Discussion:
Similarities between JFK and Donald Trump
Add Reply
BOZ
2019-05-08 20:01:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink

Steve M. Galbraith
2019-05-09 19:49:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/K91Zmn8KyeE
I have no idea why conservatives or even self-styled Republicans would
defend Donald Trump.

I can see why you're stunned at the anti-Trump hysteria and
sensationalism. And I can see why you'd oppose the seeming takeover of the
Democratic Party by the insane left.

But that doesn't justify defending this clearly dishonest conman we have
as President. And if you don't think he obstructed justice in the Mueller
investigation then what the heck would you call it? Does it rise to
impeachable levels of behavior? Maybe not; but it was certainly improper.
John McAdams
2019-05-09 19:51:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 9 May 2019 15:49:06 -0400, "Steve M. Galbraith"
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/K91Zmn8KyeE
I have no idea why conservatives or even self-styled Republicans would
defend Donald Trump.
I can see why you're stunned at the anti-Trump hysteria and
sensationalism. And I can see why you'd oppose the seeming takeover of the
Democratic Party by the insane left.
But that doesn't justify defending this clearly dishonest conman we have
as President. And if you don't think he obstructed justice in the Mueller
investigation then what the heck would you call it?
Pushing back against a witch hunt.

It's almost impossible for there to be "obstruction" if there is no
underlying offense.

Concealing evidence might be obstruction (if there is an underlying
offense), but going after a prosecutor who is trying to get you is
Constitutionally protected.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2019-05-10 13:39:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
On 9 May 2019 15:49:06 -0400, "Steve M. Galbraith"
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/K91Zmn8KyeE
I have no idea why conservatives or even self-styled Republicans would
defend Donald Trump.
I can see why you're stunned at the anti-Trump hysteria and
sensationalism. And I can see why you'd oppose the seeming takeover of the
Democratic Party by the insane left.
But that doesn't justify defending this clearly dishonest conman we have
as President. And if you don't think he obstructed justice in the Mueller
investigation then what the heck would you call it?
Pushing back against a witch hunt.
More Trump cover-up. Just like Watergate lots of people have already
been convicted and put in prison.
Post by John McAdams
It's almost impossible for there to be "obstruction" if there is no
underlying offense.
Well, not exactly. There may be things that he doesn't want to come out
which were not explicit crimes but he'd be embarrased by them. Need I
remind you that Nixon did not break into the Watergate? But he ordered
people to lie.

Maybe he was just covering up the Hughes loan.
Post by John McAdams
Concealing evidence might be obstruction (if there is an underlying
offense), but going after a prosecutor who is trying to get you is
Constitutionally protected.
Not when there is criminal ntent.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
2019-05-10 13:42:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 10 May 2019 09:39:14 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 9 May 2019 15:49:06 -0400, "Steve M. Galbraith"
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/K91Zmn8KyeE
I have no idea why conservatives or even self-styled Republicans would
defend Donald Trump.
I can see why you're stunned at the anti-Trump hysteria and
sensationalism. And I can see why you'd oppose the seeming takeover of the
Democratic Party by the insane left.
But that doesn't justify defending this clearly dishonest conman we have
as President. And if you don't think he obstructed justice in the Mueller
investigation then what the heck would you call it?
Pushing back against a witch hunt.
More Trump cover-up. Just like Watergate lots of people have already
been convicted and put in prison.
But none for collusion with Russia.

It's a typical prosecutor tactic: get dirt on somebody who might know
something about Trump, and try to blackmail them into implicating
Trump.

