The January 1968 Jim Garrison/Johnny Carson Interview
David Von Pein
JOHNNY CARSON (PLUS AUDIO LINKS TO THE INTERVIEW):
=============================================
PART 1 OF INTERVIEW (29 MINUTES):
http://www.box.net/shared/7nrd45i4pz
PART 2 OF INTERVIEW (18 MINUTES):
http://www.box.net/shared/1flofxx1h8
=============================================
On January 31, 1968, on NBC-TV's "The Tonight Show", Johnny Carson
conducted a lengthy interview with New Orleans District Attorney Jim
Garrison. The purpose of the special interview was to discuss the 1963
assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
Mr. Garrison, as of that date in early 1968, was in the process of
putting together his extremely-lightweight case against Clay Shaw (who
was arrested by Garrison's office on the bogus charge of conspiring to
murder President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963).
When the Shaw trial finally took place in 1969, the jury took less
than an hour to arrive at the only possible (reasonable) verdict in
the case against Mr. Shaw -- Not Guilty.
I'd advise anyone interested in the details of JFK's assassination to
watch (or just listen to) the Garrison/Carson interview, which lasts
approximately 46 minutes (when the NBC-TV commercial breaks are
removed) and consumes the bulk of the 01/31/68 "Tonight Show"
broadcast. (Audio links to the entire interview are provided above.)
It's a fascinating glimpse into history -- and, to put it quite
bluntly, it's also a rather fascinating glimpse into the mind and
inner conspiratorial thoughts of a total kook by the name of Earling
Carothers ("Jim") Garrison.
Mr. Garrison, I will admit, handles himself quite well on the NBC
broadcast with Johnny Carson....he doesn't lose his cool (even though
Mr. Carson interrupts Garrison's theory-spouting on numerous
occasions, and it becomes very evident that Johnny isn't buying one
single thing that Jim is telling him during the entire program).
Johnny Carson has been accused of being overly rough and brusk and
rude toward Garrison on the program in question. But, IMO, Johnny did
not exhibit those characteristics at all. John was very low key and,
in my view, handled himself exceedingly well under the circumstances
(i.e., the circumstances of being placed in a position where he had to
act as an investigative reporter for the evening, instead of the late-
night comedian and witty interviewer of movie stars that America had
become accustomed to seeing since Carson began hosting "The Tonight
Show" in October of 1962).
Johnny asked some hard-hitting questions of Mr. Garrison, some of
which I'm going to write out in word-for-word fashion in just a
moment. Carson displayed a good deal of knowledge about many of the
details surrounding the JFK murder case, and (IMO) deserves nothing
but applause for his actions during his interview with Mr. Garrison.
The main reason I applaud Mr. Carson so loudly with respect to this
particular interview is because I was glad to see John ask such hard
questions which cast doubt on the notion of conspiracy in the JFK
case, instead of merely nodding in agreement with everything this
fruitcake named Garrison had to say. (Which were all things, by the
way, that haven't a shred of truth to them whatsoever re. the vast
"Let's Frame Lee Harvey Oswald As A Patsy" conspiracy plot that
Garrison said was afoot in Dealey Plaza in '63.)
Below, I have written out some of the interesting excerpts and
snippets from the Garrison/Carson interview (interjections by this
author will be denoted by the initials "DVP")......
-------------------------------------
JG (Jim Garrison) -- "We have found that the Central Intelligence
Agency, without any question, had individuals who were connected with
it involved {in the assassination of JFK}."
JC (Johnny Carson) -- "You have absolute facts and proof of that?"
JG -- "Without any question. I wouldn't say so otherwise."
~~~~~~
DVP -- Mr. Garrison had no "proof" of the above allegation re. the
CIA. He was merely theorizing. He was good at theorizing about murky,
unverifiable conspiracy plots, such as the one involving Clay Shaw,
Guy Banister, and David Ferrie. But "proving" these crackpot theories
was another matter. In short, he couldn't do it. And a jury in 1969
"proved" that Garrison couldn't do it in a court of law.
-------------------------------------
JG -- "They {the Warren Commission} concluded that Lee Oswald was the
lone assassin....and the evidence is clear that Oswald never fired a
shot....never fired a shot."
~~~~~~
DVP -- The above comment by Mr. Garrison is totally laughable. Such an
asinine remark by a person in Mr. Garrison's position at the time
(that of a District Attorney) deserves nothing but utter contempt from
anyone who has looked even superficially into the facts surrounding
John Kennedy's tragic murder.
