Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Debating Roger Stone

340 views
Skip to first unread message

John McAdams

unread,
Nov 24, 2014, 11:41:45 AM11/24/14
to

http://new.livestream.com/accounts/10482276/events/3530038/videos/68916278

Got to 11/21/14.

Got to about the one hour point.

.John


--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Bill Clarke

unread,
Nov 24, 2014, 9:01:43 PM11/24/14
to
In article <54735f75....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>
>
>http://new.livestream.com/accounts/10482276/events/3530038/videos/68916278
>
>Got to 11/21/14.
>
>Got to about the one hour point.
>
>.John
>
>

Well done. I haven't read Stone's book either nor do I intend to. Life
is too short and I'm running out of time.

It truly boggles my mind that people of normal intelligence can be so
quick to take such "experts" to their breast. I'm still shaking my head
about the major defense of Fletcher Prouty put up over on JFKfacts the
other week. My god! Jeff actually believes Fletcher Prouty!


David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 25, 2014, 12:58:33 PM11/25/14
to
.John,

Thanks for the link and the heads-up about your debate against Roger
Stone.

For anybody who doesn't want to wade through the many commercials that
accompany the complete program link that .John provided above, I've now
got the debate on my website with all the commercials edited out at the
link below (plus a few comments of my own about the program). I'll be
adding the debate to my JFK YouTube channel very soon too.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-849.html

JERSEY JOE WILCOTT

unread,
Nov 25, 2014, 1:04:36 PM11/25/14
to
Roger Stone says that Malcolm Wallace was in the TSBD and suggests that
Wallace was the assassin. He later describes a huge wound in the back of
Kennedy's head that hit Kennedy from the front. In other words the kill
shot was not fired by Wallace from behind, but from the front. He accuses
Wallace and then exonerates him unless Wallace fired from the 6th floor
and raced to grassy knoll to fire from the front.

JERSEY JOE WILCOTT

unread,
Nov 25, 2014, 1:07:37 PM11/25/14
to
Wallace looks like E G MARSHALL.

Mark Florio

unread,
Nov 25, 2014, 5:59:18 PM11/25/14
to
I met Roger Stone years ago when he was on the far right. I'll just say
that I'm not surprised he ended up on the CT fringe that believes LBJ was
involved. You can never predict where a wingnut's mind of either stripe
will wander. Mark Florio.

John McAdams

unread,
Nov 25, 2014, 6:03:10 PM11/25/14
to
On 25 Nov 2014 17:59:17 -0500, Mark Florio <norto...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Somebody on the right hating LBJ actually makes more sense than the
usual JFK buffs who are on the left and hate him.

Johnson moved policy to the left more effectively than any president
other than FDR.

But the *ambiance* of LBJ did not appeal to liberals the way the
aristocratic airs of JFK did.


.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Sandy McCroskey

unread,
Nov 25, 2014, 10:39:38 PM11/25/14
to
That's an interesting take, John.

What did you think of LBJ's "leftward" moves, in general?

Civil rights, the Great Society?

/sandy


Bill Clarke

unread,
Nov 26, 2014, 5:35:59 PM11/26/14
to
In article <547514c6$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Sandy McCroskey says...
I'm not John but I'll add my two dong to the table. I think both,
especially the Great Society were tragic victims of the Vietnam War.
Just as Johnson knew it would be. The war sapped the money and attention
necessary for their success. Again especially the Great Society.

I'm afraid Johnson will have to bear the yoke of the welfare state but he
certainly didn't mean it be that way. He offered a hand up but it was
turned into a hand out. LBJ was a workaholic, he didn't cotton to those
sitting on their rears.

Bill Clarke


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Nov 26, 2014, 5:37:52 PM11/26/14
to
The main reason was because LBJ was freed by being elected Vice-President
and then taking over the Presidency from worrying about any local
elections in Texas. He could turn against the old racist Southern
Democrats and not worry about being reelected.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Nov 26, 2014, 7:33:07 PM11/26/14
to
On 11/25/2014 6:03 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 25 Nov 2014 17:59:17 -0500, Mark Florio <norto...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, November 24, 2014 10:41:45 AM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:
>>> http://new.livestream.com/accounts/10482276/events/3530038/videos/68916278
>>>
>>> Got to 11/21/14.
>>>
>>> Got to about the one hour point.
>>>
>>> .John
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>
>> I met Roger Stone years ago when he was on the far right. I'll just say
>> that I'm not surprised he ended up on the CT fringe that believes LBJ was
>> involved. You can never predict where a wingnut's mind of either stripe
>> will wander. Mark Florio.
>
> Somebody on the right hating LBJ actually makes more sense than the
> usual JFK buffs who are on the left and hate him.
>

