You're doing it again, Sandy

[Benjamin Cole]

Worth pondering:

1. Sandy L. has a tough job. 

2. Larsen is correct, when he says that current political topics inevitably lead to excesses, such as Trump supporters being called "proto-fascists" and so on. 

3. I have long wondered if someone new wanders onto the EF-JFKA, but sees a sewer of personal and political invective, and then decides to butt out. Reasonably so, too. 

---

I have posted on RFK Jr., but I try to limit my discussion to RFK Jr.'s stance on the JFK Records, and on the Deep State (that is suppressing the records), and what I perceive as an intel-state initiated media hatchet job on RFK Jr. due to his positions on those two topics. 

RFK Jr. may be right on wrong on Ukraine, vaccines, the Southern border, Medicare for all, and so on. Not really fodder for the EF-JFKA. 

Sandy L. has moved some of my posts offsite, and so be it. They are borderline sometimes. 

[James DiEugenio]

This is why JFK went to Berlin in 1963.

It was so they would be convinced that DeGaulle's moves were not weakening NATO.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/from-the-archive-blog/2018/apr/20/why-jfk-is-in-europe-archive-june-1963

[Roger Odisio]

13 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Worth pondering:

1. Sandy L. has a tough job. 

2. Larsen is correct, when he says that current political topics inevitably lead to excesses, such as Trump supporters being called "proto-fascists" and so on. 

3. I have long wondered if someone new wanders onto the EF-JFKA, but sees a sewer of personal and political invective, and then decides to butt out. Reasonably so, too. 

---

I have posted on RFK Jr., but I try to limit my discussion to RFK Jr.'s stance on the JFK Records, and on the Deep State (that is suppressing the records), and what I perceive as an intel-state initiated media hatchet job on RFK Jr. due to his positions on those two topics. 

RFK Jr. may be right on wrong on Ukraine, vaccines, the Southern border, Medicare for all, and so on. Not really fodder for the EF-JFKA. 

Sandy L. has moved some of my posts offsite, and so be it. They are borderline sometimes. 

BC: 1. Sandy L. has a tough job.

 

RO: Agreed.  But Sandy is making the job tougher by unnecessarily moving  threads to "politics" simply because the discussion in them involves politics.  As if the the JFKA wasn't fundamentally a political  murder whose purpose was to seize control of the political process by eliminating him.  As if any reckoning or resolution of the JFKA isn't going to have to involve the heightened interest of the public and so be done primarily through the political process. As if RFK's attempt to do that and the opposition forces he is facing (essentially the same as JFK faced) is somehow irrelevant to an understanding the JFKA. Faced with a choice of forums for a thread between JFKA and politics the overriding principle should be whether a thread is relevant to understanding the murder, regardless of whether or not it involves a discussion of politics.  That doesn't seem to be the current policy. Threads clearly relevant to the JFKA are being moved anyway they involve a discussion of politics.

 

BC:  2. Larsen is correct, when he says that current political topics inevitably lead to excesses, such as Trump supporters being called "proto-fascists" and so on. 

 

3. I have long wondered if someone new wanders onto the EF-JFKA, but sees a sewer of personal and political invective, and then decides to butt out. Reasonably so, too. 

 

RO:  "Inevitably", Ben?  Look at the latest threads moved (Sandy has now moved three more) and show me the kind of excesses in them, the "sewer of personal and political invective" in your words, likely to send newbies away shrieking in horror.  Such that justifies the moves.  Far from that, in fact there is even little or no disagreement about anything important in these threads. They are merely threads to discuss things like Junior's attempt to revive JFK's idea's about peace as a centerpiece of his campaign through the political process.  They are directly relevant to understanding the murder.  Removing them weakens the forum as a place to discuss the JFKA. 

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

7 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

BC: 1. Sandy L. has a tough job.