-------------------------------------
JG -- "There was never an investigation. .... I'm not at all impressed
with the fact that they {the Warren Commission} could find no evidence
of a conspiracy. After going through their inquiry, I doubt if they
could find a streetcar if they had a transfer in their hands and it
was pointed out to them."
~~~~~~
DVP -- The above comment by Jimbo was indeed humorous, and elicited a
chuckle from Mr. Carson's studio audience. I kind of wish, though,
that Carson had followed up Jim's witticism with a comment about Mr.
Garrison not being able to locate his 'common sense'....because it's
fairly obvious that Jim had very little of that particular trait when
it came to his absurd theories concerning the JFK case.
-------------------------------------
JC -- "Now, you say 'the fact remains' again....as if it IS a fact.
You keep saying 'we know' and 'the fact is'....but that's not a fact,
is it?"
JG -- "Yes."
JC -- "What makes it a fact? Because you say so?"
~~~~~~
DVP -- A great retort by Johnny above. I loved it!
-------------------------------------
JC -- "Jim, aren't you taking inconsistencies in testimony during the
emotional time, even self-contradictory testimony, from even sometimes
the most truthful of witnesses....and using THAT as tainting
everything else that is very well explained?"
~~~~~~
DVP -- An excellent observation by Mr. Carson. And also a correct one,
IMO. Conspiracy theorists are experts at using selective pieces of
seemingly-contradictory evidence or witness statements and then
twisting those things into their own unique brand of "proof" that a
conpiracy had taken place on 11/22/63.
But the fact is that the things mentioned by Garrison (which I didn't
print out verbatim, but which prompted Johnny's comment above) were,
as John said, being used by Mr. Garrison to attempt to taint the
overall Lone-Assassin conclusion.
One thing, in particular, that Garrison is certainly dead-wrong about
(that he mentioned in the Carson interview) involves the actions and
observations of Roy Truly and Marrion Baker (who both saw Lee Oswald
on the 2nd Floor of the Book Depository approx. 90 seconds after
Oswald shot JFK from a 6th-Floor window).
Garrison erroneously assumes that since Truly and Baker saw Oswald on
the second floor shortly after the shooting, this therefore must
indicate that Oswald was innocent. But what Jim didn't tell the
audience that night in 1968 is that the Warren Commission conducted
multiple "re-enactments" of Oswald's alleged movements from the 6th to
the 2nd Floor of the building, and those re-creations proved beyond
any doubt that a person WAS capable of travelling that distance in
less than 80 seconds. Which indicates that the assassin (Oswald) could
very well have been on the 6th Floor at 12:30 PM and also on the 2nd
Floor by approx. 12:31:30 PM.
-------------------------------------
JG -- "There is no 'overwhelming' evidence that Oswald shot from the
Book Depository. The only evidence available indicates that he did
NOT."
~~~~~~
DVP -- That last line deserves a replay (just to emphasize the sheer
size of Garrison's gall at having spouted such nonsense) -- "The only
evidence available indicates that he did NOT".
Incredible, isn't it? Both times.
Mr. Garrison thinks the "ONLY evidence available" suggests that Lee
Oswald did NOT fire any shots from the TSBD. About the only thing left
to do after hearing (or reading) such total garbage from JG is to
throw up one's hands and scream "WTF?!". I think I'll go do that now.
Excuse me.
:)
-------------------------------------
JC -- "You are asking us and the American public to believe that a
team of seven gunmen carried this out with precision, firing from
various points that day in Dallas, which is a remarkable feat in
itself, and disappeared into thin air, with no witnesses who ever saw
any other gunmen or getaway vehicles....and a gigantic conspiracy in
which nobody seems to have yet proved anything....you ask us to
believe that....I find that a much larger fairy tale than to accept
the findings of the Warren Report."
~~~~~~
DVP -- Bravo, Mr. Carson! Well said! I applaud ye (again). I couldn't
have said that better myself.
-------------------------------------
JG -- "Having gone through the twenty-six volumes, Johnny, I CAN say
that it is not possible for a reasonable man to conclude that the
Warren Commission was right."
~~~~~~
DVP -- Another outlandishly-ludicrous statement by Jim G. in my
opinion, and in the opinion of a JFK assassination expert/author who
possesses probably more common sense and reasoned-thinking skills than
anybody I can personally think of -- former Los Angeles Deputy D.A.
