one. That was all taken care of through state grants. I applied for them and the bills were rerouted through the college office so I never saw one. And I attended a private Catholic college for the first two years.

Compare that to today. Kids graduate with literally tens of thousands of dollars in college debt. If you are a lawyer or doctor, its hundreds of thousands.

And that is just one example among many.

Edited August 1, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

If anyone is interested in the above comparison between FDR and JFK, this is a good book to follow up with:

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9524.html

[Kenneth Drew]

[redacted. Kenneth, i may have misread your post - i was certainly making fun of his TLD approach, in any case. i WAS referring to your signature.]

Ok, Glenn, it's all in fun.

[Glenn Nall]

nothing whatsoever like a TLD, that's State Grants v. Federal Grants. Huge difference. I owe the fine state of GA about 48 large. But at least i did not rely on the Fed govt to put me through college.

[James DiEugenio]

See, back then, the states were flush with money for various reasons.

For one, the federal government had not gone bankrupt yet and therefore had not passed back various unfunded mandates to them.

So it was no big deal to pick up these kind of tuition bills. The great thing about it is that they picked up private colleges as well as state schools.

This whole crisis about budgets began slowly under LBJ when he escalated the war and tried to hide its cost, which introduced stagflation. The Nixon years were an utter disaster for the US economy, with the continuing war, with his price controls and the Arab oil boycott. Carter then tried to squeeze out the stagflation, but it hurt him politically. Then came the crusher: Reagan and supply side economics.

The American economy has not been the same since.

[Kenneth Drew]

in a nutshell, i pretty much agree.

as i've become enamored with the way our country was created, and with the spirit (and the letter) of our US Constitution, i've imagined our 'forefathers' to be a group of well-meaning, idealistic people who valued an idealistic, independent society and then created it. i'm "reading" (through) The Federalist Papers and there's no denying Hamilton's fervor for freedom and social independence from a large government - his honorable ideals.

in studying the Murder for the past 30+ years i've become awakened to the truth that, you're right, they turned against us pretty quickly. It took me a while to accept this, being the idealist that i am. My realist won out, though. Yes, greed and power has been the rule for a long, long time, but i still feel that the final coup occurred in Dallas and that's when this "new, other" government took over and it all went to xxxx. I think there is a definite change that took place then.

before, what we had was tolerable. now it is not. i too fail to see an ability to stop the slide. but neither can i do nothing. Eldridge Cleaver said that if we are not part of the solution then we are part of the problem, and i do believe that, in something like this, it's that simple. to ignore it is to condone it.

the slide can be hindered, and maybe, just maybe, stopped. if there is a round table that spreads as wide as it's suspected to, then no, it'll never be stopped. but i'll die knowing that i stood against the spineless f***s.

the study of "this thing of ours" is a godsend to me - the Assassination has given me an outlet through which i can put into practice this "spreading of the awareness" without getting abjectly frustrated and demoralized. without it, i'm too lazy to remain passionate. with it my passion can breath.

i wax poetic. peace

but i still feel that the final coup occurred in Dallas First, I'm not gonna disagree with that because I've not made a study of 'who' is controlling the government and when it began. But I don't mind offering opinions. One of the earliest attempts to take over the government was when Lincoln was president. But that may have been the 'other side'. But real control attempts started in the early 20th century, Woodrow Wilson was certainly dedicated to the same type government that took over Russia. Unfortunately for him the time was not right and people still had too much freedom. Another 'coup' was the stock market crash. The super rich did not take the hit on that. The people did. Another 'coup' was in getting FDR elected. He certainly led the US into WWII. An important step in industrializing the US and creating massive wealth for those that already had most of it. Then JFK,, apparently he wasn't playing ball. Then Watergate, that may have been the next to last coup. The final coup, to date, was the election of Obama. A total disaster for the US, but huge victories for much of the world.

[Kenneth Drew]

See, back then, the states were flush with money for various reasons.

For one, the federal government had not gone bankrupt yet and therefore had not passed back various unfunded mandates to them.

So it was no big deal to pick up these kind of tuition bills. The great thing about it is that they picked up private colleges as well as state schools.