It didn't work.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
It's almost impossible for there to be "obstruction" if there is no
underlying offense.
Well, not exactly. There may be things that he doesn't want to come out
which were not explicit crimes but he'd be embarrased by them. Need I
remind you that Nixon did not break into the Watergate? But he ordered
people to lie.
That's irrelevant. Wanting to cover up something that's not a crime
in the first place is not a crime.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Maybe he was just covering up the Hughes loan.
Post by John McAdams
Concealing evidence might be obstruction (if there is an underlying
offense), but going after a prosecutor who is trying to get you is
Constitutionally protected.
Not when there is criminal ntent.
If you didn't do something illegal, pushing back against a prosecution
doesn't involve criminal intent.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2019-05-11 14:37:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
On 10 May 2019 09:39:14 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 9 May 2019 15:49:06 -0400, "Steve M. Galbraith"
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/K91Zmn8KyeE
I have no idea why conservatives or even self-styled Republicans would
defend Donald Trump.
I can see why you're stunned at the anti-Trump hysteria and
sensationalism. And I can see why you'd oppose the seeming takeover of the
Democratic Party by the insane left.
But that doesn't justify defending this clearly dishonest conman we have
as President. And if you don't think he obstructed justice in the Mueller
investigation then what the heck would you call it?
Pushing back against a witch hunt.
More Trump cover-up. Just like Watergate lots of people have already
been convicted and put in prison.
But none for collusion with Russia.
It's a typical prosecutor tactic: get dirt on somebody who might know
something about Trump, and try to blackmail them into implicating
Trump.
It didn't work.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
It's almost impossible for there to be "obstruction" if there is no
underlying offense.
Well, not exactly. There may be things that he doesn't want to come out
which were not explicit crimes but he'd be embarrased by them. Need I
remind you that Nixon did not break into the Watergate? But he ordered
people to lie.
That's irrelevant. Wanting to cover up something that's not a crime
in the first place is not a crime.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Maybe he was just covering up the Hughes loan.
Post by John McAdams
Concealing evidence might be obstruction (if there is an underlying
offense), but going after a prosecutor who is trying to get you is
Constitutionally protected.
Not when there is criminal ntent.
If you didn't do something illegal, pushing back against a prosecution
doesn't involve criminal intent.
.John
Silly. Obstruction just means interfering with a legal process. The
person might actually be innocent, but he doesn't want anyone to
investigate him.

Maybe he's covering up another crime or something embarrassing.
Post by John McAdams
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
BOZ
2019-05-11 14:43:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
On 10 May 2019 09:39:14 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 9 May 2019 15:49:06 -0400, "Steve M. Galbraith"
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/K91Zmn8KyeE
I have no idea why conservatives or even self-styled Republicans would
defend Donald Trump.
I can see why you're stunned at the anti-Trump hysteria and
sensationalism. And I can see why you'd oppose the seeming takeover of the
Democratic Party by the insane left.
But that doesn't justify defending this clearly dishonest conman we have
as President. And if you don't think he obstructed justice in the Mueller
investigation then what the heck would you call it?
Pushing back against a witch hunt.
More Trump cover-up. Just like Watergate lots of people have already
been convicted and put in prison.
But none for collusion with Russia.
It's a typical prosecutor tactic: get dirt on somebody who might know
something about Trump, and try to blackmail them into implicating
Trump.
It didn't work.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
It's almost impossible for there to be "obstruction" if there is no
underlying offense.
Well, not exactly. There may be things that he doesn't want to come out
which were not explicit crimes but he'd be embarrased by them. Need I
remind you that Nixon did not break into the Watergate? But he ordered
people to lie.
That's irrelevant. Wanting to cover up something that's not a crime
in the first place is not a crime.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Maybe he was just covering up the Hughes loan.
Post by John McAdams
Concealing evidence might be obstruction (if there is an underlying
offense), but going after a prosecutor who is trying to get you is
Constitutionally protected.
Not when there is criminal ntent.
If you didn't do something illegal, pushing back against a prosecution
doesn't involve criminal intent.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
https://combatveteransforcongress.org/story/how-nsa-director-admiral-mike-rogers-saved-us-massive-constitutional-crisis
BOZ
2019-05-11 14:43:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 9 May 2019 15:49:06 -0400, "Steve M. Galbraith"
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/K91Zmn8KyeE
I have no idea why conservatives or even self-styled Republicans would
defend Donald Trump.
I can see why you're stunned at the anti-Trump hysteria and
sensationalism. And I can see why you'd oppose the seeming takeover of the
Democratic Party by the insane left.
But that doesn't justify defending this clearly dishonest conman we have
as President. And if you don't think he obstructed justice in the Mueller
investigation then what the heck would you call it?
Pushing back against a witch hunt.
More Trump cover-up. Just like Watergate lots of people have already
been convicted and put in prison.
Post by John McAdams
It's almost impossible for there to be "obstruction" if there is no
underlying offense.
Well, not exactly. There may be things that he doesn't want to come out
which were not explicit crimes but he'd be embarrased by them. Need I
remind you that Nixon did not break into the Watergate? But he ordered
people to lie.
Maybe he was just covering up the Hughes loan.
Post by John McAdams
Concealing evidence might be obstruction (if there is an underlying
offense), but going after a prosecutor who is trying to get you is
Constitutionally protected.
Not when there is criminal ntent.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Nine days after the 2016 Presidential election Admiral Michael Rogers,
Director of the National Security Agency, informed Donald Trump of the
Obama administration's illegal wiretaps on the Trump campaign.

