Discussion:
The Future and History
(too old to reply)
ajohnstone
2020-09-12 01:56:11 UTC
Permalink
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.

Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.

Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.

Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.

Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?

And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans

And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.

And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.

The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
John Corbett
2020-09-12 15:16:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
This discussion group reaches so few people that it isn't going to move
the needle of public opinion much one way or another. John McAdams
certainly has made significant contributions beyond this newsgroup through
his classes, website, book, and TV appearances. As for the rest of us
we're kidding ourselves if we think what we are doing is making a
significant difference. As I've said before, I do this for amusement only.

To most people, the JFK assassination is something that happened a long
time ago. I can't remember the last time someone brought it up in
conversation other than in this newsgroup. People have reached their
opinions regarding the question of conspiracy and most don't spend any
time re-examining their position. I suspect as people who are old enough
to remember JFK and have an emotional attachment to the assassination pass
away and become a smaller and smaller percentage of the population, the
percentage believing in a conspiracy will also get smaller. Younger people
will look at the assassination less emotionally and hopefully more
rationally and will form their beliefs based on evidence, not speculation.

The verdict of history will be that Oswald was JFK's assassin as surely as
Booth was Lincoln's assassin. There will always be doubters but without a
definitive alternative, that will be the accepted answer. You can't
replace something with nothing and nothing is what 57 years of conspiracy
hunting has produced. I don't think another 57 or 157 years is going to
change that.
donald willis
2020-09-13 00:41:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
This discussion group reaches so few people that it isn't going to move
the needle of public opinion much one way or another. John McAdams
certainly has made significant contributions beyond this newsgroup through
his classes, website, book, and TV appearances. As for the rest of us
we're kidding ourselves if we think what we are doing is making a
significant difference. As I've said before, I do this for amusement only.
Yes, certainly, the shooting of JFK was very amusing. The title of this
"conversation", however, is alt.assassination.jfk, not
alt.morbidamusement.jfk. You and Bud (who has said much the same thing)
are self-described dilettantes. No wonder you'll throw out just
anything--no matter how preposterous--as you have in the "Don Willis'
dilemma" thread here. It's just good fun playing with the poor,
over--serious ninnies who are actually in this to get to the root of
11/22/63. (I know, I know--the case was over and done with on 11/22/63.)
It is good, however, that you freely and publicly admit that you are less
interested in truth than in "amusement". And I kinda hate that I am
providing you more amusement now by writing this. I may as well provide
you with the beginning of your response, too:

[chuckle]

dcw
John Corbett
2020-09-13 10:56:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
This discussion group reaches so few people that it isn't going to move
the needle of public opinion much one way or another. John McAdams
certainly has made significant contributions beyond this newsgroup through
his classes, website, book, and TV appearances. As for the rest of us
we're kidding ourselves if we think what we are doing is making a
significant difference. As I've said before, I do this for amusement only.
Yes, certainly, the shooting of JFK was very amusing. The title of this
"conversation", however, is alt.assassination.jfk, not
alt.morbidamusement.jfk. You and Bud (who has said much the same thing)
are self-described dilettantes. No wonder you'll throw out just
anything--no matter how preposterous--as you have in the "Don Willis'
dilemma" thread here. It's just good fun playing with the poor,
over--serious ninnies who are actually in this to get to the root of
11/22/63. (I know, I know--the case was over and done with on 11/22/63.)
It is good, however, that you freely and publicly admit that you are less
interested in truth than in "amusement". And I kinda hate that I am
providing you more amusement now by writing this. I may as well provide
[chuckle]
I already know the truth. Have for many decades. That's why I am amused by
people who can't figure out something so simple.
Steven M. Galbraith
2020-09-13 22:25:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
This discussion group reaches so few people that it isn't going to move
the needle of public opinion much one way or another. John McAdams
certainly has made significant contributions beyond this newsgroup through
his classes, website, book, and TV appearances. As for the rest of us
we're kidding ourselves if we think what we are doing is making a
significant difference. As I've said before, I do this for amusement only.
Yes, certainly, the shooting of JFK was very amusing. The title of this
"conversation", however, is alt.assassination.jfk, not
alt.morbidamusement.jfk. You and Bud (who has said much the same thing)
are self-described dilettantes. No wonder you'll throw out just
anything--no matter how preposterous--as you have in the "Don Willis'
dilemma" thread here. It's just good fun playing with the poor,
over--serious ninnies who are actually in this to get to the root of
11/22/63. (I know, I know--the case was over and done with on 11/22/63.)
It is good, however, that you freely and publicly admit that you are less
interested in truth than in "amusement". And I kinda hate that I am
providing you more amusement now by writing this. I may as well provide
[chuckle]
I already know the truth. Have for many decades. That's why I am amused by
people who can't figure out something so simple.
You've made it quite clear that you find the conspiracy advocates and
their theories "amusing" NOT the assassination or murder of JFK amusing.
John Corbett
2020-09-14 03:12:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
This discussion group reaches so few people that it isn't going to move
the needle of public opinion much one way or another. John McAdams
certainly has made significant contributions beyond this newsgroup through
his classes, website, book, and TV appearances. As for the rest of us
we're kidding ourselves if we think what we are doing is making a
significant difference. As I've said before, I do this for amusement only.
Yes, certainly, the shooting of JFK was very amusing. The title of this
"conversation", however, is alt.assassination.jfk, not
alt.morbidamusement.jfk. You and Bud (who has said much the same thing)
are self-described dilettantes. No wonder you'll throw out just
anything--no matter how preposterous--as you have in the "Don Willis'
dilemma" thread here. It's just good fun playing with the poor,
over--serious ninnies who are actually in this to get to the root of
11/22/63. (I know, I know--the case was over and done with on 11/22/63.)
It is good, however, that you freely and publicly admit that you are less
interested in truth than in "amusement". And I kinda hate that I am
providing you more amusement now by writing this. I may as well provide
[chuckle]
I already know the truth. Have for many decades. That's why I am amused by
people who can't figure out something so simple.
You've made it quite clear that you find the conspiracy advocates and
their theories "amusing" NOT the assassination or murder of JFK amusing.
It's kind of like the people who accuse Trump of calling the pandemic a
hoax when in reality he called attempts to politicize it a hoax.
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-15 02:39:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
This discussion group reaches so few people that it isn't going to move
the needle of public opinion much one way or another. John McAdams
certainly has made significant contributions beyond this newsgroup through
his classes, website, book, and TV appearances. As for the rest of us
we're kidding ourselves if we think what we are doing is making a
significant difference. As I've said before, I do this for amusement only.
Yes, certainly, the shooting of JFK was very amusing. The title of this
"conversation", however, is alt.assassination.jfk, not
alt.morbidamusement.jfk. You and Bud (who has said much the same thing)
are self-described dilettantes. No wonder you'll throw out just
anything--no matter how preposterous--as you have in the "Don Willis'
dilemma" thread here. It's just good fun playing with the poor,
over--serious ninnies who are actually in this to get to the root of
11/22/63. (I know, I know--the case was over and done with on 11/22/63.)
It is good, however, that you freely and publicly admit that you are less
interested in truth than in "amusement". And I kinda hate that I am
providing you more amusement now by writing this. I may as well provide
[chuckle]
I already know the truth. Have for many decades. That's why I am amused by
people who can't figure out something so simple.
You've made it quite clear that you find the conspiracy advocates and
their theories "amusing" NOT the assassination or murder of JFK amusing.
It's kind of like the people who accuse Trump of calling the pandemic a
hoax when in reality he called attempts to politicize it a hoax.
Maybe where you live you don't have TV service, but where I live I watched
him live on TV call the Coronavirus a hoax. He did not say any ot the
words you just aid he said. You are trying to put lipstick on a pig to
make it look better, but it's still a pig. All Trump does is lie and you
always support that.
John Corbett
2020-09-15 14:13:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
This discussion group reaches so few people that it isn't going to move
the needle of public opinion much one way or another. John McAdams
certainly has made significant contributions beyond this newsgroup through
his classes, website, book, and TV appearances. As for the rest of us
we're kidding ourselves if we think what we are doing is making a
significant difference. As I've said before, I do this for amusement only.
Yes, certainly, the shooting of JFK was very amusing. The title of this
"conversation", however, is alt.assassination.jfk, not
alt.morbidamusement.jfk. You and Bud (who has said much the same thing)
are self-described dilettantes. No wonder you'll throw out just
anything--no matter how preposterous--as you have in the "Don Willis'
dilemma" thread here. It's just good fun playing with the poor,
over--serious ninnies who are actually in this to get to the root of
11/22/63. (I know, I know--the case was over and done with on 11/22/63.)
It is good, however, that you freely and publicly admit that you are less
interested in truth than in "amusement". And I kinda hate that I am
providing you more amusement now by writing this. I may as well provide
[chuckle]
I already know the truth. Have for many decades. That's why I am amused by
people who can't figure out something so simple.
You've made it quite clear that you find the conspiracy advocates and
their theories "amusing" NOT the assassination or murder of JFK amusing.
It's kind of like the people who accuse Trump of calling the pandemic a
hoax when in reality he called attempts to politicize it a hoax.
Maybe where you live you don't have TV service, but where I live I watched
him live on TV call the Coronavirus a hoax.
No he didn't. You are making that up just like all the fake news
organizations that have reported he did. If he had called the virus a
hoax, there would be lots of YouTube videos showing that. Of course there
are none because he never said that.
Post by Anthony Marsh
He did not say any ot the
words you just aid he said. You are trying to put lipstick on a pig to
make it look better, but it's still a pig. All Trump does is lie and you
always support that.
When you find a video of Trump calling the virus a hoax, get back to us.
Until then we can ignore everything you have to say on this subject. The
Washington Post reporter who first started that false narrative in a tweet
took down that tweet and apologized for having said it but that hasn't
stopped the fake news organization from perpetuating that lie or stopped
their leftist sheep from believing it.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/reporter-apologizes-and-deletes-tweet-claiming-trump-called-coronavirus-a-hoax
Bud
2020-09-15 21:10:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
This discussion group reaches so few people that it isn't going to move
the needle of public opinion much one way or another. John McAdams
certainly has made significant contributions beyond this newsgroup through
his classes, website, book, and TV appearances. As for the rest of us
we're kidding ourselves if we think what we are doing is making a
significant difference. As I've said before, I do this for amusement only.
Yes, certainly, the shooting of JFK was very amusing. The title of this
"conversation", however, is alt.assassination.jfk, not
alt.morbidamusement.jfk. You and Bud (who has said much the same thing)
are self-described dilettantes. No wonder you'll throw out just
anything--no matter how preposterous--as you have in the "Don Willis'
dilemma" thread here. It's just good fun playing with the poor,
over--serious ninnies who are actually in this to get to the root of
11/22/63. (I know, I know--the case was over and done with on 11/22/63.)
It is good, however, that you freely and publicly admit that you are less
interested in truth than in "amusement". And I kinda hate that I am
providing you more amusement now by writing this. I may as well provide
[chuckle]
I already know the truth. Have for many decades. That's why I am amused by
people who can't figure out something so simple.
You've made it quite clear that you find the conspiracy advocates and
their theories "amusing" NOT the assassination or murder of JFK amusing.
It's kind of like the people who accuse Trump of calling the pandemic a
hoax when in reality he called attempts to politicize it a hoax.
Maybe where you live you don't have TV service, but where I live I watched
him live on TV call the Coronavirus a hoax.
No he didn't. You are making that up just like all the fake news
organizations that have reported he did. If he had called the virus a
hoax, there would be lots of YouTube videos showing that. Of course there
are none because he never said that.
Post by Anthony Marsh
He did not say any ot the
words you just aid he said. You are trying to put lipstick on a pig to
make it look better, but it's still a pig. All Trump does is lie and you
always support that.
When you find a video of Trump calling the virus a hoax, get back to us.
Until then we can ignore everything you have to say on this subject. The
Washington Post reporter who first started that false narrative in a tweet
took down that tweet and apologized for having said it but that hasn't
stopped the fake news organization from perpetuating that lie or stopped
their leftist sheep from believing it.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/reporter-apologizes-and-deletes-tweet-claiming-trump-called-coronavirus-a-hoax
The left never lets go of a good false narrative.
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-17 13:47:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
This discussion group reaches so few people that it isn't going to move
the needle of public opinion much one way or another. John McAdams
certainly has made significant contributions beyond this newsgroup through
his classes, website, book, and TV appearances. As for the rest of us
we're kidding ourselves if we think what we are doing is making a
significant difference. As I've said before, I do this for amusement only.
Yes, certainly, the shooting of JFK was very amusing. The title of this
"conversation", however, is alt.assassination.jfk, not
alt.morbidamusement.jfk. You and Bud (who has said much the same thing)
are self-described dilettantes. No wonder you'll throw out just
anything--no matter how preposterous--as you have in the "Don Willis'
dilemma" thread here. It's just good fun playing with the poor,
over--serious ninnies who are actually in this to get to the root of
11/22/63. (I know, I know--the case was over and done with on 11/22/63.)
It is good, however, that you freely and publicly admit that you are less
interested in truth than in "amusement". And I kinda hate that I am
providing you more amusement now by writing this. I may as well provide
[chuckle]
I already know the truth. Have for many decades. That's why I am amused by
people who can't figure out something so simple.
You've made it quite clear that you find the conspiracy advocates and
their theories "amusing" NOT the assassination or murder of JFK amusing.
It's kind of like the people who accuse Trump of calling the pandemic a
hoax when in reality he called attempts to politicize it a hoax.
Maybe where you live you don't have TV service, but where I live I watched
him live on TV call the Coronavirus a hoax.
No he didn't. You are making that up just like all the fake news
organizations that have reported he did. If he had called the virus a
hoax, there would be lots of YouTube videos showing that. Of course there
are none because he never said that.
Post by Anthony Marsh
He did not say any ot the
words you just aid he said. You are trying to put lipstick on a pig to
make it look better, but it's still a pig. All Trump does is lie and you
always support that.
When you find a video of Trump calling the virus a hoax, get back to us.
Until then we can ignore everything you have to say on this subject. The
Washington Post reporter who first started that false narrative in a tweet
took down that tweet and apologized for having said it but that hasn't
stopped the fake news organization from perpetuating that lie or stopped
their leftist sheep from believing it.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/reporter-apologizes-and-deletes-tweet-claiming-trump-called-coronavirus-a-hoax
The left never lets go of a good false narrative.
Can you see the video? Can you understand his words?
Bud
2020-09-18 02:31:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
This discussion group reaches so few people that it isn't going to move
the needle of public opinion much one way or another. John McAdams
certainly has made significant contributions beyond this newsgroup through
his classes, website, book, and TV appearances. As for the rest of us
we're kidding ourselves if we think what we are doing is making a
significant difference. As I've said before, I do this for amusement only.
Yes, certainly, the shooting of JFK was very amusing. The title of this
"conversation", however, is alt.assassination.jfk, not
alt.morbidamusement.jfk. You and Bud (who has said much the same thing)
are self-described dilettantes. No wonder you'll throw out just
anything--no matter how preposterous--as you have in the "Don Willis'
dilemma" thread here. It's just good fun playing with the poor,
over--serious ninnies who are actually in this to get to the root of
11/22/63. (I know, I know--the case was over and done with on 11/22/63.)
It is good, however, that you freely and publicly admit that you are less
interested in truth than in "amusement". And I kinda hate that I am
providing you more amusement now by writing this. I may as well provide
[chuckle]
I already know the truth. Have for many decades. That's why I am amused by
people who can't figure out something so simple.
You've made it quite clear that you find the conspiracy advocates and
their theories "amusing" NOT the assassination or murder of JFK amusing.
It's kind of like the people who accuse Trump of calling the pandemic a
hoax when in reality he called attempts to politicize it a hoax.
Maybe where you live you don't have TV service, but where I live I watched
him live on TV call the Coronavirus a hoax.
No he didn't. You are making that up just like all the fake news
organizations that have reported he did. If he had called the virus a
hoax, there would be lots of YouTube videos showing that. Of course there
are none because he never said that.
Post by Anthony Marsh
He did not say any ot the
words you just aid he said. You are trying to put lipstick on a pig to
make it look better, but it's still a pig. All Trump does is lie and you
always support that.
When you find a video of Trump calling the virus a hoax, get back to us.
Until then we can ignore everything you have to say on this subject. The
Washington Post reporter who first started that false narrative in a tweet
took down that tweet and apologized for having said it but that hasn't
stopped the fake news organization from perpetuating that lie or stopped
their leftist sheep from believing it.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/reporter-apologizes-and-deletes-tweet-claiming-trump-called-coronavirus-a-hoax
The left never lets go of a good false narrative.
Can you see the video? Can you understand his words?
I can. Since I can follow a discussion I can determine that the subject
that Trump was talking about was Democrats, not the Coronavirus.

Can you figure out that the subject that being dicussed was Democrats,
not the C
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-20 04:14:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
This discussion group reaches so few people that it isn't going to move
the needle of public opinion much one way or another. John McAdams
certainly has made significant contributions beyond this newsgroup through
his classes, website, book, and TV appearances. As for the rest of us
we're kidding ourselves if we think what we are doing is making a
significant difference. As I've said before, I do this for amusement only.
Yes, certainly, the shooting of JFK was very amusing. The title of this
"conversation", however, is alt.assassination.jfk, not
alt.morbidamusement.jfk. You and Bud (who has said much the same thing)
are self-described dilettantes. No wonder you'll throw out just
anything--no matter how preposterous--as you have in the "Don Willis'
dilemma" thread here. It's just good fun playing with the poor,
over--serious ninnies who are actually in this to get to the root of
11/22/63. (I know, I know--the case was over and done with on 11/22/63.)
It is good, however, that you freely and publicly admit that you are less
interested in truth than in "amusement". And I kinda hate that I am
providing you more amusement now by writing this. I may as well provide
[chuckle]
I already know the truth. Have for many decades. That's why I am amused by
people who can't figure out something so simple.
You've made it quite clear that you find the conspiracy advocates and
their theories "amusing" NOT the assassination or murder of JFK amusing.
It's kind of like the people who accuse Trump of calling the pandemic a
hoax when in reality he called attempts to politicize it a hoax.
Maybe where you live you don't have TV service, but where I live I watched
him live on TV call the Coronavirus a hoax.
No he didn't. You are making that up just like all the fake news
organizations that have reported he did. If he had called the virus a
hoax, there would be lots of YouTube videos showing that. Of course there
are none because he never said that.
Post by Anthony Marsh
He did not say any ot the
words you just aid he said. You are trying to put lipstick on a pig to
make it look better, but it's still a pig. All Trump does is lie and you
always support that.
When you find a video of Trump calling the virus a hoax, get back to us.
Until then we can ignore everything you have to say on this subject. The
Washington Post reporter who first started that false narrative in a tweet
took down that tweet and apologized for having said it but that hasn't
stopped the fake news organization from perpetuating that lie or stopped
their leftist sheep from believing it.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/reporter-apologizes-and-deletes-tweet-claiming-trump-called-coronavirus-a-hoax
The left never lets go of a good false narrative.
Can you see the video? Can you understand his words?
I can. Since I can follow a discussion I can determine that the subject
that Trump was talking about was Democrats, not the Coronavirus.
No, you can't. You don't make any sense. He did not say that the
Deemocrats are a hoax. He said their Coronavirus is a hoax.

Go back to kindergarten and learn English.
Post by Bud
Can you figure out that the subject that being dicussed was Democrats,
not the C
? Typo? You meant to type Coronavirus?
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-16 02:40:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
This discussion group reaches so few people that it isn't going to move
the needle of public opinion much one way or another. John McAdams
certainly has made significant contributions beyond this newsgroup through
his classes, website, book, and TV appearances. As for the rest of us
we're kidding ourselves if we think what we are doing is making a
significant difference. As I've said before, I do this for amusement only.
Yes, certainly, the shooting of JFK was very amusing. The title of this
"conversation", however, is alt.assassination.jfk, not
alt.morbidamusement.jfk. You and Bud (who has said much the same thing)
are self-described dilettantes. No wonder you'll throw out just
anything--no matter how preposterous--as you have in the "Don Willis'
dilemma" thread here. It's just good fun playing with the poor,
over--serious ninnies who are actually in this to get to the root of
11/22/63. (I know, I know--the case was over and done with on 11/22/63.)
It is good, however, that you freely and publicly admit that you are less
interested in truth than in "amusement". And I kinda hate that I am
providing you more amusement now by writing this. I may as well provide
[chuckle]
I already know the truth. Have for many decades. That's why I am amused by
people who can't figure out something so simple.
You've made it quite clear that you find the conspiracy advocates and
their theories "amusing" NOT the assassination or murder of JFK amusing.
It's kind of like the people who accuse Trump of calling the pandemic a
hoax when in reality he called attempts to politicize it a hoax.
Maybe where you live you don't have TV service, but where I live I watched
him live on TV call the Coronavirus a hoax.
No he didn't. You are making that up just like all the fake news
Well, you have an advantage that most of the Fox morons don't. You can
click on a link or Google it and see for yourself what he said.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-calls-coronavirus-democrats-new-hoax-n1145721

But you won't. Once you area Trump supporter you deny everything.
You can't admit any facts.
Post by John Corbett
organizations that have reported he did. If he had called the virus a
hoax, there would be lots of YouTube videos showing that. Of course there
are none because he never said that.
You only need one. not lots. I posted it and still you deny it.
You even deny your own name.
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
He did not say any ot the
words you just aid he said. You are trying to put lipstick on a pig to
make it look better, but it's still a pig. All Trump does is lie and you
always support that.
When you find a video of Trump calling the virus a hoax, get back to us.
I just did and you still deny it.
Deny, deny, deny.
Post by John Corbett
Until then we can ignore everything you have to say on this subject. The
YOU aloways ignore everything.
Post by John Corbett
Washington Post reporter who first started that false narrative in a tweet
Go Tweet yourself. I didn't say anything about a Tweet. I say it live on
TV. I posted the clip for you. And still you deny it.
You even deny gravity. You call it a Demorat hoax.
Post by John Corbett
took down that tweet and apologized for having said it but that hasn't
stopped the fake news organization from perpetuating that lie or stopped
their leftist sheep from believing it.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/reporter-apologizes-and-deletes-tweet-claiming-trump-called-coronavirus-a-hoax
Forget him. Stick to the facts. Look at the clip.
Bud
2020-09-16 16:40:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
This discussion group reaches so few people that it isn't going to move
the needle of public opinion much one way or another. John McAdams
certainly has made significant contributions beyond this newsgroup through
his classes, website, book, and TV appearances. As for the rest of us
we're kidding ourselves if we think what we are doing is making a
significant difference. As I've said before, I do this for amusement only.
Yes, certainly, the shooting of JFK was very amusing. The title of this
"conversation", however, is alt.assassination.jfk, not
alt.morbidamusement.jfk. You and Bud (who has said much the same thing)
are self-described dilettantes. No wonder you'll throw out just
anything--no matter how preposterous--as you have in the "Don Willis'
dilemma" thread here. It's just good fun playing with the poor,
over--serious ninnies who are actually in this to get to the root of
11/22/63. (I know, I know--the case was over and done with on 11/22/63.)
It is good, however, that you freely and publicly admit that you are less
interested in truth than in "amusement". And I kinda hate that I am
providing you more amusement now by writing this. I may as well provide
[chuckle]
I already know the truth. Have for many decades. That's why I am amused by
people who can't figure out something so simple.
You've made it quite clear that you find the conspiracy advocates and
their theories "amusing" NOT the assassination or murder of JFK amusing.
It's kind of like the people who accuse Trump of calling the pandemic a
hoax when in reality he called attempts to politicize it a hoax.
Maybe where you live you don't have TV service, but where I live I watched
him live on TV call the Coronavirus a hoax.
No he didn't. You are making that up just like all the fake news
Well, you have an advantage that most of the Fox morons don't. You can
click on a link or Google it and see for yourself what he said.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-calls-coronavirus-democrats-new-hoax-n1145721
Your own source proves you wrong.

“Now the Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus,”
Trump said.

He is saying the Democrats treatment of the virus was a hoax. Your
article goes on to say...

"My administration has taken the most aggressive acts in history to
prevent the spread in the United States," Trump said..."

Why would he be taking action against a hoax? Your false narrative makes
no sense, but you`ll still cling to it.

Interesting part of the article was this...

"Trump has weaponized the word “hoax” throughout his
presidency, using it to belittle and discredit former special counsel
Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian election interference as well
as his impeachment trial."

They were both hoaxes, so apparently telling the truth is considered
weaponizing language by the main stream media.
Post by Anthony Marsh
But you won't. Once you area Trump supporter you deny everything.
You can't admit any facts.
You don`t seem to understand the information.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
organizations that have reported he did. If he had called the virus a
hoax, there would be lots of YouTube videos showing that. Of course there
are none because he never said that.
You only need one. not lots. I posted it and still you deny it.
You even deny your own name.
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
He did not say any ot the
words you just aid he said. You are trying to put lipstick on a pig to
make it look better, but it's still a pig. All Trump does is lie and you
always support that.
When you find a video of Trump calling the virus a hoax, get back to us.
I just did and you still deny it.
Deny, deny, deny.
Post by John Corbett
Until then we can ignore everything you have to say on this subject. The
YOU aloways ignore everything.
Post by John Corbett
Washington Post reporter who first started that false narrative in a tweet
Go Tweet yourself. I didn't say anything about a Tweet. I say it live on
TV. I posted the clip for you. And still you deny it.
You even deny gravity. You call it a Demorat hoax.
Post by John Corbett
took down that tweet and apologized for having said it but that hasn't
stopped the fake news organization from perpetuating that lie or stopped
their leftist sheep from believing it.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/reporter-apologizes-and-deletes-tweet-claiming-trump-called-coronavirus-a-hoax
Forget him. Stick to the facts. Look at the clip.
John Corbett
2020-09-16 16:41:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
This discussion group reaches so few people that it isn't going to move
the needle of public opinion much one way or another. John McAdams
certainly has made significant contributions beyond this newsgroup through
his classes, website, book, and TV appearances. As for the rest of us
we're kidding ourselves if we think what we are doing is making a
significant difference. As I've said before, I do this for amusement only.
Yes, certainly, the shooting of JFK was very amusing. The title of this
"conversation", however, is alt.assassination.jfk, not
alt.morbidamusement.jfk. You and Bud (who has said much the same thing)
are self-described dilettantes. No wonder you'll throw out just
anything--no matter how preposterous--as you have in the "Don Willis'
dilemma" thread here. It's just good fun playing with the poor,
over--serious ninnies who are actually in this to get to the root of
11/22/63. (I know, I know--the case was over and done with on 11/22/63.)
It is good, however, that you freely and publicly admit that you are less
interested in truth than in "amusement". And I kinda hate that I am
providing you more amusement now by writing this. I may as well provide
[chuckle]
I already know the truth. Have for many decades. That's why I am amused by
people who can't figure out something so simple.
You've made it quite clear that you find the conspiracy advocates and
their theories "amusing" NOT the assassination or murder of JFK amusing.
It's kind of like the people who accuse Trump of calling the pandemic a
hoax when in reality he called attempts to politicize it a hoax.
Maybe where you live you don't have TV service, but where I live I watched
him live on TV call the Coronavirus a hoax.
No he didn't. You are making that up just like all the fake news
Well, you have an advantage that most of the Fox morons don't. You can
click on a link or Google it and see for yourself what he said.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-calls-coronavirus-democrats-new-hoax-n1145721
But you won't. Once you area Trump supporter you deny everything.
You can't admit any facts.
Do you ever bother to read the things you post. If you had, you would have
seen the story confirms what I wrote. It doesn't refute it.

Here's what I wrote:

"It's kind of like the people who accuse Trump of calling the pandemic
hoax when in reality he called attempts to politicize it a hoax."