This whole crisis about budgets began slowly under LBJ when he escalated the war and tried to hide its cost, which introduced stagflation. The Nixon years were an utter disaster for the US economy, with the continuing war, with his price controls and the Arab oil boycott. Carter then tried to squeeze out the stagflation, but it hurt him politically. Then came the crusher: Reagan and supply side economics.

The American economy has not been the same since.

The state of Louisiana, amongst some others, still gives scholarships to deserving students. Free. Anyone with decent grades get a 'TOPS' award which pays as long as they maintain a B average.

[James DiEugenio]

Ken:

I don't agree that Wilson was dedicated to giving the US the same type of government as in Russia.

WIlson, from my study, was a lot more conservative than history textbooks say he was. Wilson gave us the Federal Reserve, and he was determined to get us into World War I. A war which our entry into was very dubious.

I don't understand how it was "a coup" to get FDR elected. FDR first got elected in a landslide because Hoover had completely mismanaged the Great Depression. Climaxed by the routing of the Bonus Army, which made the front pages.

Almost any Democrat could have won that year.

Edited August 1, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Glenn Nall]

See, back then, the states were flush with money for various reasons.

For one, the federal government had not gone bankrupt yet and therefore had not passed back various unfunded mandates to them.

So it was no big deal to pick up these kind of tuition bills. The great thing about it is that they picked up private colleges as well as state schools.

This whole crisis about budgets began slowly under LBJ when he escalated the war and tried to hide its cost, which introduced stagflation. The Nixon years were an utter disaster for the US economy, with the continuing war, with his price controls and the Arab oil boycott. Carter then tried to squeeze out the stagflation, but it hurt him politically. Then came the crusher: Reagan and supply side economics.

The American economy has not been the same since.

See, this is what i was trying to keep away from, 'cause I knew I'd not be strong enough to leave well enough alone.

So.

what i meant was that it's not the Federal govt's job to put me through college. it never was.

and with all due respect, for every 1 financial genius who blames Reagan for an economic failure, there are 3 who claim he ended it.

and since this is a forum on the assassination of John Kennedy and not on present day politics, that is the last thing i will say along those lines except as it may pertain to Dallas in 1963.

[oh, and Ken: exactly]

[James DiEugenio]

Well Glenn:

If you are for economic globalization, then Reagan and his crew of economists are your cup of tea.

Kennedy was not for globalization. As Donald Gibson so ably instructs us in his fine book on the subject called Battling Wall Street.

Kennedy was a nationalist. Both concerning our economy and those in the developing Third World.

IMO, Kennedy was correct on this. Globalization has been a disaster for everyone except the upper classes. Trickle down turned out to be trickle up.

https://consortiumnews.com/2012/02/29/the-winners-take-everything/

Edited August 1, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Kenneth Drew]

Ken:

I don't agree that Wilson was dedicated to giving the US the same type of government as in Russia.

WIlson, from my study, was a lot more conservative than history textbooks say he was. Wilson gave us the Federal Reserve, and he was determined to get us into World War I. A war which our entry into was very dubious.

I don't understand how it was "a coup" to get FDR elected. FDR first got elected in a landslide because Hoover had completely mismanaged the Great Depression. Climaxed by the routing of the Bonus Army, which made the front pages.

Almost any Democrat could have won that year.

As I said, I won't argue the points. just have opinions.

and he was determined to get us into World War I. Kinda like Nixon and LBJ wanted us in the Viet Nam war and FDR wanted us in WWII

FDR first got elected in a landslide because Hoover had completely mismanaged the Great Depression. There was no management or mis-management of the Depression. Hoover had little to do with the Stock Market crash, He had been president only a short time when it occurred, then the depression started and didn't end until FDR got us into WWII. Despite all the efforts of FDR to end the depression, the only way he finally succeeded was by WWII starting and gearing up the factories for that. The greatest infiltration of communists into the country was during FDR's regime. A huge number of government employees-managers were communist party. The stock market crash itself was a creation to make people dependent on the government. Had FDR not died when he did, we may not have had another presidential election.