Sanger, David E., et al. "Top Officials Urge Obama to Remove N.S.A.
Leader." New York Times, vol. 166, no. 57422, 20 Nov. 2016, p. 27.
EBSCOhost. Categories: Obama Administration
Anthony Marsh
2019-05-12 18:02:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 9 May 2019 15:49:06 -0400, "Steve M. Galbraith"
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/K91Zmn8KyeE
I have no idea why conservatives or even self-styled Republicans would
defend Donald Trump.
I can see why you're stunned at the anti-Trump hysteria and
sensationalism. And I can see why you'd oppose the seeming takeover of the
Democratic Party by the insane left.
But that doesn't justify defending this clearly dishonest conman we have
as President. And if you don't think he obstructed justice in the Mueller
investigation then what the heck would you call it?
Pushing back against a witch hunt.
More Trump cover-up. Just like Watergate lots of people have already
been convicted and put in prison.
Post by John McAdams
It's almost impossible for there to be "obstruction" if there is no
underlying offense.
Well, not exactly. There may be things that he doesn't want to come out
which were not explicit crimes but he'd be embarrased by them. Need I
remind you that Nixon did not break into the Watergate? But he ordered
people to lie.
Maybe he was just covering up the Hughes loan.
Post by John McAdams
Concealing evidence might be obstruction (if there is an underlying
offense), but going after a prosecutor who is trying to get you is
Constitutionally protected.
Not when there is criminal ntent.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Nine days after the 2016 Presidential election Admiral Michael Rogers,
Director of the National Security Agency, informed Donald Trump of the
Obama administration's illegal wiretaps on the Trump campaign.
That is not true.
Post by BOZ
Sanger, David E., et al. "Top Officials Urge Obama to Remove N.S.A.
Leader." New York Times, vol. 166, no. 57422, 20 Nov. 2016, p. 27.
EBSCOhost. Categories: Obama Administration
BOZ
2019-05-10 02:23:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/K91Zmn8KyeE
I have no idea why conservatives or even self-styled Republicans would
defend Donald Trump.
I can see why you're stunned at the anti-Trump hysteria and
sensationalism. And I can see why you'd oppose the seeming takeover of the
Democratic Party by the insane left.
But that doesn't justify defending this clearly dishonest conman we have
as President. And if you don't think he obstructed justice in the Mueller
investigation then what the heck would you call it? Does it rise to
impeachable levels of behavior? Maybe not; but it was certainly improper.
The unemployment is the lowest in 50 years. There was no collusion. There
was no Russian conspiracy. Getting angry and tweeting is not obstruction.
Did you read the Mueller Report? I hope Trump wins in 2020.
Anthony Marsh
2019-05-11 14:37:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BOZ
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/K91Zmn8KyeE
I have no idea why conservatives or even self-styled Republicans would
defend Donald Trump.
I can see why you're stunned at the anti-Trump hysteria and
sensationalism. And I can see why you'd oppose the seeming takeover of the
Democratic Party by the insane left.
But that doesn't justify defending this clearly dishonest conman we have
as President. And if you don't think he obstructed justice in the Mueller
investigation then what the heck would you call it? Does it rise to
impeachable levels of behavior? Maybe not; but it was certainly improper.
The unemployment is the lowest in 50 years. There was no collusion. There
was no Russian conspiracy. Getting angry and tweeting is not obstruction.
Did you read the Mueller Report? I hope Trump wins in 2020.
like how you cherry pick only the good news to tell.
You don't tell the whole story.
There is no crime called collusion. That is a fictious claim.
Telling people to lie or not testify is obstruction.
JFK-WAS-ABE-Webmaster
2019-05-13 23:41:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The FBI and CIA were culpable in getting rid of JFK.