Vincent Bugliosi, who made the following bold (but spot-on accurate)
declaration many years ago:
"Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President
Kennedy. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that he carried out
the tragic shooting all by himself. In fact, you could throw 80
percent of the evidence against him out the window and there would
still be more than enough left to convince any reasonable person of
his sole role in the crime. The Warren Commission looked at a
tremendous amount of evidence and concluded that Oswald acted alone.
I've studied the evidence, and I agree." -- VB; 1986
-------------------------------------
Allow me to close this essay with the following remarks (which I think
aptly apply here, since I'm discussing a conspiracy kook named Jim
Garrison, a man who disbelieved virtually all of the actual,
documented evidence in the John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit murder
investigations).....
The physical evidence surrounding President Kennedy's assassination
positively supports just one single gunman by the name of Lee Harvey
Oswald. And this physical evidence (plus a boatload of circumstantial
evidence as well) is just too overpowering in size and scope to merely
be arbitrarily tossed into the trash can (as Mr. Garrison seemed to
want to do every step of the way in his so-called "investigation" of
the case in the 1960s).
And the act of casting doubt upon the validity of ALL of the "Oswald
Is Guilty" evidence, sans proof of a large amount of foul play, is
merely the cowardly act of hardened conspiracy buffs (such as the late
Mr. Garrison) who simply cannot face the raw fact that the totality of
evidence in the JFK murder case hangs Mr. Oswald as surely as the Pope
is Catholic.
David Von Pein
November 2006
========================================================
RELATED LINKS:
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/b6f86f8c077a2cda
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d00a87bffda43219
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/garrison.htm
========================================================
aeffects
David Von Pein
nonsense in virtually every thread on the board?
Just wonderin', "toots".
But I seriously doubt it. He enjoys resembling a dick on a daily
basis.
bigdog
I just finsished watching the movie JFK for the first time since it
was in the theatres. I'd forgotten completely about the fictionalized
version of Garrison's Tonight Show appearance in which John Laroquette
played a talk show host named Jerry with an Ed McMahon counterpart who
sat on the couch grinning like a lobotomized idiot. It was one of the
lamest parts of a lame movie and the tone was nothing like Garrison's
actual Tonight Show appearance. Laroquette's character came off
sounding smart alecky, which I'm sure was Stone's intent, when in fact
Johnny Carson was respectful of Garrison but duly skeptical of his
claims. Johnny Carson was reluctant to put Garrison on the air because
there had already been so many conspiracy theories offered and Johnny
Carson had no interest in rehashing old material. He agreed to give
Garrison the air time at the urging of satirist Mort Sahl who was
championing the Garrison case because Sahl assured him that Garrison
had a lot of new information. When Garrison did get on the show, one
of my recollections is of Johnny shaking his head and saying that the
stuff he was saying was nothing new. I am guessing after it was over,
Johnny regreted having done the show.
I look forward to hearing the interview again. When I first saw the
show, I knew little of the various conspiracy theories that were being
floated or of many of the essential facts of the assassination. Now
that I have a frame of reference, the material might seem a little
more interesting to me.
robcap...@netscape.com
Garrison was vindicated many years later by other researchers, but the
main media of course won't tell you what has been uncovered about Clay
Shaw, will they?
Well, for starters he worked as a resource for the CIA in various
business roles. One particular little venture had him working with
David Atlee Phillips, anyone who has read about the JFK assassination
has come accross this name. See this link for more details:
http://www.realhistoryarchives.com/collections/hidden/freeport-cuba.htm
Next, we know that Shaw was on the board of directors for the
Permindex, which offices at the time out of Canada. This conglomerate
has been shown over the years to have ties to the Mob, the Mossad and
the CIA. A primary shareholder in Permindex was the Banque De Credit
International of Geneva (you may rember they were involved in the
money aspects of the Iran-Contra mess also), founded by Tibor
Rosenbaum, an arms procurer and financier for the Mossad. This bank
was set-up in the 1940s to handle PermIndex's international
operations.
What's more, the Mossad-sponsored Swiss bank was the chief "money
laundry" for Meyer Lansky, the head of the international crime
syndicate and an Israeli loyalist whose operations meshed closely on
many fronts with the American CIA.
The chairman of Permindex was Louis M. Bloomfield of Montreal, a key
figure in the Israeli lobby and an operative of the Bronfman family of
Canada, long-time Lansky associates and among Israel's primary
international patrons.
Furthermore, the CIA's liason to the Mossad is another name anyone who
has read about the JFK killing will recognize, James Jesus Angleton.