I don't know how to explain this to an extreme rightwinger, but people
on the Left can hate LBJ for Vietnam without thinking he was the
Mastermind of the JFK assassination.
Even when we suspected a coup we did not call LBJ the mastermind, just a
puppet of the Military Industrial Complex.

> Johnson moved policy to the left more effectively than any president
> other than FDR.
>

Because as leader of the House and then President of the Senate he was
very good at arm twisting and wheeling and dealing. One of the reasons
JFK was told to pick him.

> But the *ambiance* of LBJ did not appeal to liberals the way the
> aristocratic airs of JFK did.
>

He was looking down on by JFK's people.
You call it ambiance. We call it stink.

>
> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Nov 26, 2014, 7:33:21 PM11/26/14
to
You may not realize this, but many extreme rightwingers believe the JFK
assassination was a conspiracy.


CLAY BERTRAND RUSSELL

unread,
Nov 26, 2014, 10:14:45 PM11/26/14
to
Marsh do you blame the CIA for the Irish Potato Famine?

CLAY BERTRAND RUSSELL

unread,
Nov 26, 2014, 10:15:08 PM11/26/14
to
That is true. Many extreme rightwingers believe JFK was assassinated as
the result of conspiracy. Oswald did it alone. He did almost everything
alone. Oswald was an extreme leftwinger like Marsh.

Bill Clarke

unread,
Nov 27, 2014, 11:00:46 AM11/27/14
to
In article <5475766f$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
No one smelled as bad as old man Joe Kennedy.

Bill Clarke


John McAdams

unread,
Nov 27, 2014, 12:33:40 PM11/27/14
to
On 25 Nov 2014 22:39:37 -0500, Sandy McCroskey
Not really. It's pretty conventional history, at least outside the
circle of JFK buffs.

>What did you think of LBJ's "leftward" moves, in general?
>
>Civil rights,

The '64 Civil Rights Act was necessary at the time, but it has
outlived its usefulness. It should have had a sunset privision.


>the Great Society?
>

Went off in the wrong direction, by encouraging massive dependency.

The problem was somewhat fixed in the 1990s, with welfare reform, but
only after dependency had done massive damage to family structure.

Any welfare programs need to have strong work requirements.


.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

bigdog

unread,
Nov 27, 2014, 7:14:41 PM11/27/14
to
On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 7:33:07 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> I don't know how to explain this to an extreme rightwinger, but people
> on the Left can hate LBJ for Vietnam without thinking he was the
> Mastermind of the JFK assassination.
> Even when we suspected a coup we did not call LBJ the mastermind, just a
> puppet of the Military Industrial Complex.
>
> > Johnson moved policy to the left more effectively than any president
> > other than FDR.
> >
>
> Because as leader of the House and then President of the Senate he was
> very good at arm twisting and wheeling and dealing. One of the reasons
> JFK was told to pick him.
>

You really need to brush up on your history. LBJ was never leader of the
House. Sam Rayburn became Speaker of the House while LBJ was nothing more
than a back bencher. LBJ rose to power in the Senate as Minority Leader,
Majority Whip and Majority Leader for his last six years. That was the
most powerful position he held until becoming President. He became
President of the Senate as VPOTUS, a largely ceremonial position with
absolutely no power other than to cast tie breaking votes.

bigdog

unread,
Nov 27, 2014, 7:14:54 PM11/27/14
to
And he also said a lot of things he couldn't back up, like Marsh.


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Nov 27, 2014, 7:45:31 PM11/27/14
to
Except that I've said it thousands of times before.

>> What did you think of LBJ's "leftward" moves, in general?
>>
>> Civil rights,
>
> The '64 Civil Rights Act was necessary at the time, but it has
> outlived its usefulness. It should have had a sunset privision.
>

LBJ always had a strong belief in civil rights for black people ever since
he taught poor little black kids and saw how they lived. But he could not
speak out about in Jim Crow South or he would not be elected and would
have no chance to change it.