The FBI and CIA tried to get rid of Trump (phony Steele Dossier) in a soft
coup. Only this time, this president will survive and kick ass.
Anthony Marsh
2019-05-10 13:37:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/K91Zmn8KyeE
I have no idea why conservatives or even self-styled Republicans would
defend Donald Trump.
Two reasons. First, money. Second, They hate the same people that Trump
hates.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
I can see why you're stunned at the anti-Trump hysteria and
sensationalism. And I can see why you'd oppose the seeming takeover of the
Democratic Party by the insane left.
But that doesn't justify defending this clearly dishonest conman we have
as President. And if you don't think he obstructed justice in the Mueller
investigation then what the heck would you call it? Does it rise to
impeachable levels of behavior? Maybe not; but it was certainly improper.
BOZ
2019-05-10 13:43:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/K91Zmn8KyeE
I have no idea why conservatives or even self-styled Republicans would
defend Donald Trump.
I can see why you're stunned at the anti-Trump hysteria and
sensationalism. And I can see why you'd oppose the seeming takeover of the
Democratic Party by the insane left.
But that doesn't justify defending this clearly dishonest conman we have
as President. And if you don't think he obstructed justice in the Mueller
investigation then what the heck would you call it? Does it rise to
impeachable levels of behavior? Maybe not; but it was certainly improper.
Where did Mueller say that Trump obstructed justice? I read the report.
Why didn't Mueller say that Trump obstructed justice? Mueller cannot stand
Trump. Trump was set up. Trump was falsely accused. TRUMP WAS A PATSY.
BOZ
2019-05-10 14:04:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/K91Zmn8KyeE
I have no idea why conservatives or even self-styled Republicans would
defend Donald Trump.
I can see why you're stunned at the anti-Trump hysteria and
sensationalism. And I can see why you'd oppose the seeming takeover of the
Democratic Party by the insane left.
But that doesn't justify defending this clearly dishonest conman we have
as President. And if you don't think he obstructed justice in the Mueller
investigation then what the heck would you call it? Does it rise to
impeachable levels of behavior? Maybe not; but it was certainly improper.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/442944-fbis-steele-story-falls-apart-false-intel-and-media-contacts-were-flagged
Steve M. Galbraith
2019-05-11 01:45:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BOZ
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/K91Zmn8KyeE
I have no idea why conservatives or even self-styled Republicans would
defend Donald Trump.
I can see why you're stunned at the anti-Trump hysteria and
sensationalism. And I can see why you'd oppose the seeming takeover of the
Democratic Party by the insane left.
But that doesn't justify defending this clearly dishonest conman we have
as President. And if you don't think he obstructed justice in the Mueller
investigation then what the heck would you call it? Does it rise to
impeachable levels of behavior? Maybe not; but it was certainly improper.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/442944-fbis-steele-story-falls-apart-false-intel-and-media-contacts-were-flagged
Two things can be true at the same time: That is, the "collusion"
investigation was based on false or "sloppy" intelligence - maybe even
worse things - AND Trump has done things to try and obstruct the
investigation that an ordinary citizen simply couldn't do.