This is the opening paragraph of the NBC story:

" President Donald Trump accused Democrats of
“politicizing” the deadly coronavirus during a campaign
rally here on Friday, claiming that the outbreak is “their new
hoax” as he continued to downplay the risk in the U.S."

It is the politicization of the pandemic that he called a hoax, not the
pandemic itself. Of course if you just read the headline, which is
apparently all you did, you would think he called the pandemic a hoax. NBC
also snipped the phrase "their new hoax" out of context to try to create
the false narrative that he called the pandemic a hoax. It is always a red
flag to me when someone snips just a phrase rather than quoting the entire
sentence or paragraph. It is almost always and attempt to create a false
impression with the reader.

I have always said the most despicable lies are half truths and Lauren
Egan, the writer of this hit piece, is a despicable liar.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
organizations that have reported he did. If he had called the virus a
hoax, there would be lots of YouTube videos showing that. Of course there
are none because he never said that.
You only need one. not lots. I posted it and still you deny it.
You even deny your own name.
What you posted confirms what I said. You can't quote Trump calling the
pandemic a hoax because he never said that. That is a lie which the fakes
news organizations like NBC, CNN, the New York Times, and the Washington
Post have promoted in their efforts to get Trump defeated this November.
Their bias couldn't be more naked.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
He did not say any ot the
words you just aid he said. You are trying to put lipstick on a pig to
make it look better, but it's still a pig. All Trump does is lie and you
always support that.
When you find a video of Trump calling the virus a hoax, get back to us.
I just did and you still deny it.
Deny, deny, deny.
You posted no such thing. You posted a confirmation of what I said.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Until then we can ignore everything you have to say on this subject. The
YOU aloways ignore everything.
Post by John Corbett
Washington Post reporter who first started that false narrative in a tweet
Go Tweet yourself. I didn't say anything about a Tweet. I say it live on
TV. I posted the clip for you. And still you deny it.
You even deny gravity. You call it a Demorat hoax.
Just because you believe the fake news stories doesn't mean the rest of us
are as gullible. If you would have watched the video you posted, you would
see he called the politicization the Democrats' new hoax after their
Russia hoax and the impeachment hoax. He never denied the pandemic was
real. He acknowledged that we would lose people to the virus. As did
everybody at the time, he didn't realize how bad it would get, but he
didn't say it wasn't real.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
took down that tweet and apologized for having said it but that hasn't
stopped the fake news organization from perpetuating that lie or stopped
their leftist sheep from believing it.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/reporter-apologizes-and-deletes-tweet-claiming-trump-called-coronavirus-a-hoax
Forget him. Stick to the facts. Look at the clip.
I did. You apparently didn't. That's why I know what it says and you
don't.
Bud
2020-09-17 03:10:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
This discussion group reaches so few people that it isn't going to move
the needle of public opinion much one way or another. John McAdams
certainly has made significant contributions beyond this newsgroup through
his classes, website, book, and TV appearances. As for the rest of us
we're kidding ourselves if we think what we are doing is making a
significant difference. As I've said before, I do this for amusement only.
Yes, certainly, the shooting of JFK was very amusing. The title of this
"conversation", however, is alt.assassination.jfk, not
alt.morbidamusement.jfk. You and Bud (who has said much the same thing)
are self-described dilettantes. No wonder you'll throw out just
anything--no matter how preposterous--as you have in the "Don Willis'
dilemma" thread here. It's just good fun playing with the poor,
over--serious ninnies who are actually in this to get to the root of
11/22/63. (I know, I know--the case was over and done with on 11/22/63.)
It is good, however, that you freely and publicly admit that you are less
interested in truth than in "amusement". And I kinda hate that I am
providing you more amusement now by writing this. I may as well provide
[chuckle]
I already know the truth. Have for many decades. That's why I am amused by
people who can't figure out something so simple.
You've made it quite clear that you find the conspiracy advocates and
their theories "amusing" NOT the assassination or murder of JFK amusing.
It's kind of like the people who accuse Trump of calling the pandemic a
hoax when in reality he called attempts to politicize it a hoax.
Maybe where you live you don't have TV service, but where I live I watched
him live on TV call the Coronavirus a hoax.
No he didn't. You are making that up just like all the fake news
Well, you have an advantage that most of the Fox morons don't. You can
click on a link or Google it and see for yourself what he said.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-calls-coronavirus-democrats-new-hoax-n1145721
But you won't. Once you area Trump supporter you deny everything.
You can't admit any facts.
Do you ever bother to read the things you post. If you had, you would have
seen the story confirms what I wrote. It doesn't refute it.
Just like Tony can`t follow a discussion here, he can`t follow an
article he reads. The topic was *never* the Coronavirus.
Post by John Corbett
"It's kind of like the people who accuse Trump of calling the pandemic
hoax when in reality he called attempts to politicize it a hoax."
" President Donald Trump accused Democrats of
“politicizing” the deadly coronavirus during a campaign
rally here on Friday, claiming that the outbreak is “their new
hoax” as he continued to downplay the risk in the U.S."
It is the politicization of the pandemic that he called a hoax, not the
pandemic itself. Of course if you just read the headline, which is
apparently all you did, you would think he called the pandemic a hoax. NBC
also snipped the phrase "their new hoax" out of context to try to create
the false narrative that he called the pandemic a hoax. It is always a red
flag to me when someone snips just a phrase rather than quoting the entire
sentence or paragraph. It is almost always and attempt to create a false
impression with the reader.
I have always said the most despicable lies are half truths and Lauren
Egan, the writer of this hit piece, is a despicable liar.
More leftist lies exposed. I don`t think they can tell the truth....


Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
organizations that have reported he did. If he had called the virus a
hoax, there would be lots of YouTube videos showing that. Of course there
are none because he never said that.
You only need one. not lots. I posted it and still you deny it.
You even deny your own name.
What you posted confirms what I said. You can't quote Trump calling the
pandemic a hoax because he never said that. That is a lie which the fakes
news organizations like NBC, CNN, the New York Times, and the Washington
Post have promoted in their efforts to get Trump defeated this November.
Their bias couldn't be more naked.
They literally think this is their job, to try to prevent Trump from
being re-elected. Every headline, every article is with that goal in mind,
they have abandoned any pretext of covering the news.
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
He did not say any ot the
words you just aid he said. You are trying to put lipstick on a pig to
make it look better, but it's still a pig. All Trump does is lie and you
always support that.
When you find a video of Trump calling the virus a hoax, get back to us.
I just did and you still deny it.
Deny, deny, deny.
You posted no such thing. You posted a confirmation of what I said.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Until then we can ignore everything you have to say on this subject. The
YOU aloways ignore everything.
Post by John Corbett
Washington Post reporter who first started that false narrative in a tweet
Go Tweet yourself. I didn't say anything about a Tweet. I say it live on
TV. I posted the clip for you. And still you deny it.
You even deny gravity. You call it a Demorat hoax.
Just because you believe the fake news stories doesn't mean the rest of us
are as gullible. If you would have watched the video you posted, you would
see he called the politicization the Democrats' new hoax after their
Russia hoax and the impeachment hoax. He never denied the pandemic was
real. He acknowledged that we would lose people to the virus. As did
everybody at the time, he didn't realize how bad it would get, but he
didn't say it wasn't real.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
took down that tweet and apologized for having said it but that hasn't
stopped the fake news organization from perpetuating that lie or stopped
their leftist sheep from believing it.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/reporter-apologizes-and-deletes-tweet-claiming-trump-called-coronavirus-a-hoax
Forget him. Stick to the facts. Look at the clip.
I did. You apparently didn't. That's why I know what it says and you
don't.
John Corbett
2020-09-17 16:07:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
This discussion group reaches so few people that it isn't going to move
the needle of public opinion much one way or another. John McAdams
certainly has made significant contributions beyond this newsgroup through
his classes, website, book, and TV appearances. As for the rest of us
we're kidding ourselves if we think what we are doing is making a
significant difference. As I've said before, I do this for amusement only.
Yes, certainly, the shooting of JFK was very amusing. The title of this
"conversation", however, is alt.assassination.jfk, not
alt.morbidamusement.jfk. You and Bud (who has said much the same thing)
are self-described dilettantes. No wonder you'll throw out just
anything--no matter how preposterous--as you have in the "Don Willis'
dilemma" thread here. It's just good fun playing with the poor,
over--serious ninnies who are actually in this to get to the root of
11/22/63. (I know, I know--the case was over and done with on 11/22/63.)
It is good, however, that you freely and publicly admit that you are less
interested in truth than in "amusement". And I kinda hate that I am
providing you more amusement now by writing this. I may as well provide
[chuckle]
I already know the truth. Have for many decades. That's why I am amused by
people who can't figure out something so simple.
You've made it quite clear that you find the conspiracy advocates and
their theories "amusing" NOT the assassination or murder of JFK amusing.
It's kind of like the people who accuse Trump of calling the pandemic a
hoax when in reality he called attempts to politicize it a hoax.
Maybe where you live you don't have TV service, but where I live I watched
him live on TV call the Coronavirus a hoax.
No he didn't. You are making that up just like all the fake news
Well, you have an advantage that most of the Fox morons don't. You can
click on a link or Google it and see for yourself what he said.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-calls-coronavirus-democrats-new-hoax-n1145721
But you won't. Once you area Trump supporter you deny everything.
You can't admit any facts.
Do you ever bother to read the things you post. If you had, you would have
seen the story confirms what I wrote. It doesn't refute it.
Just like Tony can`t follow a discussion here, he can`t follow an
article he reads. The topic was *never* the Coronavirus.
I suspect he stopped with the misleading headline:

Trump calls coronavirus Democrats' 'new hoax'

Of course what Trump really said was the attempt to politicize the
coronavirus was a hoax.
Post by Bud
Post by John Corbett
"It's kind of like the people who accuse Trump of calling the pandemic
hoax when in reality he called attempts to politicize it a hoax."
" President Donald Trump accused Democrats of
“politicizing” the deadly coronavirus during a campaign
rally here on Friday, claiming that the outbreak is “their new
hoax” as he continued to downplay the risk in the U.S."
It is the politicization of the pandemic that he called a hoax, not the
pandemic itself. Of course if you just read the headline, which is
apparently all you did, you would think he called the pandemic a hoax. NBC
also snipped the phrase "their new hoax" out of context to try to create
the false narrative that he called the pandemic a hoax. It is always a red
flag to me when someone snips just a phrase rather than quoting the entire
sentence or paragraph. It is almost always and attempt to create a false
impression with the reader.
I have always said the most despicable lies are half truths and Lauren
Egan, the writer of this hit piece, is a despicable liar.
More leftist lies exposed. I don`t think they can tell the truth....
Usually when they are honest it is a slip of the tongue. Like a couple
days ago When Kamala Harris talked about what we could expect from a
Harris administration. She knows that if Biden is elected 46th president
that she will become the 47th president in very short order. The fix is
in. Biden won't last a year in the job. If he doesn't get pressured into
resigning for health reasons, the rigors of the job will kill him. He's
far too frail to handle it.
Post by Bud
http://youtu.be/C3v7elWGuys
Looks like Darwinism at work.

If any of these bozos jump on my car, I'm putting the pedal to the metal
and do some protester bowling.
ajohnstone
2020-09-18 02:31:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
If any of these bozos jump on my car, I'm putting the pedal to the metal
and do some protester bowling.
Big words for a little man.
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-20 04:14:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by ajohnstone
Post by John Corbett
If any of these bozos jump on my car, I'm putting the pedal to the metal
and do some protester bowling.
Big words for a little man.
Typical rightwing violent.
Are sure it wasn't a BIg DOG?
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-17 13:47:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
This discussion group reaches so few people that it isn't going to move
the needle of public opinion much one way or another. John McAdams
certainly has made significant contributions beyond this newsgroup through
his classes, website, book, and TV appearances. As for the rest of us
we're kidding ourselves if we think what we are doing is making a
significant difference. As I've said before, I do this for amusement only.
Yes, certainly, the shooting of JFK was very amusing. The title of this
"conversation", however, is alt.assassination.jfk, not
alt.morbidamusement.jfk. You and Bud (who has said much the same thing)
are self-described dilettantes. No wonder you'll throw out just
anything--no matter how preposterous--as you have in the "Don Willis'
dilemma" thread here. It's just good fun playing with the poor,
over--serious ninnies who are actually in this to get to the root of
11/22/63. (I know, I know--the case was over and done with on 11/22/63.)
It is good, however, that you freely and publicly admit that you are less
interested in truth than in "amusement". And I kinda hate that I am
providing you more amusement now by writing this. I may as well provide
[chuckle]
I already know the truth. Have for many decades. That's why I am amused by
people who can't figure out something so simple.
You've made it quite clear that you find the conspiracy advocates and
their theories "amusing" NOT the assassination or murder of JFK amusing.
It's kind of like the people who accuse Trump of calling the pandemic a
hoax when in reality he called attempts to politicize it a hoax.
Maybe where you live you don't have TV service, but where I live I watched
him live on TV call the Coronavirus a hoax.
No he didn't. You are making that up just like all the fake news
Well, you have an advantage that most of the Fox morons don't. You can
click on a link or Google it and see for yourself what he said.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-calls-coronavirus-democrats-new-hoax-n1145721
But you won't. Once you area Trump supporter you deny everything.
You can't admit any facts.
Do you ever bother to read the things you post. If you had, you would have
seen the story confirms what I wrote. It doesn't refute it.
"It's kind of like the people who accuse Trump of calling the pandemic
hoax when in reality he called attempts to politicize it a hoax."
" President Donald Trump accused Democrats of
“politicizing” the deadly coronavirus during a campaign
rally here on Friday, claiming that the outbreak is “their new
hoax” as he continued to downplay the risk in the U.S."
It is the politicization of the pandemic that he called a hoax, not the
pandemic itself. Of course if you just read the headline, which is
apparently all you did, you would think he called the pandemic a hoax. NBC
also snipped the phrase "their new hoax" out of context to try to create
the false narrative that he called the pandemic a hoax. It is always a red
flag to me when someone snips just a phrase rather than quoting the entire
sentence or paragraph. It is almost always and attempt to create a false
impression with the reader.
I have always said the most despicable lies are half truths and Lauren
Egan, the writer of this hit piece, is a despicable liar.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
organizations that have reported he did. If he had called the virus a
hoax, there would be lots of YouTube videos showing that. Of course there
are none because he never said that.
You only need one. not lots. I posted it and still you deny it.
You even deny your own name.
What you posted confirms what I said. You can't quote Trump calling the
pandemic a hoax because he never said that. That is a lie which the fakes
news organizations like NBC, CNN, the New York Times, and the Washington
Post have promoted in their efforts to get Trump defeated this November.
Their bias couldn't be more naked.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
He did not say any ot the
words you just aid he said. You are trying to put lipstick on a pig to
make it look better, but it's still a pig. All Trump does is lie and you
always support that.
When you find a video of Trump calling the virus a hoax, get back to us.
I just did and you still deny it.
Deny, deny, deny.
You posted no such thing. You posted a confirmation of what I said.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Until then we can ignore everything you have to say on this subject. The
YOU aloways ignore everything.
Post by John Corbett
Washington Post reporter who first started that false narrative in a tweet
Go Tweet yourself. I didn't say anything about a Tweet. I say it live on
TV. I posted the clip for you. And still you deny it.
You even deny gravity. You call it a Demorat hoax.
Just because you believe the fake news stories doesn't mean the rest of us
are as gullible. If you would have watched the video you posted, you would
see he called the politicization the Democrats' new hoax after their
Russia hoax and the impeachment hoax. He never denied the pandemic was
He said it was the Democrats new hoax.
Post by John Corbett
real. He acknowledged that we would lose people to the virus. As did
everybody at the time, he didn't realize how bad it would get, but he
Well, that didn't take much brain power. Maybe 5 of 10.
Post by John Corbett
didn't say it wasn't real.
Yes, he did. He called it a hoax. Watch him speak.
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
took down that tweet and apologized for having said it but that hasn't
stopped the fake news organization from perpetuating that lie or stopped
their leftist sheep from believing it.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/reporter-apologizes-and-deletes-tweet-claiming-trump-called-coronavirus-a-hoax
Forget him. Stick to the facts. Look at the clip.
I did. You apparently didn't. That's why I know what it says and you
don't.
He said it was just a hoax.
And you believe everyhing he says, right? So you think no one is dying.
John Corbett
2020-09-17 20:17:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
This discussion group reaches so few people that it isn't going to move
the needle of public opinion much one way or another. John McAdams
certainly has made significant contributions beyond this newsgroup through
his classes, website, book, and TV appearances. As for the rest of us
we're kidding ourselves if we think what we are doing is making a
significant difference. As I've said before, I do this for amusement only.
Yes, certainly, the shooting of JFK was very amusing. The title of this
"conversation", however, is alt.assassination.jfk, not
alt.morbidamusement.jfk. You and Bud (who has said much the same thing)
are self-described dilettantes. No wonder you'll throw out just
anything--no matter how preposterous--as you have in the "Don Willis'
dilemma" thread here. It's just good fun playing with the poor,
over--serious ninnies who are actually in this to get to the root of
11/22/63. (I know, I know--the case was over and done with on 11/22/63.)
It is good, however, that you freely and publicly admit that you are less
interested in truth than in "amusement". And I kinda hate that I am
providing you more amusement now by writing this. I may as well provide
[chuckle]
I already know the truth. Have for many decades. That's why I am amused by
people who can't figure out something so simple.
You've made it quite clear that you find the conspiracy advocates and
their theories "amusing" NOT the assassination or murder of JFK amusing.
It's kind of like the people who accuse Trump of calling the pandemic a
hoax when in reality he called attempts to politicize it a hoax.
Maybe where you live you don't have TV service, but where I live I watched
him live on TV call the Coronavirus a hoax.
No he didn't. You are making that up just like all the fake news
Well, you have an advantage that most of the Fox morons don't. You can
click on a link or Google it and see for yourself what he said.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-calls-coronavirus-democrats-new-hoax-n1145721
But you won't. Once you area Trump supporter you deny everything.
You can't admit any facts.
Do you ever bother to read the things you post. If you had, you would have
seen the story confirms what I wrote. It doesn't refute it.
"It's kind of like the people who accuse Trump of calling the pandemic
hoax when in reality he called attempts to politicize it a hoax."
" President Donald Trump accused Democrats of
“politicizing” the deadly coronavirus during a campaign
rally here on Friday, claiming that the outbreak is “their new
hoax” as he continued to downplay the risk in the U.S."
It is the politicization of the pandemic that he called a hoax, not the
pandemic itself. Of course if you just read the headline, which is
apparently all you did, you would think he called the pandemic a hoax. NBC
also snipped the phrase "their new hoax" out of context to try to create
the false narrative that he called the pandemic a hoax. It is always a red
flag to me when someone snips just a phrase rather than quoting the entire
sentence or paragraph. It is almost always and attempt to create a false
impression with the reader.
I have always said the most despicable lies are half truths and Lauren
Egan, the writer of this hit piece, is a despicable liar.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
organizations that have reported he did. If he had called the virus a
hoax, there would be lots of YouTube videos showing that. Of course there
are none because he never said that.
You only need one. not lots. I posted it and still you deny it.
You even deny your own name.
What you posted confirms what I said. You can't quote Trump calling the
pandemic a hoax because he never said that. That is a lie which the fakes
news organizations like NBC, CNN, the New York Times, and the Washington
Post have promoted in their efforts to get Trump defeated this November.
Their bias couldn't be more naked.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
He did not say any ot the
words you just aid he said. You are trying to put lipstick on a pig to
make it look better, but it's still a pig. All Trump does is lie and you
always support that.
When you find a video of Trump calling the virus a hoax, get back to us.
I just did and you still deny it.
Deny, deny, deny.
You posted no such thing. You posted a confirmation of what I said.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Until then we can ignore everything you have to say on this subject. The
YOU aloways ignore everything.
Post by John Corbett
Washington Post reporter who first started that false narrative in a tweet
Go Tweet yourself. I didn't say anything about a Tweet. I say it live on
TV. I posted the clip for you. And still you deny it.
You even deny gravity. You call it a Demorat hoax.
Just because you believe the fake news stories doesn't mean the rest of us
are as gullible. If you would have watched the video you posted, you would
see he called the politicization the Democrats' new hoax after their
Russia hoax and the impeachment hoax. He never denied the pandemic was
He said it was the Democrats new hoax.
He preceded that remark by pointing out the Democrats were politicizing
the pandemic but of course that's not the false narrative the lefties want
to promote so the snip the phrase out of context to make is seem like he
was calling the virus a hoax when in fact he was just comparing it to
their lame attempts with the Russia and impeachment hoaxes.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
real. He acknowledged that we would lose people to the virus. As did
everybody at the time, he didn't realize how bad it would get, but he
Well, that didn't take much brain power. Maybe 5 of 10.
If it was so easy to figure out, why is there no record of anybody saying
back in March that this was going to be a pandemic unlike anything we had
seen in the past 100 years and that hundreds of thousands of Americans
would die from it. At the time, most people were figuring it would be more
akin to the SARS or Eboli epidemics. That's why Democrats were encouraging
people to visit their cities as if there was no real danger.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
didn't say it wasn't real.
Yes, he did. He called it a hoax. Watch him speak.
Fake news. And you fell for it. Trump never called the virus a hoax and
everybody, except for low information voters who believe the mainstream
media's lies, knows that.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
took down that tweet and apologized for having said it but that hasn't
stopped the fake news organization from perpetuating that lie or stopped
their leftist sheep from believing it.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/reporter-apologizes-and-deletes-tweet-claiming-trump-called-coronavirus-a-hoax
Forget him. Stick to the facts. Look at the clip.
I did. You apparently didn't. That's why I know what it says and you
don't.
He said it was just a hoax.
And you believe everyhing he says, right? So you think no one is dying.
He not only didn't say the virus was a hoax, he didn't say nobody would
die. He said nobody in the US had died which as far as we know was true at
the time because we had no confirmed deaths at that point. He said we
would probably lose people to the disease. That's on the clip too if you
would bother to listen to the whole thing instead of just the part where
he called the Democrats' efforts to politicize it a hoax. What he didn't
know and what nobody knew at the time was how many people we would lose to
the virus. It turned out to be far worse than anyone had imagined.
Steven M. Galbraith
2020-09-13 18:14:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
This discussion group reaches so few people that it isn't going to move
the needle of public opinion much one way or another. John McAdams
certainly has made significant contributions beyond this newsgroup through
his classes, website, book, and TV appearances. As for the rest of us
we're kidding ourselves if we think what we are doing is making a
significant difference. As I've said before, I do this for amusement only.
Yes, certainly, the shooting of JFK was very amusing. The title of this
"conversation", however, is alt.assassination.jfk, not
alt.morbidamusement.jfk. You and Bud (who has said much the same thing)
are self-described dilettantes. No wonder you'll throw out just
anything--no matter how preposterous--as you have in the "Don Willis'
dilemma" thread here. It's just good fun playing with the poor,
over--serious ninnies who are actually in this to get to the root of
11/22/63. (I know, I know--the case was over and done with on 11/22/63.)
It is good, however, that you freely and publicly admit that you are less
interested in truth than in "amusement". And I kinda hate that I am
providing you more amusement now by writing this. I may as well provide
[chuckle]
dcw
He didn't say, as I read him, that the *assassination* was "amusing." He
said the conspiracy believer's bizarre and illogical theories are amusing.
And refuting these claims is the main reason that he comes here.

He's said this numerous times. I can't see how you think he believes the
event itself - the murder of JFK (and Tippit) - was "amusing."
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-15 02:39:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
This discussion group reaches so few people that it isn't going to move
the needle of public opinion much one way or another. John McAdams
certainly has made significant contributions beyond this newsgroup through
his classes, website, book, and TV appearances. As for the rest of us
we're kidding ourselves if we think what we are doing is making a
significant difference. As I've said before, I do this for amusement only.
Yes, certainly, the shooting of JFK was very amusing. The title of this
"conversation", however, is alt.assassination.jfk, not
alt.morbidamusement.jfk. You and Bud (who has said much the same thing)
are self-described dilettantes. No wonder you'll throw out just
anything--no matter how preposterous--as you have in the "Don Willis'
dilemma" thread here. It's just good fun playing with the poor,
over--serious ninnies who are actually in this to get to the root of
11/22/63. (I know, I know--the case was over and done with on 11/22/63.)
It is good, however, that you freely and publicly admit that you are less
interested in truth than in "amusement". And I kinda hate that I am
providing you more amusement now by writing this. I may as well provide
[chuckle]
dcw
He didn't say, as I read him, that the *assassination* was "amusing." He
Maybe your news serve does not quote accurately, but MINE does and I
quoted his message automatically and it he did call the Assassination of
JFK :amusing." That was the word he used. Do you use that word too?

Don't you people have any morals?
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
said the conspiracy believer's bizarre and illogical theories are amusing.
Sure, then say THAT. Don't call assassination amusing.
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
And refuting these claims is the main reason that he comes here.
He's said this numerous times. I can't see how you think he believes the
event itself - the murder of JFK (and Tippit) - was "amusing."
So you think some murders are amusing?
You people are disgusting.
John Corbett
2020-09-15 14:13:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
This discussion group reaches so few people that it isn't going to move
the needle of public opinion much one way or another. John McAdams
certainly has made significant contributions beyond this newsgroup through
his classes, website, book, and TV appearances. As for the rest of us
we're kidding ourselves if we think what we are doing is making a
significant difference. As I've said before, I do this for amusement only.
Yes, certainly, the shooting of JFK was very amusing. The title of this
"conversation", however, is alt.assassination.jfk, not
alt.morbidamusement.jfk. You and Bud (who has said much the same thing)
are self-described dilettantes. No wonder you'll throw out just
anything--no matter how preposterous--as you have in the "Don Willis'
dilemma" thread here. It's just good fun playing with the poor,
over--serious ninnies who are actually in this to get to the root of
11/22/63. (I know, I know--the case was over and done with on 11/22/63.)
It is good, however, that you freely and publicly admit that you are less
interested in truth than in "amusement". And I kinda hate that I am
providing you more amusement now by writing this. I may as well provide
[chuckle]
dcw
He didn't say, as I read him, that the *assassination* was "amusing." He
Maybe your news serve does not quote accurately, but MINE does and I
quoted his message automatically and it he did call the Assassination of
JFK :amusing." That was the word he used. Do you use that word too?
Your claims are simply false.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Don't you people have any morals?
Yes we do which is why we don't have to make false claims about what other
people have written.

