Dear Moderator

[Cory Santos]

New day, new subject, same attacks.  

[James DiEugenio]

3 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

New day, new subject, same attacks.  

You got that right Cory.

[W. Niederhut]

Ben,

     I can't fix your reading comprehension problems-- or John Cotter's moronic "shadow projection" misdiagnosis of Putin's sociopathic history-- but I'll try.

     My response to your latest post is in read (below.)

Ben Cole wrote:  

"Here is a pattern:

1. An EF-JFKA participant will post earnestly about RFK Jr. and Deep State efforts to derail his campaign, or about JFK's peace vision in current context. 

2. The usual suspect shows up to hijack the thread into the blue-red pissing wars, or views about Putin. A side dose of Trump is ever in the picture.

Correction, Ben.  You have repeatedly posted partisan anti-Biden tropes here on the JFKA forum, in the context of your redundant threads about either the JFKA Records and/or RFK, Jr.'s candidacy.  My critiques of your redundant anti-Biden tropes don't constitute "hijacking."  They're in context.

Also in context are my responses to Jeff Carter and Roger Odisio's recent threads criticizing Biden for supporting Ukrainian independence following Putin's invasion-- based on a singular focus on JFK's Peace Speech, which overlooks JFK's subsequent Berlin Speech.

That isn't "hijacking." Nor is it "attacking" as Cory Santos claims.   It's precisely on topic.

Why? Because an implied criticism of Biden's response to Putin's invasion of Ukraine is an integral aspect of the recent Jeffrey Sachs/Carter/Odisio thesis.

Sachs is essentially asking, "Why can't Biden follow the JFK Peace Speech foreign policy directives" -- while ignoring the JFK Berlin Speech.

3. The moderator moves intelligent dialog to the boonies. I have even been served notice...I cannot post about RFK Jr. anymore without having posting privileges revoked. 

Frankly, I don't see how RFK Jr.'s campaign is of anything but daily interest in the EF-JFKA. He is the only candidate who will open up the JFK Records upon which President Biden has done a snuff job. 

Evidently, even mentioning President Biden's snuff job on the JFK Records is considered a transgression in some quarters. 

This is the EF-JFKA? 

Other than your numerous, redundant threads about the JFK Records, Ben, what does RFK, Jr.'s 2024 candidacy have to do with the JFK assassination per se?

 

[Roger Odisio]

4 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Here is a pattern:

1. An EF-JFKA participant will post earnestly about RFK Jr. and Deep State efforts to derail his campaign, or about JFK's peace vision in current context. 

2. The usual suspect shows up to hijack the thread into the blue-red pissing wars, or views about Putin. A side dose of Trump is ever in the picture.

3. The moderator moves intelligent dialog to the boonies. I have even been served notice...I cannot post about RFK Jr. anymore without having posting privileges revoked. 

Frankly, I don't see how RFK Jr.'s campaign is of anything but daily interest in the EF-JFKA. He is the only candidate who will open up the JFK Records upon which President Biden has done a snuff job. 

Evidently, even mentioning President Biden's snuff job on the JFK Records is considered a transgression in some quarters. 

This is the EF-JFKA? 

Niederhut hijacks threads he doesn't like or can't respond to because it works. The mod (is there just one person making these decisions?) sees wrangling over his irrelevancies and moves the whole thread to the black hole at "politics".

 

He has even done that in this thread, even after I pointed out his post had nothing to do with the topic, and I asked him to stop.  Apparently nothing can stop him.  

 

I await a response from the moderator(s) to my request to restore my original post and those who commented on it.

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:

Niederhut hijacks threads he doesn't like or can't respond to because it works. The mod (is there just one person making these decisions?) sees wrangling over his irrelevancies and moves the whole thread to the black hole at "politics".

 

He has even done that in this thread, even after I pointed out his post had nothing to do with the topic, and I asked him to stop.  Apparently nothing can stop him.  

 

I await a response from the moderator(s) to my request to restore my original post and those who commented on it.

You ever wonder why the EF-JFKA has so few members?

Could be some long-time members regard it as their solemn duty to make the EF-JFKA unpalatable to other members, even new members, with varying viewpoints? 

Roger O., I probably disagree with you on various aspects of Ukraine--but I welcome fresh conversations and people to the EF-JFKA. 

