YES!! Limbaugh discussing Kerry and the plot in Kansas City

Rush | 3-23-04 | dfu

[doug from upland]

Yes!! Limbaugh finally discussing the plot in Kansas City in 1971 to assassinate U.S. senators. Kerry has been lying. The door has now been opened. It is about time this has been on Rush's show.

[unsycophant]

The story died, and Kerry is still the nominee. It didn't convince one person to NOT vote for him--if anything it only made the right look as if it were grasping at straws.

Your three reporters may have done stories, but they obviously went nowhere also. No offense, but the story is irrelevant if it doesn't float with the public, and that one sank fast, as the public and most media would have nothing to do with it.

[unsycophant]

Same here.

[Luke21]

This has Billy Jeff's handwriting all over it. He knew anybody who was anyone among the protesters.

[PGalt]

Thanks doug from upland for all of the work that you do!

[Sabertooth]

Reminder bump.

Thanks for the reminder.

This story just sort of died, after the person responsible for cramming it down our throats, got banned.

I wonder if you ever noticed that once he left, there was NO DISCUSSION here or on any other site about Kerry being involved in any assassination plot...? Yet this was supposed to be a HUGE story, if only it could be gotten out to the media.....! But it just died, almost instantly--or at least as soon as the people exploiting FR and the story, disappeared.

Well, which was it... "banned," or "disappeared?"

Or are they the same thing, after all?

I do recall a banning, that occurred on the cusp of a belated ultimatum. Who couldn't read the writing on that wall, and who can't read recent and similar scrawls to this day?

BTW, do you recall what happened (and I'm fully cognizant that it's just a bizarre coincidence), almost simultaneously with the aforementioned banning?

Click on the FR keyword KERRYFBIBURGLARY.

How's your math? Can you do word problems? Algebra?

What are the constants, and what are the missing variables?

I also wonder if you realize that allegedly, Clodia Pulcher = Thomas Lipscomb, Mojo's alleged employer and book publisher. As Mojo said on several threads, Lipscomb was obtaining information from Mr. Corsi, and passing it to Mojo to be published here. Lipscomb was also writing about the VVAW and then citing his own writings as 'sources'. The rumors were that Lipscomb and Gi**ert were working on their own book, and his banning screwed that up in a huge way.

Can you link or source to any of this, or should we rely on what the rumors were??

[lavrenti]

This story is no big deal. Kerry used the plot as an excuse to exit stage right from the VVAW and those stoners never followed through with their plot. Just another 1970-72 era wannabe revolutionary tourist skullduggery by guys too stupid and drugged-out to actually do it.

If he wins, he'll have the opportunity to lose two wars. The American Ruling Class. What losers.

[Sabertooth]

Just a couple of points. My recollection of the discussions was not that anyone was claiming Kerry participated in any assassination plot, but rather that he was present at a meeting when one was discussed and didn't tell the authorities-- which is different

Precisely. I posted quite a bit on the subject, in fact a fair amount on just this thread. Not only did Kerry not tell the authorities about the Phoenix Project, he falsely claimed that he wasn't in Kansas City in November of 1971, and also had resigned his position with the VVAW shortly after the Dewey Canyon III protests in Washington, D.C., that made him famous. Kerry's campaign tried to pressure, with some success, former VVAW members who placed him in Kansas City for the meeting where the Senate Assassination Plot was debated in the utmost secrecy to avoid FBI wiretaps. Kerry has since been compelled by other witnesses and his own FBI files to alter his recollection on his presence, though his a black hole as to any memory as to what transpired in K.C.

And I have seen this mentioned from time to time elsewhere, usually in smaller media. Earlier, it was in bigger papers, like the Boston Globe, the NY Sun, and the Wall Street Journal. So I do not think it is accurate to say that the story was limited to one person on Free Republic trying to sell a yet-to-be-written book.

Additionally, as evidenced by this thread, Rush Limbaugh reported the story, and so did Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, and Larry Elder, just that I heard myself. There were no doubt other national radio shows as well.

I appreciate that you want to give me advice, but there are two things. First, the role you appear to be trying to assist me with is one I no longer fill. And second, I don't see any value in bringing up someone's banning months after the fact. Let it go, especially publically. There is nothing here that could not have been said in mail. We need fewer people jabbing each other with sticks, not more. Thanks.

Someone could lose an eye!

I've also noticed people running with scissors, but that's off topic.

[Sabertooth]

II actually got three other reporters at major newspapers to do the story. It has not been forgotten.

Correct.