I challenge you to QUOTE me calling the assassination of JFK amusing.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
said the conspiracy believer's bizarre and illogical theories are amusing.
Sure, then say THAT. Don't call assassination amusing.
That's what I did say. So why do you continue to claim I said something else?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
And refuting these claims is the main reason that he comes here.
He's said this numerous times. I can't see how you think he believes the
event itself - the murder of JFK (and Tippit) - was "amusing."
So you think some murders are amusing?
You people are disgusting.
Not nearly as disgusting as people who have to resort to making false
claims about what other people have said.
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-16 02:40:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
This discussion group reaches so few people that it isn't going to move
the needle of public opinion much one way or another. John McAdams
certainly has made significant contributions beyond this newsgroup through
his classes, website, book, and TV appearances. As for the rest of us
we're kidding ourselves if we think what we are doing is making a
significant difference. As I've said before, I do this for amusement only.
Yes, certainly, the shooting of JFK was very amusing. The title of this
"conversation", however, is alt.assassination.jfk, not
alt.morbidamusement.jfk. You and Bud (who has said much the same thing)
are self-described dilettantes. No wonder you'll throw out just
anything--no matter how preposterous--as you have in the "Don Willis'
dilemma" thread here. It's just good fun playing with the poor,
over--serious ninnies who are actually in this to get to the root of
11/22/63. (I know, I know--the case was over and done with on 11/22/63.)
It is good, however, that you freely and publicly admit that you are less
interested in truth than in "amusement". And I kinda hate that I am
providing you more amusement now by writing this. I may as well provide
[chuckle]
dcw
He didn't say, as I read him, that the *assassination* was "amusing." He
Maybe your news serve does not quote accurately, but MINE does and I
quoted his message automatically and it he did call the Assassination of
JFK :amusing." That was the word he used. Do you use that word too?
Your claims are simply false.
You just csn't ever admit any fact.How can you twist his words to mean
anything other than what he actually wrote? Aren't you proud of him for
saying that?
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Don't you people have any morals?
Yes we do which is why we don't have to make false claims about what other
people have written.
I challenge you to QUOTE me calling the assassination of JFK amusing.
I DID already. My software does it automatically. Why don't you try
attacking my softtware? Naybe ut's too liberal.
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
said the conspiracy believer's bizarre and illogical theories are amusing.
Sure, then say THAT. Don't call assassination amusing.
That's what I did say. So why do you continue to claim I said something else?
Balme it on the InteNet and say that it misquoted you.
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
And refuting these claims is the main reason that he comes here.
He's said this numerous times. I can't see how you think he believes the
event itself - the murder of JFK (and Tippit) - was "amusing."
So you think some murders are amusing?
You people are disgusting.
Not nearly as disgusting as people who have to resort to making false
claims about what other people have said.
I did not misquote his message. Google it.
John Corbett
2020-09-16 17:46:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
This discussion group reaches so few people that it isn't going to move
the needle of public opinion much one way or another. John McAdams
certainly has made significant contributions beyond this newsgroup through
his classes, website, book, and TV appearances. As for the rest of us
we're kidding ourselves if we think what we are doing is making a
significant difference. As I've said before, I do this for amusement only.
Yes, certainly, the shooting of JFK was very amusing. The title of this
"conversation", however, is alt.assassination.jfk, not
alt.morbidamusement.jfk. You and Bud (who has said much the same thing)
are self-described dilettantes. No wonder you'll throw out just
anything--no matter how preposterous--as you have in the "Don Willis'
dilemma" thread here. It's just good fun playing with the poor,
over--serious ninnies who are actually in this to get to the root of
11/22/63. (I know, I know--the case was over and done with on 11/22/63.)
It is good, however, that you freely and publicly admit that you are less
interested in truth than in "amusement". And I kinda hate that I am
providing you more amusement now by writing this. I may as well provide
[chuckle]
dcw
He didn't say, as I read him, that the *assassination* was "amusing." He
Maybe your news serve does not quote accurately, but MINE does and I
quoted his message automatically and it he did call the Assassination of
JFK :amusing." That was the word he used. Do you use that word too?
Your claims are simply false.
You just csn't ever admit any fact.How can you twist his words to mean
anything other than what he actually wrote? Aren't you proud of him for
saying that?
All the twisting of words has been done by you and Don. I never said the
assassination was amusing yet both of you are pushing the false claim that
I did.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Don't you people have any morals?
Yes we do which is why we don't have to make false claims about what other
people have written.
I challenge you to QUOTE me calling the assassination of JFK amusing.
I DID already. My software does it automatically. Why don't you try
attacking my softtware? Naybe ut's too liberal.
No you didn't. You never post the things you claim to have. Where is the
quote of me saying the assassination was amusing? It doesn't exist and you
know it yet you continue to falsely claim I said that. It's time to put
up. QUOTE ME. If you can't do that, you will confirm that you have made
this up.
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-18 20:35:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
This discussion group reaches so few people that it isn't going to move
the needle of public opinion much one way or another. John McAdams
certainly has made significant contributions beyond this newsgroup through
his classes, website, book, and TV appearances. As for the rest of us
we're kidding ourselves if we think what we are doing is making a
significant difference. As I've said before, I do this for amusement only.
Yes, certainly, the shooting of JFK was very amusing. The title of this
"conversation", however, is alt.assassination.jfk, not
alt.morbidamusement.jfk. You and Bud (who has said much the same thing)
are self-described dilettantes. No wonder you'll throw out just
anything--no matter how preposterous--as you have in the "Don Willis'
dilemma" thread here. It's just good fun playing with the poor,
over--serious ninnies who are actually in this to get to the root of
11/22/63. (I know, I know--the case was over and done with on 11/22/63.)
It is good, however, that you freely and publicly admit that you are less
interested in truth than in "amusement". And I kinda hate that I am
providing you more amusement now by writing this. I may as well provide
[chuckle]
dcw
He didn't say, as I read him, that the *assassination* was "amusing." He
Maybe your news serve does not quote accurately, but MINE does and I
quoted his message automatically and it he did call the Assassination of
JFK :amusing." That was the word he used. Do you use that word too?
Your claims are simply false.
You just csn't ever admit any fact.How can you twist his words to mean
anything other than what he actually wrote? Aren't you proud of him for
saying that?
All the twisting of words has been done by you and Don. I never said the
assassination was amusing yet both of you are pushing the false claim that
I did.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Don't you people have any morals?
Yes we do which is why we don't have to make false claims about what other
people have written.
I challenge you to QUOTE me calling the assassination of JFK amusing.
I DID already. My software does it automatically. Why don't you try
attacking my softtware? Naybe ut's too liberal.
No you didn't. You never post the things you claim to have. Where is the
quote of me saying the assassination was amusing? It doesn't exist and you
know it yet you continue to falsely claim I said that. It's time to put
up. QUOTE ME. If you can't do that, you will confirm that you have made
this up.
I always do. You just refuse to look.
John Corbett
2020-09-19 01:42:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
This discussion group reaches so few people that it isn't going to move
the needle of public opinion much one way or another. John McAdams
certainly has made significant contributions beyond this newsgroup through
his classes, website, book, and TV appearances. As for the rest of us
we're kidding ourselves if we think what we are doing is making a
significant difference. As I've said before, I do this for amusement only.
Yes, certainly, the shooting of JFK was very amusing. The title of this
"conversation", however, is alt.assassination.jfk, not
alt.morbidamusement.jfk. You and Bud (who has said much the same thing)
are self-described dilettantes. No wonder you'll throw out just
anything--no matter how preposterous--as you have in the "Don Willis'
dilemma" thread here. It's just good fun playing with the poor,
over--serious ninnies who are actually in this to get to the root of
11/22/63. (I know, I know--the case was over and done with on 11/22/63.)
It is good, however, that you freely and publicly admit that you are less
interested in truth than in "amusement". And I kinda hate that I am
providing you more amusement now by writing this. I may as well provide
[chuckle]
dcw
He didn't say, as I read him, that the *assassination* was "amusing." He
Maybe your news serve does not quote accurately, but MINE does and I
quoted his message automatically and it he did call the Assassination of
JFK :amusing." That was the word he used. Do you use that word too?
Your claims are simply false.
You just csn't ever admit any fact.How can you twist his words to mean
anything other than what he actually wrote? Aren't you proud of him for
saying that?
All the twisting of words has been done by you and Don. I never said the
assassination was amusing yet both of you are pushing the false claim that
I did.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Don't you people have any morals?
Yes we do which is why we don't have to make false claims about what other
people have written.
I challenge you to QUOTE me calling the assassination of JFK amusing.
I DID already. My software does it automatically. Why don't you try
attacking my softtware? Naybe ut's too liberal.
No you didn't. You never post the things you claim to have. Where is the
quote of me saying the assassination was amusing? It doesn't exist and you
know it yet you continue to falsely claim I said that. It's time to put
up. QUOTE ME. If you can't do that, you will confirm that you have made
this up.
I always do. You just refuse to look.
There isn't a regular in this newsgroup who believes that.

You haven't quoted me saying the assassination was amusing. You couldn't
have because I never said that and you and everybody else knows it. You
wonder why nobody on this newsgroup respects you. This is the reason.
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2020-09-17 20:17:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
This discussion group reaches so few people that it isn't going to move
the needle of public opinion much one way or another. John McAdams
certainly has made significant contributions beyond this newsgroup through
his classes, website, book, and TV appearances. As for the rest of us
we're kidding ourselves if we think what we are doing is making a
significant difference. As I've said before, I do this for amusement only.
Yes, certainly, the shooting of JFK was very amusing. The title of this
"conversation", however, is alt.assassination.jfk, not
alt.morbidamusement.jfk. You and Bud (who has said much the same thing)
are self-described dilettantes. No wonder you'll throw out just
anything--no matter how preposterous--as you have in the "Don Willis'
dilemma" thread here. It's just good fun playing with the poor,
over--serious ninnies who are actually in this to get to the root of
11/22/63. (I know, I know--the case was over and done with on 11/22/63.)
It is good, however, that you freely and publicly admit that you are less
interested in truth than in "amusement". And I kinda hate that I am
providing you more amusement now by writing this. I may as well provide
[chuckle]
dcw
He didn't say, as I read him, that the *assassination* was "amusing." He
Maybe your news serve does not quote accurately, but MINE does and I
quoted his message automatically and it he did call the Assassination of
JFK :amusing." That was the word he used. Do you use that word too?
Are we all talking about Donald Willis here?

He was the one who called the assassination amusing.

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/-m1IkKdysSg/m/SoqpZ_iJBAAJ
"Yes, certainly, the shooting of JFK was very amusing."

That was a *strawman argument* Donald introduced in response to John Corbett
saying this:
== QUOTE ==

This discussion group reaches so few people that it isn't going to move
the needle of public opinion much one way or another. John McAdams
certainly has made significant contributions beyond this newsgroup through
his classes, website, book, and TV appearances. As for the rest of us
we're kidding ourselves if we think what we are doing is making a
significant difference. As I've said before, I do this for amusement only.

== unquote ==

John Corbett said posting here makes little difference to the rest of the
world and doesn't move the needle of public opinion. Corbett also said he
reads here and posts here for amusement only.

Let's be clear: It was conspiracy theorist Don Willis who changed that
clear language of John Corbett into the false narrative (and logical
fallacy of a straw man) that "Yes, certainly, the shooting of JFK was very
amusing."
Post by Anthony Marsh
Don't you people have any morals?
By "you people" do you mean Conspiracy Theorists?
It was CT Don Willis was the one who said "Yes, certainly, the shooting of
JFK was very amusing."
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
said the conspiracy believer's bizarre and illogical theories are amusing.
Sure, then say THAT. Don't call assassination amusing.
He did. Once again, it was Don Willis (your fellow conspiracy theorist)
was the one who introduced the false argument that "Yes, certainly, the
shooting of JFK was very amusing."
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
And refuting these claims is the main reason that he comes here.
He's said this numerous times. I can't see how you think he believes the
event itself - the murder of JFK (and Tippit) - was "amusing."
So you think some murders are amusing?
Another straw man - this one by you. Don fails to argue the actual point,
and you fail to argue the actual point. You CTs must be desperate to score
points and put up the appearance of an argument by constantly mis-stating
your opponents arguments.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You people are disgusting.
For finding conspiracy theorists arguments and repeated use of logical
fallacies amusing?

No, the repeated use of straw man arguments to avoid the points being made
is disgusting.

Hank
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-18 20:35:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
This discussion group reaches so few people that it isn't going to move
the needle of public opinion much one way or another. John McAdams
certainly has made significant contributions beyond this newsgroup through
his classes, website, book, and TV appearances. As for the rest of us
we're kidding ourselves if we think what we are doing is making a
significant difference. As I've said before, I do this for amusement only.
Yes, certainly, the shooting of JFK was very amusing. The title of this
"conversation", however, is alt.assassination.jfk, not
alt.morbidamusement.jfk. You and Bud (who has said much the same thing)
are self-described dilettantes. No wonder you'll throw out just
anything--no matter how preposterous--as you have in the "Don Willis'
dilemma" thread here. It's just good fun playing with the poor,
over--serious ninnies who are actually in this to get to the root of
11/22/63. (I know, I know--the case was over and done with on 11/22/63.)
It is good, however, that you freely and publicly admit that you are less
interested in truth than in "amusement". And I kinda hate that I am
providing you more amusement now by writing this. I may as well provide
[chuckle]
dcw
He didn't say, as I read him, that the *assassination* was "amusing." He
Maybe your news serve does not quote accurately, but MINE does and I
quoted his message automatically and it he did call the Assassination of
JFK :amusing." That was the word he used. Do you use that word too?
Are we all talking about Donald Willis here?
He was the one who called the assassination amusing.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/-m1IkKdysSg/m/SoqpZ_iJBAAJ
"Yes, certainly, the shooting of JFK was very amusing."
That was a *strawman argument* Donald introduced in response to John Corbett
== QUOTE ==
This discussion group reaches so few people that it isn't going to move
the needle of public opinion much one way or another. John McAdams
certainly has made significant contributions beyond this newsgroup through
his classes, website, book, and TV appearances. As for the rest of us
we're kidding ourselves if we think what we are doing is making a
significant difference. As I've said before, I do this for amusement only.
== unquote ==
John Corbett said posting here makes little difference to the rest of the
world and doesn't move the needle of public opinion. Corbett also said he
reads here and posts here for amusement only.
Let's be clear: It was conspiracy theorist Don Willis who changed that
clear language of John Corbett into the false narrative (and logical
fallacy of a straw man) that "Yes, certainly, the shooting of JFK was very
amusing."
Post by Anthony Marsh
Don't you people have any morals?
By "you people" do you mean Conspiracy Theorists?
It was CT Don Willis was the one who said "Yes, certainly, the shooting of
JFK was very amusing."
No.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
said the conspiracy believer's bizarre and illogical theories are amusing.
Sure, then say THAT. Don't call assassination amusing.
He did. Once again, it was Don Willis (your fellow conspiracy theorist)
was the one who introduced the false argument that "Yes, certainly, the
shooting of JFK was very amusing."
No. I was one of you WC defenders.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
And refuting these claims is the main reason that he comes here.
He's said this numerous times. I can't see how you think he believes the
event itself - the murder of JFK (and Tippit) - was "amusing."
So you think some murders are amusing?
Another straw man - this one by you. Don fails to argue the actual point,
and you fail to argue the actual point. You CTs must be desperate to score
points and put up the appearance of an argument by constantly mis-stating
your opponents arguments.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You people are disgusting.
For finding conspiracy theorists arguments and repeated use of logical
fallacies amusing?
No, the repeated use of straw man arguments to avoid the points being made
is disgusting.
YOU are a Straw Man.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Hank
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2020-09-20 21:36:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
This discussion group reaches so few people that it isn't going to move
the needle of public opinion much one way or another. John McAdams
certainly has made significant contributions beyond this newsgroup through
his classes, website, book, and TV appearances. As for the rest of us
we're kidding ourselves if we think what we are doing is making a
significant difference. As I've said before, I do this for amusement only.
Yes, certainly, the shooting of JFK was very amusing. The title of this
"conversation", however, is alt.assassination.jfk, not
alt.morbidamusement.jfk. You and Bud (who has said much the same thing)
are self-described dilettantes. No wonder you'll throw out just
anything--no matter how preposterous--as you have in the "Don Willis'
dilemma" thread here. It's just good fun playing with the poor,
over--serious ninnies who are actually in this to get to the root of
11/22/63. (I know, I know--the case was over and done with on 11/22/63.)
It is good, however, that you freely and publicly admit that you are less
interested in truth than in "amusement". And I kinda hate that I am
providing you more amusement now by writing this. I may as well provide
[chuckle]
dcw
He didn't say, as I read him, that the *assassination* was "amusing." He
Maybe your news serve does not quote accurately, but MINE does and I
quoted his message automatically and it he did call the Assassination of
JFK :amusing." That was the word he used. Do you use that word too?
Are we all talking about Donald Willis here?
He was the one who called the assassination amusing.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/-m1IkKdysSg/m/SoqpZ_iJBAAJ
"Yes, certainly, the shooting of JFK was very amusing."
That was a *strawman argument* Donald introduced in response to John Corbett
== QUOTE ==
This discussion group reaches so few people that it isn't going to move
the needle of public opinion much one way or another. John McAdams
certainly has made significant contributions beyond this newsgroup through
his classes, website, book, and TV appearances. As for the rest of us
we're kidding ourselves if we think what we are doing is making a
significant difference. As I've said before, I do this for amusement only.
== unquote ==
John Corbett said posting here makes little difference to the rest of the
world and doesn't move the needle of public opinion. Corbett also said he
reads here and posts here for amusement only.
Let's be clear: It was conspiracy theorist Don Willis who changed that
clear language of John Corbett into the false narrative (and logical
fallacy of a straw man) that "Yes, certainly, the shooting of JFK was very
amusing."
OF COURSE Tony ignored the link and the quote I provided, establishing it
was Don who said: "Yes, certainly, the shooting of JFK was very amusing."
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Don't you people have any morals?
By "you people" do you mean Conspiracy Theorists?
It was CT Don Willis was the one who said "Yes, certainly, the shooting of
JFK was very amusing."
No.
Yes, it was Don Willis.
Link: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/-m1IkKdysSg/m/SoqpZ_iJBAAJ
Quote: "Yes, certainly, the shooting of JFK was very amusing."

So when you ask, "Don't you people have any morals?" and complain, "Maybe
your news serve does not quote accurately, but MINE does and I quoted his
message automatically and it he did call the Assassination of JFK
'amusing.' "

That was Don Willis. See the link. Click the link.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
said the conspiracy believer's bizarre and illogical theories are amusing.
Sure, then say THAT. Don't call assassination amusing.
He did. Once again, it was Don Willis (your fellow conspiracy theorist)
was the one who introduced the false argument that "Yes, certainly, the
shooting of JFK was very amusing."
No. I was one of you WC defenders.
No, and I quoted it and even posted the link. It was Don Willis who posted
that claim.

Deny the truth some more. It doesn't change it any.

Here's the link to Don Willis' post:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/-m1IkKdysSg/m/SoqpZ_iJBAAJ

Here's the quote you can find in the above link:
"Yes, certainly, the shooting of JFK was very amusing."
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
And refuting these claims is the main reason that he comes here.
He's said this numerous times. I can't see how you think he believes the
event itself - the murder of JFK (and Tippit) - was "amusing."
So you think some murders are amusing?
Another straw man - this one by you. Don fails to argue the actual point,
and you fail to argue the actual point. You CTs must be desperate to score
points and put up the appearance of an argument by constantly mis-stating
your opponents arguments.
Tony OF COURSE ignored this.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Anthony Marsh
You people are disgusting.
For finding conspiracy theorists arguments and repeated use of logical
fallacies amusing?
No, the repeated use of straw man arguments to avoid the points being made
is disgusting.
YOU are a Straw Man.
Not a meaningful response. A second grade rejoinder unworthy of an adult.

But OF COURSE the only rejoinder Tony could muster.

In the future, Tony will cite this as him providing evidence and me
ignoring the evidence.

When OF COURSE, nothing of the sort happened. I cited the evidence, Tony
ignored it. Tony asserted claims contradicted by the evidence, and called
me a straw man.

Hilarious.
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-13 22:25:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
This discussion group reaches so few people that it isn't going to move
the needle of public opinion much one way or another. John McAdams
certainly has made significant contributions beyond this newsgroup through
his classes, website, book, and TV appearances. As for the rest of us
we're kidding ourselves if we think what we are doing is making a
significant difference. As I've said before, I do this for amusement only.
Yes, certainly, the shooting of JFK was very amusing. The title of this
"conversation", however, is alt.assassination.jfk, not
alt.morbidamusement.jfk. You and Bud (who has said much the same thing)
are self-described dilettantes. No wonder you'll throw out just
anything--no matter how preposterous--as you have in the "Don Willis'
dilemma" thread here. It's just good fun playing with the poor,
over--serious ninnies who are actually in this to get to the root of
11/22/63. (I know, I know--the case was over and done with on 11/22/63.)
It is good, however, that you freely and publicly admit that you are less
interested in truth than in "amusement". And I kinda hate that I am
providing you more amusement now by writing this. I may as well provide
[chuckle]
Is it any surpprise that Conservatives are happy to kill Liberals? If
you can't defeat them with votes you can defeat them with bullets.
Their motto is Bullets Not Ballots.
Post by donald willis
dcw
Bud
2020-09-13 23:54:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
This discussion group reaches so few people that it isn't going to move
the needle of public opinion much one way or another. John McAdams
certainly has made significant contributions beyond this newsgroup through
his classes, website, book, and TV appearances. As for the rest of us
we're kidding ourselves if we think what we are doing is making a
significant difference. As I've said before, I do this for amusement only.
Yes, certainly, the shooting of JFK was very amusing. The title of this
"conversation", however, is alt.assassination.jfk, not
alt.morbidamusement.jfk. You and Bud (who has said much the same thing)
are self-described dilettantes. No wonder you'll throw out just
anything--no matter how preposterous--as you have in the "Don Willis'
dilemma" thread here. It's just good fun playing with the poor,
over--serious ninnies who are actually in this to get to the root of
11/22/63. (I know, I know--the case was over and done with on 11/22/63.)
It is good, however, that you freely and publicly admit that you are less
interested in truth than in "amusement". And I kinda hate that I am
providing you more amusement now by writing this. I may as well provide
[chuckle]
Is it any surpprise that Conservatives are happy to kill Liberals?
https://nypost.com/2020/08/30/blm-activists-celebrated-as-trump-supporter-killed-devine/
Post by Anthony Marsh
If
you can't defeat them with votes you can defeat them with bullets.
It is the left using violence to achieve it`s political goals, not the
right.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Their motto is Bullets Not Ballots.
Post by donald willis
dcw
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-15 02:39:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
This discussion group reaches so few people that it isn't going to move
the needle of public opinion much one way or another. John McAdams
certainly has made significant contributions beyond this newsgroup through
his classes, website, book, and TV appearances. As for the rest of us
we're kidding ourselves if we think what we are doing is making a
significant difference. As I've said before, I do this for amusement only.
Yes, certainly, the shooting of JFK was very amusing. The title of this
"conversation", however, is alt.assassination.jfk, not
alt.morbidamusement.jfk. You and Bud (who has said much the same thing)
are self-described dilettantes. No wonder you'll throw out just
anything--no matter how preposterous--as you have in the "Don Willis'
dilemma" thread here. It's just good fun playing with the poor,
over--serious ninnies who are actually in this to get to the root of
11/22/63. (I know, I know--the case was over and done with on 11/22/63.)
It is good, however, that you freely and publicly admit that you are less
interested in truth than in "amusement". And I kinda hate that I am
providing you more amusement now by writing this. I may as well provide
[chuckle]
Is it any surpprise that Conservatives are happy to kill Liberals?
https://nypost.com/2020/08/30/blm-activists-celebrated-as-trump-supporter-killed-devine/
Post by Anthony Marsh
If
you can't defeat them with votes you can defeat them with bullets.
It is the left using violence to achieve it`s political goals, not the
right.
Silly projection.
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Their motto is Bullets Not Ballots.
Post by donald willis
dcw
Bud
2020-09-15 21:10:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
This discussion group reaches so few people that it isn't going to move
the needle of public opinion much one way or another. John McAdams
certainly has made significant contributions beyond this newsgroup through
his classes, website, book, and TV appearances. As for the rest of us
we're kidding ourselves if we think what we are doing is making a
significant difference. As I've said before, I do this for amusement only.
Yes, certainly, the shooting of JFK was very amusing. The title of this
"conversation", however, is alt.assassination.jfk, not
alt.morbidamusement.jfk. You and Bud (who has said much the same thing)
are self-described dilettantes. No wonder you'll throw out just
anything--no matter how preposterous--as you have in the "Don Willis'
dilemma" thread here. It's just good fun playing with the poor,
over--serious ninnies who are actually in this to get to the root of
11/22/63. (I know, I know--the case was over and done with on 11/22/63.)
It is good, however, that you freely and publicly admit that you are less
interested in truth than in "amusement". And I kinda hate that I am
providing you more amusement now by writing this. I may as well provide
[chuckle]
Is it any surpprise that Conservatives are happy to kill Liberals?
https://nypost.com/2020/08/30/blm-activists-celebrated-as-trump-supporter-killed-devine/
Post by Anthony Marsh
If
you can't defeat them with votes you can defeat them with bullets.
It is the left using violence to achieve it`s political goals, not the
right.
Silly projection.
Maybe where you live you don't have TV service, but where I live I can
see nightly people on the left using violence to intimidate in order to
achieve their political goals.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Their motto is Bullets Not Ballots.
Post by donald willis
dcw
John Corbett
2020-09-14 03:12:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
This discussion group reaches so few people that it isn't going to move
the needle of public opinion much one way or another. John McAdams
certainly has made significant contributions beyond this newsgroup through
his classes, website, book, and TV appearances. As for the rest of us
we're kidding ourselves if we think what we are doing is making a
significant difference. As I've said before, I do this for amusement only.
Yes, certainly, the shooting of JFK was very amusing. The title of this
"conversation", however, is alt.assassination.jfk, not
alt.morbidamusement.jfk. You and Bud (who has said much the same thing)
are self-described dilettantes. No wonder you'll throw out just
anything--no matter how preposterous--as you have in the "Don Willis'
dilemma" thread here. It's just good fun playing with the poor,
over--serious ninnies who are actually in this to get to the root of
11/22/63. (I know, I know--the case was over and done with on 11/22/63.)
It is good, however, that you freely and publicly admit that you are less
interested in truth than in "amusement". And I kinda hate that I am
providing you more amusement now by writing this. I may as well provide
[chuckle]
Is it any surpprise that Conservatives are happy to kill Liberals? If
you can't defeat them with votes you can defeat them with bullets.
Their motto is Bullets Not Ballots.
That is lame even by your low standards.
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-15 02:39:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
This discussion group reaches so few people that it isn't going to move
the needle of public opinion much one way or another. John McAdams
certainly has made significant contributions beyond this newsgroup through
his classes, website, book, and TV appearances. As for the rest of us
we're kidding ourselves if we think what we are doing is making a
significant difference. As I've said before, I do this for amusement only.
Yes, certainly, the shooting of JFK was very amusing. The title of this
"conversation", however, is alt.assassination.jfk, not
alt.morbidamusement.jfk. You and Bud (who has said much the same thing)
are self-described dilettantes. No wonder you'll throw out just
anything--no matter how preposterous--as you have in the "Don Willis'
dilemma" thread here. It's just good fun playing with the poor,
over--serious ninnies who are actually in this to get to the root of
11/22/63. (I know, I know--the case was over and done with on 11/22/63.)
It is good, however, that you freely and publicly admit that you are less
interested in truth than in "amusement". And I kinda hate that I am
providing you more amusement now by writing this. I may as well provide
[chuckle]
Is it any surpprise that Conservatives are happy to kill Liberals? If
you can't defeat them with votes you can defeat them with bullets.
Their motto is Bullets Not Ballots.
That is lame even by your low standards.
I'm not the one going around killing people and calling assassination
amusing.
Bud
2020-09-15 21:10:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
This discussion group reaches so few people that it isn't going to move
the needle of public opinion much one way or another. John McAdams
certainly has made significant contributions beyond this newsgroup through
his classes, website, book, and TV appearances. As for the rest of us
we're kidding ourselves if we think what we are doing is making a
significant difference. As I've said before, I do this for amusement only.
Yes, certainly, the shooting of JFK was very amusing. The title of this
"conversation", however, is alt.assassination.jfk, not
alt.morbidamusement.jfk. You and Bud (who has said much the same thing)
are self-described dilettantes. No wonder you'll throw out just
anything--no matter how preposterous--as you have in the "Don Willis'
dilemma" thread here. It's just good fun playing with the poor,
over--serious ninnies who are actually in this to get to the root of
11/22/63. (I know, I know--the case was over and done with on 11/22/63.)
It is good, however, that you freely and publicly admit that you are less
interested in truth than in "amusement". And I kinda hate that I am
providing you more amusement now by writing this. I may as well provide
[chuckle]
Is it any surpprise that Conservatives are happy to kill Liberals? If
you can't defeat them with votes you can defeat them with bullets.
Their motto is Bullets Not Ballots.
That is lame even by your low standards.
I'm not the one going around killing people and calling assassination
amusing.
You talking about the assassination of the Trump supporter or the
attempted assassination of the police officers?
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-15 02:39:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
This discussion group reaches so few people that it isn't going to move
the needle of public opinion much one way or another. John McAdams
certainly has made significant contributions beyond this newsgroup through
his classes, website, book, and TV appearances. As for the rest of us
we're kidding ourselves if we think what we are doing is making a
significant difference. As I've said before, I do this for amusement only.
Yes, certainly, the shooting of JFK was very amusing. The title of this
:Amusing"? Is this a contest to see which WC defender can be the most
vile? Maybe none of you guys care about Democracy, but his supporters
do. Assassination is not a joke. Just because you don't like someone
does not give you the right to kill him.
Post by donald willis
"conversation", however, is alt.assassination.jfk, not
alt.morbidamusement.jfk. You and Bud (who has said much the same thing)
are self-described dilettantes. No wonder you'll throw out just
anything--no matter how preposterous--as you have in the "Don Willis'
dilemma" thread here. It's just good fun playing with the poor,
over--serious ninnies who are actually in this to get to the root of
11/22/63. (I know, I know--the case was over and done with on 11/22/63.)
It is good, however, that you freely and publicly admit that you are less
interested in truth than in "amusement". And I kinda hate that I am
providing you more amusement now by writing this. I may as well provide
[chuckle]
dcw
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-15 02:39:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
This discussion group reaches so few people that it isn't going to move
the needle of public opinion much one way or another. John McAdams
certainly has made significant contributions beyond this newsgroup through
his classes, website, book, and TV appearances. As for the rest of us
we're kidding ourselves if we think what we are doing is making a
significant difference. As I've said before, I do this for amusement only.
Yes, certainly, the shooting of JFK was very amusing. The title of this
"conversation", however, is alt.assassination.jfk, not
alt.morbidamusement.jfk. You and Bud (who has said much the same thing)
are self-described dilettantes. No wonder you'll throw out just
anything--no matter how preposterous--as you have in the "Don Willis'
dilemma" thread here. It's just good fun playing with the poor,
over--serious ninnies who are actually in this to get to the root of
11/22/63. (I know, I know--the case was over and done with on 11/22/63.)
It is good, however, that you freely and publicly admit that you are less
interested in truth than in "amusement". And I kinda hate that I am
providing you more amusement now by writing this. I may as well provide
[chuckle]
dcw
Don't encourage them.
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-13 00:42:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
This discussion group reaches so few people that it isn't going to move
the needle of public opinion much one way or another. John McAdams
certainly has made significant contributions beyond this newsgroup through
his classes, website, book, and TV appearances. As for the rest of us
we're kidding ourselves if we think what we are doing is making a
significant difference. As I've said before, I do this for amusement only.
Well, what about his book? Didn't he glean a lot of fodder for his book
from the discussians here? How would he know what to attack if he didn's
see it here? He does not go out and poll the entire public.
Post by John Corbett
To most people, the JFK assassination is something that happened a long
time ago. I can't remember the last time someone brought it up in
conversation other than in this newsgroup. People have reached their
Well, I have brought it up with my bridge partners and friends.
Post by John Corbett
opinions regarding the question of conspiracy and most don't spend any
time re-examining their position. I suspect as people who are old enough
I have changed by positions several times as new facts and files have
come out. Similar vents may spark discussion. Did you ever hear JFK say
the stupid things that Trump does?
Post by John Corbett
to remember JFK and have an emotional attachment to the assassination pass
away and become a smaller and smaller percentage of the population, the
percentage believing in a conspiracy will also get smaller. Younger people
True to a certain extent. Baby boomers are dying off and kids don't care
about anything. But you may not realize that it's not just concpiracy
believers who loved JFK. And you don't have to lover JFK to believe in
Democracy.
Post by John Corbett
will look at the assassination less emotionally and hopefully more
rationally and will form their beliefs based on evidence, not speculation.
The verdict of history will be that Oswald was JFK's assassin as surely as
Booth was Lincoln's assassin. There will always be doubters but without a
definitive alternative, that will be the accepted answer. You can't
Fine, so With your analogy you are conceding that the JFK assassination
was a conspiracy. But maybe like the Lincoln Assassination, you think it
was only a small conspiracy. OK.
Post by John Corbett
replace something with nothing and nothing is what 57 years of conspiracy
hunting has produced. I don't think another 57 or 157 years is going to
change that.
Then why the cover-up, why the destruction of files and evidence? If
there was no conspiracy then what are you trying to hide and why?
John Corbett
2020-09-12 15:16:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
The enforcement of Tombstone's gun laws was just the pretext for the Earps
and Doc Holiday to have it out with the Clanton gang. The two groups
represented rival factions who were fighting for control of Tombstone
which had become a silver mining boom town.
Post by ajohnstone
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
Not really. Norma Rae and Hoffa are just two that come to mind off the top
of my head.
ajohnstone
2020-09-13 00:41:46 UTC
Permalink
JC,