You can criticize both; it's not one or the other.

And I won't even mention the hundred and one other acts that Trump has
done that are irresponsible and simply not what a president should do.
This is not a morality tale - bad Trump vs. good anti-Trump OR good Trump
vs. bad anti-Trump. There is a lot of irresponsible things done by both
sides.

Yes, the anti-Trump left is worse; but that's not an excuse for him.
bigdog
2019-05-12 21:57:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BOZ
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/K91Zmn8KyeE
I have no idea why conservatives or even self-styled Republicans would
defend Donald Trump.
I can see why you're stunned at the anti-Trump hysteria and
sensationalism. And I can see why you'd oppose the seeming takeover of the
Democratic Party by the insane left.
But that doesn't justify defending this clearly dishonest conman we have
as President. And if you don't think he obstructed justice in the Mueller
investigation then what the heck would you call it? Does it rise to
impeachable levels of behavior? Maybe not; but it was certainly improper.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/442944-fbis-steele-story-falls-apart-false-intel-and-media-contacts-were-flagged
Two things can be true at the same time: That is, the "collusion"
investigation was based on false or "sloppy" intelligence - maybe even
worse things - AND Trump has done things to try and obstruct the
investigation that an ordinary citizen simply couldn't do.
If there was no collusion, what justice did he obstruct?
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
You can criticize both; it's not one or the other.
And I won't even mention the hundred and one other acts that Trump has
done that are irresponsible and simply not what a president should do.
This is not a morality tale - bad Trump vs. good anti-Trump OR good Trump
vs. bad anti-Trump. There is a lot of irresponsible things done by both
sides.
Yes, the anti-Trump left is worse; but that's not an excuse for him.
Trump has said some outrageous things but I can live with that because I
approve of most of the things he has done. While philosophically I am
opposed to tariffs, if this is a ploy to negotiate better trade terms with
the Chi-coms, it can be a good thing in the long run. I wouldn't want to
see these tariffs become permanent but that will largely be up to the
Chi-coms. A trade war is not in their best interest so I think we will see
them eventually negotiate. It is in their best interest to have our
markets open to them. They sell a lot more to us than we sell to them.
Getting better trade terms should change that.

People who understand economics know that there is no such thing as a
trade deficit. They are sending us their goods in exchange for lots of
green pieces of paper with Ben Franklin's picture on it. It would be great
for us if they would just hoard those but eventually those little green
pieces of paper will make their way back to us in exchange for our goods.
Anthony Marsh
2019-05-11 14:39:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BOZ
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/K91Zmn8KyeE
I have no idea why conservatives or even self-styled Republicans would
defend Donald Trump.
I can see why you're stunned at the anti-Trump hysteria and
sensationalism. And I can see why you'd oppose the seeming takeover of the
Democratic Party by the insane left.
But that doesn't justify defending this clearly dishonest conman we have
as President. And if you don't think he obstructed justice in the Mueller
investigation then what the heck would you call it? Does it rise to
impeachable levels of behavior? Maybe not; but it was certainly improper.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/442944-fbis-steele-story-falls-apart-false-intel-and-media-contacts-were-flagged
You probably think Nixon was innocent too. And Adolf Hitler.
Ramon F Herrera
2019-05-11 01:35:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/K91Zmn8KyeE
I have no idea why conservatives or even self-styled Republicans would
defend Donald Trump.
And I have no idea how somebody can claim to be Dem/Liberal and yet hate
the Kennedy ideas expressed in his inauguration speech:

https://vimeo.com/334193461

Then again, maybe I am misinterpreting your writings (and lack thereof).

Why don't you tell us this, Liberal Steve?