More than anything, it was the dubious burglary of Kerry's FBI files from Gerald Nicosias's kitchen table (which he most likely abetted, as he broadcast their location on national TV, left his broken door open when he left the house, and interfered with the the police so that they couldn't do a full investigation of the crimes scene) that stalled the momentum of this story.

[Ann Archy]

On scarborogh show tonight Lawarance O'Donnel yelled at everyone and said it was a non-story and a lie. He went nuts so I think the whole thing was true. When the left goes nuts it is true.

Bears repeating!! When the left goes uts it is TRUE!! Look at them with the SwiftBoat Vets for Truth!!

[rwfromkansas]

A lot of what Hon was talking about checks out.

I recently interlibrary loaned three books she mentioned and quoted from concerning Kerry's meeting with the Viet Cong in Paris.

I also ILL'd New Soldier, Kerry's book. All her allegations and page citations check out.

Thus, I have a hard time believing she was some sort of liberal infiltrator spreading disinfo.

As for the KC plot, I think it is important because it shows Kerry's group was radical, not moderate like they like to claim. Kerry did not report the plot, a bad thing and possibly illegal. But, would you or I report a silly little plot that nobody took very seriously? I don't think so. If it was serious, the FBI spy reports of the meeting would have indicated such.

[unsycophant]

You aren't worth the time it takes to compose a reply to, as you are ignorant of the facts, and are in no position to challenge mine. I'm not obligated to prove or disprove anything to you, just because you demand that I explain it all to you. If you don't like what I have to say, ignore it. I realize this only seems impossible for you to do at FR, but try.

As far as I'm concerned, you have become nothing more than an apologist for the banned trolls who disrupt this site and work to shut it down, as the only time I ever notice you is on threads where you are making waves about what is wrong at FR or with the people who participate here. Your attitude is often confrontational and accusatory regarding those who are most likely singled out on other sites and harassed by your allies, associates, friends, or whatever you wish to call them. It often seems like you are being directed or encouraged to do what they want to do but can't--you repeat phrases that many of us recognize as theirs, and you repeat facts that are wrong, or center attention on issues only they care about. I believe it has become painfully obvious that you aren't "with us", to say the least.

[technochick99]

I believe it has become painfully obvious that you aren't "with us", to say the least.

Who's "us", kemosabe?

I want Bush elected, heck I want Keyes elected. I share many of the same beliefs that most posters here do - very right-wing.

I'm a long-time FReeper, but I browse LP and AK. Heck, they say you do too! I've got a background of real-life activism. I disagree with certain things posted on this forum by certain people.

So am I a part of "us" or not? Care to define "us"?

[Sabertooth]

You aren't worth the time it takes to compose a reply to, as you are ignorant of the facts, and are in no position to challenge mine.

Yet you took the time.

If you have facts, post them. Anything verifiable that you posted in either of your deleted posts this weekend was shown to be untrue.

I'm not obligated to prove or disprove anything to you, just because you demand that I explain it all to you. If you don't like what I have to say, ignore it. I realize this only seems impossible for you to do at FR, but try.

Interesting.

Aren't you the one who said "Those nitwits didn't bother to source most of what they were spoonfed?"

Yet it's your prerogative to source nothing?

As far as I'm concerned, you have become nothing more than an apologist for the banned trolls who disrupt this site and work to shut it down, as the only time I ever notice you is on threads where you are making waves about what is wrong at FR or with the people who participate here.

How does your concern concern me?

Your attitude is often confrontational and accusatory regarding those who are most likely singled out on other sites and harassed by your allies, associates, friends, or whatever you wish to call them.

Feeling a llittle confrontational and accusatory? I think you're cutting in line, but feel free.

It often seems like you are being directed or encouraged to do what they want to do but can't--you repeat phrases that many of us recognize as theirs, and you repeat facts that are wrong, or center attention on issues only they care about.

By your preface I'm given to understand, "it often seems" to you.

If I've repeated facts that are wrong, you should have no trouble refuting them, much as I've done to your "facts" a couple of times recently.

I believe it has become painfully obvious that you aren't "with us", to say the least.

What should be obvious is that I'm not particularly "with" anyone.

What club that I don't want to join do you represent?

The "Two debunked and pulled posts on two threads in a day and plainclothes Mod backhand Club?"

[Lazamataz]

Did you know that Tom Lipscomb personally employs Mojo and they are writing a book about the Swiftees together?

Mojo/Hon is Backlash2 at Bart.com.