 

RO: Agreed.  But Sandy is making the job tougher by unnecessarily moving  threads to "politics" simply because the discussion in them involves politics.  As if the the JFKA wasn't fundamentally a political  murder whose purpose was to seize control of the political process by eliminating him.  As if any reckoning or resolution of the JFKA isn't going to have to involve the heightened interest of the public and so be done primarily through the political process. As if RFK's attempt to do that and the opposition forces he is facing (essentially the same as JFK faced) is somehow irrelevant to an understanding the JFKA. Faced with a choice of forums for a thread between JFKA and politics the overriding principle should be whether a thread is relevant to understanding the murder, regardless of whether or not it involves a discussion of politics.  That doesn't seem to be the current policy. Threads clearly relevant to the JFKA are being moved anyway they involve a discussion of politics.

 

BC:  2. Larsen is correct, when he says that current political topics inevitably lead to excesses, such as Trump supporters being called "proto-fascists" and so on. 

 

3. I have long wondered if someone new wanders onto the EF-JFKA, but sees a sewer of personal and political invective, and then decides to butt out. Reasonably so, too. 

 

RO:  "Inevitably", Ben?  Look at the latest threads moved (Sandy has now moved three more) and show me the kind of excesses in them, the "sewer of personal and political invective" in your words, likely to send newbies away shrieking in horror.  Such that justifies the moves.  Far from that, in fact there is even little or no disagreement about anything important in these threads. They are merely threads to discuss things like Junior's attempt to revive JFK's idea's about peace as a centerpiece of his campaign through the political process.  They are directly relevant to understanding the murder.  Removing them weakens the forum as a place to discuss the JFKA. 

 

 

I am, as of now, a supporter of RFK Jr. for President. 

You may be right. 

The problems of the EF-JFKA may come down to one commenter who is triggered and begins flatulent rants about Trump proto-fascists if anyone says RFK Jr. should be President.

But that triggering appears inevitable. 

BTW, I did not say newbies shriek in horror and run away, although that is a great image. 

But we might ponder if a sensible person, interested in the JFKA, tunes in and see abundant personal and political invective, then decides to tune out. If someone wants to read twittersnits, the world is their oyster. 

Sandy Larsen has done a good job cleaning up the EF-JFKA. I wish he would not off-site my posts on how RFK Jr. is being "Operation Mockingbirded," but he sees it differently. I get over it. 

A couple of years back, the EF-JFKA had devolved into a place for members of one political party to denigrate all other political stripes, often in juvenalia. 

This, as America's right-wing was becoming increasingly open to unofficial explanations of the JFKA and the national security state. Suppose someone is a Trump supporter--so what? Remember nearly half of votes went to Trump. 

I have said it before: EF-JFKA should look like a forum where all political stripes are not just tolerated, but welcome. 

[W. Niederhut]

18 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

This is why JFK went to Berlin in 1963.

It was so they would be convinced that DeGaulle's moves were not weakening NATO.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/from-the-archive-blog/2018/apr/20/why-jfk-is-in-europe-archive-june-1963

Interesting history, Jim.  Thanks for posting this.

JFK was, obviously, interested in maintaining the NATO alliance in 1963, while simultaneously seeking peace with the Soviets, if possible.

Your JFK history reference here is a welcome break from reading Ben Cole's repetitious, flatulent nocturnal posts about RFK, Jr. and the JFK records, etc., etc.

On a positive note, Ben has finally ceased denying Donald Trump's criminal conduct lately.

He has reached the MAGA stage of not wanting to talk about Trump's history, other than vague denials about the fascist characteristics of the MAGA cult.

[Mark Knight]

On 6/21/2023 at 3:18 PM, Roger Odisio said:

 

 

Moving posts to the political forum is a kind of censorship to those who don't have the time or interest to go there.

 

 

This is a disingenuous statement on your part. Once you bookmark the link to the POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS forum, as you obviously have the link to the JFK Assassination forum, the amount of time to go there is precisely the same. 

As far as your interest in going there...once the topics which engage your interest are moved there, why does your interest in going there disappear...unless it's not the topic you're actually interested in, but only in seeing that topic on THIS forum.

RFK Jr.'s candidacy has as much connection here as a discussion of the current direction of General Motors on an International Harvester antique truck discussion board. Just because IH used Delco-Remy electrical parts doesn't make GM's current direction germane to the discussion. Yes, there's a connection, but it's not related to the topic at hand. 

And the posts are being MOVED, not censored. So if you simply bookmark the POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS forum, an action that's quite easy, your grievance essentially disappears.