>
>> the Great Society?
>>
>
> Went off in the wrong direction, by encouraging massive dependency.
>

Oh, you mean like Social Security? You extreme rightwingers have to get
something through your thick heads. It's not YOUR money. It's OUR money.
We had to pay a lot of taxes for Social Security Insurance and Medicaid.
It was taken out of our paychecks every week. You guys didn't give it to
us and we didn't steal it from you. It is OUR money, not YOURS.

> The problem was somewhat fixed in the 1990s, with welfare reform, but
> only after dependency had done massive damage to family structure.
>
> Any welfare programs need to have strong work requirements.
>

Silly. A mother with 3 young children can not even afford the cost of
babysitting and axes to work full time. You want her to work full time and
leave her kids alone? What kind of person are you?

Who pays for the daycare. Certainly not the company which barely pays
minimum wage. So you want the government to pay for the daycare so that
she can work? Same money, just a different recipient.

>
> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>


Sandy McCroskey

unread,
Nov 27, 2014, 7:45:44 PM11/27/14
to
I meant only the bit about the "ambiance" of LBJ vs. that of JFK. Maybe
it was only an "interesting" way to put it. The ambiance of LBJ... the
smell of cow manure? Versus Jack's eau de cologne?

> It's pretty conventional history, at least outside the
> circle of JFK buffs.
>

>> What did you think of LBJ's "leftward" moves, in general?
>>
>> Civil rights,
>
> The '64 Civil Rights Act was necessary at the time, but it has
> outlived its usefulness. It should have had a sunset privision.
>

Given your ideological affiliations, I wonder where you would have stood
on it "at the time."

The Republicans today clearly have it in for the Voting Rights Act.

>
>> the Great Society?
>>
>
> Went off in the wrong direction, by encouraging massive dependency.
>

Knew you'd say that!

> The problem was somewhat fixed in the 1990s, with welfare reform, but
> only after dependency had done massive damage to family structure.
>
> Any welfare programs need to have strong work requirements.
>

Something like the WPA would be great.

But too often "work" programs provide only make-work that, while
satisfying some supposed moral imperative, benefits in a real way
neither society nor the worker.



John McAdams

unread,
Nov 27, 2014, 7:51:29 PM11/27/14
to
On 27 Nov 2014 19:45:30 -0500, Anthony Marsh
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 11/27/2014 12:33 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 25 Nov 2014 22:39:37 -0500, Sandy McCroskey
>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Johnson moved policy to the left more effectively than any president
>>>> other than FDR.
>>>>
>>>> But the *ambiance* of LBJ did not appeal to liberals the way the
>>>> aristocratic airs of JFK did.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That's an interesting take, John.
>>>
>>
>> Not really. It's pretty conventional history, at least outside the
>> circle of JFK buffs.
>>
>
>Except that I've said it thousands of times before.
>
>>> What did you think of LBJ's "leftward" moves, in general?
>>>
>>> Civil rights,
>>
>> The '64 Civil Rights Act was necessary at the time, but it has
>> outlived its usefulness. It should have had a sunset privision.
>>
>
>LBJ always had a strong belief in civil rights for black people ever since
>he taught poor little black kids and saw how they lived. But he could not
>speak out about in Jim Crow South or he would not be elected and would
>have no chance to change it.
>
>>
>>> the Great Society?
>>>
>>
>> Went off in the wrong direction, by encouraging massive dependency.
>>
>
>Oh, you mean like Social Security? You extreme rightwingers have to get
>something through your thick heads. It's not YOUR money. It's OUR money.

Who is "our," Tony?

Social Security is a "contributory" program. People pay in the
expectation that they will received benefits.

Now, it's not an actuarially sound program. It's "pay as you go."

But the people who draw benefits are not freeloaders.

>We had to pay a lot of taxes for Social Security Insurance and Medicaid.
>It was taken out of our paychecks every week. You guys didn't give it to
>us and we didn't steal it from you. It is OUR money, not YOURS.
>

So you are speaking as a recipient.

OK, except that the program is going to have to be trimmed back a bit.