According to Wiki 2003 Gallup Poll reported that 75% of Americans do not
believe that Lee Harvey Oswald had acted alone. That same year, an ABC
News poll found that 70% of respondents suspected that the assassination
involved more than one person.A 2004 Fox News poll noted that 66% of
Americans thought there had been a conspiracy while 74% believed that
there was a cover-up. In 2009, 76% of people polled for CBS News said they
believed the President had been killed as the result of a conspiracy. A
2013 Gallup Poll found that 61% of Americans, the lowest figure in nearly
50 years, believed other people besides Oswald were involved.

Perhaps the latter downward trend reflects what may happen or it simply
shows that increasing numbers of people no longer care.

History is full of misunderstood events and truth disappears when false
facts are repeated over and over again.

My point is that the media determines what people perceive as true
history, and despite the numerous debunkings historians indulge in, movies
carry more weight.
Post by John Corbett
Not really. Norma Rae and Hoffa are just two that come to mind off the top
of my head.
Oh, i know there has been some labor union movies yet compared to the long
list of great strikes Hollywood has failed to make them a genre. Molly
Maguires was another exception.

But I'm referring to what can be described as actual labor wars. How many
movies has there been about a handful of people engaging in a shoot-out or
running with a gang of outlaws but actual insurrection is not worthy of
Hollywood's attentions other than the occasional feature. Not because they
don't have dramatic stories to be told but because it is a history that is
to be suppressed.

Here is a list of the killings of striking workers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_worker_deaths_in_United_States_labor_disputes

Likewise, the number of race riots fair a little bit better on the movie
screen but again not proportionate to the numbers and scale of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_racial_violence_in_the_United_States

Of all those Irish-Americans who proudly parade their heritage on St
Patrick's Day - how many know about the Irish in the St Patrick's
Battalion? It resulted in one of the biggest mass hangings in US history
and Irish history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Patrick%27s_Battalion

History as it is often said is determined by the victors.
Bud
2020-09-13 10:55:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by ajohnstone
JC,
According to Wiki 2003 Gallup Poll reported that 75% of Americans do not
believe that Lee Harvey Oswald had acted alone. That same year, an ABC
News poll found that 70% of respondents suspected that the assassination
involved more than one person.A 2004 Fox News poll noted that 66% of
Americans thought there had been a conspiracy while 74% believed that
there was a cover-up. In 2009, 76% of people polled for CBS News said they
believed the President had been killed as the result of a conspiracy. A
2013 Gallup Poll found that 61% of Americans, the lowest figure in nearly
50 years, believed other people besides Oswald were involved.
Perhaps the latter downward trend reflects what may happen or it simply
shows that increasing numbers of people no longer care.
History is full of misunderstood events and truth disappears when false
facts are repeated over and over again.
Look at the rioting, some people see them as peaceful protests. One
person`s false fact is another person`s truth. How will history look at
these things, justifiable outrage or wanton violence?
Post by ajohnstone
My point is that the media determines what people perceive as true
history, and despite the numerous debunkings historians indulge in, movies
carry more weight.
At the moment there are options that push back against media
manipulation, disinformation, fake news and propaganda, like content
creators on youtube. The left is desperate to shut this down, but haven`t
found a way to do it yet.

And I don`t think most people are the sheep you think they are,
following the lead dictated by the media. People just want the facts, they
don`t want other people opinions foisted on them (which is why there is
such a backlash against BLM).
Post by ajohnstone
Post by John Corbett
Not really. Norma Rae and Hoffa are just two that come to mind off the top
of my head.
Oh, i know there has been some labor union movies yet compared to the long
list of great strikes Hollywood has failed to make them a genre. Molly
Maguires was another exception.
Cost 11 million to make and made 2.2 million at the box office. The
other movie you mention, Matewan, cost 4 million to make and made 2
million at the box office. You have to make films people want to watch,
not just the films someone wants to see made.
Post by ajohnstone
But I'm referring to what can be described as actual labor wars. How many
movies has there been about a handful of people engaging in a shoot-out or
running with a gang of outlaws but actual insurrection is not worthy of
Hollywood's attentions other than the occasional feature. Not because they
don't have dramatic stories to be told but because it is a history that is
to be suppressed.
They try to make movies that people might be interested in seeing, if
you can imagine.
Post by ajohnstone
Here is a list of the killings of striking workers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_worker_deaths_in_United_States_labor_disputes
Likewise, the number of race riots fair a little bit better on the movie
screen but again not proportionate to the numbers and scale of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_racial_violence_in_the_United_States
Of all those Irish-Americans who proudly parade their heritage on St
Patrick's Day - how many know about the Irish in the St Patrick's
Battalion? It resulted in one of the biggest mass hangings in US history
and Irish history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Patrick%27s_Battalion
History as it is often said is determined by the victors.
Movies are determined by the box office receipts.
John Corbett
2020-09-13 18:14:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
JC,
According to Wiki 2003 Gallup Poll reported that 75% of Americans do not
believe that Lee Harvey Oswald had acted alone. That same year, an ABC
News poll found that 70% of respondents suspected that the assassination
involved more than one person.A 2004 Fox News poll noted that 66% of
Americans thought there had been a conspiracy while 74% believed that
there was a cover-up. In 2009, 76% of people polled for CBS News said they
believed the President had been killed as the result of a conspiracy. A
2013 Gallup Poll found that 61% of Americans, the lowest figure in nearly
50 years, believed other people besides Oswald were involved.
Perhaps the latter downward trend reflects what may happen or it simply
shows that increasing numbers of people no longer care.
History is full of misunderstood events and truth disappears when false
facts are repeated over and over again.
Look at the rioting, some people see them as peaceful protests. One
person`s false fact is another person`s truth. How will history look at
these things, justifiable outrage or wanton violence?
Post by ajohnstone
My point is that the media determines what people perceive as true
history, and despite the numerous debunkings historians indulge in, movies
carry more weight.
At the moment there are options that push back against media
manipulation, disinformation, fake news and propaganda, like content
creators on youtube. The left is desperate to shut this down, but haven`t
found a way to do it yet.
And I don`t think most people are the sheep you think they are,
following the lead dictated by the media. People just want the facts, they
don`t want other people opinions foisted on them (which is why there is
such a backlash against BLM).
For years the networks controlled most of the information the American
people received. For almost 20 years the Big Three, Brokaw, Rather, and
Jennings had a virtual monopoly on what the American people were fed.
There was still radio and newspapers, but most people would rely on the
nightly news to find out what was going on in the country and the world
Then along came Fox, cable news, and then social media and that monopoly
was broken up. The founders envisioned having unfettered dissemination of
information. Their belief was that in such a system, the best ideas would
win the day and truth would trump the bullshit. I think Jefferson wrote
that last part but I can't find the cite for it.
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
Post by John Corbett
Not really. Norma Rae and Hoffa are just two that come to mind off the top
of my head.
Oh, i know there has been some labor union movies yet compared to the long
list of great strikes Hollywood has failed to make them a genre. Molly
Maguires was another exception.
Cost 11 million to make and made 2.2 million at the box office. The
other movie you mention, Matewan, cost 4 million to make and made 2
million at the box office. You have to make films people want to watch,
not just the films someone wants to see made.
Post by ajohnstone
But I'm referring to what can be described as actual labor wars. How many
movies has there been about a handful of people engaging in a shoot-out or
running with a gang of outlaws but actual insurrection is not worthy of
Hollywood's attentions other than the occasional feature. Not because they
don't have dramatic stories to be told but because it is a history that is
to be suppressed.
They try to make movies that people might be interested in seeing, if
you can imagine.
The movie industry is a business like any other business. The idea is to
make a decent return on one's investment. It takes tens of millions to
make a movie. Studios aren't going to risk that kind of money unless they
believe there will be a profit in the end. There is a saying in Hollywood.
The only sequel that loses money is the last one. Maybe that will be Rocky
XII.
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
Here is a list of the killings of striking workers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_worker_deaths_in_United_States_labor_disputes
Likewise, the number of race riots fair a little bit better on the movie
screen but again not proportionate to the numbers and scale of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_racial_violence_in_the_United_States
Of all those Irish-Americans who proudly parade their heritage on St
Patrick's Day - how many know about the Irish in the St Patrick's
Battalion? It resulted in one of the biggest mass hangings in US history
and Irish history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Patrick%27s_Battalion
History as it is often said is determined by the victors.
Movies are determined by the box office receipts.
I don't know of anyone who thought Arnold Schwarzenegger was a great actor
but he could command $20 million a pop because his movies drew people to
the theaters. He spoke the truth when he said "I'll be back". Clint
Eastwood's later work brought him much critical acclaim but that wasn't
the case with his spaghetti westerns or the Dirty Harry franchise. Those
movies kept getting made because they made lots of money. As with any
other product, people vote with their dollars.
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-15 02:39:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
JC,
According to Wiki 2003 Gallup Poll reported that 75% of Americans do not
believe that Lee Harvey Oswald had acted alone. That same year, an ABC
News poll found that 70% of respondents suspected that the assassination
involved more than one person.A 2004 Fox News poll noted that 66% of
Americans thought there had been a conspiracy while 74% believed that
there was a cover-up. In 2009, 76% of people polled for CBS News said they
believed the President had been killed as the result of a conspiracy. A
2013 Gallup Poll found that 61% of Americans, the lowest figure in nearly
50 years, believed other people besides Oswald were involved.
Perhaps the latter downward trend reflects what may happen or it simply
shows that increasing numbers of people no longer care.
History is full of misunderstood events and truth disappears when false
facts are repeated over and over again.
Look at the rioting, some people see them as peaceful protests. One
person`s false fact is another person`s truth. How will history look at
these things, justifiable outrage or wanton violence?
Post by ajohnstone
My point is that the media determines what people perceive as true
history, and despite the numerous debunkings historians indulge in, movies
carry more weight.
At the moment there are options that push back against media
manipulation, disinformation, fake news and propaganda, like content
creators on youtube. The left is desperate to shut this down, but haven`t
found a way to do it yet.
And I don`t think most people are the sheep you think they are,
following the lead dictated by the media. People just want the facts, they
don`t want other people opinions foisted on them (which is why there is
such a backlash against BLM).
For years the networks controlled most of the information the American
"The Networks"? You mean like DOX NEWS?
No we know it's code for Liberal TV stattions.
BFD. They were smart enough to invent TV.
Post by John Corbett
people received. For almost 20 years the Big Three, Brokaw, Rather, and
Jennings had a virtual monopoly on what the American people were fed.
You mean on TV until Fox came along. But need I remiind you that we
Liberals were not happy with the conservatives on CBS.
Post by John Corbett
There was still radio and newspapers, but most people would rely on the
nightly news to find out what was going on in the country and the world
Most people did not want to wait 2 days to see what the news was.

And as they headed out the door they wanted to know if they neeeded to
take their umbrella or not.
That's why you hate liberals so much. They tell the truth.
You want Trump TV so that he can tell you that the Hurricane is just a
hoax invented by the Democrats.
Post by John Corbett
Then along came Fox, cable news, and then social media and that monopoly
was broken up. The founders envisioned having unfettered dissemination of
Which founders? Wnicn founderr envisioned TV? Franklin?
Post by John Corbett
information. Their belief was that in such a system, the best ideas would
that last part but I can't find the cite for it.
Did you just call Trump bullshit? Naughty boy.
Post by John Corbett
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
Post by John Corbett
Not really. Norma Rae and Hoffa are just two that come to mind off the top
of my head.
Oh, i know there has been some labor union movies yet compared to the long
list of great strikes Hollywood has failed to make them a genre. Molly
Maguires was another exception.
Cost 11 million to make and made 2.2 million at the box office. The
other movie you mention, Matewan, cost 4 million to make and made 2
million at the box office. You have to make films people want to watch,
not just the films someone wants to see made.
Post by ajohnstone
But I'm referring to what can be described as actual labor wars. How many
movies has there been about a handful of people engaging in a shoot-out or
running with a gang of outlaws but actual insurrection is not worthy of
Hollywood's attentions other than the occasional feature. Not because they
don't have dramatic stories to be told but because it is a history that is
to be suppressed.
They try to make movies that people might be interested in seeing, if
you can imagine.
The movie industry is a business like any other business. The idea is to
make a decent return on one's investment. It takes tens of millions to
Not always. Sometimes they intentionally make a movie to lose money
because some rich people are going to use it as propagnda against their
political opponents.
Post by John Corbett
make a movie. Studios aren't going to risk that kind of money unless they
believe there will be a profit in the end. There is a saying in Hollywood.
The only sequel that loses money is the last one. Maybe that will be Rocky
XII.
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
Here is a list of the killings of striking workers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_worker_deaths_in_United_States_labor_disputes
Likewise, the number of race riots fair a little bit better on the movie
screen but again not proportionate to the numbers and scale of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_racial_violence_in_the_United_States
Of all those Irish-Americans who proudly parade their heritage on St
Patrick's Day - how many know about the Irish in the St Patrick's
Battalion? It resulted in one of the biggest mass hangings in US history
and Irish history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Patrick%27s_Battalion
History as it is often said is determined by the victors.
Movies are determined by the box office receipts.
I don't know of anyone who thought Arnold Schwarzenegger was a great actor
but he could command $20 million a pop because his movies drew people to
the theaters. He spoke the truth when he said "I'll be back". Clint
Eastwood's later work brought him much critical acclaim but that wasn't
the case with his spaghetti westerns or the Dirty Harry franchise. Those
movies kept getting made because they made lots of money. As with any
other product, people vote with their dollars.
Some movies are made for political motives. Ever hear of a guy named
Michael Moore?
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-13 22:25:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
JC,
According to Wiki 2003 Gallup Poll reported that 75% of Americans do not
believe that Lee Harvey Oswald had acted alone. That same year, an ABC
News poll found that 70% of respondents suspected that the assassination
involved more than one person.A 2004 Fox News poll noted that 66% of
Americans thought there had been a conspiracy while 74% believed that
there was a cover-up. In 2009, 76% of people polled for CBS News said they
believed the President had been killed as the result of a conspiracy. A
2013 Gallup Poll found that 61% of Americans, the lowest figure in nearly
50 years, believed other people besides Oswald were involved.
Perhaps the latter downward trend reflects what may happen or it simply
shows that increasing numbers of people no longer care.
History is full of misunderstood events and truth disappears when false
facts are repeated over and over again.
Look at the rioting, some people see them as peaceful protests. One
person`s false fact is another person`s truth. How will history look at
these things, justifiable outrage or wanton violence?
The government can quickly change a peace protest into a riot when it
uses force.
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
My point is that the media determines what people perceive as true
history, and despite the numerous debunkings historians indulge in, movies
carry more weight.
At the moment there are options that push back against media
manipulation, disinformation, fake news and propaganda, like content
creators on youtube. The left is desperate to shut this down, but haven`t
found a way to do it yet.
And I don`t think most people are the sheep you think they are,
following the lead dictated by the media. People just want the facts, they
don`t want other people opinions foisted on them (which is why there is
such a backlash against BLM).
Post by ajohnstone
Post by John Corbett
Not really. Norma Rae and Hoffa are just two that come to mind off the top
of my head.
Oh, i know there has been some labor union movies yet compared to the long
list of great strikes Hollywood has failed to make them a genre. Molly
Maguires was another exception.
Cost 11 million to make and made 2.2 million at the box office. The
other movie you mention, Matewan, cost 4 million to make and made 2
million at the box office. You have to make films people want to watch,
not just the films someone wants to see made.
Post by ajohnstone
But I'm referring to what can be described as actual labor wars. How many
movies has there been about a handful of people engaging in a shoot-out or
running with a gang of outlaws but actual insurrection is not worthy of
Hollywood's attentions other than the occasional feature. Not because they
don't have dramatic stories to be told but because it is a history that is
to be suppressed.
They try to make movies that people might be interested in seeing, if
you can imagine.
Post by ajohnstone
Here is a list of the killings of striking workers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_worker_deaths_in_United_States_labor_disputes
Likewise, the number of race riots fair a little bit better on the movie
screen but again not proportionate to the numbers and scale of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_racial_violence_in_the_United_States
Of all those Irish-Americans who proudly parade their heritage on St
Patrick's Day - how many know about the Irish in the St Patrick's
Battalion? It resulted in one of the biggest mass hangings in US history
and Irish history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Patrick%27s_Battalion
History as it is often said is determined by the victors.
Movies are determined by the box office receipts.
Bud
2020-09-13 23:54:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
JC,
According to Wiki 2003 Gallup Poll reported that 75% of Americans do not
believe that Lee Harvey Oswald had acted alone. That same year, an ABC
News poll found that 70% of respondents suspected that the assassination
involved more than one person.A 2004 Fox News poll noted that 66% of
Americans thought there had been a conspiracy while 74% believed that
there was a cover-up. In 2009, 76% of people polled for CBS News said they
believed the President had been killed as the result of a conspiracy. A
2013 Gallup Poll found that 61% of Americans, the lowest figure in nearly
50 years, believed other people besides Oswald were involved.
Perhaps the latter downward trend reflects what may happen or it simply
shows that increasing numbers of people no longer care.
History is full of misunderstood events and truth disappears when false
facts are repeated over and over again.
Look at the rioting, some people see them as peaceful protests. One
person`s false fact is another person`s truth. How will history look at
these things, justifiable outrage or wanton violence?
The government can quickly change a peace protest into a riot when it
uses force.
Luckily they brought the weapons and molotov cocktails, eh?

If they only knew how to use them...


Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
My point is that the media determines what people perceive as true
history, and despite the numerous debunkings historians indulge in, movies
carry more weight.
At the moment there are options that push back against media
manipulation, disinformation, fake news and propaganda, like content
creators on youtube. The left is desperate to shut this down, but haven`t
found a way to do it yet.
And I don`t think most people are the sheep you think they are,
following the lead dictated by the media. People just want the facts, they
don`t want other people opinions foisted on them (which is why there is
such a backlash against BLM).
Post by ajohnstone
Post by John Corbett
Not really. Norma Rae and Hoffa are just two that come to mind off the top
of my head.
Oh, i know there has been some labor union movies yet compared to the long
list of great strikes Hollywood has failed to make them a genre. Molly
Maguires was another exception.
Cost 11 million to make and made 2.2 million at the box office. The
other movie you mention, Matewan, cost 4 million to make and made 2
million at the box office. You have to make films people want to watch,
not just the films someone wants to see made.
Post by ajohnstone
But I'm referring to what can be described as actual labor wars. How many
movies has there been about a handful of people engaging in a shoot-out or
running with a gang of outlaws but actual insurrection is not worthy of
Hollywood's attentions other than the occasional feature. Not because they
don't have dramatic stories to be told but because it is a history that is
to be suppressed.
They try to make movies that people might be interested in seeing, if
you can imagine.
Post by ajohnstone
Here is a list of the killings of striking workers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_worker_deaths_in_United_States_labor_disputes
Likewise, the number of race riots fair a little bit better on the movie
screen but again not proportionate to the numbers and scale of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_racial_violence_in_the_United_States
Of all those Irish-Americans who proudly parade their heritage on St
Patrick's Day - how many know about the Irish in the St Patrick's
Battalion? It resulted in one of the biggest mass hangings in US history
and Irish history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Patrick%27s_Battalion
History as it is often said is determined by the victors.
Movies are determined by the box office receipts.
Bud
2020-09-13 23:54:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
JC,
According to Wiki 2003 Gallup Poll reported that 75% of Americans do not
believe that Lee Harvey Oswald had acted alone. That same year, an ABC
News poll found that 70% of respondents suspected that the assassination
involved more than one person.A 2004 Fox News poll noted that 66% of
Americans thought there had been a conspiracy while 74% believed that
there was a cover-up. In 2009, 76% of people polled for CBS News said they
believed the President had been killed as the result of a conspiracy. A
2013 Gallup Poll found that 61% of Americans, the lowest figure in nearly
50 years, believed other people besides Oswald were involved.
Perhaps the latter downward trend reflects what may happen or it simply
shows that increasing numbers of people no longer care.
History is full of misunderstood events and truth disappears when false
facts are repeated over and over again.
Look at the rioting, some people see them as peaceful protests. One
person`s false fact is another person`s truth. How will history look at
these things, justifiable outrage or wanton violence?
The government can quickly change a peace protest into a riot when it
uses force.
The mainstream media can portray a riot as "peaceful".
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
My point is that the media determines what people perceive as true
history, and despite the numerous debunkings historians indulge in, movies
carry more weight.
At the moment there are options that push back against media
manipulation, disinformation, fake news and propaganda, like content
creators on youtube. The left is desperate to shut this down, but haven`t
found a way to do it yet.
And I don`t think most people are the sheep you think they are,
following the lead dictated by the media. People just want the facts, they
don`t want other people opinions foisted on them (which is why there is
such a backlash against BLM).
Post by ajohnstone
Post by John Corbett
Not really. Norma Rae and Hoffa are just two that come to mind off the top
of my head.
Oh, i know there has been some labor union movies yet compared to the long
list of great strikes Hollywood has failed to make them a genre. Molly
Maguires was another exception.
Cost 11 million to make and made 2.2 million at the box office. The
other movie you mention, Matewan, cost 4 million to make and made 2
million at the box office. You have to make films people want to watch,
not just the films someone wants to see made.
Post by ajohnstone
But I'm referring to what can be described as actual labor wars. How many
movies has there been about a handful of people engaging in a shoot-out or
running with a gang of outlaws but actual insurrection is not worthy of
Hollywood's attentions other than the occasional feature. Not because they
don't have dramatic stories to be told but because it is a history that is
to be suppressed.
They try to make movies that people might be interested in seeing, if
you can imagine.
Post by ajohnstone
Here is a list of the killings of striking workers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_worker_deaths_in_United_States_labor_disputes
Likewise, the number of race riots fair a little bit better on the movie
screen but again not proportionate to the numbers and scale of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_racial_violence_in_the_United_States
Of all those Irish-Americans who proudly parade their heritage on St
Patrick's Day - how many know about the Irish in the St Patrick's
Battalion? It resulted in one of the biggest mass hangings in US history
and Irish history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Patrick%27s_Battalion
History as it is often said is determined by the victors.
Movies are determined by the box office receipts.
John Corbett
2020-09-14 13:59:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
JC,
According to Wiki 2003 Gallup Poll reported that 75% of Americans do not
believe that Lee Harvey Oswald had acted alone. That same year, an ABC
News poll found that 70% of respondents suspected that the assassination
involved more than one person.A 2004 Fox News poll noted that 66% of
Americans thought there had been a conspiracy while 74% believed that
there was a cover-up. In 2009, 76% of people polled for CBS News said they
believed the President had been killed as the result of a conspiracy. A
2013 Gallup Poll found that 61% of Americans, the lowest figure in nearly
50 years, believed other people besides Oswald were involved.
Perhaps the latter downward trend reflects what may happen or it simply
shows that increasing numbers of people no longer care.
History is full of misunderstood events and truth disappears when false
facts are repeated over and over again.
Look at the rioting, some people see them as peaceful protests. One
person`s false fact is another person`s truth. How will history look at
these things, justifiable outrage or wanton violence?
The government can quickly change a peace protest into a riot when it
uses force.
The mainstream media can portray a riot as "peaceful".
The protests were "mostly peaceful". And the Titanic was mostly intact
after it hit the iceberg.
ajohnstone
2020-09-13 22:25:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Look at the rioting, some people see them as peaceful protests. One
person`s false fact is another person`s truth. How will history look at
these things, justifiable outrage or wanton violence?
Acquiring the right facts is the problem, isn't it? No doubt the
credibility of this report will be challenged but 93% of BLM protests
involved no harm to people or damage to property.

https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-violence-in-america-new-data-for-summer-2020/

What confuses the issue is for instance the Portland protests which should
be considered anti-police demonstrations rather than BLM actions. In
Portland, violent demonstrations rose from 53% to nearly 62% after federal
agents arrived on the scene.