[James DiEugenio]

How can one talk about RFK jr and his stance on JFK without comparing it to Biden? Biden is fighting a lawsuit in northern California against the MFF, Gary Aguilar and TInk Thompson so they do not have to give up any more documents.  RFK would call that off.

Here is a tweet by RFK Jr.  

As a Senator, Joe Biden voted for the Assassination Records Act of 1992, requiring that all documents related to the killing of JFK be released by 2017. But President Biden is still keeping thousands of pages heavily redacted, including 44 pages related to a shadowy CIA agent and a covert program that had contact with Lee Harvey Oswald just months before my uncle was killed.

If that is anti Biden, then its like Harry Truman said, about the GOP screaming he was giving them  hell, when he was only telling  the truth.

And I do not see how someone as scholarly as Jeff Sachs using JFK as a comparison marker is somehow Anti Biden.  Again, to me its the same Truman comparison.

JFK was, in my opinion, the last American president who was trying to be a statesman.  In fact, he himself said he admired Dag Hammarskjold, who he called the greatest statesman of he 20th century. Above, I made a list of the questions he would have asked before entering into a proxy war with Russia.  That series of questions in not purely speculative. It is based on my reading of books about how Kennedy would approach a crisis like this.  Anybody can figure that out just by doing some reading.  And based on that, I do not think that Kennedy would have entered  this affair.  He would have settled it before it got started.

Edited June 13, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Benjamin Cole]

37 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

How can one talk about RFK jr and his stance on JFK without comparing it to Biden? Biden is fighting a lawsuit in northern California against the MFF, Gary Aguilar and TInk Thompson so they do not have to give up any more documents.  RFK would call that off.

Here is a tweet by RFK Jr.  

As a Senator, Joe Biden voted for the Assassination Records Act of 1992, requiring that all documents related to the killing of JFK be released by 2017. But President Biden is still keeping thousands of pages heavily redacted, including 44 pages related to a shadowy CIA agent and a covert program that had contact with Lee Harvey Oswald just months before my uncle was killed.

If that is anti Biden, then its like Harry Truman said, about the GOP screaming he was giving them  hell, when he was only telling  the truth.

And I do not see how someone as scholarly as Jeff Sachs using JFK as a comparison marker is somehow Anti Biden.  Again, to me its the same Truman comparison.

JFK was, in my opinion, the last American president who was trying to be a statesman.  In fact, he himself said he admired Dag Hammarskjold, who he called the greatest statesman of he 20th century. Above, I made a list of the questions he would have asked before entering into a proxy war with Russia.  That series of questions in not purely speculative. It is based on my reading of books about how Kennedy would approach a crisis like this.  Anybody can figure that out just by doing some reading.  And based on that, I do not think that Kennedy would have entered  this affair.  He would have settled it before it got started.

Ditto.

I cannot fathom anyone in the JFKA community not watching the RFK Jr. campaign without intense interest---and while keeping an eye out for Operation Mockingbird on steroids, playing in US media. 

How is this not a mainstream EF-JFKA topic? 

 

 

[David Cooper]

Without Kruschev as his negotiating partner, JFK would not have had much success. Kruschev had to take similar risks against hardliners in his government to make his concessions in the negotiations. 

[W. Niederhut]

It's difficult to engage in a rational debate with people who either don't read, or don't understand, basic arguments.

I'll try one last time, then take a break from this redundant pseudo-debate about JFK's Peace Speech and Biden's Ukraine policy.

1)  Can we all, at least, agree that a criticism of Biden's Ukraine defense policy is implicit in Jeffrey Sachs's recent op-ed about JFK's Peace Speech?

     Duh.

2)  If so, isn't it reasonable, and entirely germane, to discuss both sides of the conflict relating to Putin's invasion of Ukraine and Biden's response?

     In other words, how can we formulate a rational critique of Biden's Ukraine policy without discussing what has actually been happening in Ukraine and in the invading Russian Federation during Putin's 21st century reign?

     To discuss the history and backstory of Putin's invasion of Ukraine is not "hijacking" threads about Sach's implicit criticism of Biden's Ukraine policy-- it is integral to formulating a meaningful critique of that policy.

 

[Cory Santos]

Quote:

It’s difficult to engage in a rational debate with people who either don't read, or don't understand, basic arguments.