>> The problem was somewhat fixed in the 1990s, with welfare reform, but
>> only after dependency had done massive damage to family structure.
>>
>> Any welfare programs need to have strong work requirements.
>>
>
>Silly. A mother with 3 young children can not even afford the cost of
>babysitting and axes to work full time. You want her to work full time and
>leave her kids alone? What kind of person are you?
>

Somebody who knows something about policy.

Welfare reform in the 1990s provided for childcare for mothers on
welfare who were forced to get a job.

Last time I checked, Wisconsin spent more on childcare for mothers on
welfare than for welfare benefits.


>Who pays for the daycare. Certainly not the company which barely pays
>minimum wage. So you want the government to pay for the daycare so that
>she can work? Same money, just a different recipient.
>

Work is a good thing in all sorts of way, Tony.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

John McAdams

unread,
Nov 27, 2014, 7:56:04 PM11/27/14
to
On 27 Nov 2014 19:45:43 -0500, Sandy McCroskey
<gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>On 11/27/14 12:33 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 25 Nov 2014 22:39:37 -0500, Sandy McCroskey
>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Johnson moved policy to the left more effectively than any president
>>>> other than FDR.
>>>>
>>>> But the *ambiance* of LBJ did not appeal to liberals the way the
>>>> aristocratic airs of JFK did.
>>>
>>> That's an interesting take, John.
>>>
>>
>> Not really.
>
>I meant only the bit about the "ambiance" of LBJ vs. that of JFK. Maybe
>it was only an "interesting" way to put it. The ambiance of LBJ... the
>smell of cow manure? Versus Jack's eau de cologne?
>

I should have said "cultural bias." The Kennedy family was itself
quite corrupt (as was LBJ) but they fit nicely into the cultural
biases of northeastern elites.

>> It's pretty conventional history, at least outside the
>> circle of JFK buffs.
>>
>
>>> What did you think of LBJ's "leftward" moves, in general?
>>>
>>> Civil rights,
>>
>> The '64 Civil Rights Act was necessary at the time, but it has
>> outlived its usefulness. It should have had a sunset privision.
>>
>
>Given your ideological affiliations, I wonder where you would have stood
>on it "at the time."
>

I was for it at the time.

Now, given your ideological affiliations: did you ever favor
nationalization of industry?

Did you ever have a favorable opinion of any Communist regime --
perhaps that or Mao or of Castro?


>The Republicans today clearly have it in for the Voting Rights Act.
>

Since it's grossly discriminatory, and targeted toward localities with
black voter turnout as high as in other places.

>>
>>> the Great Society?
>>>
>>
>> Went off in the wrong direction, by encouraging massive dependency.
>>
>
>Knew you'd say that!
>

Since it is true.

>> The problem was somewhat fixed in the 1990s, with welfare reform, but
>> only after dependency had done massive damage to family structure.
>>
>> Any welfare programs need to have strong work requirements.
>>
>
>Something like the WPA would be great.
>
>But too often "work" programs provide only make-work that, while
>satisfying some supposed moral imperative, benefits in a real way
>neither society nor the worker.

In fact, welfare reform forced women on welfare to get jobs, and they
got jobs in the private sector, doing productive work.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Nov 27, 2014, 8:50:56 PM11/27/14
to
What specifically did LBJ bring into law which created Welfare or whatever
you are against? Is Medicare the same as Welfare? Is the Civil Rights
Voting Act the same as Welfare? What law created the dole and who enacted
it? I'll give you a hint. It wasn't Robert Dole. It existed even before
FDR was sworn in.



Anthony Marsh

unread,
Nov 27, 2014, 8:58:10 PM11/27/14
to
On 11/27/2014 7:14 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 7:33:07 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>
>> I don't know how to explain this to an extreme rightwinger, but people
>> on the Left can hate LBJ for Vietnam without thinking he was the
>> Mastermind of the JFK assassination.
>> Even when we suspected a coup we did not call LBJ the mastermind, just a
>> puppet of the Military Industrial Complex.
>>
>>> Johnson moved policy to the left more effectively than any president
>>> other than FDR.
>>>
>>
>> Because as leader of the House and then President of the Senate he was
>> very good at arm twisting and wheeling and dealing. One of the reasons
>> JFK was told to pick him.
>>
>
> You really need to brush up on your history. LBJ was never leader of the
> House. Sam Rayburn became Speaker of the House while LBJ was nothing more
> than a back bencher. LBJ rose to power in the Senate as Minority Leader,
> Majority Whip and Majority Leader for his last six years. That was the

Yes, I meant Majority leader of the Senate.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Nov 28, 2014, 12:26:05 PM11/28/14
to
So you are no longer for equality in voting?