MGM limited the distribution of one movie about the St Patrick's Battalion
"One Man's Hero"
Bud
2020-09-14 03:12:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by ajohnstone
Post by Bud
Look at the rioting, some people see them as peaceful protests. One
person`s false fact is another person`s truth. How will history look at
these things, justifiable outrage or wanton violence?
Acquiring the right facts is the problem, isn't it? No doubt the
credibility of this report will be challenged but 93% of BLM protests
involved no harm to people or damage to property.
Of the over 7 million active cases of COVID-19 here in the US, only 1%
are serious or critical. Does this mean COVID-19 isn`t a problem?
Post by ajohnstone
https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-violence-in-america-new-data-for-summer-2020/
What confuses the issue is for instance the Portland protests which should
be considered anti-police demonstrations rather than BLM actions. In
Portland, violent demonstrations rose from 53% to nearly 62% after federal
agents arrived on the scene.
Being violent is a choice, the protesters choose to be violent.

Can you imagine the shrill shrieking of the left if the right was acting
in this manner?
Post by ajohnstone
MGM limited the distribution of one movie about the St Patrick's Battalion
"One Man's Hero"
John Corbett
2020-09-14 13:59:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
Post by Bud
Look at the rioting, some people see them as peaceful protests. One
person`s false fact is another person`s truth. How will history look at
these things, justifiable outrage or wanton violence?
Acquiring the right facts is the problem, isn't it? No doubt the
credibility of this report will be challenged but 93% of BLM protests
involved no harm to people or damage to property.
Of the over 7 million active cases of COVID-19 here in the US, only 1%
are serious or critical. Does this mean COVID-19 isn`t a problem?
Post by ajohnstone
https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-violence-in-america-new-data-for-summer-2020/
What confuses the issue is for instance the Portland protests which should
be considered anti-police demonstrations rather than BLM actions. In
Portland, violent demonstrations rose from 53% to nearly 62% after federal
agents arrived on the scene.
Being violent is a choice, the protesters choose to be violent.
Can you imagine the shrill shrieking of the left if the right was acting
in this manner?
I can't imagine the right acting in that manner.
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-13 00:42:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
The enforcement of Tombstone's gun laws was just the pretext for the Earps
and Doc Holiday to have it out with the Clanton gang. The two groups
represented rival factions who were fighting for control of Tombstone
which had become a silver mining boom town.
oH, SO IMPORTANT and not at all off-topic. McAdams allows it as long as
you don't discuss the JFK assassnation.
Good Boy!
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
Not really. Norma Rae and Hoffa are just two that come to mind off the top
of my head.
You mean from the hole? Is that parietal or frontal?
Steven M. Galbraith
2020-09-12 15:16:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
I don't think it's just "most Americans" who have been misled into
believing in a conspiracy. From what I've read (yes, this is just
anecdotal evidence), most people in many other countries believe there was
one. It's odd how many people from the UK are pro-conspiracy people. At
least on the internet.

Earl Warren said that shortly after the Warren Report was issued that he
traveled abroad giving speeches on the law and that in Europe and S.
America that the first thing the reporters wanted to talk about was the
assassination. He said they simply couldn't believe it was done by a sole
assassin.

People - Americans and others - simply need to believe that great events
in history must have a great cause behind them. Believing that a nobody
like Oswald could alter history so greatly is too difficult to accept.
John Corbett
2020-09-13 00:41:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
I don't think it's just "most Americans" who have been misled into
believing in a conspiracy. From what I've read (yes, this is just
anecdotal evidence), most people in many other countries believe there was
one. It's odd how many people from the UK are pro-conspiracy people. At
least on the internet.
Earl Warren said that shortly after the Warren Report was issued that he
traveled abroad giving speeches on the law and that in Europe and S.
America that the first thing the reporters wanted to talk about was the
assassination. He said they simply couldn't believe it was done by a sole
assassin.
I've never understood people who think it required more than one man.
Oswald used a point and shoot device. It was as simple as taking a
picture.
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
People - Americans and others - simply need to believe that great events
in history must have a great cause behind them. Believing that a nobody
like Oswald could alter history so greatly is too difficult to accept.
Unless one looks at it logically instead of emotionally. Of the four
presidential assassinations, three were the work of one man. Booth was the
outlier. His original plan was to kidnap Lincoln but after Lee
surrendered, he decided murder was a better option as part of a plot to
decapitate the federal government. He was the only member of his team to
accomplish his mission.
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-13 00:42:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
I don't think it's just "most Americans" who have been misled into
believing in a conspiracy. From what I've read (yes, this is just
anecdotal evidence), most people in many other countries believe there was
one. It's odd how many people from the UK are pro-conspiracy people. At
least on the internet.
Earl Warren said that shortly after the Warren Report was issued that he
traveled abroad giving speeches on the law and that in Europe and S.
America that the first thing the reporters wanted to talk about was the
assassination. He said they simply couldn't believe it was done by a sole
assassin.
France more than an other country thought it was a conspiracy.
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
People - Americans and others - simply need to believe that great events
in history must have a great cause behind them. Believing that a nobody
like Oswald could alter history so greatly is too difficult to accept.
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-13 00:41:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
But Hollywood has always been interested in supporting the cover-up,
especially if the CIA is going to pay for it.



Have no fear. This is not a forum. This is a newsgrop znd there are
similar newsgroups. If you all agree on the facts there is nothing to
deabte. WC defnders need someone to attack to feel important. So will
always have the Nuthouse to go around attacking.
Post by ajohnstone
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
PBS covers a lot of that stuff that Hollywood won't. You don't neeed a 2
hour film when a one hour documentary can tell the facts.
Bud
2020-09-13 01:18:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Bugliosi`s book will be on the shelves, I guess. When are people who
attack are dead there will be no reason to defend it, I suppose.
Post by ajohnstone
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
I don`t know what people think or why they think it about this event.
The polls don`t shed a lot of insight.
Post by ajohnstone
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
That might be true but I wouldn`t state it as fact. I have seen plenty
of videos where average Americans are asked basic questions and are
stumped.

Myself, I watch all sorts of history videos on youtube. In the past
three weeks I`ve probably watched 10 videos about the war in the Pacific
(Battle of Midway, Battle of the Coral Sea, ect, along with a couple dozen
videos from this guy, who makes videos of bite sized historical events of
diverse interest...

https://www.youtube.com/c/TheHistoryGuyChannel/featured
Post by ajohnstone
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
I read about and see in videos a lot of interesting things that I think
could be made into movies, a lot more interesting than the stuff I see in
movies these days.

But you can believe if Hollywood ever did a story on Colonel Tye, it
would be reduced to propaganda crap, trying to score modern points and
ignoring historical realities.

I remember the "Shaka Zulu" miniseries that aired on TV, where he died a
noble death, when in reality he died begging for his life. Just saw a
thing on public television about some black queen, and they glossed over
the fact that she was up to her ass in the slave trade, capturing and
selling her enemies into slavery to the Dutch, because the narrative they
were contriving required the white Dutch slavers to be the bad guys, not
her.
Post by ajohnstone
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
I`d like to see that, I like stories of bravery and courage. But again,
Hollywood likes to infuse it`s movies with a messages which are nothing
more than political propaganda.

A recent "thing" is with Disney`s Mulan. Besides killing the
inspirational story contained in the original cartoon version on the alter
of today`s radical feminism, they thanked in the closing credits a
concentration camp that oppresses Muslims by making them eat pork, among
other things.




Post by ajohnstone
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
What you`d like is for a movie to be made where Wyatt Earp is made into
a poster boy for gun control.
Post by ajohnstone
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
Westerns are mostly entertainment. Why are there so many gangster
movies, gangsters aren`t that historically important. But people like
gangster movies, so movies about them are made. People aren`t clamoring
for labor struggle movies.
Post by ajohnstone
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
I`d have picked right up on it had I seen the movie and knew what it
was.
Post by ajohnstone
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
Hear, hear. I think he did a real good thing, especially when you don`t
see the same sort of push back anywhere else.
John Corbett
2020-09-13 10:56:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Bugliosi`s book will be on the shelves, I guess. When are people who
attack are dead there will be no reason to defend it, I suppose.
Post by ajohnstone
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
I don`t know what people think or why they think it about this event.
The polls don`t shed a lot of insight.
Post by ajohnstone
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
That might be true but I wouldn`t state it as fact. I have seen plenty
of videos where average Americans are asked basic questions and are
stumped.
Myself, I watch all sorts of history videos on youtube. In the past
three weeks I`ve probably watched 10 videos about the war in the Pacific
(Battle of Midway, Battle of the Coral Sea, ect, along with a couple dozen
videos from this guy, who makes videos of bite sized historical events of
diverse interest...
https://www.youtube.com/c/TheHistoryGuyChannel/featured
The Battle of Midway is one of the most interesting episodes in American
history as well as one of the most important. Had we lost that battle, and
we well could have, the war in the Pacific might have turned out very
differently. From the attack on Pearl Harbor until Midway, the Japanese
were on offense and we were on defense. After Midway until the end of the
war, we were on offense.

The success at Midway was a combination of brilliant planning and a good
deal of luck. Cracking the Japanese code and then baiting them into
confirming that AF was their code for Midway was a brilliant piece of
deception. The way the battle unfolded created a bit of unplanned luck.
The plan was for a coordinated attack on the Japanese carrier group.
Because our plans launched from so far out, the torpedo planes that were
first to spot the carriers couldn't wait over the target for the bombing
group and fighter cover to arrive or they wouldn't have had enough fuel to
get back to their own carriers. They launched an almost suicidal attack
and were decimated. However because torpedo planes have to launch their
torpedoes from low altitude, they brought down the Japanese fighters so
when the American dive bombers arrived, they had a free run at the
Japanese carriers and scratched three of the four. We would get the fourth
one later in the day.

Of course since you are a student of Midway, I'm sure I'm not telling you
anything you don't already know but some others may not know of these
details. Like another pivotal battle in our history, Gettysburg, chance
played a big part in the outcome. Chance also played a big part in Oswald
getting the opportunity to assassinate JFK. In all of these events there
are so many what-ifs that could have completely changed the outcome and
the direction of our history. People don't like to believe that important
events can be decided by random chance but that's the way life is. It's a
crapshoot.
c***@gmail.com
2020-09-13 18:14:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Bugliosi`s book will be on the shelves, I guess. When are people who
attack are dead there will be no reason to defend it, I suppose.
Post by ajohnstone
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
I don`t know what people think or why they think it about this event.
The polls don`t shed a lot of insight.
Post by ajohnstone
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
That might be true but I wouldn`t state it as fact. I have seen plenty
of videos where average Americans are asked basic questions and are
stumped.
Myself, I watch all sorts of history videos on youtube. In the past
three weeks I`ve probably watched 10 videos about the war in the Pacific
(Battle of Midway, Battle of the Coral Sea, ect, along with a couple dozen
videos from this guy, who makes videos of bite sized historical events of
diverse interest...
https://www.youtube.com/c/TheHistoryGuyChannel/featured
The Battle of Midway is one of the most interesting episodes in American
history as well as one of the most important. Had we lost that battle, and
we well could have, the war in the Pacific might have turned out very
differently. From the attack on Pearl Harbor until Midway, the Japanese
were on offense and we were on defense. After Midway until the end of the
war, we were on offense.
The success at Midway was a combination of brilliant planning and a good
deal of luck. Cracking the Japanese code and then baiting them into
confirming that AF was their code for Midway was a brilliant piece of
deception. The way the battle unfolded created a bit of unplanned luck.
The plan was for a coordinated attack on the Japanese carrier group.
Because our plans launched from so far out, the torpedo planes that were
first to spot the carriers couldn't wait over the target for the bombing
group and fighter cover to arrive or they wouldn't have had enough fuel to
get back to their own carriers. They launched an almost suicidal attack
and were decimated. However because torpedo planes have to launch their
torpedoes from low altitude, they brought down the Japanese fighters so
when the American dive bombers arrived, they had a free run at the
Japanese carriers and scratched three of the four. We would get the fourth
one later in the day.
Of course since you are a student of Midway, I'm sure I'm not telling you
anything you don't already know but some others may not know of these
details. Like another pivotal battle in our history, Gettysburg, chance
played a big part in the outcome. Chance also played a big part in Oswald
getting the opportunity to assassinate JFK. In all of these events there
are so many what-ifs that could have completely changed the outcome and
the direction of our history. People don't like to believe that important
events can be decided by random chance but that's the way life is. It's a
crapshoot.
I was watching a documentary last night on the US submarine force during
WW2, and it was the USS Nautilus, after an unsuccessful attack on the
Japanese formation and held down for a depth charge attack by a Japanese
destroyer, that lead to Wade McClusky's dive bombers finding the Jap
carriers. The destroyer was steaming north after keeping the US sub down,
and McClusky followed the sub to the main battle formation. The rest is
history. The Japanese never recovered their aircraft carrier prowess after
Midway. The unsuccessful attack by the Nautilus inadvertently lead to
McClusky's devastating attack. History turns on the unexpected.
John Corbett
2020-09-13 22:25:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by John Corbett
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Bugliosi`s book will be on the shelves, I guess. When are people who
attack are dead there will be no reason to defend it, I suppose.
Post by ajohnstone
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
I don`t know what people think or why they think it about this event.
The polls don`t shed a lot of insight.
Post by ajohnstone
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
That might be true but I wouldn`t state it as fact. I have seen plenty
of videos where average Americans are asked basic questions and are
stumped.
Myself, I watch all sorts of history videos on youtube. In the past
three weeks I`ve probably watched 10 videos about the war in the Pacific
(Battle of Midway, Battle of the Coral Sea, ect, along with a couple dozen
videos from this guy, who makes videos of bite sized historical events of
diverse interest...
https://www.youtube.com/c/TheHistoryGuyChannel/featured
The Battle of Midway is one of the most interesting episodes in American
history as well as one of the most important. Had we lost that battle, and
we well could have, the war in the Pacific might have turned out very
differently. From the attack on Pearl Harbor until Midway, the Japanese
were on offense and we were on defense. After Midway until the end of the
war, we were on offense.
The success at Midway was a combination of brilliant planning and a good
deal of luck. Cracking the Japanese code and then baiting them into
confirming that AF was their code for Midway was a brilliant piece of
deception. The way the battle unfolded created a bit of unplanned luck.
The plan was for a coordinated attack on the Japanese carrier group.
Because our plans launched from so far out, the torpedo planes that were
first to spot the carriers couldn't wait over the target for the bombing
group and fighter cover to arrive or they wouldn't have had enough fuel to
get back to their own carriers. They launched an almost suicidal attack
and were decimated. However because torpedo planes have to launch their
torpedoes from low altitude, they brought down the Japanese fighters so
when the American dive bombers arrived, they had a free run at the
Japanese carriers and scratched three of the four. We would get the fourth
one later in the day.
Of course since you are a student of Midway, I'm sure I'm not telling you
anything you don't already know but some others may not know of these
details. Like another pivotal battle in our history, Gettysburg, chance
played a big part in the outcome. Chance also played a big part in Oswald
getting the opportunity to assassinate JFK. In all of these events there
are so many what-ifs that could have completely changed the outcome and
the direction of our history. People don't like to believe that important
events can be decided by random chance but that's the way life is. It's a
crapshoot.
I was watching a documentary last night on the US submarine force during
WW2, and it was the USS Nautilus, after an unsuccessful attack on the
Japanese formation and held down for a depth charge attack by a Japanese
destroyer, that lead to Wade McClusky's dive bombers finding the Jap
carriers. The destroyer was steaming north after keeping the US sub down,
and McClusky followed the sub to the main battle formation. The rest is
history. The Japanese never recovered their aircraft carrier prowess after
Midway. The unsuccessful attack by the Nautilus inadvertently lead to
McClusky's devastating attack. History turns on the unexpected.
I'm not disputing what you just wrote but the way I heard the turn of
events is that McClusky's group initially flew to where the carriers had
been spotted but correctly calculated that the Japanese fleet had moved
south and east of that position and that is how he found the targets. Did
he have help from the Nautilis? Perhaps. I guess it depends on which
version you believe.
Bud
2020-09-13 23:54:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by John Corbett
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Bugliosi`s book will be on the shelves, I guess. When are people who
attack are dead there will be no reason to defend it, I suppose.
Post by ajohnstone
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
I don`t know what people think or why they think it about this event.
The polls don`t shed a lot of insight.
Post by ajohnstone
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
That might be true but I wouldn`t state it as fact. I have seen plenty
of videos where average Americans are asked basic questions and are
stumped.
Myself, I watch all sorts of history videos on youtube. In the past
three weeks I`ve probably watched 10 videos about the war in the Pacific
(Battle of Midway, Battle of the Coral Sea, ect, along with a couple dozen
videos from this guy, who makes videos of bite sized historical events of
diverse interest...
https://www.youtube.com/c/TheHistoryGuyChannel/featured
The Battle of Midway is one of the most interesting episodes in American
history as well as one of the most important. Had we lost that battle, and
we well could have, the war in the Pacific might have turned out very
differently. From the attack on Pearl Harbor until Midway, the Japanese
were on offense and we were on defense. After Midway until the end of the
war, we were on offense.
The success at Midway was a combination of brilliant planning and a good
deal of luck. Cracking the Japanese code and then baiting them into
confirming that AF was their code for Midway was a brilliant piece of
deception. The way the battle unfolded created a bit of unplanned luck.
The plan was for a coordinated attack on the Japanese carrier group.
Because our plans launched from so far out, the torpedo planes that were
first to spot the carriers couldn't wait over the target for the bombing
group and fighter cover to arrive or they wouldn't have had enough fuel to
get back to their own carriers. They launched an almost suicidal attack
and were decimated. However because torpedo planes have to launch their
torpedoes from low altitude, they brought down the Japanese fighters so
when the American dive bombers arrived, they had a free run at the
Japanese carriers and scratched three of the four. We would get the fourth
one later in the day.
Of course since you are a student of Midway, I'm sure I'm not telling you
anything you don't already know but some others may not know of these
details. Like another pivotal battle in our history, Gettysburg, chance
played a big part in the outcome. Chance also played a big part in Oswald
getting the opportunity to assassinate JFK. In all of these events there
are so many what-ifs that could have completely changed the outcome and
the direction of our history. People don't like to believe that important
events can be decided by random chance but that's the way life is. It's a
crapshoot.
I was watching a documentary last night on the US submarine force during
WW2, and it was the USS Nautilus, after an unsuccessful attack on the
Japanese formation and held down for a depth charge attack by a Japanese
destroyer, that lead to Wade McClusky's dive bombers finding the Jap
carriers. The destroyer was steaming north after keeping the US sub down,
and McClusky followed the sub to the main battle formation. The rest is
history. The Japanese never recovered their aircraft carrier prowess after
Midway. The unsuccessful attack by the Nautilus inadvertently lead to
McClusky's devastating attack. History turns on the unexpected.
Looks like history, especially military history, is like hip hop for old
white guys.
Bud
2020-09-13 18:14:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Bugliosi`s book will be on the shelves, I guess. When are people who
attack are dead there will be no reason to defend it, I suppose.
Post by ajohnstone
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
I don`t know what people think or why they think it about this event.
The polls don`t shed a lot of insight.
Post by ajohnstone
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
That might be true but I wouldn`t state it as fact. I have seen plenty
of videos where average Americans are asked basic questions and are
stumped.
Myself, I watch all sorts of history videos on youtube. In the past
three weeks I`ve probably watched 10 videos about the war in the Pacific
(Battle of Midway, Battle of the Coral Sea, ect, along with a couple dozen
videos from this guy, who makes videos of bite sized historical events of
diverse interest...
https://www.youtube.com/c/TheHistoryGuyChannel/featured
The Battle of Midway is one of the most interesting episodes in American
history as well as one of the most important. Had we lost that battle, and
we well could have, the war in the Pacific might have turned out very
differently. From the attack on Pearl Harbor until Midway, the Japanese
were on offense and we were on defense. After Midway until the end of the
war, we were on offense.
The success at Midway was a combination of brilliant planning and a good
deal of luck. Cracking the Japanese code and then baiting them into
confirming that AF was their code for Midway was a brilliant piece of
deception. The way the battle unfolded created a bit of unplanned luck.
The plan was for a coordinated attack on the Japanese carrier group.
Because our plans launched from so far out, the torpedo planes that were
first to spot the carriers couldn't wait over the target for the bombing
group and fighter cover to arrive or they wouldn't have had enough fuel to
get back to their own carriers. They launched an almost suicidal attack
and were decimated. However because torpedo planes have to launch their
torpedoes from low altitude, they brought down the Japanese fighters so
when the American dive bombers arrived, they had a free run at the
Japanese carriers and scratched three of the four. We would get the fourth
one later in the day.
Of course since you are a student of Midway, I'm sure I'm not telling you
anything you don't already know but some others may not know of these
details. Like another pivotal battle in our history, Gettysburg, chance
played a big part in the outcome. Chance also played a big part in Oswald
getting the opportunity to assassinate JFK. In all of these events there
are so many what-ifs that could have completely changed the outcome and
the direction of our history. People don't like to believe that important
events can be decided by random chance but that's the way life is. It's a
crapshoot.
These are the videos I watched and I highly recommend them.

The first is the Battle of Midway from the Japanese perspective...



The Japanese counter attack...



The battle from the American perspective...



The Battle of the Coral Sea, in some respects even more interesting...


Bud
2020-09-13 23:54:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by John Corbett
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Bugliosi`s book will be on the shelves, I guess. When are people who
attack are dead there will be no reason to defend it, I suppose.
Post by ajohnstone
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
I don`t know what people think or why they think it about this event.
The polls don`t shed a lot of insight.
Post by ajohnstone
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
That might be true but I wouldn`t state it as fact. I have seen plenty
of videos where average Americans are asked basic questions and are
stumped.
Myself, I watch all sorts of history videos on youtube. In the past
three weeks I`ve probably watched 10 videos about the war in the Pacific
(Battle of Midway, Battle of the Coral Sea, ect, along with a couple dozen
videos from this guy, who makes videos of bite sized historical events of
diverse interest...
https://www.youtube.com/c/TheHistoryGuyChannel/featured
The Battle of Midway is one of the most interesting episodes in American
history as well as one of the most important. Had we lost that battle, and
we well could have, the war in the Pacific might have turned out very
differently. From the attack on Pearl Harbor until Midway, the Japanese
were on offense and we were on defense. After Midway until the end of the
war, we were on offense.
The success at Midway was a combination of brilliant planning and a good
deal of luck. Cracking the Japanese code and then baiting them into
confirming that AF was their code for Midway was a brilliant piece of
deception. The way the battle unfolded created a bit of unplanned luck.
The plan was for a coordinated attack on the Japanese carrier group.
Because our plans launched from so far out, the torpedo planes that were
first to spot the carriers couldn't wait over the target for the bombing
group and fighter cover to arrive or they wouldn't have had enough fuel to
get back to their own carriers. They launched an almost suicidal attack
and were decimated. However because torpedo planes have to launch their
torpedoes from low altitude, they brought down the Japanese fighters so
when the American dive bombers arrived, they had a free run at the
Japanese carriers and scratched three of the four. We would get the fourth
one later in the day.
Of course since you are a student of Midway, I'm sure I'm not telling you
anything you don't already know but some others may not know of these
details. Like another pivotal battle in our history, Gettysburg, chance
played a big part in the outcome. Chance also played a big part in Oswald
getting the opportunity to assassinate JFK. In all of these events there
are so many what-ifs that could have completely changed the outcome and
the direction of our history. People don't like to believe that important
events can be decided by random chance but that's the way life is. It's a
crapshoot.
These are the videos I watched and I highly recommend them.
The first is the Battle of Midway from the Japanese perspective...
http://youtu.be/Bd8_vO5zrjo
The Japanese counter attack...
http://youtu.be/BXjydKPcX60
The battle from the American perspective...
http://youtu.be/WHO6xrSF7Sw
The Battle of the Coral Sea, in some respects even more interesting...
http://youtu.be/NB5hH3ksvKE
Just found this interesting video showing the rate we were turning out
ships compared to the rate the Japanese were. They could never compete...


John Corbett
2020-09-13 23:54:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by John Corbett
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Bugliosi`s book will be on the shelves, I guess. When are people who
attack are dead there will be no reason to defend it, I suppose.
Post by ajohnstone
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
I don`t know what people think or why they think it about this event.
The polls don`t shed a lot of insight.
Post by ajohnstone
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
That might be true but I wouldn`t state it as fact. I have seen plenty
of videos where average Americans are asked basic questions and are
stumped.
Myself, I watch all sorts of history videos on youtube. In the past
three weeks I`ve probably watched 10 videos about the war in the Pacific
(Battle of Midway, Battle of the Coral Sea, ect, along with a couple dozen
videos from this guy, who makes videos of bite sized historical events of
diverse interest...
https://www.youtube.com/c/TheHistoryGuyChannel/featured
The Battle of Midway is one of the most interesting episodes in American
history as well as one of the most important. Had we lost that battle, and
we well could have, the war in the Pacific might have turned out very
differently. From the attack on Pearl Harbor until Midway, the Japanese
were on offense and we were on defense. After Midway until the end of the
war, we were on offense.
The success at Midway was a combination of brilliant planning and a good
deal of luck. Cracking the Japanese code and then baiting them into
confirming that AF was their code for Midway was a brilliant piece of
deception. The way the battle unfolded created a bit of unplanned luck.
The plan was for a coordinated attack on the Japanese carrier group.
Because our plans launched from so far out, the torpedo planes that were
first to spot the carriers couldn't wait over the target for the bombing
group and fighter cover to arrive or they wouldn't have had enough fuel to
get back to their own carriers. They launched an almost suicidal attack
and were decimated. However because torpedo planes have to launch their
torpedoes from low altitude, they brought down the Japanese fighters so
when the American dive bombers arrived, they had a free run at the
Japanese carriers and scratched three of the four. We would get the fourth
one later in the day.
Of course since you are a student of Midway, I'm sure I'm not telling you
anything you don't already know but some others may not know of these
details. Like another pivotal battle in our history, Gettysburg, chance
played a big part in the outcome. Chance also played a big part in Oswald
getting the opportunity to assassinate JFK. In all of these events there
are so many what-ifs that could have completely changed the outcome and
the direction of our history. People don't like to believe that important
events can be decided by random chance but that's the way life is. It's a
crapshoot.
These are the videos I watched and I highly recommend them.
The first is the Battle of Midway from the Japanese perspective...
http://youtu.be/Bd8_vO5zrjo
The Japanese counter attack...
http://youtu.be/BXjydKPcX60
The battle from the American perspective...
http://youtu.be/WHO6xrSF7Sw
The Battle of the Coral Sea, in some respects even more interesting...
http://youtu.be/NB5hH3ksvKE
I thought the 1976 version of the Midway movie was superior to the 2019
version. The latter spent more time on events leading up to the battle of
Midway including the battle of the Coral Sea. Years after the 1976 version
wain the theater, it played on TV with additional footage that was cut
from the theatrical version. It included the battle of the Coral Sea.
Charlton Heston's character also had a girlfriend but that too had been
completely cut out. I thought Henry Fonda was better cast as Nimitz
instead of Woody Harrelson.