Should Caroline Kennedy support the numerical initiatives? A letter to her
is being written, asking for authorization to bring a high end film
digitizer into the sacred room. The National Archives (Gene Morris, my
designated point of contact) gave us their preliminary approval but
stipulated that if we could get at least one of your doctors (*)
cosigning, the approval is all but guaranteed. In fact, his words were:

"That is the way to do it, Mr. Herrera"

"Caroline Kennedy Hits JFK Researchers for Falling Behind in Sci+Tech"
https://vimeo.com/327802717

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

#FreeTheCranium
#FreeTheBlueprints

(*) Drs. Peter Cummings, Vincent Di Maio, Michael Baden et al.
BOZ
2019-05-11 23:18:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ramon F Herrera
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/K91Zmn8KyeE
I have no idea why conservatives or even self-styled Republicans would
defend Donald Trump.
And I have no idea how somebody can claim to be Dem/Liberal and yet hate
https://vimeo.com/334193461
Then again, maybe I am misinterpreting your writings (and lack thereof).
Why don't you tell us this, Liberal Steve?
Should Caroline Kennedy support the numerical initiatives? A letter to her
is being written, asking for authorization to bring a high end film
digitizer into the sacred room. The National Archives (Gene Morris, my
designated point of contact) gave us their preliminary approval but
stipulated that if we could get at least one of your doctors (*)
"That is the way to do it, Mr. Herrera"
"Caroline Kennedy Hits JFK Researchers for Falling Behind in Sci+Tech"
https://vimeo.com/327802717
-Ramon
JFK Numbers
#FreeTheCranium
#FreeTheBlueprints
(*) Drs. Peter Cummings, Vincent Di Maio, Michael Baden et al.
Peter Cummings, Vincent Di Maio, Michael Baden all proved that JFK was
shot from above and behind.
Anthony Marsh
2019-05-13 14:21:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BOZ
Post by Ramon F Herrera
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/K91Zmn8KyeE
I have no idea why conservatives or even self-styled Republicans would
defend Donald Trump.
And I have no idea how somebody can claim to be Dem/Liberal and yet hate
https://vimeo.com/334193461
Then again, maybe I am misinterpreting your writings (and lack thereof).
Why don't you tell us this, Liberal Steve?
Should Caroline Kennedy support the numerical initiatives? A letter to her
is being written, asking for authorization to bring a high end film
digitizer into the sacred room. The National Archives (Gene Morris, my
designated point of contact) gave us their preliminary approval but
stipulated that if we could get at least one of your doctors (*)
"That is the way to do it, Mr. Herrera"
"Caroline Kennedy Hits JFK Researchers for Falling Behind in Sci+Tech"
https://vimeo.com/327802717
-Ramon
JFK Numbers
#FreeTheCranium
#FreeTheBlueprints
(*) Drs. Peter Cummings, Vincent Di Maio, Michael Baden et al.
Peter Cummings, Vincent Di Maio, Michael Baden all proved that JFK was
shot from above and behind.
There is no bullet hole on the back of his head.
There is a bullet hole on his forehead.
So to resolve this you should make up a new theory that a shot from the
TSBD barely missed JFK and hit the chrome topping and ricocheted back
into his forehead.
Remember how Reagan was shot in the front by a shot from behind.
Ricochet off the car's frame.
r***@gmail.com
2019-05-11 23:25:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/K91Zmn8KyeE
I have no idea why conservatives or even self-styled Republicans would
defend Donald Trump.
After watching this thread evolve, what I wonder is, why does it actually
exist in this newsgroup. Doesn't really seem to be related to the JFK
assassination at all.
John McAdams
2019-05-11 23:27:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/K91Zmn8KyeE
I have no idea why conservatives or even self-styled Republicans would
defend Donald Trump.
After watching this thread evolve, what I wonder is, why does it actually
exist in this newsgroup. Doesn't really seem to be related to the JFK
assassination at all.
Well . . . I won't let a thread start that is political and has
nothing to do with JFK or the JFK assassination. But as you have
repeatedly seen, when one turns political, I tend to let it run.