[unsycophant]

If you hang out with people who use you by pretending to be romantically interested in you, who call Jim a grifter and a con artist, who refer to us as FReaks and FReeptards, who work with liberals to discredit FR and want to help Kerry get elected, people who sign in with multiple IDs here to troll the participants, who write filthy obscene dirty remarks about anyone who challenges them (even you and your ex-husband were targets of that filth at one time), people who outright LIE or enable their cult-leader to lie and deceive-if you find nothing obscene or wrong or inappropriate about that-then as far as I'm concerned--you aren't one of 'us'.

As I read your comments, you admit that you wallow around the antifreeper cesspool with a bunch of filthy pigs, but you don't want to be called a pig yourself, because you don't really get 'dirty'. You show up on threads here demanding answers to questions you already have the answers to, over and over, based on gossip that you apparently read from the swine at the cesspool--but you think you're entitled to ask and ask and ask because you are a FReeper. Naturally. None of you un-AFers are ever guilty of inciting hard feelings or meddling or stirring up trouble--you're just innocent cesspool lurkers who coincidentally show up here spouting the same slop that has been spewed for years. Controversy, hate, gossip-you thrive on stirring it up and then feig ignorance when someone notices.

Cite your length of participation or tout your 'activist credentials' (what about those tshirt sales, missing records and blank 990s) all you like--but you are known by the company you seek out and the flies that surround you. You emulate the way that filth behaves and you take up their causes at FR. You can't be surprised that I believe you're a swine too, then. Oink.

[technochick99]

You're so cute when you are angry. Ok, I'm an AFer now. Only if you insist! What questions have I been asking? I've only been defending Saber from nasty statements. And, to the best of my knowledge, Saber is not an AFer. Since you lurk there too, aren't you covered in mud?

What have you done other than being a little "piglet" yourself? Who hasn't seen the long record of your flip-flops and nasty comments? Perhaps it is something to add to my long list of accomplishments to be dissed by you. Sorry, but after watching your act, I would find it undesirable to be grouped with you. But I am still wondering who "us" is.... Are you with the FRN? The FR management? Pray tell, since I am not supposed to criticize those people, and would prefer not to criticize you if you are in one of those groups!

Oink right back atcha!

[technochick99]

As I read your comments, you admit that you wallow around the antifreeper cesspool with a bunch of filthy pigs, but you don't want to be called a pig yourself, because you don't really get 'dirty'.

Um... reading comp 101. I said I lurk there at AK, as I do LP. I post here. I consider myself a FReeper. They say you lurk there too.

Now how you jumped from that to all of the other things you said, I don't know. It must be interesting to be you.

[unsycophant]

LOL. Rant on, sister. You butted into this thread because the actions of a known troll and disruptor were mentioned, and your motives are suspect. You've done a great job of exposing your agenda, and how you resort to flinging insults, rumor and innuendo when confronted with dissent or criticism of any kind. Not even criticism of YOU, either. Your insults aren't even original. Hilarious.

As far as being management--YOU seem to have been the one claiming to be a VIP bigshot around here at one time, not me. I'm nobody--yet I was somehow relevant enough to catch your attention as soon as I mentioned your leader. Funny how that worked. They say there were some discrepancies that surfaced during your leadership of another organization which have never been explained. You avoid the subject. Odd.

I believe that your attitude with me and others at FR, is rooted more in jealousy than anything else. How sad.

Ta-ta.

[technochick99]

No - I butted in because Saber was being attacked. Or is he the known troll and disruptor. I certainly am not here or anywhere to defend the likes of mojo, lotf, etc. As yuo are well aware, I have had a run-in or two with them as well.

I asked you who "us" was in reference to Saber. <>.

I figured I'd be attacked as a potential disruptor, so I thought posting my real life credentials would head that off at the pass. I never said (nor implied) that I was a bigshot around here. Not sure *how* you figured that. I am not involved with FR/FRN activism at all for the most part. Nor have I ever claimed to be!

As I told mojo, lotf, bob and now you (somehow the placement of the various names strike me as odd-looking all together), I don't gossip about SAS, nor do they about me. Egos and bruised/bloodied toes will always be subject to differing interpretations. (You might want to see my reply to Bob on another thread for more info.)

What I do find odd is that I asked you a question, and you come back with an attack. Don't you find that puzzling? Will you answer my simple question?

Jealous? Hmmhhh... if you say so. I'm not sure what I am supposed to be jealous of with regard to you. Now that's not a slam, but I have no idea of what you are all about, so how could I be jealous?