A couple more pieces of trivia:

Footage from the movie 30 Seconds Over Tokyo was used at the start of the
1976 version of the movie. The Doolittle Raid was used by Yamamoto to
convince the Japanese regime that they had to go for the knockout by
luring what was left of the American carrier fleet into battle so it could
be destroyed. I believe that footage was used again in the miniseries War
and Remembrance.

Football Hall of Fame football player Larry Csonka had an uncredited role
as Delaney, the engineer on the Yorktown. Like a number of his
contemporaries, he was trying his hand as a movie actor. It didn't exactly
pan out for him. I think that was his only movie role although he appeared
as a guest on several TV series.
Steven M. Galbraith
2020-09-13 22:25:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Bugliosi`s book will be on the shelves, I guess. When are people who
attack are dead there will be no reason to defend it, I suppose.
Post by ajohnstone
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
I don`t know what people think or why they think it about this event.
The polls don`t shed a lot of insight.
Post by ajohnstone
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
That might be true but I wouldn`t state it as fact. I have seen plenty
of videos where average Americans are asked basic questions and are
stumped.
Myself, I watch all sorts of history videos on youtube. In the past
three weeks I`ve probably watched 10 videos about the war in the Pacific
(Battle of Midway, Battle of the Coral Sea, ect, along with a couple dozen
videos from this guy, who makes videos of bite sized historical events of
diverse interest...
https://www.youtube.com/c/TheHistoryGuyChannel/featured
The Battle of Midway is one of the most interesting episodes in American
history as well as one of the most important. Had we lost that battle, and
we well could have, the war in the Pacific might have turned out very
differently. From the attack on Pearl Harbor until Midway, the Japanese
were on offense and we were on defense. After Midway until the end of the
war, we were on offense.
The success at Midway was a combination of brilliant planning and a good
deal of luck. Cracking the Japanese code and then baiting them into
confirming that AF was their code for Midway was a brilliant piece of
deception. The way the battle unfolded created a bit of unplanned luck.
The plan was for a coordinated attack on the Japanese carrier group.
Because our plans launched from so far out, the torpedo planes that were
first to spot the carriers couldn't wait over the target for the bombing
group and fighter cover to arrive or they wouldn't have had enough fuel to
get back to their own carriers. They launched an almost suicidal attack
and were decimated. However because torpedo planes have to launch their
torpedoes from low altitude, they brought down the Japanese fighters so
when the American dive bombers arrived, they had a free run at the
Japanese carriers and scratched three of the four. We would get the fourth
one later in the day.
Of course since you are a student of Midway, I'm sure I'm not telling you
anything you don't already know but some others may not know of these
details. Like another pivotal battle in our history, Gettysburg, chance
played a big part in the outcome. Chance also played a big part in Oswald
getting the opportunity to assassinate JFK. In all of these events there
are so many what-ifs that could have completely changed the outcome and
the direction of our history. People don't like to believe that important
events can be decided by random chance but that's the way life is. It's a
crapshoot.
The best book on the Battle of Midway is "The Shattered Sword" by Parshall
and Tully. They had the first access to the Japanese battle records and
uncovered some remarkable evidence.

For example, the flight decks of the Japanese carriers were NOT loaded
with aircraft getting ready to take off. All of the attack planes were
below in the hangar decks. However, bombs and fuel lines WERE exposed in
the flight decks and when the bombs hit there they went off. Plus,
Japanese carriers had large amounts of wood on them because Japan had a
shortage of steel (due to our embargo). So they burned more easily.

And we weren't really lucky; it was a combination of Japanese naval
doctrine and the decision by Fletcher to launch his aircraft immediately -
and piecemeal - after finding the carriers that worked.

Here's a link: http://www.shatteredswordbook.com/myths.htm
John Corbett
2020-09-14 03:13:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Bugliosi`s book will be on the shelves, I guess. When are people who
attack are dead there will be no reason to defend it, I suppose.
Post by ajohnstone
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
I don`t know what people think or why they think it about this event.
The polls don`t shed a lot of insight.
Post by ajohnstone
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
That might be true but I wouldn`t state it as fact. I have seen plenty
of videos where average Americans are asked basic questions and are
stumped.
Myself, I watch all sorts of history videos on youtube. In the past
three weeks I`ve probably watched 10 videos about the war in the Pacific
(Battle of Midway, Battle of the Coral Sea, ect, along with a couple dozen
videos from this guy, who makes videos of bite sized historical events of
diverse interest...
https://www.youtube.com/c/TheHistoryGuyChannel/featured
The Battle of Midway is one of the most interesting episodes in American
history as well as one of the most important. Had we lost that battle, and
we well could have, the war in the Pacific might have turned out very
differently. From the attack on Pearl Harbor until Midway, the Japanese
were on offense and we were on defense. After Midway until the end of the
war, we were on offense.
The success at Midway was a combination of brilliant planning and a good
deal of luck. Cracking the Japanese code and then baiting them into
confirming that AF was their code for Midway was a brilliant piece of
deception. The way the battle unfolded created a bit of unplanned luck.
The plan was for a coordinated attack on the Japanese carrier group.
Because our plans launched from so far out, the torpedo planes that were
first to spot the carriers couldn't wait over the target for the bombing
group and fighter cover to arrive or they wouldn't have had enough fuel to
get back to their own carriers. They launched an almost suicidal attack
and were decimated. However because torpedo planes have to launch their
torpedoes from low altitude, they brought down the Japanese fighters so
when the American dive bombers arrived, they had a free run at the
Japanese carriers and scratched three of the four. We would get the fourth
one later in the day.
Of course since you are a student of Midway, I'm sure I'm not telling you
anything you don't already know but some others may not know of these
details. Like another pivotal battle in our history, Gettysburg, chance
played a big part in the outcome. Chance also played a big part in Oswald
getting the opportunity to assassinate JFK. In all of these events there
are so many what-ifs that could have completely changed the outcome and
the direction of our history. People don't like to believe that important
events can be decided by random chance but that's the way life is. It's a
crapshoot.
The best book on the Battle of Midway is "The Shattered Sword" by Parshall
and Tully. They had the first access to the Japanese battle records and
uncovered some remarkable evidence.
For example, the flight decks of the Japanese carriers were NOT loaded
with aircraft getting ready to take off. All of the attack planes were
below in the hangar decks. However, bombs and fuel lines WERE exposed in
the flight decks and when the bombs hit there they went off. Plus,
Japanese carriers had large amounts of wood on them because Japan had a
shortage of steel (due to our embargo). So they burned more easily.
And we weren't really lucky; it was a combination of Japanese naval
doctrine and the decision by Fletcher to launch his aircraft immediately -
and piecemeal - after finding the carriers that worked.
Here's a link: http://www.shatteredswordbook.com/myths.htm
My understanding is that Spruance after receiving the order from Fletcher
to launch his torpedo planes decided to close the gap between his group
and the Japanese to ensure they would have enough fuel to reach the target
and return safely. He steamed southwest for about 45 minutes before
launching. Once the decision was made to launch, he had to turn his
carriers into the wind which was coming out of the east and also reach a
speed of 29 knots to allow his attack planes to take off. Had the bombers
and torpedo planes all reached the target together and coordinated the
attack, Japanese fighters could have attacked both groups but because they
descended on the low flying torpedo planes, they weren't at their cover
altitude to defend against the dive bombers who ended up having a turkey
shoot. That wasn't the plan but that's how it worked out. Luck did play a
part in the battle. Perhaps naming the US carrier place of rendezvous
Point Luck was prophetic. Luck was not the primary reason for the American
victory but it certainly played in our favor.
Steven M. Galbraith
2020-09-15 02:39:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Bugliosi`s book will be on the shelves, I guess. When are people who
attack are dead there will be no reason to defend it, I suppose.
Post by ajohnstone
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
I don`t know what people think or why they think it about this event.
The polls don`t shed a lot of insight.
Post by ajohnstone
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
That might be true but I wouldn`t state it as fact. I have seen plenty
of videos where average Americans are asked basic questions and are
stumped.
Myself, I watch all sorts of history videos on youtube. In the past
three weeks I`ve probably watched 10 videos about the war in the Pacific
(Battle of Midway, Battle of the Coral Sea, ect, along with a couple dozen
videos from this guy, who makes videos of bite sized historical events of
diverse interest...
https://www.youtube.com/c/TheHistoryGuyChannel/featured
The Battle of Midway is one of the most interesting episodes in American
history as well as one of the most important. Had we lost that battle, and
we well could have, the war in the Pacific might have turned out very
differently. From the attack on Pearl Harbor until Midway, the Japanese
were on offense and we were on defense. After Midway until the end of the
war, we were on offense.
The success at Midway was a combination of brilliant planning and a good
deal of luck. Cracking the Japanese code and then baiting them into
confirming that AF was their code for Midway was a brilliant piece of
deception. The way the battle unfolded created a bit of unplanned luck.
The plan was for a coordinated attack on the Japanese carrier group.
Because our plans launched from so far out, the torpedo planes that were
first to spot the carriers couldn't wait over the target for the bombing
group and fighter cover to arrive or they wouldn't have had enough fuel to
get back to their own carriers. They launched an almost suicidal attack
and were decimated. However because torpedo planes have to launch their
torpedoes from low altitude, they brought down the Japanese fighters so
when the American dive bombers arrived, they had a free run at the
Japanese carriers and scratched three of the four. We would get the fourth
one later in the day.
Of course since you are a student of Midway, I'm sure I'm not telling you
anything you don't already know but some others may not know of these
details. Like another pivotal battle in our history, Gettysburg, chance
played a big part in the outcome. Chance also played a big part in Oswald
getting the opportunity to assassinate JFK. In all of these events there
are so many what-ifs that could have completely changed the outcome and
the direction of our history. People don't like to believe that important
events can be decided by random chance but that's the way life is. It's a
crapshoot.
The best book on the Battle of Midway is "The Shattered Sword" by Parshall
and Tully. They had the first access to the Japanese battle records and
uncovered some remarkable evidence.
For example, the flight decks of the Japanese carriers were NOT loaded
with aircraft getting ready to take off. All of the attack planes were
below in the hangar decks. However, bombs and fuel lines WERE exposed in
the flight decks and when the bombs hit there they went off. Plus,
Japanese carriers had large amounts of wood on them because Japan had a
shortage of steel (due to our embargo). So they burned more easily.
And we weren't really lucky; it was a combination of Japanese naval
doctrine and the decision by Fletcher to launch his aircraft immediately -
and piecemeal - after finding the carriers that worked.
Here's a link: http://www.shatteredswordbook.com/myths.htm
My understanding is that Spruance after receiving the order from Fletcher
to launch his torpedo planes decided to close the gap between his group
and the Japanese to ensure they would have enough fuel to reach the target
and return safely. He steamed southwest for about 45 minutes before
launching. Once the decision was made to launch, he had to turn his
carriers into the wind which was coming out of the east and also reach a
speed of 29 knots to allow his attack planes to take off. Had the bombers
and torpedo planes all reached the target together and coordinated the
attack, Japanese fighters could have attacked both groups but because they
descended on the low flying torpedo planes, they weren't at their cover
altitude to defend against the dive bombers who ended up having a turkey
shoot. That wasn't the plan but that's how it worked out. Luck did play a
part in the battle. Perhaps naming the US carrier place of rendezvous
Point Luck was prophetic. Luck was not the primary reason for the American
victory but it certainly played in our favor.
Right, but as I understand it - from the Parshall book "Shattered Sword",
for example - a combined, coordinated strike by us with the bombers
(torpedo+dive) protected with fighter aircraft would have been impossible
for the Japanese combat air patrol to overcome. They didn't have enough
Zeroes to fight off the more than 200 planes that would have been
involved. Instead, the piecemeal/disjointed attacks were more easily
destroyed, i.e., the slow torpedo bombers, with no fighter escorts, were
slaughtered.

Fletcher and Spruance didn't want to wait for a coordinated attack. They
knew from their experience at the Battle of the Coral Sea that naval
doctrine was completely turned upside down by the advent of carrier
launched aircraft. The victor in such a conflict would be the side that
attacked first.

Wikipedia can be pretty bad but sometimes it's good. Here's their account:

"American squadrons were launched piecemeal and proceeded to the target in
several different groups. It was accepted that the lack of coordination
would diminish the impact of the American attacks and increase their
casualties [which is what happened], but Spruance calculated that this was
worthwhile, since keeping the Japanese under aerial attack impaired their
ability to launch a counterstrike (Japanese tactics preferred fully
constituted attacks), and he gambled that he would find Nagumo with his
flight decks at their most vulnerable."

The gamble paid off; so I guess that was the luck. But as you probably
know, history has often changed quite dramatically on luck. Oswald had,
sadly, a lot of it that November day.

There, I connected this to the assassination.
John Corbett
2020-09-13 10:56:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
I`d have picked right up on it had I seen the movie and knew what it
was.
I saw Treasure of Sierra Madre one time but would never have associated it
with Marx. I never saw a Humphrey Bogart movie I didn't like and TOSM was
one of his best.

There is an ironic bit of trivia from the movie. Robert Blake had a small
role in it as a child actor. Later as an adult playing Perry Smith in In
Cold Blood, his character makes several references to the movie.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061809/trivia

"In two scenes Robert Blake's character makes a reference to The Treasure
of the Sierra Madre (1948). Blake played the paperboy who sold the winning
lottery ticket to Humphrey Bogart in that classic movie. However, despite
the fact that many people believe it was written into the script because
of Blake. It wasn't. According to Truman Capote, it was Perry Smith's
favorite movie."
ajohnstone
2020-09-13 22:25:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
I saw Treasure of Sierra Madre one time but would never have associated
it with Marx.


The original novel was written by B. Traven, a German anarcho-communist
exile from the Spartacist Uprising

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._Traven

But actually the reference to the Labor Theory of Value is found only in
the movie.
ajohnstone
2020-09-13 18:14:23 UTC
Permalink
Bud, i don't think we have agreed as much as we have now and even when we
differed, there was no rancor.
c***@gmail.com
2020-09-13 18:14:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Bugliosi`s book will be on the shelves, I guess. When are people who
attack are dead there will be no reason to defend it, I suppose.
Post by ajohnstone
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
I don`t know what people think or why they think it about this event.
The polls don`t shed a lot of insight.
Post by ajohnstone
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
That might be true but I wouldn`t state it as fact. I have seen plenty
of videos where average Americans are asked basic questions and are
stumped.
Myself, I watch all sorts of history videos on youtube. In the past
three weeks I`ve probably watched 10 videos about the war in the Pacific
(Battle of Midway, Battle of the Coral Sea, ect, along with a couple dozen
videos from this guy, who makes videos of bite sized historical events of
diverse interest...
https://www.youtube.com/c/TheHistoryGuyChannel/featured
Bud, search YouTube for Mark Felton, an author and YouTube video guy who
makes extraordinary 10-20 minute long mini-documentaries on mostly
WW2-related subjects. I've watched stuff from the History Guy, too. I've
probably watched hundreds of videos from those two guys over the past few
years.
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
I read about and see in videos a lot of interesting things that I think
could be made into movies, a lot more interesting than the stuff I see in
movies these days.
But you can believe if Hollywood ever did a story on Colonel Tye, it
would be reduced to propaganda crap, trying to score modern points and
ignoring historical realities.
I remember the "Shaka Zulu" miniseries that aired on TV, where he died a
noble death, when in reality he died begging for his life. Just saw a
thing on public television about some black queen, and they glossed over
the fact that she was up to her ass in the slave trade, capturing and
selling her enemies into slavery to the Dutch, because the narrative they
were contriving required the white Dutch slavers to be the bad guys, not
her.
Post by ajohnstone
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
I`d like to see that, I like stories of bravery and courage. But again,
Hollywood likes to infuse it`s movies with a messages which are nothing
more than political propaganda.
A recent "thing" is with Disney`s Mulan. Besides killing the
inspirational story contained in the original cartoon version on the alter
of today`s radical feminism, they thanked in the closing credits a
concentration camp that oppresses Muslims by making them eat pork, among
other things.
http://youtu.be/kIH-eFqBLP4
http://youtu.be/wi1fjPAG-BA
Post by ajohnstone
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
What you`d like is for a movie to be made where Wyatt Earp is made into
a poster boy for gun control.
Post by ajohnstone
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
Westerns are mostly entertainment. Why are there so many gangster
movies, gangsters aren`t that historically important. But people like
gangster movies, so movies about them are made. People aren`t clamoring
for labor struggle movies.
Post by ajohnstone
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
I`d have picked right up on it had I seen the movie and knew what it
was.
Post by ajohnstone
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
Hear, hear. I think he did a real good thing, especially when you don`t
see the same sort of push back anywhere else.
John McAdams lead the way in the internet age to snuffing out the JFK
conspiracy hobby.

I think polling the American public nearly six decades after the shooting
is mostly useless at this point. My adult kids barely know (or care) who
JFK was. They do not share my interest in history or politics. To the
extent they may have learned a little about him in a history class in HS,
it was just a few lines: ("In November of 1963, the vibrant Kennedy was
cut down by an assassin's bullets in Dallas, Texas. Vice President Lyndon
Baines Johnson was sworn in as president and pledged to continue Kennedy's
policies.")

Life has moved on. I think if someone polled the adults who express enough
of an interest in this topic to take time out of their day and engage in
back-and-forth about the evidence on a discussion board, read articles and
books about it, and so on, the polling of that more relevant group would
show a heavy bias towards Oswald as the long gunman. John's website and
discussion board had a lot to do with moving the needle. (Along with just
the passing of time itself.)

Over the past several decades, all of the new "energy" on this topic has
pointed towards Oswald's sole guilt. The CTs still can't come up with a
conspiracy theory to test against the Oswald alone conclusion.
Bud
2020-09-13 23:54:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Bugliosi`s book will be on the shelves, I guess. When are people who
attack are dead there will be no reason to defend it, I suppose.
Post by ajohnstone
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
I don`t know what people think or why they think it about this event.
The polls don`t shed a lot of insight.
Post by ajohnstone
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
That might be true but I wouldn`t state it as fact. I have seen plenty
of videos where average Americans are asked basic questions and are
stumped.
Myself, I watch all sorts of history videos on youtube. In the past
three weeks I`ve probably watched 10 videos about the war in the Pacific
(Battle of Midway, Battle of the Coral Sea, ect, along with a couple dozen
videos from this guy, who makes videos of bite sized historical events of
diverse interest...
https://www.youtube.com/c/TheHistoryGuyChannel/featured
Bud, search YouTube for Mark Felton, an author and YouTube video guy who
makes extraordinary 10-20 minute long mini-documentaries on mostly
WW2-related subjects. I've watched stuff from the History Guy, too. I've
probably watched hundreds of videos from those two guys over the past few
years.
I`ve watched Mark Felton videos although I didn`t realize it, I watch
history videos and they come up in the "recommended for you", so I`ve
watched some of them (definitely watched the one about the hunt for the
Argentine aircraft carrier by the British during the Falklands War).

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfCKvREB11-fxyotS1ONgww/featured

I`ll sometimes binge on Baz battles, which are real history junk food...

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCx-dJoP9hFCBloY9qodykvw
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
I read about and see in videos a lot of interesting things that I think
could be made into movies, a lot more interesting than the stuff I see in
movies these days.
But you can believe if Hollywood ever did a story on Colonel Tye, it
would be reduced to propaganda crap, trying to score modern points and
ignoring historical realities.
I remember the "Shaka Zulu" miniseries that aired on TV, where he died a
noble death, when in reality he died begging for his life. Just saw a
thing on public television about some black queen, and they glossed over
the fact that she was up to her ass in the slave trade, capturing and
selling her enemies into slavery to the Dutch, because the narrative they
were contriving required the white Dutch slavers to be the bad guys, not
her.
Post by ajohnstone
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
I`d like to see that, I like stories of bravery and courage. But again,
Hollywood likes to infuse it`s movies with a messages which are nothing
more than political propaganda.
A recent "thing" is with Disney`s Mulan. Besides killing the
inspirational story contained in the original cartoon version on the alter
of today`s radical feminism, they thanked in the closing credits a
concentration camp that oppresses Muslims by making them eat pork, among
other things.
http://youtu.be/kIH-eFqBLP4
http://youtu.be/wi1fjPAG-BA
Post by ajohnstone
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
What you`d like is for a movie to be made where Wyatt Earp is made into
a poster boy for gun control.
Post by ajohnstone
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
Westerns are mostly entertainment. Why are there so many gangster
movies, gangsters aren`t that historically important. But people like
gangster movies, so movies about them are made. People aren`t clamoring
for labor struggle movies.
Post by ajohnstone
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
I`d have picked right up on it had I seen the movie and knew what it
was.
Post by ajohnstone
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
Hear, hear. I think he did a real good thing, especially when you don`t
see the same sort of push back anywhere else.
John McAdams lead the way in the internet age to snuffing out the JFK
conspiracy hobby.
Yah, you can tell how effective he has been by how much they hate him.
What DVP writes is like nails on a chalkboard to them also. A lot of the
hard core on both sides have fallen silent it seems, or are locked in echo
chamber forums like the Education Forum or the Deep Politics Forum.
Post by c***@gmail.com
I think polling the American public nearly six decades after the shooting
is mostly useless at this point.
Seems to me a lot of the polling showing a belief in conspiracy early on
was Oswald in cahoots with the Cubans or Russians, but the polling
questions aren`t detailed enough to differentiate what kind of conspiracy.
Post by c***@gmail.com
My adult kids barely know (or care) who
JFK was. They do not share my interest in history or politics.
Unlikely they are going out to see the class struggle movies ajohnstone
would like to see made.
Post by c***@gmail.com
To the
extent they may have learned a little about him in a history class in HS,
it was just a few lines: ("In November of 1963, the vibrant Kennedy was
cut down by an assassin's bullets in Dallas, Texas. Vice President Lyndon
Baines Johnson was sworn in as president and pledged to continue Kennedy's
policies.")
Life has moved on. I think if someone polled the adults who express enough
of an interest in this topic to take time out of their day and engage in
back-and-forth about the evidence on a discussion board, read articles and
books about it, and so on, the polling of that more relevant group would
show a heavy bias towards Oswald as the long gunman. John's website and
discussion board had a lot to do with moving the needle. (Along with just
the passing of time itself.)
At least the information was there, that`s the main thing. Even if it
didn`t sway many at least it was available. I don`t need to be sold, just
give me the information.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Over the past several decades, all of the new "energy" on this topic has
pointed towards Oswald's sole guilt. The CTs still can't come up with a
conspiracy theory to test against the Oswald alone conclusion.
Never will. The conspiracy they imagine seems to be everywhere doing
everything, but can`t really be shown anywhere.
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-13 22:25:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Bugliosi`s book will be on the shelves, I guess. When are people who
attack are dead there will be no reason to defend it, I suppose.
Post by ajohnstone
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
I don`t know what people think or why they think it about this event.
The polls don`t shed a lot of insight.
Post by ajohnstone
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
That might be true but I wouldn`t state it as fact. I have seen plenty
of videos where average Americans are asked basic questions and are
stumped.
Myself, I watch all sorts of history videos on youtube. In the past
Do you understand that YouTube is owned by Google?

Ten years ago this week, Google bought YouTube for $1.65 billion. That
figure seems quaint now (it equates to WhatsApp being worth about 13
YouTubes) but at the time it was an eye-popping figure to pay for a
startup only a year and a half old. Some analysts and competitors said
Google overpaid. Mark Cuban said the search giant was ???crazy??? to take
on YouTube???s many legal liabilities. Google itself later acknowledged
that YouTube wasn???t worth anywhere near the price tag at the time of the
acquisition.