But I'll tell BOZ not to post more on this thread, and I'll give
anybody who wants to respond to BOZ one post to do so, and no more.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Mark
2019-05-13 23:40:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/K91Zmn8KyeE
I have no idea why conservatives or even self-styled Republicans would
defend Donald Trump.
After watching this thread evolve, what I wonder is, why does it actually
exist in this newsgroup. Doesn't really seem to be related to the JFK
assassination at all.
Well . . . I won't let a thread start that is political and has
nothing to do with JFK or the JFK assassination. But as you have
repeatedly seen, when one turns political, I tend to let it run.
But I'll tell BOZ not to post more on this thread, and I'll give
anybody who wants to respond to BOZ one post to do so, and no more.
So you're gonna let the left-wingers get the last word in on BOZ, and THEN
you're going to shut off debate? You are indeed a terrible, one-sided
censor. Mark
Mark
2019-05-15 00:59:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark
Post by John McAdams
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/K91Zmn8KyeE
I have no idea why conservatives or even self-styled Republicans would
defend Donald Trump.
After watching this thread evolve, what I wonder is, why does it actually
exist in this newsgroup. Doesn't really seem to be related to the JFK
assassination at all.
Well . . . I won't let a thread start that is political and has
nothing to do with JFK or the JFK assassination. But as you have
repeatedly seen, when one turns political, I tend to let it run.
But I'll tell BOZ not to post more on this thread, and I'll give
anybody who wants to respond to BOZ one post to do so, and no more.
So you're gonna let the left-wingers get the last word in on BOZ, and THEN
you're going to shut off debate? You are indeed a terrible, one-sided
censor. Mark
I forgot to add this: ☺. Mark
John McAdams
2019-05-15 01:01:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark
Post by John McAdams
But I'll tell BOZ not to post more on this thread, and I'll give
anybody who wants to respond to BOZ one post to do so, and no more.
So you're gonna let the left-wingers get the last word in on BOZ, and THEN
you're going to shut off debate? You are indeed a terrible, one-sided
censor. Mark
I forgot to add this: ?. Mark
Didn't come through. :-)

But I knew you were kidding, at the expense of the leftists here who
are always screaming they are censored.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2019-05-16 00:39:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Post by Mark
Post by John McAdams
But I'll tell BOZ not to post more on this thread, and I'll give
anybody who wants to respond to BOZ one post to do so, and no more.
So you're gonna let the left-wingers get the last word in on BOZ, and THEN
you're going to shut off debate? You are indeed a terrible, one-sided
censor. Mark
I forgot to add this: ?. Mark
Didn't come through. :-)
I think he's trying to do Emojis. Yours came through just fine.
Post by John McAdams
But I knew you were kidding, at the expense of the leftists here who
are always screaming they are censored.
So you admit that you never censor rightwingers?
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2019-05-15 01:16:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark
Post by John McAdams
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/K91Zmn8KyeE
I have no idea why conservatives or even self-styled Republicans would
defend Donald Trump.
After watching this thread evolve, what I wonder is, why does it actually
exist in this newsgroup. Doesn't really seem to be related to the JFK
assassination at all.
Well . . . I won't let a thread start that is political and has
nothing to do with JFK or the JFK assassination. But as you have
repeatedly seen, when one turns political, I tend to let it run.
But I'll tell BOZ not to post more on this thread, and I'll give
anybody who wants to respond to BOZ one post to do so, and no more.
So you're gonna let the left-wingers get the last word in on BOZ, and THEN
you're going to shut off debate? You are indeed a terrible, one-sided
censor. Mark
Come on, are you really THAT Naive?
He's still allowing posts on the subject.
So that he can add his disinformation.
Anthony Marsh
2019-05-09 19:51:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/K91Zmn8KyeE
Ridiculous. False equivalency is the only trick you know. JFK was NOT a
Nazi. JFK was proud to call himself a Liberal.
claviger
2019-05-10 02:24:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/K91Zmn8KyeE
Ridiculous. False equivalency is the only trick you know.
JFK was NOT a Nazi.
Of course not, he was a Conservative Liberal. The sage wisdom
of "campaign Liberal, govern Conservative". The oldest secrete
formula in national US politics. No one did it better than JFK.
Post by Anthony Marsh
JFK was proud to call himself a Liberal.
Yes he was. Liberals back then would be called Conservatives
by today's Radical Socialist Democrats, and you know it.
Anthony Marsh
2019-05-11 14:40:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/K91Zmn8KyeE
Ridiculous. False equivalency is the only trick you know.
JFK was NOT a Nazi.
Of course not, he was a Conservative Liberal. The sage wisdom
of "campaign Liberal, govern Conservative". The oldest secrete
formula in national US politics. No one did it better than JFK.
Post by Anthony Marsh
JFK was proud to call himself a Liberal.
Yes he was. Liberals back then would be called Conservatives
by today's Radical Socialist Democrats, and you know it.
Balony. You can't try to make yourself look better by calling yourself a
Liberal. We know what you are.