BTW, it does have a Sunset provision. It's called compliance.

>
> Now, given your ideological affiliations: did you ever favor
> nationalization of industry?
>

Such as where? Whose model?

You mean like the WPA or war mobilization?

> Did you ever have a favorable opinion of any Communist regime --
> perhaps that or Mao or of Castro?
>

More Red Baiting. Did you admire Hitler?

>
>> The Republicans today clearly have it in for the Voting Rights Act.
>>
>
> Since it's grossly discriminatory, and targeted toward localities with
> black voter turnout as high as in other places.
>

Is that what you guys call reverse discrimination?

>>>
>>>> the Great Society?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Went off in the wrong direction, by encouraging massive dependency.
>>>
>>
>> Knew you'd say that!
>>
>
> Since it is true.

Dependency on what? Social Security Insurance? Medicare?
We paid for it with OUR taxes. It's OUR money, not YOURS.



>
>>> The problem was somewhat fixed in the 1990s, with welfare reform, but
>>> only after dependency had done massive damage to family structure.
>>>
>>> Any welfare programs need to have strong work requirements.
>>>
>>
>> Something like the WPA would be great.
>>
>> But too often "work" programs provide only make-work that, while
>> satisfying some supposed moral imperative, benefits in a real way
>> neither society nor the worker.
>
> In fact, welfare reform forced women on welfare to get jobs, and they
> got jobs in the private sector, doing productive work.
>

How can women get full-time jobs and leave their small children at home
alone? That's against the law. And at sub-minimum wages they can't afford
to pay for daycare on top of food and taxes and shelter. So you would have
to pay for the daycare to encourage them to work. Same money, just going
to a different recipient.

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Nov 28, 2014, 12:27:03 PM11/28/14
to
The public.

> Social Security is a "contributory" program. People pay in the
> expectation that they will received benefits.
>

You don't get a choice of how much to contribute.
It is automatically taken out of your paycheck.

> Now, it's not an actuarially sound program. It's "pay as you go."
>

All insurance programs are paid for by people who do not yet benefit
from them, but expect to.

> But the people who draw benefits are not freeloaders.
>

But the extreme rightwingers like to call all recipients freeloaders.

>> We had to pay a lot of taxes for Social Security Insurance and Medicaid.
>> It was taken out of our paychecks every week. You guys didn't give it to
>> us and we didn't steal it from you. It is OUR money, not YOURS.
>>
>
> So you are speaking as a recipient.

I am a beneficiary of programs that I paid my taxes into.


>
> OK, except that the program is going to have to be trimmed back a bit.
>
>
>>> The problem was somewhat fixed in the 1990s, with welfare reform, but
>>> only after dependency had done massive damage to family structure.
>>>
>>> Any welfare programs need to have strong work requirements.
>>>
>>
>> Silly. A mother with 3 young children can not even afford the cost of
>> babysitting and axes to work full time. You want her to work full time and
>> leave her kids alone? What kind of person are you?
>>
>
> Somebody who knows something about policy.

So you want her to work full time and leave her kids home alone?

>
> Welfare reform in the 1990s provided for childcare for mothers on
> welfare who were forced to get a job.
>

Was it your rightwing hero Ronald Reagan who did that?
As I said before, you still have to pay either for the welfare or the
daycare.
So indeed you believe in government support for poor people.
You just want to keep them poor to have a need for government agencies
to control that money. And giant banks to make trillions of dollars
controlling the money.


> Last time I checked, Wisconsin spent more on childcare for mothers on
> welfare than for welfare benefits.
>

So you think that is better. It's still the same money.

>
>> Who pays for the daycare. Certainly not the company which barely pays
>> minimum wage. So you want the government to pay for the daycare so that
>> she can work? Same money, just a different recipient.
>>
>
> Work is a good thing in all sorts of way, Tony.
>

I don't know how to explain this to a person of your ilk, but some
people actually volunteer to work without pay for causes they believe in.

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Nov 28, 2014, 12:27:48 PM11/28/14
to
When LBJ signed the bill into law he told his cronies that he was turning
the Southern Democrats over to the Republicans for several generations.
Before that Southern Democrats were the KKK and Republicans were Northern
Liberals.