Are you OK with that? Google has been filtering searches to favor Trump.
Is that why you like it?
Post by Bud
three weeks I`ve probably watched 10 videos about the war in the Pacific
(Battle of Midway, Battle of the Coral Sea, ect, along with a couple dozen
videos from this guy, who makes videos of bite sized historical events of
diverse interest...
https://www.youtube.com/c/TheHistoryGuyChannel/featured
Post by ajohnstone
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
I read about and see in videos a lot of interesting things that I think
could be made into movies, a lot more interesting than the stuff I see in
movies these days.
But you can believe if Hollywood ever did a story on Colonel Tye, it
would be reduced to propaganda crap, trying to score modern points and
ignoring historical realities.
I remember the "Shaka Zulu" miniseries that aired on TV, where he died a
noble death, when in reality he died begging for his life. Just saw a
thing on public television about some black queen, and they glossed over
the fact that she was up to her ass in the slave trade, capturing and
selling her enemies into slavery to the Dutch, because the narrative they
were contriving required the white Dutch slavers to be the bad guys, not
her.
Post by ajohnstone
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
I`d like to see that, I like stories of bravery and courage. But again,
Hollywood likes to infuse it`s movies with a messages which are nothing
more than political propaganda.
A recent "thing" is with Disney`s Mulan. Besides killing the
inspirational story contained in the original cartoon version on the alter
of today`s radical feminism, they thanked in the closing credits a
concentration camp that oppresses Muslims by making them eat pork, among
other things.
http://youtu.be/kIH-eFqBLP4
http://youtu.be/wi1fjPAG-BA
Post by ajohnstone
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
What you`d like is for a movie to be made where Wyatt Earp is made into
a poster boy for gun control.
Post by ajohnstone
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
Westerns are mostly entertainment. Why are there so many gangster
movies, gangsters aren`t that historically important. But people like
gangster movies, so movies about them are made. People aren`t clamoring
for labor struggle movies.
Post by ajohnstone
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
I`d have picked right up on it had I seen the movie and knew what it
was.
Post by ajohnstone
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
Hear, hear. I think he did a real good thing, especially when you don`t
see the same sort of push back anywhere else.
Bud
2020-09-13 23:54:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Bugliosi`s book will be on the shelves, I guess. When are people who
attack are dead there will be no reason to defend it, I suppose.
Post by ajohnstone
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
I don`t know what people think or why they think it about this event.
The polls don`t shed a lot of insight.
Post by ajohnstone
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
That might be true but I wouldn`t state it as fact. I have seen plenty
of videos where average Americans are asked basic questions and are
stumped.
Myself, I watch all sorts of history videos on youtube. In the past
Do you understand that YouTube is owned by Google?
Ten years ago this week, Google bought YouTube for $1.65 billion. That
figure seems quaint now (it equates to WhatsApp being worth about 13
YouTubes) but at the time it was an eye-popping figure to pay for a
startup only a year and a half old. Some analysts and competitors said
Google overpaid. Mark Cuban said the search giant was ???crazy??? to take
on YouTube???s many legal liabilities. Google itself later acknowledged
that YouTube wasn???t worth anywhere near the price tag at the time of the
acquisition.
Are you OK with that? Google has been filtering searches to favor Trump.
Is that why you like it?
You`re joking, right?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
three weeks I`ve probably watched 10 videos about the war in the Pacific
(Battle of Midway, Battle of the Coral Sea, ect, along with a couple dozen
videos from this guy, who makes videos of bite sized historical events of
diverse interest...
https://www.youtube.com/c/TheHistoryGuyChannel/featured
Post by ajohnstone
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
I read about and see in videos a lot of interesting things that I think
could be made into movies, a lot more interesting than the stuff I see in
movies these days.
But you can believe if Hollywood ever did a story on Colonel Tye, it
would be reduced to propaganda crap, trying to score modern points and
ignoring historical realities.
I remember the "Shaka Zulu" miniseries that aired on TV, where he died a
noble death, when in reality he died begging for his life. Just saw a
thing on public television about some black queen, and they glossed over
the fact that she was up to her ass in the slave trade, capturing and
selling her enemies into slavery to the Dutch, because the narrative they
were contriving required the white Dutch slavers to be the bad guys, not
her.
Post by ajohnstone
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
I`d like to see that, I like stories of bravery and courage. But again,
Hollywood likes to infuse it`s movies with a messages which are nothing
more than political propaganda.
A recent "thing" is with Disney`s Mulan. Besides killing the
inspirational story contained in the original cartoon version on the alter
of today`s radical feminism, they thanked in the closing credits a
concentration camp that oppresses Muslims by making them eat pork, among
other things.
http://youtu.be/kIH-eFqBLP4
http://youtu.be/wi1fjPAG-BA
Post by ajohnstone
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
What you`d like is for a movie to be made where Wyatt Earp is made into
a poster boy for gun control.
Post by ajohnstone
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
Westerns are mostly entertainment. Why are there so many gangster
movies, gangsters aren`t that historically important. But people like
gangster movies, so movies about them are made. People aren`t clamoring
for labor struggle movies.
Post by ajohnstone
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
I`d have picked right up on it had I seen the movie and knew what it
was.
Post by ajohnstone
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
Hear, hear. I think he did a real good thing, especially when you don`t
see the same sort of push back anywhere else.
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2020-09-15 02:39:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Bugliosi`s book will be on the shelves, I guess. When are people who
attack are dead there will be no reason to defend it, I suppose.
Post by ajohnstone
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
I don`t know what people think or why they think it about this event.
The polls don`t shed a lot of insight.
Post by ajohnstone
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
That might be true but I wouldn`t state it as fact. I have seen plenty
of videos where average Americans are asked basic questions and are
stumped.
Myself, I watch all sorts of history videos on youtube. In the past
three weeks I`ve probably watched 10 videos about the war in the Pacific
(Battle of Midway, Battle of the Coral Sea, ect, along with a couple dozen
videos from this guy, who makes videos of bite sized historical events of
diverse interest...
https://www.youtube.com/c/TheHistoryGuyChannel/featured
Post by ajohnstone
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
I read about and see in videos a lot of interesting things that I think
could be made into movies, a lot more interesting than the stuff I see in
movies these days.
But you can believe if Hollywood ever did a story on Colonel Tye, it
would be reduced to propaganda crap, trying to score modern points and
ignoring historical realities.
I remember the "Shaka Zulu" miniseries that aired on TV, where he died a
noble death, when in reality he died begging for his life. Just saw a
thing on public television about some black queen, and they glossed over
the fact that she was up to her ass in the slave trade, capturing and
selling her enemies into slavery to the Dutch, because the narrative they
were contriving required the white Dutch slavers to be the bad guys, not
her.
Post by ajohnstone
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
I`d like to see that, I like stories of bravery and courage. But again,
Hollywood likes to infuse it`s movies with a messages which are nothing
more than political propaganda.
A recent "thing" is with Disney`s Mulan. Besides killing the
inspirational story contained in the original cartoon version on the alter
of today`s radical feminism, they thanked in the closing credits a
concentration camp that oppresses Muslims by making them eat pork, among
other things.
http://youtu.be/kIH-eFqBLP4
http://youtu.be/wi1fjPAG-BA
Post by ajohnstone
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
What you`d like is for a movie to be made where Wyatt Earp is made into
a poster boy for gun control.
Post by ajohnstone
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
Westerns are mostly entertainment. Why are there so many gangster
movies, gangsters aren`t that historically important. But people like
gangster movies, so movies about them are made. People aren`t clamoring
for labor struggle movies.
But come the revolution, all that will change. And such movies will be
made. And attendance will be mandatory. Oswald hated the Soviet Union once
he lived there.
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
I`d have picked right up on it had I seen the movie and knew what it
was.
Post by ajohnstone
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
Hear, hear. I think he did a real good thing, especially when you don`t
see the same sort of push back anywhere else.
Bud
2020-09-15 21:10:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Bugliosi`s book will be on the shelves, I guess. When are people who
attack are dead there will be no reason to defend it, I suppose.
Post by ajohnstone
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
I don`t know what people think or why they think it about this event.
The polls don`t shed a lot of insight.
Post by ajohnstone
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
That might be true but I wouldn`t state it as fact. I have seen plenty
of videos where average Americans are asked basic questions and are
stumped.
Myself, I watch all sorts of history videos on youtube. In the past
three weeks I`ve probably watched 10 videos about the war in the Pacific
(Battle of Midway, Battle of the Coral Sea, ect, along with a couple dozen
videos from this guy, who makes videos of bite sized historical events of
diverse interest...
https://www.youtube.com/c/TheHistoryGuyChannel/featured
Post by ajohnstone
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
I read about and see in videos a lot of interesting things that I think
could be made into movies, a lot more interesting than the stuff I see in
movies these days.
But you can believe if Hollywood ever did a story on Colonel Tye, it
would be reduced to propaganda crap, trying to score modern points and
ignoring historical realities.
I remember the "Shaka Zulu" miniseries that aired on TV, where he died a
noble death, when in reality he died begging for his life. Just saw a
thing on public television about some black queen, and they glossed over
the fact that she was up to her ass in the slave trade, capturing and
selling her enemies into slavery to the Dutch, because the narrative they
were contriving required the white Dutch slavers to be the bad guys, not
her.
Post by ajohnstone
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
I`d like to see that, I like stories of bravery and courage. But again,
Hollywood likes to infuse it`s movies with a messages which are nothing
more than political propaganda.
A recent "thing" is with Disney`s Mulan. Besides killing the
inspirational story contained in the original cartoon version on the alter
of today`s radical feminism, they thanked in the closing credits a
concentration camp that oppresses Muslims by making them eat pork, among
other things.
http://youtu.be/kIH-eFqBLP4
http://youtu.be/wi1fjPAG-BA
Post by ajohnstone
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
What you`d like is for a movie to be made where Wyatt Earp is made into
a poster boy for gun control.
Post by ajohnstone
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
Westerns are mostly entertainment. Why are there so many gangster
movies, gangsters aren`t that historically important. But people like
gangster movies, so movies about them are made. People aren`t clamoring
for labor struggle movies.
But come the revolution, all that will change. And such movies will be
made. And attendance will be mandatory. Oswald hated the Soviet Union once
he lived there.
It is already happening in our schools, political indoctrination is
being included into the curriculum.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
And who actually can spot Marx's Labor Theory of Value being espoused in
the Treasure of Sierra Madre.
I`d have picked right up on it had I seen the movie and knew what it
was.
Post by ajohnstone
The assassination of JFK if not forgotten will be inaccurately remembered.
Resisting that future is the value of this discussion list and holding to
truth of what happened will be the legacy of John McAdam.
Hear, hear. I think he did a real good thing, especially when you don`t
see the same sort of push back anywhere else.
John Corbett
2020-09-16 02:41:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Bugliosi`s book will be on the shelves, I guess. When are people who
attack are dead there will be no reason to defend it, I suppose.
Post by ajohnstone
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
I don`t know what people think or why they think it about this event.
The polls don`t shed a lot of insight.
Post by ajohnstone
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
That might be true but I wouldn`t state it as fact. I have seen plenty
of videos where average Americans are asked basic questions and are
stumped.
Myself, I watch all sorts of history videos on youtube. In the past
three weeks I`ve probably watched 10 videos about the war in the Pacific
(Battle of Midway, Battle of the Coral Sea, ect, along with a couple dozen
videos from this guy, who makes videos of bite sized historical events of
diverse interest...
https://www.youtube.com/c/TheHistoryGuyChannel/featured
Post by ajohnstone
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
I read about and see in videos a lot of interesting things that I think
could be made into movies, a lot more interesting than the stuff I see in
movies these days.
But you can believe if Hollywood ever did a story on Colonel Tye, it
would be reduced to propaganda crap, trying to score modern points and
ignoring historical realities.
I remember the "Shaka Zulu" miniseries that aired on TV, where he died a
noble death, when in reality he died begging for his life. Just saw a
thing on public television about some black queen, and they glossed over
the fact that she was up to her ass in the slave trade, capturing and
selling her enemies into slavery to the Dutch, because the narrative they
were contriving required the white Dutch slavers to be the bad guys, not
her.
Post by ajohnstone
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
I`d like to see that, I like stories of bravery and courage. But again,
Hollywood likes to infuse it`s movies with a messages which are nothing
more than political propaganda.
A recent "thing" is with Disney`s Mulan. Besides killing the
inspirational story contained in the original cartoon version on the alter
of today`s radical feminism, they thanked in the closing credits a
concentration camp that oppresses Muslims by making them eat pork, among
other things.
http://youtu.be/kIH-eFqBLP4
http://youtu.be/wi1fjPAG-BA
Post by ajohnstone
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
What you`d like is for a movie to be made where Wyatt Earp is made into
a poster boy for gun control.
Post by ajohnstone
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
Westerns are mostly entertainment. Why are there so many gangster
movies, gangsters aren`t that historically important. But people like
gangster movies, so movies about them are made. People aren`t clamoring
for labor struggle movies.
But come the revolution, all that will change. And such movies will be
made. And attendance will be mandatory. Oswald hated the Soviet Union once
he lived there.
It is already happening in our schools, political indoctrination is
being included into the curriculum.
Two high school football players have been suspended by the Little Miami
school district in Ohio for daring to carry blue line and red line flags
onto the field last Friday to honor police and firemen on the anniversary
of 9/11.
Mark
2020-09-16 17:46:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Bud
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Bugliosi`s book will be on the shelves, I guess. When are people who
attack are dead there will be no reason to defend it, I suppose.
Post by ajohnstone
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
I don`t know what people think or why they think it about this event.
The polls don`t shed a lot of insight.
Post by ajohnstone
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
That might be true but I wouldn`t state it as fact. I have seen plenty
of videos where average Americans are asked basic questions and are
stumped.
Myself, I watch all sorts of history videos on youtube. In the past
three weeks I`ve probably watched 10 videos about the war in the Pacific
(Battle of Midway, Battle of the Coral Sea, ect, along with a couple dozen
videos from this guy, who makes videos of bite sized historical events of
diverse interest...
https://www.youtube.com/c/TheHistoryGuyChannel/featured
Post by ajohnstone
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
I read about and see in videos a lot of interesting things that I think
could be made into movies, a lot more interesting than the stuff I see in
movies these days.
But you can believe if Hollywood ever did a story on Colonel Tye, it
would be reduced to propaganda crap, trying to score modern points and
ignoring historical realities.
I remember the "Shaka Zulu" miniseries that aired on TV, where he died a
noble death, when in reality he died begging for his life. Just saw a
thing on public television about some black queen, and they glossed over
the fact that she was up to her ass in the slave trade, capturing and
selling her enemies into slavery to the Dutch, because the narrative they
were contriving required the white Dutch slavers to be the bad guys, not
her.
Post by ajohnstone
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
I`d like to see that, I like stories of bravery and courage. But again,
Hollywood likes to infuse it`s movies with a messages which are nothing
more than political propaganda.
A recent "thing" is with Disney`s Mulan. Besides killing the
inspirational story contained in the original cartoon version on the alter
of today`s radical feminism, they thanked in the closing credits a
concentration camp that oppresses Muslims by making them eat pork, among
other things.
http://youtu.be/kIH-eFqBLP4
http://youtu.be/wi1fjPAG-BA
Post by ajohnstone
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
What you`d like is for a movie to be made where Wyatt Earp is made into
a poster boy for gun control.
Post by ajohnstone
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
Westerns are mostly entertainment. Why are there so many gangster
movies, gangsters aren`t that historically important. But people like
gangster movies, so movies about them are made. People aren`t clamoring
for labor struggle movies.
But come the revolution, all that will change. And such movies will be
made. And attendance will be mandatory. Oswald hated the Soviet Union once
he lived there.
It is already happening in our schools, political indoctrination is
being included into the curriculum.
Two high school football players have been suspended by the Little Miami
school district in Ohio for daring to carry blue line and red line flags
onto the field last Friday to honor police and firemen on the anniversary
of 9/11.
Insane. But it's the new norm. I see they have been reinstated.

https://nypost.com/2020/09/15/high-school-football-players-reinstated-after-flag-suspensions/

Mark
John Corbett
2020-09-17 03:10:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark
Post by John Corbett
Post by Bud
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Bugliosi`s book will be on the shelves, I guess. When are people who
attack are dead there will be no reason to defend it, I suppose.
Post by ajohnstone
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
I don`t know what people think or why they think it about this event.
The polls don`t shed a lot of insight.
Post by ajohnstone
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
That might be true but I wouldn`t state it as fact. I have seen plenty
of videos where average Americans are asked basic questions and are
stumped.
Myself, I watch all sorts of history videos on youtube. In the past
three weeks I`ve probably watched 10 videos about the war in the Pacific
(Battle of Midway, Battle of the Coral Sea, ect, along with a couple dozen
videos from this guy, who makes videos of bite sized historical events of
diverse interest...
https://www.youtube.com/c/TheHistoryGuyChannel/featured
Post by ajohnstone
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
I read about and see in videos a lot of interesting things that I think
could be made into movies, a lot more interesting than the stuff I see in
movies these days.
But you can believe if Hollywood ever did a story on Colonel Tye, it
would be reduced to propaganda crap, trying to score modern points and
ignoring historical realities.
I remember the "Shaka Zulu" miniseries that aired on TV, where he died a
noble death, when in reality he died begging for his life. Just saw a
thing on public television about some black queen, and they glossed over
the fact that she was up to her ass in the slave trade, capturing and
selling her enemies into slavery to the Dutch, because the narrative they
were contriving required the white Dutch slavers to be the bad guys, not
her.
Post by ajohnstone
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
I`d like to see that, I like stories of bravery and courage. But again,
Hollywood likes to infuse it`s movies with a messages which are nothing
more than political propaganda.
A recent "thing" is with Disney`s Mulan. Besides killing the
inspirational story contained in the original cartoon version on the alter
of today`s radical feminism, they thanked in the closing credits a
concentration camp that oppresses Muslims by making them eat pork, among
other things.
http://youtu.be/kIH-eFqBLP4
http://youtu.be/wi1fjPAG-BA
Post by ajohnstone
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
What you`d like is for a movie to be made where Wyatt Earp is made into
a poster boy for gun control.
Post by ajohnstone
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
Westerns are mostly entertainment. Why are there so many gangster
movies, gangsters aren`t that historically important. But people like
gangster movies, so movies about them are made. People aren`t clamoring
for labor struggle movies.
But come the revolution, all that will change. And such movies will be
made. And attendance will be mandatory. Oswald hated the Soviet Union once
he lived there.
It is already happening in our schools, political indoctrination is
being included into the curriculum.
Two high school football players have been suspended by the Little Miami
school district in Ohio for daring to carry blue line and red line flags
onto the field last Friday to honor police and firemen on the anniversary
of 9/11.
Insane. But it's the new norm. I see they have been reinstated.
https://nypost.com/2020/09/15/high-school-football-players-reinstated-after-flag-suspensions/
Trump hit the nail on the head when he doubted they would have been
suspended for carrying BLM flags. Can you imagine the shrieking from the
left if that had happened?
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-18 20:36:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Mark
Post by John Corbett
Post by Bud
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Bugliosi`s book will be on the shelves, I guess. When are people who
attack are dead there will be no reason to defend it, I suppose.
Post by ajohnstone
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
I don`t know what people think or why they think it about this event.
The polls don`t shed a lot of insight.
Post by ajohnstone
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
That might be true but I wouldn`t state it as fact. I have seen plenty
of videos where average Americans are asked basic questions and are
stumped.
Myself, I watch all sorts of history videos on youtube. In the past
three weeks I`ve probably watched 10 videos about the war in the Pacific
(Battle of Midway, Battle of the Coral Sea, ect, along with a couple dozen
videos from this guy, who makes videos of bite sized historical events of
diverse interest...
https://www.youtube.com/c/TheHistoryGuyChannel/featured
Post by ajohnstone
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
I read about and see in videos a lot of interesting things that I think
could be made into movies, a lot more interesting than the stuff I see in
movies these days.
But you can believe if Hollywood ever did a story on Colonel Tye, it
would be reduced to propaganda crap, trying to score modern points and
ignoring historical realities.
I remember the "Shaka Zulu" miniseries that aired on TV, where he died a
noble death, when in reality he died begging for his life. Just saw a
thing on public television about some black queen, and they glossed over
the fact that she was up to her ass in the slave trade, capturing and
selling her enemies into slavery to the Dutch, because the narrative they
were contriving required the white Dutch slavers to be the bad guys, not
her.
Post by ajohnstone
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
I`d like to see that, I like stories of bravery and courage. But again,
Hollywood likes to infuse it`s movies with a messages which are nothing
more than political propaganda.
A recent "thing" is with Disney`s Mulan. Besides killing the
inspirational story contained in the original cartoon version on the alter
of today`s radical feminism, they thanked in the closing credits a
concentration camp that oppresses Muslims by making them eat pork, among
other things.
http://youtu.be/kIH-eFqBLP4
http://youtu.be/wi1fjPAG-BA
Post by ajohnstone
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
What you`d like is for a movie to be made where Wyatt Earp is made into
a poster boy for gun control.
Post by ajohnstone
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
Westerns are mostly entertainment. Why are there so many gangster
movies, gangsters aren`t that historically important. But people like
gangster movies, so movies about them are made. People aren`t clamoring
for labor struggle movies.
But come the revolution, all that will change. And such movies will be
made. And attendance will be mandatory. Oswald hated the Soviet Union once
he lived there.
It is already happening in our schools, political indoctrination is
being included into the curriculum.
Two high school football players have been suspended by the Little Miami
school district in Ohio for daring to carry blue line and red line flags
onto the field last Friday to honor police and firemen on the anniversary
of 9/11.
Insane. But it's the new norm. I see they have been reinstated.
https://nypost.com/2020/09/15/high-school-football-players-reinstated-after-flag-suspensions/
Trump hit the nail on the head when he doubted they would have been
suspended for carrying BLM flags. Can you imagine the shrieking from the
left if that had happened?
Ever hear of freedom of speech?
John Corbett
2020-09-19 01:42:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Mark
Post by John Corbett
Post by Bud
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Bugliosi`s book will be on the shelves, I guess. When are people who
attack are dead there will be no reason to defend it, I suppose.
Post by ajohnstone
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
I don`t know what people think or why they think it about this event.
The polls don`t shed a lot of insight.
Post by ajohnstone
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
That might be true but I wouldn`t state it as fact. I have seen plenty
of videos where average Americans are asked basic questions and are
stumped.
Myself, I watch all sorts of history videos on youtube. In the past
three weeks I`ve probably watched 10 videos about the war in the Pacific
(Battle of Midway, Battle of the Coral Sea, ect, along with a couple dozen
videos from this guy, who makes videos of bite sized historical events of
diverse interest...
https://www.youtube.com/c/TheHistoryGuyChannel/featured
Post by ajohnstone
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
I read about and see in videos a lot of interesting things that I think
could be made into movies, a lot more interesting than the stuff I see in
movies these days.
But you can believe if Hollywood ever did a story on Colonel Tye, it
would be reduced to propaganda crap, trying to score modern points and
ignoring historical realities.
I remember the "Shaka Zulu" miniseries that aired on TV, where he died a
noble death, when in reality he died begging for his life. Just saw a
thing on public television about some black queen, and they glossed over
the fact that she was up to her ass in the slave trade, capturing and
selling her enemies into slavery to the Dutch, because the narrative they
were contriving required the white Dutch slavers to be the bad guys, not
her.
Post by ajohnstone
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
I`d like to see that, I like stories of bravery and courage. But again,
Hollywood likes to infuse it`s movies with a messages which are nothing
more than political propaganda.
A recent "thing" is with Disney`s Mulan. Besides killing the
inspirational story contained in the original cartoon version on the alter
of today`s radical feminism, they thanked in the closing credits a
concentration camp that oppresses Muslims by making them eat pork, among
other things.
http://youtu.be/kIH-eFqBLP4
http://youtu.be/wi1fjPAG-BA
Post by ajohnstone
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
What you`d like is for a movie to be made where Wyatt Earp is made into
a poster boy for gun control.
Post by ajohnstone
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
Westerns are mostly entertainment. Why are there so many gangster
movies, gangsters aren`t that historically important. But people like
gangster movies, so movies about them are made. People aren`t clamoring
for labor struggle movies.
But come the revolution, all that will change. And such movies will be
made. And attendance will be mandatory. Oswald hated the Soviet Union once
he lived there.
It is already happening in our schools, political indoctrination is
being included into the curriculum.
Two high school football players have been suspended by the Little Miami
school district in Ohio for daring to carry blue line and red line flags
onto the field last Friday to honor police and firemen on the anniversary
of 9/11.
Insane. But it's the new norm. I see they have been reinstated.
https://nypost.com/2020/09/15/high-school-football-players-reinstated-after-flag-suspensions/
Trump hit the nail on the head when he doubted they would have been
suspended for carrying BLM flags. Can you imagine the shrieking from the
left if that had happened?
Ever hear of freedom of speech?
Freedom of speech is supposed to be for everybody regardless of their
political point of view. Leftists want to deny it to those on the right.
ajohnstone
2020-09-19 11:07:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Freedom of speech is supposed to be for everybody regardless of their
political point of view. Leftists want to deny it to those on the right.
This accusation does not apply to Marxists. As a journalists who suffered
regular government censorship he has always supported free expression,
regardless of political affiliation.

We are opposed to all censorship, whether it be through the legalized
injunctions enforced by the courts of the capitalist state or by the
violence of self-appointed moral or political guardians. Those of us in
the my organization do not support the undemocratic policy of seeking to
restrict freedom of speech. We are in favor of free speech for everyone,
not excluding any on the right-wing. And we practice what we preach. Not
because we have any sympathy for their views, but because we think that
the best way to deal with these views is to expose them for the dangerous
nonsense they are.

Marx said, "you cannot enjoy the advantages of a free press without
putting up with its inconveniences. You cannot pluck the rose without its
thorns!"

He also wrote., "The first condition of the freedom of the press is that
it is not a business activity." and we know that viewer ratings often
determines the bias of reporting on TV news outlets.

In defense of a free press, Marx explained:

"The free press is the ubiquitous vigilant eye of a people's soul, the
embodiment of a people's faith in itself, the eloquent link that connects
the individual with the state and the world, the embodied culture that
transforms material struggles into intellectual struggles and idealises
their crude material form. It is a people's frank confession to itself,
and the redeeming power of confession is well known. It is the spiritual
mirror in which a people can see itself, and self-examination is the first
condition of wisdom. It is the spirit of the state, which can be delivered
into every cottage, cheaper than coal gas. It is all-sided, ubiquitous,
omniscient. It is the ideal world which always wells up out of the real
world and flows back into it with ever greater spiritual riches and renews
its soul."

When i perceive the professed principles of conservatives to protect the
liberty of the media i see no more than a respectable mask behind which
lurk less admirable motives. Or are you purposefully refusing to
acknowledge the very long history of the Right in suppressing left-wing
views?
Bud
2020-09-19 12:30:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by ajohnstone
Post by John Corbett
Freedom of speech is supposed to be for everybody regardless of their
political point of view. Leftists want to deny it to those on the right.
This accusation does not apply to Marxists.
Except when they get into power.
Post by ajohnstone
As a journalists who suffered
regular government censorship he has always supported free expression,
regardless of political affiliation.
We are opposed to all censorship, whether it be through the legalized
injunctions enforced by the courts of the capitalist state or by the
violence of self-appointed moral or political guardians. Those of us in
the my organization do not support the undemocratic policy of seeking to
restrict freedom of speech. We are in favor of free speech for everyone,
not excluding any on the right-wing. And we practice what we preach. Not
because we have any sympathy for their views, but because we think that
the best way to deal with these views is to expose them for the dangerous
nonsense they are.
Marx said, "you cannot enjoy the advantages of a free press without
putting up with its inconveniences. You cannot pluck the rose without its
thorns!"
He also wrote., "The first condition of the freedom of the press is that
it is not a business activity." and we know that viewer ratings often
determines the bias of reporting on TV news outlets.
And that is where the idea fails. If the press isn`t market driven, with
advertisers, then it has to be state run. Impossible for a state run media
to be fair and balanced. There are only so many pages in a newspaper,
there is only so much air time, and some biased person or committee would
have to dole this out. Unicorns would get as much of a voice in such a
system as right wingers in your Utopia.'
Post by ajohnstone
"The free press is the ubiquitous vigilant eye of a people's soul, the
embodiment of a people's faith in itself, the eloquent link that connects
the individual with the state and the world, the embodied culture that
transforms material struggles into intellectual struggles and idealises
their crude material form. It is a people's frank confession to itself,
and the redeeming power of confession is well known. It is the spiritual
mirror in which a people can see itself, and self-examination is the first
condition of wisdom. It is the spirit of the state, which can be delivered
into every cottage, cheaper than coal gas. It is all-sided, ubiquitous,
omniscient. It is the ideal world which always wells up out of the real
world and flows back into it with ever greater spiritual riches and renews
its soul."
The media today is an echo chamber, each preacher preaching to it`s own
choir.
Post by ajohnstone
When i perceive the professed principles of conservatives to protect the
liberty of the media i see no more than a respectable mask behind which
lurk less admirable motives. Or are you purposefully refusing to
acknowledge the very long history of the Right in suppressing left-wing
views?
In this country today it is *individual people* on the right who are
concerned about free speech being curtailed, it isn`t groups or
organizations with ulterior motives.

Right leaning people don`t care who people on the left gather to listen
to. People on the left want to dictate who can be listened to, and which
ideas can be given voice to. They want ideas they don`t agree with branded
as hate speech and outlawed. That is the difference.
John Corbett
2020-09-19 16:43:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
Post by John Corbett
Freedom of speech is supposed to be for everybody regardless of their
political point of view. Leftists want to deny it to those on the right.
This accusation does not apply to Marxists.
Except when they get into power.
Post by ajohnstone
As a journalists who suffered
regular government censorship he has always supported free expression,
regardless of political affiliation.
We are opposed to all censorship, whether it be through the legalized
injunctions enforced by the courts of the capitalist state or by the
violence of self-appointed moral or political guardians. Those of us in
the my organization do not support the undemocratic policy of seeking to
restrict freedom of speech. We are in favor of free speech for everyone,
not excluding any on the right-wing. And we practice what we preach. Not
because we have any sympathy for their views, but because we think that
the best way to deal with these views is to expose them for the dangerous
nonsense they are.
Marx said, "you cannot enjoy the advantages of a free press without
putting up with its inconveniences. You cannot pluck the rose without its
thorns!"
He also wrote., "The first condition of the freedom of the press is that
it is not a business activity." and we know that viewer ratings often
determines the bias of reporting on TV news outlets.
And that is where the idea fails. If the press isn`t market driven, with
advertisers, then it has to be state run. Impossible for a state run media
to be fair and balanced. There are only so many pages in a newspaper,
there is only so much air time, and some biased person or committee would
have to dole this out. Unicorns would get as much of a voice in such a
system as right wingers in your Utopia.'
Post by ajohnstone
"The free press is the ubiquitous vigilant eye of a people's soul, the
embodiment of a people's faith in itself, the eloquent link that connects
the individual with the state and the world, the embodied culture that
transforms material struggles into intellectual struggles and idealises
their crude material form. It is a people's frank confession to itself,
and the redeeming power of confession is well known. It is the spiritual
mirror in which a people can see itself, and self-examination is the first
condition of wisdom. It is the spirit of the state, which can be delivered
into every cottage, cheaper than coal gas. It is all-sided, ubiquitous,
omniscient. It is the ideal world which always wells up out of the real
world and flows back into it with ever greater spiritual riches and renews
its soul."
The media today is an echo chamber, each preacher preaching to it`s own
choir.
The only way to achieve balance is in the totality of information being
disseminated. No single entity is going to present balanced coverage of
events. They will present how they perceive events. Even those who strive
for balance are going to be influenced by their own biases.