Also, if you are familar at all with the MLK killing you will recall
that JER said his contact, Raoul, introduced him to a mysterious
character named David Gravier. Well David Gravier is an international
financier, connected to American Banking and Trust, which itself is a
major subsidiary of guess who? Credit Suisse. Where did he [Ray] meet
him [Raoul]? In Canada, where Permindex was located.
Finally, we know Richard Helms finally admitted in 1978 to the HSCA
that Clay Shaw had worked with the CIA in various ways.
I told you before that Carson tried to railroad Garrison, he made him
list everything he was going to say and then JC came up with his own
questions to control the interview. Garrison messed him up by
answering the agreed to question, but continued on past the agreed to
answer. It was the only way he could say what he wanted the American
people to hear as all media is firmly controlled in this case.
On Dec 17, 1:02 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> still be more than enough left to convince any reasonable ...
>
> read more >>
YoHarvey
wrote:
>
> read more >>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, for starters he worked as a resource for the CIA in various
business roles. One particular little venture had him working with
David Atlee Phillips, anyone who has read about the JFK assassination
has come accross this name. See this link for more details:
Our resident pathological lying racist homophobe DOESN'T tell you that
thousands of Americans were used as resources by the CIA....and still
are.
robcap...@netscape.com
"Our resident pathological lying racist homophobe DOESN'T tell you
that
thousands of Americans were used as resources by the CIA....and still
are."
And this disproves what Jim Garrison showed how? Of course there are,
but not all of them were involved in the murder of a President.
Rich DellaRosa
You might not have recalled that scene because it was not in the
theatrical release.
It was only included in the Director's Cut.
Carson had been briefed and supplied questions by Walter Sheridan. It
was an ambush on Garrison.
David Von Pein
And a well-deserved "ambush" (if what you say is true).
Garrison deserved every verbal arrow that pierced him on January 31st,
1968.
He (Garrison) was a disgrace and an embarrassment to all people in the
legal profession everywhere.
And he was dead-wrong about so many of the incredibly-stupid and
insane things he uttered to the press in the 1960s.....
JIM GARRISON WAS WRONG (PART 1):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2317ac73008b3c8a
JIM GARRISON WAS WRONG (PART 2):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9d4772fbe4df0bcd
YoHarvey
And this disproves what Jim Garrison showed how? Of course there
are,
but not all of them were involved in the murder of a President.
Nor was there ever any evidence to prove Clay Shaw was. And that's
the point. Garrison could have made a case AGAINST anybody. This is
how sick...and dangerous Garrison was. Just one more con job by
Oliver Stone portraying Garrison as an uncorruptable public servant.
Nothing is further from the truth. Garrison was nuts in the Army and
was nuts when he died. And Stone was nuts for using Garrisons book
for JFK.
robcap...@netscape.com
> And this disproves what Jim Garrison showed how? Of course there
> are,
> but not all of them were involved in the murder of a President.
>
"Nor was there ever any evidence to prove Clay Shaw was. And that's
the point. Garrison could have made a case AGAINST anybody. This is
how sick...and dangerous Garrison was. Just one more con job by
Oliver Stone portraying Garrison as an uncorruptable public servant.
Nothing is further from the truth. Garrison was nuts in the Army and
was nuts when he died. And Stone was nuts for using Garrisons book
for JFK."
Really? PermIndex had ties to the CIA and as we have seen Shaw worked
with them and he was on the board of directors. What do you think he
did for them? He laundered money and set-up various operations as
well. He was the head of the TradeMart in New Orleans and they just
happened to select the TradeMart in Dallas? He has been connected to
LHO (at the time Garrison couldn't show this) and Ferrie. I doubt
just anyone had that background. He was tied to Lansky and the gun
running to Cuba as well. The one area Stone did not pursue due to who
funded the movie is the Mossad angle. JFK was at loggerheads with the
PM of Isreal over their development of nuclear weapons and this lead
to his resigning in the summer of 1963. The Mossad and the CIA worked
on a lot of things together, but someone like you can't deal with the
truth, you'd rather believe one little man did it with a bad rifle. I
guess it helps you sleep at night.
chu...@amcmn.com
> Carson had been briefed and supplied questions by Walter Sheridan. It
> was an ambush on Garrison.
An ambush by big bad Johnny Carson?
Tough guy Garrison has no problem implicating innocent people in the
death of JFK, but having some mildly tough questions thrown his way on
a popular late night chat show somehow constitutes an 'ambush'?
Let me get my violin out...
By the way, what in the heck is wrong with Carson being being briefed
by Walter Sheridan? All talk show hosts are briefed prior to a guest
appearance. Carson obviously had some pretty good knowledge about the
JFK assassination before Garrison came on the show.