>>
>>> the Great Society?
>>>
>>
>> Went off in the wrong direction, by encouraging massive dependency.
>>
>
> Knew you'd say that!
>
>> The problem was somewhat fixed in the 1990s, with welfare reform, but
>> only after dependency had done massive damage to family structure.
>>
>> Any welfare programs need to have strong work requirements.
>>
>
> Something like the WPA would be great.
>

Which is why Republicans oppose Obama's Recovery programs.

> But too often "work" programs provide only make-work that, while
> satisfying some supposed moral imperative, benefits in a real way
> neither society nor the worker.
>

If you have no bridge, no one will come. If you build a bridge, people
will come. The Republicans let the bridges collapse. Obama fixes the
bridges, which is why Republicans hate him.

>
>


Mark OBLAZNEY

unread,
Nov 28, 2014, 2:35:24 PM11/28/14
to
Did Ozzie know how to do the Mashed Potato?

Bill Clarke

unread,
Nov 28, 2014, 2:37:44 PM11/28/14
to
In article <547770c3$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
Small point but he taught poor little BROWN kids. Very few black people
in Johnson country at the time.

Bill Clarke

Sandy McCroskey

unread,
Nov 28, 2014, 7:55:46 PM11/28/14
to
Good.

> Now, given your ideological affiliations: did you ever favor
> nationalization of industry?
>

When has that been an issue in this country?


> Did you ever have a favorable opinion of any Communist regime --
> perhaps that or Mao or of Castro?
>

I have never been a Maoist (or a Stalinist or even a Leninist), and my
opinion of Castro's tenure (and of Cuba today, in his wake) is more
nuanced than outright condemnation or unqualified approval.

There has never been a communist country, only capital-C Communist
(i.e., Party-dominated) *regimes* (your apt word).

>
>> The Republicans today clearly have it in for the Voting Rights Act.
>>
>
> Since it's grossly discriminatory, and targeted toward localities with
> black voter turnout as high as in other places.
>

I know that's what the right-wingers say.
So I just heard it one more time...

>>>
>>>> the Great Society?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Went off in the wrong direction, by encouraging massive dependency.
>>>
>>
>> Knew you'd say that!
>>
>
> Since it is true.
>

Your saying it twice only reiterates that you believe it.

Mark Florio

unread,
Nov 30, 2014, 1:46:51 PM11/30/14
to
I'm aware. See Edwin Walker's tortured WC testimony. Mark Florio.

David Von Pein

unread,
Jul 2, 2020, 8:50:51 AM7/2/20
to

Steven M. Galbraith

unread,
Jul 2, 2020, 5:12:38 PM7/2/20
to
On Thursday, July 2, 2020 at 8:50:51 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOTzZpR0pyaDM0VXc/view
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/10/radio-debates-featuring-john-mcadams.html

Good stuff.

In order to frame Oswald the conspirators had to know where he was at the
time JFK's limo passed by the TSBD. That is, he *could* be framed. If he's
out on the street, if he's back at Ft. Worth, if he's in the hospital
because he dropped a box of books on his foot, if he's got an alibi then
he can't be framed.

So how did they know where he was at 12:30?

And they had to know where his co-workers were. If some of them are with
him then he has an alibi. They can provide one.

There *are* limits to what these conspirators could do. Or aren't they? Is
the conspiracy response simply it didn't matter where Oswald was? The
conspirators would coerce those alibi witnesses into lying? And any other
evidence - photos films - would be altered?

Yes, that's exactly what they say. It's useless trying to reason with
people who hold such beliefs. And here we are.

Mark

unread,
Jul 2, 2020, 9:10:40 PM7/2/20
to
I haven't listed yet, but I'm going to.

Anybody read Stone's 2013 assassination opus THE MAN WHO KILLED KENNEDY:
THE CASE AGAINST LBJ (with Mike Colapietro)? mmmm

Oh boy. It's typical of your typical conspiracy book. Lots of allegations
and conjecture with no evidence to back it up. Just thoughts in his head
that HAVE to be true, and he found a publisher willing to print them.

For instance, if A knew B and B knew C, then A surely knew C.

Or, on one page, the author writes so-and-so was POSSIBLY involved. Two
or 25 pages later "possible" is dropped and his involvement has become
fact. No explanation, of course.