End quote.  
 

As I said, new day, new subject, same attacks.  Nothing changes nor is done about it apparently.  

[Roger Odisio]

18 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

It's difficult to engage in a rational debate with people who either don't read, or don't understand, basic arguments.

I'll try one last time, then take a break from this redundant pseudo-debate about JFK's Peace Speech and Biden's Ukraine policy.

1)  Can we all, at least, agree that a criticism of Biden's Ukraine defense policy is implicit in Jeffrey Sachs's recent op-ed about JFK's Peace Speech?

     Duh.

2)  If so, isn't it reasonable, and entirely germane, to discuss both sides of the conflict relating to Putin's invasion of Ukraine and Biden's response?

     In other words, how can we formulate a rational critique of Biden's Ukraine policy without discussing what has actually been happening in Ukraine and in the invading Russian Federation during Putin's 21st century reign?

     To discuss the history and backstory of Putin's invasion of Ukraine is not "hijacking" threads about Sach's implicit criticism of Biden's Ukraine policy-- it is integral to formulating a meaningful critique of that policy.

 

I have told you, and you have ignored, that my post about the speech was not about Sachs' article, Biden, Putin, or Ukraine.  It was about the profound meaning and relevance today of the speech itself.

You jumped in to turn the discussion to those things it was not about.  Classic highjacking.   Not satisfied, you falsely claimed my post was redundant to the post about Sachs' article and repeated that enough so the moderator dumped the whole thing into "politics".

I then posted this thread as a simple request that the mod restore my original post without your highjacking and all that followed it, so that people, if they wish, could comment on my ideas.  You're back talking about the Sachs article, Biden, Putin, and Ukraine.  Could there be a more blatant example of highjacking a thread than this?

[Paul Brancato]

14 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Paul,

     I'm looking at both sides of the story in Putin's invasion of Ukraine.   I understand Putin quite well.  He's no victim.

     The people who keep blaming NATO for Putin's decision to invade and destroy Ukraine are the ones who aren't looking at both sides.  They aren't interested in studying Putin's history and agenda, or the antecedent history of Stalinism, which has been largely ignored by Hollywood and our American culture.

     I have posted references on the subject, ranging from Solzhenitsyn, Andreyev, and Preobrazhensky to Aleksander Dugin, Princeton historian Stephen Kotkin, and British correspondent Catherine Belton-- which have been summarily ignored by the Jeff Carter/Russia Today crowd here.

     Putin and his FSB associates have had their own agenda for reconstructing the Soviet empire for the past quarter century.   The Kremlin's invasion and annexation strategy in Ukraine is not simply, or even primarily, NATO's fault, as the Russian propagandists keep saying.

      Nor has NATO posed a bona fide offensive threat to Putin and his neo-Stalinist FSB goon squad.  Rather, NATO has served as a defense against Soviet and neo-Soviet annexations -- the imposition of totalitarian police states on free, democratic European people.

     Under the circumstances-- Putin's creation of a fascist police state in the RF since 1997-- I don't blame the citizens of Eastern Europe for wanting to join NATO.

     No one has compelled these people to join NATO.  They are desperate to do so, as an alternative to living in a Russian-controlled, totalitarian police state.

     As for JFK, peace was his goal, but he was also committed to defending freedom and democracy where it existed-- as in the case of West Berlin in 1963.

So - fear of Putin and Russia has been the driving force for NATO expansion east? Nonsense. 

[Sandy Larsen]

15 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I have even been served notice...I cannot post about RFK Jr. anymore without having posting privileges revoked. 

 

Ben,

You were warned to quit spamming the board with RFK Jr. items that have nothing to do with the JFKA.

Even if you did do it again, your penalty wouldn't be that bad. You would lose posting privileges for one day.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

9 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

You ever wonder why the EF-JFKA has so few members?

 

I'm pretty sure that the EF-JFKA forum is by far the most active JFK forum.

 

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

So - fear of Putin and Russia has been the driving force for NATO expansion east? Nonsense. 

Why ask me, Paul?

Ask the people in eastern Europe who have been so desperate to join NATO during the past 30 years.

Why have eastern Europeans, themselves, wanted NATO and the EU to expand eastward, in your opinion?