Having said that, I am somewhat impressed by WGN's new nightly news
service. They seem to be striving to report news, not opinion. I've only
watched it a few times and can honestly say I can't see an obvious tilt to
the right or the left. We'll see if that lasts.
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
When i perceive the professed principles of conservatives to protect the
liberty of the media i see no more than a respectable mask behind which
lurk less admirable motives. Or are you purposefully refusing to
acknowledge the very long history of the Right in suppressing left-wing
views?
In this country today it is *individual people* on the right who are
concerned about free speech being curtailed, it isn`t groups or
organizations with ulterior motives.
Right leaning people don`t care who people on the left gather to listen
to. People on the left want to dictate who can be listened to, and which
ideas can be given voice to. They want ideas they don`t agree with branded
as hate speech and outlawed. That is the difference.
Nowhere is that more apparent than on Facebook and Twitter.
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-20 04:14:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
Post by John Corbett
Freedom of speech is supposed to be for everybody regardless of their
political point of view. Leftists want to deny it to those on the right.
This accusation does not apply to Marxists.
Except when they get into power.
Post by ajohnstone
As a journalists who suffered
regular government censorship he has always supported free expression,
regardless of political affiliation.
We are opposed to all censorship, whether it be through the legalized
injunctions enforced by the courts of the capitalist state or by the
violence of self-appointed moral or political guardians. Those of us in
the my organization do not support the undemocratic policy of seeking to
restrict freedom of speech. We are in favor of free speech for everyone,
not excluding any on the right-wing. And we practice what we preach. Not
because we have any sympathy for their views, but because we think that
the best way to deal with these views is to expose them for the dangerous
nonsense they are.
Marx said, "you cannot enjoy the advantages of a free press without
putting up with its inconveniences. You cannot pluck the rose without its
thorns!"
He also wrote., "The first condition of the freedom of the press is that
it is not a business activity." and we know that viewer ratings often
determines the bias of reporting on TV news outlets.
And that is where the idea fails. If the press isn`t market driven, with
advertisers, then it has to be state run. Impossible for a state run media
to be fair and balanced. There are only so many pages in a newspaper,
there is only so much air time, and some biased person or committee would
have to dole this out. Unicorns would get as much of a voice in such a
system as right wingers in your Utopia.'
Post by ajohnstone
"The free press is the ubiquitous vigilant eye of a people's soul, the
embodiment of a people's faith in itself, the eloquent link that connects
the individual with the state and the world, the embodied culture that
transforms material struggles into intellectual struggles and idealises
their crude material form. It is a people's frank confession to itself,
and the redeeming power of confession is well known. It is the spiritual
mirror in which a people can see itself, and self-examination is the first
condition of wisdom. It is the spirit of the state, which can be delivered
into every cottage, cheaper than coal gas. It is all-sided, ubiquitous,
omniscient. It is the ideal world which always wells up out of the real
world and flows back into it with ever greater spiritual riches and renews
its soul."
The media today is an echo chamber, each preacher preaching to it`s own
choir.
The only way to achieve balance is in the totality of information being
disseminated. No single entity is going to present balanced coverage of
events. They will present how they perceive events. Even those who strive
for balance are going to be influenced by their own biases.
Having said that, I am somewhat impressed by WGN's new nightly news
service. They seem to be striving to report news, not opinion. I've only
watched it a few times and can honestly say I can't see an obvious tilt to
the right or the left. We'll see if that lasts.
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
When i perceive the professed principles of conservatives to protect the
liberty of the media i see no more than a respectable mask behind which
lurk less admirable motives. Or are you purposefully refusing to
acknowledge the very long history of the Right in suppressing left-wing
views?
In this country today it is *individual people* on the right who are
concerned about free speech being curtailed, it isn`t groups or
organizations with ulterior motives.
Right leaning people don`t care who people on the left gather to listen
to. People on the left want to dictate who can be listened to, and which
ideas can be given voice to. They want ideas they don`t agree with branded
as hate speech and outlawed. That is the difference.
Nowhere is that more apparent than on Facebook and Twitter.
Wrong. The right uses social media to stir up hate speech.
ajohnstone
2020-09-19 16:43:44 UTC
Permalink
"Impossible for a state run media to be fair and balanced."
Can you demonstrate that this applies to the BBC that does not carry any
advertisements or program sponsors and is financed by a government tax
levied on all TV watchers, regardless of whether they tune into the BBC or
not.

There is then France 24, Deutsch Welle. Someone here said he only watched
NHK World, Japan's international state-owned news outlet.

Of course i can also cite government mouthpiece news outlets ...RT, Al
Jazeera, CGTN

Where do i go for reliable, trust-worthy news reporting? Rarely if ever to
the mainstream American news channels . Not CNN, MSNBC, CBS or Fox.

I try to stick to Reuters or AP Press websites

I can certainly cite a litany of faults with the BBC but can you vouch for
a private owned media financed by advertisements can present views and
opinions that do not reflect the interests of the owner and the
sponsors.

The BBC has a Royal charter and an independent body to oversee and
regulate its content to ensure that rules of impartiality are abided by.
Both right and left wing UK governments have protested about its reporting
so if neither is happy with the representation they get then it is doing
its job neutrally, IMHO
Bud
2020-09-19 19:58:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by ajohnstone
"Impossible for a state run media to be fair and balanced."
Can you demonstrate that this applies to the BBC that does not carry any
advertisements or program sponsors and is financed by a government tax
levied on all TV watchers, regardless of whether they tune into the BBC or
not.
Would you say that the BBC was completely neutral when it came to
Brexit, that they were not advocates for the remainder position?

I`m not British but people who I watch on youtube who are (Carl
Benjamin, Paul Joseph Watson) often complain about the leftist bent of the
BBC.








Post by ajohnstone
There is then France 24, Deutsch Welle. Someone here said he only
watched NHK World, Japan's international state-owned news outlet.
That was me. I was just watch Sumo wrestling on it. I have noticed
diversity/inclusion narrative stories creeping in, though.
Post by ajohnstone
Of course i can also cite government mouthpiece news outlets ...RT, Al
Jazeera, CGTN
Where do i go for reliable, trust-worthy news reporting? Rarely if ever to
the mainstream American news channels . Not CNN, MSNBC, CBS or Fox.
I try to stick to Reuters or AP Press websites
I can certainly cite a litany of faults with the BBC but can you vouch for
a private owned media financed by advertisements can present views and
opinions that do not reflect the interests of the owner and the
sponsors.
They`ve become cheerleaders for their political factions, not news
organizations. As long as they can pull in some numbers they will get
sponsors.
Post by ajohnstone
The BBC has a Royal charter and an independent body to oversee and
regulate its content to ensure that rules of impartiality are abided by.
Both right and left wing UK governments have protested about its reporting
so if neither is happy with the representation they get then it is doing
its job neutrally, IMHO
ajohnstone
2020-09-20 04:14:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
I`m not British but people who I watch on youtube who are (Carl
Benjamin, Paul Joseph Watson) often complain about the leftist bent of the
BBC.
Bud, i addressed that issue when i said people of both political spectrums
protest at the BBC's bias. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

An example from the Left would be the BBC coverage of the former Labour
Party leader Jeremy Corbyn which they would say was unfair and dishonest.

Nor was Brexit a left/right dichotomy. Both major parties were divided on
the question of leaving or remaining in the EU. Outside them, far-left
groups shared the same anti-EU analysis as the far-right. Business too had
no and still don't have any clear view on its merits although industry's
main representatives were in favor of remain and since their lobbyists
already had a door into the BBC , they made effective use of the access.

The print media, in comparison, particularly the tabloid press, did follow
very distinct partisan lines of pro- or anti- EU

I'm not suggesting that there are no problems. Northern Ireland's civil
war. The Falklands War. Scottish independence. Iraq Invasion. The Miners'
Strike. The monarchy. All raised questions of the BBC neutrality. And even
recently comedy on the BBC has been suggested as being too left-wing.

Critics say that the bias is by omission or under-reporting rather than
blatant propaganda. But i notice that applies equally to the USA where
there is little exposure offered to minority parties such as the Greens or
the Libertarians to offer them an opportunity to challenge the duopoly.

Political party advertising is not permitted at any time on UK television
and during elections the UK rules on broadcasting are especially stringent
and they apply to all channels. I dare say most television in Western
democracies also share these restrictions - which the US are much more
relaxed about, because of the First Amendment.

i did see Rupert Murdoch changed his nationality to American, (not his
residence,) simply to buy up the US media yet his America media empire is
considered patriotic rather than foreign owned and controlled.

But this question of media moguls is a very long one, especially in the
USA, William Hearst, Joseph Pulitzer, Ted Turner

And we aren't even mentioning Hollywood, another source of social
influence.
ajohnstone
2020-09-20 04:15:02 UTC
Permalink
I was completely amiss in not mentioning the internet and social media
since these are the sources most of us now acquire our information and
receive our news.

Many see it as a liberating technology as both liberal and totalitarian
governments are struggling to contain its influence on domestic and
international affairs.

However there are serious concerns about its freedoms. Google with its
algorithms (don't ask me what that is) and search engine manipulation.
Twitter censorship, initially accepted to stop porn but now used to halt
unpopular or dissenting opinions.
John Corbett
2020-09-20 21:36:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by ajohnstone
I was completely amiss in not mentioning the internet and social media
since these are the sources most of us now acquire our information and
receive our news.
Many see it as a liberating technology as both liberal and totalitarian
governments are struggling to contain its influence on domestic and
international affairs.
However there are serious concerns about its freedoms. Google with its
algorithms (don't ask me what that is) and search engine manipulation.
Twitter censorship, initially accepted to stop porn but now used to halt
unpopular or dissenting opinions.
I don't know what the percentage is as far as how many use social media as
their primary source of news but I know it doesn't apply to me. I do have
both Facebook and Twitter accounts but I created those only because a few
websites I wanted to visit required you to sign in with one of those two.
I have never tweeted anything nor have I posted anything to my Facebook
account.

I used to get my news from the network newscasts, primarily NBC, but they
have become so biased they are not even worth watching anymore. My MSN
homepage is now my primary source of news. It too is sharply biased to the
left but it does tell me what has happened. I ignore their analysis. They
post news stories from a variety of sources, most left leaning, but
occasionally I'll see something from right leaning sources like The Wall
Street Journal and The Hill. Just two nights ago I learned about the death
of Ruth Bader Ginsburg when I brought up my homepage.

I don't trust any single source to keep me informed because I know all of
them have a bias, including the ones I tend to agree with. Getting news
from multiple sources is the only way one can get a semblance of balance
in the information they are getting. I used to occasionally tune into to
MSNBC or CNN just to find out what the leftists were selling but it got so
bad I couldn't watch them for more than 30 seconds before I wanted to put
my fist through the TV screen and punch somebody in the mouth. It's better
for my bloody pressure to avoid those altogether.
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-20 04:14:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by ajohnstone
"Impossible for a state run media to be fair and balanced."
Can you demonstrate that this applies to the BBC that does not carry any
advertisements or program sponsors and is financed by a government tax
levied on all TV watchers, regardless of whether they tune into the BBC or
not.
There is then France 24, Deutsch Welle. Someone here said he only watched
NHK World, Japan's international state-owned news outlet.
Of course i can also cite government mouthpiece news outlets ...RT, Al
Jazeera, CGTN
Where do i go for reliable, trust-worthy news reporting? Rarely if ever to
the mainstream American news channels . Not CNN, MSNBC, CBS or Fox.
I try to stick to Reuters or AP Press websites
Silly.
Post by ajohnstone
I can certainly cite a litany of faults with the BBC but can you vouch
for a private owned media financed by advertisements can present views
and opinions that do not reflect the interests of the owner and the
sponsors.
The BBC has a Royal charter and an independent body to oversee and
regulate its content to ensure that rules of impartiality are abided by.
Both right and left wing UK governments have protested about its reporting
so if neither is happy with the representation they get then it is doing
its job neutrally, IMHO
John Corbett
2020-09-20 04:14:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by ajohnstone
Of course i can also cite government mouthpiece news outlets ...RT, Al
Jazeera, CGTN
Speaking of Al Jazeera, remember when Al Gore sold his struggling Current
cable news network to Al Jazeera for a half billion. The rebranded it as
Al Jazeera America. It lasted a little over three years. The great irony
is that Mr. Inconvenient Truth lined his pockets with Arab oil money. It
was the ultimate cash-for-clunkers deal.
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-20 04:14:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
Post by John Corbett
Freedom of speech is supposed to be for everybody regardless of their
political point of view. Leftists want to deny it to those on the right.
This accusation does not apply to Marxists.
Except when they get into power.
Post by ajohnstone
As a journalists who suffered
regular government censorship he has always supported free expression,
regardless of political affiliation.
We are opposed to all censorship, whether it be through the legalized
injunctions enforced by the courts of the capitalist state or by the
violence of self-appointed moral or political guardians. Those of us in
the my organization do not support the undemocratic policy of seeking to
restrict freedom of speech. We are in favor of free speech for everyone,
not excluding any on the right-wing. And we practice what we preach. Not
because we have any sympathy for their views, but because we think that
the best way to deal with these views is to expose them for the dangerous
nonsense they are.
Marx said, "you cannot enjoy the advantages of a free press without
putting up with its inconveniences. You cannot pluck the rose without its
thorns!"
He also wrote., "The first condition of the freedom of the press is that
it is not a business activity." and we know that viewer ratings often
determines the bias of reporting on TV news outlets.
And that is where the idea fails. If the press isn`t market driven, with
advertisers, then it has to be state run. Impossible for a state run media
to be fair and balanced. There are only so many pages in a newspaper,
there is only so much air time, and some biased person or committee would
have to dole this out. Unicorns would get as much of a voice in such a
system as right wingers in your Utopia.'
Post by ajohnstone
"The free press is the ubiquitous vigilant eye of a people's soul, the
embodiment of a people's faith in itself, the eloquent link that connects
the individual with the state and the world, the embodied culture that
transforms material struggles into intellectual struggles and idealises
their crude material form. It is a people's frank confession to itself,
and the redeeming power of confession is well known. It is the spiritual
mirror in which a people can see itself, and self-examination is the first
condition of wisdom. It is the spirit of the state, which can be delivered
into every cottage, cheaper than coal gas. It is all-sided, ubiquitous,
omniscient. It is the ideal world which always wells up out of the real
world and flows back into it with ever greater spiritual riches and renews
its soul."
The media today is an echo chamber, each preacher preaching to it`s own
choir.
Are you talking about Fox? Fox puts out lies and Trump repeats them.
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
When i perceive the professed principles of conservatives to protect the
liberty of the media i see no more than a respectable mask behind which
lurk less admirable motives. Or are you purposefully refusing to
acknowledge the very long history of the Right in suppressing left-wing
views?
In this country today it is *individual people* on the right who are
concerned about free speech being curtailed, it isn`t groups or
Wrong, It is a cabal of paranoid kooks like Caputo.
They can't get a real job.
Post by Bud
organizations with ulterior motives.
Right leaning people don`t care who people on the left gather to listen
to. People on the left want to dictate who can be listened to, and which
ideas can be given voice to. They want ideas they don`t agree with branded
as hate speech and outlawed. That is the difference.
No, the right uses hate speech to fire up its troops.
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-20 04:14:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by ajohnstone
Post by John Corbett
Freedom of speech is supposed to be for everybody regardless of their
political point of view. Leftists want to deny it to those on the right.
This accusation does not apply to Marxists. As a journalists who suffered
regular government censorship he has always supported free expression,
regardless of political affiliation.
We are opposed to all censorship, whet
I am not sure what you mean. YOU are a Brit so YOU do not have any freedom
of Speech. We are Americans and we have a Constitution which guarantees
OUR right of Free Speech. Apples and Oranges.

her it be through the legalized
Post by ajohnstone
injunctions enforced by the courts of the capitalist state or by the
violence of self-appointed moral or political guardians. Those of us in
the my organization do not support the undemocratic policy of seeking to
restrict freedom of speech. We are in favor of free speech for everyone,
not excluding any on the right-wing. And we practice what we preach. Not
because we have any sympathy for their views, but because we think that
the best way to deal with these views is to expose them for the dangerous
nonsense they are.
Marx said, "you cannot enjoy the advantages of a free press without
putting up with its inconveniences. You cannot pluck the rose without its
thorns!"
He also wrote., "The first condition of the freedom of the press is that
it is not a business activity." and we know that viewer ratings often
determines the bias of reporting on TV news outlets.
Not sure how that it relevant to today. You don't need a bussiness to
express your opinion.
You don't need a news outlet to publish.
Post by ajohnstone
"The free press is the ubiquitous vigilant eye of a people's soul, the
embodiment of a people's faith in itself, the eloquent link that connects
the individual with the state and the world, the embodied culture that
transforms material struggles into intellectual struggles and idealises
their crude material form. It is a people's frank confession to itself,
and the redeeming power of confession is well known. It is the spiritual
mirror in which a people can see itself, and self-examination is the first
condition of wisdom. It is the spirit of the state, which can be delivered
into every cottage, cheaper than coal gas. It is all-sided, ubiquitous,
omniscient. It is the ideal world which always wells up out of the real
world and flows back into it with ever greater spiritual riches and renews
its soul."
When i perceive the professed principles of conservatives to protect the
liberty of the media i see no more than a respectable mask behind which
lurk less admirable motives. Or are you purposefully refusing to
acknowledge the very long history of the Right in suppressing left-wing
views?
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2020-09-20 21:36:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by ajohnstone
Post by John Corbett
Freedom of speech is supposed to be for everybody regardless of their
political point of view. Leftists want to deny it to those on the right.
This accusation does not apply to Marxists. As a journalists who suffered
regular government censorship he has always supported free expression,
regardless of political affiliation.
We are opposed to all censorship, whether it be through the legalized
injunctions enforced by the courts of the capitalist state or by the
violence of self-appointed moral or political guardians. Those of us in
the my organization do not support the undemocratic policy of seeking to
restrict freedom of speech. We are in favor of free speech for everyone,
not excluding any on the right-wing. And we practice what we preach. Not
because we have any sympathy for their views, but because we think that
the best way to deal with these views is to expose them for the dangerous
nonsense they are.
Marx said, "you cannot enjoy the advantages of a free press without
putting up with its inconveniences. You cannot pluck the rose without its
thorns!"
He also wrote., "The first condition of the freedom of the press is that
it is not a business activity." and we know that viewer ratings often
determines the bias of reporting on TV news outlets.
"The free press is the ubiquitous vigilant eye of a people's soul, the
embodiment of a people's faith in itself, the eloquent link that connects
the individual with the state and the world, the embodied culture that
transforms material struggles into intellectual struggles and idealises
their crude material form. It is a people's frank confession to itself,
and the redeeming power of confession is well known. It is the spiritual
mirror in which a people can see itself, and self-examination is the first
condition of wisdom. It is the spirit of the state, which can be delivered
into every cottage, cheaper than coal gas. It is all-sided, ubiquitous,
omniscient. It is the ideal world which always wells up out of the real
world and flows back into it with ever greater spiritual riches and renews
its soul."
When i perceive the professed principles of conservatives to protect the
liberty of the media i see no more than a respectable mask behind which
lurk less admirable motives. Or are you purposefully refusing to
acknowledge the very long history of the Right in suppressing left-wing
views?
So which Marxist countries have a free press and freedom of speech and
doesn't censor individuals right to free expression?

Anthony Marsh
2020-09-20 04:14:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Mark
Post by John Corbett
Post by Bud
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Bugliosi`s book will be on the shelves, I guess. When are people who
attack are dead there will be no reason to defend it, I suppose.
Post by ajohnstone
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
I don`t know what people think or why they think it about this event.
The polls don`t shed a lot of insight.
Post by ajohnstone
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
That might be true but I wouldn`t state it as fact. I have seen plenty
of videos where average Americans are asked basic questions and are
stumped.
Myself, I watch all sorts of history videos on youtube. In the past
three weeks I`ve probably watched 10 videos about the war in the Pacific
(Battle of Midway, Battle of the Coral Sea, ect, along with a couple dozen
videos from this guy, who makes videos of bite sized historical events of
diverse interest...
https://www.youtube.com/c/TheHistoryGuyChannel/featured
Post by ajohnstone
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
I read about and see in videos a lot of interesting things that I think
could be made into movies, a lot more interesting than the stuff I see in
movies these days.
But you can believe if Hollywood ever did a story on Colonel Tye, it
would be reduced to propaganda crap, trying to score modern points and
ignoring historical realities.
I remember the "Shaka Zulu" miniseries that aired on TV, where he died a
noble death, when in reality he died begging for his life. Just saw a
thing on public television about some black queen, and they glossed over
the fact that she was up to her ass in the slave trade, capturing and
selling her enemies into slavery to the Dutch, because the narrative they
were contriving required the white Dutch slavers to be the bad guys, not
her.
Post by ajohnstone
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
I`d like to see that, I like stories of bravery and courage. But again,
Hollywood likes to infuse it`s movies with a messages which are nothing
more than political propaganda.
A recent "thing" is with Disney`s Mulan. Besides killing the
inspirational story contained in the original cartoon version on the alter
of today`s radical feminism, they thanked in the closing credits a
concentration camp that oppresses Muslims by making them eat pork, among
other things.
http://youtu.be/kIH-eFqBLP4
http://youtu.be/wi1fjPAG-BA
Post by ajohnstone
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
What you`d like is for a movie to be made where Wyatt Earp is made into
a poster boy for gun control.
Post by ajohnstone
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
Westerns are mostly entertainment. Why are there so many gangster
movies, gangsters aren`t that historically important. But people like
gangster movies, so movies about them are made. People aren`t clamoring
for labor struggle movies.
But come the revolution, all that will change. And such movies will be
made. And attendance will be mandatory. Oswald hated the Soviet Union once
he lived there.
It is already happening in our schools, political indoctrination is
being included into the curriculum.
Two high school football players have been suspended by the Little Miami
school district in Ohio for daring to carry blue line and red line flags
onto the field last Friday to honor police and firemen on the anniversary
of 9/11.
Insane. But it's the new norm. I see they have been reinstated.
https://nypost.com/2020/09/15/high-school-football-players-reinstated-after-flag-suspensions/
Trump hit the nail on the head when he doubted they would have been
suspended for carrying BLM flags. Can you imagine the shrieking from the
left if that had happened?
Ever hear of freedom of speech?
Freedom of speech is supposed to be for everybody regardless of their
political point of view. Leftists want to deny it to those on the right.
No. I am being denied my right of Free Speech while you are allowed to
say wjhatever you want. YOU are allowed to mention Tump.
I am not. He must be protected at all costs.
John Corbett
2020-09-20 21:35:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Ever hear of freedom of speech?
Freedom of speech is supposed to be for everybody regardless of their
political point of view. Leftists want to deny it to those on the right.
No. I am being denied my right of Free Speech while you are allowed to
say wjhatever you want. YOU are allowed to mention Tump.
I am not. He must be protected at all costs.
You just mentioned Trump.
John Corbett
2020-09-17 03:10:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark
Post by John Corbett
Post by Bud
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
When this forum disappears because of the aging of its contributors and
their demise, who will represent the WC and the case for the lone gunman.
Bugliosi`s book will be on the shelves, I guess. When are people who
attack are dead there will be no reason to defend it, I suppose.
Post by ajohnstone
Isn't it true that the majority of today's Americans have gained their
knowledge of the assassination from Oliver Stone's JFK which they
mistakenly believe to be a honest documentary of the events.
I don`t know what people think or why they think it about this event.
The polls don`t shed a lot of insight.
Post by ajohnstone
Most Americans understanding of history is based on the Hollywood or TV
depiction of the facts.
That might be true but I wouldn`t state it as fact. I have seen plenty
of videos where average Americans are asked basic questions and are
stumped.
Myself, I watch all sorts of history videos on youtube. In the past
three weeks I`ve probably watched 10 videos about the war in the Pacific
(Battle of Midway, Battle of the Coral Sea, ect, along with a couple dozen
videos from this guy, who makes videos of bite sized historical events of
diverse interest...
https://www.youtube.com/c/TheHistoryGuyChannel/featured
Post by ajohnstone
Will Hollywood ever make a movie on the heroic actions of the Black
Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment and the Black Brigade? How many
African-Americans even know about the exploits of 'Colonel' Tye in
America's largest rebellion of slaves.
I read about and see in videos a lot of interesting things that I think
could be made into movies, a lot more interesting than the stuff I see in
movies these days.
But you can believe if Hollywood ever did a story on Colonel Tye, it
would be reduced to propaganda crap, trying to score modern points and
ignoring historical realities.
I remember the "Shaka Zulu" miniseries that aired on TV, where he died a
noble death, when in reality he died begging for his life. Just saw a
thing on public television about some black queen, and they glossed over
the fact that she was up to her ass in the slave trade, capturing and
selling her enemies into slavery to the Dutch, because the narrative they
were contriving required the white Dutch slavers to be the bad guys, not
her.
Post by ajohnstone
Would Hollywood dare to show the bravery and courage of the St Patrick's
Battalion who would fight for Mexico in 1846-48 war against America's
expansionism?
I`d like to see that, I like stories of bravery and courage. But again,
Hollywood likes to infuse it`s movies with a messages which are nothing
more than political propaganda.
A recent "thing" is with Disney`s Mulan. Besides killing the
inspirational story contained in the original cartoon version on the alter
of today`s radical feminism, they thanked in the closing credits a
concentration camp that oppresses Muslims by making them eat pork, among
other things.
http://youtu.be/kIH-eFqBLP4
http://youtu.be/wi1fjPAG-BA
Post by ajohnstone
And of Wyatt Earp, a Republican, his attempt to impose gun control laws in
Tombstone being partly the reason for the shoot-out at the OK Corral, is
rarely highlighted by today's Republicans
What you`d like is for a movie to be made where Wyatt Earp is made into
a poster boy for gun control.
Post by ajohnstone
And of course compared with the tens of thousands of Westerns the many
labor union wars goes mostly unrecorded by the movie industry with the
exception being Matewan and a few others.
Westerns are mostly entertainment. Why are there so many gangster
movies, gangsters aren`t that historically important. But people like
gangster movies, so movies about them are made. People aren`t clamoring
for labor struggle movies.
But come the revolution, all that will change. And such movies will be
made. And attendance will be mandatory. Oswald hated the Soviet Union once
he lived there.
It is already happening in our schools, political indoctrination is
being included into the curriculum.
Two high school football players have been suspended by the Little Miami
school district in Ohio for daring to carry blue line and red line flags
onto the field last Friday to honor police and firemen on the anniversary
of 9/11.
Insane. But it's the new norm. I see they have been reinstated.
https://nypost.com/2020/09/15/high-school-football-players-reinstated-after-flag-suspensions/
Trump has correctly judged this is a chance to score some points with the
voters and he just got a boost this morning when the Big Ten reversed
course and decided they will play football this fall. This is something
Trump had pushed for. It's questionable how much he had to do with the
decision but since it is an election year, he'll claim credit. I'm sure
he'll pick up a few votes as a result in football crazy states like Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin where people cherish their football
with a religious fervor. It's no coincidence those are the states that are
likely going to determine the outcome of the election.
Loading...