Stone believes LBJ had at least six people killed throughout his life.
(I can't remember the exact number, six may be on the low side.) Mark

John Corbett

unread,
Jul 3, 2020, 12:25:26 AM7/3/20
to
The conspiracy hobbyists have placed such absolute faith in their pet
theories of the assassination that they believe anything that needed to
happen for their theory to hold water must have happened because, by God,
it couldn't be their pet theory that is FUBAR.

ajohnstone

unread,
Jul 3, 2020, 12:25:29 AM7/3/20
to
Sometimes bad people can do good things

Richard Nixon and his creation of the EPA, for example.

Steven M. Galbraith

unread,
Jul 3, 2020, 8:23:05 PM7/3/20
to
In conspiracy world, motive and connections - however tenuous - are
enough. Then all of these people are moved around like pieces on a
chessboard as the conspiracy is explained. They aren't real human beings,
they are objects.

If you think these people are bad - and sure, many were in different ways
- and they had motive then that's sufficient.

This is why - and I'm repeating myself for the hundredth time - if you
know who a JFK conspiracy believer hates, who he thinks ruined the
country, then you'll know who they think killed JFK. And because this is
the most studied event in US history, if you're a conspiracist then you
can pore over the pieces of this giant jigsaw, pluck some out, jam them
together and present your proof.

John Corbett

unread,
Jul 3, 2020, 8:23:21 PM7/3/20
to
Just out of curiosity, is this the same Roger Stone that has been in the
news lately after being convicted of lying to the Mueller team and witness
tampering? I just saw he has been denied a pardon and is supposed to
report to prison in two weeks.

Steven M. Galbraith

unread,
Jul 3, 2020, 11:20:18 PM7/3/20
to
Yep, same conman. He's got a tattoo of Richard Nixon on his back. He
worked for Nixon but only as a low level 20 year old scheduler. But he
claimed to be a major campaign operative who did dirty tricks on behalf of
Nixon.

In other words, he made it up.

David Von Pein

unread,
Jul 3, 2020, 11:20:21 PM7/3/20
to
On Friday, July 3, 2020 at 8:23:21 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Yep. Same guy.

Mark

unread,
Jul 4, 2020, 9:28:52 AM7/4/20
to
Yes, but to be fair, because he's a Trump supporter he may not have been
treated fairly in court. Extra-silly CTs have rights, too. You may have
heard about this. His jury's foreperson was a hardcore anti-Trumper (I
believe she recorded her views online, Twitter or somewhere). How his
lawyers missed that during jury selection, I don't know. Perhaps they had
no way to find out. Anyway, Stone may have solid grounds for an appeal.

Mark

JUDGE RHINEHOLD

unread,
Jul 4, 2020, 2:20:05 PM7/4/20
to
Stone has a double. Oliver is one and Roger is two.

John Corbett

unread,
Jul 4, 2020, 2:20:13 PM7/4/20
to
I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me that when a jury foreperson has such a
clear basis against a defendant and conceals such bias during the jury
vetting process that would be clear grounds for a mistrial.

I think he does have a good case for appeal but it looks like that won't
happen soon enough. He is scheduled to report to prison in two weeks.


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 4, 2020, 9:18:26 PM7/4/20
to
On 7/3/2020 8:23 PM, Steven M. Galbraith wrote:
> On Thursday, July 2, 2020 at 9:10:40 PM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 2, 2020 at 7:50:51 AM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOTzZpR0pyaDM0VXc/view
>>>
>>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/10/radio-debates-featuring-john-mcadams.html
>>
>> I haven't listed yet, but I'm going to.
>>
>> Anybody read Stone's 2013 assassination opus THE MAN WHO KILLED KENNEDY:
>> THE CASE AGAINST LBJ (with Mike Colapietro)? mmmm
>>
>> Oh boy. It's typical of your typical conspiracy book. Lots of allegations
>> and conjecture with no evidence to back it up. Just thoughts in his head
>> that HAVE to be true, and he found a publisher willing to print them.
>>
>> For instance, if A knew B and B knew C, then A surely knew C.
>>
>> Or, on one page, the author writes so-and-so was POSSIBLY involved. Two
>> or 25 pages later "possible" is dropped and his involvement has become
>> fact. No explanation, of course.
>>
>> Stone believes LBJ had at least six people killed throughout his life.
>> (I can't remember the exact number, six may be on the low side.) Mark
>
> In conspiracy world, motive and connections - however tenuous - are
> enough. Then all of these people are moved around like pieces on a
> chessboard as the conspiracy is explained. They aren't real human beings,
> they are objects.
>

Not always, but oftem criminals and the CIA use gobetweens.