Yes, there are Socialists, but only a few. Not all Democrats.
BOZ
2019-05-11 01:02:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/K91Zmn8KyeE
Ridiculous. False equivalency is the only trick you know. JFK was NOT a
Nazi. JFK was proud to call himself a Liberal.
It's already been established that you do not know the definition of NAZI.
claviger
2019-05-09 23:07:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/K91Zmn8KyeE
Both did the unexpected and both watered and fertilized
the US Economy that bloomed and boomed. Thank both
of these gutsy Presidents for doing that. They were both
were like a bottle of Vitamins to sick economies inherited
on Day One.
Anthony Marsh
2019-05-11 01:03:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/K91Zmn8KyeE
Both did the unexpected and both watered and fertilized
the US Economy that bloomed and boomed. Thank both
of these gutsy Presidents for doing that. They were both
were like a bottle of Vitamins to sick economies inherited
on Day One.
What are you mumbling about?
bigdog
2019-05-11 01:29:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/K91Zmn8KyeE
Both did the unexpected and both watered and fertilized
the US Economy that bloomed and boomed. Thank both
of these gutsy Presidents for doing that. They were both
were like a bottle of Vitamins to sick economies inherited
on Day One.
The economy that JFK inherited from Ike was hardly a sick one. The
Eisenhower years were for the most part quite prosperous for Americans.

http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch37-econ1d.htm

"Also stimulating the economy were tax dollars spent on the military
– inspired to a large degree by the Cold War. The Eisenhower years
were marked by low unemployment and low inflation. And the national debt
declined further. When Truman left office the gross federal debt was down
to around 71.4 percent of GDP; when Eisenhower left office it was down to
60.4 percent."
John McAdams
2019-05-11 23:29:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/K91Zmn8KyeE
I'll post every message in the inbox at the moment on this thread.

But nobody send any more. Any new ones will be deleted.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2019-05-13 14:22:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/K91Zmn8KyeE
I'll post every message in the inbox at the moment on this thread.
But nobody send any more. Any new ones will be deleted.
Confirming what I said before.
You allow off topic posts as long as it gives you a chance to vent your
hate. But when people challenge you, you have to shut down the thread
because you can't defend your position.
Like Reagan saying at the GOP debate, "I'm paying for this microphone."


Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Ramon F Herrera
2019-05-14 03:14:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/K91Zmn8KyeE
I'll post every message in the inbox at the moment on this thread.
But nobody send any more.  Any new ones will be deleted.
Confirming what I said before.
You allow off topic posts as long as it gives you a chance to vent your
hate. But when people challenge you, you have to shut down the thread
because you can't defend your position.
Like Reagan saying at the GOP debate, "I'm paying for this microphone."
http://youtu.be/KVHlHR5RcSg
I have a different view, Tony.

The operative force is NOT any attempt to escape from your great
swordsmanship. Prof. McAdams does not shrink from debates.

The actual reason is that Mitch Todd begged: "Be our master. Acquire
more power. Use The Force. We are your loyal subjects" (*)

Psych 101.

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

(*) Speak for yourself, Mitch.
Loading...