For your convenience, here's the link so you can bookmark: Political Discussions - The Education Forum (ipbhost.com)

Once you do, you can go there as quickly as you can come here.

[Benjamin Cole]

6 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

This is a disingenuous statement on your part. Once you bookmark the link to the POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS forum, as you obviously have the link to the JFK Assassination forum, the amount of time to go there is precisely the same. 

As far as your interest in going there...once the topics which engage your interest are moved there, why does your interest in going there disappear...unless it's not the topic you're actually interested in, but only in seeing that topic on THIS forum.

RFK Jr.'s candidacy has as much connection here as a discussion of the current direction of General Motors on an International Harvester antique truck discussion board. Just because IH used Delco-Remy electrical parts doesn't make GM's current direction germane to the discussion. Yes, there's a connection, but it's not related to the topic at hand. 

And the posts are being MOVED, not censored. So if you simply bookmark the POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS forum, an action that's quite easy, your grievance essentially disappears.

For your convenience, here's the link so you can bookmark: Political Discussions - The Education Forum (ipbhost.com)

Once you do, you can go there as quickly as you can come here.

"RFK Jr.'s candidacy has as much connection here as a discussion of the current direction of General Motors on an International Harvester antique truck discussion board. Just because IH used Delco-Remy electrical parts doesn't make GM's current direction germane to the discussion. Yes, there's a connection, but it's not related to the topic at hand." --MK

I disagree with you on this matter. 

RFK Jr. would open up the JFK Records, surely a topic of interest to this board. Because of RFK Jr.'s family history, and his position on the globalized US military, I believe RFK Jr. would in fact open up the JFK Records. 

In addition, there appears to be an Operation Mockingbird (on steroids) against the RFK Jr. campaign. Likely, as he would open up the the JFK Records, and curtail the Deep State. This is also a worthy topic for the EF-JFKA. 

If another candidate in either party, or an independent, forthrightly and unequivocally states or signs an oath to open up the JFK Records and curtail the Deep State, then that candidate would be worth following through the coming campaign, and noting the media coverage they receive. 

This transcends petty partisan politics. 

[Roger Odisio]

8 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

This is a disingenuous statement on your part. Once you bookmark the link to the POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS forum, as you obviously have the link to the JFK Assassination forum, the amount of time to go there is precisely the same. 

As far as your interest in going there...once the topics which engage your interest are moved there, why does your interest in going there disappear...unless it's not the topic you're actually interested in, but only in seeing that topic on THIS forum.

RFK Jr.'s candidacy has as much connection here as a discussion of the current direction of General Motors on an International Harvester antique truck discussion board. Just because IH used Delco-Remy electrical parts doesn't make GM's current direction germane to the discussion. Yes, there's a connection, but it's not related to the topic at hand. 

And the posts are being MOVED, not censored. So if you simply bookmark the POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS forum, an action that's quite easy, your grievance essentially disappears.

For your convenience, here's the link so you can bookmark: Political Discussions - The Education Forum (ipbhost.com)

Once you do, you can go there as quickly as you can come here.

MK:  This is a disingenuous statement on your part. Once you bookmark the link to the POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS forum, as you obviously have the link to the JFK Assassination forum, the amount of time to go there is precisely the same. 

 

RO:  I'm being disingenuous? This from one of the guys in charge of looking out for wild charges.  I'm obviously not talking about the time it takes to go there as you claim to think.  I'm talking about the time that would be spent there, which is at my discretion, not something for you to require of me, absent a good reason, to read a thread.  As I said, I'm here to learn and talk about the JFKA.  I'm  not interested in talking about politics on the site you set up. If I want to talk politics, there are several other places I prefer to go.

 

MK:  As far as your interest in going there...once the topics which engage your interest are moved there, why does your interest in going there disappear...unless it's not the topic you're actually interested in, but only in seeing that topic on THIS forum.

 

RO:  My interest in going to "politics" does not disappear; it never existed, as I have explained. Are you really claiming I may not be actually interested in the topics in question, but only in seeing them in this forum?  What?