Garrison had his day in court to prove Shaw was involved in JFK's
murder. The jury aquitted Shaw in about an hour.
Rich DellaRosa
smeared Garrison
before the Shaw case even went to trial. I'm a Carson fan but IMO he
came off as an ass
for inviting Garrison on his show and then not allowing him to finish a
sentence. Not
his finest moment.
And Mort Sahl's work with Garrison and his opposition to the WCR and the
Vietnam War
cost him his career. Ironic for a country which guarantees Freedom of
Speech.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
YoHarvey, on this point I will disagree. Stone was not nuts for using
Garrison's book. Stone was calculating for using Garrisons's book. He
knew exactly what he was doing.
bigdog
wrote:
The Mossad and the CIA worked
> on a lot of things together, but someone like you can't deal with the
> truth, you'd rather believe one little man did it with a bad rifle. I
> guess it helps you sleep at night.
The truth is that one little man did it with a bad rifle. A fairly
simple task given the circumstances. It is the only theory ever
offered that meets that criteria. LHO didn't need an army of
accomplices. All he had to do was stick that cheap MC rifle out a
window and back shoot a man at less than half the distance he was
trained to shoot in the Marines. That is a simple, straight forward
explaination of what happened and completely consistent with the
evidence.If the CTs were using evidence to direct them, they would all
be heading in the same direction. But they aren't. They are all
wandering off aimlessly in different directions. They have no map and
no compass. That is why NONE of you will ever be able to present a
plausible theory. You have substituted imagination for reason.
bigdog
>
> By the way, what in the heck is wrong with Carson being being briefed
> by Walter Sheridan? All talk show hosts are briefed prior to a guest
> appearance. Carson obviously had some pretty good knowledge about the
> JFK assassination before Garrison came on the show.
>
Absolutley. Johnny did the same thing when he exposed another fraud
named Uri Gellar who used cheap magician's tricks to con the public
into believing he had paranormal powers. Johnny had been a magician
himself but he consulted with famed illusionist and debunker of
hoaxes, James Rhandi prior to Gellar's appearance. They both knew
Gellar was a fraud and demostrated this by creating controlled
circumstances for him to demonstrate his "magical" powers. Needless to
say, Gellar failed the test miserably. Garrison likewise failed his
test when the jury acquited the object of his persecution in less than
an hour.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
The Constitution guarantees Freedom of Speech. It doesn't guarantee
that speech will have no consequences. The First Amendment simply
states that Congress can make no law abridging free speech (But they
did it anyway with McCain-Feingold). Supreme Court precedence has
extended that restriction to state and local governments as well. That
doesn't mean individuals can saw whatever they want whenever they want
and whereever they want with impunity. Don Imus found that out. He
said things that made it impossible for his employers, CBS Radio and
MSNBC, to sell his airtime to the advertisers. They were perfectly
within their rights to dismiss him.
As for Mort Sahl, there were a number of reasons for his career going
south, not the least of which was a caustic personality that turned
even his friends against him. He was a shock jock before that term
became fashionable or acceptable. I never found him to be particularly
funny. His brand of humor appealed to a very narrow audience and had a
very short shelf life.
aeffects
only for Imus to sign with whom and for how much, again? Sounds like
he really changed his ways too.
p.s. and his advertisers are lining up again, TOO!
chu...@amcmn.com
> In case you missed it, Sheridan had primetime airtime in which he
> smeared Garrison
> before the Shaw case even went to trial. I'm a Carson fan but IMO he
> came off as an ass
> for inviting Garrison on his show and then not allowing him to finish a
> sentence. Not
> his finest moment.
"Smeared" is your biased interpretation of it. Boo-Hoo. Garrison had
plenty of glowing accounts written about his "noble effort" written at
the time and since. A multi-million dollar Hollywood epic told the
Garrison side of events and portrayed him as a hero. I like Carson
even more now than I did then. The Hollywood pressure to 'go liberal'
and let Garrison riff with his smears must have been intense, but
Carson smartly saw through the conspiracy crap that still holds you
deep within its clutches, and he at least confronted Garrison's
ridiculous assertions.
The case was tried. Garrison and the "conspiracy-in-our-cornflakes"
wacko's lost.
>
> And Mort Sahl's work with Garrison and his opposition to the WCR and the
> Vietnam War
> cost him his career. Ironic for a country which guarantees Freedom of
Boo-Hoo again. Mort Sahl, to the extent you say his career was 'lost',
lost it because he wasn't funny.