> If you think these people are bad - and sure, many were in different ways
> - and they had motive then that's sufficient.
>

No, motive is only one component. You also need means and opportuity.
Maybe thousands of people wanted to kill JFK, but only a couple had the
means and opportunity.

> This is why - and I'm repeating myself for the hundredth time - if you
> know who a JFK conspiracy believer hates, who he thinks ruined the

Silly. So you are so upright that youdon't hate assasins?

> country, then you'll know who they think killed JFK. And because this is

No, lots of people had motive. Juust as both the CIA and the Cuban
exiles wanted to kill Castro. So maybe they were more successful if they
worked together.

> the most studied event in US history, if you're a conspiracist then you

You mean the most covered up!

> can pore over the pieces of this giant jigsaw, pluck some out, jam them
> together and present your proof.
>

Well, it's like a jigsaw puzzle with some piece missing. Maybe you will
find those missing pieces at The Puzzle Palace.



Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 4, 2020, 9:18:29 PM7/4/20
to
Pardon me. No, that's what he said when he bumped into the President.


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 4, 2020, 9:18:31 PM7/4/20
to
Oh, so sad. You have my sympathy.
Can you guess who is the unindicted co-conspirator in the Ghislaine
Maxwell case?

McAdams will not allow me to tell you.


claviger

unread,
Jul 4, 2020, 9:33:54 PM7/4/20
to
This is a typical Left Wing tactic to silence any opposition. If a juror
lied under oath then bragged about it, there should be an automatic
mistrial. Jurors take a solemn oath to tell the truth and impartiality to
considering all the evidence as if they were the one accused of this
criminal offense. Any bragging about lying under oath should be penalized
severely to set an example to all prospective jurors.


ajohnstone

unread,
Jul 4, 2020, 11:50:53 PM7/4/20
to

"would be clear grounds for a mistrial."

Hasn't he already been there?

In April, Stone requested a new trial claiming the jury forewoman was
biased against Trump and therefore him and so petitioned for a new trial -
but the judge rejected it.

Mark

unread,
Jul 4, 2020, 11:51:10 PM7/4/20
to
We're talking about Stone getting a fair trial here, Marsh. I know,
because he's a Trump supporter, you don't care about that. No wonder they
call you Tony Baloney. Mark

Mark

unread,
Jul 5, 2020, 10:07:35 AM7/5/20
to
Yes, and that's why we have an appeals process. So a different judge can
look at it. I'm not necessarily saying Stone is innocent of the charges
against him. I'm talking about his right to a fair trial. Whether we
believe in socialism or democracy, surely we can all agree on that.

Mark


ajohnstone

unread,
Jul 5, 2020, 8:07:15 PM7/5/20
to
i have no dog in this fight.

From my reading of the case, a person of integrity would have admitted
being partisan and declined to serve on the jury.

Equally, a head of state should have kept his opinions to himself while
the trial is ongoing





Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 6, 2020, 10:25:57 AM7/6/20
to
Which Stone is crazier?

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 6, 2020, 4:12:05 PM7/6/20
to
That's not how it works here. Each juror is asked to set aside their
biases and consider only the facts.

>
>


JUDGE RHINEHOLD

unread,
Jul 7, 2020, 9:10:03 AM7/7/20
to
I don't know which one is crazier but Oliver is more Stoned than Roger.

John Corbett

unread,
Jul 7, 2020, 6:31:28 PM7/7/20
to
A clear bias for or against a defendant is grounds for dismissal from a
jury panel. The jury foreperson hid that bias from the attorneys which
seems to me to be grounds for a mistrial. The appeals courts will have the
final say on that.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 8, 2020, 1:13:40 AM7/8/20
to
Roger Stone exhibits Tardive Dyskinesia due to the mdeication he has to
rake for his paranoia. I did not notice the same thing in Oliver Stone
and I met him in person and talked to him.


0 new messages