 

MK:  RFK Jr.'s candidacy has as much connection here as a discussion of the current direction of General Motors on an International Harvester antique truck discussion board. Just because IH used Delco-Remy electrical parts doesn't make GM's current direction germane to the discussion. Yes, there's a connection, but it's not related to the topic at hand. 

 

RO:  Junior's candidacy is not related to the JFKA!  I'm trying hard to restrain myself but this is unbelievable, especially from anyone here who knows anything about the murder. A centerpiece of Junior's campaign is reviving the vision for peace JFK laid out in the AU address. JFK said he did not want a Pax Americana enforced by American weapons of war, but that was exactly what the war mongers in his administration *did* want. The speech was a direct challenge to them. That's a major reason they got rid of him, which led to what we have had ever since, plus the 800+ military bases that go with the constant wars.  60 years later Junior is trying to revive the ideas of his uncle and father and create the kind of a society they were talking about.  He is facing some of the same forces they did.  Everyone interested in the JFKA should be following this.  There will be things to learn.  Did you watch Junior's speech last Tuesday.  Do you really not understand this?

 

MK:  And the posts are being MOVED, not censored. So if you simply bookmark the POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS forum, an action that's quite easy, your grievance essentially disappears.

 

RO:  You're ignoring my point.  If I don't go to Politics (I have a long list of places I do frequent), when you remove a post from here to a place I don't go to (no matter where you send it), that is censorship of what I can read and comment on. 

 

Beyond a series of unsupported assertions (like your claim here that Junior's candidacy is irrelevant), topped by Sandy chastising me twice for "not listening" to him while I searched in vain for any response from him to the points I had raised, neither you nor Sandy have explained why you are doing this, what is the problem you're solving by the moves. The main claim seems to be that all political discussions *inevitably* lead to discord such that that threatens site stability and maybe the growth of members.  Well, (1) that's false, as a cursory examination of the last group of threads that were moved shows and (2) the JFKA was fundamentally a *political* murder, so a discussion of politics must be a part of any hope to understand what happened. 

 

Removing relevant threads damages the forum as a place where serious people can come to discuss the JFKA.

 

 

•  

[Benjamin Cole]

I now agree moderators have gone too far.

Evidently posting about an Operation Mockingbird-type op against RFK Jr.---the lone candidate who would open up the JFK Records---is banned, and I will be if I do so. 

This is the EF-JFKA? 

Really?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

8 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I now agree moderators have gone too far.

Evidently posting about an Operation Mockingbird-type op against RFK Jr.---the lone candidate who would open up the JFK Records---is banned, and I will be if I do so. 

This is the EF-JFKA? 

Really?

 

 

Your thread is not banned Ben. AFAIK it is still here, but will be moved to Political Discussions in a couple days.

You were warned for creating too many RFK Jr. threads. Instead, you should make just one or two and then add new material to those threads.

Or....

If you make your topics in the proper forum (like Political Discussions), you could make more without moderators being so concerned with spamming. The reason we don't like your spamming here is because we then have to move them.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

5 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Your thread is not banned Ben. AFAIK it is still here....

 

Apparently it was moved by another moderator. Maybe because this is the second time you've been warned for spamming.

 

[Roger Odisio]

14 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Apparently it was moved by another moderator. Maybe because this is the second time you've been warned for spamming.

 

Sandy and Mark,

 

You guys seem to think the right to make forum policy does not carry any responsibility for you to explain that policy or answer questions about it. You have not only failed to do so, you refused to make the effort.  Instead you have repeated a series of assertions as justification, some of which, imo, are false.

 

Foremost among these is your claim that what RFK Jr is doing and saying in his campaign is irrelevant to an understanding of the JFKA and should not be discussed here.

 

Americans are taught, when any discussion is permitted, by the media and in some schools, that Oswald murdered JFK by himself.   Anyone questioning this is a conspiracy theorist. The Warren Report has the facts.

 

Along comes Junior. He says he thinks the CIA/war machine killed his father and uncle.  He says if he becomes president he is going to make available to the public all JFK records now being hidden or suppressed, as required by the JFK Act, so the public can make up their own minds about what happened. That is the purpose of the Act, so far in some cases ignored.