If I don't want to buy a Mort Sahl comedy album because of his
political stances, or to bring things up to today, if I don't want to
buy a Dixie Chicks CD because of their biased, antiwar rantings,
that's my business.
Rich DellaRosa
Imus said what he said and was paid $20million and took an 8 month
vacation. Not a
bad deal. I studied Constitutional Law in college -- how you describe
Freedom of
Speech is not borne out in cases decided by the Supreme Court. Justice
Oliver
Wendell Holmes wrote that free speech is not protected in instances such
as a person
telling "Fire' in a crowded threatre causing a stampede. Garrison did
no such thing.
Even if he had, it would have been the Supreme Court, not Johnny Carson
or NBC
to decide if his rights to free speech were violated or protected.
You obviously know little about Mort Sahl and his popularity. His
bookings dried up,
not his audience.
aeffects
> On Dec 18, 7:27 am, Rich DellaRosa <richd...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > In case you missed it, Sheridan had primetime airtime in which he
> > smeared Garrison
> > before the Shaw case even went to trial. I'm a Carson fan but IMO he
> > came off as an ass
> > for inviting Garrison on his show and then not allowing him to finish a
> > sentence. Not
> > his finest moment.
>
> "Smeared" is your biased interpretation of it. Boo-Hoo. Garrison had
> plenty of glowing accounts written about his "noble effort" written at
> the time and since. A multi-million dollar Hollywood epic told the
> Garrison side of events and portrayed him as a hero. I like Carson
> even more now than I did then. The Hollywood pressure to 'go liberal'
> and let Garrison riff with his smears must have been intense, but
> Carson smartly saw through the conspiracy crap that still holds you
> deep within its clutches, and he at least confronted Garrison's
> ridiculous assertions.
LMAO.....
> The case was tried. Garrison and the "conspiracy-in-our-cornflakes"
> wacko's lost.
>
yep, looks like the debate/case has gone away.... here's a little
something to put in your pipe: polled at anytime up to 70% believe a
conspiracy murdered JFK, poll those that know case evidence and up to
90% believe a conspiracy murdered JFK...
I say "whacko's" continue to support the WCR
>
> > And Mort Sahl's work with Garrison and his opposition to the WCR and the
> > Vietnam War
> > cost him his career. Ironic for a country which guarantees Freedom of
>
> Boo-Hoo again. Mort Sahl, to the extent you say his career was 'lost',
> lost it because he wasn't funny.
>
> If I don't want to buy a Mort Sahl comedy album because of his
> political stances, or to bring things up to today, if I don't want to
> buy a Dixie Chicks CD because of their biased, antiwar rantings,
> that's my business.
duh!
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wonderful. The free market is at work which is exactly the way it
should be. If Imus can still attract listeners and sell his
advertisers products, there is no reason he shouldn't be allowed to
work. The important thing is that none of the ramifications of Imus's
remarks were the result of government action which would have been an
unconstitutional infringement on his right to free speech.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
I know plenty about Mort Sahl. The guy just wasn't that funny. The
Garrison affair did not cost him his career. Several year later he
released a "comedy" ablum about Watergate which someone gave me as a
gift, knowing I full supported the impeachment of Nixon. I listened to
about half the album and didn't laugh one time even though I was
someone who was in his target audience. There were plenty of comedians
doing great Watergate material back then. Saul just wasn't one of
them.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nobody was even talking about Garrison's free speech nor was anyone
talking about yelling "fire" in a movie house. The discussion was
about protected political speech two names that came up were Imus and
Saul. Neither lost work because of any action by the government. They
were put out of work by market forces. Those same market forces put
Imus back in a job after the furor had died down. Imus was able to
recapture an audience. Saul didn't which is why his bookings dried up.
chu...@amcmn.com
>
> yep, looks like the debate/case has gone away.... here's a little
> something to put in your pipe: polled at anytime up to 70% believe a
> conspiracy murdered JFK, poll those that know case evidence and up to
> 90% believe a conspiracy murdered JFK...
Here's a little something to put in your crackpipe, Healy-
monkey...POLL RESULTS are all your side has.
And you're not even honest about what most of those polls conclude.
Most Americans believe Oswald was involved in the assassination.
You're ready to dig him up and re-bury him in Arlington next to JFK
with a twenty-one gun salute.
>
> I say "whacko's" continue to support the WCR
I say "whackos" continue to believe a fake/impersonated Abraham
Zapruder filmed the assassination.
Why haven't you answered Todd's questions, by the way?