 

Last Tuesday, Junior gave what he billed as a major foreign policy speech for his campaign. (I asked Mark if he had seen the speech and got no answer. Have you seen if Sandy?)   He focuses on JFK's peace speech and ends with a quote from it.  He says he intends to renew the ideas in that speech as the basis for his approach to the world.  

 

Few have paid much attention to JFK's speech. As Junior keeps talking about it and its ideas, some are likely to go watch it (it's readily available). When they do they will be immediately struck by something.  No politician today talks like that.  The speech is an index of how far down the path laid out by the killers we have traveled, away from what JFK wanted. Which is an indication of how difficult it will be to get back to those ideas.

 

Today we are bombarded with propaganda demonizing one foreign leader after another, designed to manufacture consent for whatever our leaders want to do to the person or country. JFK abhorred that. He wanted to put himself in the other guy's shoes as a way to work out solutions and avoid a nuclear catastrophe.  He was a direct challenge to the warmongers of his time.

 

If Junior can succeed in reintroducing that debate at a time when there are no antiwar politicians (can you find any?), it will be a major accomplishment.   And it can open the door to a reconsideration of who murdered JFK. 

 

Not only is all of this relevant to an understanding of the JFKA, isn't that why we are here?

[Paul Cummings]

Thank you Sandy and the rest of the Mods. You are doing a fantastic job. On to another website debating "Tastes great or Less filling."

Edited June 26, 2023 by Paul Cummings

[Benjamin Cole]

9 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

Sandy and Mark,

 

You guys seem to think the right to make forum policy does not carry any responsibility for you to explain that policy or answer questions about it. You have not only failed to do so, you refused to make the effort.  Instead you have repeated a series of assertions as justification, some of which, imo, are false.

 

Foremost among these is your claim that what RFK Jr is doing and saying in his campaign is irrelevant to an understanding of the JFKA and should not be discussed here.

 

Americans are taught, when any discussion is permitted, by the media and in some schools, that Oswald murdered JFK by himself.   Anyone questioning this is a conspiracy theorist. The Warren Report has the facts.

 

Along comes Junior. He says he thinks the CIA/war machine killed his father and uncle.  He says if he becomes president he is going to make available to the public all JFK records now being hidden or suppressed, as required by the JFK Act, so the public can make up their own minds about what happened. That is the purpose of the Act, so far in some cases ignored.

 

Last Tuesday, Junior gave what he billed as a major foreign policy speech for his campaign. (I asked Mark if he had seen the speech and got no answer. Have you seen if Sandy?)   He focuses on JFK's peace speech and ends with a quote from it.  He says he intends to renew the ideas in that speech as the basis for his approach to the world.  

 

Few have paid much attention to JFK's speech. As Junior keeps talking about it and its ideas, some are likely to go watch it (it's readily available). When they do they will be immediately struck by something.  No politician today talks like that.  The speech is an index of how far down the path laid out by the killers we have traveled, away from what JFK wanted. Which is an indication of how difficult it will be to get back to those ideas.

 

Today we are bombarded with propaganda demonizing one foreign leader after another, designed to manufacture consent for whatever our leaders want to do to the person or country. JFK abhorred that. He wanted to put himself in the other guy's shoes as a way to work out solutions and avoid a nuclear catastrophe.  He was a direct challenge to the warmongers of his time.

 

If Junior can succeed in reintroducing that debate at a time when there are no antiwar politicians (can you find any?), it will be a major accomplishment.   And it can open the door to a reconsideration of who murdered JFK. 

 

Not only is all of this relevant to an understanding of the JFKA, isn't that why we are here?

An RFK Jr. in the White House means the JFK Records will be open at last. 

CIA mouthpieces (Rolling Stone Daily Beast) are vitriolic, calling for censorship and more against the RFK Jr. campaign. Those same news outlets are in drag as hip left-wingers. 

This is not a topic for the EF-JFKA? 

In this particular case, the moderators are in error. 

No other forum is covering the media hatchet job on RFK Jr and its origins. 

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

4 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

No other forum is covering the media hatchet job on RFK Jr and its origins

 

What? There's at least one forum with threads covering the "media hatchet job on RFK Jr and its origins." It's called the EF - Political Discussions Forum!